|
Eric the Mauve posted:Will he be happy with only a 10% increase on his current salary, which is what they are going to firmly offer, though
|
# ? Sep 10, 2020 16:57 |
|
|
# ? Jun 13, 2024 07:05 |
|
I just had a recruiter play the "we're not continuing with this discussion until you name a salary" card. I'm thankful I'm not desperate, and I'm guessing they're having trouble hiring for this job because it has weird hours (that I think I would actually really like). I followed up by asking several clarifying questions about the job (the description didn't even mention whether it was exempt or not), so we'll see. I strongly suspect they're trying to pay very little for the position, and when I name a number they'll tell me to gently caress off.
|
# ? Sep 10, 2020 18:42 |
|
Thanatosian posted:I just had a recruiter play the "we're not continuing with this discussion until you name a salary" card. Did they reach out to you or vice versa?
|
# ? Sep 10, 2020 18:50 |
|
Thanatosian posted:I just had a recruiter play the "we're not continuing with this discussion until you name a salary" card. Is this in a state where this is illegal?
|
# ? Sep 10, 2020 18:56 |
|
Naming a number first doesn't have to be a bad thing, in negotiation it's called "anchoring" and there's tons of research to indicate its better to anchor than have the other party start first and anchor too low. Tibalt's example is a good example where he got played because he was already at a disadvantage and didn't know the ranges to begin with. If you're being pressed for a number, do the research and find a number at or above the top of their range so you anchor there. It really isn't hard to find this info in this day and age, you just have to hunt for it. Infinotize posted:Is this in a state where this is illegal? What state is it illegal to ask for a desired salary during the interview process?
|
# ? Sep 10, 2020 19:04 |
|
Anti-Hero posted:Did they reach out to you or vice versa? Lockback posted:Naming a number first doesn't have to be a bad thing, in negotiation it's called "anchoring" and there's tons of research to indicate its better to anchor than have the other party start first and anchor too low. Tibalt's example is a good example where he got played because he was already at a disadvantage and didn't know the ranges to begin with. She wound up responding to my questions by giving me a salary range, so, mission accomplished. Also, I'm not sure whether recruiters would consider this a positive or a negative, but I find myself getting partway through applications for jobs that look like I may be interested in but don't super excite me based on the description and just not bothering finishing the application if their application site is a pain in the rear end.
|
# ? Sep 10, 2020 19:10 |
|
Thanatosian posted:I just had a recruiter play the "we're not continuing with this discussion until you name a salary" card. . tombstone-wild-bill-well-bye.gif
|
# ? Sep 10, 2020 19:15 |
|
Thanatosian posted:I find myself getting partway through applications for jobs that look like I may be interested in but don't super excite me based on the description and just not bothering finishing the application if their application site is a pain in the rear end. I am the same way and I treat it as a reflection of the org/culture... I figure if applying is a pain in the rear end, what about actually working there?
|
# ? Sep 10, 2020 19:41 |
|
Tibalt posted:Yeah, I didn't tell him my current salary. But we had been chatting and getting along fine when he asked me "what I was looking for, to make sure we weren't wasting your time" and social anxiety got the best of me. Thanatosian posted:I just had a recruiter play the "we're not continuing with this discussion until you name a salary" card. The nice thing about having a strong negotiating position is that you can just straight up say "I don't care" when they try to pull this poo poo. My go-to line is typically something like "if we determine that this will be a mutually beneficial opportunity, I'm sure we'll be able to reach an agreement. Until then, I'm not worried about specific numbers." If they push it I just flat-out tell them I don't want to talk numbers until I have a better understanding of the position and an offer is on the table. If they push harder than that, I tell them if they want to hire a bad negotiator they should interview someone else (I've only gotten to say this once, and I did end up moving forward). The rule of not saying a number can be flexed a little if you're familiar with the position, the market, and what you want, but the "DON'T FUCKIN SAY A NUMBER" advice is a drat good catch-all until you're experienced and well-informed.
|
# ? Sep 10, 2020 20:12 |
|
The longer form is, Never say a number unless you KNOW exactly what number to say and why you’re saying it.
