A Vancouver-based software company pays $180,000 for a senior developer role, citing the high cost of living and intense competition for talent.
A nationwide retail chain compensates its store associates according to regional minimum wage laws rather than their individual skills and experience.
Even though the ideal candidate must have extensive fundraising expertise, a non-profit organization lowers the salary range for a grant writer position to accommodate the decline in donations.
A rural manufacturing plant pays its production workers less than their urban counterparts, citing the lower cost of living.
A consulting firm’s compensation packages for junior analysts include a base salary, bonuses, and stock options designed to attract top graduates.
In the same way, the price of milk, housing, or dog food varies from store to store and region to region; a position’s worth isn’t universal. What’s universal when determining the value of a position is to consider the expected return on investment (ROI) for the employee’s salary:
Productivity: For production roles, employers estimate the candidate’s potential output, efficiency, and contribution to revenue or cost savings based on their skills, experience, and track record.
Revenue Generation: For revenue-generating roles, employers predict how the candidate will increase sales, secure new clients, or expand the business.
Cost Savings: For operational roles, employers estimate the employee’s potential to improve processes, reduce errors, or streamline workflows, quantifying the expected cost savings the candidate will deliver.
Market Rates: Companies research salary benchmarks for similar roles in their industry and region.
Affordability (cash flow): How much can the company spend on payroll? (Companies closely monitor their payroll, their largest expense, to keep it from being a “profit distraction.”)
These factors help employers determine what compensation will make the position worthwhile; in other words, the employee adds more value than their salary will cost.
Three key takeaways:
Employers seek to maximize the ROI on their human capital.
Candidates are more valuable when they’re seen as synonymous with profits.
Worth (read: value) in the business world isn’t subjective; it must be proven.
Internet talking heads, trying to appeal to today’s prevalent sense of entitlement, advise job seekers to “demand their worth.” This advice is the cause of the dilemma many job seekers struggle with: Should I base my compensation expectation on what I think I’m worth or what the job market says the job is worth?
Wrong question!
Job seekers should ask themselves, “Should I base my compensation expectation on what I can prove I’m worth or what the job market says the job is worth?”
Always strive to prove what you’re worth, especially during an interview, while considering the following:
Evaluate the job responsibilities.
Expertise-intensive, decision-making-intensive, complex, or business-critical roles garner higher compensation. For instance, senior data scientists earn more than entry-level data analysts.
Additionally, there’s the scope and scale of the role. Directors and managers overseeing multimillion-dollar budgets or large teams are valued more highly than those in smaller managerial roles.
Know the industry standard.
Platforms like Glassdoor, PayScale, and Salary.com, as well as government labour statistics and industry association surveys, provide crowdsourced salary data you can use as a starting point. Even though the objective of proving your worth is to obtain the highest compensation possible, you don’t want to ask for compensation that’s excessively outside the ballpark.
Supply and demand. (a critical factor)
ECON 101: Supply and demand influence price; hence, roles with a limited talent pool and high demand will naturally command a higher salary.
The shortage of certain specialized technical skills, such as cybersecurity or data engineering, increases the cost of hiring those candidates. Conversely, recruiters and talent acquisition specialists are abundant, so employers can be more selective and offer lower salaries.
The employer’s budget. (the most significant determining factor)
Employers aren’t a bottomless pit of money. As much as 70% of a business’s expenses can be attributed to labour costs (wages, benefits, payroll tax). Much like we’re constrained by financial realities when shopping for “whatever,” employers are similarly constrained when hiring.
Organizational size, revenue, profitability, investor and shareholder demands, and strategic priorities are considered when determining a position’s wage. Generally, companies allocate higher compensation budgets to roles essential to achieving their key objectives.
Never base your expectations solely on your own sense of worth. Research industry benchmarks, regional pay trends, and the specific demands of the role. Then, be prepared to discuss and justify the measurable value (key) you can bring to the employer. Highlight your unique skills, experience, and, most importantly, the results you’ve delivered.
Grew email subscriber list from 300 to 2,000 in 8 months with no budget increase.
Managed 500+ customer accounts for 5 years without a complaint and got a 98% rating on reviews online.
Wrote 400+ informative articles, increasing organic website traffic by 21%.
The job market is the primary determinant of a role’s worth—not your personal assessment. (Why should employers be responsible for the lifestyle you created?) A successful job search comes down to convincing an employer that your compensation request will result in a positive ROI.
