|
Hollis Brown posted:It's going to be in Schenectady. I am sick to death of apartments noise and want a garage for the winter so I am looking at more expensive options like a rental house.
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2014 12:31
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 5, 2024 18:32 |
|
|
etalian posted:Not really I would argue that sticking in the same company and stagnating is worse than changing jobs every few years. Not to mention if the multiple jobs gives you a skillset that Not being employed for life is one thing. Someone seen as a job hopper because they never stick around is totally different. It costs a great deal of time and money to train someone into a new company's systems and culture, regardless of the experience they come in with. If a company can't count on you being around long enough to actually see the benefits of that training they won't bother. There are industries for which it is more acceptable than others, but it certainly bears being cautious.
|
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2014 14:47
|
|
|
more friedman units posted:Okay, so I'm in a frustrating job offer situation. I've got an MA and have worked at a federal agency for the past 4 years. It has extremely toxic management and a horrible institutional culture; it's ranked near the bottom of the Employee Viewpoint Survey that almost all federal agencies take. It's become clear that I've hit a ceiling and I don't want to spend a whole career where I'm at. I've been looking to make a jump to a different agency or possibly a private sector job.
|
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2014 15:57
|
|
|
Okay, that's interesting to know. The posting had surprisingly low requirements (BA with Superior Academic Achievement/BA and 1 year graduate education/combination of education and experience) considering that during the interview it sounded like it was common for people in the program to have a graduate degree. I guess I'll ask if the starting salary is negotiable and whether they scored my MA and experience. Thanks!
|
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2014 18:18
|
|
|
Kalenn Istarion posted:Not being employed for life is one thing. Someone seen as a job hopper because they never stick around is totally different. It costs a great deal of time and money to train someone into a new company's systems and culture, regardless of the experience they come in with. If a company can't count on you being around long enough to actually see the benefits of that training they won't bother. There are industries for which it is more acceptable than others, but it certainly bears being cautious. Would rather candidate A who doesn't have the skillset for all the job requirements but worked for a long time at the previous company? Or would rather higher candidate B who matches all the requirements because he worked at multiple companies and also avoided career stagnation? Job hopping is only bad IMO if you don't have the improved skillset, experience or glowing references to show for it. http://www.forbes.com/sites/learnvest/2013/05/09/are-you-a-serial-job-hopper/
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2014 01:28
|
|
|
etalian posted:Would rather candidate A who doesn't have the skillset for all the job requirements but worked for a long time at the previous company? I like how you link an article where third paragraph says that 40% of employers regard job hopping as the single biggest obstacle for job seekers and every single story they give agrees with that.
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2014 01:32
|
|
|
etalian posted:Would rather candidate A who doesn't have the skillset for all the job requirements but worked for a long time at the previous company? If the former demonstrated that he would quickly learn the missing skills and then be around to contribute them for 10 years, instead of B who might come in hot but not go anywhere and be gone in a year? I'd take A every time.
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2014 01:34
|
|
|
asur posted:I like how you link an article where third paragraph says that 40% of employers regard job hopping as the single biggest obstacle for job seekers and every single story they give agrees with that. I think it depends on what you mean by job hopping. A lot of those case studies were talking about people averaging 2 jobs a year, which I would also consider a bad sign. If you change jobs every 2-4 years then that's a lot different than having three entries for 2012.
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2014 03:10
|
|
|
Yeah, in today's economy with real raises basically a thing of the past, you're generally doing yourself a disservice if you stick around in any job for more than a few years. I don't like the idea of job hopping anymore than anyone else, but sticking around for an extended time with a 2 percent a year raise that barely tracks inflation is a mug's game.
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2014 10:16
|
|
|
Hollis Brown posted:It's going to be in Schenectady. I am sick to death of apartments noise and want a garage for the winter so I am looking at more expensive options like a rental house. You'll do plenty fine on $68k there. You won't be stuck only making $68k the entire time. Put several generous line items in your budget for keeping warm. You have no clue what you're in for from Texas. You are in a situation where renegotiation is a bad idea as everyone else has told you, and that's not a bad starting salary for Upstate New York after getting an MS.
