Bob,

I think you missed the point of his question. His point was that if you are not included in the 4% this year, next year's 4% is based on a lower base salary, as will every raise thereafter (until promotion, I suppose), so missing one year's increase has a "permanent" effect, even if the employee gets raises thereafter.

Bob,

While I agree fully with what you say, I think you missed part of the point Distressed was trying to make. He/she was saying that withholding a raise this year means that next year's raise will be based on the lower salary, and due to the magic of compounding the employee will be suffering for time and all eternity (as long as he or she is still at the same employer, that is).

To illustrate, assume a current salary of $50000 and an annual raise of 4%. Withholding a raise means that next year the employee will still make (note I didn't say earn) $50000, and the following year will make $52000. Without the penalty, those numbers would be $52000 and $54080. Thus, the punishment continues -- and even gets worse, in straight dollars ($2000 next year, $2080 the year after, and so on).

So I guess the underlying question is -- should the punishment have a forever effect like this, or should subsequent raises, assuming they're merited, be structured to return to where the person's salary would otherwise have been (not to make up for the interim loss, but to prevent an ongoing one)?

As I say, I see what you're saying, and I see what Distressed is saying. I just don't think you answered the original question.

One point that Distressed made that is valid, is that the pay hit is eternal; if I get 3% per year, any year that I miss is not built upon in the future, and, thus, is eternal.
I think he may be asking if there's some way to catch up, although with his expressed attitude, I'm not thinking that is likely.
How would you negotiate a "catch-up" if, indeed, your performance became exemplary?

I agree that the 'freeze' should be lifted. in other words, if the employee warrants a raise th following year, he should get it. What the writer seems to be asking is whether that subsequent raise should elevate the employee's compensation to the level it would have been if the 1st year's raise had been instituted. Of course the answer is no, meaning that one year's indiscretion of ignoring company policy and not receiving even a COL raise, would absolutely effect that employee for the rest of his career.... at least at that employer. :-)
Nothing says that you can't move on and find another sucker to pay for your long breaks.

Bob nailed this one in his last comment. Distressed should find a new job -- now. If there is that much distrust with upper management then find a more rewarding job.

An extra 3% will not make you like your job. If Distressed thinks that money will buy happiness, he/she is very mistaken.

While responding to responses is not generally productive, I'll break my own rule. In this case the we're missing the fact that the individual has the opportunity excel and regain compensation in subsequent years - and potentially use prior years as leverage.

For example, "this year you've ranked me as one of your top performers in the department, and I would like to point out I received no raise last year . . ."

But think this is moot based on the tone of the original message and its implied entitlement - which might be the core of the original problem.

I understand Distressed's point, but the punishment is not really eternal. It is possible to catch up by being exemplary, depending on market conditions and the demand for ones skills.

There is no written contract that says that ones earnings must increase by a certain percentage each year, so there is no implicit permenant punishment if it doesn't.

And salary isn't the only form of legitimate compensation, either.

Yes, I agree Bob missed the original question. Waiting for Bob's reply to actual question.