|
Dwight Eisenhower posted:
You have a good argument, but what about this situation? You are interviewing for a company that wants to hire you, but your current salary is higher than what they expect to pay. You don't want to take a pay cut, and need to raise their expectations. In that situation providing the information could work in your favor, at least in my mind. The company knows you aren't likely to go below a certain line, in fact they know if they don't come up that high they won't be able to hire you. They also know they need to sweeten it, and it raises the floor from what they were previously thinking.
|
#
¿
Feb 21, 2014 20:54
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 16, 2024 15:37 |
|
|
Thanks for the answer, it makes sense. In retrospect I was pretty smart with my last negotiation, and named a price that would make me happy, didn't reveal what I did earn before, just started with a high range and stuck to it. I was prepared to walk since an "okay" offer wouldn't have been worth moving around the world for. When it finally came through it was good, and while it was lower than I opened with, it landed much higher than I would have expected. I was asking because as much as I played it right, I hate the process and would rather have a fact-based, non-confrontational method of landing on salary. That said, so much money is on the line with negotiating offers I suck it up and play the game.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 24, 2014 21:15
|
|
|
Supplanter posted:My supervisor who drafted the contract is normally a researcher, and I honestly believe he just has a poor grasp of hiring, and communicated what he was doing poorly. I see he tried to contact about this arrangement when he felt he had been unclear, but he misunderstood the meaning of 'take home pay' and used it interchangeably with 'salary' which lead to further confusion. The documents I signed also go back and forth on the matter, so I have a case against him. I think if I complain to his boss I will be compensated back pay and my pay adjusted accordingly. I don't want to land my supervisor in too much hot water, since he is a nice guy and I believe this was an honest mistake on his part (I realize I sound naive here). That might make sense. EI premiums & CPP contributions are not benefits by any reasonable definition. The programs qualify as benefits or entitlements when they pay out, but writing benefits on an offer letter doesn't change the obligation of the employer to get this right. It sounds like your supervisor is confusing your cost as an employee with your salary. Do you have a T1 or a job offer which lists your annual salary at 46k? If it says 46k on the T1, and you are being deducted for 140% of your obligation, your EI over-contributions will be recoverable at tax time for you. That said, if the employer messed this up, they could well mess up your T4's, and you should get this sorted out sooner rather than later. It's in your employers best interest to resolve this soon, since CRA can slap hefty fines down for getting this sort of thing wrong. They don't want it to come up in an audit. Since it sounds like a question of confusion and not malice, I'd get on it ASAP.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 17, 2014 15:58
|
|