HKIHRM PAY TREND SURVEY - Home - Hong Kong … Jan PT... · IHRM PAY TREND SURVEY. ... This report...

HKIHRM January 2015 Pay Trend Survey

Hong Kong Institute of Human Resource Management

HKIHRM PAY TREND SURVEY

January 2015 Pay Trend

ISBN: 978-962-8989-85-0

The Hong Kong Institute of Human Resource Management 2015

This report may not be reproduced in part or in whole without the

express permission of the HKIHRM except brief extracts or

quotations may be embodied into other reports that are not intended

for publication.


ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

HKIHRM wishes to thank the participating companies for their support that has greatly

contributed to the success of the Survey. Our thanks also go to all members of the

Remuneration Committee for their efforts to monitor and improve the quality of the

Survey project.


CONTENTS

Acknowledgement

Members of the Remuneration Committee i

Participating Companies Profile ii

Chapter I Preliminary Notes 1

Chapter II January 2015 Adjustments 3

Charts:

Chart A1: An Overview of Pay Adjustments in January 2015 14

Chart A2: Total Pay Adjustment in January 2015: All Employees 15

Chart A2-1: Change in Pay Adjustment (2015 vs 2014): All Levels 16

Chart A3: Total Pay Adjustment: All Employees (2006-2015) 17

Chart B1: Distribution of Total Pay Adjustment in January 2015 18

Chart B2: Distribution of Total Pay Adjustment in January 2015:

Salary Level

19-20

Chart C: Differential Pay Adjustment in January 2015 (All Levels) 21

Chart D1: Total Pay Adjustment in January 2015: General Level 22

Chart D1-1: Change in Pay Adjustment (2015 vs 2014): General Level 23

Chart D2: Total Pay Adjustment in January 2015: Middle Level 24

Chart D2-1: Change in Pay Adjustment (2015 vs 2014): Middle Level 25

Chart D3: Total Pay Adjustment in January 2015: Senior Level 26

Chart D3-1: Change in Pay Adjustment (2015 vs 2014): Senior Level 27

Chart D4: Total Pay Adjustment in January 2015: Top Level 28

Chart D4-1: Change in Pay Adjustment (2015 vs 2014): Top Level 29

Chart E: Total Pay Adjustment in January 2015: Size of Company 30

Chart F: Total Pay Adjustment in January 2015: Local vs. Multinational 31

Chart G: Promotional Adjustment in January 2015 32

Charts H: Guaranteed Bonus Paid/ Payable in 2015: All Employees 33

Charts I1: Guaranteed Bonus Paid/ Payable in 2015: General Level 34

Charts I2: Guaranteed Bonus Paid/ Payable in 2015: Middle Level 35

Charts I3: Guaranteed Bonus Paid/ Payable in 2015: Senior Level 36

Charts I4: Guaranteed Bonus Paid/ Payable in 2015: Top Level 37

Charts J Non-guaranteed Bonus Paid in January/ February 2015: All

Employees

38

Charts K1: Non-guaranteed Bonus Paid in January/ February 2015:

General Level

39


Charts K2: Non-guaranteed Bonus Paid in January/ February 2015: Middle

Level

40

Charts K3: Non-guaranteed Bonus Paid in January/ February 2015: Senior

Level

41

Charts K4: Non-guaranteed Bonus Paid in January/ February 2015: Top

Level

42

Charts L Non-guaranteed Bonus Paid in January/ February 2015 among

Companies Without Guaranteed Bonus Policy: All Employees

43

Charts M1: Non-guaranteed Bonus Paid in January/ February 2015 among

Companies Without Guaranteed Bonus Policy: General Level

44


Companies Without Guaranteed Bonus Policy: Middle Level

45


Companies Without Guaranteed Bonus Policy: Senior Level

46


Companies Without Guaranteed Bonus Policy: Top Level

47

HKIHRM January 2015 Pay Trend Survey i

Members of the Remuneration Committee

Alice Wong (Co-chairperson)

Senna Cheung (Co-chairperson)

Professor Raymond So (Advisor)

P O Mak (Advisor)

Brenda Fung

David Lui

Elaine Wong

Evelyn Chun

Judy Cheung

Nelson Lai

Nelson Li

Sunny Fong

Winnie Fan

Research Team

Vivian To

Cynthia Kwok

HKIHRM January 2015 Pay Trend Survey ii

Participating Companies Profile

Business Sector Size Classification

(number of company)

Local/ Multinational

(number of company)

S M L L M

Accounting - 1 1 1 1

Banking - 1 2 2 1

Construction 2 - 2 4 -

Engineering 1 - 1 2 -

Financial Services 3 - - 2 1

Hi-Tech/ Telecommunication 2 - - - 2

Hotels - 1 - - 1

Insurance 1 - - - 1

Manufacturing 5 1 - 3 3

Non-Governmental Organisation (NGO) 6 1 1 6 2

Oil/ Chemicals 2 - - - 2

Property Development / Management 2 - 4 6 -

Public Utilities 1 - 2 3 -

Retails 1 2 3 6 -

Shipping/ Terminals 1 - 2 2 1

Trading 2 1 - 3 -

Others 3 3 3 6 3

Abbreviations:

Size S = Small company with less than 500 employees

M = Medium company with 500 to 1000 employees

L = Large company with more than 1000 employees

Local L = A company with the majority of its business interests, operations and/ or head

office in Hong Kong OR a multinational company with its head office in Hong

Kong and a worldwide operation.

Multinational M = A company with its head office outside Hong Kong and a worldwide operation,

with part of its business activities being conducted in Hong Kong.

HKIHRM January 2015 Pay Trend Survey 1

Chapter I Preliminary Notes

Throughout this report, weighted average figures, which take into account the varying

numbers of employees in each company or at each salary level, are most frequently cited.

The weighted average serves as the most useful indicator of the statistical results.

For reasons of confidentiality, when any one sector has less than five participating

companies, only the weighted average figures are presented. In instances where only one

company within a sector provided data, no figure is published. However, the data from

these companies is incorporated into the overall total figures.

DEFINITIONS

Salary Levels: For most of the analysis in this Survey, employees in the participating

companies were divided into four different salary groups according to their annual base pay

as follows:

1. Those on annual pay above $1,420,000 (Top Level)

2. Those on annual pay between $780,001 and $1,420,000 (Senior Level)

3. Those on annual pay between $380,001 and $780,000 (Middle Level)

4. Those on annual pay $380,000 or less (General Level)

The terms „Top Level‟, „Senior Level‟, „Middle Level‟ and „General Level‟ are used in this

report as „shorthand‟ descriptions only and are not intended to be accurate descriptions of

the members of that group.

Annual Base Pay: This is calculated by adding the guaranteed bonus to twelve times the

base monthly pay (excluding overtime, shift, and other form of cash income).

Total Base Pay Adjustment: An adjustment which includes general adjustments (an

across-the-board base pay adjustment made, in consequence of cost of living and/or

company profit, to the substantial majority of, if not all, employees in the base pay range(s)

and is usually added to pay scales or ranges upon revision) and performance based

adjustments (a base pay adjustment made to an individual‟s base pay, which takes his/ her

base pay to a higher or lower level within the particular pay scale or range and reflects

either the company overall/ departmental/ individual performance during the preceding

review period or additional service in the job), but exclude special adjustment, or

adjustment due to promotion.

