|
spwrozek posted:Ah ok. I see. I misread that. Never say a number. *nods sagely* I will try harder next time!
|
#
?
Apr 7, 2021 16:53
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 16, 2024 00:29 |
|
|
Zarin posted:This line seems huge to me. I think on some level a lot of us (myself included here) would feel like we "failed" if we start an interview process and walk away without an offer. I'm not sure why this is, and the psychology behind that is probably out of scope for the thread, but it's probably important for everyone to start the process recognizing that it's okay to walk away and say "thanks, but no thanks" with the understanding that (hopefully) you learned something. You don't even need to learn anything generally applicable. Sometimes people posting jobs are poo poo and all you're going to learn is "This prospective employer is poo poo." Not getting a job offer from a terrible employer is a good and desirable outcome.
|
|
#
?
Apr 7, 2021 17:16
|
|
|
KYOON GRIFFEY JR posted:so let me just get this straight: you're telling me you lied about salary in an environment where there was a good chance that the lie would be found out, and it didn't work and you didn't get paid more, and somehow this was some kind of win? No, there was zero chance it would be found out. The corporation I was doing the actual work for only knows what they are paying the contracting agency, the contracting agency knows both what they are getting paid and what they are paying me, and I, as the contractor, only know what I'm getting paid. The new contracting agency has no way of seeing the previous contract since if the corporation provided that information it would hurt their negotiating position severely. These contracting companies are predatory and their goal is to pay absolutely as little as possible to the person doing the actual work while getting paid as much as possible from the corporation who needs the work done. For people unfamiliar for the system, the contracting company's margins can be well over 100%-200%. They would be happy to take $130 per hour of labor, but then pay the laborer $55 per hour of that. DoubleT2172 posted:From the way it's worded i believe they got the 24K more than the previous contract due to the quotes around currently DrunkMidget fucked around with this message at 18:13 on Apr 7, 2021 |
|
#
?
Apr 7, 2021 18:08
|
|
|
A big part of getting good at negotiating is separating your ego from your results I was hampered early on in my career first by giving up ground to stay agreeable by giving up numbers/expectations, then later by hedging any disagreement with weasel words to try and stay in contention for an offer. Now I don't think twice about saying "I won't tell you what I'm making" and asking for their hiring budget or whatever, because I no longer desire the positive reinforcement of an offer I won't even like I use "positive reinforcement" in the clinical sense, in that if you use job hunts as the basis for your competence or self esteem you will just train yourself to waste your own time
|
|
#
?
Apr 7, 2021 19:43
|
|
|
From Ask A Manager:Alison Green posted:is a salary request 40% over the max enough to rescind an offer? Also, the applicant coming straight out and saying that they were going through the process to hope to get more on the back end was stupid. They should have presented it as "Given what I've learned about this position, I'm going to need $X+40% to take this job. I understand if your budget does not allow for that. Thanks for your consideration." I'm curious what everyone else thinks.
|
|
#
?
Apr 7, 2021 20:01
|
|
|
The part that puts me a bit on the side of the response is this quote:the candidate confirmed the amount that worked for them multiple times For sure, don’t do the final negotiating until they are invested in you, but don’t imply a yes repeatedly when it’s actually a no (or at least don’t be stupid enough to tell them that’s what you were doing).
|
|
#
?
Apr 7, 2021 20:10
|
|
|
Dik Hz posted:Thoughts on this? My first thought is that many hiring managers say salaries are firm when they absolutely aren't. Yep. Companies have straight-up told me "we don't negotiate salary" before, because that lie will absolutely trick some fraction of their prospective hires and the rest will just brush past it like the meaningless noise it is. All that matters is whether you and I can come to an agreement on numbers. Our conversation prior to the negotiation process is about establishing mutual interest, nothing more.
|
|
#
?
Apr 7, 2021 20:12
|
|
|
Negotiation is a power play, and the candidate was, in their counter, betting that they'd so sufficiently blown the hiring manager away that they'd reconsider the amount. For a lot of companies, that is totally within the realm of reality. The candidate did not say "if you offer me the top of that band, I will accept." They simply did not choose to disengage with the interview process given the stated salary band. They got the offer, evaluated it (as well as the benefits/intangibles, which I'm sure were not offered/available until late in the process), and determined that X+40% was their "say yes" number. I think in an employment system that treats you as mercenary, you have to act like a mercenary to effectively advocate for yourself. I think it's a little rich that the manager is treating it like the candidate spat at the offer. Rescinding the offer would only serve to preserve the manager's ego and is frankly a little unprofessional. Maybe I'm a little biased on that last point, as I have had offers pulled after trying to negotiate.
|
|
#
?
