Category Archives: Compensation

3 Steps to Getting Rid of an Overpaid Employee

Posted on by
1

One of the biggest issues we face as HR Pros is trying to get rid of our overpriced employees.  Let’s be real – we made our own bed with this issue!  We were the ones going to our ‘comp’ guy, going “No, we have to go over range, this talent is worth it!”  Now you’re living with an employee making $20K more than the rest of team and all hell is breaking loose!  To be fair, we aren’t the only ones who do this.  Pro sports are classic for overpaying talent, that when the person signs looks like a great deal, but by year 4 or 5 all of sudden you wonder how do we get rid of this stiff! Hello, A-Rod!   The Yankees overpay worse than any other pro sports team in history.  For those who have been following recent developments with the Yankees – they have a major overpay problem with Alex Rodriguez.  From CBS Sports:

“Rodriguez has five years and at least $114 million left on his deal and is recovering from a major hip injury that will cause him to miss a huge chunk of the 2013 season, if not all of it. He’s 37 years old and, while still productive when healthy, is clearly in the decline phase of his career. So obviously the Yankees would love to get out of this contract.

The only issue is … they likely have no shot at doing so.”

$114M – for a broken down, can’t hit his weight, third baseman!  Makes you feel better about your overpaid employees, right!?

Let’s assume your overpaid employee isn’t horrible, but has become just average.  Familiar? How do you get rid of an overpaid, high priced, average employee?  I’ve got a few ideas:

1. Buy Out/Severance/Job Eliminataion – These aren’t all the same – but can be used to help you with this issue. For those HR Pros who have never used these options – you’re missing out.  Let’s be clear, it costs money – but it also gives you legal protection and gets rid of a problem very quickly.  Don’t blow this option off – you would be shocked at what amounts of money an employee would accept to go away.  Start low in your negotiations! Make sure you work with legal to get the right paperwork drawn up to protect yourself against future litigation!

(I’ve been able to get middle management levels folks to go away for $25K!  Huge positive impact to the team, production, engagement, etc.  Best $25K I’ve ever spent)

2. Put them in a box – Most of our leadership teams suck at accountability – to get rid of an overpaid person you need to turn up the accountability to an uncomfortable level – this usually pushes them out the door. You can’t let off the gas – you really have to follow up on the accountability until the person bails.  This can be painful and loud – and usually isn’t the cleanest way to get rid of person – if they’re smart, they’ll know exactly what you’re doing and could cause further problems then your overpay issue! Ironically, most HR Pros use this technique, over all else.

3. The Breakup Conversation – I’ve also had some good success having the breakup conversation.  Face-to-face, nothing in writing, close the door and just get ‘real’.  “Tim – we need to talk. You’re making $20K more than the next highest person on the team, and you’re not delivering that level of compensation.  We’ve got to do something. That could be you leaving in some form – or, what do you think?”  I’ve been amazed what my overpaid workers have come up with in terms of possible solutions.  I’ve had people retire after these conversations. Put themselves into a tighter box then I ever would have created. Even offered up taking a pay cut because they love the company and the job – and realize ‘we’ made an error and it’s become a problem.  I’ll be honest – in my career – pay cuts rarely work out – be cautious using them – but breakup conversations can lead you to a solution!

How Does HR Think?

Posted on by
2

I’m not sure how HR thinks.  I know how I think, and from what people tell me, I don’t think like a ‘normal’ HR person.  One thing I really like, though, is to see how other pros think.  I learn a lot from how maybe an engineer addresses an issue versus say how a Designer would address the same issue.  I like to take aspects of how other professionals think and incorporate those thought processes into how I think about HR.  I think this helps me solve HR issues in ways that the business can grasp onto better.

I found a cool article recently on how Designers think.  Here are some of the ways Designers think:

– “Design is not about solving problems.  It’s about making people happy. And there are always so many personalities and ideas to consider. So you’re trying to simplify it to its fundamental structure.” 

– “You have to understand when the timing is right for dialogue, and when its time to move the limits. Designers arrive at a company to move its limits.”

– “Try to pare things down. Very few moves do a lot.”

– “Unoriginal, ugly and cheap. Revolutionary, gorgeous and luxurious. These do not have to be contradictions.”

– “The idea of innovation as a structured process has been taken to the extreme, where it is no longer a really useful or robust concept. You’ve got to go about letting people take sensible risks.”