|
# ? Sep 10, 2020 20:37 |
|
Eric the Mauve posted:edit re: the post above this: do yourself a huge favor and never admit to being a landlord on The Somethiwful Forums
|
# ? Sep 10, 2020 21:54 |
|
Dik Hz posted:This. There some real wack-a-doos in here who view anything less than a full condemnation of all forms of capitalism as grounds for the If the guillotines come, they come. I'm the beneficiary of a lot of privilege. Should I sell my apartment that I plan to move my father-in-law (who is happily living alone at age 70) into when he can no longer care for himself? Nah, I'll keep it, and rent below market rate to a nice dude who works at my old company. If my spouse and I divorce, it'll also be where I live if he kicks me out of the inherited family home where we live (and he's the sole deed owner). poo poo goes sideways and I'll need to live somewhere. On topic: I'm wondering about the negotiation strategy of staying in the same role if my contracting firm loses the recompete. If the base pay is set by the government holding the contract, and The Firm loses the recompete, what's my leverage in saying to the new contract holder "yo, I'm here and a known entity, hire me at your contracting firm"?
|
# ? Sep 10, 2020 22:09 |
|
Betazoid posted:On topic: I'm wondering about the negotiation strategy of staying in the same role if my contracting firm loses the recompete. If the base pay is set by the government holding the contract, and The Firm loses the recompete, what's my leverage in saying to the new contract holder "yo, I'm here and a known entity, hire me at your contracting firm"? You need to have a good alternative for if they say "nah" or else you have no leverage
|
# ? Sep 10, 2020 22:14 |
|
Not a Children posted:You need to have a good alternative for if they say "nah" or else you have no leverage No, he means to the new contractor. They won't really care if he goes since he's part of the old guard. "If you don't hire me I'll walk" isn't exactly a threat.... Your leverage is your experience and to some extent whatever the handover is. I think your approach of finding them right away and being like "Hey, I'm a guy who can do the job at the already-set rate". They should want you identified ASAP so they can use you as part of the conversion. That's if they care, they may not in which case it's find-a-job time.
|
# ? Sep 10, 2020 23:42 |
|
Lockback posted:No, he means to the new contractor. They won't really care if he goes since he's part of the old guard. "If you don't hire me I'll walk" isn't exactly a threat.... Bingo... In a previous role, I was scouted by another firm that won the recompete. I ultimately didn't want to go with them because they were a rinky-dink outfit that I suspected won on lowest price technically acceptable (LPTA), which was laughable given my current employer, who was as mickey-mouse as they came. I was so inexperienced at the time that I was scared to jump ship but it ultimately ended up being a good thing for shooing me off a sinking boat. I just see the same thing happening next year with my current contract and am a little more savvy these days about trying to figure out where I'll land if someone else comes in lower on an LPTA bid. Edit: also I'm a chick.
|
# ? Sep 11, 2020 03:13 |
Can you sense the employers' emotions as leverage though?
|
|
# ? Sep 11, 2020 04:46 |
|
silvergoose posted:Can you sense the employers' emotions as leverage though? Bro, the hiring manager is Ferengi, so no, it doesn't work.
|
# ? Sep 11, 2020 04:57 |
Betazoid posted:Bro, the hiring manager is Ferengi, so no, it doesn't work. poo poo! Would have been useful though.
|
|
# ? Sep 11, 2020 05:01 |
|
Betazoid posted:Bingo... In a previous role, I was scouted by another firm that won the recompete. I ultimately didn't want to go with them because they were a rinky-dink outfit that I suspected won on lowest price technically acceptable (LPTA), which was laughable given my current employer, who was as mickey-mouse as they came. My apologies, Miss Chick. I did the opposite and stayed put (years and years ago) at a government contractor as the holder shuffled. It was fine, pretty easy. There was 0 room for negotiation unless you think you can move into a different role that is open/opens up. It was kinda crappy in that it was a new boss but still the same job including the same little stuff you end up collecting and being responsible for if you've been somewhere a while. If I recall I got a pay bump but I think it was entirely because we were picking up more work and I got reclassified. There was 0 input from any of us who stayed on any of that. So yeah, mostly the leverage sucks but if you like the job you can probably keep it if you start talking to the new bosses now.
|
# ? Sep 11, 2020 05:05 |
|
Lockback posted:Naming a number first doesn't have to be a bad thing, in negotiation it's called "anchoring" and there's tons of research to indicate its better to anchor than have the other party start first and anchor too low. Tibalt's example is a good example where he got played because he was already at a disadvantage and didn't know the ranges to begin with. We've rehashed this multiple times in this thread, but apparently we need to one more time: If you're reading this thread and finding it valuable you probably are not a skilled negotiator and probably do not know market rates and in general are not equipped to anchor effectively. Negotiation isn't something that people are effectively taught in USA culture (if anything, most interactions with money are so "retail fixed price" oriented that it pervasively disarms people from negotiating). While you're climbing the learning curve of Getting Paid What You're Worth For The Same Work, not naming a number is the dominant strategy, because a) you're underpaid right now and b) you don't know what market rates are for comparable positions in order to make realistic asks and c) imposter syndrome is going to betray you asking for what you're worth. Once you're out of the woods, anchoring does work and it is a good tool to have in the box. The thread is full of tons of examples of anchoring working, and I can't think of an example where it worked great for someone who was a complete novice at negotiating. The thread is also full of tons more examples of not naming a number working, because of people learning how to negotiate doing the thing that works well when you're learning and climbing the learning curve. We don't start off teaching people how to hit home runs, or how to wheelie. We start with hitting the ball or with balancing the bike.