Apr 7, 2021 20:14
|
|
|
I've said many times in this thread that if a company ever tries to pull a bait-and-switch during the interview process, tell them to go gently caress themselves with a poleaxe. I feel the same about this. It's not exactly a bait-and-switch per se, but it's a variation of the same con. I'd tell them, couched in professional language of course, to gently caress off, and mark them permanently ineligible for hire if I could. The candidate might have simply decided at the last minute they didn't want to change jobs--people fear change, and all that, or possibly only ever wanted to use this company for leverage in another negotiation--but is awkwardly applying the philosophy of "never turn down an offer outright, just make an outlandish ask" but the way they've gone about it is scummy as hell. The people doing the hiring several times (taking the Letter Writer's word for it, of course) checked to make sure they were on the same page compensation-wise before proceeding. Dramatically raising your ask after you've "got them hooked" is dishonest and far too nakedly greedy to make them worth employing. Eric the Mauve fucked around with this message at 20:21 on Apr 7, 2021 |
|
#
?
Apr 7, 2021 20:15
|
|
|
Jordan7hm posted:The part that puts me a bit on the side of the response is this Yep, I agree with you. The guy signaled that negotiation was basically over, and then at the end came back at +40%. You can do a little bit more, negotiate around the fringes, etc etc, but you'd better be certain there's no other viable candidate and they have no time to lose if you're going to do a huge increase out of nowhere at the end after signaling no objection before. Just don't discuss the salary details / say anything until the end and you see the full package. The dude could even maybe have pulled it off if he framed the question as an issue of benefits / retirement packages instead of "I waited for you to be invested and then yanked the rug out from under you." quote:I think in an employment system that treats you as mercenary, you have to act like a mercenary to effectively advocate for yourself. I think it's a little rich that the manager is treating it like the candidate spat at the offer. Rescinding the offer would only serve to preserve the manager's ego and is frankly a little unprofessional. Maybe I'm a little biased on that last point, as I have had offers pulled after trying to negotiate. I don't think there's a problem with trying to squeeze an extra 40%. I think there's a tactical problem with saying "X is fine" and then being like "SURPRISE, I WANT X+40% NOW THAT YOU LIKE ME." Now they don't like you, because nobody likes having the rug pulled out from under them. There are ways to play the game and get that +40% (or whatever) without basically faking-out that you anchored yourself, and then telling them directly that you were faking. Sundae fucked around with this message at 20:20 on Apr 7, 2021 |
|
#
?
Apr 7, 2021 20:17
|
|
|
Not a Children posted:I think in an employment system that treats you as mercenary, you have to act like a mercenary to effectively advocate for yourself. I think it's a little rich that the manager is treating it like the candidate spat at the offer. Rescinding the offer would only serve to preserve the manager's ego and is frankly a little unprofessional. Maybe I'm a little biased on that last point, as I have had offers pulled after trying to negotiate. 99% of the time I'm in here beating the drum of "any employer that rescinds an offer for trying to negotiate is scum and you should not work for them." But this case is an exception. The applicant stated in several different interviews that $X is sufficient. When offered $X they said "actually it'll take $X+40". That's not negotiating, that's lying. At the offer stage the employer learned new and very relevant information about the prospective employee: namely, that they are dishonest. The new information makes it acceptable for the employer to reconsider whether they want to employ this person at all, IMO. FWIW I wouldn't be surprised to learn this is the kind of lovely company that badgers applicants for current/expected salary in every interaction and the applicant is making the right call choosing not to work for them. But the correct way to go about that is "no, I will not discuss salary unless/until we reach the offer stage", not [LIE]"Sure, $X is fine for me!"
|
|
#
?
Apr 7, 2021 20:20
|
|
|
I think I'm leaning the other way on this one simply because I'm not inclined to take "the candidate confirmed the amount that worked for them multiple times" at face value from the hiring manager. I can very easily see the following talking-past-each-other scenario having played out: Reality: - The candidate did not disengage with the interview process after learning about the salary band and having it reiterated multiple times. They are interested in the position but after getting all the facts and comparing it to their existing employment would require a sizeable bump to make it worth their while. Managerland: - The candidate implicitly agreed that they would accept an offer within the salary band by virtue of not flatly saying no to it and ending the interview process at one of many times the question of compensation was posited. I absolutely agree that this is a lovely way to make a play for the money both in terms of tactics and pathos - the better play is certainly to explicitly put off salary discussion until an offer is on the table rather than setting oneself up for a misunderstanding and hurt feelings with a lie of omission. However, I'm inclined to give the candidate the benefit of the doubt on the basis that companies lie about salary cap flexibility all the time. We're not privy to the exact language used in the salary discussion so I can't claim to know whether the candidate was for-real jerking them around, but with the guy on the other side of this argument unable to defend himself I feel the need to be a little charitable to him.
|
|
#
?