– “…Pain is temporary. Suck is forever.”

In HR, I tend to believe that most HR pros don’t believe they work in a creative function.  In reality what you create in HR speaks volumes about the culture you’re shaping in your work environment.  If HR lacks creativity – your work environment is going to lack creativity.  The rule setters need to show the organization that from time to time, we need to break the rules to get us to the next level.  Sensibly, but rule breaking nonetheless.  Breaking the rules is like ‘kryptonite’ to HR Pros.  It goes against our very being.  Most HR Pros pride themselves on being ‘the one’ part of the organization that actually follows the rules. “If we don’t do it, Tim, who will?”

I don’t know.  What I know is I like how designers think.  It seems like a thought process that opens my mind and gets me thinking about how I can make things better.  It’s a thought process that challenges me to rethink what I’m doing and why.  That seems like a good thing. I don’t want to suck.  I hear suck is forever.

 

 

I’ll Retire When I’m Dead

Posted on by
2

In case you missed it last week, America’s CEOs want to change the social security eligibility age from 65 to 70.  Of course this isn’t shocking and this argument has been building for decades as a possible solution to the social security funding problem as so many baby boomers start to collect.  From Bloomberg:

Raising the Medicare age to 70, from today’s 65, would keep the oldest workers, who generally have the greatest health costs, on private insurance for an additional five years. The shift would hit states that cover more low-income seniors through Medicaid, and it would raise premiums for younger people who buy health insurance through state exchanges, as more people with higher health costs enter the risk pool.

This would save Medicare money—a good thing for taxpayers. But it would effectively increase health costs for the country overall, including employers. “For many seniors, their costs will go up. For employers in the aggregate, their costs will go up,” says Juliette Cubanski, associate director for Medicare policy at the nonprofit Kaiser Family Foundation. That’s because Medicare pays doctors less for their services than private insurers do…

Workers might not relish spending those extra years on the job to keep their health insurance. But it’s the cost of living longer, as Gary Loveman, Business Roundtable member and chief executive officer of Caesars Entertainment (CZR), illustrated with a personal anecdote at a press conference:

“My father, who was an employee of AT&T (T) for more than 40 years, retired at age 61 and lived to be 95. He was a 34-year recipient of Social Security benefits—something that near his death, he noted to me with great pride that he had been on both [AT&T’s] payroll and the federal government’s payroll for much longer than anyone could possibly have anticipated. That’s, of course, generally speaking, good news,” Loveman said. “But it’s a problem the country simply can’t afford over a sustained period of time.”

I’ve witnessed this personally.  I have a grandparent who spent 30 years with good old General Motors – retired at the ripe old age of 51 and collected pension and eventually social security benefits for more years than they actually paid into the system.  That is why our ‘traditional’ way of retirement in America is broke.  The system was not created to have people collect social security for 15-20-25+ years.  When it was created, social security was a plan that the founders probably figured individuals would be on for 10 years or less.  While I don’t want to have to work until I’m 70 – for me and most Americans this is a foregone conclusion.

The new reality we face is 70 years old today, is not 70 years old of 20-30 years ago.  My Dad turned 70 this past year and still works in professional job and really doesn’t want to retire.  He’s reached a point in his career where he knows just about everything in his business and he has 30+ years of great relationships to leverage, and he has no fear about getting ‘fired’ – he’s 70!  Work can now be fun.

I have friends who still talk about wanting to retire at 55 and I tend to just shake my head and let them have their dream.  They really have no idea the amount of money it will take to live from 55 to 90 or so.  You’re talking millions of dollars in retirement investments – not 1 million – multiple millions to live another 30+ years.  I’m realistic.  I figure I’ll get to retire the day after I die.  At least I hope I get to.

Job Description Killers

Posted on by
Reply

You know what position I would love to apply for!?  Jr. Human Resource Manager – said no one ever!

I hate spending 3 seconds on Job Descriptions – because JD’s just scream “Personnel Department” but I have to just take a few minutes to help out some of my HR brothers and sisters.  Recently, I came across a classic JD mistake when someone had posted an opening and then broadcasted it out to the world for a “Jr. Industrial Engineer”.  I almost cried.

