|
Magnetic North posted:This is sensible, but I'm curious about something. To get my current job, I dealt with a 3rd party recruiter. Most of the recruiters I dealt with suck, but this guy was sharp. For him, he said he wanted a number so we knew we weren't miles apart and he could negotiate adequately on my (and his own, obv) behalf. He didn't insist on knowing what I made currently, just what I would probably accept. I knew enough to give him something high and we actually got it, so in this case I have no regrets. I think this was after an in-person interviewing and knowing I did pretty well in it. Is this an exception to 'never say a number' or should I have resisted harder? Do you still make them come in with a number? As everyone else has said, you didn't get one over on your new employer. Possible outcomes are that they wanted to pay what you wanted to make, and everything lined up, or, they wanted to pay more than you wanted to make, and when you said a number first they knew they just scored a good deal. The recruiter's motivation is not to get you a good salary. Even with them getting a commission equal to 20% of your new salary, negotiating on your behalf to get you 15% more doesn't make them as much money as placing 30% more people by keeping the candidate pool full of inexpensive hires. They want transaction velocity with the minimal amount of work for the recruiter and the employer. That means filtering to inexpensive hires. "I want a number so I know we're not far apart" is not sharp. It's what every recruiter uses to disarm people who've heard you shouldn't name a number but will name one with a little cajoling. You got a salary that you feel happy about. If you want to say you're well compensated then you should be able to respond to this post by filling in the following numbers: I am making ___% of what people are paid, on average, to do the same job I am doing in my area. I am making ___% of what people are paid, on average, in my position at my employer. If I had asked for ___% of what I am now making, I would not have gotten it. If you don't know these numbers that isn't a matter of some moral failing on your part, but not being able to fill them in means that you giving a number first was not advantageous to your negotiation. If it wasn't advantageous, then you likely could have gotten more by getting the recruiter to disclose what the employer was looking to pay. That would ALSO have provided the opportunity to make sure that you aren't out of alignment on compensation expectations.
|
#
¿
Sep 22, 2020 14:30
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 16, 2024 00:43 |
|
|
Magnetic North posted:Maybe this is weird but personally, but I don't care to say I am well compensated (except to check my privilege and know that I am fortunate to be doing better than a lot of people). Dunno why. Maybe some puritanical money shame or something? I just can't imagine saying "I'm well compensated" in a sentence for whatever reason. Betazoid posted:Isn't one of the premises of this thread to know when you've won? Yes, you need to know when you've won, and only you can answer "when you've won" for you. Comparison is the thief of joy. There is a real value in your life to finding a sense of satisfaction in what you have, understanding your privilege, and fixing your mind with gratitude. All of these are super useful tools for leading a happier and more peaceful life. None of them are relevant to negotiating. So I am not trying to tell Magnetic North that they failed. I don't want to piss in someone's cornflakes, and I don't want to spoil someone else's victory. I think this thread is useless if we are silent when someone's skill at inner peace exceeds their skill at negotiating, particularly if they recount missteps and misunderstandings about negotiating a salary for a new job. In that regard "know when you've won" is not just important in the context of the negotiating skillset, but important with understanding that negotiation is a toolbox that provides means, and it is up to each individual who attempts to wield that toolbox to create and pursue their own ends. Playing a hand of poker badly, winning that hand anyway, and cashing out with an amount that you are pleased with is not a failure.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 22, 2020 16:15
|
|
|
Magnetic North posted:Yeah, I'm the opposite. I will expend money to not have to go through the energy required to save it. After all, once your basic needs are met, it's there to make your life easier. FWIW, do try it, but don't keep doing it "because you have to". If you try negotiating more firmly and it doesn't feel right, you don't have to make yourself miserable just because it can put a few more $$ in your pocket.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 22, 2020 23:59
|
|
|
strawberrymousse posted:Well, I confirmed with HR that my file is clean and that per org policy any documentation they want to submit will generate a copy to me. I also spotted the proposed org chart for next year while I was accessing a different document, which shows me in my position and then a lower ranked position that would do related work to mine and would make sense as my backup. However when I asked my supervisor "are you sure you meant a second person with my title is being hired vs this other title being hired?" her answer was essentially "no idea what the boss wants to do lol". Which is standard for my interactions with her, she is like the human incarnation of a contract you will regret signing. No nerd on an internet forum knows as much about your situation as you do, but this is sounding like more incompetence than maliciousness to me. You should still find your advantageous exit as quickly as you are capable, but I wouldn't get stressed out about them trying to find a safe way to fire you.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 29, 2020 15:10
|
|
|
Chalets the Baka posted:Welp in a sudden turn of events, they bumped me up to $90,000. With the benefits adjustment, it looks like I can continue to max out my retirement contributions and end up with more take-home pay at the same time - so I'm now coming out better than at my current gig. Well done! Do you understand why they gave you 12.5% more than they initially wanted to?
