Random Chit Chat

How would you guys handle this situation:

I had my annual review a couple weeks ago, got a pretty good pay rise, some new responsibilities gave to me. Since then, i've suddenly been propelled into a completely new role, which they had said to me several months ago was a possibility - but at the time of the annual review, no one had any idea if or when this was going to happen, so my pay rise was agreed in the context of my current job only and they said straight to my face that if and when my role changes, then thats a different thing entirely, and it'll be reviewed again. About a week after my annual review, the role change suddenly happens, and fast. Within about 5 days I was in this new role, so I had no time to discuss with anyone how this affected our prior agreements etc, and so far noone has approached me to say that yes they are aware my role has now changed and that what we agreed a couple weeks ago needs to be looked at again.

On the one hand, I understand reviewing someones salary just a couple weeks after it was already reviewed is a bit of a bitter pill to swallow from a managers perspective and it was pretty bad timing to have the role change confirmed just after my annual review. On the other hand, they did commit to it and I feel like I should raise it with them accordingly. But i've spoken to others and they've said I got a good raise a few weeks ago and to just suck it up :\. I kind of get the feeling if I do raise it they'll say I misheard them or that I misunderstood. But it's not like I misheard one word, there were whole multiple sentences around the situation.
I was flat out told that I wouldn't be getting a raise during our annual reviews as I just accepted a management and a nice raise that came along with it, as well as an out of cycle raise that I was given before that. I completely understand the reasoning and am good with it. My situation is backwards to yours but it works out the same.
 
I was flat out told that I wouldn't be getting a raise during our annual reviews as I just accepted a management and a nice raise that came along with it, as well as an out of cycle raise that I was given before that. I completely understand the reasoning and am good with it. My situation is backwards to yours but it works out the same.
Yeah that makes sense in your situation. I think I would've accepted it and been happy with it if they were clear and honest. If they had said "we'll give you this payrise and it will also cover your potential future role change if that happens", then that would be fine. But they said the opposite and I feel like that was unfair if they had no intention of following through with that, I've slept on it and don't think I can just let it slide because its just going to annoy me and play on my mind. Got a meeting scheduled where i'm going to bring it back up and see where it goes... I hope they say that they remember what they said to me and that they will honor it, otherwise i'll feel lied too.
 
How would you guys handle this situation:

I had my annual review a couple weeks ago, got a pretty good pay rise, some new responsibilities gave to me. Since then, i've suddenly been propelled into a completely new role, which they had said to me several months ago was a possibility - but at the time of the annual review, no one had any idea if or when this was going to happen, so my pay rise was agreed in the context of my current job only and they said straight to my face that if and when my role changes, then thats a different thing entirely, and it'll be reviewed again. About a week after my annual review, the role change suddenly happens, and fast. Within about 5 days I was in this new role, so I had no time to discuss with anyone how this affected our prior agreements etc, and so far noone has approached me to say that yes they are aware my role has now changed and that what we agreed a couple weeks ago needs to be looked at again.

On the one hand, I understand reviewing someones salary just a couple weeks after it was already reviewed is a bit of a bitter pill to swallow from a managers perspective and it was pretty bad timing to have the role change confirmed just after my annual review. On the other hand, they did commit to it and I feel like I should raise it with them accordingly. But i've spoken to others and they've said I got a good raise a few weeks ago and to just suck it up :\. I kind of get the feeling if I do raise it they'll say I misheard them or that I misunderstood. But it's not like I misheard one word, there were whole multiple sentences around the situation.
Do you have any emails revolving around this situation to put it on paper? This was definitely intentional. Sounds to me like the new role means more money, and they wanted to slip you into it on the lower salary. If you have any of what they said in writing at all I'd bring it to them to raise awareness of the situation. If you don't then I'm afraid you are correct and they will definitely tell you that you misunderstood. Either way, it's a total crock and when dealing with these kinds of things always make sure to have it in writing be it on paper or email.
 
Do you have any emails revolving around this situation to put it on paper? This was definitely intentional. Sounds to me like the new role means more money, and they wanted to slip you into it on the lower salary. If you have any of what they said in writing at all I'd bring it to them to raise awareness of the situation. If you don't then I'm afraid you are correct and they will definitely tell you that you misunderstood. Either way, it's a total crock and when dealing with these kinds of things always make sure to have it in writing be it on paper or email.
Yeah nothing in writing, it's just what they said. I raised it with them today and while they didn't agree that they said it to me previously, they also didn't deny it and reject my points immediately. They understood where im coming from in that ive basically had a new job since we agreed my pay rise 2 weeks ago and said they'll take it away and raise it with the wider business. So it wasn't an outright no... let's see what happens I guess.
 