Really!  No, Really!  “Jr.”  You actually took time, typed out the actual title and then thought to yourself – “Oh yeah! There’s an Industrial Engineer out there just waiting to become a ‘Jr. Industrial Engineer’!”  Don’t tell me you didn’t – because that’s exactly what it says.  “But Tim, you don’t understand – we’ve always called our less experienced Industrial Engineers, Junior, so we can differentiate them from our ‘Industrial Engineers’ and our ‘Sr. Industrial Engineers’.  What do you want us to to do, call them: Industrial Engineer I, Industrial Engineer II and Industrial Engineer III?”

No – I don’t want you to do that either.

Here’s what I want you to do.  I want you to title this position as “Lesser Paid Industrial Engineer” – you’ll get the same quality of responses!

You know how to solve this – but why you won’t – just have one pay band for “Industrial Engineer” – from $38K to $100K.  Pay the individuals within that band appropriately for their years of experience and education.  This is why you won’t do it.  Your ‘Sr.’ Compensation Manager knows you aren’t capable of handling this level of responsibility and within 24 months your entire Industrial Engineering staff would all be making $100K – Jr’s, Middles and Sr’s!

And please don’t make me explain how idiotic it looks when you list out your little number system on your post as well (Accountant I, Accountant II, etc.). Because you know there just might be an Accountant out there going – “Some day I just might be an Accountant II!” If SHRM actually did anything, I wish they would just go around to HR Pros who do this crap and visit their work place and personally cut up their PHR or SPHR certificates in front of them – like a maxed out credit card that gets flagged in the check out line.  That would be awesome!

All this does is make it look like you took a time machine in from a 1970 Personnel Department.

But, seriously, if you know of any Sr. Associate HR Manager III positions please let me know.

Right-To-Work or Wrong-To-Work

Posted on by
12

I have to say it’s been fun to have a front row seat in the Right-To-Work debate that raged on in Michigan this past week!  Even President Obama made an appearance in Michigan and was probably the only one to put this debate into it’s proper context – he said Right-To-Work legislation is not about economics, it’s about politics – and for once in his life he was right.  Unfortunately, he then spewed a bunch of union propaganda numbers and made it even more political – but hey, he’s a politician.  I have a bunch of thoughts on this that don’t really make one coherent post, so I’m just going to share those thoughts and we can take it from there:

– Unions are dying a slow death. 17% of Michigan’s workforce, 7% of the national workforce.  What does this say? It says companies get it more today than ever.  You have to treat your employees well and you have to compete for talent.  If you don’t get this – you won’t be a competitive company for long, because the best and brightest won’t work for you.

– Unions in Right-To-Work states, and really nationally, need to get back to getting their membership to understand their ‘true’ value.  In HR we have to do this constantly in our organizations.  Unions have forgotten this for decades!  They just kept collecting their monthly dues and assumed their membership got it!  They don’t.

– Somebody explain to me how it’s a bad thing for an employee to have the choice of not paying union dues, if they don’t think their union is giving them value.  I pay a stock broker to give me stock tips – I find value in his opinion, I pay for it.  If I found value in the service a union was giving me, I’d pay for it.  I spoke to 3 long term teachers who are members of the MEA this week – all 3 said they would not pay dues if given the option. All 3 said, and I quote: “My union does nothing for me.”

– Unions believe ‘branding’ = scaring their membership into believing they can’t live without them.

– Michigan citizens voted for a Republican governor, a Republican Senate and Republican House.  Those 3 functions voted exactly the way they were suppose to, by the citizens who voted them in.  There is nothing shocking about his at all.  If Michigan’s citizens didn’t want Right-To-Work legislation, and similar types of legislation, they would have voted differently. But they didn’t.  If you lived in Michigan during the recession you would probably understand why – it sucks to lead the nation in unemployment.

I’m an HR Pro, so in my career I’ve been on the opposite side of the table from unions -I’m management.  I don’t have a positive view of unions because I believe they don’t make my workforce better they make it weaker.  Everyone in a union is treated the same, which just pushes everyone to the middle. High performers have no reason to be high performers when they are treated the same as the weakest performer.  I’ve seen this and have dealt with it professionally.  Unions telling me I have to treat these two groups the same.  This does not create high performance, it creates worse performance. This is what I know.

Everyone needs a wake up call.  I think Michigan enacting Right-To-Work legislation is a wake up call to Unions to reinvent themselves.  To start to really think, “how do we show our membership we are adding value to their lives.”  It can’t just be about ‘protecting’ jobs.  They’ve protected jobs right out of this state. It has to be about creating opportunities for their membership – that is a 180 degree difference in philosophy from where they are at.  They need to find a way that employers are begging for their membership to come and work in their companies, because their membership is so highly performing and skilled.  Right now employers are running away from unions because the value equation of skills and dollars don’t match up.

