Remember the Rolling Stones before they received the AARP magazine? (Click here for the classic video) They really hit that one on the head! Consider the corporate "dual-ladder" career system. What a joke. Through the 1990s, the only way a scientist could improve his income level was to move into management. As a result, the company lost a good scientist and gained an inexperienced supervisor Back in the 1980s, the idea of a dual ladder system became popular. That meant that two employees, one in the lab and one in the office, would be "compensated" equally. That worked well on paper (as do Escher paintings), but, in reality the Golden Rule always took over: namely "Thems what gots the gold, makes the rules." Inevitably, managers move ahead of lab personnel in perks. At Sandoz (back in the 1980s), Senior Scientists and Managers were both at Grade Level 15. The pay grades were roughly equivalent, but other things tended to happen. Managers were assigned parking spaces, for instance, or could attend end-of-year "meetings" (with spouses) at resort sites for weekends, und so weider. I don't mean to sound like a Socialist, but there is an old saying about not ****ing on me and say it's raining. I would appreciate some honesty. If a company feels that managers are more important, then simply say, "They get more because they give more" or some such thing. Doesn't mean I'd like it any better, but I might have more respect for the HR people.