Special Adjustment: A base pay adjustment awarded to some or all employees, in addition

to general pay adjustments so as to maintain or enhance the competitive pay level for that

particular group. This includes, for example, pay scale restructuring, market catch-up, or

adjustments due to internal equity.

Promotional Adjustment: An adjustment awarded to an employee for movement from one

position to another with a higher competency level or enriched job size and job nature.


Guaranteed Bonus: A bonus awarded in accordance with the terms and conditions of

employment mutually agreed by the employer and the employee. e.g. the 13th month base

pay payment. Contract completion bonus or gratuity is excluded.

Non-Guaranteed Bonus (Discretionary Bonus): A bonus awarded at the company‟s

discretion or based on company overall / departmental / individual performance and / or

profit achieved. The actual amount to be awarded may be variable in nature and thus may

vary from individual to individual. Direct sales bonus / commission, which is generally

treated as sales employees‟ regular income is excluded.

Median: The percentage adjustment that lies in the middle of all reported percentage

adjustments such that 50% of the reported percentage adjustments are higher than this point

and 50% are lower.

Arithmetic Average: The average percentage adjusted, calculated by adding the increases

made by each company and then dividing the sum by the number of companies.

Weighted Average: The average percentage adjusted, weighted to take account of the

different numbers of employees in each company or salary level.

Upward Tapering: Greater percentage adjustment awarded to more senior employees.

Downward Tapering: Smaller percentage adjustment awarded to more senior employees.

Local Company: A company with the majority of its business interests, operations and/ or

head office in Hong Kong.

Multinational Company: A company with an overseas head office and a world-wide

operation, with part(s) of its business activities being conducted in Hong Kong.

REMARK

The sum of individual percentages may not equal 100% due to rounding.


Chapter II January 2015

Background

64 companies participated in this survey and the survey results cover a total of some

91,800 full-time salaried employees, with 28 of these companies confirming their pay

adjustment during the period surveyed.

Among the participating companies, 39 usually conduct their pay review in January.

11 of them were excluded because they were not able to confirm their adjustments by

the survey deadline on 2 April 2015.

Highlights

1. Total Pay Adjustments (Charts A1, A2, & A3)

The overall average pay adjustment for the 28 companies with pay adjustment in January

2015 (with 29,127 employees in total) was 4.2%. This is somewhat lower than the

forecast adjustment of 4.5% for 2015 (50,390 employees from 52 companies with

forecast made in September/October 2014) reported in the 2014 Pay Trend Survey main

report. When compared with the forecast made in the January last year (3.0% pay

adjustment reported by 32 companies), there is a growth of 1.3 percentage points.

The 28 companies come from 13 business sectors. The Construction sector reported

5.5% pay increase this year which is 1.1 percentage points lower than the reported figure

in 2014. The Property Development / Management sector registered 3.8% pay increase

this year. This is marginally higher than 2014 by 0.1 percentage point.

Figure 1: Comparison of base-pay adjustments – by business sector (Jan 2015 vs Jan 2014)

(Note: For Accounting, Banking, Financial Service, Engineering, Hotel, Manufacturing, Oil/Chemicals,

Shipping/Terminals, Trading, Public Utilities, Hi-Tech/Telecom, Insurance, Retail and NGOs business sectors, %

adjustments for 2015 are not shown as there are less than three companies in each of these sectors.)

3.8

6.6

3.7

4.4

3.2

4.7

3.8

1.3

3.8

5.5

3.8 4.1

0.0

1.0

2.0

3.0

4.0

5.0

6.0

7.0

% of Adjustments Jan-14 Jan-15

Jan 2014 Overall (3.0%) Jan 2015 Overall (4.2%)


28 companies provided data on whether they adopt formal pay scale structure.

Amongst them, 53.6% (15 companies) reported having formal pay scale structure in

place.

Amongst the 13 companies providing further information on formal pay adjustment

timing, nine companies conduct formal pay scale adjustment in January or April while

the others either adjust in other months of the year or do not have a fixed month for

adjustment. For the 11 companies providing data on average adjustment for pay scale

maximum and minimum in various staff levels, the range fall between 0.4% and 8.0% .

General-level Middle-level Senior-level Top-level

Average adjustment

(%) for pay scale

maximum

4.6% 5.2% 5.0% 4.7%

Average adjustment

(%) for pay scale

minimum

4.5% 4.8% 4.9% 4.7%

Total no. of

companies 11 9 8 7


2. Distribution of Pay Adjustments (Charts B1 & B2)

In 2015, all companies reported a pay increase while none recorded zero adjustment (i.e.

pay freeze) or pay cut.

Figure 2: Comparison of base-pay adjustments – by company (2011 – 2015)

Among the companies making a positive pay adjustment, the most common increases

were in the range of 4.0% or above (Chart B1).

Chart B2 shows pay review by staff level. Overall, 17.0% of employees had their pay

frozen and only 0.01% employee faced pay reduction this year. Of remaining of 83.0%

of employees who received a pay increase, the most common increases were in the range

of 4.0% or above. Employees receiving pay adjustment falling within this range

represented 82.4% of 29,127 employees covered by the survey.

Compared with 2014, the proportion of employees enjoying a pay-increase saw an

increase of 13.3 percentage points (from 69.7% in January 2014 to 83.0% in January

2015).

Figure 3: Comparison of base-pay adjustments – by employee (2011 – 2015)

3.3%

3.7%

3.1%

100.0%

93.3%

96.3%

96.9%

100.0%

3.3%

Jan-11

Jan-12

Jan-13

Jan-14

Jan-15

% of Companies

Pay Freeze Pay Increase Pay Decrease

14.3%

15.8%

18.7%

30.3%

17.0%

85.7%

83.9%

81.3%

69.7%

83.0%

0.2%

0.01%

Jan-11

Jan-12

Jan-13

Jan-14

Jan-15

% of Employees

Pay Freeze Pay Increase Pay Decrease


3. Differential Pay Adjustments (Chart C)

The table below shows the differential pay adjustment practices among responding

companies.

Pay Adjustment Practice No of company %

Pay freeze across all staff levels - -

Equal pay adjustments to all levels of employee 7 25.0%

Tapering downwards

(providing lower percentage adjustments to higher-level employees) 7 25.0%

Tapering upwards

(providing higher percentage adjustments to higher-level employees) 1 3.6%

No consistent pattern of tapering 13 46.4%

Total 28 100

The majority of companies (46.4%) have no consistent pattern of differential pay

adjustment which is more or less consistent with the pattern observed in the past four

years. This indicates that more companies tend to adopt a flexible approach in pay

adjustment.

Figure 4: Comparison of differential base-pay adjustments amongst four levels of employee (2011 – 2015)

(Note: “Equal Pay Adjustments” also covered those companies awarding zero pay adjustment to all levels of employee.)

