Quote:
Quote:
Just to play Devil's advocate... What do you consider to be so wrong about this?

Because it isn't related to how well you do your job at all? You could be crap and just do enough to get by and earn way more than somebody at the same level who works like crazy but doesn't have a family. Okay, real life isn't fair. You'll get plenty of things like this anyway but thats my opinion of this isolated situation.


The original example was that the raise was based partially on need, not totally. I didn't read that performance was completely discounted. In the big scheme of things, why should someone who works like crazy be rewarded if they're still crap?

And another thing .... most people have 'job offers' (no such thing as a contract really anymore) that carry the expectation of somewhere between 35 to 40 hours a week of work. Yet I have had a past boss say to his team that he expected a minimum of 50 hours a week and that he considered less than that to be 'slacking'. I've spent way too much of the past year working 50, 60, 70 hour weeks to try to meet unrealistic deadlines, and the sad thing is that still I've had moments where I've felt guilty about leaving work before someone else on the team. Why is that? It's not _my_ fault that someone on the team is a single workaholic. This is exacerbated by the fact that workaholics are often rewarded with responsibility as well as recompense because most companies tie salary to position. The problem is that they often have interpersonal issues, like poor communication skills, or the inability to delegate anything except the simplest of tasks. So you end up with the scenario where a whole team is waiting around for their team workaholic to delegate tasks or communicate information necessary to complete a team goal, and the end result is that what could take a well-functioning team 40 hours to complete ends up taking 60. Does the single workaholic care?

Anyway, I realise that I've gone off on a slight tangent.

The reality is that even in a competitive-salary situation, needs-based salaries still exist to an extent. If I earn X dollars and have a given standard of living, then if my needs suddenly changed because, eg., my wife gave birth to a child then I'd still want to maintain that standard of living wherever possible. Of course at my next review, after pointing out what a great job I had done, I'd remind the boss that I had new financial obligations that I'd have to meet. Obviously I wouldn't demand a pay raise based on needs, but a good boss should recognise that people are going to want to maintain their standard of living, and that in a good economy and in the private IT sector, changing jobs isn't difficult and is often an easy path to a good raise.
_________________________
Mk2a 60GB Blue. Serial 030102962 sig.mp3: File Format not Valid.