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2014 13:47
|
|
|
I'm in the preliminary stages of this, but would like to hear your guys opinion on this. My current company is basically splitting in half and the offshoot is looking for me to be a part time controller of sorts. The initial setup will be a pain, but afterwards it shouldn't average much more than 10-15 hours a week based on how I work. They wanted to know how much I would want compensation wise for this. They aren't asking as a negotiating strong point I'm pretty sure, because they have pretty much no clue are scrambling to get this together. I'm thinking of throwing out $40000 through January, and we can go from there. I would really like this position, because while it will be a lot of work I would be creating an accounting system from scratch and will jump up career wise a couple of years since I will be managing a person or two. Does this sound like a reasonable rate? I figure a consultant coming in would be like 20,000 and then they'd have to find someone new that they would have to trust.
|
|
#
?
Jul 1, 2014 18:30
|
|
|
I doubt this will take off but pretty interesting article on a company where everyone knows all the salaries. http://www.npr.org/blogs/money/2014/07/02/327758712/the-company-where-everyone-knows-everyone-elses-salary
|
|
#
?
Jul 3, 2014 05:39
|
|
|
I just got a job offer. They are offering 28000GBP. I'm gonna ask for something like 32k. The job was advertised as permanent, but in the offer email they said:quote:I would like to highlight that due to a shift in workload and after a review of current resource, the role has been changed to a 12 month fixed term contract. I hope this will be ok with you and you would still be happy to consider. What does this mean for me? Is it likely that it can later evolve into a permanent contract?
|
|
#
?
Jul 3, 2014 15:19
|
|
|
Everything's possible, what it means is that they only guarantee your employment for 12 months.
|
|
#
?
Jul 3, 2014 15:26
|
|
|
Komputernauta posted:I just got a job offer. They are offering 28000GBP. I'm gonna ask for something like 32k. The job was advertised as permanent, but in the offer email they said: FrozenVent posted:Everything's possible, what it means is that they only guarantee your employment for 12 months. Specifically, they're trying to get contractor work and liability at a full time salary rate. If you've got a contract for 12 months, then you have more risk in the case that at the end of 12 months you're out of work. You should charge them for that risk. Ask for more money, and tell them you're willing to renegotiate for a lower figure if they're willing to bring you on as a FTE.
|
|
#
?
Jul 3, 2014 17:43
|
|
|
Dwight Eisenhower posted:Specifically, they're trying to get contractor work and liability at a full time salary rate. If you've got a contract for 12 months, then you have more risk in the case that at the end of 12 months you're out of work. You should charge them for that risk. Ask for more money, and tell them you're willing to renegotiate for a lower figure if they're willing to bring you on as a FTE. You should also confirm whether or not you will receive the same benefits while on contract. If not, then your compensation should account for this as well.
|
|
#
?
Jul 3, 2014 18:09
|
|
|
Just posting a bit of an update: I'm 3 weeks into the new job, and liking the work. The hospital administrator never emailed me back a response, and then went on vacation, and then I got my first paycheck. I was offered 11 initially, asked for 13, and got 12. That, along with just having this first foot in the door, is a victory, even though I'm still underpaid. What's actually frustrating about it is the non-communication route he took in dealing with the situation. In any case, like I said previously, my aim is now set on passing my boards (a week from now!) and just knocking it out of the park at work, which seems to be going very well. Even as an entry level Vet Tech, I (and my coworkers) are noticing that many of my technical skills are already at a level that's better than more experienced techs in the practice. Thanks again, thread! I'm sure I'll be posting again come review time.
|
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2014 23:23
|
|
|
A friend of mine got offered a job where I am and I told him to ask for more money and they countered with an amount in between their initial offer and his counteroffer. The system works.
|
|
#
?
Jul 15, 2014 16:03
|
|
|
100 HOGS AGREE posted:A friend of mine got offered a job where I am and I told him to ask for more money and they countered with an amount in between their initial offer and his counteroffer. "Hello dear sir, may I have some more money, please." "Why sure young goon, here is more money for you." "Thank you so very much." "Think nothing of it, we're very pleased to give it to you."
|
|
#
?
Jul 15, 2014 21:49
|
|
|
Just tried to negotiate a job offer and the HR said they didn't care about my extra experience or skills. 
|
|
#
?
Jul 29, 2014 03:24
|
|
|
Appachai posted:Just tried to negotiate a job offer and the HR said they didn't care about my extra experience or skills. Lol. More details please.
|
|
#
?
Jul 29, 2014 03:35
|
|
|
Appachai posted:Just tried to negotiate a job offer and the HR said they didn't care about my extra experience or skills. My response would be very short and direct at that point... But that's just me. Curious how it played out after that.
|
|
#
?
