|
Pryor on Fire posted:You guys are being a little silly, some people are just old fashioned and want to do things face to face or over the phone. Simply opening and navigating gmail/outlook is a real struggle for a large swath of the population. Just make sure you're prepared ahead of time with as much info as possible and fake confidence even if you're broke and about to get evicted and you can go about these things in person like respectful adults, it's fine. Email and time is preferable sure but don't turn that into a war or anything. Most employers will try to screw you over in any way possible, people speak from experience not out of paranoia.
|
#
?
Feb 4, 2016 22:56
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 16, 2024 20:38 |
|
|
^^^^^^ So true.Pryor on Fire posted:You guys are being a little silly, some people are just old fashioned and want to do things face to face or over the phone. Simply opening and navigating gmail/outlook is a real struggle for a large swath of the population. Just make sure you're prepared ahead of time with as much info as possible and fake confidence even if you're broke and about to get evicted and you can go about these things in person like respectful adults, it's fine. Email and time is preferable sure but don't turn that into a war or anything.
|
|
#
?
Feb 5, 2016 01:20
|
|
|
Pryor on Fire posted:You guys are being a little silly, some people are just old fashioned and want to do things face to face or over the phone. Simply opening and navigating gmail/outlook is a real struggle for a large swath of the population. Just make sure you're prepared ahead of time with as much info as possible and fake confidence even if you're broke and about to get evicted and you can go about these things in person like respectful adults, it's fine. Email and time is preferable sure but don't turn that into a war or anything. Or they are like my boss who wants to do everything face-to-face because it is faster and he can change his mind without a paper trail.
|
|
#
?
Feb 5, 2016 01:57
|
|
|
MickeyFinn posted:Or they are like my boss who wants to do everything face-to-face because it is faster and he can change his mind without a paper trail. Your boss sounds like a great guy
|
|
#
?
Feb 5, 2016 16:23
|
|
|
I'm toying with the idea of a job change. New place reportedly pays well, but has no paid paternity leave. Current place pays less well but has 10 weeks of paid paternity leave. I could see myself needing paternity leave in the near future, probably just once. Maybe not the full 10 weeks, but something like 6-8 would be nice. I'm perfectly fine with paying for the paternity leave myself, should the need arrive, but how many years should I amortize it over, for lack of a better term? I'm thinking a 24 month period. Scenario 1 is $CURRENT each month for 24 months, scenario 2 is $FUTURE 22 months out of the next 24, thus $FUTURE * 22 should be at least as big as $CURRENT * 24. Thoughts?
|
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2016 10:54
|
|
|
bolind posted:I'm toying with the idea of a job change. New place reportedly pays well, but has no paid paternity leave. Current place pays less well but has 10 weeks of paid paternity leave. I could see myself needing paternity leave in the near future, probably just once. Maybe not the full 10 weeks, but something like 6-8 would be nice. Say it's 10 weeks, then come up with a rough estimate of number of kids you plan on having over your life, multiply by ten, then amortize over the rest of your career, because that's how much it is really benefiting you. Also contemplate that nothing begets success like success. If you get a big bump now then not only are you making that additional money every year you are working, you are negotiating with all future employers from a higher income level. Which is not to say to discount paid paternity leave, just treat it as exactly valuable as it is dispassionately.
|
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2016 16:48
|
|
|
Dwight Eisenhower posted:Say it's 10 weeks, then come up with a rough estimate of number of kids you plan on having over your life, multiply by ten, then amortize over the rest of your career, because that's how much it is really benefiting you. I don't necessarily agree with amortizing over the rest of your career as you can switch jobs after you've taken the leave. If you plan on having kids in the next several years then the benefit is worth more than if you think you may have kids in the next ten to fifteen years. I think the valuation should be conservative since it's an unknown, but over an entire career seems too conservative.
|
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2016 19:32
|
|
|
There is also real non-monetary value in spending 10 non-working weeks with your newborn child and wife. I know this is BFC and everything is supposed to be objective dollars and cents, but that is something incredibly valuable that can't easily be quantified.
