|
Blinky2099 posted:Yes, high cost of living area and publicly traded company. I guess if it's standard for the area then it's not that great, but if other companies in the area don't pay it then it is good... probably too relative to field and location for me to be asking generally in the first place I suppose. I wouldn't say it is standard for the area. Like I said I don't know anyone getting a 10% raise so good for you.
|
#
?
Sep 28, 2016 03:28
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 15, 2024 02:45 |
|
|
Blinky2099 posted:The real comparison should be "go get an offer from another company since youre so young and you can probably get a 20-30% raise" but I'm not super interested in moving yet You're allowed to turn down offers for literally no reason. You're allowed to interview literally just to get the number and then walk out of the interviewing process entirely. If you want to dip a toe in the water to see if your raise is keeping acceptable pace with your value on the open market and then sit fat and happy where you are, that's a totally okay thing to do.
|
|
#
?
Sep 28, 2016 15:50
|
|
|
Dwight Eisenhower posted:You're allowed to turn down offers for literally no reason. You're allowed to interview literally just to get the number and then walk out of the interviewing process entirely. If you want to dip a toe in the water to see if your raise is keeping acceptable pace with your value on the open market and then sit fat and happy where you are, that's a totally okay thing to do.
|
|
#
?
Sep 28, 2016 16:58
|
|
|
Jeffrey of YOSPOS posted:Frankly I think it's reasonable to interview at companies you don't want to work for, just for interview experience. It's their job to sell you on the company, if they've failed to do that then it's on them regardless of how you felt when you walked in. Absolutely this. Once you're past the "oh please just give me a job any job" stage in your career, interviewing and hiring is far less adversarial and more of an even playing field. They need to convince you to come work for them just as much, if not more, than you need to convince them that you are the right person for the job. Dwight Eisenhower posted:You're allowed to turn down offers for literally no reason. You're allowed to interview literally just to get the number and then walk out of the interviewing process entirely. If you want to dip a toe in the water to see if your raise is keeping acceptable pace with your value on the open market and then sit fat and happy where you are, that's a totally okay thing to do. Yep, literally starting to do this right now to most likely push for a raise at my current job. Unlikely that I will jump ship at this moment, but who knows. Maybe a new company will do a great job on selling me on why I should come work for them. Never hurts to see what is out there and measure where you are in the industry at large. Worst case you walk away realizing that you are in a good situation.
|
|
#
?
Sep 28, 2016 17:53
|
|
|
Jeffrey of YOSPOS posted:Frankly I think it's reasonable to interview at companies you don't want to work for, just for interview experience. It's their job to sell you on the company, if they've failed to do that then it's on them regardless of how you felt when you walked in. I walked into the interview for my current job with no intention whatsoever of taking it (the recruiter was determined to get me through the door), and immediately realized what a great opportunity it was. A single interview isn't a substantial waste of an employer's resources whether or not it's likely to work out.
|
|
#
?
Sep 28, 2016 17:57
|
|
|
Good point. I guess I felt bad for "wasting their time" but perhaps if I go in with a better strategy of making it clear they need to sell me on the job (without sounding like a dick/like im just applying for the sake of applying) it'll be more appropriate. My inexperience is showing here.
|
|
#
?
Sep 28, 2016 18:53
|
|
|
Blinky2099 posted:Good point. I guess I felt bad for "wasting their time" but perhaps if I go in with a better strategy of making it clear they need to sell me on the job (without sounding like a dick/like im just applying for the sake of applying) it'll be more appropriate. My inexperience is showing here. Current hiring practices include taking advantage of information asymmetry to reduce labor costs (read: pay people less). If the places you interview at were interested in skipping a few interviews they have alternatives, like posting the salary offer in the job posting. Don't worry about they company, they are getting what they want out of the process.
|
|
#
?
Sep 28, 2016 19:18
|
|
|
gently caress I hate salary "negotiations" in Norway! I've been through a few job interviews with temp agencies and companies, and they all go "How much do you want to get paid?" a few minutes into the first conversation we have. I've tried using the stuff I've learned from this thread and that salary negotiation for engineers article, but they all just look at me like I'm from another planet. I did the "we need to look at cultural fit and how I fit with the tasks required by the position" with one guy, and he directly said that if I won't name a number, I'll just be looked at like I'm a noisy troublemaker! I told a couple of guys who asked what I was making up until now that my past salary isn't relevant to what they will pay me, and they looked at me like I had just blown their minds, because nobody in their 20-30 years of recruiting and job interviews had ever said anything like that! All of their job listings say "competitive salary", and I say I want to get paid "competitively", but they don't see the connection there. It looks like they (everyone I've talked to) weigh their candidates by salary first and skills second.
|
|
#
?
