Engineers poorly referenced by their ex-employers.

[Sal Ammoniac]

"If I had to hire you today I would offer you the higher grade, now my hands are tied" 

Can you quit and apply to the open position?

[Kjelt]

"If I had to hire you today I would offer you the higher grade, now my hands are tied" 

Can you quit and apply to the open position?

I wish, in the past some colleagues have done that with a two year intermezzo with another company.
I don't want to take the risk, also because the chance is high they will not allow it or place me in another team. If I would own a business and an employee would pull that stunt I would not allow it, but then I would just promote him if he earns it and the new employee has it.

[ebastler]

"If I had to hire you today I would offer you the higher grade, now my hands are tied" 

Sounds to me like he is saying: "You need to move on to a new company, and can be pretty sure to get a better-paid job there."

[tggzzz]

Unfortunately I just experienced something different. New hire zero domain experience, I need to train him, just found out he has a higher paygrade, while I have ten years domain experience 

That's nothing new!

In 1979 I found a person hired two years before me was paid less. I had experience of the new-fangled TTL stuff, but he still wasn't happy.

At my next company there was a scattergram pinned on a corridor wall. The X axis was age, the Y axis salary. Nobody compained, even about the outliers.

[Kjelt]

"If I had to hire you today I would offer you the higher grade, now my hands are tied" 

Sounds to me like he is saying: "You need to move on to a new company, and can be pretty sure to get a better-paid job there."

Actually I think he knows I am happy at my current job and team and knows/bets I am not going to leave. On the other hand I know from many colleagues that HR rules from the 80s s*ck big time. HR holds the progress of our company back big time (my thoughts). I see colleagues that are also stuck in their grade and just loose the energy to go the extra mile for instance in the weekend (hours are compensated but who is going to do this when there is only the one hundreds "thanks" from the manager but no real appreciation.

[coppice]

Actually I think he knows I am happy at my current job and team and knows/bets I am not going to leave.

Well, there is your problem. Why would anyone pay a very content employee more? No fear for them, no gain for you. You always need to ensure your employer thinks you have options.

[Kjelt]

Unfortunately I just experienced something different. New hire zero domain experience, I need to train him, just found out he has a higher paygrade, while I have ten years domain experience 

That's nothing new!

In 1979 I found a person hired two years before me was paid less. I had experience of the new-fangled TTL stuff, but he still wasn't happy.

In this case you had some valuable new knowledge perhaps wanted by the company and reason enough to pay you extra.

What I tried to communicate is that although technical people are scarce to find, the salary gain only seems to end up with the new hires not the experienced employees.
And indeed that is bad since it forces people to leave.....
The last trick I saw is that some employees get a stock bonus that can only be transferred after three years. The (potential) value of this stock is just enough to stick around but it does not contribute every year to your salary and pension.

[Kjelt]

Actually I think he knows I am happy at my current job and team and knows/bets I am not going to leave.

Well, there is your problem. Why would anyone pay a very content employee more? No fear for them, no gain for you. You always need to ensure your employer thinks you have options.

I agree , personally that (generally speaking) is the difference between an engineer and a commercial person  Most engineers find a nice job, something to learn and nice colleagues more important then 10% more salary and the lack of those.

[coppice]

Actually I think he knows I am happy at my current job and team and knows/bets I am not going to leave.

Well, there is your problem. Why would anyone pay a very content employee more? No fear for them, no gain for you. You always need to ensure your employer thinks you have options.

I agree , personally that (generally speaking) is the difference between an engineer and a commercial person  Most engineers find a nice job, something to learn and nice colleagues more important then 10% more salary and the lack of those.

A few percent is OK, but if you don't start instilling fear it won't end there. If they are content to abuse you a little, they will gradually ramp it up until you find it intolerable.

[tggzzz]

Unfortunately I just experienced something different. New hire zero domain experience, I need to train him, just found out he has a higher paygrade, while I have ten years domain experience 

That's nothing new!