|
# ? Sep 14, 2020 14:13 |
|
Dwight Eisenhower posted:We've rehashed this multiple times in this thread, but apparently we need to one more time: Trying to apply a "One Solution Fits All" is universally a bad idea (thread title is awful advice) and a really good way to get people into a disadvantaged situation. Saying something like "Understanding pay bands and market rates" is not "hitting a home run" it's pretty basic and not terribly difficult. Anchoring is a really basic negotiating tactic, acting like it's some advance mojo that only elites can use is ridiculous. In general the advice of "Don't give a number" is patently worse than "Spend some time learning about market rates so you can effectively navigate a negotiation." That can be done in 30 minutes, and people can even ask advice here! The "Don't ever say a number" advice also implies you should walk away from a negotiation if they don't give a number which seems like flatout dangerous advice during a global recession. I think if you're at a knowledge disadvantage waiting for a number can be smart, but taking it to an extreme just goes around and hurts the very inexperienced people you say you want to help. This thread has some really weird "THERE IS ONLY ONE WAY TO NEGOTIATE" mantra sometimes.
|
# ? Sep 14, 2020 16:41 |
|
Lockback posted:"Spend some time learning about market rates so you can effectively navigate a negotiation." That can be done in 30 minutes
|
# ? Sep 14, 2020 17:13 |
|
Lockback posted:This thread has some really weird "THERE IS ONLY ONE WAY TO NEGOTIATE" mantra sometimes. Dwight Eisenhower posted:While you're climbing the learning curve of Getting Paid What You're Worth For The Same Work, not naming a number is the dominant strategy, because a) you're underpaid right now and b) you don't know what market rates are for comparable positions in order to make realistic asks and c) imposter syndrome is going to betray you asking for what you're worth. Or, and just hear me out here, your reading comprehension sucks.
|
# ? Sep 14, 2020 18:43 |
|
Lockback posted:Trying to apply a "One Solution Fits All" is universally a bad idea (thread title is awful advice) and a really good way to get people into a disadvantaged situation. Saying something like "Understanding pay bands and market rates" is not "hitting a home run" it's pretty basic and not terribly difficult. Both of these conditions are absolutely the case in 99.999% of hires. Generally some VP somewhere approves all salaries and thus is the person you're negotiating against. They do it multiple times a week. You do it twice a decade. Also anchoring is a bad strategy when the other party is already anchored. If the company employs 5 other computer touchers, they're probably already anchored on the lowest paid of those people. Likewise if they're replacing someone. They probably are already anchored on that number less 10% or so. Anchoring can be a very valid strategy when applying for a job. It's great if you're moving from a high COL are to a low one. If you're happy with your job, anchoring can also work very well because you can just give them your, "Make me move" number and stick to it. Also, figuring out what your labor is worth can be difficult. The impact of a gently caress-up can literally cost you $10,000s per year for a long time. Unless you're dead certain on a number, it's lower risk to avoid saying that number. I'm happy to talk about anchoring as a strategy in this thread, though. It's an interesting topic. But it is definitely an advanced strategy. "Never say a number" is like "Buy VTSAX". If you're resorting to anonymous shitposters on a dead comedy forum for life advice, you're probably best off sticking to the basics.
|
# ? Sep 14, 2020 18:55 |
|
Speaking of, talked with a recruiter a few minutes ago about a position that had $26-27 per hour listed on the ad. They asked if that would work, I said it's a bit below the market rate for the position and they can afford it. So she asked for a number and I said $30. It's a temp contracting gig until the end of the year so I figured the worse I was going to hear is "no" and a screw up wouldn't greatly affect me, but I would like some feedback on how to respond to the "job posting is for x amount, is that ok?" question with a bit more detail than "I'm negotiable/we can make the numbers work" when they're pressing for requirements to send to a hiring manager. Is it just to keep deflecting with a "more concerned about a good fit," etc and still hold your ground? I realize I'm dropping this in the middle of the biweekly anchor vs don't anchor argument so apologies.