Sep 29, 2016 11:30
|
|
|
What line of work are you in? Things in this thread don't apply so much to a retail job for instance. You have to have some sort of leverage to start off and if you have a line of people 100 deep behind you willing to work for slave wages then you're not going to get anywhere.
|
|
#
?
Sep 29, 2016 13:31
|
|
|
I'm in IT, and the jobmarket currently does suck. However, it's not about that. It's somehow a cultural thing between what you read in this mostly US-centric thread, and these people in Norway who have been recruiters and managers for years and years while never having heard anyone discuss salary in the way that's talked about here. Even with no leverage you'd assume that they would be familiar with salary negotiations like you read about here, but it's just a total blank when they ask "what's your salary requirement?" and I try things like "I feel like it's a little early to be discussing salary at this time" or "How about we talk about salary when we know it's a good cultural fit and we have looked at how my skills fit into the position?" They have never encountered anything like it before, and unless I correctly guess whatever lottery number they have in their head, they'll drop me out of the process. Edit: I'm not asking for help, I'm just frustrated after reading all the great advice in this thread, seeing people succeed, and then hitting a brick wall where I live when I try it. I'll play their game if that's what they want. evobatman fucked around with this message at 13:59 on Sep 29, 2016 |
|
#
?
Sep 29, 2016 13:52
|
|
|
Aren't norweigan tax returns public? This would be a very very different game if everyone had perfect information on current worker salaries.
|
|
#
?
Sep 29, 2016 14:30
|
|
|
If you really have to give a number, give one that's too high. If you feel comfortable saying a number, it's too low. This is at least assuming you aren't desperate for any given job.
|
|
#
?
Sep 29, 2016 14:34
|
|
|
You might have to hold off on negotiating until your first annual review. If there's a line behind you and you don't have a foot in the door, you don't have good leverage.
|
|
#
?
Sep 29, 2016 14:35
|
|
|
MickeyFinn posted:Current hiring practices include taking advantage of information asymmetry to reduce labor costs (read: pay people less). If the places you interview at were interested in skipping a few interviews they have alternatives, like posting the salary offer in the job posting. Don't worry about they company, they are getting what they want out of the process. Just want to reinforce this. People play the game they want; if they don't disclose salary up front they want to play the negotiation game. Do you think there's a reason that most workers' wages have stagnated or not kept pace with inflation while a privileged few are making bank? If you go out with a great BATNA and talk to other companies then you can play the negotiation game hard. You can also screw up really badly and not regret it. By not disclosing a salary up front they're signing on for losing great candidates because their numbers aren't great. You might also end up finding out that by making what you feel are unrealistic asks, you can get way more than you think you should.
|
|
#
?
Sep 29, 2016 17:34
|
|
|
Interviewed today having read this thread and the previous iteration through recently. I was looking at a sideways move to a different engineering discipline so was hard to judge what my salary expectations should be. At the end of the interview they asked 'do you have a salary expectation', to which I answered 'yes'  Then used the useful lines from here: 'wouldn't normally discuss salary at interview', 'keen to make sure I'm a good fit first', 'only makes sense with the whole remuneration package', 'sure we can come to an agreement if you think I'm the right person for the role' I'm not sure how it will pan out but it was good to have rehearsed and deployed some of these, where as in the past I might have undervalued myself and given too much away. Thanks!
|
|
#
?
Sep 29, 2016 22:09
|
|
|
Dwight Eisenhower posted:Just want to reinforce this. People play the game they want; if they don't disclose salary up front they want to play the negotiation game. Do you think there's a reason that most workers' wages have stagnated or not kept pace with inflation while a privileged few are making bank? I always knew Unions raised worker bargaining power by resolving that "100 people behind you" problem but now i'm wondering how much is also gained because (i think?) these organizations employee professional negotiators.
|
|
#
?
Sep 30, 2016 19:56
|
|
|
Is it common to be able to ask your own HR department for total compensation and breakdown for your own information? Does every company consider total compensation with the same formula/factors? For example, do some companies consider ESPP expected value as part of total compensation, but other publicly trade companies with ESPP ignore that aspect? or public transit incentives, or whatever other obscure factors that may or may not be included.
|
|
#
?
Sep 30, 2016 19:58
|
|
|
The two public companies I've worked for showed total compensation on the internal HR/benefits website broken down by pay, health, retirement, etc. I didn't have any equity components in either benefit package though.
|
|
#
?
