|
Lockback posted:A week of PTO should only account for a 2% pay increase but it's amazing how stingy companies are with it. I think because there are hidden overhead costs associated with it beyond that 2% equivalency. You're not out in your on little vacuum, but now other people have to cover for you, or some other output product is slowed down or delayed as a result. And of course the problem compounds if multiple people take the same times off, but if it's around expected holidays or seasons where that's typical, then clients/customers/etc. probably expect the associated delays or shutdowns.
|
#
?
Jul 7, 2023 02:44
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 4, 2024 10:38 |
|
|
SpelledBackwards posted:I think because there are hidden overhead costs associated with it beyond that 2% equivalency. You're not out in your on little vacuum, but now other people have to cover for you, or some other output product is slowed down or delayed as a result. And of course the problem compounds if multiple people take the same times off, but if it's around expected holidays or seasons where that's typical, then clients/customers/etc. probably expect the associated delays or shutdowns. Sorry, I really tried to read your post but all I heard where a bunch of obscene fart noises. I think this means you work in HR. Shame that you gave up your humanity and didn't even get any robot parts in return. Good deal for your masters though. Edit: Maybe you can negotiate for some robot parts when looking for the next role. I think the technology is available if you look hard enough.
|
|
#
?
Jul 7, 2023 05:24
|
|
|
Oops, you figured me out dead on.  I'm lucky enough to be an individual contributor in a software role in a company that (at least currently) doesn't do "unlimited PTO" bullshit, and my manager and their manager are very square in the camp of "we give you time off, so use it". But I accrue so much now and we've merged vacation & sick into a single PTO pool that I do have to think about how to use it all efficiently for my own purposes and desires, but also not leave my time high and dry without me - we were hit with a layoff this year and we're more crunched than normal. We basically never get any restrictions on when we take it, as long as we let our teams know long enough in advance if it's going to be a long absence. For short absences of a day or two nobody cares when you use it -- you just tell your manager and go. But not everybody is that lucky, and lots of companies' management certainly don't share that same attitude with flexibility on how you use it, so yeah, the things I said in my last post are some of the reasons they're probably not as willing to negotiate on it as 2% of salary. Maybe I can get someone on my team to use AI or something make you a fart translator though.
|
|
#
?
Jul 7, 2023 05:55
|
|
|
Zarin posted:Sorry, I really tried to read your post but all I heard where a bunch of obscene fart noises. I do work in HR. You're kind of a dick. I don't care when you take off, nor how much vacation you have, because why would I? It has zero impact on my life. Maybe you can get your fart noise situation checked out by a doc and then talk to your HR department about a reasonable accommodation.
|
|
#
?
Jul 7, 2023 07:01
|
|
|
SpelledBackwards posted:Oops, you figured me out dead on. Appreciated; I haven't even tried using ChatGPT yet but I hear it's fun. Perhaps I was a bit out of line. I'm gonna chalk that up to "perpetually understaffed but also I work in Accounting/Finance so we don't GET holidays anyway"; we have the unlimited PTO bullshit (to be fair, I knew it was a scam going into it) and I spent 3 of my 5 days on vacation this past weekend working. Given that, and the fact we don't have enough time off as a culture in general . . . well, the dispassionate analysis of the cost of time off hit different, I guess. However, this is LITERALLY the thread for just that type of analysis, so I'm gonna take the L here. Thanks for adding some color to the conversation. Parallelwoody posted:I do work in HR. Sorry to hear that; not sure which one of us got the shorter end of the stick there (re: my role above) Parallelwoody posted:You're kind of a dick. Sometimes. More often lately, it seems. For what it's worth, I really like your posting, so I apologize for any offense. You've given a lot of great insight over the years and the thread is infinitely better for it. You seem like genuinely good people, too; I'm sorry all the generalizations catch you up in it as well. Parallelwoody posted:Maybe you can get your fart noise situation checked out by a doc and then talk to your HR department about a reasonable accommodation. Gonna pass on that. For one, that would cost money and we can't have that. For two, past experience has taught me that nothing good ever comes from engaging HR; at best I'll get an empty smile and a sweet lie - whatever it takes to make me go away the fastest. I'll just work it out with the doc and tough it out.
|
|
#
?