|
# ? Sep 14, 2020 19:22 |
|
Parallelwoody posted:Speaking of, talked with a recruiter a few minutes ago about a position that had $26-27 per hour listed on the ad. They asked if that would work, I said it's a bit below the market rate for the position and they can afford it. So she asked for a number and I said $30. It's a temp contracting gig until the end of the year so I figured the worse I was going to hear is "no" and a screw up wouldn't greatly affect me, but I would like some feedback on how to respond to the "job posting is for x amount, is that ok?" question with a bit more detail than "I'm negotiable/we can make the numbers work" when they're pressing for requirements to send to a hiring manager. Is it just to keep deflecting with a "more concerned about a good fit," etc and still hold your ground? I realize I'm dropping this in the middle of the biweekly anchor vs don't anchor argument so apologies. I know guys that make $100k/year on $26-27 an hour when you add in overtime and the cost of good health insurance. I also know people who make $30k a year on $26-27 an hour.
|
# ? Sep 14, 2020 19:32 |
|
What's your best alternative? If you're sitting pretty on your current job it's different from truly needing the work. More often than you'd think it's not -really- a requirement to name a number but sometimes they'll just move on because they've got a healthy pipeline and don't need to bother. If they advertised the rate, that is kind of them moving first. Sort of a hard position to say "27$ an hour is not enough but I won't tell you what is".
|
# ? Sep 14, 2020 19:36 |
|
Dik Hz posted:A better answer is "I'd have to see the total benefits package to give a firm answer on that question." The recruiter isn't the person you're negotiating with, so don't worry too much about giving them vague platitudes. If the number is close to what you'd except, you can tack on "but we're not that far apart" without ruining your ability to negotiate later. I don't think this applies when it is a contract job as the OP stated. I agree with Xguard86, they are basically offering a job at $27. So you either accept that name or name a higher number. I don't see how you can play the game in this case, especially for a temp, contract job.
|
# ? Sep 14, 2020 19:58 |
|
One point in it's favor is they let you apply internally from day one for positions, they just ask you work out your contract before accepting one (makes sense, have to get that recruiter pay). So it seems like more of a pipeline they can use to get rid of lovely employees without much investment rather than a quick project oriented position they are going to dump in a few months after the work is complete. My alternative is sitting at home drinking rye whiskey and studying for my professional cert - pretty compelling stuff. I'm privileged enough that I've been able to ride out a few months of being unemployed without it having much effect on my finances but I feel like I'll need to take something soon just so the gap on my resume quits widening. Parallelwoody fucked around with this message at 20:13 on Sep 14, 2020 |
# ? Sep 14, 2020 20:10 |
|
If your thinking $27 is reasonable but on the lower end a good target is 25%+, which usually is enough to push them but not high enough to get rejected outright. In this case that'd be something like $33 or so, which isn't going to get you told to gently caress off. If $27 to you isn't in the ballpark, then you need to have a good idea as to what is. But they already shot out their range so the next move is yours unless you think you should just walk away. Dik Hz posted:Also anchoring is a bad strategy when the other party is already anchored. If the company employs 5 other computer touchers, they're probably already anchored on the lowest paid of those people. Likewise if they're replacing someone. They probably are already anchored on that number less 10% or so. This is an argument that letting the other person name a number first is a bad move. If they are already low, starting the negotiation by letting them start with their low number is worse than starting at your higher number. If it's in the companies best interest to start the negotiation at the lowest number then you should try to not let that happen.
|
# ? Sep 14, 2020 20:13 |
|
Thanks for that target, I'll keep it in mind for the future.
|
# ? Sep 14, 2020 20:16 |
|
Lockback posted:This is an argument that letting the other person name a number first is a bad move. If they are already low, starting the negotiation by letting them start with their low number is worse than starting at your higher number. If it's in the companies best interest to start the negotiation at the lowest number then you should try to not let that happen. Anchoring isn't the first number thrown out. It's a strategy that basically means "What's already in someone's head is what they're most likely to tend towards." You can only anchor people by throwing out a number first if they don't already have a number in their head. People who make hiring decisions usually have a number in their head before they even put up the job posting. You can definitely counter-anchor after you transition the deal from general to specific. i.e. Filling the role (general) vs hiring Joe Goon (specific). But that falls under the "Never say a number" strat. Dik Hz fucked around with this message at 20:27 on Sep 14, 2020 |
# ? Sep 14, 2020 20:22 |
|
Lockback posted:This is an argument that letting the other person name a number first is a bad move. If they are already low, starting the negotiation by letting them start with their low number is worse than starting at your higher number. If it's in the companies best interest to start the negotiation at the lowest number then you should try to not let that happen.
