* Andrew Jorgensen [Thu, 16 Aug 2007 at 14:44 -0600]
> Recent discussions have me thinking about something HR and management
> have both told me on occasion. They say that it's good to have a
> salary that's lower in the range for your position because it means
> they can give you bigger raises -
On 8/19/07, rog <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I am perplexed why
> everyone seems to hate top posting? The way emails from the SLUG come
> to me. When the reply is at the bottom, I have to keep reading the
> same opening message over and over. Then use the mouse to scroll to the
> bottom. When
On Mon, Aug 20, 2007 at 02:17:11PM -0600, Steve wrote:
> I don't think. That Mr. Shatner. Is literate enough. To have a
> debate on PLUG.
> Maybe he is Will Wheaton. Instead.
Since when is literacy required on this list?
--
Charles Curley /"\ASCII Ribbon Campaign
Looki
On Mon, Aug 20, 2007 at 02:17:44PM -0600, Steve wrote:
> At least like yoda speak he does not.
>
In Forth Yoda programs.
--
Charles Curley /"\ASCII Ribbon Campaign
Looking for fine software \ /Respect for open standards
and/or writing? X No H
On Monday 20 August 2007, Steve wrote:
> I don't think. That Mr. Shatner. Is literate enough. To have a
> debate on PLUG.
You have it all wrong.
I don't think that. Mr. Shatner is. literate enough
tohaveadebateon. PLUG.
;)
/*
PLUG: http://plug.org, #utah on irc.freenode.net
Un
At least like yoda speak he does not.
On 8/20/07, Steve <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I don't think. That Mr. Shatner. Is literate enough. To have a
> debate on PLUG.
> Maybe he is Will Wheaton. Instead.
>
> On 8/20/07, Steven Alligood <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Matthew Walker wrote:
> > >
I don't think. That Mr. Shatner. Is literate enough. To have a
debate on PLUG.
Maybe he is Will Wheaton. Instead.
On 8/20/07, Steven Alligood <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Matthew Walker wrote:
> > On Sun, August 19, 2007 11:20 am, rog wrote:
> >
> >> If your job is keeping the servers going.
On Mon, Aug 20, 2007 at 09:38:56AM -0600, Jason Hall wrote:
> On 8/20/07, Steven Alligood <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > Matthew Walker wrote:
> > > Not to be rude. But you use. Too many. Full stops.
> > >
> > >
> > Maybe. He is. William Shatner. In disguise.
> >
> >
> Danit, I tossed bagel
On 8/20/07, Steven Alligood <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Matthew Walker wrote:
> > On Sun, August 19, 2007 11:20 am, rog wrote:
> >
> >> If your job is keeping the servers going. As long as everything
> usually
> >> works. Management will see you as easily replaceable. If things go
> >> bad o
Matthew Walker wrote:
On Sun, August 19, 2007 11:20 am, rog wrote:
If your job is keeping the servers going. As long as everything usually
works. Management will see you as easily replaceable. If things go
bad on your watch often enough, even if it not your fault, Then you will
be replace
Matthew Walker wrote:
On Sun, August 19, 2007 11:20 am, rog wrote:
If your job is keeping the servers going. As long as everything usually
works. Management will see you as easily replaceable. If things go
bad on your watch often enough, even if it not your fault, Then you will
be replace
On Sun, August 19, 2007 11:20 am, rog wrote:
> If your job is keeping the servers going. As long as everything usually
> works. Management will see you as easily replaceable. If things go
> bad on your watch often enough, even if it not your fault, Then you will
> be replaced.
>
Not to be rud
Dave Smith wrote:
Brandon Stout wrote:
1. People leave their company for another one precisely because they
received a better offer
2. Companies need a fresh perspective, and frequently hire from
competitors when possible to bring this in
3. Companies know that to get someone to leave a jo
Brandon Stout wrote:
1. People leave their company for another one precisely because they
received a better offer
2. Companies need a fresh perspective, and frequently hire from
competitors when possible to bring this in
3. Companies know that to get someone to leave a job where they are
h
Andrew Jorgensen wrote:
Recent discussions have me thinking about something HR and management
have both told me on occasion. They say that it's good to have a
salary that's lower in the range for your position because it means
they can give you bigger raises - there's more room to grow. The
cor
Andrew Jorgensen wrote:
Assuming one is qualified for one's position, how can a potential
raise be a better thing than being paid that much in the first place?
I get that it feels good to get a big raise, but mathematically it
doesn't make sense. Is there some subtle truth here I'm not seeing?
I wanted to chime in on this one really quickly.
Money is important, but it can't be the primary motivating factor in a
job hunt, or you'll end up with a crappy job you don't enjoy.
Job satisfaction needs to be number 1, salary (including benefits)
needs to be number two.
