|
El Mero Mero posted:What are people's opinion about just lying about your current salary (or inflating it) and then using that number to negotiate slightly up from?
|
#
¿
Mar 19, 2016 18:55
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 29, 2024 17:23 |
|
|
One thing you could do is arrange a quick chat with your boss regarding your performance - this wouldn't be for any compensation review, just genuine performance feedback. Ask about things like what's been working well, how you can improve, etc from their perspective. If everything is going genuinely well or above-and-beyond, you can be sure of that going forward into the proper yearly official review, and can cite it when you *do* talk about compensation later. If it isn't going as well as you think, you have something (hopefully) specific to improve at, and you can point out that improvement at the official review. I think it's a pretty good thing to do once in awhile even if your compensation is fine, especially at companies that only do reviews once per year. edit: good timing, dude above me Jeffrey of YOSPOS fucked around with this message at 00:41 on Mar 23, 2016 |
|
#
¿
Mar 23, 2016 00:33
|
|
|
Meet with the person who actually evaluates you then, not the one who aggregates the feedback. If there's more than one, consider doing it with the ones who are the most relevant. I've worked in a "matrix management" company before - I met with my "tech lead"(PM) as they called it and presumably he passed feedback on to my "line manager"(admin supervisor). I'm making assumptions about the size of these projects - how many PMs are you likely going to work closely with in a given one-year period? If the answer is 20, maybe it's not worth it, but if it's 2-3, it can't hurt at all.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 23, 2016 01:44
|
|
|
I'd say the closer to the end of the process, the better. The more a company invests in you(in the form of time, money spent, etc), the more attached they will be to hiring you and thus the more willing they will be to bend on salary ranges. Their batna becomes starting over from scratch to find a good candidate, a relatively long process.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 30, 2016 18:43
|
|
|
That's a pretty industry-specific question - you might try this thread http://forums.somethingawful.com/showthread.php?threadid=3209369 A 10k signing bonus doesn't sound crazy to me at all, you should probably give your best order-of-magnitude estimate of the bill. e: The answer is still always yes, yes it's worth looking. Long term it's worth it even if you have to foot a bill in the short term anyway. Jeffrey of YOSPOS fucked around with this message at 18:30 on Apr 28, 2016 |
|
#
¿
Apr 28, 2016 18:27
|
|
|
Guinness posted:Even then, 99% chance your equity is worthless in 12 months when the company folds.
|
|
#
¿
May 13, 2016 00:30
|
|
|
I think asking for more significant figures than should be relevant makes you sound like a goof.
|
|
#
¿
May 15, 2016 17:49
|
|
|
Please also reconsider anything else told to you by whoever dropped that bit of knowledge on you.
|
|
#
¿
May 16, 2016 04:53
|
|
|
I've never remotely been in the situation but that seems like bullshit to me. I'm not sure how to gauge how serious he is - would an email assurance of professionalism serve for now which you can follow through with?
|
|
#
¿
May 19, 2016 16:01
|
|
|
Do you have classmates or former coworkers who work in the private sector and you're close enough to to ask? That's the only real way I've gotten a sense of things like that.
|
|
#
¿
May 21, 2016 16:34
|
|
|
I would never show an interviewer another company's offer letter on principle. If I say I have an offer, I have an offer, asking for proof beyond that tells me a lot more about you than it tells you about me.
|
|
#
¿
May 31, 2016 17:12
|
|
|
If I were in a position where I needed to bluff like that, I probably would still hear them out. I'd just still give the same firm answer - no, that's confidential between the other company and I, it's not something I feel comfortable sharing, etc. It's still a black mark against the company in my eyes but I get that finding work can be hard and I might not throw that one back immediately, especially if they had a point given that I was bluffing.
