Quote:
Originally Posted by starrxu
In comparison, your increment is much faster than the 28 yr-old-guy who started with $3.3k in 2007. But I guess he will most likely draw $5.3k when he reaches 30 yr-old based on 10% annual increment.
Now, i felt so cheated by HR. They are just using those reasons as excuses for bargaining. Some more, if I am not wrong, there isn't any salary downward adjustment in 2007-2009. HR just wanna take advantage of economy downturn to cut new ppl's salary.
I was earning $5.3k + $500 transport allowance in my previous job in private sector and I would think that this is slightly above "average" among my peers that time.
|
It would depend on the scheme of service. There are those amongst us who are on professional schemes such as legal scheme, economist scheme, etc, as opposed to the more generic management executive scheme. The folks on the prof schemes are generally paid more, sometimes substantially more . I happen to be on one of the professional schemes.
Stat boards have the discretion to set their salaries differently from the Civil service i.e. Ministries. Thus, your HR may not have been wrong to say that that is indeed the average within your organisation.