Apr 7, 2021 20:48
|
|
|
Of course, we only know the manager’s side of what the candidate said that constituted “$X is acceptable”, so who knows, maybe the candidate actually said something vague like “I’m sure we can find a mutual agreement” and the company took that as “well they didn’t object to our cap so we’re good!” But yeah defs don’t move the goalposts from what you’ve anchored to already (if the recounting is true then the candidate effectively said a number and thus hosed up). e: a little beaten
|
|
#
?
Apr 7, 2021 20:49
|
|
|
Zarin posted:I will say that working for a company that tells you where you are in your current salary band is huge. I just changed companies, and not knowing what the bands are or where I am in mine is somewhat off-balancing, to say the least. I figure I'll wait awhile before I start asking how to find that information out over an after-work beer or whatever, though. I haven't really thought about it, but is this something that you can just straight up ask your manager/HR dept? Not that I would ever want to bring that question up to our lovely HR people.
|
|
#
?
Apr 7, 2021 20:50
|
|
|
Not a Children posted:I think I'm leaning the other way on this one simply because I'm not inclined to take "the candidate confirmed the amount that worked for them multiple times" at face value from the hiring manager. I can very easily see the following talking-past-each-other scenario having played out: Manager says "Our pay is $X" and then construes anything other than the candidate walking out the door on the spot as "Candidate agreed to $X, firm".
|
|
#
?
Apr 7, 2021 20:53
|
|
|
Yeah I have my doubts about the Letter Writer's reliability too, but the only way this entire discussion has any point at all is to take the information presented to us at face value. The angle is "assuming this is an accurate representation of what happened..."
|
|
#
?
Apr 7, 2021 20:57
|
|
|
Eric the Mauve posted:Yeah I have my doubts about the Letter Writer's reliability too, but the only way this entire discussion has any point at all is to take the information presented to us at face value. The angle is "assuming this is an accurate representation of what happened..." I've not read it much but I've seen Ask A Manager mentioned in a few places and it just seems like it would be a circlejerk echo chamber. Like a landlord forum or something where there is clearly a party line and nobody is going to go against that grain.
|
|
#
?
Apr 7, 2021 21:17
|
|
|
Eric the Mauve posted:Yeah I have my doubts about the Letter Writer's reliability too, but the only way this entire discussion has any point at all is to take the information presented to us at face value. The angle is "assuming this is an accurate representation of what happened..." Agreed. I mean, we can only debate what we have in front of us, which is an Ask A Manager letter. For content: I've used a variant of the "say X, then demand Y" approach before and had it work. A company in Ireland interviewed me, and said there was no relocation package and if that was a problem. I said that "for the right offer, nothing is a problem." They then offered me a moderately-competitive (for Ireland) salary and no relocation, and I came back and said "That's not the right offer. We have a problem." They then turned around and argued a bit, then returned with a full relocation package offer. I ended up still rejecting it because by the time they decided, I'd gotten a drastically higher offer in the USA. Even though the higher-paid job ended up being terrible (it was the J&J job), the Ireland site ended up being shuttered less than a year after I would've started, so while I didn't dodge a bullet, at least I got hit with a smaller one. 
|
|
#
?
Apr 7, 2021 21:20
|
|
|
Ask A Manager is excellent and Alison has ripped many Letter Writers a new one for being out of line over the years. The comments are mostly the same kind of cesspool as comment sections all over the internet though yeah.
|
|
#
?
Apr 7, 2021 21:21
|
|
|
I still don’t blame the candidate for playing hardball on the offer, though. As an applicant there’s no way in hell you should take “we absolutely are capped at $X” as good faith, even if it turns out the manager/recruiter is being truthful. The “I won’t leave without $X+40%” probably would have softened immediately if the company countered with “$X+15%” instead of “no, $X, take it or leave it”. There’s just a lot of “put yourself in the other person’s shoes” introspection that’s lacking in that post and being papered over with “but we were being honest and up front, why would they treat us this way?!  ”
|
|
#
?
