|
btw being a good, talented and effective programmer will earn far less than being a good, assertive and persuasive negotiator I've already made my opinion on CarForumPoster's "advice" clear, and made an addition to my ignore list
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2017 03:37
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 15, 2024 18:20 |
|
|
Dwight Eisenhower posted:btw being a good, talented and effective programmer will earn far less than being a good, assertive and persuasive negotiator this is very true. i make twice what some of my coworkers make (including some who are just as talented and productive and who have longer tenure) because i was willing to put in the time to research my own value via networking with my peers and via considering other opportunities. that gave me the confidence to make compensation demands i would never have considered if i didn't know what my alternatives were. my underpaid coworkers, on the other hand, are overly loyal to our employer and complacent and unwilling to consider alternatives
|
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2017 07:54
|
|
|
Kalenn Istarion posted:I'm 35 and a VP at a public company whose responsibility includes contract negotiations and I'm making over $200k a year in base salary, plus I receive a bonus and stock options. Looks like this was well timed. I was catching up on the thread with the intent to post this: One thing that I feel is missing in this thread is how some of the guidelines posted change once you start considering middle management. IE: The adage, "Never consider bonus as part of your compensation." Works when that bonus is 10-15% of base, but probably falls by the wayside when your bonus is 60-100% of your base. At that point what impact does it have on your thought process? How do you value the loss of the never-ending RSUs that arrive each quarter vs starting from scratch with a year delayed initial grant? I'm 5 years into a 4 year vesting cycle and just keep getting them multiple times a quarter now. Etc... What were the biggest differences you found when negotiating as a director/exec vs line manager (Or individual contributor if that's where you started.)
|
|
#
?
Jan 30, 2017 03:26
|
|
|
Hughlander posted:Looks like this was well timed. I was catching up on the thread with the intent to post this: I don't think that adage works even at 10% - 15% as that's still a substantial amount of your total compensation. It's a risk though so you have to discount the value based on your expectation of receiving it. I think the same thing applies to a cliff in an equity grants, reduce the value by the chance you won't receive it which should hopefully be pretty low. I'm not certain what you're talking about with starting over within RSUs other than the cliff. You have a total compensation number and I'm assuming you would take a new job if they offered a lower total comp number unless you're leaving for reasons other than money. As a note my perspective is from an individual contributor that receives a fairly large bonus and RSUs if that matters.
|
|
#
?
Jan 30, 2017 05:39
|
|
|
Have typed responses in lineHughlander posted:Looks like this was well timed. I was catching up on the thread with the intent to post this: I don't think the approach changes significantly at the middle management level. What will change is the level of confidence and sophistication of who you're negotiating against. quote:IE: The adage, "Never consider bonus as part of your compensation." Works when that bonus is 10-15% of base, but probably falls by the wayside when your bonus is 60-100% of your base. At that point what impact does it have on your thought process? Consider the expected value of your bonus, meaning evaluate your likelihood of getting your target bonus levelAs an exec at a public company it is very common to have target bonus levels, with achieving that bonus tied to meeting agreed upon goals or depending on the job milestone payments. As an example of the latter, a former CEO of the company I work for still had a contingent payment due when our operation reaches a certain size. As for your target bonus level, you will likely contribute in a significant way to defining your own goals and targets. In my case the role I have didn't really exist at my company but I pitched the CEO the business case (originally as a consultant), and he liked it enough to hire me. quote:
If you work for a large liquid (actively traded) company, your stock comp is basically good as cash. If you work for a smaller or private firm where you might have a hard time selling your shares, put less value on the shares. If you are leaving for another company, you can communicate the value of stock- based comp that you will be leaving behind and many companies will make you whole. quote:Etc... As a contributor, you are likely more replaceable than a manager or director / exec, so the balance of power in the negotiation is significantly different. Also the point above about the experience level of the counterparty - negotiations are a significant part of life for most execs so it's not as foreign to them
|
|
#
?