25.8%

26.7%

26.9%

21.9%

25.0%

22.6%

20.0%

15.4%

3.0%

3.6%

6.4%

20.0%

7.7%

18.8%

25.0%

45.2%

33.3%

50.0%

56.3%

46.4%

Jan-11

Jan-12

Jan-13

Jan-14

Jan-15

% of Companies

Tapering Downwards Tapering Upwards Equal Pay Adjustments No Consistent Pattern


4. Analysis by Staff Level (Charts D1-D4)

This year, 83.0% of all employees covered by the survey experienced a positive overall

pay adjustment. Average pay adjustments for varies levels of employees ranged from

3.7% to 4.4%.

Figure 5: Comparison of base-pay adjustments – by staff level (2011 – 2015)

5. Analysis by Size of Company (Chart E)

On average, medium-sized companies awarded an average pay increase of 4.5%. This

is higher than that offered by large corporations and small-sized firms (both at 4.2%).

When compared with last year, large corporations saw the biggest positive growth in pay

adjustment, going up from 2.9% in 2014 to 4.2% in 2015. On the other hand, the pay

adjustment for small companies dropped by 0.1 percentage point to 4.2% this year.

Medium companies remained stable at 4.5% (compared with the past two years).

Figure 6: Comparison of base-pay adjustments – by size of company (2011 – 2015)

4.6

3.1

1.8

3.0

3.7

4.4

3.9

3.2 3.1

4.4 4.3 4.5

3.6

2.9

4.4

3.3

4.1

3.7

3.0

4.2

0.0

1.0

2.0

3.0

4.0

5.0

Jan-11 Jan-12 Jan-13 Jan-14 Jan-15

Top Level Senior Level Middle Level General Level% of Adjustments

3.4

4.2

3.6

2.9

4.2

3.7

5.1

4.4 4.5 4.5 4.2

3.5 3.6

4.3 4.2

0.0

1.0

2.0

3.0

4.0

5.0

6.0


% of Adjustments Large Companies Medium Companies Small Companies


6. Analysis by Management : Local vs. Multinational (Chart F)

The pay adjustment awarded by multinationals stood at 4.7% in January 2015 which is

higher than the 3.9% increment implemented by local companies.

Multinational companies registered higher pay adjustment than local companies in four

years since 2010. The only exception was observed in January 2013 when local

companies outperformed their multinational counterparts.

Figure 7: Comparison of base-pay adjustments – by management of company (2011 – 2015)

7. Promotional Adjustments (Chart G)

67.9% of 28 responding companies gave promotional adjustment to some of their

employees (representing 1.1% of total surveyed population). The overall weighted

average promotional adjustment among these companies was 11.0%.

8. Special Adjustments

11.4% of companies gave special adjustment to some of their employees (representing

3.6% of total surveyed population) in addition to their normal annual adjustment. The

overall average special adjustment among these companies was 2.8%. The main reason

for awarding special adjustments was market alignment or adjustment after probation.

If the special adjustments made by these 12 companies were included in the analysis,

the overall average total pay adjustment would have increased from 4.2% to 4.4%.

3.4

4.1 3.9

2.9

3.9 3.9 4.3

3.2

3.8

4.7

0.0

1.0

2.0

3.0

4.0

5.0

6.0


Local Companies Multinational Companies% of Adjustments


9. 2015 Forecast Pay Adjustment (Among Companies with a Pay Review during

February to October 2015)

Among the 36 companies conducting usual pay review during February to October,

47.2% has taken a wait-and-see approach and did not provide any budgeted adjustment

forecast at the time of survey. Of the remaining 52.8% of companies (covering a total of

25,436 employees) that reported their budgeted adjustments for 2015, the forecast

overall average adjustment is 4.4%.

Across various business sectors, the forecast overall average adjustment range from

4.1% to 4.8%.

All

Companies

Manu-

facturing

Oil/

Chemicals Retail Others

Weighted Average 4.4 4.6 4.8 4.1 4.6

No. of Companies 19 3 2 5 2

No. of Employees 25,436 858 219 15,201 740

Note : % adjustments for business sectors with less than two companies were not shown, but included in calculating the %

adjustments of “All Companies”.

10. Bonus Payment (Charts H-M)

Bonus Payment Policy

Among 64 companies surveyed, 93.8% companies have at least one bonus scheme. Only

four companies have not adopted any bonus schemes.

Provision of bonus policy No. of companies %

Guaranteed bonus policy only 4 6.3

Non-guaranteed bonus policy only 30 46.9

Both guaranteed and non-guaranteed bonus policies 26 40.6

No bonus scheme 4 6.3

For those companies that awarded bonuses in January and February of 2015, the

weighted averages of bonus size are as follows:

Provision of bonus policy Size of bonus

awarded*

No. of

companies

%

Guaranteed bonus policy only 1.00 4 11.4

Non-guaranteed bonus policy only 1.51 18 51.4

Both guaranteed and non-guaranteed bonus policies 2.39 13 37.2

*Weighted Average in Month of Pay


Guaranteed Bonus

Of the 64 companies participating in the survey, 53.1% of companies do not have a

guaranteed bonus policy in place. Of the remaining 46.9% that do have a guaranteed

bonus policy, no company has changed their guaranteed bonus policy in 2015. The

average size of guaranteed bonus paid out amounted to 1.01 months of pay.

Non-guaranteed Bonus

A total of 32 companies with a non-guaranteed bonus scheme confirmed their bonus

payment during January/ February 2015. However, 5.2% of eligible employees of these

companies (or 1,589 employees) did not receive a bonus this year. This compares with the

3.3% of eligible employees (or 1,135 employees) recorded during the same period last

year. Among the 94.8% of eligible employees who were awarded non-guaranteed

bonus, the average bonus size was 1.57 months of pay. This is lower than the figure last

year of 1.77 months of pay (provided by 41 companies).

Figure 8: Comparison of sizes of bonus and proportion of employees’ entitlement amongst non-guaranteed

bonus-paying companies: by salary level (Jan 2011 – Jan 2015)

In January/ February 2015, Top-level employees received the largest non-guaranteed

bonus in (7.46 months of pay) while General-level employees received the smallest (1.33

months of pay). The same pattern is observed in the past four years.

Among the 56 companies providing data on the length of service required to be eligible

for non-guaranteed bonus, 16.1% had no such requirement imposed. Among the

remaining 47 companies with such requirement, 83.0% required at least three months of

service to be eligible for non-guaranteed bonus. The other 17.0% imposed various forms

of requirement including employee‟s performance, completion of probation period etc.

93.9%

97.6%

96.9%

97.1%

96.6%

97.7%

95.7%

99.2%

92.5%

93.8%

91.2%

93.8%

98.1%

96.9%

91.1%

93.2%

98.9%

97.7%

96.3%

95.5%

85.0%90.0%95.0%100.0%

% of Employees Entitled to a Bonus

amongst Non-guaranteed Bonus Paying Companies

1.33

1.54

2.65

7.46

1.63

1.62

2.43

7.15

1.22

1.32

1.82

6.21

1.43

1.59

2.35

4.37

1.07

1.14

2.07

6.26

0 2 4 6 8

General

Middle

Senior

Top

Size of Bonus Paid to Employees

(Month of Pay)

Jan-11

Jan-12

Jan-13

Jan-14

Jan-15


Non-guaranteed Bonus awarded during Last Quarter of 2014

The non-guaranteed bonus which was granted during the last quarter of 2014 was also

captured. A total of seven companies reported the case, and the weighted average of the

bonus was 1.92 months of pay (covering 5,485 employees).

