Current Engineering Salaries 8

[southbeach]

Hi to all,

I am curious for those that are liscensed engineers, what is the salary like?

Is it true, skilled tradesmen earn more than an engineer?

If so, that is strange considering an engineer would more then likely be the project leader with skilled trades people reporting to them.

All comments are much appreciated

 

[Ashereng]

BE, wait a few more years and that will probably change to anyone with the technical know how.

Hmmm. Immigration based on merit. That could be controversial.

"Do not worry about your problems with mathematics, I assure you mine are far greater."
Albert Einstein
Have you read FAQ731-376 to make the best use of Eng-Tips Forums?

 

[berkshire]

Ashereng (Petroleum)
It's already happening here in the USA. My boss said to me last week " I know you are planning on retiring next year.But if you want to stick around that's ok with us too."
The driver for this; the company is having a hard time finding qualified people.
B.E.

 

[Ashereng]

Yup.

I would retire, take my fully vested pension,incorporate, and come back as a consultant, at a goodly rate.



"Do not worry about your problems with mathematics, I assure you mine are far greater."
Albert Einstein
Have you read FAQ731-376 to make the best use of Eng-Tips Forums?

 

[berkshire]

Ashereng (Petroleum)
Yup that's about it.
B.E.

 

[tripleZ]

For Twoballcane who asked about trades making more than engineers:
It's in Friday or Saturday's edition (5-19 or 5-20) of the Wall St. Journal. Front page article was about GM and the union workers in Lordstown, Ohio. The union rep's daughter is 29 and a QA tech, meaning no degree. She worked her way up on the line. She pulls down $79K per year if I remember correctly. I'm 2 years behind in age, work double what she does per week (meeting & exceeding my goals IMO), am halfway through an MBA, and just rec'd my industry certification. The chances of me making $70K within the next two years is nonexistent within my locale. And we've got a GM plant down the street. Same thing exists. My point is that it all depends on your industry. Some times it's supply and demand, other times it's a union backing a company into a corner. Although we can all see how that's finally panning out. Kind of reminiscient of US Steel back in my hometown...

 

[GTstartup]

As I recall reading somewhere, the highest paid tollbooth operator in NJ was paid in the 70K+ range (with OT of course), The average I think was around 45K.

 

[ziggi]

The GM example is one reason I despise unions. There should be no valid reason why that person makes what she does, I seriously doubt whether the quality of her work can be valued at $79k/year. And then GM mooches off the government citing national business protection and stuff, just b/c it's easier to suckle at the government than it is to throw those lazy union bums out onto the street....
I love a good ramble in the morning.

Free market economics all the way baby, all the way, toss those neo-commies out.

 

[niallmacdubhghaill]

Ziggi
I have to agree there

 

[moltenmetal]

ziggi: if GM can pay their unionized line workers $79k per year, why is it that they won't pay their engineers similar wages for their superior contribution to the bottom line? Simple- engineers are too proud to unionize. Or is it that engineers are too STUPID to unionize?

Remember that Henry Ford paid more than the going rate for his employees, because he knew that the only way the car would really take off is if his employees could afford to buy them. A well-paid middle class is the (eroding) foundation of the western economy. Most businesspeople see paying their employees more than the currently established "market rate" as merely a drain on the bottom line.

Yeah, I know, unionization also often comes along with lots of bad stuff too, like the protection of the incompetent and underperformers, idiotic work differentiation, the substitution of seniority for merit etc. But the results in dollar and cents terms are clear- unionized employees continue to earn more than those negotiating in isolation. Frankly, though I wouldn't be happy to work for a unionized employer for the reasons I've listed, I'm delighted that others ARE willing to do so. They raise the competitive salary bar for the rest of us who have more pride than brains.

There's strength in numbers. A business or corporation is a collective entity- an organized group of shareholders, management etc. with the single goal of maximizing retained shareholder value. An individual employee negotiating salary, benefits or working conditions with a collective business entity has very little power- in fact they have no power beyond their willingness to leave and find another job. And even that power evaporates to a great degree when the other side of the negotiation can and DOES manipulate the labour market to ensure you will have lots of competition for your next job should you choose to leave.

An organized group of employees negotiating with the same business entity has much greater power, and hence can command much greater respect from the organization in the only terms it truly values: dollars and cents which impact the bottom line. That too is the free market at work.