|
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2016 19:53
|
|
|
asur posted:I don't necessarily agree with amortizing over the rest of your career as you can switch jobs after you've taken the leave. If you plan on having kids in the next several years then the benefit is worth more than if you think you may have kids in the next ten to fifteen years. I think the valuation should be conservative since it's an unknown, but over an entire career seems too conservative. The low valuation yielded is assuming that you will in fact take 10 weeks of unpaid time off if you have a kid at a job without paid paternity leave. If you made $60k and got 10 weeks off then that benefit is worth about $11.5k per kid. After N months in a higher paying job, it has paid off over staying at the paternity leave job. Staying at the paternity job gives you $23k over your career and then $5000 * N months income. If you take a job making $100k / year to and were gonna have two kids, you incur a cost of 19.2k in lost wages per kid. For two kids that's 38.4k. You make $8333 / month From here it's a matter of finding the N where the positive value of the paternity leave is surpassed by the additional income: Then we just solve for N 23000 + 5000N = -38400 + 8333N 61400 + 5000N = 8333N 61400 = 3333N N = 18.4 That's the breakeven point, if you stay in the higher paying job you're ahead, over your career, after 18.4 months. Every additional month thereafter you're ahead an additional $3333k / month. edit: derp maths
|
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2016 20:49
|
|
|
Will run the numbers later, but thanks a million guys, it makes sense. I think I'll use it as a bargaining chip, but in the long run (and, hell even in the short-to-medium run) almost any pay increase is worth taking, as it sets the bar for the rest of your career, I'd say. Guinness posted:There is also real non-monetary value in spending 10 non-working weeks with your newborn child and wife. I fully agree, and I imagine I'll make that happen anyway. We're in a financial position where that would have little discernible impact.
|
|
#
?
Feb 9, 2016 10:10
|
|
|
Dwight Eisenhower posted:The low valuation yielded is assuming that you will in fact take 10 weeks of unpaid time off if you have a kid at a job without paid paternity leave. If you made $60k and got 10 weeks off then that benefit is worth about $11.5k per kid. After N months in a higher paying job, it has paid off over staying at the paternity leave job. It may just be better to flip a coin
|
|
#
?
Feb 9, 2016 16:37
|
|
|
I'm trying to negotiate a salary for an internship. They, a large well known company, offered me $X off the bat which I believe is too low for the type of work I'm in but is a middle of the pack salary for that company according to glassdoor. I counter the offer with $1.5*X to which the recruiter replied that he is not able to increase the salary any more than X. I reply with an offer of $1.38*X to which the recruiter has yet to respond in over a day. Have I hosed up? How do I proceed from here?
|
|
#
?
Feb 9, 2016 22:03
|
|
|
What are the dollar amounts? Your ratios would mean very different things if X is $12/hr compared to $60/hr. No need to be mysterious in BFC.
|
|
#
?
Feb 9, 2016 22:12
|
|
|
X is $32.00/hr and the job is outside NYC, also.
|
|
#
?
Feb 9, 2016 22:18
|
|
|
OOPRCT posted:X is $32.00/hr and the job is outside NYC, also. Ya, you may have hosed up
|
|
#
?
Feb 9, 2016 22:44
|
|
|
calvus posted:Ya, you may have hosed up As I feared, but have I rat hosed myself into a poo poo position or can I still recoup more money from the initial offer?
|
|
#
?
Feb 9, 2016 23:34
|
|
|
OOPRCT posted:As I feared, but have I rat hosed myself into a poo poo position or can I still recoup more money from the initial offer? What field is this? What's your experience level? How many others applied for the position? What's the salary for similar positions at other employers? What are your options if this doesn't work out? I don't know how often internships have wiggle room for salary. I also don't know how often asking for 50%/38% more with no counter-offer ever works out, as those both seem insanely high to me. However, your answers to the above questions will help figure out if you were being outrageous and they're just going to move on to the next person, or if you're right in line with expectations and you'll get your wish. If their number and your number are that far off, than either this isn't the right position/company for you or you need to reel in your expectations. My hunch (based on the word "internship") is that they have a million people applying who are all similar to you, tried to get you to realize that the stated offer was pretty much the rate, and basically moved on once you didn't get the hint. If you're fresh out of school (or not yet out of school) and this is your first position, then your 1.5x number was likely insane and they possibly think you are arrogant or naive. I could be wrong on a lot of this though, so feel free to give more information if I'm reading too much into what little you've said.