Non-guaranteed Bonus policy only (chart L)

Among 30 companies providing information on non-guaranteed bonus, 18 companies

have non-guaranteed bonus policy only and they paid out 1.51 months of pay on average.

The bonus size was comparable to the 32 companies as a whole (1.57 months of pay).

Compared with the figures for all companies paying non-guaranteed bonus, the bonus size

among companies without guaranteed-bonus policy was marginally smaller across all

seniority levels.

Figure 9: Comparison of sizes of non-guaranteed bonus amongst companies without guaranteed-bonus policy and

all companies as a whole: by salary level (Jan 2015)

11. One-off Lump Sum Payment

During January/ February 2015, only three companies provided a one-off lump sum

payment to employees on top of regular guaranteed bonuses and non-guaranteed bonuses

to some of their employees (0.93% of total surveyed employees). The weighted average

cannot be presented due to small sample base.

1.57 1.33 1.54

2.65

7.46

1.51 1.19 1.31

2.21

7.13

0

2

4

6

8

All Employees General Level Middle Level Senior Level Top Level

Month of pay All companies that paid NGB Companies without guaranteed-bonus policy


12. Changes on the Design and Implementation of the Remuneration Program

Among 64 companies providing data, 81.3% companies have not made any change to

their remuneration program. Of the remaining 18.7% companies which made changes,

half revamped the pay or grade structure and half re-defined annual leave entitlement.

Changes % of

companies

Details of change

Revamp pay or grade structure 50.0% NA

Re-define annual leave entitlement 50.0% - increase annual leave entitlements based on

their length of service

Introduced paid leave 41.7% - increase no of paternity leaves entitlement

depends on year of service

Introduced new benefits such as allowances

or training support, etc.

41.7% - introduce new medical check-up package

- offer additional choices of medical scheme to

staffs

- offer the safe deposit box renting discount

immediately upon joining company

Others 8.3% - increased amount of professional/

outstanding awards

No. of companies 12

13. Outlook of the Labour Market in 2015

Among 64 companies providing data, 71.9% of companies anticipated a growth in

demand in the labour market while only 1.5% anticipated a moderate or substantial

reduction in demand. The remaining 26.6% had no opinion.

In terms of business sectors, anticipation of growth in the labour market was more

prevalent in Financial Service, Property Development/ Management, Retails and NGO

(ranging from 75.0% to 100.0% of companies with such anticipation).

17.2%

54.7%

1.5%

26.6% Substantial growth

Moderate growth

Substantial reduction

Moderate reduction

No opinion


14. Contractual Working Hours and Number of Working Days

Among 64 companies providing data, the average number of contractual working hours

per week for Top-, Senior-, Middle- and General-level employees is 40.8 hours, 40.6

hours, 40.6 hours and 40.7 hours respectively. The range of contractual working hours for

all levels employees are 35 to 50 hours.

Apart from the above listed contractual working hours per week, some companies have

other types of contractual working hours for employees (summarized in the following

table).

Other types of contractual working

hours General level Middle level Senior level Top level

Minimum number of contractual

working hours 40.0 hours 40.0 hours 41.8 hours -

Maximum number of contractual

working hours 66.0 hours 60.0 hours 55.5 hours -

No. of companies 35 19 5 1

Among 64 companies providing data on the number of working days per week for the

majority of employees, most of them (over 80% of companies across all seniority levels)

adopt “5-day work week”. “5.5-day work week”, “Alternative Saturday work week” and

“6-day work week” are more commonly imposed among General level staff than other

levels.

Number of working days per week General level Middle level Senior level Top level

% of companies

5-day work week 84.4% 85.9% 85.9% 83.6%

5.5-day work week 29.7% 20.3% 14.1% 10.9%

Alternative Saturday work week 26.6% 15.6% 15.6% 16.4%

6-day work week 28.1% 7.8% 3.1% 1.8%

No. of companies 64 64 64 55

Among 64 companies providing data on the adoption of flexi-hours, 87.5% of companies

do not adopt flexi-hours. For the remaining 12.5% companies with this practice in place,

the average number of contractual working hours under the flexi-hours systems is 40.7

hours (seven companies provided data).

Among 64 companies providing data on the adoption of core hours system, 82.8% of

companies do not adopt the core hours system. For the remaining companies having such

practice, the specified period of work hours for which employees have to be at workplace

ranges from 7:00am to 10:00am while the end of work day ranges from 4:30pm to

7:00pm.

Chart A1. An Overview of Pay Adjustments in January 2015

Chart A1-1. Distribution of Pay Adjustments - by Company Chart A1-2. Distribution of Pay Adjustments - by Employees

Employees

getting zero

adjustment,

17.0%

Employees

getting positive

adjustment,

83.0% No. of Employees: 29,127

Companies with

overall zero

adjustment

0.0%

Companies with

overall positive

adjustment

100.0%

No. of Companies: 28

HKIHRM January 2015 Pay Trend Survey Pay Adjustment 14

Chart A2. Total Pay Adjustment in January 2015: All Employees

Weighted Average

Weighted Average (*) - including Special Increase/ Special Decrease

------------------ Overall Weighted Average

All Financial Property Engineer- Manu- Oil/ Shipping/ Public Hi-Tech/ Companies Accounting Banking Services Construction Dev. / Mgt. ing Hotels facturing Chemicals Terminals Trading Utilities Telecom Insurance Retail NGO Others

Highest 6.6 - - - - 5.9 - - - - - - - - - - - 4.7

Lowest 0.4 - - - - 4.5 - - - - - - - - - - - 2.8

Median 4.6 - - - - 5.0 - - - - - - - - - - - 4.4

Arithmetic Average 4.4 - - - - 4.3 - - - - - - - - - - - 4.1

Weighted Average 4.2 - - - 5.5 3.8 - - - - - - - - - - - 4.1

Weighted Average(*) 4.4 - - - 6.0 3.8 - - - - - - - - - - - 4.6

% of Employees 100.0 - 12.8 2.0 4.0 32.0 1.5 1.9 1.8 - 8.5 1.1 0.6 1.4 - - 0.7 31.7

No. of Companies 28 - 1 2 3 5 1 1 2 - 2 2 1 1 - - 2 5

Total No. of Employees 29127 - 3727 595 1164 9318 436 566 535 - 2464 319 170 415 - - 193 9225

Note:

The table above does not reflect changes in guaranteed bonuses, if any.

0.0

1.0

2.0

3.0

4.0

5.0

6.0

7.0

%


Chart A2-1. Change in Pay Adjustment (2015 vs 2014): All Levels

2015 pay adjustment lower than 2014 pay adjustment 2015 pay adjustment higher than 2014 pay adjustment

Change in pay increase (%) <-3.0 -3.0 to -2.1 -2.0 to -1.1 -1.0 to -0.1 0 0.1 to 1.0 1.1 to 2.0 2.1 to 3.0 >3.0

No. of Companies 2 2 0 9 2 11 1 0 0

Total No. of Companies 13 2 12

% of Companies 7.4 7.4 0.0 33.3 7.4 40.7 3.7 0.0 0.0

Note:

27 companies provided figures for both 2014 and 2015.