|
|
#
¿
May 31, 2016 19:19
|
|
|
antiga posted:I tend to agree if you're interviewing for a new job. Just as a data point for a different situation, my employer requires a non-redacted copy of the offer letter from the potential employer if they're going to match it to keep you.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 1, 2016 19:53
|
|
|
Indolent Bastard posted:I only just found this thread. If the job I am (hopefully) being offered soon has a salary range of $xx,xxx and $zz,zzz and I'd be ok with the mid-range of $yy,yyy how hard should I swing for the fences? I don't want to say Z when I'd take Y, but I don't want to leave money on the table either. How do you know the salary range? If it's not through some sort of official channel, I'd ask for like, Z + 10%, there's a good chance they'll take you for Z since it's in their range and you might even get more.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 11, 2016 19:25
|
|
|
Yeah you could take the new title and immediately start interviewing elsewhere. I would do as stated above though.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 24, 2016 20:44
|
|
|
I don't think it'd be particularly unreasonable to ask for 80k. I don't really know about your industry or anything but it sounds like a bunch more work and responsibilities.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 25, 2016 06:19
|
|
|
They asked you what your salary range is and you gave them a number 45k lower than what you're making now? Sorry to say but you kind of just emptied the whole clip into your foot. That's the rate they gave you when they didn't know if you were going to work out, you're worth strictly more to them now that you've proven yourself. Beyond that, your pay should go up because they don't have to pay the middleman any more. It sounds like you don't really believe that your work is worth the amount of money they currently pay for it, and you're wrong. You might want to sheepishly admit you did some math wrong or something, that's a weird situation though and I don't know if that will work. Submit resumes elsewhere I guess - taking a job for 45k less may well ripple out in future negotiation rounds. Jeffrey of YOSPOS fucked around with this message at 17:27 on Aug 2, 2016 |
|
#
¿
Aug 2, 2016 17:24
|
|
|
Risket posted:Thanks for the detailed response.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 2, 2016 21:18
|
|
|
Risket posted:The first 25% won't vest for a year, so I imagine the stock price will change between now and then.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 2, 2016 22:39
|
|
|
KYOON GRIFFEY JR posted:I would discount the value of unvested RSUs compared to cash compensation but that's more of a personal preference.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 2, 2016 23:22
|
|
|
Comedy option: "Oh I forgot how this W-2 thing works, I meant 80k after taxes"
|
|
#
¿
Aug 3, 2016 00:28
|
|
|
Big company vs small company is an interesting choice. I've worked at both and I much prefer small upon reflection. I'm going to assume both companies are pretty well established companies that happen to be differently sized - established vs startup is a separate dichotomy. Most of the reasons people cite to prefer big companies are actually about established companies. At a small company you'll have to wear more hats and take on more responsibilities that aren't in your direct purview. This may mean making your own photocopies or printing shipping labels or whatever. Sometimes you'll have responsibilities that there was an entire team for at big companies. (This was extremely apparent going from a huge company that had dedicated testing teams to one where we had to pretty thoroughly prove our code ourselves.) This can be both a burden and on opportunity - being known as a guy who makes stuff happen regardless of what your stated domain is will hopefully be noticed and rewarded. You can be a big fish in a small pond and see tangible business results of the things you do. There's also less in the way of you improving something outside of your stated domain as well. If there's a whole team dedicated to a task, they'll often end up being resistant to change that comes from outside. They may well work in a different building or city or country, such that they view you as an outsider even if you work in the same company. Compare this to a small company where you can most likely walk over to the CEO and propose something if you want. People will be much more welcoming of improvements to their stuff because they also wear many hats and are happy to have a load taken off. As an anecdote, in my testing case, our testing was kind of useless. We ran extensive tests that had a relatively high false negative rate. It was high enough that, upon being informed that tests failed for a given change, most developers didn't even consider that they might be the cause. I proposed some improvements, and proposed that I spend my own time on them, but the answer was always