Everything You Ever Needed To Know About Compensation

Posted on by
6

Let me start by saying I don’t really understand Comp Pros.  Seems like a lot of spreadsheets, market analysis, internal analysis, 48-72 hours of waiting, followed by me getting approval to offer the candidate less than what they originally asked for, followed by the hiring manager sending a nasty email to their line executive, followed by me getting approval from said Comp Pro to offer what I wanted to originally, followed by the hiring manager believing I have no idea what I’m doing. But what do I know…

If I ever get the chance to run a Compensation Department (please G*d never let this happen) I would concentrate on only one thing: which positions drive the largest percentage of revenue in my organization.  Now that is much harder than you think.  First, I’m sure you’re organization is like mine in that ‘every’ position is important…wait, I have to stop laughing…and as such, we really need to look at the whole.  No, I wouldn’t do that in my made up Compensation Department – I only want to look at the important people.  It’s not that I’m getting rid of anyone – Comp doesn’t do that – we leave that to the Generalist!  My focus is finding out who is the most important in driving revenue (thus profit) in our organization.  I need to know this because I need to ensure we are leading the market in compensation plans for those specific skills.  Why? Because I want to go out and give my HR/Talent team all the ammunition they need to hunt down the best possible revenue driving team for my organization that has ever been assembled by man, beast or robot.

Bam! – that is all you need to know about Compensation.

“Oh, but Tim you’re so naive! We need to pay all of our people fairly to drive the best productivity. We need to ensure we don’t have internal pay equity issues. We have to have proper bonus plan designs and executive pay structures. We need…” Shut it!  You know what happens when you lead any industry in revenue?  All that crap tends to take care of itself.  You know what happens when you’re chasing revenue in an industry?  All that crap becomes issues.

Ok, so I make one giant assumption – I assume if my organization can drive revenue, that we can also drive profit – that isn’t always the case – but it will be in my organization because I know how to performance manage the morons out who don’t get these two need to be on parallel paths.  My compensation philosophy is simple – over pay the people who drive my revenue, and make sure I always have the best revenue driving talent in the game, at all times.  Pay everyone else at the market rate – I don’t need racehorses in those roles, I need plow-horses.  Most organizations don’t have the guts to do this and it’s why most organizations are always struggling around budget time to determine where to cut.  I don’t want to cut, I want to grow, I want to take over the world – or, well, at least lead my industry.

When is Gutting Payroll the Right Thing?

Posted on by
Reply

HR-Sports Post Alert!

Many of you probably cared less about the recent trade between Major League Baseball’s Miami Marlins and Toronto Blue Jays (check out the details here) – suffice to say the Marlins were able to decrease their annual payroll from $188M to around $35M in one giant trade!  Classic rebuilding type of move, right?  People/fans are saying the Marlins shouldn’t do this to their fans and they gave up on some great talent.  Let’s take a look back at recent Florida/Miami Marlins history:

1997 – Won the World Series (payroll at $47.8M)

By 1999 – they gutted their roster of high priced talent for younger up and coming talent (payroll at $15.2M)

2003 – Won the World Series (Payroll at $76.9M)

By 2006 – they gutted their roster again (payroll at $15M)

The difference the Marlins and large market teams like the Yankees and Red Sox is that the Marlins can’t make giant financial talent mistakes without something major happening in the next year or two.  They took some gambles over the past couple of years trying to assemble a world series capable team (they’ve done this before – twice!) and it didn’t work out.  So, change needed to happen – rebuilding needed to begin.  Any fan of the Marlins could have predicted this.

So – what does this have to do with HR – or my company?

There is some huge wisdom in how the Marlins manage their talent finances that we can all learn from.  Let’s make no mistake about this – this is not Moneyball, in fact he might be the opposite of what Billy Beane had envisioned.  But, many would argue that the Marlins version, had worked out better, certainly from a results standpoint.  My question is – could this type of talent financing work in a corporate setting, or in your company?

Think about it that for a minute.