Sep 30, 2016 20:43
|
|
|
Blinky2099 posted:Is it common to be able to ask your own HR department for total compensation and breakdown for your own information?
|
|
#
?
Sep 30, 2016 20:48
|
|
|
Total compensation has been calculated differently by all three companies I've worked at. The first pretty much didn't calculate it, the second included everything (insurance, 401k match, vacation, etc), and the third calculates it as salary + bonus + equity. The second companies method seems the most useful, but some benefits are not easily quantifiable such as health insurance so even with that you'd have a hard time comparing between companies.
|
|
#
?
Sep 30, 2016 23:06
|
|
|
Xguard86 posted:I always knew Unions raised worker bargaining power by resolving that "100 people behind you" problem but now i'm wondering how much is also gained because (i think?) these organizations employee professional negotiators. Unions raise the ability of workers as a group to extract more value but they stifle opportunities for individuals who outperform. I could layer on anecdotes about how people I know from my hometown were 'encouraged' by more senior workers in the union to not work so hard so as not to make the bottom feeders look bad. This is why anyone who is truly capable is moved to management so they can be compensated outside of the union box. And there's also some merit to the idea that companies by necessity will negotiate more professionally with unions while one off hires will be done more ad hoc and with managers who generally have poor training in negotiating skills.
|
|
#
?
Oct 1, 2016 03:46
|
|
|
Kalenn Istarion posted:Unions raise the ability of workers as a group to extract more value but they stifle opportunities for individuals who outperform. I could layer on anecdotes about how people I know from my hometown were 'encouraged' by more senior workers in the union to not work so hard so as not to make the bottom feeders look bad. This runs the risk of turning into a political debate; but I'm going to try and steer it away from there. People with differentiable skill sets AND who possess good negotiating skills will likely come out ahead of collective bargaining, however if either of those aren't true, then there's a good chance that they'll do better with a union, depending on the union. Without a real differentiable skill set, it's hard for any employee to hold their labor from an employer effectively, the employer's BATNA is to find someone else providing similar-enough labor for a lower price. Without good negotiating skills, we see, well, the kinds of outcomes that people have before they read this thread. There's an academic argument that people should be able to focus on excelling at their chosen vocation without having to also develop good negotiating skills. While that argument's diametrically opposed to reality, I do appreciated the sentiment behind it. Basically, some of the inefficiencies of unions suck, but if the total increase in pay from good negotiating outweighs the union dues the members are ahead anyway.
|
|
#
?
Oct 3, 2016 14:49
|
|
|
Received an offer today after my interview. Their first offer was £25k (benefits and pension kick in after 6 months). This is in a related field to a consulting job I used to work in 4 years ago. I've since been a teacher, and would have been earning £26k this year had I stayed. I'd really like to see if they have some room to manoeuvre up on the £25k, as I think they're getting me quite cheaply. I don't want to take another pay cut, as this job would also involve more travel. How do I balance Never Not Negotiate with Know When You've Won? On my side: - I've a good hunch I am their preferred candidate for the post out of three people. We had a good interview, and they made an offer much quicker than they originally promised. - I can start next week, and the more immediate the better for them. Against me: - I don't have a lot of relevant experience in this specific field, so I would be playing catchup learning the basics of the industry and the software. If I had this down I would be in a lot stronger position to negotiate for £30k+ - No BATNA....continue side gig which is helping me get by, but is very quiet this month. Would £28k be a reasonable counter?
|
|
#
?
Oct 3, 2016 20:39
|
|
|
Dwight Eisenhower posted:This runs the risk of turning into a political debate; but I'm going to try and steer it away from there. People with differentiable skill sets AND who possess good negotiating skills will likely come out ahead of collective bargaining, however if either of those aren't true, then there's a good chance that they'll do better with a union, depending on the union. Without a real differentiable skill set, it's hard for any employee to hold their labor from an employer effectively, the employer's BATNA is to find someone else providing similar-enough labor for a lower price. Without good negotiating skills, we see, well, the kinds of outcomes that people have before they read this thread. There's an academic argument that people should be able to focus on excelling at their chosen vocation without having to also develop good negotiating skills. While that argument's diametrically opposed to reality, I do appreciated the sentiment behind it. Yes, I wasn't saying they're bad necessarily but they are probably bad for people who are reading this thread, in general.