Nick Kossovan, a well-seasoned veteran of the corporate landscape, offers “unsweetened” job search advice. You can send Nick your questions to artoffindingwork@gmail.com.
TORONTO – Roots Corp. may have built its brand on all things comfy and cosy, but its CEO says activewear is now “really becoming a core part” of the brand.
The category, which at Roots spans leggings, tracksuits, sports bras and bike shorts, has seen such sustained double-digit growth that Meghan Roach plans to make it a key part of the business’ future.
“It’s an area … you will see us continue to expand upon,” she told analysts on a Friday call.
The Toronto-based retailer’s push into activewear has taken shape over many years and included several turns as the official designer and supplier of Team Canada’s Olympic uniform.
But consumers have had plenty of choice when it comes to workout gear and other apparel suited to their sporting needs. On top of the slew of athletic brands like Nike and Adidas, shoppers have also gravitated toward Lululemon Athletica Inc., Alo and Vuori, ramping up competition in the activewear category.
Roach feels Roots’ toehold in the category stems from the fit, feel and following its merchandise has cultivated.
“Our product really resonates with (shoppers) because you can wear it through multiple different use cases and occasions,” she said.
“We’ve been seeing customers come back again and again for some of these core products in our activewear collection.”
Her remarks came the same day as Roots revealed it lost $5.2 million in its latest quarter compared with a loss of $5.3 million in the same quarter last year.
The company said the second-quarter loss amounted to 13 cents per diluted share for the quarter ended Aug. 3, the same as a year earlier.
In presenting the results, Roach reminded analysts that the first half of the year is usually “seasonally small,” representing just 30 per cent of the company’s annual sales.
Sales for the second quarter totalled $47.7 million, down from $49.4 million in the same quarter last year.
The move lower came as direct-to-consumer sales amounted to $36.4 million, down from $37.1 million a year earlier, as comparable sales edged down 0.2 per cent.
The numbers reflect the fact that Roots continued to grapple with inventory challenges in the company’s Cooper fleece line that first cropped up in its previous quarter.
Roots recently began to use artificial intelligence to assist with daily inventory replenishments and said more tools helping with allocation will go live in the next quarter.
Beyond that time period, the company intends to keep exploring AI and renovate more of its stores.
It will also re-evaluate its design ranks.
Roots announced Friday that chief product officer Karuna Scheinfeld has stepped down.
Rather than fill the role, the company plans to hire senior level design talent with international experience in the outdoor and activewear sectors who will take on tasks previously done by the chief product officer.
This report by The Canadian Press was first published Sept. 13, 2024.
VANCOUVER – Mediated talks between the union representing HandyDART workers in Metro Vancouver and its employer, Transdev, are set to resume today as a strike that has stopped most services drags into a second week.
No timeline has been set for the length of the negotiations, but Joe McCann, president of the Amalgamated Transit Union Local 1724, says they are willing to stay there as long as it takes, even if talks drag on all night.
About 600 employees of the door-to-door transit service for people unable to navigate the conventional transit system have been on strike since last Tuesday, pausing service for all but essential medical trips.
Hundreds of drivers rallied outside TransLink’s head office earlier this week, calling for the transportation provider to intervene in the dispute with Transdev, which was contracted to oversee HandyDART service.
Transdev said earlier this week that it will provide a reply to the union’s latest proposal on Thursday.
A statement from the company said it “strongly believes” that their employees deserve fair wages, and that a fair contract “must balance the needs of their employees, clients and taxpayers.”
This report by The Canadian Press was first published Sept. 12, 2024.
MONTREAL – Travel company Transat AT Inc. reported a loss in its latest quarter compared with a profit a year earlier as its revenue edged lower.
The parent company of Air Transat says it lost $39.9 million or $1.03 per diluted share in its quarter ended July 31.
The result compared with a profit of $57.3 million or $1.49 per diluted share a year earlier.
Revenue in what was the company’s third quarter totalled $736.2 million, down from $746.3 million in the same quarter last year.
On an adjusted basis, Transat says it lost $1.10 per share in its latest quarter compared with an adjusted profit of $1.10 per share a year earlier.
Transat chief executive Annick Guérard says demand for leisure travel remains healthy, as evidenced by higher traffic, but consumers are increasingly price conscious given the current economic uncertainty.
This report by The Canadian Press was first published Sept. 12, 2024.