Jul 29, 2014 03:44
|
|
|
tesilential posted:Lol. More details please. This is for a position as one of the two PhD level positions at a startup that was recently purchased by a giant Swiss pharmaceutical company. I interviewed 4 times, 1 30 minute phone interview, 1 2 hour phone interview, 1 on site 7 hour interview with a 1 hour lecture, and 1 on site with the C-suite for 3 hours. I live in LA and drove to San Francisco for the on-sites, they didn't reimburse me or pay for a hotel. I'm interested in the place because they have a kind of novel idea that could have a pretty big impact on how medicine is practiced. My other interviews at top 10 big pharmas usually included them paying for a flight, hotel, etc. This place gave me 24 hours notice for the on site interviews. The COO called me last week and said everyone was "super psyched" that I was interested and that they would love to have me. I asked her for some details on the position, for example what the title is, and she said she wasn't sure, but that a HR person would call me this week with the details. I find out today what the title is, and they tell me the salary. A quick look up on glassdoor shows that the range for this position is about 30K, and their offer is the minimum. I say thanks for the offer, the company seems like a really great place, the work is interesting, etc, but I felt my skills and experience(read from the job description and gave examples of how my experience is in excess of their requirements) should merit offer +15K, which would put me in the middle of the 30K range, obviously. Her response: "I agree that you do have skills and experience in excess of the job's requirements, but we're really just hiring this position as posted, so it doesn't really matter to us if you have more experience or skills" so I reply " So you're saying you don't have flexibility on salary, are there any other areas where we could make an effort to meet in the middle with a relocation package, signing bonus, increased 401k match, or other non-salary compensation?" Her reply "Well, this is our offer" My reply: "I see, well, could you please send me the details of the package in writing to my email so that I can go over them? No negotiating at all it seems. I think maybe I came off too eager with my responses to their 24hr notice interviews?
|
|
#
?
Jul 29, 2014 04:06
|
|
|
You're a PhD in what I assume is some sort of hard science and they offered you 30k to live in San Francisco? I don't understand what is going on, did you forget a 0?
|
|
#
?
Jul 29, 2014 04:26
|
|
|
OldHansMoleman posted:You're a PhD in what I assume is some sort of hard science and they offered you 30k to live in San Francisco? I don't understand what is going on, did you forget a 0? No, the range of salaries on several sites was min- their offer max- their offer +30K
|
|
#
?
Jul 29, 2014 04:30
|
|
|
Appachai posted:
No, although I would have said thanks for your time, but that's not an acceptable offer if I were you. It seems like either the start-up has no budget to spend (seems unlikely if they just got bought out) or the HR person is an idiot. Unless the offer is really generous, they shouldn't be hiring for a PhD and not be willing to negotiate.
|
|
#
?
Jul 29, 2014 04:35
|
|
|
I'm wondering if this means that the market is that saturated in SF. EDIT: Remembered another gem. I asked about an ESPP (Employee stock purchase program), the HR manager told me that I can buy stock since the company is publicly traded 
Appachai fucked around with this message at 05:54 on Jul 29, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jul 29, 2014 04:47
|
|
|
Yep, you're dealing with an idiot. There is a correlation at how bad an organization is at hiring and how bad it treats it's employees. Unless you're desperate for the job, you should seriously consider staying away. Do not consider anything they say to be representative of the market as a whole.
|
|
#
?
Jul 29, 2014 06:07
|
|
|
FrozenVent posted:Yep, you're dealing with an idiot. QFT Also you failed to seize on an opportunity to wield good negotiating posture. Your posture will have significant consequences on how much the party you are negotiating with flexes. Consider the pressure the HR manager feels between: "That offer is unacceptable, and you are unwilling to negotiate. Thank you for your time." vs "Please send me the full details of what you are offering in writing."
|
|
#
?
Jul 29, 2014 14:47
|
|
|
Maybe someone else can chime in here as this may be bad advice, but I think I would send an email to the HR person saying that the offer is not acceptable and the follow up with the COO. You don't have anything to lose by talking to them and they specifically said they wanted you. I've yet to see a company where high level executives can't override an HR decision if they choose to. Of course, you may want to consider what the lowball offer means in terms of raises and working conditions, but I don't really see a downside to at least following up.
|
|
#
?
Jul 29, 2014 18:14
|
|
|
Ok, phew, that still sounds like their HR person is a knob and their hiring practices leave something to be desired, but your original post's wording made it sound like they were offering you 30k/yr salary for a PhD pharma position in SF which is just criminal.
|
|
#
?
