I've been told to wait for a pay increase/promotion twice. And I got it both times (luckily). The time periods were only a few months or a year each time.

I think it's a judgement call but making such a long-out promise like 3 years in the tech industry is a huge red flag. Even at one year you should be skeptical and asking how/why as the author suggests.

▲

hnlmorg 6 hours ago | parent | next [-]

Being told you have to wait until the next pay review cycle, is normal. It’s how a business with healthy and defined processes should operate.

But you should only be waiting at most a year. If you get told “wait 2+ years” then that’s usually a sign that they’ve already decided you’re not eligible (for whatever reasons they decide) but don’t want to be candid with you.

If you get told to wait for any duration beyond the next pay review cycle, then take that as a sign that you’re not going to progress under the current regime.

▲

PlatoIsADisease 2 hours ago | parent | next [-]

Can I get an exception of it was a terrible fiscal year?

Take the startup situation:

We were unprofitable year 1, we were break even year 2. Year 3 we look to repay investors and begin fun times. Year 4, fun times.

I suppose I can think of enough exceptions that I reject the theory the original OP posted.

	▲	hnlmorg an hour ago \| parent [-]
		There are obviously going to be exceptions. Every rules has that. Hear why I said “usually a sign” rather than “it’s a guarantee with out any exceptions”. But to take your startup example, they generally short on base salary with the hope that you score big when the company sells / floats. Which is a very different scenario to saying “we aren’t going to pay you more because we are unprofitable”. Also, if a regular (ie non-startup) business isn’t profitable and are then freezing wages as a result, then that’s another good indicator to update your CV. You might be lucky to get a decent severance package, but even if you do, you’ll still want that CV updated. So my advice stands.

▲

rrr_oh_man 3 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

> It’s how a business with healthy and defined processes should operate.

That sounds like bullshit. Why?

	▲	hnlmorg an hour ago \| parent [-]
		Because it shows the company has processes in place for economic planning, with budget allocation, and all the other systems and checks that are meant to ensure stability and profitability. That’s not to say that businesses with these processes defined can’t still be total shitshows. But the ones that don’t have those processes are more likely to be shitshows.

▲

7 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

[deleted]

▲

6 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

[deleted]