Apr 7, 2021 21:23
|
|
|
Target Practice posted:I've not read it much but I've seen Ask A Manager mentioned in a few places and it just seems like it would be a circlejerk echo chamber. Like a landlord forum or something where there is clearly a party line and nobody is going to go against that grain. The comments are garbage like everywhere else like Eric pointed out. If you spot anything interesting over there, bring the discussion over to an appropriate BFC thread.
|
|
#
?
Apr 7, 2021 21:28
|
|
|
Eric the Mauve posted:Yeah I have my doubts about the Letter Writer's reliability too, but the only way this entire discussion has any point at all is to take the information presented to us at face value. The angle is "assuming this is an accurate representation of what happened..." Agreed we can only base it on what it says. I agree with you. We have to post the range (Colorado) of any position. What I can tell you (that I will not tell people I am interviewing) is that the top end is the highest HR will let me offer but it is not the top of the pay band.
|
|
#
?
Apr 7, 2021 21:28
|
|
|
gently caress's sake dude, no one has blamed the candidate for "playing hardball" and no one is going to. We are blaming the candidate for being flagrantly dishonest and wasting everyone's time. In exactly the same way and for exactly the same reasons we would push the  button on a company that told applicants during interview "this position pays $100,000 a year" and then making an offer of $65,000 a year.
|
|
#
?
Apr 7, 2021 21:28
|
|
|
Eric the Mauve posted:gently caress's sake dude, no one has blamed the candidate for "playing hardball" and no one is going to. We are blaming the candidate for being flagrantly dishonest and wasting everyone's time. In exactly the same way and for exactly the same reasons we would push the fourwood posted:But yeah defs don’t move the goalposts from what you’ve anchored to already (if the recounting is true then the candidate effectively said a number and thus hosed up).
|
|
#
?
Apr 7, 2021 21:32
|
|
|
Target Practice posted:I haven't really thought about it, but is this something that you can just straight up ask your manager/HR dept? Not that I would ever want to bring that question up to our lovely HR people. Maybe! I suspect it might even be possible to look up in the HR system myself if I dug deep into it. I just haven't had the time yet, as I haven't even been here 6 weeks yet (and I'm trying to relocate, kill me now  )I figure I'll be in this role for 1.5 - 2 years or so; once people are back in the office, I've actually met my team, and found somebody to be work-bff with, I'll low-key see if they know if that data is in the system first. If not/they don't know, then yeah, I might start asking around with some harder questions. And/or innocent inquiries about how being promoted internally works and that sorta thing.
|
|
#
?
Apr 7, 2021 22:38
|
|
|
Target Practice posted:I haven't really thought about it, but is this something that you can just straight up ask your manager/HR dept? Not that I would ever want to bring that question up to our lovely HR people. Assuming that you have a decent relationship with your manager you can just ask them if that's something they can tell you. If you need to say that someone, friend, colleague, whatever, mentioned this and you're curious.
|
|
#
?
Apr 8, 2021 04:15
|
|
|
I disagree that we have to only discuss what is presented in front of us like some slavish robots incapable of bringing our own experiences to interpreting the story. That manager is definitely full of poo poo and we all know it. They did not get explicit assent to "the top of our advertised range is the absolute highest we can go". If they did get some sort of verbal agreement, we collectively also know that any company saying that in an interview process is usually lying, and that it is not a moral failing of a person interviewing to ask for more. Let's cut the bullshit and actually review what can be relied upon in this story: 1. Candidate was told a salary range, probably multiple times. 2. Candidate continued to work with the interviewing process after being told a cap on what the offer would contain. 3. Candidate was their favorite option out of interviewing. 4. Company offered the top of the range they communicated. 5. Candidate wanted more than they offered. 6. Manager wants the problem with not proceeding with their favorite candidate to be the candidate, not the company that they are working for. So, leaving aside bullshit and skepticism and suspicion, what do you do when you're the manager writing AAM? - The offer contains a deadline. The candidate accepts by time X. - You extend the offer to the candidate with the top of the salary range you can offer. - The candidate asks for more. You say no, the offer is $Y. - IF the candidate says "No", you're off the hook and move onto #2. "Rescinding the offer" is irrelevant. - IF the candidate says "I'd like some time to think about it", you are MAYBE getting your FAVORITE OPTION provided the candidate thinks about it and says yes by X. Otherwise time X arrives and you contact the candidate to tell them the offer expired, and move onto #2. Rescinding the offer is prematurely killing your opportunity to get your FAVORITE OPTION WHO YOU OFFERED THE JOB TO FIRST AHEAD OF ALL OTHER APPLICANTS. Seriously gently caress this manager's brittle ego, and gently caress you too because you're letting your ego sympathize with it.
|
|
#
?
