-1

The scope is the same of what was discussed here but with different circumstances: my head was fired and replaced by a colleague of mine.

Is it wise during a salary raise negotiation to mitigate possible discussions about company's economy problems by arguing about the salary originally planned for the dismissed head ? My point would be that the head was planned of course to stay in the company and withstand as well the economy problems, so now since nobody else will be hired to replace him (my colleague took physically his place), that salary represents a saving for the company and enough to raise my colleague's salary and mine (in the intended proportions of course).

cyberdyne
  • 231
  • 1
  • 5
  • What do you mean with "should get part of it"? – cyberdyne Jan 04 '20 at 18:31
  • Yes, or at least it can "solve" any economic problems they may arise to give me less. – cyberdyne Jan 04 '20 at 21:24
  • 1
    Has your workload increased because of his departure? Maybe you should focus on that aspect of his departure. In other words, it's not just the work he did that the company is losing out on, but all the institutional knowledge and other intangibles that may have been lost as well because of his departure and that you now need to make up for. – Stephan Branczyk Jan 05 '20 at 00:59

4 Answers4

7

That is a bad idea.

mitigate possible discussions about company's economy problems

The discussion will not be We don't have enough money to give you a raise. What they are trying to say is:

You are not worth as much as you think you are

Money is not abstract, it is relative to the value. If your company doesn't value you at the level you think you worth, they won't find money.

What you are proposing is something like "Give me more money and fire X because they suck at their job" or "Let's switch to cheaper toilet paper and give me more money". How do you think that will go?

aaaaa says reinstate Monica
  • 8,942
  • 4
  • 32
  • 44
  • Not really. Just to clarify: the guy was already fired and for other reasons even different from economy. Here I am saying: since the guy was fired and nobody expected, his salary remains as planned money per year, and then it represents a plus for the company and enough for a raise. – cyberdyne Jan 04 '20 at 21:21
  • 1
    @Altair yes, you are looking at is as an accountant. another POV: these money are companies surplus. What is more valuable for company, extra money or giving you bump to salary? – aaaaa says reinstate Monica Jan 05 '20 at 04:34
3

This is definitely a bad idea.

First of all, “how much money the company has” isn’t what they pay you. “What you’re worth to them” is what they pay you. Your value has not improved by someone else being fired and replaced.

Furthermore, it’s in bad taste, and marks you as a scavenger. There’s always people picking over the goods of the fired, trying to get whatever other perks they had - you may as well be an old style rag picker off the dead, like in A Christmas Carol. If I were the manager seeing this behavior I would definitely hold it against you as a character flaw.

mxyzplk
  • 35,863
  • 15
  • 105
  • 134
  • Yes, but at the same time, does not it sound ridiculous hearing "that's a bad moment, we do not have enough money" since a big deal of money is there in front of us? – cyberdyne Jan 05 '20 at 09:25
  • 1
    @altair, you're missing the point. Your employer pays you what they think you are worth. Your value does not increase when someone gets fired (unless you take on their responsibilities). Just because a company might have more free money doesn't mean that salaries should increase, That's not how it works. If you're buying a car, do you expect to pay more money than the next guy because you have more money to spend? You have more free money, so why not? – Marc Bernier Jan 07 '20 at 21:53
  • @Marc Bernier:In your example: if I like a car and I have enough money to buy it but at the end I decide not to buy it for a reason X, among 1000000 reasons (e.g. "the car was not as I expected", "I did not like the seller", "the car did not work", "I was sick and I could not go to buy it") I cannot say for sure "I did not buy it because I had no enough money" – cyberdyne Jan 11 '20 at 16:44
  • @altair you clearly want to hear “this line of reasoning makes sense.” Feel free and use it but everyone is trying to tell you you’ll come across as a grasping simp to your boss if you do. Up to you, arguing isn’t going to change anything. – mxyzplk Jan 12 '20 at 03:40
2

Pragmatic view

You do not provide more value, based on the fact alone, that someone in your department left and is not being replaced. If that was the case, then any department losing people should ask for raises.

In any case, reading the question I was expecting to hear, that you now took the leading role and hence look to leverage this for a raise, as this role comes with higher responsibility. Apparently this is not the case, your colleague occupies that role, if anything, they should have received an according raise.

As is frequently pointed out on this SE, your salary does not depend on your market value or any perceived factors that you encounter in the workplace. It depends on what value you provide to the company. Has that value increased and you can show that using data? Then this is a good argument in raise negotiations. Mere changes to the department structure w.r.t. is not, in my opinion.

Community
  • 1
Koenigsberg
  • 1,534
  • 11
  • 15
  • I do not want mess up the value with the situation. I just want to shout off any possible "you are worth but you have to wait because there is no enough money" – cyberdyne Jan 05 '20 at 09:29
0

If you truly want a raise, update your resume and apply for a job in another company. You have already been shown that you are only worth what they are paying you now by staying there.

Edward_178118
  • 334
  • 1
  • 5