How could you make this happen?  I tend to think about it in terms of your high priced – A talent – not necessarily your executives.  What if your company was looking to drive and increase in market share in your industry.  Your main competitor currently had 50% of the market, while you only had 25%, with the other 25% spread amongst competitors 3-10.  Your goal was to grow your market share to 35% in 3 years – a large task for most companies in most industries.  Conventional corporate wisdom would work this way – Step 1 – we hire away one of competitor 1’s executives to tell how they did it; Step 2 – The new executive brings over as many people as he can get, usually starting with a solid player from competitor 1’s marketing department; Step 3 – you re-brand and spend a crap ton of money; Step 4 – 3 years later you’re at 28% market share with less margins. Ouch.

If the Marlins management ran your company here is what they would do:

Step 1 – Go hire the top sales person from your main competitors – all of your competitors and pay them double what they are making.

Step 2 – Go directly after every single account the competitors have with the inside knowledge you just gained in your sales staff.

Step 3 – Build their market share to 40% within 24 months

Step 4 – Systematically let go of all of their high priced sales people – losing about 5% of their market share.

Step 5 – At 3 year mark be at their 35% market share with roughly the same payroll as they had 3 years prior.

I mean it could happen that way!

We/HR/Management tend to believe we have to keep our people on forever – even after they stop being rock stars, but are still getting paid like rock stars.  The Marlins have said, ‘look this is a dual benefit play – we get our championships and the players gets a giant check, then we both move on’.  It’s not “traditional” so everyone tends to think its wrong.  I don’t know if it’s right, but I’m sure their are some Chicago Cub fans that would take 2 World Series championships in the last 15 years!

Better Boss or More Money – What do You choose?

Posted on by
13

There was a survey done recently by Michelle McQuaid and the results were picked up by a number of news outlets and delivered as big news.  The basis of the study was, if given a choice, would your employee choose a better boss or a pay raise – and guess what they found!?

65% of employees say they would rather have a Better Boss than more Money!

So, my question to you – do you think this is true?  If you went to your employees right now, today, and told them – look we know, based on this survey you guys want a better boss, so we going to fire the idiot we have managing you right now and let you pick your next boss!  And, because we are doing this – you don’t get a raise next year – but don’t worry – you’ll be more engaged and happier because this next gal you pick to tell you what to do is really going to that much better! What do you say – are you in?!

Before you go cutting your increase budget for 2013, and funneling all of that money into leadership development – let’s look at a couple of things:

1. The person who did the survey -Michelle McQuaid – has a consulting business and guess what she’s selling? Engagement!

2. The survey sample was a total of 1000 folks from various demographics – and I’m sure was academically and statistically tested to be completely valid and reliable…

Unfortunately, the media outlets that pick this crap up never give the full story – that’s not their job – their job is to get you to click – and most people believe what they read.  Put into context, this survey is almost laughable – One person, trying to sell her ideas, throws a survey together that just by happenstance validates what she’s saying.  The Business Insider even tied Gallup into the article  making it look even more valid – which causes great confusion!

Here’s my real life study of this same subject – do this for me and let me know how it turns out:

1. Take $2500 cash – stacks of $20 bills – and set them in front of an employee.  Let the employee touch the money – pick it up.

2. Then, ask this one question – “You can have a new boss – a better boss – or you – right now – can have this money. Which one would you like?”

3. Do this to 100 employees – or 1000 (like it matters) – and tell me your results.

Here is my guarantee to you – and if it doesn’t work out this way – I’ll pay for your study.  You will not have 65% of your employees chose a new boss!!!!  I guarantee it.  Look I get what Michelle is trying to do – we’ve all drank the engagement Koolaid – so now we’re supposed to believe that money no longer matters to people. Well it does – it matters a whole lot – don’t try and kid yourself.  Telling yourself that your employees will pick a better boss over a raise is fools gold – and makes you look like an idiot to your executives – because they know reality.  People want a better boss – people need and want more money – more.

Great HR Doesn’t Come from Big HR Shops

Posted on by
7

We here it all the time:

“They’ve got to much to lose to take that kind of a risk.”

Or statements similar to this.

As I travel out and about on the fall HR conference tour (most State level SHRM conferences happen in the fall) I’m reminded constantly that Big HR Shops (Fortune 500 companies, Big Government, Giant Non-Profits, etc.) are not who you should be turning to for the next great HR ideas.  Maybe you can turn to them for Best Practices – but is best practice – where you want to be?  Best Practice is by it’s nature – solid and fully vetted – for years.  It’s great HR from 5+ years ago. Safe. You can’t go wrong with Best Practice HR.  But please stop trying to act like it’s “great” HR – it’s not  – it’s more of the same HR.

