|
Basically whether it's real or not, any company that's lovely enough to pull that card is going to try and gently caress you over anyway.
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2019 00:50
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 10, 2024 08:16 |
|
|
Ensign Expendable posted:Basically whether it's real or not, any company that's lovely enough to pull that card is going to try and gently caress you over anyway.
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2019 01:03
|
|
|
Who doesn't need a job but still works? What the gently caress
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2019 01:15
|
|
|
rt4 posted:Who doesn't need a job but still works? What the gently caress
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2019 01:20
|
|
|
rt4 posted:Who doesn't need a job but still works? What the gently caress the job, not a job, there's a difference. He's talking about people who can afford to turn down a particular job offer because they are comfortable enough to hold out for a better one, or because they have other offers. This is not rare
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2019 01:30
|
|
|
Sab669 posted:I was wondering though, should I go back to the first company and be like, "You dudes need to pay more - I'm getting way more money for a job with 'lesser' requirements"? Send a rejection email to them, "hey, I'm not taking your offer because you weren't competitive and it's so far apart that I feel embarrassed negotiating". The agency I worked for gave me a FT offer and it was so ridiculously low that I didn't even know where to begin. And got some talk about what hours I worked and how much I brought in to the company plus "great benefits package" despite me being a part time contractor switching to full time salaried. In the end, they apologized for the stupid offer and told me that if I got an offer somewhere else, to let them know because they would counter up to a certain $ amount. My eventual offer was another 15% beyond their top counter, so I just gave my notice.
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2019 03:19
|
|
|
I dunno if any arguments about "you see, at a _good_ company they won't just try to force your salary down" should ever be taken seriously after that one wage-fixing collusion case between several major tech companies. There was ample evidence and they ended up settling.
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2019 03:44
|
|
|
Vulture Culture posted:The flip side: so are companies that pay more to privileged people who don't need the job, and can afford to die on the hill of why they should be paid more than their equivalently productive and experienced coworkers. At the end of the day, your professional relationship is transactional, and you're still paid less than the value you add. Pick your poison!
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2019 04:09
|
|
|
prisoner of waffles posted:I dunno if any arguments about "you see, at a _good_ company they won't just try to force your salary down" should ever be taken seriously after that one wage-fixing collusion case between several major tech companies. RICHUNCLEPENNYBAGS posted:Well, if everyone is going to try and gently caress you then why would you trust anyone further than you could throw them at any stage in the process? Vulture Culture fucked around with this message at 06:45 on Dec 2, 2019 |
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2019 06:42
|
|
|
Vulture Culture posted:That wasn't really the underlying question, though, and you're sort of hitting right at the heart of the matter: with a really strong market for good engineers, the only viable play at suppressing wages is for companies to collude. There's too many competing opportunities out there for most companies to make a play at screwing over individual engineers late in the offer stage. Body shops and consultancies where people with a certain skillset are interchangeable cogs are places where I would worry about this a lot (especially ones in government that cut wages often), but most growing companies are having trouble just getting enough qualified people in the door as they scale. Some fintech companies are paying $800k a year for individual contributors, and to some extent "yeah, but that's fintech", but every other tech company has to price against the threat of its best people leaving for 3-5x their annual pay. What an absurdly privileged take. Think about how the relationship between employer and employee changes at this stage in the process if the employee is a woman, a minority, or literally anyone but a white male.
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2019 12:15
|
|
|
Blinkz0rz posted:What an absurdly privileged take. I've been approaching this from the perspective of "we began these checks because we want, in earnest, to hire this person", where this hypothetical makes no sense in any circumstance, but thinking on what you said, I definitely see two places where my thinking on this falls short and it can be unfair towards candidates who are making bets without that privilege. 1. where there are perverse incentives and misalignments between recruiting and the rest of the company, such that recruiting is scored more on how they're pressing down on compensation versus actually completing the hire 2. where the person was a weak hire in the first place, possibly because of any combination of biases in the interview process, and someone involved in hiring is seeking opportunities to sabotage the hire So, yeah, these are things that happen. You've given me a bit more to think about. Thanks!
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2019 13:39
|
|
|
I appreciate that you're giving this some more consideration but I still think you're considering a very narrow band of employers in very specific markets. Outside of the software industry and, largely, outside of the Bay Area, New York, Austin, Boston, Seattle, Chicago, Raleigh Durham, and Denver, hiring for computer touching, much less programming, is a very different proposition. In colder markets or industries it's much easier for an employer to pass on a candidate or reduce the offer later in the process with the knowledge that unless that candidate can escape that market or has a competing offer, they're sort of over a barrel. In a situation where employers have far more control over the labor market think about how that relationship changes if the candidate is a woman, person of color, lgbtqia+, older, disabled or caring for someone who is disabled, unable to move elsewhere for work, or even has a non-traditional work history. Any bias that an employer can exercise to remove employee power from the relationship is one that they can use to reduce that employee's salary.