|
|
#
¿
Oct 22, 2020 15:34
|
|
|
Chalets the Baka posted:I have no idea. I haven't gotten the final written offer from them yet, so I'm half-expecting them to renege or pull some funny business, but we'll see. The key thing at this point is the time off between jobs - if they can't give me that, I'd almost rather just be unemployed. It's because they understand your goal ($120k) and while they want to spend $80k on you, they want to spend $90k on you more than they want to spend $0 on getting nothing. You communicated what you were looking for (more), and you didn't bend over backwards to make things work with their goal, so they're capitulating to move closer to your goal. They believe that you won't take the $80k offer, and they don't have another option that is better than you at $90k. The reason I am specifically focusing on you understanding this is because you haven't really been in the walk from a bad offer mindset, in this thread, but by being aloof and stating a goal for them to meet, they moved toward that goal to secure your employment. Yes, you really can't stand working at your day job right now, but they can't stand not having a Senior Sysadmin even more. You successfully faked it to the tune of $10k. Which is the first step in 'fake it till you make it'.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 22, 2020 20:38
|
|
|
Chaotic Flame posted:I've actually had really good experiences just saying "I'm not going to share that" when asked. They've never asked again and I've never been dropped from consideration. First time saying it felt really rude and combative but since then, not so much. I've even been complimented for it a few times weirdly enough. I do this too when asked, but honestly it's been years since I've been asked "What are you making" vs. "What would you like to make"? It absolutely WILL shut down some conversations, and it may shut down conversations that alternatives would not have. But if you're interested in saving yourself time it definitely does that.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 8, 2020 15:04
|
|
|
Eric the Mauve posted:You’d think it’d be obvious but maybe we should add “Never accept an offer without knowing any numbers” to the thread title. Done. This isn't about antagonizing tnuctip; it's a consistent problem that people come into the thread saying "I accepted an offer can I negotiate it?" Now it's in the OP so at least some of those people will see it before they accept, and the others can feel even worse about glossing over the OP. edit: as benevolent negotiation dictator for life I looked and was disappointed that Eric the Mauve didn't get a shout out in the OP. This has been fixed. Dwight Eisenhower fucked around with this message at 16:45 on Jan 12, 2021 |
|
#
¿
Jan 12, 2021 16:41
|
|
|
itry posted:I made it for the "make an animated banner ad for a thread you think is good and ill buy it" thread, for a laugh (and because I think this is a good thread). y'all make keeping the OP up to date a decent chunk of work 
|
|
#
¿
Feb 3, 2021 16:59
|
|
|
Barudak posted:How do you all figure out what an appropriate for a job salary is?I have an offer from a company who claims they "never do negotiations" and am feeling lowballed for the position. Like when we started talking the salary range floor that was being discussed was 10 grand higher than where we're coming in at now. I have till Friday to do an in person walk through of their offer and I'd rather be well armed before going in and asking for more. If they told you they "always do golden showers" would you be trying to figure out how to work there? Tell them you need salary range floor + $20k and if they balk tell them to go gently caress themselves.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 10, 2021 17:02
|
|
|
PIZZA.BAT posted:I think something that may be useful to add to the OP would be something along the lines of getting comfortable with the concept of walking or saying no. We see a lot of people who are mostly getting it but it seems like they're getting tunnel vision on the current negotiation without realizing that a valid exit is just walking from it entirely. Something that goes in hand with, 'Know when you've won' that would be something like, 'Know when to walk'. I agree that we should add it and don't have a good expression handy. But turning down offers / otherwise letting bad opportunities die is essential to negotiating. If someone efforts up good prose I'll definitely add to OP.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 10, 2021 17:44
|
|
|
