One of the key issues with ANY of these types of publications is as soon as
(or in many cases BEFORE) they're made public, they're no longer accurate.

"Salary and Compensation", especially the overall 'compensation' part
changes annually and it's skewed based on what may be important to an
employee/worker.  Based on your age, marital status, benefits your spouse
may have, number and age of your children and where you are in life,
certain things are more important to you than others.

And how do you assign a value to something like medical/dental benefits?
Is it the amount or what %age of the costs are paid by your employer versus
what you have to pay, or the level of coverage it provides and what your
'exposure' is to cover the balance of costs... or if your spouse has better
coverage and you elect not to take it at all, are you then provided 'in
lieu of' pay, or do you simply avoid your portion of the costs?  And if you
have regular need for medical services, prescriptions, etc... do you
calculate the benefits you receive in as part of compensation or is it
simply cost avoidance?

Some organizations offer tuition reimbursement, but you may not take
advantage of it... still, it is part of the compensation package- so if you
don't use it, was it included in the data gathered?  Same is true with
HCRAs, 401k plans or stock options- you may be allowed to put maximum
amounts in that lower your taxable income, but your situation may only
allow you to put smaller amounts in.  Again, when you consider what survey
responses were for "compensation", what was provided?  What respondents
personally took advantage of, or the maximum that was available to them?

I don't know that either document is more valuable than the other- the data
in both may be equally as valid, or equally as questionable.  It depends on
what someone is using it for.  One thing I DO KNOW... in one case, you'll
have more money in your pocket after seeing it than you will with the
other... because it's free. =)

Larry
[log in to unmask]


On Wed, Dec 5, 2012 at 9:17 AM, Julie Colgan <[log in to unmask]>wrote:

> Interesting paper.  While it does address salaries, the intent of the
> research and level of detail (especially regarding specific salary data) is
> very different than the ARMA publication.  Guess it depends on what you are
> trying to do/understand, whether the AIIM paper will fit the bill.
>

-- 
*Lawrence J. Medina
Danville, CA
RIM Professional since 1972*

List archives at http://lists.ufl.edu/archives/recmgmt-l.html
Contact [log in to unmask] for assistance
To unsubscribe from this list, click the below link. If not already present, place UNSUBSCRIBE RECMGMT-L or UNSUB RECMGMT-L in the body of the message.
mailto:[log in to unmask]