|
# ? Sep 14, 2020 20:28 |
|
OK, here's a question. What's a good way to duck out of when you are specifically asked what salary you want?
|
# ? Sep 14, 2020 20:40 |
|
Quackles posted:OK, here's a question. What's a good way to duck out of when you are specifically asked what salary you want? Not a Children posted:My go-to line is typically something like "if we determine that this will be a mutually beneficial opportunity, I'm sure we'll be able to reach an agreement. Until then, I'm not worried about specific numbers." If they push it I just flat-out tell them I don't want to talk numbers until I have a better understanding of the position and an offer is on the table. If they push harder than that, I tell them if they want to hire a bad negotiator they should interview someone else (I've only gotten to say this once, and I did end up moving forward).
|
# ? Sep 14, 2020 20:43 |
|
Quackles posted:OK, here's a question. What's a good way to duck out of when you are specifically asked what salary you want? Also, I want to reiterate what I've posted before in this thread: Negotiating is scary, but it makes you seem more valuable in the eyes of recruiters and hiring managers. Also, making more money than your peers makes you be perceived as more valuable, even if you're doing the exact same job. This protects you from layoffs, and makes you more likely to get future raises. Dik Hz fucked around with this message at 20:49 on Sep 14, 2020 |
# ? Sep 14, 2020 20:45 |
|
Parallelwoody posted:Thanks for that target, I'll keep it in mind for the future. That is a really, really rough "I have no other information but it's a reasonable starting point", lots of industries you can push things higher, some situations you are banging your head against an iron door. But even if my answer is "I cannot go a penny higher than my last offer", a 25% uplift isn't going to kill your candidacy 99% of the time, and it's a big enough ask that you have some wiggle room to get a meaningful raise out of it. Again, if you really need $40 an hour, say $40 (or actually say $50 and try to get down to $40), but if you're just trying to push the envelope that is some quick and dirty advice that fits lots of situations. Dik Hz posted:I'm beginning to suspect that you don't know what anchoring means. Anchoring is a solution to the "First Offer" dilemma. So once someone throws out an offer, you're not anchoring anymore, you're just countering. I dunno if your working on different definition but this is the Harvard definition which seems pretty universal. And countering is fine and important, but its a different thing. The advice "Don't negotiate salary too early" is also generally good (iun that case you'd need to be real confident about the ranges available) but also not "Never say a number". fourwood posted:You’re not wrong, it’s just that people seem to be prone to saying a “higher number” that is still even lower than the low number the company would offer out of the gate. Right, which when you are going in completely blind keeping your mouth shut is the right move. My argument though is instead of literally titling this thread "Never say a number" we should be doing more to encourage people to LEARN a little bit about what the market offers instead of assuming whatever the company tells you is fair and trying to go up from there. As part of job hunting we should normalize spending time finding out what your worth and encouraging people to do that instead of assuming everyone is dumb and can't pick out a number. It can cost people money.
|
# ? Sep 14, 2020 20:57 |
|
Fwiw when I started refusing to name a number I would usually be asked once or twice more followed by sort of a chuckle or knowing smile from the person across the table but then we moved on. The people you're talking to know what they are doing. If you need the work and have no alternative then maybe you eat their poo poo but do it with your eyes open.
|
# ? Sep 14, 2020 21:10 |
|
How about when the recruiter (either early in the process so before a phone screen, or fairly far along and after it) inevitably asks for your current salary. What is the thread consensus line on how to refuse that again?
|
# ? Sep 14, 2020 21:19 |
|
|
# ? Jun 13, 2024 07:05 |
|
Inner Light posted:How about when the recruiter (either early in the process so before a phone screen, or fairly far along and after it) inevitably asks for your current salary. What is the thread consensus line on how to refuse that again? In ascending order of snark: "I do not feel comfortable divulging my employer's proprietary competitive information" Or some other word salad meaning "my hands are tied" "Negotiable" <- they will press you on this one, but you can repeat yourself until they get bored "I know it's your job to ask, but I'm not going to give you an answer on that." "That has nothing to do with our conversation" "I dunno, what do you make?" "That sounds like a consulting question. My services are available at a rate of $250/hr, 10 hrs minimum" e: Basically, you should treat that question like an insult to your intelligence, because it is. Don't actually be rude if you want the job, but it really is there just to give the recruiter/employer extra leverage over you, unless you're making WAY more than they're budgeting, in which case there's very little chance you'd take the job anyway Not a Children fucked around with this message at 21:32 on Sep 14, 2020 |
# ? Sep 14, 2020 21:26 |