Why is it that for some people, the only definition of a "free market" they will accept is one in which corporations have all the power and employees have to negotiate from a position of weakness? That's hardly a "free market"!

As to corporate welfare, we agree completely. If we could find a way to ensure that government only collects revenue from private enterprises and never provides them with any subsidy beyond providing infrastructure of truly public benefit (roads etc.), that would make me happy. But until there's a world law against governments subsidizing businesses of any kind, whether that be farmers or car manufacturers, what you end up with is governments in each country running a numbers game. What nets the government more tax revenue: to let a poorly-run business fail or relocate to a country with more favourable taxes, or to pay the subsidy? If they choose to let the business go down, they'll lose 100% of the corporate tax revenue PLUS the income tax revenue from the employees let go when the business goes bankrupt, PLUS pay-outs for unemployment insurance and welfare for the fraction who never find another job. Whereas while they pay the subsidy, they merely reduce the net amount of tax collected from all those sources. Who wins when the governments end up in subsidy bidding wars with one another?

 

[GregLocock]

What makes you think GM generally pays its engineers less than 79k?

One of its competitors in the same town pays fresh grads 65-71k, and experienced engineers up to about 110k, and tech specs get, well, whatever they can negotiate, with the same grade structures as management.

Cheers

Greg Locock

Please see FAQ731-376 for tips on how to make the best use of Eng-Tips.

 

[ScottyUK]

What nets the government more tax revenue: to let a poorly-run business fail or relocate to a country with more favourable taxes, or to pay the subsidy? If they choose to let the business go down, they'll lose 100% of the corporate tax revenue PLUS the income tax revenue from the employees let go when the business goes bankrupt, PLUS pay-outs for unemployment insurance and welfare for the fraction who never find another job.

A series of facts which was entirely lost on the Thatcher government of the 1980's. I doubt the UK will ever recover from the damage those misguided fools caused to our economy.


----------------------------------

I don't suffer from insanity. I enjoy it...

 

[moltenmetal]

Greg: yeah, I realize that engineers in the US auto sector make more than $79k per year. But kids of about the same age, on the line without a degree and as engineers with a degree, are making pretty much the same money- that makes you wonder a bit. Of course the engineers would also have the "benefit" of working O/T for free. As the pointy-haired boss in the Dilbert cartoon says, "That's just how we like 'em: bright, but clueless!"

The engineers' salaries you've listed aren't all that out of line with the market value for engineers in industry. But the lineworker's salary IS out of line with respect to what lineworkers in most non-unionized industries can make, except for the workers at facilities like Honda and Toyota who keep their salaries in line with the union pay to keep the unions out. Even non-unionized tradesmen can't command the salaries these lineworkers command with nothing beyond high school.

 

[ziggi]

molten,
my point is that unions artificially affect the workings of the free market, therefore the union worker benefits from his/her arrangement while the rest of the non-union workers in that area suffer. Under a correct free market system, the lineworkers should only be making more money than the engineers if a scarcity of lineworkers exists.

However I do agree that a union is a great way for the little guy to stand up against the big company to maintain the balance.

As for allowing corporations to go down....good point, I assume they're not stupid enough to give them that money without plenty of conditions...then again.

 

[GregLocock]

"But kids of about the same age, on the line without a degree and as engineers with a degree, are making pretty much the same money- that makes you wonder a bit."

What's the hard bit? a lineworker contributes directly to the bottom line. A straight from uni engineer is, for the most part, a net drain on company resources. Sure after three or four years he's likely to be a big contributor, that's why 28 year old engineers are in demand, a lot of the expensive real life training has been done.


Cheers

Greg Locock

Please see FAQ731-376 for tips on how to make the best use of Eng-Tips.

 

[moltenmetal]

ziggi:

Businesses collude to interfere with the so-called "free market" all the time. They lobby governments to fund more post-secondary education and to allow more imimgration to increase the supply of "skilled labour", all in an effort to reduce their labour costs and increase their labour "flexibility". They extort subsidies and tax breaks from governments, threatening to relocate to "lower cost" markets if they don't comply. They fund collective organizations like industry associations as well as politically-motivated lobby groups, who are very effective at "educating" the public through the media about their concerns (i.e. so that the public will be more receptive when governments do what they are told).

Why then should groups of employees not band together to enter into this same market equation from a position of power, rather than one of isolation and weakness?

The so-called "free and fair market" is neither.