|
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2016 00:30
|
|
|
Slimchandi posted:How do I balance Never Not Negotiate with Know When You've Won? "Never Not Negotiate" is encouraging you to think about your goals, and to drive outcomes toward your goals. That doesn't mean you get absolutely all the things you want, it just means, don't sit down and take what you can get without pushing some. If your goal is to make £28k, then you should pursue it by talking to your potential employers. You're absolutely correct that it is in some tension with "Know When You've Won", and so like any other two principles in tension you have to find a balancing act. We call out these two principles so that you can think about what happens when you swing too hard one way or the other without finding balance. Know When You've Won means you need to think about your goals in specific terms, and to stop negotiating when you get them. "I want to make as much money as possible" is not a specific goal, because you can't provably achieve it. If in pursuit of it you secure some salary, maybe you could have gotten more? If in pursuit of it, you negotiate yourself out of a job, then maybe you've exceeded how much you can make? Or maybe your negotiating just sucks. It's not a crisp goal. "I want to make £30k" is a specific goal. Either you're doing it, or you're not. If someone agrees to your specific goal, then it's time for you to make good on your end of negotiations and come to an agreement. Maybe they'd be willing to stomach 32k, but your goal was 30k. It's time to play ball! Having specific goals from the outset lets you focus on an outcome that is realistic, and it creates an environment where you can win and stop pushing. When you achieve your goal, your behavior signals to your counterparty that your goal is achieved and they know what they're getting into. They can likewise relax and stop pushing back. If you don't have an achievable goal, then there's a constant tension in the background, and noone, neither you nor your counterparty know where it stops. Make sense? Slimchandi posted:Would £28k be a reasonable counter? I think that's reasonable to ask about. The worst reasonable outcome is they say "No, 25k." and you've lost nothing. The worst unreasonable outcome is they say "No, we're pulling our offer entirely.", in which case they're punishing you for negotiating, in which case they're insufferable dicks who would have been miserable to work with anyway.
|
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2016 14:05
|
|
|
Thanks - that puts my mind at rest. I countered this morning and have been anxiously waiting for a response all day! I think I'm sensitized to this issue because when I started working as a teacher, my salary dropped by £10k. No-one told me how to negotiate a higher entry salary, that my consulting experience was worth something and I was just grateful for the post. In the end I held many more cards than I realised. I think I will be happy with £26k as that would have been my salary this year. I would be surprised if they pulled the offer entirely as they have been very amenable so far. That's not to say the waiting game doesn't suck though!
|
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2016 15:15
|
|
|
Is 26k a reasonable number overall? You mention consulting and maybe because I'm a mgt/strat guy I think differently, but our fresh-out-of-school kids with a BA make 60 + bonus.
|
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2016 15:59
|
|
|
KYOON GRIFFEY JR posted:Is 26k a reasonable number overall? You mention consulting and maybe because I'm a mgt/strat guy I think differently, but our fresh-out-of-school kids with a BA make 60 + bonus. He's talking wacky dreary islander money, not Murican Dollars.
|
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2016 16:39
|
|
|
Where our healthcare is also free... Just heard back, £28k accepted on the back of great references! Couldn't have done it without you, thread!
|
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2016 16:56
|
|
|
Our healthcare costs $32/mo for fantastic coverage.Dwight Eisenhower posted:He's talking wacky dreary islander money, not Murican Dollars. $1.27 right now, though.
|
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2016 17:20
|
|
|
Yeah I don't really understand the disproportion in salaries but I think cost of living is significantly lower as is education (at least it was). Find it hard to see fresh grads starting on £60k outside of London financial services etc. But I am possibly very underinformed.
|
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2016 17:35
|
|
|
Slimchandi posted:Where our healthcare is also free...  Please update https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1nSJHNBoljONE0lu4Yi_a5JUOzv3cS5FbC6m8lxT9i3E/edit#gid=245510761 with your details if you are comfortable sharing.
|
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2016 17:57
|
|
|
I'm no expert, but from what I've seen professional salaries in the UK seems to be drastically lower than in the US even accounting for the pre-GBP-decline exchange rate. Sure, there is are a host of excellent social programs that you get for "free" but even accounting for that the gap still seems really large. Professions that in the US are comfortably in the 100-150k+ USD/yr range in a major city with a couple years experience are often listed making like 40-50k GPB/yr in London, one of the most expensive cities in the world.
|
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2016 17:57
|
|
|
Isn't another thing that only Americans discuss salary pre-tax while everyone else uses post-tax? Dunno where I heard that or if I just made it up
|
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2016 17:59
|
|
|
Maybe it's a testament to how complicated the US tax code can end up being, but trying to compare net instead of gross can be extremely misleading. Two people each making 100k gross can have very very different net incomes based on their tax situation, tax deferments, investments, benefits, married, kids, house, etc. I'm a bit skeptical that other countries would compare net instead of gross, but I really don't know.