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2019 14:02
|
|
|
VC it feels like you want to make some distinction between two classes of employers, like "good ones like where I work" and "everywhere else"? but it's still incredibly hazy to me what this distinction is and whether it is real.
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2019 15:35
|
|
|
Only time I've felt that I could have gotten a better deal from my employer was when I was with a small start-up in Seattle as a junior hire and I was going to up the offer by not taking health insurance (staying on parents') and the hiring manager said "oh, we were going to give you the highest bracket but this makes the decision for us even easier." So starting off by saying I was low-balled even within their own arbitrary pay scales and that even if I helped them out that I wouldn't get any more sucked a bit, but I was unemployed for months by then and it didn't matter. There's definitely a ton of differences in hiring dynamics between employers that are struggling to hire anyone qualified at all and those with access to some of the best candidate pools around the world. In most markets outside hubs engineers might as well be dental hygienists. In fact, I saw better pay doing that than in software or even basic IT - subsistence (and also overpriced) services like healthcare and insurance tend to dominate in much of the US. Most employers in these regions tend to have a lot less mobile workforce and salaries stagnate but so do the employers as well in a balance. Things get more complicated when you're in the "IT" side of the business and not in the revenue generator side of the house but that's usually the bigger factor IME than anything else. Most jobs outside the major tech hubs writing code or even near computers are not revenue generators. Of the few exceptions they're so small to not be considered a market or body shops. When I lived in Asheville, NC one of the local cloud companies was bought for $15 MM and that was considered a huge acquisition. Meanwhile, that's what that company I worked for in Seattle 10 years prior had raised.
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2019 15:52
|
|
|
prisoner of waffles posted:some distinction Does this employer have data on levels.fyi or not?
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2019 16:12
|
|
|
tortilla_chip posted:Does this employer have data on levels.fyi or not? That’s a pretty meaningful distinction!
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2019 16:16
|
|
|
prisoner of waffles posted:VC it feels like you want to make some distinction between two classes of employers, like "good ones like where I work" and "everywhere else"? but it's still incredibly hazy to me what this distinction is and whether it is real. There's a clear distinction between tech companies that have to fight over every hire and pay lots of money and other companies, but I think VC is overestimating the nature of the difference. The big tech companies will still gently caress you when they can, but it's a lot less obvious when that just means you're making $200k rather than the $300k you could be.
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2019 17:58
|
|
|
If you're living in the bay area the difference between $200k and $300k is material. There is a meaningful distinction between two classes of employer: those who view computer touching as a cost center, and those who view it as an investment. The first group is the ones who really want to keep expenses down and will be fighting to do so. The second still doesn't want to overpay but is less concerned with getting the cheapest people possible.
|
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2019 00:10
|
|
|
My computer toucher friends and I joke about how we all will never work at a company that isn’t foremost a software/technology company ever again. But it’s not really a joke.
|
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2019 00:23
|
|
|
Guinness posted:My computer toucher friends and I joke about how we all will never work at a company that isn’t foremost a software/technology company ever again.
|
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2019 01:59
|
|
|
Vulture Culture posted:At the end of the day, it's capitalism, and your employer is keeping some cut of the money you make them. With luck, you can make them a lot of money and keep a bunch of it, and work for someone that wants you to push that relationship as profitably as it goes. The best you can do is pick a company whose value system isn't completely misaligned with your own. Yeah but what I'm saying is, if we're all acknowledging it's a low-trust environment you should assume you'll never get a raise and push hard for good salary up-front
|
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2019 03:23
|
|
|
tortilla_chip posted:Does this employer have data on levels.fyi or not? Are the numbers on that site real? They seem to be way hirer than is listed on other pay sites so I don't know what to make of them.
|
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2019 03:25
|
|
|
RICHUNCLEPENNYBAGS posted:Are the numbers on that site real? They seem to be way hirer than is listed on other pay sites so I don't know what to make of them. Absolutely real Big tech hubs are a hell of a drug
|
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2019 03:44
|
|
|
The companies on that website are some of the highest paying tech companies, but yeah they seem to be pretty accurate.
|
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2019 03:44
|
|
|
RICHUNCLEPENNYBAGS posted:Are the numbers on that site real? They seem to be way hirer than is listed on other pay sites so I don't know what to make of them. Anecdotally it is way more accurate than other sites for some reason
|
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2019 03:46
|
|
|
RICHUNCLEPENNYBAGS posted:Yeah but what I'm saying is, if we're all acknowledging it's a low-trust environment you should assume you'll never get a raise and push hard for good salary up-front
|
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2019 05:04
|
|
|
I agree that companies with well-defined salary bands and companies where software is [viewed as, even if it is not literally] a profit center are materially distinct.