Yeah nothing in writing, it's just what they said. I raised it with them today and while they didn't agree that they said it to me previously, they also didn't deny it and reject my points immediately. They understood where im coming from in that ive basically had a new job since we agreed my pay rise 2 weeks ago and said they'll take it away and raise it with the wider business. So it wasn't an outright no... let's see what happens I guess.
Figured that'd happen, happened to my wife 4 times until she learned "get it in writing". Kept telling her over and over, if you discuss with management in a meeting don't agree to anything until you got proof to back you up or you'll get screwed. Told her the same exact thing with the job she just accepted an offer for earlier today. Bit of a discrepancy when it comes to salary vs hourly because "he hasn't established a real structure because he only puts people he trusts into salary". Yea BS, he doesn't know you, you're brand new. Get what they expect from you, PTO benefits, and structured rules/expectations with regards to hours in writing before agreeing. Also told her get it in writing their bonus structure, review structure, and raise expectation. It's mostly an American thing but I don't mess around when it comes to corporate BS anymore. Too many lessons learned at Lockheed.
 
Figured that'd happen, happened to my wife 4 times until she learned "get it in writing". Kept telling her over and over, if you discuss with management in a meeting don't agree to anything until you got proof to back you up or you'll get screwed. Told her the same exact thing with the job she just accepted an offer for earlier today. Bit of a discrepancy when it comes to salary vs hourly because "he hasn't established a real structure because he only puts people he trusts into salary". Yea BS, he doesn't know you, you're brand new. Get what they expect from you, PTO benefits, and structured rules/expectations with regards to hours in writing before agreeing. Also told her get it in writing their bonus structure, review structure, and raise expectation. It's mostly an American thing but I don't mess around when it comes to corporate BS anymore. Too many lessons learned at Lockheed.
I got the payrise agreed in writing, just not the other parts, because honestly I didnt really ever expect this new role to happen as it had been gone on for months with zero news, so I never cared to get it written down as i’d already moved on from it mentally.
 
I got the payrise agreed in writing, just not the other parts, because honestly I didnt really ever expect this new role to happen as it had been gone on for months with zero news, so I never cared to get it written down as i’d already moved on from it mentally.
Yea but wouldn't this role also come with a pay raise? That's what I was assuming they are trying to get around. If you got the raise for the other position I assume this position would cost them more in salary for somebody else fresh, vs giving you this raise and having you keep that pay grade while taking on the new job. The situation I picture in my head with examples from my own job, would be if I got moved to Sys Admin 3 and hit salary cap for that team (which is like 130ish) while telling me I won't be taking on the new role any time soon, then they moved me to DevOps without moving me to that pay grade which starts at like 150ish. I would be pissed. That scenario is why I feel this was intentional to keep you at a lower pay after telling you it wouldn't be any time soon to take on that role. At least that's how I perceived it from your description.
 
Yea but wouldn't this role also come with a pay raise? That's what I was assuming they are trying to get around. If you got the raise for the other position I assume this position would cost them more in salary for somebody else fresh, vs giving you this raise and having you keep that pay grade while taking on the new job. The situation I picture in my head with examples from my own job, would be if I got moved to Sys Admin 3 and hit salary cap for that team (which is like 130ish) while telling me I won't be taking on the new role any time soon, then they moved me to DevOps without moving me to that pay grade which starts at like 150ish. I would be pissed. That scenario is why I feel this was intentional to keep you at a lower pay after telling you it wouldn't be any time soon to take on that role. At least that's how I perceived it from your description.
Yeah kinda, but it's a bit of a complicated situation. The job is actually a different company that my company work for so it's not really within anyones control at my company. Basically we just have to do what they say and they came to us saying they want me to work for them directly. But my company will make money out of it as we charge them for my time. So I basically will be a contractor for them. That's why they didn't know what was happening with the role for so long because this other company just went silent about it. But anyway I will leave if they don't review my pay again, I'd be happy if they just got rid of the 12-month staggered raise part of my previous pay deal from a couple of weeks ago, and just implemented the full raise immediately.
 