Apr 9, 2021 14:51
|
|
|
Dwight Eisenhower posted:I disagree that we have to only discuss what is presented in front of us like some slavish robots incapable of bringing our own experiences to interpreting the story.
|
|
#
?
Apr 9, 2021 15:04
|
|
|
Corps change the deal constantly, with zero regard. no sympathy when a person acts how they've been trained to act by 20 or 30 years of that behavior. Sorry for the manager having to be the agent of the corp and deal with the inconvenience but yeah, "sorry we couldn't reach an agreement" and move on.
|
|
#
?
Apr 9, 2021 15:10
|
|
|
The more I think about it the more confident I am that the manager is just pissed because they got outplayed and didn't have a plan for if the candidate didn't take the offer. Rescinding the offer accomplishes nothing for them other than preserving ego and maybe letting them save some face if their superior asks why they didn't hire that guy that came in the other day. If they were being professional they'd just have moved on to candidate #2 like DE said, instead of airing their laundry on AAM
|
|
#
?
Apr 9, 2021 15:10
|
|
|
Also I just wanna say a word here about validation again, because we're talking about knives that cut both ways: if an individual interviews with a company and establishes firm boundaries and the company does not arrive at an agreement to work together within those boundaries this is a good outcome for the individual. If a company interviews with a candidate and establishes firm boundaries and the candidate does not arrive at an agreement to work together within those boundaries this is a good outcome for the company. As a company interviewing you get such a better deal than the candidates you are interviewing: you are getting multiple applicants, many applicants are not getting multiple offers. You have multiple employees, most employees have only one employer. You can amortize an expensive employee across your labor pool, an employee cannot amortize their lovely compensation across their employment pool. In exchange for all of these structural benefits, right now employers have to give offers and are expected to honor them for some amount of time. Tough poo poo
|
|
#
?
Apr 9, 2021 15:25
|
|
|
I respect Dwight and get what he's saying but there's a lot of speculative projection going on in here. It's something I used to do constantly, still am prone to doing too much, am trying to resist the temptation to do, which is why here I'm trying to stick to what information we have. I will say my first impulse upon reading the AAM letter was to write, well, something very similar to what Dwight wrote above. But candidates can, on occasion, be assholes too, and "companies do it all the time" isn't justification for being an rear end in a top hat. Do refuse to discuss salary expectations until late in the process. Don't lie about your salary expectations hoping to get 'em on the hook and then dramatically raise them at the offer stage. I still vehemently disagree with all of you that rescinding the offer is inappropriate if a candidate says "Yes, I will accept $X" and then when offered $X refuses it and demands $X+40%. Unless it's "I'm sorry but since we had that conversation, I've gotten a significantly better offer, so it would take $X+40%." But when it's "nahhhh, I changed my mind, I want $X+40% now"? At that point I no longer want the weasel anywhere near my department even at the original $X. I wouldn't want him working for me for free. As to whether the Letter Writer actually is making the story better in the retelling when the candidate actually never agreed to a specific salary while interviewing but instead said something noncommittal like "I'm sure we can reach an agreement somewhere in that neighborhood", yeah I agree that is somewhere between possible and likely. Certainly an employer being offended a candidate didn't want their generous offer is far more common than a candidate using a dishonest hook-and-reel tactic in my experience. I just don't see what's helpful for our purposes here about assuming this must be the case.
|
|
#
?
Apr 9, 2021 15:43
|
|
|
I will note that the writer never mentions that the candidate actually stated they would accept an offer, but instead makes intimations in that direction. The closest they got was "they said that number would work." You'd think that if the candidate had committed to a target salary they would have mentioned a slam-dunk point in their favor like that. I have a particular sore spot about this because a hiring manager used that exact line of attack on my honesty to frame my negotiation post-offer as being somehow duplicitous
|
|
#
?
Apr 9, 2021 15:51
|
|
|
Not a Children posted:I will note that the writer never mentions that the candidate actually stated they would accept an offer, but instead makes intimations in that direction. You'd think that they would have mentioned a slam-dunk point in their favor like that. quote:Throughout the process, the recruiter shared the salary band and that the maximum was not flexible, and the candidate confirmed the amount that worked for them multiple times.
|
|
#
?