0

5

10

15

No

. o

f C

om

pa

nie

s

HKIHRM January 2015 Pay Trend Survey Pay Adjustment

16

Chart A3. Total Pay Adjustment: All Employees (2006-2015)

2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015(January)

Total Pay Adjustment 2.4 2.8 3.9 0.6 1.9 4.2 4.5 3.7 4.3 4.2

Forecast Adjustment for the Year 2.4 3.4 4.0 3.5 1.8 3.3 5.1 4.6 4.4 4.5

-1.0

0.0

1.0

2.0

3.0

4.0

5.0

6.0 Total Pay Adjustment

Forecast Adjustment for the Year

%


Chart B1. Distribution of Total Pay Adjustments in January 2015

Average Adjustment (%) <-2.0 -2.0 to -1.1 -1.0 to -0.1 0 0.1-0.9 1.0-1.9 2.0-2.9 3.0-3.9 >=4.0

No. of Companies 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 2 23

Cumulative % of No. of Companies 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 3.6 7.1 10.7 17.9 100.0

Cumulative % of No. of Employees 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.2 13.4 20.6 22.4 100.0

0

5

10

15

20

25

No. o

f C

om

pan

ies


Chart B2. Distribution of Total Pay Adjustments in January 2015: Salary Level

Average Adjustment (%) <-2.0 -2.0 to -1.1 -1.0 to -0.1 0 0.1-0.9 1.0-1.9 2.0-2.9 3.0-3.9 >=4.0

Top Level No. of Employees 0 0 0 278 0 0 0 15 387 0.3 1.3 2.3 3.3 4.3 6.3 7.3 8.3 9.3

Cumulative % ofNo. of Employees 0.0 0.0 0.0 40.9 40.9 40.9 40.9 43.1 100.0

No. of Companies 0 0 0 6 0 0 0 3 18

Senior Level No. of Employees 0 0 0 238 0 0 3 51 1359

Cumulative % of

No. of Employees 0.0 0.0 0.0 14.4 14.4 14.4 14.6 17.7 100.0

No. of Companies 0 0 0 8 0 0 1 3 23

Middle Level No. of Employees 3 0 0 881 0 0 0 104 4528


No. of Companies 1 0 0 13 0 0 0 2 26

General Level No. of Employees 0 0 0 3555 0 0 0 0 17725


No. of Companies 0 0 0 15 0 0 0 0 28

Overall No. of Employees 3 0 0 4952 0 0 3 170 23999


No. of Entries 1 0 0 42 0 0 1 8 95


Chart B2. Distribution of Total Pay Adjustments in January 2015: Salary Level (Con't)

Note:

The above distribution does not reflect changes in guaranteed bonuses, if any.

0.0

10.0

20.0

30.0

40.0

50.0

60.0

70.0

80.0

90.0

100.0

<-2.0 -2.0 to -1.1 -1.0 to -0.1 0 0.1-0.9 1.0-1.9 2.0-2.9 3.0-3.9 >=4.0

Pro

port

ion

of

Em

plo

yee

s a

t In

div

idu

al

Sa

lary

Lev

el

Average Adjustment (%)

Top Level

Senior Level

Middle Level

General Level

All Employees

%


Chart C. Differential Pay Adjustment in January 2015 (All Levels)

Tapering Downwards Tapering Upwards

% Differential >4.0 3.0-3.9 2.0-2.9 1.0-1.9 0.1-0.9 0 0.1-0.9 1.0-1.9 2.0-2.9 3.0-3.9 >4.0

No. of Companies 1 0 1 1 4 7 0 1 0 0 0


% Distribution 6.7 0.0 6.7 6.7 26.7 46.7 0.0 6.7 0.0 0.0 0.0Note:

1. Upward Tapering: A greater percentage pay increase/decrease was awarded to higher-level employees.

2. Downward Tapering: A smaller percentage pay increase/decrease was awarded to higher-level employees.

0

2

4

6

8

No

. o

f C

om

pa

nie

s

HKIHRM January 2015 Pay Trend Survey Pay Adjustment

21

Chart D1. Total Pay Adjustment in January 2015: General Level (< $380,001)

Weighted Average

Weighted Average (*) - including Special Increase / Special Decrease


All Financial Property Engineer- Manu- Oil/ Shipping/ Public Hi-Tech/ Companies Accounting Banking Services Construction Dev. / Mgt. ing Hotels facturing Chemicals Terminals Trading Utilities Telecom Insurance Retail NGOs Others

Highest 6.8 - - - - 5.9 - - - - - - - - - - - 4.7

Lowest 0.5 - - - - 4.5 - - - - - - - - - - - 3.5

Median 4.7 - - - - 4.8 - - - - - - - - - - - 4.2




% of Employees 100.0 - 6.5 1.2 3.8 34.8 1.9 2.6 1.7 - 10.4 1.3 0.7 1.1 - - 0.6 33.5

No. of Companies 28 - 1 2 3 5 1 1 2 - 2 2 1 1 - - 2 5


Note:

The above table does not reflect changes in guaranteed bonuses, if any.

0.0

1.0

2.0

3.0

4.0

5.0

6.0

7.0

%


Chart D1-1. Change in Pay Adjustment (2015 vs 2014): General Level


Change in pay adjustment (%) <-3.0 -3.0 to -2.1 -2.0 to -1.1 -1.0 to -0.1 0 0.1 to 1.0 1.1 to 2.0 2.1 to 3.0 >3.0

No. of Companies 3 1 0 7 5 9 1 1 0


% Distribution 11.1 3.7 0.0 25.9 18.5 33.3 3.7 3.7 0.0

Note:


0

5

10

15

No

. o

f C

om

pa

nie

s


Chart D2. Total Pay Adjustment in January 2015: Middle Level ($380,001 - $780,000)

Weighted Average




Highest 6.0 - - - - 6.0 - - - - - - - - - - - 5.6

Lowest 0.4 - - - - 4.5 - - - - - - - - - - - 1.8

Median 4.7 - - - - 5.3 - - - - - - - - - - - 3.9




% of Employees 100.0 - 23.6 3.2 4.9 25.7 0.4 0.3 2.4 - 3.9 0.8 0.3 2.6 - - 0.7 31.3

No. of Companies 28 - 1 2 3 5 1 1 2 - 2 2 1 1 - - 2 5


Note:


0.0

1.0

2.0

3.0

4.0

5.0

6.0

7.0

%


Chart D2-1. Change in Pay Adjustment (2015 vs 2014): Middle Level



No. of Companies 3 0 0 8 4 10 2 0 0


% Distribution 11.1 0.0 0.0 29.6 14.8 37.0 7.4 0.0 0.0

Note:


0

5

10

15

No

. o

f C

om

pa

nie

s


Chart D3. Total Pay Adjustment in January 2015: Senior Level ($780,001 - $1,420,000)

Weighted Average


------------------Overall Weighted Average


Highest 8.5 - - - - 6.6 - - - - - - - - - - - 4.9

Lowest 0.0 - - - - 4.5 - - - - - - - - - - - 0.5

Median 4.6 - - - - 5.6 - - - - - - - - - - - 4.6




% of Employees 100.0 - 38.8 7.1 4.0 23.6 0.2 0.1 1.7 - 1.9 0.4 0.2 2.7 - - 1.1 18.2

