|
I managed to negotiate Tuesday afternoon off instead of a pay increase last year (protip: stuff like that should be mentioned before the negotiation in my experience). I think Tuesday is my most productive day, because I'm forced to get my stuff done before lunch, whereas the other days I spend more time slacking. Also the half day is worth more to me than a whole bag of money.
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2023 12:26
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 29, 2024 08:41 |
|
|
Almost every IT salary job I've ever seen had been no OT. Good places will give you comp time, lovely places will give you nothing, really lovely places will just expect it. I'm very surprised to hear people itt get OT that often.
|
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2023 14:46
|
|
|
Lockback posted:Almost every IT salary job I've ever seen had been no OT. Good places will give you comp time, lovely places will give you nothing, really lovely places will just expect it. Only time I got overtime was when I made below the state threshold in California. And even then, not all companies paid OT.
|
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2023 14:58
|
|
|
Not everyone ITT lives and works in the US. Some places actually have proper labour laws, that protect workers from being exploited 
|
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2023 15:01
|
|
|
Wibla posted:Not everyone ITT lives and works in the US. This is a good point. I should say in US Salaried IT jobs are unlikely to give you OT. Hourly jobs should unless you're in the very narrow "Hourly Exempt" bucket, but that is a very rare designation.
|
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2023 15:33
|
|
|
Wibla posted:Not everyone ITT lives and works in the US. Ghod, do I miss those. “At-will employment” is such a cruel way to protect capital from its own mistakes.
|
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2023 15:39
|
|
|
We need more IT people in  Just saying.
|
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2023 15:41
|
|
|
Wibla posted:Not everyone ITT lives and works in the US. I’m not sure this is a thing 
|
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2023 15:54
|
|
|
gbut posted:Ghod, do I miss those. “At-will employment” is such a cruel way to protect capital from its own mistakes. At-Will is good. It protects employees being able to walk out of a job and it provides low barriers for employers to open new reqs. I've worked at several international companies and we will absolutely hire US first even though it costs more rather than get stuck not being able to get rid of a low performing person. In my experience in europe an office almost always has a higher percentage of free-riding people who have to get covered by everyone else. At-Will is a big driver as to why certain jobs in the US have outpaced other countries in salary. However (and this is important, so don't erase it if you quote me) At-will needs to be paired with a much stronger safety net (and not tying healthcare to employment), stronger enforcement of employee protections and safety regulations, and the ability to unionize easily for those roles that would benefit from it. That the US is missing those things is the problem, not at-will.
|
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2023 15:54
|
|
|
Lockback posted:At-Will is a big driver as to why certain jobs in the US have outpaced other countries in salary. Nope, I’d argue it’s the lack of all those things you mention in the second paragraph, that, just like the cost of hiring mistakes, fall into the lap of those who can least afford them—the employees. It has been shown over and over again that US salary is not greater as other societies cover major life costs through universal healthcare/retirement coverage and such. I’m gonna stop myself from derailing this thread further. Thank you. gbut fucked around with this message at 16:32 on Oct 28, 2023 |
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2023 16:29
|
|
|
gbut posted:Nope, I’d argue it’s the lack of all those things you mention in the second paragraph, that, just like the cost of hiring mistakes, fall into the lap of those who can least afford them—the employees. It has been shown over and over again that US salary is not greater as other societies cover major life costs through universal healthcare/retirement coverage and such. Computer touchers aren't out of pocket for life/medical either; most of us have very good health insurance. It's just that we're willing to let less well off people starve in the streets to protect the wealth of the top .1% Net savings rate (or net exuberant lifestyle, depending on the individual) is higher for programmers in the US for programmers. It's not even close.