Muscle Tracer posted:Out of curiosity, why do yall think this is so different from salary negotiations? My perspective may be influenced by the fact that I've worked alongside a lot of permalancers that were treated as part of the team. You kind of address it, but ostensibly freelancing this isn't your only client and you have other customers. Most salaried positions demand enough time to be the employee's only salaried position, so they can't mitigate lovely pay by having some better paying clients and eventually phasing out of working for the worst paying client.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 10, 2021 20:17
|
|
|
"Don't accept a counteroffer" is a rule like "Don't name a number": It's useful as a novice who is still figuring out how to play Capitalism The Game, and you can break it once you have more understanding of how the game is played. Naming a number has a bunch of nuanced details: Do you name a number early on in the process or later? (Early on lets you disqualify employers quicker and save your time. Later lets you persuade the employer you are worth the number you are quoting) Do you name a high realistic number, or do you shoot for the moon? (High realistic has a high probability that you will be offered exactly that. Shooting for the moon will let you know how high you can go with that particular employer if they don't drop you) Do you name a number or do you name a range of numbers? (lol you name a number you dummy) A huge amount of the conversation's trajectory will be determined by how you open up with these decisions on naming a number. Getting any of them disadvantageous to you puts your entire rest of a negotiation on the back foot, with someone who has done this more than once and does it as part of their job description. They will be more comfortable with this responsibility than you will for some time. Alternatively you can shut the gently caress up and make them name a number first. It's almost assuredly not going to get you the best possible outcome that the most skilled negotiator could get. It's probably going to get you better than a median outcome, and if you're gonna gently caress up naming a number, it's going to get you a better outcome than that. Once you're not grossly underpaid for your work and start getting your head above water, you can more confidently start negotiating and turning down offers. This lets you gently caress up at naming a number and put the negotiated outcome on a bad course, but your BATNA is still good. Same deal with don't accept a counteroffer. Probably not the best strategy, but it's easy to understand, easy to execute, and is a good place to start.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 8, 2021 16:55
|
|
|
Eric the Mauve posted:I think Never Accept a Counteroffer (from your current employer, I assume we mean) is a way more consistently reliable rule than Never Say a Number. I agree, but you can make it work, with employment contracts for example
|
|
#
¿
Mar 8, 2021 18:25
|
|
|
CornHolio posted:I really can't believe I'm considering staying. You've got an unhealthy relationship with your work where you are not thinking about it purely in the context of you exchanging your time for some money, but I assure you that's exactly what your present job thinks of you. If you are this torn up over getting an additional $20k / year, maybe you can use some of that money to start visiting a therapist to resolve your feelings about making more money from different exploitative capitalists.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 24, 2021 16:59
|
|
|
downout posted:Anyone have a recommended response if asked your current salary? I think I have a good handle on responding to questions about how much I'm looking for, but that question always gets me. My current employer used it to anchor my salary which is basically going to cost them. Whenever anyone asks this question, I hear something pretty different: "I can't stand for a response to a job application to not end up with a job offer, and so I am terrified of adopting a position which may not align with the prospective company." Job interviews are not a test in school. If you don't end up finding a mutually beneficial outcome, then not getting an offer is a Good Thing. If the only way that an employer will extend you an offer is by you bending over for them by telling them your current salary, then standing your ground and that employer walking away is you helping yourself.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 28, 2021 14:02
|
|
|
m0therfux0r posted:I think you answered your own question here- you simply weren't in a position to be able to apply good negotiation tactics. I believe the general consensus of this thread in those situations is basically "do what you have to do, take the job you can get, keep applying to other jobs- you now have a better BATNA since you have a job that is meeting your current bare-minimum needs." Correct. If you internally think you have no good options, then you do not internally have the mindset necessary for negotiation; you need to be able to realistically visualize walking away from the deal. If you have no employment and you need to pay for poo poo and you have only one job offer, you aren't able to negotiate. You are able to put yourself in a position to be able to negotiate in the future.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 29, 2021 15:23