No. of Companies 28 - 1 2 3 5 1 1 2 - 2 2 1 1 - - 2 5


Note:


0.0

1.0

2.0

3.0

4.0

5.0

6.0

7.0

%


Chart D3-1. Change in Pay Adjustment (2015 vs 2014): Senior Level



No. of Companies 4 0 2 11 2 5 1 1 1


% Distribution 14.8 0.0 7.4 40.7 7.4 18.5 3.7 3.7 3.7

Note:


0

5

10

15

No

. o

f C

om

pa

nie

s


Chart D4. Total Pay Adjustment in January 2015: Top Level (>$1,420,000)

Weighted Average




Highest 5.1 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Lowest 0.0 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Median 4.7 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Arithmetic Average 4.0 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Weighted Average 3.7 - - - - 4.8 - - - - - - - - - - - 4.6

Weighted Average(*) 3.7 - - - - 5.0 - - - - - - - - - - - 4.6

% of Employees 100.0 - 59.6 8.4 1.6 16.0 0.1 0.1 0.9 - 1.6 0.4 0.1 0.7 - - 0.3 10.0

No. of Companies 23 - 1 2 2 4 1 1 2 - 1 2 1 1 - - 1 4


Notes:


0.0

1.0

2.0

3.0

4.0

5.0

6.0

7.0

%


Chart D4-1. Change in Pay Adjustment (2015 vs 2014): Top Level



No. of Companies 2 1 1 6 5 6 0 1 0


% Distribution 9.1 4.5 4.5 27.3 22.7 27.3 0.0 4.5 0.0

Note:


0

5

10

15N

o. o

f C

om

pa

nie

s


Chart E. Total Pay Adjustment in January 2015: By Size of Company

Weighted Average


------------------ Overall Weighted Average - Company Total

<$380,001 $380,001-$780,000 $780,001-$1,420,000 >$1,420,000

Small Medium Large Small Medium Large Small Medium Large Small Medium Large Small Medium Large

Highest 6.6 4.7 5.9 6.8 4.7 5.9 5.3 5.6 6.0 8.5 4.9 5.6 5.1 5.0 5.0

Lowest 0.4 4.4 1.5 0.5 3.8 1.5 0.4 3.9 1.8 0.0 4.6 0.5 0.0 4.7 1.6

Median 4.5 4.4 4.7 4.6 4.4 4.7 4.6 4.7 4.7 4.7 4.7 4.3 4.6 4.9 4.6

Arithmetic Average 4.4 4.5 4.3 4.5 4.3 4.5 4.3 4.8 4.4 4.4 4.7 4.0 3.7 4.9 4.0

Weighted Average 4.2 4.5 4.2 4.3 4.3 4.1 3.9 5.0 4.4 4.2 4.9 4.4 4.1 4.9 3.6

Weighted Average(*) 4.3 5.0 4.4 4.3 4.9 4.4 3.9 5.1 4.5 4.4 4.9 4.4 4.2 4.9 3.6

% of Employees 100.0 100.0 100.0 67.8 81.5 73.1 21.2 14.1 19.0 8.2 2.8 5.6 2.8 1.6 2.3

No. of Companies 15 3 10 15 3 10 15 3 10 15 3 10 13 3 7

Total No. of Employees 3277 1919 23931 2222 1564 17494 694 271 4551 268 54 1329 93 30 557

Note:


Senior Level Top LevelAll companies General Level Middle Level

0.0

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

2.5

3.0

3.5

4.0

4.5

5.0

5.5

6.0

6.5

7.0

%


Chart F. Total Pay Adjustment in January 2015: Local vs. Multinational

Weighted Average


------------------------- Overall Weighted Average - Company Total

Local Multinational Local Multinational Local Multinational Local Multinational Local Multinational

Highest 6.6 5.0 6.8 5.1 6.0 5.6 8.5 6.1 5.1 5.0

Lowest 0.4 3.5 0.5 3.8 0.4 3.2 0.0 2.9 0.0 2.4

Median 4.5 4.7 4.5 4.7 4.6 4.7 4.5 4.7 4.6 4.7

Arithmetic Average 4.3 4.6 4.4 4.6 4.2 4.6 4.1 4.7 3.8 4.3

Weighted Average 3.9 4.7 3.9 4.7 3.9 5.2 4.1 4.6 4.6 3.3

Weighted Average(*) 4.0 5.3 4.0 5.5 4.0 5.2 4.2 4.6 4.7 3.4

% of Employees 100.0 100.0 77.0 65.7 18.0 20.6 4.0 8.9 1.0 4.8

No. of Companies 19 9 19 9 19 9 19 9 15 8

Total No. of Employees 19001 10126 14629 6651 3428 2088 752 899 192 488

Note:


Top Level

>$1,420,000$780,001-$1,420,000$380,001-$780,000All Companies

General Level Middle Level Senior Level

<$380,001

0.0

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

2.5

3.0

3.5

4.0

4.5

5.0

5.5

6.0

%


Chart G. Promotional Adjustment in January 2015

Weighted Average


All Financial Property Engineer- Manu- Oil/ Shipping/ Public Hi-Tech/ Companies Accounting Banking Services Construction Dev. / Mgt. ing Hotels facturing Chemicals Terminals Trading Utilities Telecom Insurance Retail NGO Others

Highest 22.0 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Lowest 0.7 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Median 11.5 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Arithmetic Average 11.2 - - - - 13.4 - - 14.6 - - - - - - - - 10.5

Weighted Average 11.0 - - - - 11.7 - - 13.5 - - - - - - - - 9.6

% of Employees 100.0 - 50.5 2.8 4.5 4.7 1.0 - 1.8 - 6.3 3.6 - - - - 0.6 24.2

No. of Companies 19 - 1 1 1 4 1 - 3 - 1 2 - - - - 1 4

Total no. of awarded/will

be awarded employees 1017 - 514 28 46 48 10 - 18 - 64 37 - - - - 6 246

0.0

5.0

10.0

15.0

%


Chart H. Guaranteed Bonus Paid/ Payable in 2015: All Employees

Weighted Average


All Financial Property Engineer- Manu- Oil/ Shipping/ Public Hi-Tech/

Companies Accounting Banking Services Construction Dev. / Mgt. ing Hotels facturing Chemicals Terminals Trading Utilities Telecom Insurance Retail NGOs Others

Highest 1.32 - - - - - - - 1.32 - - - - - - 1.00 - -

Lowest 0.38 - - - - - - - 1.00 - - - - - - 0.38 - -

Median 1.00 - - - - - - - 1.00 - - - - - - 1.00 - -

Arithmetic Average 1.00 - - - - - - - 1.05 - - - - - - 0.90 - 1.00

Weighted Average 1.01 - - - - - - - 1.12 - - - - - - 1.00 - 1.00

% of Employees 100.0% 0.0% 10.7% 0.5% 0.1% 7.0% 0.0% 0.0% 3.0% 0.4% 3.5% 0.0% 45.6% 1.1% 0.0% 25.5% 0.8% 1.7%