|
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2016 02:50
|
|
|
OOPRCT posted:As I feared, but have I rat hosed myself into a poo poo position or can I still recoup more money from the initial offer? As the guy above me asked, its tough to know if you are supposed to haggle. From my experience in the US, internship offers seem to be more standardized.
|
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2016 03:21
|
|
|
I'm a 2nd year PhD student in a STEM field. I worked for a tech company for a year before joining grad school. I got the position because I knew a professor in the company who had an opening and he offered it to me. A comparable salary for what I'm doing is along the lines of 100k a year in that part of America, so I think the $32/hr is much lower than what is reasonable. Also, how do I handle the fact that the recruiter hasn't responded still? What should I say to get him to respond that hopefully won't gently caress me further? OOPRCT fucked around with this message at 05:39 on Feb 10, 2016 |
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2016 03:29
|
|
|
OOPRCT posted:I'm a 2nd year PhD student in a STEM field... I'm not an expert by any means but you already hosed yourself imo. They said a number and you said you found their offer to be low and did they have any flexibility since you expected an offer closer to 1.5X. They said no they wouldn't raise it. If they had said ok how about 1.2x you would be more reasonable to then counter but they said no. If now you feel you would be ok with their offer you could try saying that but I think the other poster nailed it.
|
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2016 09:11
|
|
|
OOPRCT posted:I'm a 2nd year PhD student in a STEM field. I worked for a tech company for a year before joining grad school. I got the position because I knew a professor in the company who had an opening and he offered it to me. A comparable salary for what I'm doing is along the lines of 100k a year in that part of America, so I think the $32/hr is much lower than what is reasonable. I would be surprised if there was not a substantial difference between the salary offered to a full time candidate and the salary, or hourly converted to salary, offered for an internship.
|
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2016 11:53
|
|
|
OOPRCT posted:I'm a 2nd year PhD student in a STEM field. I worked for a tech company for a year before joining grad school. I got the position because I knew a professor in the company who had an opening and he offered it to me. A comparable salary for what I'm doing is along the lines of 100k a year in that part of America, so I think the $32/hr is much lower than what is reasonable.
|
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2016 12:30
|
|
|
If you're taking internships it's because you are literally an unproven thing in whatever field you're working in. You really don't have any room to argue about your salary, and you have enough competition in the form of other unproven people who will work for what is offered, or for free. You're ambitious, and that is good, but you're acting like the pay scale for full time employees in your field of work is relevant to the compensation interns will receive. That comes across as naive and greedy. You've more than likely tanked this entire opportunity, because there are so many other equivalent options out there who will gladly accept $32/hr without saying word one about it. You probably can't do anything to salvage this, except for maybe writing an email that says "I'm willing to take the $32/hr if they're still offering it.", but even then they might follow up with a lowball to spite you. Personally I would quietly wait and see, and if they do decide to engage with you anymore, be significantly more humble and realistic. Why did this happen? We often talk about your BATNA in this thread BATNA stands for Best Alternative to a Negotiated Alternative. If you're seeking internships, your Best Alternative to a Negotiated Alternative in this case is either continuing to not have work, or taking some other internship that will probably pay poo poo. The company offering the internship's Best Alternative to a Negotiated Alternative in this case was to find some other equally qualified intern who had far less spine than you demonstrated. In this case the company has a way better BATNA than you do, so you lose, and they win. Things that would improve your BATNA: - Gainful employment that you're satisfied to stay in. - An offer from another employer that is more compelling than the offer you have. It's also important to understand that you can indirectly downgrade their BATNA by: - Possessing a unique skillset that they can't get from other candidates. - Being the only candidate with your qualifications on the market. - Being a more economical candidate than similar candidates on the market. You overplayed your hand, and you probably lost this round. The negotiation game is played out over many many rounds, and you may not play many more with this particular employer, but you can still learn and improve based on your experiences here. IF you chose to do so, you will probably have better outcomes in the future.
