Frankness Re: Comparable salaries for Linux people?

[richb-RBmg6HWzfGThzJAekONQAQ at public.gmane.org (Rich Braun)]

Doug Sweetser observed:
> The marketplace is telling you to bump these people's salaries.  I
> would do this experimentally: bump them all up $10k and see if you get
> more interest and then retain them.

If only it were so simple...;-)  I have neither the authority nor the mandate
from above to accomplish that throughout the IT department.  But I have been
gradually winning the argument that we probably need to do something like
that.

Like practically every other business affected by the 2009 economic slowdown,
revenues get squeezed but at the same time we face higher costs and this is
just another on the list that senior executives face.  That's why I try to
remain a techie instead of climbing the chain of boss-hood.

>  There is also the issue of what
> the company does, and how it affects retention.  If you are losing out
> to companies with "better" name recognition, retaining quality folks
> may cost more $'s.

Bingo, that's what I've been telling HR.  Our HR director has been rattling
off semi-reliable numbers from recruiters and major employers and wondering
why people say no to our offers.  I remind him that we, like *any* other small
employer, have to pay more because people want familiar brand names on their
(future) resume.

There is a second factor at work in this particular operation:  because we
push our Linux boxes and database servers to do *much* more complex work than
the average small (100-person) employer, the people who work on my team get to
play with latest/greatest technologies and work with more of the brand-name
products and services in the marketplace (and talk directly with vendor reps
and such).  After just a few months of doing that, they get a lot more current
and have a lot more options for their next job.  In short, my team has been
used as a great stepping-stone toward future employment.

Frank DiPrete <fdiprete-Wuw85uim5zDR7s880joybQ at public.gmane.org> observed:
> If they left based on pay, then this can mean at least 2 things (and or):
>
> 1) larger firms are hiring again after a period of freezes, reductions, etc.
>
> 2) Your HR dept. is low balling without noticing that the market has
> changed, or is just wrong.

I think there is some of #1 at play, a little of #2 (at least for intermediate
tech jobs in the $85K to $110K salary range), but even more significantly I've
found it a challenge to bring in people with more than 5 years since school
due to the stepping-stone effected noted above.  I've got final-round
interviews completed for a couple of people who I am wavering on because
they've only got 1 or 2 years of relevant experience but 10 years of other
experience before that.  Such people will be in position to garner the senior
($110K to $140K) range for their next job, if they do their job well here.  If
I start someone at $85K and they become worth $120K after just 9 months, what
HR policy can possibly deal with the stepping-stone problem?

Do I have to pass on such resumes, or is there a sane way to cope with the
fact that a whole lot of otherwise-bright people have hung on in semi-dead-end
jobs for 5 or 10 years in the past, failing to stay current?

> There are many reasons for people leaving including pay, benefits,
> growth potential, lifestyle changes, geography, job/company security,
> and work environment.

> I'd ask about all of them to figure out why you have a retention problem.

Indeed.  There's also the boss factor which you were too polite to mention but
has been mentioned before:  am /I/ a good boss to work for?  So yes, I do ask
those questions and include self-critique in the mix too.

All of the above can be redressed to a significant extent by a decent
compensation scheme.

-rich