I recently performed a jo
shoot fer a good salary, the best you can get at the time.
If yer worth your salt, you will find raises appear when you work with
an employer. However, if they only care about saving money or playing
the part of scrooge, I think most folks would find that the job was not
fulfilling long before
On 8/16/07, Hill, Greg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> This is why everyone's salary should be known to everyone else, and if
> they feel they deserve to make more, they need to prove their worth.
I'm not disagreeing with you -- but getting HR to do this will happen
after M$ open sources Windows an
On Thu, 16 Aug 2007 at 16:24 -0600, Nicholas Leippe scribbled:
>There is a really good book about a company that was very successful by
>ignoring the 'usual way of doing things'. Go figure.
>
>http://www.amazon.com/Maverick-Success-Behind-Unusual-Workplace/dp/0446670553
>
>Very interesting.
There
On 8/16/07, Bryan Sant <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> If you make $37k and feel that you deserve say $50k, then push your
> employer to pay you that amount. Now I'm not advocating the whole,
> "You better give me a raise or I'm out of here!" thing. I'm
> suggesting that one should talk with their
Bryan Sant wrote:
Through my career I've found the following things to be true:
1) Salary caps for a given job are a figment of one's imagination.
If you have mad skills and you are genuinely valuable to an
organization, you can always negotiate a higher salary. Your employer
I took a l
On 8/16/07, Andrew Jorgensen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Assuming one is qualified for one's position, how can a potential
> raise be a better thing than being paid that much in the first place?
> I get that it feels good to get a big raise, but mathematically it
> doesn't make sense. Is there so
On Thursday 16 August 2007, Steven Alligood wrote:
> Hill, Greg wrote:
> > This is why everyone's salary should be known to everyone else, and if
> > they feel they deserve to make more, they need to prove their worth.
> > Good luck convincing HR of that, but if I had a company, we'd have
> > every
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 8/16/07, Doran L. Barton wrote:
> My point: it really depends. Pay isn't the only thing a company offers to
> its employees.
Pay isn't the only thing, and many people forget to include how much
their benefits are worth.
If I work for a company tha
Hill, Greg wrote:
This is why everyone's salary should be known to everyone else, and if
they feel they deserve to make more, they need to prove their worth.
Good luck convincing HR of that, but if I had a company, we'd have
everyone's salary on the intranet. I realize that the mediocre
employee
Doran L. Barton wrote:
My point: it really depends. Pay isn't the only thing a company offers to
its employees.
True that the pay isn't everything, but it needs to be there. If you
have good skills, you can find a rewarding job that also has the good pay.
And yes, there are some (not m
> People that don't get raises leave companies. It is a morale issue.
>
> If you are at 95% penetration in your pay range, and you get a 1%
raise
> because of it, and your coworker (same position) is at 60% in the same
> range and gets a 5% raise, mathematically you are still doing better
> than
Not long ago, Steven Alligood proclaimed...
> People that don't get raises leave companies. It is a morale issue.
It isn't as black and white as that, especially with geeks. The fact is, if
someone is complaining about their pay, they may likely complain about
many other things down the road. Ma
On 8/16/07, Steven Alligood <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Be happy with your
> job at whatever they pay you, or find another one. Changing jobs is the
> only proven method of jumping to the next level.
Personally, I hate this, but I can't help but agree.
/*
PLUG: http://plug.org, #utah on irc.free
Nicholas Leippe wrote:
On Thursday 16 August 2007, Hill, Greg wrote:
I guess the idea is that once you're at the ceiling, you'll keep getting
the same salary for a long time and feel stagnant. I'd rather be
stagnant at a good salary than continually getting raises to be almost
where I should
On 8/16/07, Andrew Jorgensen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Assuming one is qualified for one's position, how can a potential
> raise be a better thing than being paid that much in the first place?
> I get that it feels good to get a big raise, but mathematically it
> doesn't make sense. Is there so
On Thursday 16 August 2007, Hill, Greg wrote:
> I guess the idea is that once you're at the ceiling, you'll keep getting
> the same salary for a long time and feel stagnant. I'd rather be
> stagnant at a good salary than continually getting raises to be almost
> where I should be. Plus, if you're
AIL PROTECTED] On Behalf
Of
> Andrew Jorgensen
> Sent: Thursday, August 16, 2007 2:45 PM
> To: Provo Linux Users Group Mailing List
> Subject: Salary Spin
>
> Recent discussions have me thinking about something HR and management
> have both told me on occasion. They say that it
Recent discussions have me thinking about something HR and management
have both told me on occasion. They say that it's good to have a
salary that's lower in the range for your position because it means
they can give you bigger raises - there's more room to grow. The
corollary is that it's bad to
35 matches
Mail list logo