No. of Companies 30 0 2 1 1 1 0 0 6 1 2 1 2 2 0 6 2 3

Total No. of Employees 46798 0 5016 255 52 3266 0 0 1398 180 1655 12 21332 512 0 11941 382 797

0.0

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

Months of pay

Siz

e o

f G

ua

ra

nte

ed

Bo

nu

s

HKIHRM January 2015 Pay Trend Survey Bonuses 33

Chart I1. Guaranteed Bonus Paid/ Payable in 2015: General Level (<$380,001)

Weighted Average



Highest 1.25 - - - - - - - 1.25 - - - - - - 1.00 - -

Lowest 0.34 - - - - - - - 1.00 - - - - - - 0.34 - -

Median 1.00 - - - - - - - 1.00 - - - - - - 1.00 - -



% of Employees 100.0% 0.0% 9.6% 0.3% 0.2% 6.1% 0.0% 0.0% 3.1% 0.5% 4.7% 0.0% 37.0% 0.9% 0.0% 34.7% 1.1% 1.8%

No. of Companies 30 0 2 1 1 1 0 0 6 1 2 1 2 2 0 6 2 3


0.0

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

Months of pay

Siz

e o

f G

ua

ra

nte

ed

Bo

nu

s


Chart I2. Guaranteed Bonus Paid/ Payable in 2015: Middle Level ($380,001 - $780,000)

Weighted Average



Highest 2.00 - - - - - - - 2.00 - - - - - - 1.00 - -

Lowest 0.52 - - - - - - - 1.00 - - - - - - 0.52 - -

Median 1.00 - - - - - - - 1.00 - - - - - - 1.00 - -



% of Employees 100.0% 0.0% 13.3% 0.7% 0.0% 8.3% 0.0% 0.0% 2.5% 0.2% 1.4% 0.0% 65.0% 1.4% 0.0% 5.5% 0.3% 1.5%

No. of Companies 30 0 2 1 1 1 0 0 6 1 2 1 2 2 0 6 2 3


0.0

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

Months of pay

Siz

e o

f G

ua

ra

nte

ed

Bo

nu

s


Chart I3. Guaranteed Bonus Paid/ Payable in 2015: Senior Level ($780,001 - $1,420,000)

Weighted Average


All Financial Property Engineer- Manu- Oil/ Shipping/ Public Hi-Tech/ Companies Accounting Banking Services Construction Dev. / Mgt ing Hotels facturing Chemicals Terminals Trading Utilities Telecom Insurance Retail NGOs Others

Highest 2.00 - - - - - - - 2.00 - - - - - - 1.00 - -

Lowest 0.25 - - - - - - - 1.00 - - - - - - 0.25 - -

Median 1.00 - - - - - - - 1.00 - - - - - - 1.00 - -



% of Employees 100.0% 0.0% 12.2% 1.7% 0.0% 9.9% 0.0% 0.0% 2.8% 0.2% 0.2% 0.0% 63.8% 1.7% 0.0% 5.5% 0.2% 1.8%

No. of Companies 27 0 2 1 0 1 0 0 6 1 2 1 2 2 0 5 1 3


0.0

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

Months of pay

Siz

e o

f G

ua

ran

teed

Bo

nu

s


Chart I4. Guaranteed Bonus Paid/ Payable in 2015: Top Level (> $1,420,000)

Weighted Average


All Financial Property Engineer- Manu- Oil/ Shipping/ Public Hi-Tech/ Companies Accounting Banking Services Construction Dev. / Mgt ing Hotels facturing Chemicals Terminals Trading Utilities Telecom Insurance Retail NGOs Others

Highest 2.00 - - - - - - - 2.00 - - - - - - 1.00 - -

Lowest 0.00 - - - - - - - 1.00 - - - - - - 0.00 - -

Median 1.00 - - - - - - - 1.00 - - - - - - 1.00 - -

Arithmetic Average 1.00 - - - - - - - 1.20 - - - - - - 0.80 - -

Weighted Average 1.01 - - - - - - - 1.18 - - - - - - 0.97 - -

% of Employees 100.0% 0.0% 13.5% 6.7% 0.0% 32.3% 0.0% 0.0% 9.9% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 2.2% 0.0% 32.7% 0.4% 2.2%

No. of Companies 18 0 2 1 0 1 0 0 5 0 0 0 0 1 0 5 1 2


0.0

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

Months of pay

Siz

e o

f G

ua

ra

nte

ed

Bo

nu

s


Chart J. Non-Guaranteed Bonus Paid in January/ February 2015: All Employees

Weighted Average




Highest 13.08 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 1.34

Lowest 0.27 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 0.93

Median 1.32 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 1.00

Arithmetic Average 1.84 - - - - 1.64 - - 1.50 - - 1.56 - - - - - 1.12

Weighted Average 1.57 - - - - 1.44 - - 0.98 - - 1.98 - - - - - 1.12

% of Employees 100.0% 0.0% 9.3% 1.7% 3.8% 14.7% 1.4% 1.8% 0.5% 0.0% 8.8% 3.4% 18.5% 0.0% 0.0% 12.7% 3.2% 20.2%

No. of Companies 32 0 2 2 2 4 1 1 3 1 2 3 2 0 0 2 2 5


Weighted Average** 1.49 - - - - 1.43 - - 0.32 - - 1.75 - - - - - 1.12

Total No. of Employees** 30423 0 2708 580 1092 4235 436 527 449 27 2573 1112 6026 0 0 3807 1025 5826

Note:

** Those 1,589 employees in the 32 companies (or 5.2% of employees in total under a non-guaranteed bonus scheme) who was not awarded a bonus in January/ February 2015 are included.

0.0

1.0

2.0

3.0

4.0

5.0

Months of pay

Siz

e o

f N

on

-Gu

ara

nte

ed B

on

us


Chart K1. Non-Guaranteed Bonus Paid in January/ February 2015: General Level (<$380,001)

Weighted Average



Highest 9.80 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 1.27

Lowest 0.22 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 0.76

Median 1.11 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 1.00

Arithmetic Average 1.59 - - - - 1.53 - - - - - 1.40 - - - - - 1.03

Weighted Average 1.33 - - - - 1.39 - - - - - 1.70 - - - - - 1.04

% of Employees 100.0% 0.0% 3.4% 0.8% 3.0% 12.5% 1.8% 2.3% 0.2% 0.0% 10.3% 3.7% 23.6% 0.0% 0.0% 16.1% 3.4% 18.8%

No. of Companies 31 0 2 2 2 4 1 1 2 1 2 3 2 0 0 2 2 5

Total no. of Employees 21740 0 742 180 652 2708 394 507 46 8 2240 809 5134 0 0 3503 729 4088

Weighted Average** 1.25 - - - - 1.38 - - - - - 1.47 - - - - - 1.04

Total no. of Employees** 23142 0 751 236 653 2710 410 509 269 8 2300 941 5794 0 0 3633 830 4098

Note:

** Those 1,402 employees in the 31 companies (or 6.1% of employees in total under a non-guaranteed bonus scheme) who was not awarded a bonus in January/ February 2015 are included.