|
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2023 18:20
|
|
|
Is it higher for programmers compared to similarly well compensated roles? Biggest driver of savings rates tends to be income. I’m interested to see any data you might have! Edit: the US generally is a good deal for 10%ers roughly because you actually get pretty good benefits along with your relatively high salaries. Worker protections do suck but everything else is fairly good. KYOON GRIFFEY JR fucked around with this message at 19:34 on Oct 28, 2023 |
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2023 19:00
|
|
|
KYOON GRIFFEY JR posted:Is it higher for programmers compared to similarly well compensated roles? Biggest driver of savings rates tends to be income. I’m interested to see any data you might have! I don't know if corporate law, finance, or other fields that pay well in the US pay well outside the US. But for programming specifically, it hasn't been close any time I've looked. I was looking into expatriating about a decade ago, and came to the same conclusion around salary/savings. And relatively recently laughed at my director when they wanted me to move to the UK including a cost of labor adjustment.
|
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2023 20:42
|
|
|
KYOON GRIFFEY JR posted:Edit: the US generally is a good deal for 10%ers roughly because you actually get pretty good benefits along with your relatively high salaries. Worker protections do suck but everything else is fairly good. As long as you stay in that 10%, and you play your cards right with investments/savings and whatnot - and more importantly - don't develop any debilitating health issues that you can't get fixed easily, you're good. For someone like me, who's born and raised in and already in the top ~10% of earners here, there's very little incentive to move to a country that's actively worse on almost all metrics, for an uncertain (but probably bigger) paycheck.
|
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2023 20:48
|
|
|
I live in the US and I have siblings who live in France and I've reported/had direct reports in UK, France, Germany and my wife has had reports from the netherlands. I think the line of "quality of life in terms of income" is probably lower than 10%. Probably top 25% (in the neighborhood of $150k household income) is probably where you'll be able to do more with your income in the US than in the EU. If you're under that mark, your quality of life is almost certainly better in the EU. I think people in the EU don't realize how big and how different culturally the US is depending on where you are. Someone's experiences in New York vs California vs the Midwest vs the South East are all going to be vastly different.
|
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2023 20:59
|
|
|
norway vs massachusetts and alabama vs moldova are much more cogent comparisons, basically
|
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2023 21:32
|
|
|
Lockback posted:I think people in the EU don't realize how big and how different culturally the US is depending on where you are. Someone's experiences in New York vs California vs the Midwest vs the South East are all going to be vastly different. yea, this, and it's getting more divergent not less if you're an urban professional in one of the prosperous (mostly coastal) cities, life is often quite good if you're not, well, yikes but fixing it would be ~*~ socialism ~*~ and the ones getting the shortest end of the stick are frequently the most adamant to keep things going this way 
Guinness fucked around with this message at 22:51 on Oct 28, 2023 |
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2023 22:48
|
|
|
bob dobbs is dead posted:norway vs massachusetts and alabama vs moldova are much more cogent comparisons, basically Funnily enough, the same is now true of me in London. I fly home for my dental care, the one thing cheaper in Dublin.
|
|
#
?
Oct 29, 2023 01:40
|
|
|
I posted in here a couple months ago about demanding a raise and some investment in my teams/product after they laid off a manager on my team and I just got a backdated 10% raise, an existing team reassigned to my product and backfills opened that had been blocked for months. I was literally quitting Monday morning until they told me about the raise at 5:15 today, so now I have to actually plan for our future again.
|
|
#
?
Nov 3, 2023 22:48
|
|
|
do the needful and take a week off - or a long weekend, or ten days, or whatever you can swing - so you can actually execute on it without bad feelings in the way. Need to unwind those burnout feelings for a fresh foot forward.
|
|
#
?
Nov 4, 2023 01:17
|
|
|
Can you be bought off with 10% and promises, or was your alternative still worth quitting for?
|
|
#
?
Nov 4, 2023 14:30
|
|
|
I have a call on Monday with the HR rep who "has an update about my interviews and would like to get on a call to discuss." It's possible this is a rejection, but I want to prepare for the situation where they are extending an offer. This is for a software engineer position. This was the most normal interview process I've gone through, so if we go down the offer route it will be my first opportunity to negotiate my offer. My BATNA is to remain somewhere that's sort of a competitor of theirs on contract for another year at a rate I'm very happy with. I don't know at what point someone says a number first. If it's on Monday, and they ask me what I'm looking for, I don't know how to deflect this late in the process. Do I give a large number to anchor high, or do I still try to get them to move first? How do I deflect if they ask my expectations at this stage? Do I just name my current rate + x%? I've dealt with this successfully in the HR screen, but there it seems easier because there *are* so many unknowns. It just feels like later in the process, my list of excuses to not say a number is much shorter.
|
|
#
?