As to your assertion that non-unionized workers suffer as a result of the benefits gained by unionized workers, the converse is actually true. The compensation levels and working conditions commanded by unionized workers benefit everybody because they alter the competitive marketplace for the benefit of all workers, whether unionized or not.

Greg: it's obvious that the 29 year-old non-degreed "quality inspector" is worth $79k US to GM, as amazing as that may be to those of us not in the auto sector. It's also clear that an engineering grad with 4 years of university education plus 4 yrs of work experience is only worth ~ $79k US to GM given GM's "valuation" of that engineer's services. The kid has four years in the "school of hard knocks" and should be a major contributor, but they're just breaking even with somebody who has been on the line for nine (and mastered the job after what, a year?). I'd argue that the difference is clearly the effect of unionization on the part of the line workers, such that they can command a greater proportion of the company's revenue than the engineers can, negotiating in isolation.

I'm not arguing that the line worker deserves less- I'm arguing that the engineer deserves more!

 

[niallmacdubhghaill]

My understanding of the way in which unionised labour works is that you get pay increases on the basis of time served in a position. I have seen situations in my country in which the annual salary of a technician/operator is in fact more than that of the plant manager as a result of the benchmarking and overtime etc that the unions organise for their employees.
This is an utterly ludicrous situation, but thats the way it is? How to address it? Any ideas?
From what moltenmetal says above, one could be forgiven for contemplating the requirement for an engineers union to protect our own interests.....

 

[Ashereng]

Don't sign such a ludacris contract with the union in the first place.

"Do not worry about your problems with mathematics, I assure you mine are far greater."
Albert Einstein
Have you read FAQ731-376 to make the best use of Eng-Tips Forums?

 

[Ashereng]

A union is the worker's management team.

In business, if you don't like a proposal, you either change the terms until you are okay with it, or walk away.

When a company signs a contract with a union, it is in essence saying we are okay with it.

If the terms are so bad, the company always has the option of walking away.

For example. Walmart walked away from the province of Quebec when their store there unionised.

"Do not worry about your problems with mathematics, I assure you mine are far greater."
Albert Einstein
Have you read FAQ731-376 to make the best use of Eng-Tips Forums?

 

[KENAT]

moltenmetal

Sad to say that whilst it may once have been true, and there may still be figures that support it I'm not so sure what you said is true.

"But the results in dollar and cents terms are clear- unionized employees continue to earn more than those negotiating in isolation"

After I first came to the US I couldn't get a job in engineering, I ended up working retail. I got significantly higher pay working at a non union store than at a union one, especially when you consider what I paid in union dues. Unions are great if you've been there forever and grand fathered in to the good benefits they had back in the day. However, for new members some of them really don't offer much (low pay, no benefits for the first year even tho' you're paying the same dues as people receiving benefits etc.)

In principle I used to think unions were a good idea, protecting employees from unscrupulous employers, even though I knew they had problems. Having now worked for a union I'm not so sure that the union leaders aren't taking just as much advantage.

 

[moltenmetal]

KENAT: my own wife has seen first-hand the bad side of modern union behaviour too. She worked in an industry controlled by a union which acted in restraint of trade. Whereas most unions merely require that you be an employee of a unionized employer, sign up and pay the dues, this particular union restricted membership by means of a "vote-in" system (i.e. you basically had to be a relative of preferably more than one person in the union to obtain enough "votes" to gain membership!) She worked as a "permitee" (a non-unionized employee permitted to work in a position because the union didn't have enough staff available at the time), but was "bumped" out of the job after eight months by a union member who didn't have even the basic skills required for the job in question. The employer had no say in this whatsoever, according to the terms of the contract they'd negotiated with the union.

Unions do offer employees access to "strength in numbers" and the ability to negotiate with management from a position of power. In general terms, unionized employees command higher salaries than those offered by the average non-unionized employer- though there are certainly exceptions. Unions also tend to value and reward employees on the basis of seniority rather than productivity or competence, and to boggle the employers' mind with bizarre "work differentiation" rules designed to protect the turf of each union working on a mixed worksite. They also cost money to run, and like all human institutions, they can be corrupted.

Again, I'm glad they exist, but choose to work outside the unionized system. That way I get the benefit of the existence of unions without the personal downside. Not all employers are greedy b@stards whose only interest is profit- the trick is to find yourself one of these who actually has a business model which works and won't be killed by some bottom-feeder in a few years. Or to create such a business for yourself.