|
|
|
I'll reiterate what I said on the last page and explicitly disagree with Eric for once: What Parallelwoody does from here is entirely dependent on their financial circumstances and prospects for other jobs. If you can't afford to be out a job and someone pulls this poo poo on you, then you take the job and you look for your next one. If you have been searching for months and this your only bite, then you take the job and you look for your next one. If this was the best offer out of multiple then yeah, NewJob needs to honor the offer letter or gently caress themselves with a chainsaw. FWIW CEO being involved on a situation like this might not be because they're trying to gently caress you over but because poo poo has gone sufficiently awry by accident that the CEO wants to make sure nothing fucky happens from here out. This situation totally sucks and I'm sorry you're in it.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 31, 2021 15:23
|
|
|
GallienKruger posted:Just turned down what would’ve been a competitive offer if I’d taken the 10% bonus at face value. If you told me that you'd just accepted an offer, but you're willing to bail on that offer to take my offer, then you're also telling me that if I give you an offer, you'll bail on it for someone else's better offer. It's fine to say that you're evaluating other options and to ask for companies you are interviewing with to please make decisions by X time as you are evaluating options and would like to make a decision by X+1 time.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 2, 2021 00:32
|
|
|
Lying about what you're currently making is not a great move. For every time it works as you intend, you are running the risk that your offer is pulled entirely because the information is disconfirmed. There are a bounty of ways that a prospective employer can find out what you presently make without your consent. But more importantly: it's not necessary. You can always say "I'm not telling." Lying about what you make is only getting you the ability to get a job offer from a company who would not give you an offer if you refused to tell them what you're presently making, and avoiding the confrontation of refusing to play a prospective employer's "bend over for me" game. Getting that offer from that company is negative value for you, because everyone else you work with there is either a liar or an idiot. Avoiding confrontation is not helping you become a better negotiator. I encourage you not to lie about what you're making.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 7, 2021 15:29
|
|
|
Zarin posted:This line seems huge to me. I think on some level a lot of us (myself included here) would feel like we "failed" if we start an interview process and walk away without an offer. I'm not sure why this is, and the psychology behind that is probably out of scope for the thread, but it's probably important for everyone to start the process recognizing that it's okay to walk away and say "thanks, but no thanks" with the understanding that (hopefully) you learned something. You don't even need to learn anything generally applicable. Sometimes people posting jobs are poo poo and all you're going to learn is "This prospective employer is poo poo." Not getting a job offer from a terrible employer is a good and desirable outcome.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 7, 2021 17:16
|
|
|
I disagree that we have to only discuss what is presented in front of us like some slavish robots incapable of bringing our own experiences to interpreting the story. That manager is definitely full of poo poo and we all know it. They did not get explicit assent to "the top of our advertised range is the absolute highest we can go". If they did get some sort of verbal agreement, we collectively also know that any company saying that in an interview process is usually lying, and that it is not a moral failing of a person interviewing to ask for more. Let's cut the bullshit and actually review what can be relied upon in this story: 1. Candidate was told a salary range, probably multiple times. 2. Candidate continued to work with the interviewing process after being told a cap on what the offer would contain. 3. Candidate was their favorite option out of interviewing. 4. Company offered the top of the range they communicated. 5. Candidate wanted more than they offered. 