Jul 7, 2023 13:45
|
|
|
You’ll never solve your fart problem so long as you work in accounting/finance and count beans all day.
|
|
#
?
Jul 7, 2023 15:45
|
|
|
What the hell is going on on this here thread? Spellbackwards is right, there are additional costs to vacation time, it’s not a straight 1/52 cost impact. There are also additional benefits. I value vacation time at more than the cost would imply. Anyway I got an answer, salary is firm (given how long approving the position took, whether it’s firm because it really is or because the approval overhead is too high, I believe it) but we’ll see about signing bonus and vacation time.
|
|
#
?
Jul 7, 2023 16:36
|
|
|
Jordan7hm posted:Spellbackwards is right, there are additional costs to vacation time, it’s not a straight 1/52 cost impact. There are also additional benefits. I value vacation time at more than the cost would imply. It's certainly not as simple as 1/52 cost, but IME many companies will pay far, far above its cash value in salary and bonuses rather than giving out an extra week a year. Especially when the norm of 2-3 weeks/yr is so low already it's not like people aren't already working most of the time. I've always tried to push on more vacation in salary negotiations and it's never been successful, but companies will quickly offer $15-20k/yr more in salary and a $10k signing bonus instead of giving out one more week of vacation.
|
|
#
?
Jul 7, 2023 16:51
|
|
|
Jordan7hm posted:What the hell is going on on this here thread? We’d probably throw you +10k or so in the signing bonus, maybe guarantee a bonus floor at EOY and then tell you to go away on vacation because ours is very standard based on level.
|
|
#
?
Jul 7, 2023 18:21
|
|
|
KYOON GRIFFEY JR posted:We’d probably throw you +10k or so in the signing bonus, maybe guarantee a bonus floor at EOY and then tell you to go away on vacation because ours is very standard based on level. The clause I saw someone else get was additional days at manager discretion. I’d be fine with that. I get standard vacation levels but 3 weeks seems real low for similar comps. The joy of going to a public firm I guess.
|
|
#
?
Jul 7, 2023 18:42
|
|
|
I asked for extra PTO/year to match what I currently had and instead got a lump sum of PTO up front, kind of like a signing bonus. At the time the new company had no use it or lose it policy. Fast forward a year and the company got bought out. New company has a use it or lose it policy, but a lot of us had accrued months of PTO so they divvied up accrued PTO and split it across the next three years. Now I have more PTO/year than I initially asked for, at least for the next three years.
|
|
#
?
Jul 7, 2023 20:03
|
|
|
Jordan7hm posted:The clause I saw someone else get was additional days at manager discretion. I’d be fine with that. I get standard vacation levels but 3 weeks seems real low for similar comps. The joy of going to a public firm I guess. Is that including holidays? Canada’s different but for us we have 25 PTO days plus seven holidays plus the week between Christmas and New Year off. I think it’s 20 PTO days for staff below manager.
|
|
#
?
Jul 7, 2023 21:28
|
|
|
I got an offer yesterday. Literally the very lowest salary of the posted salary range for a position that I have more experience than the posting asked for. I'm not even sure I want to try negotiating, it felt less like an offer and more like an insult.
|
|
#
?
Jul 14, 2023 12:56
|
|
|
There's nothing wrong with just saying "Thank you for the offer but we're so far apart I feel it would be unproductive to continue. All the best of luck filling the position (you're going to need it)"
|
|
#
?
Jul 14, 2023 13:41
|
|
|
Or just say if the offer was at X that you'd accept it today and see if they bite or even come up a bit from their initial one to something you'd be okay with. Better than not even bothering after going through an interview process imo
|
|
#
?
