sunshinegirl Posted December 5, 2006 Share Posted December 5, 2006 I work in a small field in which there are a few boutique-type firms that do our work, and then a number of freelance consultants who hire on to each firm on a per-client or per-project basis. I am a salaried person at one of these boutique firms, earning a full $20,000 less than a woman who has my exact same position at a nearby boutique firm. My firm's reasoning behind the discrepency is that I am on a partner track within the firm, and presumably in a couple of years time, I will be earning much more than I am now, and more than this other woman earns (she is not on a partner track at her firm). I guess they think it is reasonable to make me "pay to play", so to speak. Is this appropriate? Does it work this way in other fields? I have a hard time understanding why I should take financial hits for the 'privilege' of becoming a partner in this firm. Why does it make sense that I should be paid less than my market value, EVER? I would think that people who want to 'attract' other people to their firm, would pay market value for them. This seems to be how the law and management consulting fields work - you don't see rising lawyers take big financial hits just to stay in the game to become a partner. Granted, I don't work as a lawyer and I am not in a big firm, but I am trying to figure out if my extreme pissed-offed-ness at my bosses is warranted or not. Thanks for any/all views! Link to post Share on other sites
norajane Posted December 5, 2006 Share Posted December 5, 2006 Whatever the reason, your resentment is probably going to make you unhappy in the long run. Why don't you test your value in the market by putting some feelers out for a new job? Or talk to a headhunter and she what your options might be. Just because you're on a partner track doesn't mean you can't be on a partner track elsewhere - and getting paid more money. Link to post Share on other sites
jerbear Posted December 5, 2006 Share Posted December 5, 2006 $20,000 depends on the percentage compared to market. If it is say 50% below market based on comparable market conditions, years experience, education, etc... then you might have a problem. Another factor could be replaced by a bonus or other forms of compensation (profit sharing, equity interests, deferred compensation) There are highly competitive firms out there that pay "partner track" people lower than average salaries to make them earn it AND to test their loyalty. A firm I worked at had below market salaries BUT they offered better and safer job security. At least you know when things will get bad instead of getting a layoff letter. The money they save is used to build the business and stability versus current income. Link to post Share on other sites
TYASAFAHICSI Posted December 5, 2006 Share Posted December 5, 2006 Is the other woman one of those "contractors" or is she an employee? Major difference as benefits and overhead can be anywhere from 25% to nearly 50%. If you are on a partner track, there should be some sort of dicumentation on that. What is to prevent them from kicking you off the track in a year. But being on that track is not a bad thing at all. Once a partner, you are sharing in the profits and there are a whole world of benefits that will open to you. Just make sure that you are covered. Maybe accept the salary and target junior partner in two years with full partner in 5, but if you leave for some reason before that, a percentage is paid to you to make up for your underpayment in the form of a severance. Somethign like that Link to post Share on other sites
Author sunshinegirl Posted December 10, 2006 Author Share Posted December 10, 2006 Is the other woman one of those "contractors" or is she an employee? Major difference as benefits and overhead can be anywhere from 25% to nearly 50%. She's an employee, not a contractor, and her total comp, including bonus & IRA contributions, are coming in at least 20k above mine. My bosses have conditioned me to believe I will be getting no bonus this year, I believe because their logic is as jerbear says: There are highly competitive firms out there that pay "partner track" people lower than average salaries to make them earn it AND to test their loyalty. I'm not necessarily persuaded by this logic, when the partner thing has never been fleshed out in detail. They've been dangling it in front of me for 2 years - in theory they will make a decision on partner in 1 year - but they've never been able to explain whether I'm a "junior" partner, full partner, etc, nor have they explained what the financial ramifications will be. I am of the school of "equal pay for equal work". I think "loyalty fees" suck royally, particularly when they are asking me to take financial hits today for completely unknown and uncertain financial benefits tomorrow. The firm I'm in is also pretty unstable - there are only 4 partners, two of whom don't get along well, and they have been making decisions about the structure of the organization that create huge impacts on how we do our work and grow. It's one thing to ask me to make financial sacrifice when I have reasonable certainty of joining a stable organization whose makeup and structure are known. It's another to ask me to make financial sacrifice to join a firm that may not even be a firm in a few years' time. So I'm back to wondering what to do - I'm thinking of putting out feelers to some other organizations and/or to start discussing going back to contractor status with them. Any additional thoughts/suggestions welcome... and thanks to those who responded! Link to post Share on other sites
amerikajin Posted December 10, 2006 Share Posted December 10, 2006 I'm not necessarily persuaded by this logic, when the partner thing has never been fleshed out in detail. They've been dangling it in front of me for 2 years - in theory they will make a decision on partner in 1 year - but they've never been able to explain whether I'm a "junior" partner, full partner, etc, nor have they explained what the financial ramifications will be. The only question I'd have as it relates to the 'market' value of your position is whether you can be truly sure that this is indeed the market value. Maybe the other place really likes her and she does things you're not aware of. Maybe she's sleeping with someone in high places. Maybe she's just well-liked and this particular company she's with pays above-average wages. Maybe their company is bigger than yours, or in better financial shape. Lots of maybes you need to check out before you jump to conclusions. Otherwise, I'd have to say that it seems like they're just making an excuse to pay you less money, and to me, if someone thought enough of me to be a partner, I'd think they'd want to reward me with more money, not less. It just doesn't seem to add up. "Money talks, bulls--t" walks as the saying goes. The firm I'm in is also pretty unstable - there are only 4 partners, two of whom don't get along well, and they have been making decisions about the structure of the organization that create huge impacts on how we do our work and grow. It's one thing to ask me to make financial sacrifice when I have reasonable certainty of joining a stable organization whose makeup and structure are known. It's another to ask me to make financial sacrifice to join a firm that may not even be a firm in a few years' time. Mmmm, moreover, why would you want to be a partner in a company that's unstable? Doesn't seem like a wise career move. So I'm back to wondering what to do - I'm thinking of putting out feelers to some other organizations and/or to start discussing going back to contractor status with them. You always keep putting feelers out there. Be subtle, of course, but always network. Always. One of the biggest mistakes I made when I was younger, and when I don't ever intend to make again. A network is how you ensure job security in this day and age, and it's also how you get what you want. Link to post Share on other sites
Ladywithafan Posted December 11, 2006 Share Posted December 11, 2006 The firm I'm in is also pretty unstable - there are only 4 partners, two of whom don't get along well, and they have been making decisions about the structure of the organization that create huge impacts on how we do our work and grow. I personally would want the "partner track" in a contract in writing and notorized, etc....girl, ever heard of the "mommy track"...they are smokin' you! Just re-read your paragraph above....I do believe that says it all...trust is earned...what have they done for you lately....? You know, in the end, they will have no problem telling you that they made someone else partner while you were minding your p's and q's.... Link to post Share on other sites
Author sunshinegirl Posted December 21, 2006 Author Share Posted December 21, 2006 Hi all - thanks for all the responses. Had my performance review/bonus discussion today...and....drumroll, please...my bosses matched the compensation of the woman I mentioned in my original post. They also chastised me a bit for not trusting that they would "make me whole" on the financial front (I had apparently been telegraphing my anxiety about the issue to the partners over the last couple of weeks). So - it is a merry Christmas to me after all. Thanks again for everyone's comments. The advice to always be networking, etc is still good advice, and I will still have my eyes and ears open in the coming year. Cheers ~ Link to post Share on other sites
Recommended Posts