In 1979 I found a person hired two years before me was paid less. I had experience of the new-fangled TTL stuff, but he still wasn't happy.

In this case you had some valuable new knowledge perhaps wanted by the company and reason enough to pay you extra.

Easier to put it down to bad HR practices, and that is almost certainly the right answer. I didn't bargain over salary, and have never joined a company for the pay. Indeed I once turned down a job offering a 25% higher salary.

What I tried to communicate is that although technical people are scarce to find, the salary gain only seems to end up with the new hires not the experienced employees.
And indeed that is bad since it forces people to leave.....
The last trick I saw is that some employees get a stock bonus that can only be transferred after three years. The (potential) value of this stock is just enough to stick around but it does not contribute every year to your salary and pension.

Worse trap: have stock options that you can't immediately sell. Get taxed at option price, then stock falls precipitously before you can sell, go bankrupt!

I, and many other UK employees were presented with a large Capital Gains Tax bill when we hadn't made a capital gain. Half the HMRC tax inspectors said that was impossible; they were wrong.

[coppice]

Worse trap: have stock options that you can't immediately sell. Get taxed at option price, then stock falls precipitously before you can sell, go bankrupt!

I, and many other UK employees were presented with a large Capital Gains Tax bill when we hadn't made a capital gain. Half the HMRC tax inspectors said that was impossible; they were wrong.

Are you saying you got a bill for options you had not exercised?

[ebastler]

Worse trap: have stock options that you can't immediately sell. Get taxed at option price, then stock falls precipitously before you can sell, go bankrupt!

Unless taxation works very differently in the UK, what you describe cannot be stock options. And it can't be restricted stock units either, because you would only get taxed for these when they actually vest.

[tggzzz]

Worse trap: have stock options that you can't immediately sell. Get taxed at option price, then stock falls precipitously before you can sell, go bankrupt!

I, and many other UK employees were presented with a large Capital Gains Tax bill when we hadn't made a capital gain. Half the HMRC tax inspectors said that was impossible; they were wrong.

Are you saying you got a bill for options you had not exercised?

No. We owned the shares.

I did not make it clear that these are two examples, with only subtle traps in tax systems in common. My apologies

[tggzzz]

Worse trap: have stock options that you can't immediately sell. Get taxed at option price, then stock falls precipitously before you can sell, go bankrupt!

Unless taxation works very differently in the UK, what you describe cannot be stock options. And it can't be restricted stock units either, because you would only get taxed for these when they actually vest.

The example came from the US, the dotcom boom and bust.

[tom66]

I've worked in and around the defence industry for four years now, and whilst it's clear there are aspects of schmoozing the bosses and the agencies we contract with (all within legal bounds), the majority of work is completed to a high standard, it meets the requirements set forth in the specification and there are huge penalties for it not meeting these requirements, up to and including outright rejection of the order with all costs on us.  The idea that inferior power supplies with bowing PCBs are regularly sent to customers because no one wants to redesign them is nonsense - we spend effort on reliability because we will not get future orders, and may get RMAs, if we deliver crap product. 

Edit: misspelling

[coppice]

Worse trap: have stock options that you can't immediately sell. Get taxed at option price, then stock falls precipitously before you can sell, go bankrupt!

Unless taxation works very differently in the UK, what you describe cannot be stock options. And it can't be restricted stock units either, because you would only get taxed for these when they actually vest.

The example came from the US, the dotcom boom and bust.

The US capital gains tax system is a horrible mess like that. Its not really a stock options trap. Its a year end boundaries trap.

[coppice]

I've worked in and around the defence industry for four years now, and whilst it's clear there are aspects of schmoozing the bosses and the agencies we contract with (all within legal bounds), the majority of work is completed to a high standard, it meets the requirements set forth in the specification and there are huge penalties for it not meeting these requirements, up to and including outright rejection of the order with all costs on us.  The idea that inferior power supplies with bowing PCBs are regularly sent to customers because no one wants to redesign them is nonsense - we spend effort on reliability because we will not get future orders, and may get RMAs, if we deliver crap product. 