There’s actually a name for this, it’s called Loss Aversion theory, which is basically:

“people’s tendency to strongly prefer avoiding losses to acquiring gains. Some studies suggest that losses are twice as powerful, psychologically, as gains.”

What this all boils down to in HR is what you have to lose by taking a chance.  Want a industry changing benefit program?  You have to get way out of the box.  Big HR Shops don’t get way out of the box.  By the way – Google is a big HR shop – Giant.  So are most of the other companies you continue to use as examples of “Great” HR, but they really aren’t “great” HR.  I say this because I’m tired to hearing “more of the same HR” practices at conferences being played off as “Great HR” practices, and seeing my HR peers buy it as life altering HR. It’s not – unless you have a Delorean that can’t go back in time to when it was.

So you want Great HR, you want HR that will change industries in 5 years? Don’t get caught up with a brand – get caught up with an idea.  Too often we want the “brand” – “Oh, look Southwest Airlines HR is going to be talking – I MUST go see them!”  Stop!  Southwest was great 20 years ago – they aren’t anymore – they are the same now – which is still good – but not “Great”.  You don’t want to be like Southwest Airlines right now – you want to be like Southwest Airlines 20 years ago.  You’re goal is to find that session with that person you’ve never heard of – they have nothing to lose – they will probably have better ideas.

I’m probably on an island with this one.  Because everyone wants to hear about how the “Big Boys” are doing it – because if they are doing “it”, “it “must be good.  But you know I’m comfortable on this island – this island is full of start-ups you’ve never heard of and they are fighting to make it ever day and that fight propels them into a space the “Big Boys” won’t go.  This island has a bunch of creative HR pros who don’t have books published and aren’t paid to speak  – they get their hands dirty, they make mistakes – they – make – great HR.

Recession Fallout in HR

Posted on by
Reply

I have a feeling I’m about to preach to the choir.  I can’t tell you how many conversations I’ve had with hiring manager lately – that just don’t get it! (I hear you saying “What do you mean “lately” – did hiring manager “ever” get it!)   The Recession has made our job very hard – Today – especially if you are currently trying to hire anyone with technical skills (engineers, designers, IT professionals, Scientist, etc.).   During the Recession we had candidates coming out of our ears!  Today, it seems like, almost overnight, technical jobs across the country have turned on like a fire hose!  Everywhere companies are trying to find technical talent – in all industries – all at the same time.   Remember that baby boomer Tsunami of retirement we were suppose to see?  This feels like the first waves are hitting the shore in terms of technical hiring!

I’ve spoken to engineering schools that 100% graduation hires, plus companies now paying for engineering seniors, senior year of tuition!   I’ve spoken to companies that have had to double their payroll projections – mid-budget year, just to have enough money to hire the same amount of projected hires at the beginning of the year.  In HR and Recruiting we get this – the market moves, sometimes very quickly, and organizations have to be prepared to adjust and move with it – or risk causing some very bad outcomes to our operations.  But, do our hiring managers get this?

I’m hear to say – not enough have gotten the message!

Over the past few months, it seems like we are having daily “conversations” with hiring managers who are still wanting to see the same 20 candidates they saw during the recession, and turning down candidates for minor things like “he seemed a little shy”, “she was from Tech and I like State grads”, “he’s had 2 jobs in the past 10 years!”   I’ve had hiring managers have interviews, come back and say they like both candidates really well, but would like to see some more – when there aren’t any more!   It all sounds familiar doesn’t it!  The Recession did this to them!  It made the greedy – it made them ultra picky – it made them believe there is a never ending pool of great candidates who only want to come work at your company.   Ugh! I hate the Recession!

So what?

In HR/Recruiting this is where we become marketers – we start selling – and what we are selling is an idea.  An idea that the world is different, they sky is falling and there’s only one person left to hire.  That person – is the stupid candidate I just put in front of your face!!! (wouldn’t that be great if we could say that!?)  Look, I understand you and your hiring managers “only want to hire the best talent” – BTW – so does everyone else.  But times are changing – if you want to hire the best – you better be paying the best – or at least offering the best value proposition as compared to your competitors.  Lines of candidates are out their just waiting for calls any longer.  It’s simple addition – more technical job openings than candidates + baby boomers now beginning to feel like they can retire = our job just got a lot tougher!