|
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2016 17:26
|
|
|
Need some advice on how to handle this situation. I accepted a job offer with a new company last fall. Prior to accepting, they sent me the offer along with a benefits package (titled benefits enrollment guide). In the package it described the pension as such: "[company] contributes quarterly to your pension account based on your age at the end of each quarter. Less than 30 : 4.5%, 30 to 39 : 5.5%, 40 to 49 : 6.5%, etc.." This was kind of vague to me so I asked the person doing the recruiting (Senior Recruiter, Talent Acquisition, HR) the following: "I do have a question regarding the pension calculation. Being that I am between 30-39, am I correct in understanding that the 5.5% is 5.5% of my base salary? I.e. 100,000 * 5.5% = 5,500 at the end of every quarter?" [note salary (100k) changed in this post to remain anonymous] She replied, "yes, the quarterly pension account would be 5.5% of eligible pay which includes bonuses, base pay, and also OT (if applicable, which is generally for non-exempt positions)." So I was under the impression I'd be getting $5,500 added to my pension account/fund every quarter. Now that I've started I've gotten a hold of the official document which contains the equations and runs projections. It describes the pension contributions as actually 5.5% of your eligibile pay during that quarter so it'll instead be 100,000 * 1/4 * 5.5% = 1,375 added to my account every quarter. This obviously adds up to quite a bit of money over a year let alone a career. So I am feeling very misled right now. I don't think it was necessarily intentional but regardless I feel I like was pretty clear in my question and the response I received via email indicates that my initial understanding was correct. I imagine my first step will be to go back to HR to ask for rectification but I'm considering going to my boss first instead. Or should I be prepared to lawyer up? I don't want to cause any problems and would happily keep working here if I were given what was negotiated for. Is there an obvious recourse for someone who has been misled (intentionally or otherwise) regarding pay/benefits during a negotiation and has a paper trail to prove it? Or maybe my case isn't as solid as I see it? e: I guess my questions were more intended to be after I approach HR/management and if/when they come back and say, sorry, the policy won't be changed for you. spf3million fucked around with this message at 21:02 on Feb 12, 2016 |
|
#
?
Feb 12, 2016 20:46
|
|
|
Saint Fu posted:Is there an obvious recourse for someone who has been misled (intentionally or otherwise) regarding pay/benefits during a negotiation and has a paper trail to prove it? Or maybe my case isn't as solid as I see it? You are almost certainly going to lose this. If she responded with what you wrote, then it's not entirely clear as she wrote eligible pay and then didn't define it. I would read it the way you did as well since she answering with a yes, but you could easily argue the other way. In most cases, I don't think you have any option for recourse or at least any that would be worth pursing. If you can't resolve it internally then you'd either have to go to arbitration or through the courts and at that point unless the sum is gigantic you might as well just walk away. Most people don't work under a contract and so salary and benefits can be changed at pretty much any time by the employer.
|
|
#
?
Feb 12, 2016 21:33
|
|
|
asur posted:You are almost certainly going to lose this. If she responded with what you wrote, then it's not entirely clear as she wrote eligible pay and then didn't define it. I would read it the way you did as well since she answering with a yes, but you could easily argue the other way. In most cases, I don't think you have any option for recourse or at least any that would be worth pursing. If you can't resolve it internally then you'd either have to go to arbitration or through the courts and at that point unless the sum is gigantic you might as well just walk away. Most people don't work under a contract and so salary and benefits can be changed at pretty much any time by the employer. Takeaway: Private sector will screw you over, never trust a company unless they earn it
|
|
#
?
Feb 12, 2016 21:50
|
|
|
Saint Fu posted:Need some advice on how to handle this situation. Her e-mail is perfectly accurate. You get a percentage of your base pay for that quarter in the pension. No reasonable person would think that you would get your entire year's salary counted for each quarter. If that was the case, why wouldn't they pay it out yearly instead of quarterly? Dik Hz fucked around with this message at 01:44 on Feb 13, 2016 |
|
#
?