Jul 14, 2023 15:01
|
|
|
Generally true. But there are some cases where it turns out once the offer comes in that continuing at all is just a waste of time. Especially if the company's sending signals that the only thing they really care about is filling the position as cheaply as possible. You can phrase it as "Thank you for the offer! Unfortunately we are very far apart. I would need $OFFER+50% to go forward here. Does it make sense to keep talking or should be mutually move on at this point?" But when you're that far apart I've never seen a company actually end up with an acceptable offer. Sometimes, in negotiations of all kinds, it turns out the two parties are just wanting very different things and there is no mutually acceptable place to land. Eric the Mauve fucked around with this message at 15:37 on Jul 14, 2023 |
|
#
?
Jul 14, 2023 15:34
|
|
|
I generally agree with whats said here, but for a bit of another view: This is kind of the natural counter to "Never name a number". When a range is posted and a company doesn't name a number, we say "name the top of the range", so the other side of that will always be "name the bottom if they won't tell you". I'd give a good (high) counter that you think is still realistic and see what they do. If they don't budge or barely come up then it's an easy walk. But basically this company is taking every bit of advice from this thread, which I don't think is appropriate for a company to do. For the record, you're very justified just walking away but I if you need a job or find this company otherwise interesting it's probably worth the relatively small amount of time to see if they are playing a very stupid game or just a kinda stupid game.
|
|
#
?
Jul 14, 2023 15:53
|
|
|
There is a (small, admittedly) chance that they'll come up with an acceptable offer, but it's worth taking a shot if you actually like the company otherwise, because they might come back to you later if their other top candidates also turn down the offer. I'm only saying this because it recently happened to me when I applied somewhere- the (first party) recruiter told me their budget, which was like 15k lower than I currently make. I had already made it through most of that initial interview when that info came up, but I basically ended it there. They said that if they heard the same thing from other candidates that they may be able to increase the budget and they'd call me back if so. I assumed that was BS, but it actually happened. Granted, their new budget was basically exactly what I make now and not worth jumping from my current job for, but they did indeed restart the interview process with me when they had that new budget. The position was the same title I have now, so it seems like the clouds parted and they actually at least brought their pay up to market.
|
|
#
?
Jul 14, 2023 15:56
|
|
|
Eric the Mauve posted:There's nothing wrong with just saying "Thank you for the offer but we're so far apart I feel it would be unproductive to continue. All the best of luck filling the position (you're going to need it)" I did this. Then 10 months later an external recruiter contacted me about the same rec. I basically told him "lol they're out of their minds, I rejected a 50% market offer from them. Good luck dude" And he replied with "  yeah I'm trying to get them to bring the range up. Not sure how this is going to work"I can't describe the feeling I had after that call. But I don't regret not taking that lovely offer.
|
|
#
?
Jul 14, 2023 16:35
|
|
|
Remote work makes that weird too. Sometimes you have a position that was previously accustomed to paying people a salary of some low-COL spot, but the applicant is from a high-COL spot so the whole process is fully doomed to fail. It doesn't even have to be something totally wild like Silicon Valley. Obviously, the onus is on them to understand this.
|
|
#
?
Jul 14, 2023 16:39
|
|
|
Eric the Mauve posted:Generally true. But there are some cases where it turns out once the offer comes in that continuing at all is just a waste of time. Especially if the company's sending signals that the only thing they really care about is filling the position as cheaply as possible. I've had them re-evaluate regional rates when things have been pretty far off. It helps if you're talking to someone higher up in HR and you can just ask them "when's the last time you calibrated bands?" and they know the answer to that and can kick off process to adjust if it's been a while.
|
|
#
?
Jul 14, 2023 16:40
|
|
|
Magnetic North posted:Remote work makes that weird too. Sometimes you have a position that was previously accustomed to paying people a salary of some low-COL spot, but the applicant is from a high-COL spot so the whole process is fully doomed to fail. It doesn't even have to be something totally wild like Silicon Valley. Obviously, the onus is on them to understand this. Yeah, that's also a good point. Like yes my job is remote and you'll find it, but that doesn't mean I can adjust my pay scale to every market. Though, you need to have that upfront conversation if you see they are coming from a HCOL area.
|
|
#
?