This sounds like a very very different defence industry from the one I used to work in. The world still seems to be heavily populated with sub-standard defence products, so your position seems to be the exception. I saw in the new today that the Airbus A400M has proven to be such a piece of garbage the RAF can't muster enough of them in a flyable condition for an 80th anniversary of D-day display. Imagine if the UK had to actually fight someone?

[tggzzz]

I've worked in and around the defence industry for four years now, and whilst it's clear there are aspects of schmoozing the bosses and the agencies we contract with (all within legal bounds), the majority of work is completed to a high standard, it meets the requirements set forth in the specification and there are huge penalties for it not meeting these requirements, up to and including outright rejection of the order with all costs on us.  The idea that inferior power supplies with bowing PCBs are regularly sent to customers because no one wants to redesign them is nonsense - we spend effort on reliability because we will not get future orders, and may get RMAs, if we deliver crap product. 

This sounds like a very very different defence industry from the one I used to work in. The world still seems to be heavily populated with sub-standard defence products, so your position seems to be the exception. I saw in the new today that the Airbus A400M has proven to be such a piece of garbage the RAF can't muster enough of them in a flyable condition for an 80th anniversary of D-day display. Imagine if the UK had to actually fight someone?

I must admit only having one available for D-day surprised me too.

But do you have evidence that the unavailability is due to maintenance issues, as opposed to, say, them being used to transport stuff to/from various current wars?

[coppice]

I've worked in and around the defence industry for four years now, and whilst it's clear there are aspects of schmoozing the bosses and the agencies we contract with (all within legal bounds), the majority of work is completed to a high standard, it meets the requirements set forth in the specification and there are huge penalties for it not meeting these requirements, up to and including outright rejection of the order with all costs on us.  The idea that inferior power supplies with bowing PCBs are regularly sent to customers because no one wants to redesign them is nonsense - we spend effort on reliability because we will not get future orders, and may get RMAs, if we deliver crap product. 

This sounds like a very very different defence industry from the one I used to work in. The world still seems to be heavily populated with sub-standard defence products, so your position seems to be the exception. I saw in the new today that the Airbus A400M has proven to be such a piece of garbage the RAF can't muster enough of them in a flyable condition for an 80th anniversary of D-day display. Imagine if the UK had to actually fight someone?

I must admit only having one available for D-day surprised me too.

But do you have evidence that the unavailability is due to maintenance issues, as opposed to, say, them being used to transport stuff to/from various current wars?

There are reports in the news, from people who seem like they should know, that less than half the fleet of A400Ms is flyable at any time, due to reliability issues. Whether that is because Airbus made a stinker, or the very common problem that stupid requirements from a defence customer has resulted in a stupid product, I have no way of knowing.

[temperance]

Stop feeding the troll.

[soldar]

Just a while ago I was watching a few UK military aircraft in the air, maybe training, at
https://www.flightradar24.com/TYRANT32/35831414
https://www.flightradar24.com/TYPHOO12/35830e0f
https://www.flightradar24.com/FRA59/3583179b
https://www.flightradar24.com/GUNFIG31/3582fa60
https://www.flightradar24.com/TARTN19/3582d51b

[tggzzz]

I've worked in and around the defence industry for four years now, and whilst it's clear there are aspects of schmoozing the bosses and the agencies we contract with (all within legal bounds), the majority of work is completed to a high standard, it meets the requirements set forth in the specification and there are huge penalties for it not meeting these requirements, up to and including outright rejection of the order with all costs on us.  The idea that inferior power supplies with bowing PCBs are regularly sent to customers because no one wants to redesign them is nonsense - we spend effort on reliability because we will not get future orders, and may get RMAs, if we deliver crap product. 