Apr 9, 2021 15:52
|
|
|
Not a Children posted:I will note that the writer never mentions that the candidate actually stated they would accept an offer, but instead makes intimations in that direction. The closest they got was "they said that number would work." You'd think that if the candidate had committed to a target salary they would have mentioned a slam-dunk point in their favor like that. Yeah that happened to me once too, and was one of those "never again" formative moments that led me later on to simply end a couple interviews early when the employer made it clear they wanted to pay rock bottom.
|
|
#
?
Apr 9, 2021 15:54
|
|
|
Eric the Mauve posted:Yeah that happened to me once too, and was one of those "never again" formative moments that led me later on to simply end a couple interviews early when the employer made it clear they wanted to pay rock bottom. The funny thing is that I simply asked for a token $5k over their perfectly-decent market-price salary offer and that was enough to offend them to the point of retracting the offer! Pretty sure I posted about it in this thread, too Hasn't stopped recruiters from pinging me on their behalf every few months though. Always a good chuckle when that happens
|
|
#
?
Apr 9, 2021 15:58
|
|
|
I've said it before in this thread but I've come to believe it's always wise to ask for a little extra even if the initial offer is already acceptable to you, for the exact reason you just described: it gives the company one last chance to expose themselves as a terrible company to work for by rescinding the offer for the sin of negotiating. That's not even dodging a bullet when that happens, it's more like the Pulp Fiction thing where they tried to shoot you and you stood still but God reached down and stopped those motherfuckin' bullets. The fact that they will sometimes agree to give you the extra few thousand a year is a side benefit. Testing to see if they're secretly raging assholes is the main benefit.
|
|
#
?
Apr 9, 2021 16:02
|
|
|
Eric the Mauve posted:As to whether the Letter Writer actually is making the story better in the retelling when the candidate actually never agreed to a specific salary while interviewing but instead said something noncommittal like "I'm sure we can reach an agreement somewhere in that neighborhood", yeah I agree that is somewhere between possible and likely. Certainly an employer being offended a candidate didn't want their generous offer is far more common than a candidate using a dishonest hook-and-reel tactic in my experience. I just don't see what's helpful for our purposes here about assuming this must be the case. I know I hedged HARD when they "forced" read: I got beat at negotiating me to say a number first; I said "Without having done extensive research on the cost of living differential, and assuming all benefits are equal, it'll probably take $x for me to move". After I got the bennies information and crunched all the numbers, I ended up asking for (1.1)($x). Maybe I'm wrong, but I'd think any candidate would hedge.
|
|
#
?
Apr 9, 2021 16:08
|
|
|
I'd like to get crisp about two things: Why take down the author of that AAM letter? and What are the things we are balancing between? Why take down the author of that AAM letter? Because from collective experience, it's almost assuredly bullshit and almost assuredly a miserable person wanting to punish a candidate for negotiating. As a thread where we are helping people exercise their backbones and learn how to negotiate, the net takeaway from the story should be that companies will try to get an anchor to a low compensation early on in the process and as an interviewing candidate you should only consider a job offer the exercise in negotiation and it has to be in writing, and it has to describe the total compensation. The kind of information you should have in the U.S. should be the salary you will be paid, what benefits are made available, what are you financial obligations for these benefits, etc. What are the things we're balancing between? At one end of the spectrum you have most employees: People paid somewhere below market rate because they accept what the employer offers them and have internalized to be "thankful" for a job. At the other end of the spectrum you have absolutely cutthroat mercenaries who are optimizing the rate of dollars per hour of labor without regard to the consequences for anyone in their blast radius. If we take the AAM letter author at their word, I still can't say that the candidate is too far on the latter end of the spectrum, because the candidate was playing the pool of employers. The pool of employers express caps for the position that are lies, and negotiating above those caps is possible because they are lying. We have first hand accounts in this thread of posters successfully negotiating above the communicated "maximum" salary. Those posters were doing the right thing.
|
|
#
?
Apr 9, 2021 16:15
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 16, 2024 00:29 |
|
|
So I got a response regarding PTO clarification, and was told it did include holidays as this is the standard new hire amount. I pushed back and said that is not what the understanding was when I agreed to it and this will need to be rectified before I finalize my relocation. Got a response saying they will honor my interpretation, so hey six extra days of pto a year  . Hopefully they don't shitcan me in less than a year.
|
|
#
?
Apr 9, 2021 18:42
|
|