Jul 14, 2023 16:41
|
|
|
Lockback posted:I generally agree with whats said here, but for a bit of another view: This is kind of the natural counter to "Never name a number". When a range is posted and a company doesn't name a number, we say "name the top of the range", so the other side of that will always be "name the bottom if they won't tell you". A good point. But it's a little different in this case, because the company has already named their range. So to then come in offering the very bottom of the range, to a very well qualified and experienced candidate (taking OP's word for that of course), communicates "we are cheap". The assumption there (almost always correct in my experience) is that they'll move up to the middle of the range but no higher.
|
|
#
?
Jul 14, 2023 16:41
|
|
|
Magnetic North posted:Remote work makes that weird too. Sometimes you have a position that was previously accustomed to paying people a salary of some low-COL spot, but the applicant is from a high-COL spot so the whole process is fully doomed to fail. It doesn't even have to be something totally wild like Silicon Valley. Obviously, the onus is on them to understand this. This happened in Austin. Big move of people to the area pushed comp up. Roles that were previously bottom of market are now extremely below market. A lot of people in Austin don't understand that Austin is quickly becoming a high COL area. It would be more obvious to them if they rented (on either side of that relation)
|
|
#
?
Jul 14, 2023 16:49
|
|
|
Eric the Mauve posted:A good point. But it's a little different in this case, because the company has already named their range. So to then come in offering the very bottom of the range, to a very well qualified and experienced candidate (taking OP's word for that of course), communicates "we are cheap". The assumption there (almost always correct in my experience) is that they'll move up to the middle of the range but no higher. I agree with this. I think there's a chance they are just playing a stupid game, which in of itself is not a good sign. However, even good companies sometimes play stupid games so I'd go one more round with them and see what they say. I think your right that they won't end up matching OP's expectations and probably are trying to get someone under market.
|
|
#
?
Jul 14, 2023 18:33
|
|
|
Got an offer at my “yes number”. Was told that the company policy was 3 days office, 2 day wfh. I told ‘m that I’ve been full remote for 3 years and anything over 1 day at he office would be a dealbreaker. Got the OK in writing in less than an hour. I would’ve walked away if it’d be 2 days a week. Apparently there are other peeps who come in once a week but corporate wants butts in seats. Up to manager discretion apparently.
|
|
#
?
Jul 14, 2023 22:40
|
|
|
LochNessMonster posted:Got an offer at my “yes number”. Was told that the company policy was 3 days office, 2 day wfh. I told ‘m that I’ve been full remote for 3 years and anything over 1 day at he office would be a dealbreaker. Got the OK in writing in less than an hour. I'd be concerned that it's a short-term win and that corporate pressure will eventually overcome manager discretion, even in writing I'm still convinced that most companies that are hybrid now will slippery slope into near full time in-office sooner or later, either by formal decree or social/managerial pressures or both
|
|
#
?
Jul 15, 2023 00:00
|
|
|
Guinness posted:I'd be concerned that it's a short-term win and that corporate pressure will eventually overcome manager discretion, even in writing Extremely agree. e: There's also the risk/likelihood that the specific manager in question will be replaced, one way or the other, before long, and new manager will come in with a mandate to get them asses in them seats.
|
|
#
?
Jul 15, 2023 00:26
|
|
|
I mean, again I generally agree but the other side is I don't think we know at all how this will all play out. I feel like as far as WFH goes focus more on the immediate because long term is a real open question.
|
|
#
?