Nov 4, 2023 15:21
|
|
|
If you have a good sense of salary and where they are likely to offer you can anchor high, but it sounds like you are unsure so you would say something like "I am open to a competitive offer" or even straight up "I'd prefer to start the negotiations with an offer so I can weight benefits and salary together." Mostly keep your mouth shut and let them talk. You don't need excuses, you are trying to get a high number they are trying to get a low number, there isn't a lot hidden here. Think ahead of where your lines would be too. Something people new to negotating get caught up into is trying hard to win the negotiation and claw up an offer but it ending up in a crappy place anyway (It's a known tactic to sell someone a crappy car). It's better to get a good offer that was negotiated poorly than a bad offer than was negotiated perfectly.
|
|
#
?
Nov 4, 2023 15:32
|
|
|
Wibla posted:We need more IT people in As much as I’d like to move somewhere not in the US I don’t think I could get away with not knowing Norwegian in Norway
|
|
#
?
Nov 4, 2023 15:45
|
|
|
Hotel Kpro posted:As much as I’d like to move somewhere not in the US I don’t think I could get away with not knowing Norwegian in Norway Lots of IT companies use English as a working language, so that's not an immediate showstopper. You would have to learn the language to get permanent residency, though.
|
|
#
?
Nov 4, 2023 16:11
|
|
|
Got an offer. Advertised role is lead engineer; expectation of managing direct reports, coordinating with stakeholders, etc. Offer title is senior engineer. Discourse in interview was to start in IC capacity and shift to the management role after getting an understanding of the org/people/local process/etc. Makes sense on the face, but that's not explicit in the offer. Current title is manager, so in some way this is a step back, but if the timeline works out as mentioned in interviews should be fine from role perspective within 6 months. Dollar value 165 cash, smallish (1-3%) likely bonus. Some amount of non-liquid equity consideration, but no way to cash it out and no plans of the company having an event. Current target comp around 245k on 175k base, but the equity is grossly underperforming (10-20% of grant value). Small shift in sector makes the org/role desirable relative to current role. New org is also growing where current org is _very not_. Involves a move from one undesirable location to a slightly less undesirable location. Current mortgage rate at 2%. I'm capitalized to buy in the new local market in cash if I need to (but don't really want to tie up that much, also dont like 8% rates). Housing costs and tax situation is similar between locations. Current thinking is counter at 200 expecting them coming back around 180. Anyone have other thoughts? Went into process looking at/for lateral.
|
|
#
?
Nov 9, 2023 23:15
|
|
|
Taking an IC role for a raise is fine, taking one for a lateral move is a little hairy. Are you going to have direct reports day 1?
|
|
#
?
Nov 9, 2023 23:26
|
|
|
Lockback posted:Taking an IC role for a raise is fine, taking one for a lateral move is a little hairy. Are you going to have direct reports day 1? Yes this. And also I would advise extreme skepticism about anything a company is willing to suggest about your future but unwilling to put into writing. My expectation going in, were I to accept the role, is that I will most likely be strictly an IC there, and I would lean pretty hard against making that move if I'm not content to be an IC for the rest of my career. If you want to stay on the management track, jumping off it once already on it is generally viewed very negatively by executives who hire managers.
|
|
#
?
Nov 9, 2023 23:47
|
|
|
Unless you have a compelling reason to leave I’m not even sure you should counter. Thanks but no thanks.
|
|
#
?
Nov 9, 2023 23:57
|
|
|
A friend recently got hosed over in a similar situation. All of the above, plus, if you’re still going through, have it in writing. Not sure how much it would help though. I’d pass it myself, as it seems like a red flag.