Feb 13, 2016 01:42
|
|
|
Dik Hz posted:Let's be realistic here. Did you seriously think they were going to give you +22% (or up) of your base salary per year into a pension? That is so far above even the best pension/retirement benefit out there that it bears greater scrutiny. Did you not have access to the official document as part of the offer before you accepted the position? Realistically, I agree that it's not very likely there will be anything I can do at this point. Again, I don't think it was intentional on their part nor do I feel like she was trying to screw me over, but I am feeling pretty misled by the whole thing. I'll give myself some time to cool off and collect my wits before approaching HR to see what they say. Maybe I'll be able to use it to leverage an additional raise or something. It took over a year for them to fill this role and the person who was last in it has made it very clear she will not be taking over duties again now that I've been hired. Anyway thanks for the replies. This turned into more of a rant than I initially intended.
|
|
#
?
Feb 13, 2016 02:09
|
|
|
Saint Fu posted:Call me naive, but yes, I honestly thought that was what was being offered. Especially after I put forth a specific example in my email to her during the negotiation phase. "100,000 * 5.5% = 5,500 at the end of every quarter?" to which she responded "yes". Well her affirmative answer to your question doesn't imply that she agreed you'd get a percentage based on your entire annual salary put into your pension each quarter. The HR person saying yes just confirms that the pension contribution is a simple multiplication problem and there isn't some complex formula behind it. Your question was phrased as a dollar value calculation and I'm sure if your eligible pay happened to be $100,000 in one quarter, you'd get $5,500 put into your pension. Maybe if you asked, "So I get 5.5% of my annual salary put into my pension each quarter?" you would've gotten a "No" followed by that eligible pay stuff.
|
|
#
?
Feb 13, 2016 06:48
|
|
|
Saint Fu posted:Realistically, I agree that it's not very likely there will be anything I can do at this point. Again, I don't think it was intentional on their part nor do I feel like she was trying to screw me over, but I am feeling pretty misled by the whole thing. I'll give myself some time to cool off and collect my wits before approaching HR to see what they say. Maybe I'll be able to use it to leverage an additional raise or something. It took over a year for them to fill this role and the person who was last in it has made it very clear she will not be taking over duties again now that I've been hired. Wait, you get a 5.5% pension and a generous 401k match? And you still feel entitled to more? Even after a 35% raise? 
|
|
#
?
Feb 13, 2016 13:14
|
|
|
Dik Hz posted:Wait, you get a 5.5% pension and a generous 401k match? And you still feel entitled to more? Even after a 35% raise? Lets not do this.
|
|
#
?
Feb 13, 2016 15:02
|
|
|
Saint Fu posted:I'll give myself some time to cool off and collect my wits before approaching HR to see what they say. Do this. It probably won't help or hurt to talk to them as long as you're reasonable. That being said, if you're in an in demand field, you can always switch jobs again if you think you can do better elsewhere.
|
|
#
?
Feb 13, 2016 15:43
|
|
|
Grumpwagon posted:Lets not do this. do what?
|
|
#
?
Feb 13, 2016 19:31
|
|
|
Dik Hz posted:do what? While I agree in this case, he's not going to get what he wants, I don't think we should start saying "you got a 35% raise, what more do you want?"
|
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2016 06:33
|
|
|
Grumpwagon posted:While I agree in this case, he's not going to get what he wants, I don't think we should start saying "you got a 35% raise, what more do you want?"
|
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2016 14:09
|
|
|
Actually there totally is a time to say "what more do you want"? The art of negotiation is not about insatiably squeezing every last cent out of an employer. It is about understanding how to apply leverage to someone who wants something you have in order to get something you want, cognizant that they could walk away just as easily as you can.
|
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2016 14:14
|
|
|
Dwight Eisenhower posted:Actually there totally is a time to say "what more do you want"? Of course, but the determining factor of when enough is enough isn't how much you got (he could have been underpaid before). That said, it's clear I misread Dik's tone here (he was focusing much more on the very good retirement, I thought he was focusing on the big raise).