Yeah kinda, but it's a bit of a complicated situation. The job is actually a different company that my company work for so it's not really within anyones control at my company. Basically we just have to do what they say and they came to us saying they want me to work for them directly. But my company will make money out of it as we charge them for my time. So I basically will be a contractor for them. That's why they didn't know what was happening with the role for so long because this other company just went silent about it. But anyway I will leave if they don't review my pay again, I'd be happy if they just got rid of the 12-month staggered raise part of my previous pay deal from a couple of weeks ago, and just implemented the full raise immediately.
That does complicate things way more, annnnd it sounds like extortion with a side of collaboration. So technically speaking moving to that other job they should be switching you to their payroll if you're contracting for them. If they aren't, then it's 100% a Lockheed situation where the contractor is being paid what the contracting (original) employer is willing to pay them while the main company skims off the top. That would explain the staggered raise as they are paying you the dividend. I'd for sure be having conversations with both companies about this situation and make sure details before accepting anything are on paper. I mean call me paranoid, but I'm still dealing with mental trauma from working at Lockheed dealing with this very thing as is my previous coworker.

In other news, yesterday I had a slight epiphany about the current status of the graphics market. Specifically Nvidia. All because of a toll post in a FB group. Guy said "this is the last rig I ever built, and I refuse to upgrade because of the current corporate greed". Problem is, dude has a pair of 1080s that cost him 600 a piece meaning he dropped 1200 in GPU that he can only use a handful of times in specific games, with microstuttering, drawing more power than a 4090, but won't pay for a much more powerful singular card.
When I typed it out it hit me, pair of 1080s cost 1200, a 2080ti cost 1200. A pair of Titan Xp cost 2400, a single RTX Titan cost 2400. The 2000 series was the shift of price and market structure after over a decade of enthusiasts purchasing 2-4 cards per gen. 2000 series introduced RT and DLSS that doesn't work with SLI tech, and they also dropped support for it with the 2000 series. The 2000 series was a sidegrade compared to the similarly priced 10 series, but it wasn't meant for those folks as an upgrade path unless they went single 2080ti. The 3090 was a significant upgrade compared to 10 and 2000 series though. The internet has been completely blind or unwilling to see the shift in structure, while the rest regurgitate the information claiming over priced and power hungry.
If you sit back and look, the enthusiast side has been buying 2-3 cards as far back as the 8800s in 2007 because of Crysis. 3 8800GTX is 1500 bucks. Some folks (like yours truly) were buying 2 and 3 Titan X cards which gobbled up 900W from the wall with minimal performance benefit in 90% of games. Playing 3Dmark to justify purchases. Even yo schmo won't upgrade had dual 1080s. With SLI being tossed, we've been given much higher performing cards in the enthusiast segment while maintaining a lower power budget compared to dual and triple card solutions. With pricing being about the same when you look at it from a broader point of view.
The big difference hitting most consumers today would be the midrange side of cards but there's an answer for that too. In 2011 people were buying up the 560ti being a 250 dollar card. Being a midrange card you'd be playing at high settings 720p, or lowering settings for 1080p unless you were playing like Battlefield 2. Even with a 580 I was lowering settings for BF3 to get higher frames, as far as you guessed it, going SLI. With folks saying "it'll be fine and you can just grab another 560ti later and you'll be set". Albeit with complications, more heat, and searching for modified SLI profiles for not so AAA games at a total cost of 500 minus PSU. Today you spend 400 on a midrange card like a 4060ti and you're set. 1080p or 1440p, you're set. Nobody is buying those cards for RT, and with DLSS2/3 you can even manage 4k in some titles. 10 years ago 400 got you a 70 series card yea, but you weren't maxing out titles. Who played maxed out at 1080p in BF4 with a 670? Nobody.
The structure changed, and the shift off enthusiast SLI moved to massive monolithic cards for the same relative cost. Again in 2007 3 8800GTX would cost you 1500-1800 (depending on model) and gobble 500W of power stock to watch 3DMark06 be bottlenecked by a dual core slow CPU. Even with inflation, 1600 for a 4090 that will do 100fps in practically anything at 4k seems not so bad. Yet the industry has lead a purposely blind eye to this fact.
 