Jul 15, 2023 03:09
|
|
|
Hi everybody, I'm sorry for the slow response, I was at work and just got some downtime to rest up for work tomorrow. (This is something I volunteered for, I'm on a work detail that I am extremely happy to have!) I guess what I'm trying to say is, I'm in a secure situation, my BATNA has never been stronger, and while it was a gutpunch to see given my history with the agency that offered the position, I'm not worried about my financial situation.Eric the Mauve posted:A good point. But it's a little different in this case, because the company has already named their range. So to then come in offering the very bottom of the range, to a very well qualified and experienced candidate (taking OP's word for that of course), communicates "we are cheap". The assumption there (almost always correct in my experience) is that they'll move up to the middle of the range but no higher. The basic requirement for the position is a Master's degree. I have that. I also have over a year's worth of experience with the agency offering the position and am extremely well versed in the work culture and expectations (intermittent deployments and I'll say no more!). I left with a perfect personnel rating (admittedly for a different position) and supervisory experience that I technically didn't qualify for performing at all, but was semi-officially promoted into because of how well I performed in the field. Laying it all out, it'd definitely not that I think I can run the position, but being at the bottom of the range? Nah, I already did my time there and have no desire to go back. (I am partially exaggerating, they didn't start me out at the bottom of the scale back then, so...) Lockback posted:I generally agree with whats said here, but for a bit of another view: This is kind of the natural counter to "Never name a number". When a range is posted and a company doesn't name a number, we say "name the top of the range", so the other side of that will always be "name the bottom if they won't tell you". This is what I'm leaning toward doing. I would be extremely surprised if they went any higher (I'd need to be much closer to the highest end to take the position), but I have literally nothing to lose. Lockback posted:I agree with this. I think there's a chance they are just playing a stupid game, which in of itself is not a good sign. However, even good companies sometimes play stupid games so I'd go one more round with them and see what they say. I think your right that they won't end up matching OP's expectations and probably are trying to get someone under market. I think that this is absolutely right. Is it bad of me to say that I was hopeful for more from them? Eric the Mauve posted:Generally true. But there are some cases where it turns out once the offer comes in that continuing at all is just a waste of time. Especially if the company's sending signals that the only thing they really care about is filling the position as cheaply as possible. I had some time to think about it while I was at work, and what it really comes down to is that the upper end is lucrative... but it's probably more of a lure than an expectation. The biggest perk with this job is that it hires quickly (I applied on a lark less than a month and a half ago). My interview was five minutes over the phone, none of my references were contacted... For somebody trying to break into Federal employment, it's a great way to get your foot in the door. But for somebody like me, who has that experience and is hoping to advance, maybe taking a job like this is just not a good idea, even at the highest end. I've been spoiled by a reliable 9/5 schedule. Unless I can work out that mythical dual employment thing that they desperately tried to get my new employer to agree to when left. But at the moment, I really am happier at my job than I have been at any job. This detail I'm on is going to last another month, I'll have to reevaluate, but I also have other offers that I've been referred for. I think I'll reach out and see if they can bring their number up, and if not, no worries. There's a lot more I have to look forward to anyway!
|
|
#
?
Jul 15, 2023 03:24
|
|
|
Dammerung posted:
I like saying that from a "Get their expectations into reality" but it may ruffle feathers for no good reason. However, my epitaph will probably say "died on a dumb hill" so....
|
|
#
?
Jul 15, 2023 03:29
|
|
|
Guinness posted:I'd be concerned that it's a short-term win and that corporate pressure will eventually overcome manager discretion, even in writing If it was just a managers word instead of getting it in writing I’d agree it meant nothing. I’m from the EU where “at will” employement is not a thing and where contract clauses like this are enforceable. The reason they budged (this easily) may be because the team I’m joining has a few folks who live in different countries (same timezone) and aren’t able to come to the office even if they wanted too. There is at least 1 other coworker who has the same clause added to his employement contract. And if they are for some reason they do start trying to nudge/force people to the office I’ll just switch jobs again.
|
|
#
?
Jul 15, 2023 08:41
|
|
|
Oh yeah if it's actually in your employment contract then that's different. In the US you can get it in writing but that doesn't mean all that much. They can still say "come in or get let go".
|
|
#
?
Jul 15, 2023 15:28
|
|
|
Lockback posted:Oh yeah if it's actually in your employment contract then that's different. In the US you can get it in writing but that doesn't mean all that much. They can still say "come in or get let go". Labor laws here strongly favor employees. It’s still possible to harass people to get them to comply or quit though.
|
|
#
?