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2023 00:01
|
|
|
Lockback posted:Taking an IC role for a raise is fine, taking one for a lateral move is a little hairy. Are you going to have direct reports day 1? Plan from conversation is to start remote and get reports around relocation, around 3 months in. Eric the Mauve posted:Yes this. And also I would advise extreme skepticism about anything a company is willing to suggest about your future but unwilling to put into writing. My expectation going in, were I to accept the role, is that I will most likely be strictly an IC there, and I would lean pretty hard against making that move if I'm not content to be an IC for the rest of my career. If you want to stay on the management track, jumping off it once already on it is generally viewed very negatively by executives who hire managers. I'm thinking of asking for the Lead title in a revised offer with a defined timeline to having reports. If they're not willing to commit to those, then yeah I'm not sure the pipeline works as they've been talking it through. I'm not terribly interested in leaving the management track. Jordan7hm posted:Unless you have a compelling reason to leave I’m not even sure you should counter. Thanks but no thanks. Current org and project are somewhat troubled. Not sure how heavily to weigh that. Maybe lean stronger on salary to 220 and the advertised title, with clear timeline to reports.
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2023 00:15
|
|
|
I think the counter is “I am interested in the lead eng role. If you would like to have further conversations about that position, great. Otherwise thank you and keep in touch” I also think very little of bait and switch hiring.
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2023 01:00
|
|
|
Yeah I'm reading red flags there. Also, unless it's an actual contract, even if they say in your offer letter "we will promote you to x within x months," they could just...not do that and tell you tough poo poo, take it or quit.
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2023 01:42
|
|
|
Parallelwoody posted:Yeah I'm reading red flags there. Also, unless it's an actual contract, even if they say in your offer letter "we will promote you to x within x months," they could just...not do that and tell you tough poo poo, take it or quit. If I have the title I can still use the title on my resume and HR will confirm it if anyone checks at least 
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2023 01:54
|
|
|
leper khan posted:If I have the title I can still use the title on my resume and HR will confirm it if anyone checks at least You can likely get away with inflating it if your work uses the work number or similar services. When I reviewed background checks I basically said whatever data came back from those places was worthless and defaulted to whatever the candidate's resume said. It was bad enough that rehires had incorrect information about their own previous employment with the org.
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2023 03:50
|
|
|
Jordan7hm posted:I also think very little of bait and switch hiring. It also reads like this to me. If your gut feeling says it’s a bait and switch, it probably is. I always try to think “if they’re already trying to do this type of stuff when they’re trying to hire me, what will they do when I’m actually employed there”. Going back to the original job posting and walking away if they only want to talk about the IC role sounds like the best advice.
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2023 10:52
|
|
|
LochNessMonster posted:It also reads like this to me. If your gut feeling says it’s a bait and switch, it probably is. Yeah, the discourse in the interview made it seem more like a couple months of onboarding with a focus on developing relationships before getting slammed with the reporting responsibilities. But the title does have me worried. Thanks everyone, I guess I'll see how they respond.
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2023 12:55
|
|
|
leper khan posted:Yeah, the discourse in the interview made it seem more like a couple months of onboarding with a focus on developing relationships before getting slammed with the reporting responsibilities. They are capable of doing this without having to do the title dance. At best this is a underhanded probationary period. At worst it's a bait and switch. It may still be worth the risk given your situation and all but this should look like a warning flag.
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2023 15:00
|
|
|
Coming in with a lower title immediately undercuts you in the eyes of your new coworkers and it’s a terrible approach to bringing in a manager. They either have no intention of doing that with you or they are incompetent.
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2023 15:13
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 29, 2024 08:41 |
|
|
Yeah, its not unusual to bring in a manager and just say "This person will be spending some time getting to know the platform and will have no direct reports for a while", but they have the title because thats what they were hired to do. I wonder if this is some "We all had to be Developers first, this new guy (with existing management experience) has to do that too" which is also Not Good from a culture perspective.
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2023 15:32
|
|