6. Manager wants the problem with not proceeding with their favorite candidate to be the candidate, not the company that they are working for. So, leaving aside bullshit and skepticism and suspicion, what do you do when you're the manager writing AAM? - The offer contains a deadline. The candidate accepts by time X. - You extend the offer to the candidate with the top of the salary range you can offer. - The candidate asks for more. You say no, the offer is $Y. - IF the candidate says "No", you're off the hook and move onto #2. "Rescinding the offer" is irrelevant. - IF the candidate says "I'd like some time to think about it", you are MAYBE getting your FAVORITE OPTION provided the candidate thinks about it and says yes by X. Otherwise time X arrives and you contact the candidate to tell them the offer expired, and move onto #2. Rescinding the offer is prematurely killing your opportunity to get your FAVORITE OPTION WHO YOU OFFERED THE JOB TO FIRST AHEAD OF ALL OTHER APPLICANTS. Seriously gently caress this manager's brittle ego, and gently caress you too because you're letting your ego sympathize with it.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 9, 2021 14:51
|
|
|
Also I just wanna say a word here about validation again, because we're talking about knives that cut both ways: if an individual interviews with a company and establishes firm boundaries and the company does not arrive at an agreement to work together within those boundaries this is a good outcome for the individual. If a company interviews with a candidate and establishes firm boundaries and the candidate does not arrive at an agreement to work together within those boundaries this is a good outcome for the company. As a company interviewing you get such a better deal than the candidates you are interviewing: you are getting multiple applicants, many applicants are not getting multiple offers. You have multiple employees, most employees have only one employer. You can amortize an expensive employee across your labor pool, an employee cannot amortize their lovely compensation across their employment pool. In exchange for all of these structural benefits, right now employers have to give offers and are expected to honor them for some amount of time. Tough poo poo
|
|
#
¿
Apr 9, 2021 15:25
|
|
|
I'd like to get crisp about two things: Why take down the author of that AAM letter? and What are the things we are balancing between? Why take down the author of that AAM letter? Because from collective experience, it's almost assuredly bullshit and almost assuredly a miserable person wanting to punish a candidate for negotiating. As a thread where we are helping people exercise their backbones and learn how to negotiate, the net takeaway from the story should be that companies will try to get an anchor to a low compensation early on in the process and as an interviewing candidate you should only consider a job offer the exercise in negotiation and it has to be in writing, and it has to describe the total compensation. The kind of information you should have in the U.S. should be the salary you will be paid, what benefits are made available, what are you financial obligations for these benefits, etc. What are the things we're balancing between? At one end of the spectrum you have most employees: People paid somewhere below market rate because they accept what the employer offers them and have internalized to be "thankful" for a job. At the other end of the spectrum you have absolutely cutthroat mercenaries who are optimizing the rate of dollars per hour of labor without regard to the consequences for anyone in their blast radius. If we take the AAM letter author at their word, I still can't say that the candidate is too far on the latter end of the spectrum, because the candidate was playing the pool of employers. The pool of employers express caps for the position that are lies, and negotiating above those caps is possible because they are lying. We have first hand accounts in this thread of posters successfully negotiating above the communicated "maximum" salary. Those posters were doing the right thing.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 9, 2021 16:15
|
|
|
re "Taken aback" chat: It's absolutely bullshit, it is manipulative bullshit, and you can reasonably expect to hear it when negotiating about employment. There's some domain of "good faith" negotiation where two parties are interested in economic activity and are trying to discover if there are terms that are in both parties' mutual self interest to agree upon. And this NEVER. loving. HAPPENS. Everywhere else is combination of that, deception, obfuscation and emotional manipulation. The correct response was demonstrated, which is to shrug and stick to your guns. Grats goon!