|
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2016 15:13
|
|
|
The 401k is 75% match up to 8% contribution (6% max match). The point wasn't me trying to squeeze more out of them, they included the pension number in the initial offer and I wasn't clear on it so I asked what I thought was a clarifying question. Judging by most of the comments here I misunderstood the response (why the hell did they hire me, I can't understand anything!). For the record, the raise is almost entirely eaten up by COL so the other benefits were the major deciding factor in making the move. I had other alternatives at the time but now it would be very difficult to move since I'm locked in for 2 years on the relocation they gave me (or I could try to negotiate that out of a different company). But realistically I wouldn't move my family again 2 months after moving across the country. I'll probably wait until the quarterly pension is paid before saying anything. I'll keep working hard between now and then to prove that they made the right choice in hiring me. You're probably right, I most likely won't get anything more but I feel like it can't hurt to let them know (diplomatically of course) that I'm not 100% happy with it. Thanks again for all of the perspective, thread. BFC comes through again.
|
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2016 17:28
|
|
|
Saint Fu posted:but I feel like it can't hurt to let them know (diplomatically of course) that I'm not 100% happy with it.
|
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2016 19:28
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 16, 2024 20:38 |
|
|
Honestly I don't think there's any reasonable way to interpret their retirement plan as 5.5% of annual pay disbursed quarterly. In the email you sent, you describe asking with the exact words "$5,500 at the end of every quarter?" If you actually asked with those words, numbers adjusted, and you actually got a response in the affirmative, that is literally all you've got to work with. Even the response makes it pretty clear it's based on 5.5% of all eligible pay for that period including normal time, ot, etc. What you should have asked was "Am I correct in understanding that 5.5% of my ANNUAL compensation will be added to my retirement fund QUARTERLY for a total of 22% per annum?" Because that's what you thought it was, even though I don't see how you could derive that from the information presented. All of that aside, discussions about what you should have done and should have interpreted are of only marginal use, this is the negotiation thread to provide advice on how to negotiate, in the future. First things first: Negotiation is a communication process, where both parties express some amount of their desired outcomes, then express a shared understanding of a compromise outcome that both find acceptable, and then agree to that outcome. Or they reject the outcome and look for other parties to deal with. Saint Fu, your communication skills are insufficient, and they need improving. You must read more. You must write more. You must ask more questions. You must ask your questions unambiguously. ALL of your disappointment with this current outcome comes down to poor communication. Now all of that said it takes two to poorly communicate. If you actually asked about 5.5% of your annual pay at the end of every quarter in explicit terms as an example, and you got a response in the affirmative, then their HR person wasn't reading your entire email and that is also poor communication. From here I can see three options: 1. Do nothing, make the best of more pay by living frugally and socking it away into savings. COL differences aside if you are getting more absolute pay and have a non-zero post-tax savings rate you will be saving more money and can move back to a lower COL place when you have the means for FI. 2. Engage in a conversation with your manager that describes that you're disappointed due to the poor communication that took place during the hiring process. Focus on the poor communication. Own your half of the poor communication. Frame it as a desire to improve the hiring process and to improve the company's employee retention ability. If you act constructive, and you demand nothing at the time, there's a possibility that at your next review it will factor in your dissatisfaction and try to close some of that gap. You're probably not getting another 16.5% in compensation out of this. 3. Forcefully try to negotiate again. Your BATNA is to become immediately unemployed, and try and find another employer and to repay the relocation package you've received; or to wait until you have that employer lined up and ready to go. This other employer probably also will not be giving you 22% retirement. Their BATNA is to have the work you are doing right now no longer being done immediately, and to find some other person who does not renege on agreed upon compensation. I do not recommend this route, their BATNA is a little better than yours. Again I have to stress that this is a problem that arose from bad communication, and that bad communication takes two parties. When your kid is frustrated with their English homework, and is asking what's the point in studying all this crap anyway, you have a great answer: "It's worth about 16.5%." Dwight Eisenhower fucked around with this message at 15:49 on Feb 15, 2016 |
|
#
?
Feb 15, 2016 15:46
|
|