CAI Releases Preliminary Pay Increase Trends

Document created by 1002056 on Nov 10, 2015
Version 1Show Document
  • View in full screen mode

CAI just wrapped up data collection for their annual Pay Trends Survey, which serves as a valuable 4th quarter update to base pay increases, as reported in the 2015 NC Wage & Salary Survey. Unique to this survey is also a look at pay per employee performance. Last year, about three quarters of employers reported differentiating pay based on performance where there is a significantly different increase given to lower and higher performing employees. We are pleased to share select preliminary findings at this time.


The table below shows how base pay increases, on average, have changed since the spring of this year. Across all, increases have gone up. We typically see this pattern of more conservative estimates earlier in the year followed by an uptick closer to end of year. Noteworthy is the 3.5+% increase for exempt employees in the Research Triangle and Piedmont Triad regions.


pay trends 2016.jpg


As for pay per employee performance, most employers make a distinction. Employers in the Research Triangle Region reported the following preliminary results: Only 28% of employers said they do not differentiate pay based on performance for hourly employees. The percentage is even lower for exempt employees at 21%. New this year we wanted to capture the true lowest base pay increase, if an actual increase was given (not 0). Of the employers who reported that increases did indeed differ this year, the lowest average percent increase for hourly is 1.5%. The highest average percent increase is 6.4%. The difference is greater for exempt employees whereas the lowest increase is 1.5% and the highest increase is 8.2%. All findings are considered preliminary until the final report is made available in a few weeks.


Remember, CAI Surveys heavily rely on regular member support to make these results possible. If you were not able to participate in this one, we highly encourage you to prepare for surveys coming soon, including Holiday Plans Survey (Nov/Dec), NC Healthcare Benefits & Cost Survey (Jan), National Executive Compensation Survey (Jan/Feb), NC Wage & Salary Survey (April/May), National IT & Engineering Compensation Survey (June), and the much anticipated next NC Policies & Benefits Survey (July/August). If you are unsure as to whether your organization has a designated survey contact, please call 919.878.9222 or send an email to today to ensure receipt of survey-related communications. Participation is required to gain access to survey results.

Recent News Articles


BREAKING NEWS: New Overtime Rule May Come Later Than Anticipated per DOL


CAI Releases Preliminary Pay Increase Trends


myCAI Turns One Year Old


How Do Your Leaders Compare to Navy SEALS?


How Do You Prioritize Multiple Garnishments For The Same Employee?


Upcoming 'Developing Potential' Webinar


Unemployment Benefits Reserve Restored




Employers Advised to Factor the New Overtime Rule into 2016 Expense Budget


Do Women Make Better Managers Than Men?


CAI Survey Snapshot: What Areas Saw the Most Gains in Employee Satisfaction


Engaging Your Employees Requires an Understating of Human Behavior


Winter Months Bring Seasonal HR Challenges


Two Basic Things Employees Need From Their Boss


Tips to Make Your Presentation Unforgettable


FLSA's "Hot Goods" Provision


The Journey of an HR Business Partner: Where Are You?


Preparing for the USDOL's New Overtime Rule


Keys to an Effective Performance Incentive Program


The FLSA's Nursing Mother Amendment


Telecommuting Should Be Carefully Planned


Talent Management: Processes, execution trump fancy systems


The Six Most Common Talent Management Mistakes


Workplace Rudeness is Highly Contagious, Study Says


Using HR Metrics to Drive Business Results through Talent


Handwritten Notes Trump Computer Note-Taking for Retaining Information


Leading a Millennial Workforce


Return to Standard Time November 1st


Welcome New Association Members - September


Fixing a Broken Performance Management System - Part II