This sounds like a very very different defence industry from the one I used to work in. The world still seems to be heavily populated with sub-standard defence products, so your position seems to be the exception. I saw in the new today that the Airbus A400M has proven to be such a piece of garbage the RAF can't muster enough of them in a flyable condition for an 80th anniversary of D-day display. Imagine if the UK had to actually fight someone?

I must admit only having one available for D-day surprised me too.

But do you have evidence that the unavailability is due to maintenance issues, as opposed to, say, them being used to transport stuff to/from various current wars?

There are reports in the news, from people who seem like they should know, that less than half the fleet of A400Ms is flyable at any time, due to reliability issues. Whether that is because Airbus made a stinker, or the very common problem that stupid requirements from a defence customer has resulted in a stupid product, I have no way of knowing.

So, just like the F35s - which makes them twice as expensive as claimed. Let's not consider the small number of establishments that can service the engines.

[CatalinaWOW]

Worse trap: have stock options that you can't immediately sell. Get taxed at option price, then stock falls precipitously before you can sell, go bankrupt!

I, and many other UK employees were presented with a large Capital Gains Tax bill when we hadn't made a capital gain. Half the HMRC tax inspectors said that was impossible; they were wrong.

Are you saying you got a bill for options you had not exercised?

No. We owned the shares.

I did not make it clear that these are two examples, with only subtle traps in tax systems in common. My apologies

When I was in this situation in the US (given an option to purchase at a given price)  no taxes were incurred until a sale of said stock occurred.  And the the tax was on the difference between purchase price and sale price.  If this had been a loss it could be deducted from other earnings, or carried over against future earnings.  If this isn't how it works for you I am sorry for you.  I hope it really isn't that way and you accountant was terrible.

[fourfathom]

When I was in this situation in the US (given an option to purchase at a given price)  no taxes were incurred until a sale of said stock occurred.  And the the tax was on the difference between purchase price and sale price.  If this had been a loss it could be deducted from other earnings, or carried over against future earnings.  If this isn't how it works for you I am sorry for you.  I hope it really isn't that way and you accountant was terrible.

This is how it worked for me, as well.  I was offered options at an extremely low price (I was a founder of a start-up), and I was able to exercise those options on day-one (essentially paying what they were worth, so no taxable gain)  I only owed tax when I eventually sold the shares at a profit.  Others waited until the stock was tradeable, and there was tax due on the difference between the exercise price (what they paid) and the stock value at the time of exercise.  This was in 1999, just before the dot-com crash, so people who exercised at the peak were on the hook for gains even though a few months later the stock crashed below their exercise price.  Even by selling *all* their stock they still didn't have enough left over to pay the tax.  They could claw some of that back the next year, but it was a huge and painful hit for them.

But that was 24 years ago, and at least some of the tax law in this area has changed -- I think in the early-exercise area.  If significant money is involved you (anyone) should get competent advice.

[tom66]

I've worked in and around the defence industry for four years now, and whilst it's clear there are aspects of schmoozing the bosses and the agencies we contract with (all within legal bounds), the majority of work is completed to a high standard, it meets the requirements set forth in the specification and there are huge penalties for it not meeting these requirements, up to and including outright rejection of the order with all costs on us.  The idea that inferior power supplies with bowing PCBs are regularly sent to customers because no one wants to redesign them is nonsense - we spend effort on reliability because we will not get future orders, and may get RMAs, if we deliver crap product. 

This sounds like a very very different defence industry from the one I used to work in. The world still seems to be heavily populated with sub-standard defence products, so your position seems to be the exception. I saw in the new today that the Airbus A400M has proven to be such a piece of garbage the RAF can't muster enough of them in a flyable condition for an 80th anniversary of D-day display. Imagine if the UK had to actually fight someone?

I can't speak to the larger scale like entire aircraft. We work on the smaller side of things.  Our kit, and hopefully that of our competitors, is designed for reliability.  There is a risk to life and mission if it does not function.  I suppose the same goes for aircraft, but there is a lot more to break on one of those.