Jul 15, 2023 22:33
|
|
|
Lockback posted:I like saying that from a "Get their expectations into reality" but it may ruffle feathers for no good reason. However, my epitaph will probably say "died on a dumb hill" so.... The temptation to respond like this is overwhelming, but I think it might just be a crappy job from a pretty crappy employer. If they're all having a mad tea party together, it's on me if I wander over and start begging for the privilege of refilling their cups.
|
|
#
?
Jul 17, 2023 01:40
|
|
|
I did some research and found out that I am paid about 10 K under the average salary for someone in my position in my state and nationally with my experience. I want to bring this up to my boss but I’m not 100% sure how/when as I just got my 5% raise a few months ago. I have no desire to leave my company as I have done very well here and they are very flexible with great benefits, but I do know that I want to be compensated fairly. I get my semi annual review in two months, so I was thinking of bringing it up then and bringing a bunch of data as to what I have accomplished. I’ve looked on Glassdoor and that gives me an idea of the salary I would like. Are there any other sources I should look at before I bring this up? I assume I should come with numbers and accomplishments as well?
|
|
#
?
Jul 17, 2023 13:48
|
|
|
ARCDad posted:I have no desire to leave my company Then you are likely to get nothing unfortunately
|
|
#
?
Jul 17, 2023 13:53
|
|
|
ARCDad posted:I did some research and found out that I am paid about 10 K under the average salary for someone in my position in my state and nationally with my experience. I want to bring this up to my boss but I’m not 100% sure how/when as I just got my 5% raise a few months ago. 
|
|
#
?
Jul 17, 2023 13:58
|
|
|
Scheduled (semi)annual reviews are the absolute worst time to ask for a raise of more than standard COL. The entire purpose of the review cycle is to prevent that specific thing from happening. Even if your boss wanted to give you that 15% raise, they can't: they have a raise budget that works out to an average of 2.5% per person on their team, and anything more they want to give one report they would have to take from another. And possibly also fight HR over it, depending on the org. I know it's not what you want to hear, but facts are stubborn things: DoubleT is very likely right. It's not impossible to get a big raise from your current employer, but to have any chance at all you need to ask outside of the review cycle ("I love it here and want to stay for a long time, but we need to look at an adjustment to my salary. Can we draw a roadmap to get to $X?") And you also must understand that doing so carries risk: the company might decide you're a Flight Risk when you indicate you know you're underpaid, and begin preparing to replace you. (Management of companies who habitually underpay employees have a lot of experience in this area. They know what they're doing.) So, once again, you really should only ask for more money if you're actually comfortable with finding another job if you have to. If you're not really willing to do that, you're best off making peace with your underpaid lot in life. Eric the Mauve fucked around with this message at 14:25 on Jul 17, 2023 |
|
#
?
Jul 17, 2023 14:22
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 4, 2024 10:38 |
|
|
Eric the Mauve posted:Scheduled (semi)annual reviews are the absolute worst time to ask for a raise of more than standard COL. The entire purpose of the review cycle is to prevent that specific thing from happening. Even if your boss wanted to give you that 15% raise, they can't: they have a raise budget that works out to an average of 2.5% per person on their team, and anything more they want to give one report they would have to take from another. And possibly also fight HR over it, depending on the org. I would add any employee/employer relationship requires some amount of trust, so if you feel you probably won't get chewed out then I'd have the conversation. I think people suffering quietly is probably a more widespread problem that getting axed for having professional conversations about compensation, especially now. But the latter does happen so adjust according to how you think your organization runs. Fwiw, I've been on both sides of conversations, and Eric's approach is 100% spot on. Sometimes you can do something about it, sometimes you can't. Not everyone can be at or above average salary for a role, that's not what average means. I'd also say I'd rather be at a place I like working at rather than a place I didn't making 10% more. The company may realize this.
|
|
#
?
Jul 17, 2023 14:52
|
|