|
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2019 05:11
|
|
|
Guinness posted:My computer toucher friends and I joke about how we all will never work at a company that isn’t foremost a software/technology company ever again. OMFG yes. I worked at a bank that claimed to be transforming into a tech company and they were supposedly treating their techies well, but when stuff got even a bit difficult, they were bankers to the core with a tiny sheen of tech friendliness that quickly rubbed off. An exception of a company that considers and acts with tech as a core component of doing is business is Nike, at least when I worked there in the direct sales part of the business.
|
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2019 08:29
|
|
|
Pie Colony posted:The companies on that website are some of the highest paying tech companies, but yeah they seem to be pretty accurate. Yeah of course but I am trying to give a shot to one of the big names
|
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2019 11:43
|
|
|
Jose Valasquez posted:Anecdotally it is way more accurate than other sites for some reason They're newer, so they're not averaging today's salaries with 10 year old data like Glassdoor probably is.
|
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2019 14:54
|
|
|
Oh, and you know what the worst companies are that don't treat technology as a revenue / profit center? The ones that used to not treat it that way and are trying to recruit a bunch of people to become that way. I will shoot myself in the face before I sign up for any "digital transformation" BS again. Transformations don't happen without kicking out basically everyone or you have a culture of constant self-assessment and everyone suffering from Imposter's Syndrome as a rule.RICHUNCLEPENNYBAGS posted:Are the numbers on that site real? They seem to be way hirer than is listed on other pay sites so I don't know what to make of them.
|
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2019 16:32
|
|
|
Having managed (and been an IC) both inside and outside the startup bubble, I'd agree that it's a wildly different world in IT type roles versus startup product companies. Cost center vs. not and growing quickly versus not really change the managers structural incentives in favor of the employee's pay within the tech hub bubble. In startup land, we have a hard enough time getting talented people in the door to dick people over at the reference check stage. I mean, poo poo, my current bonus is directly tied to filling my raft of open positions quickly (IOW I get more money the less time/amount I'm under my allocated headcount) and not at all tied to the amount my team makes. Certainly the company as a whole is incentivized to control pay, but as a hiring manager I lean on my recruiting team to bump offers up so we can close good candidates. The CEO is the main brake on offer packages. The only structural factor that incentivizes me to drive down offers at my current job is balance/fairness with existing employees. If I have someone with 5 years experience and the new person with 5 years experience wants a lot more than my existing person, I'm not going to offer much more than my existing person is making plus what I think I can get them during the next raise cycle. That said, it's an inconsistent downward force on wages as I've used big pay gaps between new hires and existing folks as a lever to get big raises for people at prior jobs.
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2019 04:28
|
|
|
wins32767 posted:If I have someone with 5 years experience and the new person with 5 years experience Oh poo poo, did the new update finally make Experience implement IEquatable?
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2019 07:06
|
|
|
Years of experience means next to nothing IME.
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2019 15:25
|
|
|
If you got real answers out of people maybe it means something but ime it's the first and most systematic thing peeps lie about. Especially quality of experience, too
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2019 15:44
|
|
|
Pollyanna posted:Years of experience means next to nothing IME. Ten years of experience vs one year of experience ten times, etc.
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2019 15:45
|
|
|
wins32767 posted:I mean, poo poo, my current bonus is directly tied to filling my raft of open positions quickly (IOW I get more money the less time/amount I'm under my allocated headcount) and not at all tied to the amount my team makes. This smells funny to me. Usually a manager who hires is not given recruiter-ish incentives, right?
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2019 18:06
|
|
|
prisoner of waffles posted:This smells funny to me. Usually a manager who hires is not given recruiter-ish incentives, right? Well, it's a balancing act. You get more money for hiring people quickly, but hiring lovely people will make your team lovely and make you look like a bad manager (which it should because hiring lovely people to get a bonus DOES make you a bad manager).
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2019 18:36
|
|
|
In some cases it can also just be a scramble for budget. EOY comes around and you've got an empty seat budgeted but unfilled, then clearly you don't need it, and it's going to go to the team that can and will fill it. Companies can end up slightly feudal - even if you're the Duke of Garbage, having 10 reports grants more status than 3.
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2019 20:39
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 10, 2024 08:16 |
|
|
bob dobbs is dead posted:Especially quality of experience, too How do you make sure you’re getting quality experience, anyway? I hear a lot about not doing the same thing over and over again etc., and there’s taking on projects and higher responsibilities, but “quality experience” is still a bit vague to me, and it’s not clear how to find, recognize, and pursue it.
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2019 21:25
|
|