Salary Increment Rate

[lordlad]

jumped ship late last october for 18% increment from previous...

salary adjustment @ 5% on march...

take that if you will....obviously am peanuts compared to all the 'elites' here....but at least it's honest information..

[aplover]

Originally Posted by lordlad

jumped ship late last october for 18% increment from previous...

salary adjustment @ 5% on march...

take that if you will....obviously am peanuts compared to all the 'elites' here....but at least it's honest information..

honesty is good enough.

usually jumping ship and getting 10-20% increment is the average. I really wouldn't recommend jumping for anything lesser unless there are other strong push factors.

[aspenx]

Originally Posted by aplover

honesty is good enough.

usually jumping ship and getting 10-20% increment is the average. I really wouldn't recommend jumping for anything lesser unless there are other strong push factors.

I don't mean to be pedantic, but there should be a distinction between "pay increase due to jumping ship" and "annual pay increase due to remaining in the same workplace" (a.k.a "increment").

Consequentially, the difference is that "increment" of 20% is very high (at least in my industry) whereas and increase of ~20% should be a reasonable figure to attract the average person changing jobs to make the move.

Basically my increments have ranged from 2% to 8%. An early post by someone who had gone through job rotations in the same company for 7 years and received such high increments is really a great deal imo.

Just went to an interview with a medical laser clinic and offered a job that pays up to 26k a month which is more than double the 12 k I am getting now but longer working hrs. I am a GP locum now my rate about 86 per hr and the new job 100 per hr but good commisions of up to 300 bucks extra a day...sooo happy...

I'm currently on an annual average of 16 months salary (including VB + AWS). My new job offer (a contract position) does not pay any VB, so I asked for a 25% annual package increment.

The recruiter computed the new monthly salary using the formula (16 months + 25% increment) / 12, and told me this will result in a 50% monthly salary increment, which is way off the market rate. He advised me to accept a lower amount.

Is he trying to ******** me? Or my expected package is really off the mark?

[aspenx]

Originally Posted by Unregistered

I'm currently on an annual average of 16 months salary (including VB + AWS). My new job offer (a contract position) does not pay any VB, so I asked for a 25% annual package increment.

The recruiter computed the new monthly salary using the formula (16 months + 25% increment) / 12, and told me this will result in a 50% monthly salary increment, which is way off the market rate. He advised me to accept a lower amount.

Is he trying to ******** me? Or my expected package is really off the mark?

"Way off the market rate" or not, we have no way to help you figure out unless you can at least reveal what industry, role/function, responsibilities, and your current monthly salary you are talking about.

Is it the norm for annual increment to be based on a system of percentages with the same percentages applied across all salary bands? In my organisation, those in the same performance grade (e.g. C) are given the same percentage increase (e.g. 3%) regardless of how high or how low their salary is. This does not seem like a good system as it disadvantages those who are more junior or earning less. For example, a C performer getting $5k will get an increment of $150 but a C performer getting $10k will get much more in absolute amount, i.e. $300 increment. Any HR practitioners or those familiar with HR practices care to comment?

Originally Posted by Unregistered

Is it the norm for annual increment to be based on a system of percentages with the same percentages applied across all salary bands? In my organisation, those in the same performance grade (e.g. C) are given the same percentage increase (e.g. 3%) regardless of how high or how low their salary is. This does not seem like a good system as it disadvantages those who are more junior or earning less. For example, a C performer getting $5k will get an increment of $150 but a C performer getting $10k will get much more in absolute amount, i.e. $300 increment. Any HR practitioners or those familiar with HR practices care to comment?

Yes, usually it is based on a system of percentage. But bear in mind that the responsibilities of a manager getting 10k is much more than a clerk getting 5k. So a manager will have to perform more than a clerk in order to get the same performance grade.

Miserable, HR said it is 1.99% increment. But less 5 cents. It should be 1.989%....

I have been working for 10 years after degree from nus.
earn meagre $5100.