the same. The manager of their team in another state wanted his people to take care of things themselves, things had to stay the same because XYZ, he promised it would get better, and then nothing. It's like his job was preserving his fiefdom and not letting anyone see inside or interfere, even at the expense of the company's success. In the second, smaller company, I built and rigged up an automated test system that ended being used by the everyone, and caught major bugs that could have cost us a ton of money. I was in no way asked to do it, but it was something we needed and so I did it. On the other hand, a smaller company is going to be more resource constrained. You'll end up closer to the business aspects no matter what (for me this is a plus but I can see the appeal of staying out of it). You'll probably be much more cognizant of what things cost and how money is spent. You'll feel more invested in the overall performance of the business. A big company is much more likely to have access to the newest and best tools and products while a smaller company is more likely to try and cut costs on things like that. Both sorts of companies are going to have politics(sorry), but a single bad relationship is going to have a larger impact at a smaller company. There are political pitfalls that don't exist nearly as much in public companies that can exist at small places, like the entire management staff being family members of the owner or whatever other nonsense you can dream up. In my experience, coworkers are closer to one another at smaller companies, but that might just be my small sample set. I'd say overall, a decent small company is strictly better than working at a big company, but watch out for red flags because they can be pretty bad at their worst. No need to look past the benefits being worse at a small company - if you're losing on perks, get compensated for it. If your contract terms are worse, get compensated for it. (I once negotiated a $20,000 pay bump because, as part of an acquisition, I was losing out on free lunches and dinners at the office.) EDIT: Jesus I typed a lot of words about that. Maybe I've been pining for someone to ask this question... Jeffrey of YOSPOS fucked around with this message at 19:49 on Aug 12, 2016 |
|
#
¿
Aug 12, 2016 19:46
|
|
|
Yeah I guess I didn't even talk about bureaucracy in a discussion about large companies, jesus. Office space stopped being funny as each joke became reality. I did eventually reach 8 bosses before leaving.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 12, 2016 22:07
|
|
|
psychokitty posted:But I really like my job though. So you're saying I need an offer to dangle in front of my managers, which I wouldn't take? But then I wouldn't take it but what if they won't give me more money?
|
|
#
¿
Aug 22, 2016 18:56
|
|
|
Nail Rat posted:This is not true at all places. Six years after showing an offer to my employer from another place, I'm still working at the original place and making about 35% more right now than the second place was offering at the time, over 110% more than what I was making before showing the offer.  )
|
|
#
¿
Aug 22, 2016 21:38
|
|
|
Yeah that excerpt is referred to in the title but it's only really one little paragraph of the article. I think it's completely wrong even if the rest of the article is fine. I don't know what range offers are typically negotiated in, but at least in my industry, the margins the company has to make on an employee for them to be worth keeping are way higher than any typical salary negotiation could net anyone. I'm pretty skeptical that he actually knows someone who lost their job because they negotiated their salary too high - pretty sure they would have lost their job anyway if they weren't deemed competent enough for the role.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 25, 2016 16:53
|
|
|
Nope, not rude. They wouldn't hesitate to ask you to sign even if you had another interview, as company A did. You can tell them you have other deadlines without telling them the compensation.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 27, 2016 23:40
|
|
|
Dwight Eisenhower posted:You're allowed to turn down offers for literally no reason. You're allowed to interview literally just to get the number and then walk out of the interviewing process entirely. If you want to dip a toe in the water to see if your raise is keeping acceptable pace with your value on the open market and then sit fat and happy where you are, that's a totally okay thing to do.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 28, 2016 16:58
|
|
|
If you really have to give a number, give one that's too high. If you feel comfortable saying a number, it's too low. This is at least assuming you aren't desperate for any given job.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 29, 2016 14:34
|
|
|
Blinky2099 posted:Is it common to be able to ask your own HR department for total compensation and breakdown for your own information?