Jan 30, 2017 09:20
|
|
|
There's a few other dimensions you need to start analyzing when you get into managing teams. You don't have to negotiate over all of them, but you should contemplate them all. Off the top of my head: Headcount: This is not something you will likely be able to tweak during negotiations, but it can be a dimension you use prominently when arguing about other compensatory structures. For good or for ill having lots of reports will make it more likely that you can get lots of reports in the future, and often those kinds of positions are more lucrative. Contractual employment: This is something for you to consider, as employment opportunities can be thinner you may want to start setting up structures around your employment that cushion your landing if you get forced out. Equity: If you're not working at a publicly traded company you might need to agree to give the company Right of First Refusal (they get to buy at any price you would offer before anyone else does), as well as obtain your equity under contract that gives the company the ability to force you to sell. The latter is a double edged sword: it gives the company the ability to keep shares closely held and they can force you out. For you, it can give you a liquidity event prior to the company being acquired or publicly traded you might not otherwise get. As always Kalenn's spot on, particularly about playing the game with better opponents. If you really want to do well, you probably need resources other than what you'll find on a comedy internet forum. Which is not at all an attempt to discourage the discussion, just to set expectations about what we might be able to realistically get out of it.
|
|
#
?
Jan 30, 2017 15:23
|
|
|
The other point I would add is that at the executive level, think of yourself as pitching a portfolio of services. I wrote a three page proposal for things I would do in my first 12 months and outlined long term strategic targets that I thought were achievable and then these ended up being worked into my compensation. It's not necessarily going to be a static job requirement - the posting will have broad strategic goals and may sometimes have systems-based requirements but you are pitching your approach to problems much more so than your basic skill set (I can program x lines per minute or I have high accuracy when typing, etc). To Dwight's point about a safety net, as a public company exec and specifically with what I do, my job would be 95% likely to disappear in an acquisition so in addition to contractual guaranteed notice (rather than relying on stat notice periods) I have a change of control clause that pays double the notice / severance should my job get deleted after an m&a transaction.
|
|
#
?
Jan 30, 2017 16:54
|
|
|
Pillowpants posted:Do NOT lie about your current salary. I have a problem with giving a current and past salary because I have been working in a foreign country, earning a foreign currency, and it does not translate into US dollars because they industry I'm working in does not even exist in the US. However, the salary question seems common.
|
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2017 10:16
|
|
|
Fun update, work has agreed to pay for my MBA without any further strings attached. Thanks, negotiation thread!
|
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2017 15:59
|
|
|
EAT FASTER!!!!!! posted:Fun update, work has agreed to pay for my MBA without any further strings attached. Cool, you got this in writing yeah?
|
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2017 16:13
|
|
|
Positive Optimyst posted:I have a problem with giving a current and past salary because I have been working in a foreign country, earning a foreign currency, and it does not translate into US dollars because they industry I'm working in does not even exist in the US.
|
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2017 16:13
|
|
|
Dwight Eisenhower posted:Cool, you got this in writing yeah? Yeah, in a signed letter. My plan had been to just pay for it myself so really it's a huge upside for me.
|
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2017 17:01
|
|
|
UK friends, when a company wants you to relocate to London from elsewhere in the UK, what is the calculation they make to adjust your wage? Do companies generally follow 'London weighting', or is there a general percentage increase? To my knowledge, I've only ever heard of £5-10k increases, or 10-20% overall.
|
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2017 19:53
|
|
|
Jeffrey of YOSPOS posted:If you have to say something, give it in the most generous possible terms. Whichever exchange rate from the past 5 years makes it the highest. Price in whatever benefits you had. It's the opposite of price is right rules - get as close as you can without going under. Jeffrey, Thanks for this advice and info.
|
|
#
?