That does complicate things way more, annnnd it sounds like extortion with a side of collaboration. So technically speaking moving to that other job they should be switching you to their payroll if you're contracting for them. If they aren't, then it's 100% a Lockheed situation where the contractor is being paid what the contracting (original) employer is willing to pay them while the main company skims off the top. That would explain the staggered raise as they are paying you the dividend. I'd for sure be having conversations with both companies about this situation and make sure details before accepting anything are on paper. I mean call me paranoid, but I'm still dealing with mental trauma from working at Lockheed dealing with this very thing as is my previous coworker.

In other news, yesterday I had a slight epiphany about the current status of the graphics market. Specifically Nvidia. All because of a toll post in a FB group. Guy said "this is the last rig I ever built, and I refuse to upgrade because of the current corporate greed". Problem is, dude has a pair of 1080s that cost him 600 a piece meaning he dropped 1200 in GPU that he can only use a handful of times in specific games, with microstuttering, drawing more power than a 4090, but won't pay for a much more powerful singular card.
When I typed it out it hit me, pair of 1080s cost 1200, a 2080ti cost 1200. A pair of Titan Xp cost 2400, a single RTX Titan cost 2400. The 2000 series was the shift of price and market structure after over a decade of enthusiasts purchasing 2-4 cards per gen. 2000 series introduced RT and DLSS that doesn't work with SLI tech, and they also dropped support for it with the 2000 series. The 2000 series was a sidegrade compared to the similarly priced 10 series, but it wasn't meant for those folks as an upgrade path unless they went single 2080ti. The 3090 was a significant upgrade compared to 10 and 2000 series though. The internet has been completely blind or unwilling to see the shift in structure, while the rest regurgitate the information claiming over priced and power hungry.
If you sit back and look, the enthusiast side has been buying 2-3 cards as far back as the 8800s in 2007 because of Crysis. 3 8800GTX is 1500 bucks. Some folks (like yours truly) were buying 2 and 3 Titan X cards which gobbled up 900W from the wall with minimal performance benefit in 90% of games. Playing 3Dmark to justify purchases. Even yo schmo won't upgrade had dual 1080s. With SLI being tossed, we've been given much higher performing cards in the enthusiast segment while maintaining a lower power budget compared to dual and triple card solutions. With pricing being about the same when you look at it from a broader point of view.
The big difference hitting most consumers today would be the midrange side of cards but there's an answer for that too. In 2011 people were buying up the 560ti being a 250 dollar card. Being a midrange card you'd be playing at high settings 720p, or lowering settings for 1080p unless you were playing like Battlefield 2. Even with a 580 I was lowering settings for BF3 to get higher frames, as far as you guessed it, going SLI. With folks saying "it'll be fine and you can just grab another 560ti later and you'll be set". Albeit with complications, more heat, and searching for modified SLI profiles for not so AAA games at a total cost of 500 minus PSU. Today you spend 400 on a midrange card like a 4060ti and you're set. 1080p or 1440p, you're set. Nobody is buying those cards for RT, and with DLSS2/3 you can even manage 4k in some titles. 10 years ago 400 got you a 70 series card yea, but you weren't maxing out titles. Who played maxed out at 1080p in BF4 with a 670? Nobody.
The structure changed, and the shift off enthusiast SLI moved to massive monolithic cards for the same relative cost. Again in 2007 3 8800GTX would cost you 1500-1800 (depending on model) and gobble 500W of power stock to watch 3DMark06 be bottlenecked by a dual core slow CPU. Even with inflation, 1600 for a 4090 that will do 100fps in practically anything at 4k seems not so bad. Yet the industry has lead a purposely blind eye to this fact.
To top it all off my RSI is still a problem with my hands and not getting better. which makes me feel a bit more trapped, I don't really want to start job hopping and then let my new employer down by not being able to work effectively. At the moment I'm using voice dictation for typing, it's annoying as hell as It gets at least one word wrong every sentence.. and for my right hand I'm using an ergonomic upright Mouse and I'm using some auto clicker software so I don't have to use the left Mouse button, which to be honest works quite well and it's quite nice not having to click all the time. But it does slow me down and it makes using my computer annoying.

As for the graphics card part, let's just say I don't miss my dual RTX 2080 Ti (the voice dictation software actually understood the GPU name here, which was nice).
 
Back
Top Bottom