|
|
#
¿
Sep 30, 2016 20:48
|
|
|
I'm real curious what company it is but you probably shouldn't post that on a den of internet comedy. Bummer for you I'm sure but perhaps bullet dodged. Anyone who tries to negotiate and gets an offer rescinded gets a consolation drink from me if they come to NYC - I can't imagine I'll have many takers.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 13, 2016 00:41
|
|
|
Honestly, the idea that a company would turn down a prospect rather than just say no over 5% seems so unlikely that it's very possible they had another candidate come in who they liked better. I can't fathom choosing to go through the whole recruiting process over again over that.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 13, 2016 05:01
|
|
|
epenthesis posted:If you plan to lie to your future employer, consider how insulted you really ought to be to have your honesty questioned.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 17, 2016 18:23
|
|
|
epenthesis posted:That's fine. But if someone were to exaggerate their competing offer and then be asked to prove it, they'd have little choice but to feign offense and take the competing offer--if they tried to accept the original offer after having claimed to have a substantially better one, they'd (accurately) look like a liar. Jeffrey of YOSPOS fucked around with this message at 19:53 on Oct 17, 2016 |
|
#
¿
Oct 17, 2016 19:51
|
|
|
Saint Fu posted:When I used an "independent" recruiter and he insisted on knowing my salary, I included every conceivable benefit in my current compensation then tacked on a little bit more and kept it all very vague and in round numbers. He said he wouldn't reveal it to potential employers so I didn't feel bad or unethical about exaggerating/lying.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 27, 2016 20:21
|
|
|
fantastic in plastic posted:How would you go about putting a dollar value on something less tangible, like the ability to work 100% remotely? I've thought about an approach like finding the average commute time in my local metro area and then multiplying that vs my consulting rate, but there are more things I find valuable about remote work than just eliminating a commute. I'm not sure how to really convey it to a recruiter. If you're only looking for 100% remote work, you can tell them that, if it's a nice to have but not a dealbreaker, it's trickier.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 27, 2016 21:04
|
|
|
I wouldn't plan on getting a counter offer and accepting it. It's something you can to do feel good about yourself and give you courage in future negotiations, but it may well just mark you as disloyal. Maybe you have a counter offer only as long as it takes you to train your replacement. It certainly depends on company culture but it's not something I'd rely on. If you want to have options besides just taking company B, look for company C.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 28, 2016 08:06
|
|
|
Guinness posted:This is pretty much exactly what you should do in this situation. Of course, I can only give very general advice here, which is no substitute to specifics about the company in question. If you know how they've treated people in your situation in the past, that is hugely valuable information that can certainly supersede anything I've said.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 28, 2016 21:09
|
|
|
Dik Hz posted:But, good companies in general are already paying the market rate. If you're far enough below the market rate that moving gets you a big raise, you're likely already dealing with unreasonable people trying to take advantage of you.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 30, 2016 23:37
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 29, 2024 17:23 |
|
|
Cacafuego posted:What is the experience like negotiating with a headhunter/recruiter? I had previously mentioned my current situation in this thread. I've been recently promoted at my current job and when I added my new title on LinkedIn, I got 4 messages and about 10 phone calls within the last week, which were completely unsolicited. One call stated their client is paying up to $95k. It's tempting, as I make ~$20k less now. Off the top of my head: 1. Recruiters often ask for exclusivity - it's okay to grant it to them verbally, but don't sign a contract. Then it's okay to wordlessly take it away whenever you want. This sounds a little sketchy, but it's nothing compared to the sketchiness of their whole industry - I do it without remorse. 2. Recruiters, in my experience, are good for 1-3 interviews, after that they'll stop putting in so much effort. If you reach this point, start looking at others. 3. They gossip. If you work in a cutthroat industry that fires people for disloyalty, be extra cautious, because they will throw your resume around with reckless abandon. Once I removed my current company name from my resume for this reason, just put the vague type of company, and the recruiter without my knowledge edited the company name back in before sending it out. I found out because an interviewer was holding a copy of my resume with the company name on it. I know multiple people who have been fired because word got around that they were interviewing, it's not just paranoia. 4. There are (at least?) two styles of recruiters. They generally get paid a portion of your first year's salary. Some of them take this to mean "place a lot of people, with little regard for how good a fit they are or maximizing their salary, just try to get them in and out". Others take it to mean "build relationships with clients to place them somewhere that fits well for them, and negotiate hard for their salary because that's how much you get paid". Obviously you should prefer the latter, but I have no idea how to determine that from a recruiter's initial pitch. One thing is to request that they get explicit permission from you for each individual company they send your resume to. They'll still sometimes ignore this. 5. Worst recruiter story: A friend worked with a recruiter briefly, and he didn't really take the time to understand his situation. (It was genuinely complicated and involved staying at his current company while doing other, overlapping stuff with another. All above-board, but non-standard for sure.) So my friend stopped taking his calls. When the recruiter couldn't get in touch, instead of letting it go, he called up his company's phone number from the website, introduced himself as a recruiter, and asked to speak to my friend by name. Needless to say my friend had to have an uncomfortable meeting where he had to explain to his boss that he was not, in fact, looking to leave the company, just dealing with a sketchy recruiter.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 11, 2016 19:30
|
|