Feb 4, 2017 01:42
|
|
|
I've never had 401k match before, but now that I read BFC and start thinking about retirement, I really want it. I'm in the process of applying to jobs with benefits offered. What is a good rate for a 401k match, and what is a bad one? How rare are good 401k matches?
|
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2017 06:25
|
|
|
Macaroni Surprise posted:What is a good rate for a 401k match, and what is a bad one? How rare are good 401k matches? I'm pretty sure mine qualifies as a bad match, but it's better than nothing. My company matches 30% of my contribution, up to a 10% contribution. Meaning if I contribute 10% of my salary, they throw in an additional 3%. I am not fully vested in the employer contribution until I have seven years of service. And there is a decent amount of turnover in the first five years. So for most employees, they aren't really contributing anything for the match.
|
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2017 13:49
|
|
|
Macaroni Surprise posted:I've never had 401k match before, but now that I read BFC and start thinking about retirement, I really want it. I'm in the process of applying to jobs with benefits offered. What is a good rate for a 401k match, and what is a bad one? How rare are good 401k matches? I work for a large grocer and they match 50% up to 3% contributions, aka 1.5%. However, they also give you 8.5% of your salary in company stock in addition to the match.
|
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2017 13:53
|
|
|
Positive Optimyst posted:I have a problem with giving a current and past salary because I have been working in a foreign country, earning a foreign currency, and it does not translate into US dollars because they industry I'm working in does not even exist in the US. This is fascinating to me - what industry do you work in that does not exist in the US?
|
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2017 14:28
|
|
|
KYOON GRIFFEY JR posted:This is fascinating to me - what industry do you work in that does not exist in the US? Non-corrupt government?
|
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2017 15:19
|
|
|
Thanks for the feedback. Can you like negotiate 401k matching or is it usually a set thing for all employees? Would asking for more be a faux pas?
|
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2017 18:03
|
|
|
From what I've seen, the 401k program is usually set for the whole corporation. Salary, vacation/yr, and signing bonuses are the main negotiation points.
|
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2017 18:21
|
|
|
JohnnyPalace posted:I'm pretty sure mine qualifies as a bad match, but it's better than nothing. My company matches 30% of my contribution, up to a 10% contribution. Meaning if I contribute 10% of my salary, they throw in an additional 3%. I am not fully vested in the employer contribution until I have seven years of service. And there is a decent amount of turnover in the first five years. So for most employees, they aren't really contributing anything for the match. Yeah that's on the poo poo side of matches. A 'good' match would be 1:1 matching up to say 5 or 6% and a very short vesting period. My last company took two years to vest and had 1:1 matching up to 5%, my current one has no vesting period and matches up to 6%. These are rrsp matching programs in Canada but they're very similar to a 401k
|
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2017 19:34
|
|
|
drive me nuts to school posted:I work for a large grocer and they match 50% up to 3% contributions, aka 1.5%. I get 50% match up to first 6% (so 3%) with a 1 year vesting. Though the company also just automatically contributes 4% to your 401k regardless. So, 7% after everything. But the 4% replaced a pension, so...
|
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2017 19:56
|
|
|
I get double match on my 5% (to a total of 15%).
|
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2017 20:35
|
|
|
I'm not American and our pension system works differently, so forgive my ignorance; what is a vesting period? Does your money disappear in the void if you leave before the end of it? Do you get it paid out in cash instead of bothering with the 401k? What is the point of it anyway, from the company's perspective; they either give you the money or they don't, why would they care if it goes directly to your bank account or to your 401k?
|
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2017 21:03
|
|
|
Namarrgon posted:I'm not American and our pension system works differently, so forgive my ignorance; what is a vesting period? Does your money disappear in the void if you leave before the end of it? Do you get it paid out in cash instead of bothering with the 401k? What is the point of it anyway, from the company's perspective; they either give you the money or they don't, why would they care if it goes directly to your bank account or to your 401k? Vesting: You work somewhere for X time and now you change jobs. You keep any money you put in personally. So say you put in 5k and they match 100% (woot) for 10k total value. Your company match is multiplied by whatever percentage corresponds to your year on the job for the vesting schedule of your company. Let's say two years vests 50%. Your 5k plus half of theirs so 2.5k for 7.5k. The other 50% 2.5k I don't know exactly where it goes but the company keeps it in some way. So they care because they've kept the money. It's also expensive to hire and train people, so encouraging people to stick around is a plus for the company. although, my opinion, someone riding out time for a 40k isn't going to be the type of retention you want.