0.0

1.0

2.0

3.0

4.0

5.0

Months of pay

Siz

e o

f N

on

-Gu

ara

nte

ed B

on

us


Chart K2. Non-Guaranteed Bonus Paid in January/ February 2015: Middle Level ($380,001 - $780,000)

Weighted Average



Highest 9.80 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 1.67

Lowest 0.41 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 1.00

Median 1.50 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 1.37

Arithmetic Average 1.87 - - - - 1.66 - - - - - 1.85 - - - - - 1.33

Weighted Average 1.54 - - - - 1.52 - - - - - 2.40 - - - - - 1.24

% of Employees 100.0% 0.0% 19.8% 2.8% 6.5% 22.4% 0.4% 0.3% 1.5% 0.1% 4.8% 2.6% 3.7% 0.0% 0.0% 2.4% 3.2% 29.5%

No. of Companies 31 0 2 2 2 4 1 1 2 1 2 3 2 0 0 2 2 5


Weighted Average** 1.50 - - - - 1.52 - - - - - 2.40 - - - - - 1.24


Note:

** Those 121 employees in the 31 companies (or 2.4% of employees in total under a non-guaranteed bonus scheme) who was not awarded a bonus in January/ February 2015 are included.

0.0

1.0

2.0

3.0

4.0

5.0Months of pay

Siz

e o

f N

on

-Gu

ara

nte

ed B

on

us


Chart K3. Non-Guaranteed Bonus Paid in January/ February 2015: Senior Level ($780,001 - $1,420,000)

Weighted Average



Highest 16.20 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 3.07

Lowest 0.31 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 1.00

Median 1.63 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 1.28

Arithmetic Average 2.69 - - - - 1.89 - - 1.45 - - 4.82 - - - - - 1.61

Weighted Average 2.65 - - - - 1.54 - - 1.29 - - 6.06 - - - - - 1.82

% of Employees 100.0% 0.0% 38.6% 7.4% 5.8% 21.8% 0.2% 0.1% 1.4% 0.0% 2.4% 2.1% 1.7% 0.0% 0.0% 2.1% 1.3% 15.0%

No. of Companies 31 0 2 2 2 4 1 1 3 0 2 3 2 0 0 2 2 5


Weighted Average** 2.57 - - - - 1.54 - - 0.69 - - 6.06 - - - - - 1.81


Note:


0.0

1.0

2.0

3.0

4.0

5.0

6.0

7.0

Months of pay

Siz

e o

f N

on

-Gu

ara

nte

ed B

on

us


Chart K4. Non-Guaranteed Bonus Paid in January/ February 2015: Top Level (>$1,420,000)

Weighted Average



Highest 23.50 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Lowest 0.98 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Median 2.68 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -



% of Employees 100.0% 0.0% 59.7% 9.5% 4.7% 13.6% 0.2% 0.2% 0.8% 0.0% 1.9% 1.9% 0.2% 0.0% 0.0% 2.0% 0.0% 5.6%

No. of Companies 20 0 2 2 1 3 1 1 1 0 1 2 1 0 0 1 0 4


Weighted Average** 7.24 - - - - 1.57 - - - - - - - - - - - 1.20


Note:


0.0

2.0

4.0

6.0

8.0

10.0

Months of pay

Siz

e o

f N

on

-Gu

ara

nte

ed B

on

us


Chart L. Non-Guaranteed Bonus Paid in January/ February 2015 among Companies Without Guaranteed Bonus Policy:

All Employees

Weighted Average




Highest 2.85 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Lowest 0.38 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Median 1.33 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -



% of Employees 100.0% 0.0% 15.3% 0.0% 8.3% 7.4% 3.2% 4.0% 0.0% 0.1% 7.7% 7.1% 1.3% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 5.1% 40.6%

No. of Companies 18 0 1 0 2 3 1 1 0 1 1 2 1 0 0 0 1 4




Notes:

Data for those companies also with the provision of guaranteed bonus are excluded from the above analysis.


0.0

1.0

2.0

3.0

4.0

Months of pay

Siz

e o

f N

on

-Gu

ara

nte

ed B

on

us


Chart M1. Non-Guaranteed Bonus Paid in January/ February 2015 among Companies Without Guaranteed Bonus Policy:

General Level (<$380,001)

Weighted Average



Highest 2.50 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Lowest 0.36 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Median 1.24 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -


Weighted Average 1.19 - - - 1.05 1.10 - - - - - 1.74 - - - - - 1.01

% of Employees 100.0% 0.0% 4.0% 0.0% 7.5% 8.9% 4.5% 5.9% 0.0% 0.1% 10.2% 8.9% 1.7% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 5.9% 42.4%

No. of Companies 18 0 1 0 2 3 1 1 0 1 1 2 1 0 0 0 1 4

Total no. of Employees 8665 0 345 0 652 774 394 507 0 8 885 768 149 0 0 0 508 3675

Weighted Average** 1.16 - - - 1.04 1.10 - - - - - 1.49 - - - - - 1.01

Total no. of Employees** 8903 0 354 0 653 776 410 509 0 8 885 899 149 0 0 0 575 3685

Notes:



0.0

1.0

2.0

3.0

4.0

Months of pay

Siz

e o

f N

on

-Gu

ara

nte

ed

Bo

nu

s



Middle Level ($380,001 - $780,000)

Weighted Average



Highest 2.85 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Lowest 0.41 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Median 1.52 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -



% of Employees 100.0% 0.0% 25.1% 0.0% 10.6% 4.2% 0.7% 0.5% 0.0% 0.1% 2.9% 4.0% 0.6% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 4.8% 46.4%

No. of Companies 18 0 1 0 2 3 1 1 0 1 1 2 1 0 0 0 1 4




Notes:



0.0

1.0

2.0

3.0

4.0Months of pay

Siz

e o

f N

on

-Gu

ara

nte

ed B

on

us



Senior Level ($780,001 - $1,420,000)

Weighted Average



Highest 7.43 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Lowest 0.60 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Median 2.30 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -



% of Employees 100.0% 0.0% 54.8% 0.0% 9.3% 5.1% 0.3% 0.2% 0.0% 0.0% 3.0% 3.1% 0.3% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 1.3% 22.5%

No. of Companies 17 0 1 0 2 3 1 1 0 0 1 2 1 0 0 0 1 4




Notes:



0.0

1.0

2.0

3.0

4.0

Months of pay

Siz

e o

f N

on

-Gu

ara

nte

ed

Bo

nu

s



Top Level (> $1,420,000)

Weighted Average



Highest 8.50 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Lowest 0.98 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Median 2.53 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -


Weighted Average 7.13 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 0.99

% of Employees 100.0% 0.0% 78.4% 0.0% 6.1% 3.3% 0.2% 0.2% 0.0% 0.0% 2.4% 2.2% 0.2% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 6.9%

No. of Companies 12 0 1 0 1 2 1 1 0 0 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 3


Weighted Average** 7.12 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 0.99


Notes:



0.0

1.0

2.0

3.0

4.0

5.0

6.0

7.0

8.0

Months of pay

Siz

e o

f N

on

-Gu

ara

nte

ed

Bo

nu

s


Date post:	10-Feb-2018
Category:	Documents
Upload:	doancong
View:	218 times
Download:	3 times

HKIHRM PAY TREND SURVEY - Home - Hong Kong … Jan PT... · IHRM PAY TREND SURVEY. ... This report...

Documents