Jul 29, 2014 18:22
|
|
|
That just sets off warning bells all around — that is not the first impression you want to make on a prospect for a job that's non-trivial to fill. Either your recruiter is completely incompetent, in which case I question management's judgment given how central a challenge hiring is in the Silicon Valley, or recruiting is under unusual pressure to lowball, which doesn't speak well of the company's commitment to its workers or the strength of its talent pool.
|
|
#
?
Jul 29, 2014 18:42
|
|
|
Guinness posted:Ok, phew, that still sounds like their HR person is a knob and their hiring practices leave something to be desired, but your original post's wording made it sound like they were offering you 30k/yr salary for a PhD pharma position in SF which is just criminal. Sorry, as I said before, the range between the minimum and maximum salaries on some salary websites was 30K, they are not offering my 30K, that's below the NIH mandated minimum postdoc salary(though not by that much). I totally agree regarding this being a bad sign. I was pretty excited about the company and the position before they told me the salary and wouldn't even budge on a relocation package. I worked for a tiny startup in Seattle that at least gave me a relocation package. Appachai fucked around with this message at 19:07 on Jul 29, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jul 29, 2014 19:04
|
|
|
Yeah, gently caress these guys. In other news, when considering a job offer, how should one assess the value of the employer having a defined benefit pension?
|
|
#
?
Jul 30, 2014 00:17
|
|
|
FrozenVent posted:Yeah, gently caress these guys. I personally believe defined contribution plans are more beneficial to a majority of private sector employees, based on the observation that our economy has fundamentally shifted towards more flexibility for both employers and employees in the work force. This isn't a political statement, rather an acknowledgement of our current situation.
|
|
#
?
Jul 31, 2014 04:30
|
|
|
Dwight Eisenhower posted:QFT In these circumstances, I am constantly evaluating whether the person I'm negotiating with is empowered to modify the terms of the offer.
|
|
#
?
Jul 31, 2014 04:42
|
|
|
asur posted:Maybe someone else can chime in here as this may be bad advice, but I think I would send an email to the HR person saying that the offer is not acceptable and the follow up with the COO. You don't have anything to lose by talking to them and they specifically said they wanted you. I've yet to see a company where high level executives can't override an HR decision if they choose to. Of course, you may want to consider what the lowball offer means in terms of raises and working conditions, but I don't really see a downside to at least following up. In my experience however, a written rejection of an offer from a Ph.D. level candidate gets elevated to the COO immediately, so a direct appeal to the COO isn't necessary.
|
|
#
?
Jul 31, 2014 05:04
|
|
|
Just an update: I talked to the COO on the phone about the offer. She said that due to the corporate guidelines she couldn't change the salary, but she had some leeway in other areas. She gave me a 10K signing bonus. I think you guys are right about not negotiating with HR. The HR person probably didn't have the authority to change anything.
|
|
#
?
Jul 31, 2014 08:09
|
|
|
Appachai posted:I'm wondering if this means that the market is that saturated in SF. Sounds like start-up problems. I'm coming to this late but did you consider reverting to the COO? He'd probably be more commercially minded than the HR person. Fakeedit: and you did this, which I think is right. A lot of the behaviour really sounds to me like it's just a developing HR function. You mentioned that they're new, so they're going to take a while to figure out how not to gently caress stuff like this up. You should consider asking for increased bonus potential or equity participation (options, whatever) as a way to make up for the lower starting salary. FrozenVent posted:Yeah, gently caress these guys. There are pension value calculators available on the net. I forget what a good one is but they should allow you to punch in your assumptions for all the factors that swenblack noted. Other factors which impact your pension value are: time to retirement, life expectancy, salary trajectory, tax laws in your state, and the specific terms of the plan like when does it vest, what are the reductions for early retirement, etc etc
|
|
#
?
Jul 31, 2014 11:41
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 5, 2024 18:32 |
|
|
Appachai posted:Just an update: I talked to the COO on the phone about the offer. She said that due to the corporate guidelines she couldn't change the salary, but she had some leeway in other areas. She gave me a 10K signing bonus. I think you guys are right about not negotiating with HR. The HR person probably didn't have the authority to change anything. So in your first year your compensation is $5k under the median of the market, and $20k under the top end. In every year after that your (agreed upon, expected) compensation is $15k under the median of the market, and $30k under the top end. Are you unemployed, or really hate where you work?
|
|
#
?
Jul 31, 2014 16:31
|
|