|
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2017 21:51
|
|
|
Macaroni Surprise posted:Thanks for the feedback. Can you like negotiate 401k matching or is it usually a set thing for all employees? Would asking for more be a faux pas? Companies have signed agreements with their 401k providers that outline what the match, vesting schedule, etc is for a single plan for the entire company. Technically speaking it's possible to have multiple plans for different classes of employees, but it'd be a huge loving headache and a waste of resources to create and administer a new plan for a single employee. Whoever you're negotiating with is also highly unlikely to know that this is even possible. Xguard86 posted:Vesting: Most companies send money to their 401k provider every time they run a payroll. When an employee quits before being fully vested, the 401k provider gives a discount to the company on their match payments. So if I normally have to send in 5k every 2 weeks for my employer match, and someone quits with 20k that wasn't vested yet, I can skip sending my match payment for the next 4 payments.
|
|
#
?
Feb 12, 2017 15:39
|
|
|
Thanks to this thread, I managed to NOT reveal my salary requirements for an initial call with a recruiter. I held firm until the recruiter eventually revealed their own target salary number. I told the recruiter I wanted to learn more about the position before I talked more about salary. Since then I've been proceeding along in the interview process with the hiring manager and have inside word that I'm a top candidate and am pretty sure an offer is forthcoming. While the salary the recruiter named for the role is good, it's only about 2% more than my current base salary and I'd really like at least 10%+ more than current. Total compensation is a consideration, as my current company has crappy bonuses (none or 1%), and no 401(k) matching while this new potential employer has 10% bonuses, matching 401(k), and an ESPP. The recruiter hasn't asked about total comp at my current company. How do I best negotiate salary from here? Do I reveal that my current salary is essentially the same as the number the recruiter provided? Should I be honest that I'm looking for 15% more than current and settle for 10%?
|
|
#
?
Feb 15, 2017 17:46
|
|
|
Caustic posted:Thanks to this thread, I managed to NOT reveal my salary requirements for an initial call with a recruiter. I held firm until the recruiter eventually revealed their own target salary number. I told the recruiter I wanted to learn more about the position before I talked more about salary. Since then I've been proceeding along in the interview process with the hiring manager and have inside word that I'm a top candidate and am pretty sure an offer is forthcoming. My HR class really harps on HR organization strategy before identifying HR strategy so... what is it you do? Are you getting hired for decades (committed expert)? Is this a couple of year job (free agent)? This determines a lot about how people are willing to negotiate for you, and the fact that this new place is emphasizing long-term commitment (ESPP and 401 (k) matching both tend to fall into this kind of strategy), so they might be less flexible about take home cash compensation negotiation. YMMV!
|
|
#
?
Feb 15, 2017 18:13
|
|
|
EAT FASTER!!!!!! posted:My HR class really harps on HR organization strategy before identifying HR strategy so... what is it you do? Are you getting hired for decades (committed expert)? Is this a couple of year job (free agent)? This determines a lot about how people are willing to negotiate for you, and the fact that this new place is emphasizing long-term commitment (ESPP and 401 (k) matching both tend to fall into this kind of strategy), so they might be less flexible about take home cash compensation negotiation. Thanks, that's an interesting perspective. The role is in software, for a top company in the Bay Area. I'm coming from a similar role at a competitor. I'm not planning on or expecting decades of commitment, but likely at least a few years or more. I'm in Operations, not a developer or software engineer or anything.
|
|
#
?
Feb 15, 2017 18:54
|
|
|
Nobody in their right mind (employer or employee) should be planning for decades long employment.
|
|
#
?
Feb 15, 2017 19:15
|
|
|
Just push for 15% and don’t reveal what you’re currently earning, IMO.
|
|
#
?