|
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2016 18:10
|
|
|
I'm in an interesting situation right now. Less than a year ago I took a promotion within the company I already had been working at for several years. Salary negotiations are handled strictly by the talent acquisition group and ultimately they led me towards a roughly 10% raise for a position that was more of a sidestep. (I didn't really negotiate either) Shortly after starting in my new position the management structure of the team I was working on changed dramatically and the manager that hired me took over management of another more experienced team. Since then that manger has shown interest in hiring me onto his new team and as of recently I've been made aware that the position will very likely be offered to me with little consideration of other candidates. I am good friends with someone in a similar position at the same company, we have similar credentials/experience and I know their exact salary. If I was offered the same salary it'd be roughly a 25% increase over what I'm currently making. I am expecting the offer to either be another 10% increase, or an offer that matches my friend's current compensation. There are a few things to note though. 1. I know my friend did not do any negotiation to reach the amount they were offered, though the circumstances around their promotion may have resulted in higher offer. (I have no idea what anyone else on the team is making, though they've all been here much longer) 2. I do not believe my friend is being compensated at a value equivalent to what he's worth, or what I perceive myself to be worth for the same position. 3. While I am capable of excelling at the job, I don't have a lot of on paper experience to prove it. 4. I don't really have any time to look for other offers I can use to negotiate with. 5. Everyone involved knows exactly what I'm making and that there aren't really many good opportunities (in the short term) if I stay where I'm currently at. Knowing that I am desired for the position and that the manager appears to want it filled soon seems like it could give me more negotiating power. But from what I've experienced so far it seems like HR is the one I'm really negotiating against, and internal promotions seem like they'd be difficult to negotiate on in the first place. I'm thinking my best bet is to start with a high anchor, but I'm not really sure what happens if I ask for too much. HR has been willing to tell me the budget for positions in the past, so just start on the high range of what they say? Any tips that seem like they'd help in my situation? My field is IT. I do want the position, but I don't really like the idea of falling farther and farther behind on compensation compared to my peers.
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2016 04:54
|
|
|
If you're well informed about the ranges and are concerned that the other side will bias downwards then it can be beneficial to open with a number yourself. Are you in a position to have a quiet chat with the mgr that wants to hire you to try to frame expectations before he gets involved?
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2016 15:53
|
|
|
I have a phone call about my offer today and I'm (probably a little irrationally) scared they're gonna lowball me. How do you handle that, especially as someone right out of college? The company has full benefits and a swanky office so I dunno how they calculate total compensation, and I'm more of a promising outsider than the ideal candidate who's ready to jump directly into the role.
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2016 18:37
|
|
|
Philip Rivers posted:I have a phone call about my offer today and I'm (probably a little irrationally) scared they're gonna lowball me. How do you handle that, especially as someone right out of college? The company has full benefits and a swanky office so I dunno how they calculate total compensation, and I'm more of a promising outsider than the ideal candidate who's ready to jump directly into the role. Have your "I win" and "walk away" numbers figured out before hand. Then you will know how to respond and it is much harder to change your mind in the moment. Don't cave if they are under your walk away number. Politely negotiate. If they won't meet your minimum number, you have to actually be able to walk away and work on finding another offer. It's your salary and benefits, it doesn't really matter how they calculate total compensation*, it matters how you calculate total compensation. Your status as an outsider doesn't matter -- they are giving you an offer, they want to hire you and you were the most ideal candidate they could find. They may have spent weeks or even months looking before they met you, they don't want to go back to searching now that they 'found a good one'. *If you do know something about how they calculate total comp, you might be able to use that to your advantage in negotiation if you value things differently than they do. If you negotiate for more of something you care about but they don't value, and in trade you get less of something they value highly but you don't care about, everyone feels like they got a better deal.
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2016 19:16
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 15, 2024 02:45 |
|
|
Kalenn Istarion posted:If you're well informed about the ranges and are concerned that the other side will bias downwards then it can be beneficial to open with a number yourself. Are you in a position to have a quiet chat with the mgr that wants to hire you to try to frame expectations before he gets involved? Yes and no, I can meet with them with relative ease but I'm not really sure how I'd set that up without looking like I'm just concerned about the money. We've talked fairly regularly about the position already and right now I'm just waiting for them to tell me it's officially been posted so I can apply. Without any changes to the approach this is how the process normally goes, Apply for the position when it's officially posted > HR reaches out to talk about the responsibilities and desired pay, schedules interview > talk to whoever + hiring manager, they seem to be aware of the answer to desired pay at this point > receive official offer letter
|
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2016 01:01
|
|