Feb 15, 2017 22:44
|
|
|
Caustic posted:Thanks to this thread, I managed to NOT reveal my salary requirements for an initial call with a recruiter. I held firm until the recruiter eventually revealed their own target salary number. I told the recruiter I wanted to learn more about the position before I talked more about salary. Since then I've been proceeding along in the interview process with the hiring manager and have inside word that I'm a top candidate and am pretty sure an offer is forthcoming. I would start by asking for 15% - 20% more without revealing your salary and if needed for leverage then reveal it. Try to steer the conversation away from total compensation as that comparison is not favorable to you. You can make the argument about take home pay or something similar.
|
|
#
?
Feb 15, 2017 22:57
|
|
|
Caustic posted:Thanks to this thread, I managed to NOT reveal my salary requirements for an initial call with a recruiter. I held firm until the recruiter eventually revealed their own target salary number. I told the recruiter I wanted to learn more about the position before I talked more about salary. Since then I've been proceeding along in the interview process with the hiring manager and have inside word that I'm a top candidate and am pretty sure an offer is forthcoming. Don't anchor yourself to your current salary. State what you think you're worth in the new role, and leave some room to get negotiated down and still end up above your reserve / walk away number.
|
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2017 00:17
|
|
|
Caustic posted:Thanks, that's an interesting perspective. The role is in software, for a top company in the Bay Area. I'm coming from a similar role at a competitor. I'm not planning on or expecting decades of commitment, but likely at least a few years or more. If it is Apple, PM me.
|
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2017 00:21
|
|
|
My wife has got an offer for a job in Seattle. Its a ten percent raise over what she makes now for strictly salary. Benefits are a little less, but she's coming from a state job that had a whizzo union contract which is not going to continue. However, projected cost of living increase is thirty percent...which seems like a hell of a reach. We definitely want to move to Seattle. Fifteen seems to be what gets thrown around here? Do we just flat out give the thirty percent cost of living and expect to be negotiated down. She's definitely a good catch for the job they have.
|
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2017 03:17
|
|
|
Natty Ninefingers posted:My wife has got an offer for a job in Seattle. Its a ten percent raise over what she makes now for strictly salary. Benefits are a little less, but she's coming from a state job that had a whizzo union contract which is not going to continue. However, projected cost of living increase is thirty percent...which seems like a hell of a reach. We definitely want to move to Seattle. Where are you moving from? If it's not NYC or SF you need to think long and hard about this and the compensation.
|
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2017 04:24
|
|
|
I don't know the details of your wife's industry, but my take is it can't hurt to start at 35%. State that it has to do with cost of living and also that she's a real catch. Especially since you think she's very qualified for the position.
|
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2017 05:09
|
|
|
For what it's worth, a 30% increase in cost of living does not necessarily mean you need 30% more salary to break even. That is only the case if 100% of your salary goes to "cost of living". You almost certainly have some expenses that won't go up. If you don't live paycheck-to-paycheck, your savings each month doesn't have to scale up proportionally, it just has to go up some. So like, if you make $2000/month and spend $1500, and you get a new job making $3000/month and spend $2400, your cost of living has gone up 60% while your salary has only gone up 50%, but it's still beneficial for you because you're putting away an extra $100/month.
|
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2017 05:18
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 15, 2024 18:20 |
|
|
Believe me, we've thought about it. I can easily double my income, which would more than take up the slack. As I said, thirty percent, but that may be a bit overblown. The offer also comes with a number of standard benefits (eg paying professional organization membership fees) which her current position does not provide, which tack on another eight percent. Also, even though her pay is substantially in excess of the federal cutoff, they will pay time and a half overtime. In her profession, overtime is a given, and the firm has told her to expect it. How the heck you calculate what that will be though...statistics say things like 40% in her profession work more than ten hours overtime a week. She has worked substantial overtime in her current position, unpaid, and states she would have worked even more if she was compensated. Natty Ninefingers fucked around with this message at 05:53 on Feb 22, 2017 |
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2017 05:28
|
|