|
|
#
¿
Apr 15, 2021 14:22
|
|
|
LochNessMonster posted:Just ask, nobody gets punished for negotiating (except if a company is evil and then they're doing you a favor by letting you know before taking the job). We like to chant this refrain over and over for a reason, because it's true. AND, finding out that a company is evil and has rescinded your offer MAY be worse than continuing to be unemployed, depending on where else your financial position stands. Same thing said a different way: you may be better off working for shitheads than not having a job in our present capitalist hellscape. If you can cover your living expenses and are gainfully employed, then you almost always want to negotiate, and want to have bad actors show you how bad they are. If your position is worse than that, then you aren't being unreasonable in your fears and should definitely give it some thought and discussion (maybe inclusive of posting in this thread).
|
|
#
¿
Apr 19, 2021 15:50
|
|
|
jimmychoo posted:thanks all, no surprise that it worked! saved by the goons again. i only had the guts to ask for a 3% salary increase and that's what i got. not unhappy of course because their original offer was great. Well done! 
|
|
#
¿
Apr 20, 2021 13:45
|
|
|
How does a person who is an employee of Company A already moving to Colorado at all impact their obligations under Colorado law to disclose salary? The person has the job already.
|
|
#
¿
May 30, 2021 02:40
|
|
|
Gin_Rummy posted:Dealing with a recruiter right now who straight up ignored me on the first pass when I asked what the budgeted salary range would be ... Would it be too bridge burn-y to respond to “what is your salary expectation” with something along the lines of “every cent I’m worth, so tell me the budget or move along?” Eric the Mauve posted:"every cent I'm worth, so tell me the budget or move along" is pretty much exactly what I would tell them. Zero tolerance for lovely recruiters wasting your time. You should probably have already shitcanned this turd around the time your question was ignored. "Too bridge burn-y" isn't in your vocabulary right now, because the amount that you have continued talking to this recruiter is already too generous. You've folded for them once by allowing your important questions about the position to be ignored. You must not under any circumstances state a salary expectation. You must in all scenarios where the discussion proceeds secure the budget from the recruiter.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 16, 2021 13:35
|
|
|
Gin_Rummy posted:Does any of the recruiter advice change when I specify that this crappy recruiter is not third party, but that company's own internal recruiter? No, though the activity certainly had the initial smell of 3rd party recruiter. That the internal recruiters conduct themselves so should be your hint about how to evaluate the opportunity. If you feel like it you could reopen the door on the condition that the position's budget is disclosed, otherwise I approve of ghosting. You got more important things to do with your time.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 17, 2021 16:44
|
|
|
I don't think I've ever encouraged someone to just ghost on their employer. Pillowpants, when you find the next thing, just ghost on your employer.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 8, 2021 13:35
|
|
|
Pre-pandemic I got life insurance and the company sent a nurse to my home to check my vitals. Wouldn't be nearly as cut and dry in our plague world but there was nothing about that check that required an office or a recurring commute for that nurse.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 2, 2021 22:29
|
|
|
Also "more competitive with the market" is the polite way of saying "compete with my other offers you cheap loving fools" If they don't meet the market you take the market rate from someone else.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 11, 2021 20:17
|
|
|
Jenkl posted:That's not a bad point, especially since this is not an area of experience for me. One useful metaphor: You're playing poker, but the only bets you can lose are a potential employer's attention. Right now you've got the attention, but don't want the job, you can: - Continue playing hands with a bankroll that you presently value at $0. - Let the convo go cold and do nothing to improve yourself and your game with a free bankroll that has no value for you. Play the hands out and get practiced at asking for big stuff.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 21, 2023 02:53
|
|
|
Sometimes when I am tired and feeling low and ineffective, I like to imagine that this thread has actually moved the needle in the labor market. CLEARLY a huge number of people have taken the message to heart and gotten fiesty about their pay. But it may even be that we've successfully gotten enough people to demand companies compete for their labor instead of the other way around to have nudged the boss' advantage into the toilet. And nothing pleases me more than pissing in the boss' cheerios.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 26, 2023 00:37
|
|
|
Eric the Mauve posted:It doesn't matter, of course. The important thing is to understand it's a giant red flag where the only explanations are incompetence or dishonesty. This. If they advertised $220k and your offer came in with $165k, then you'd tell them exactly where to shove it. Do the same with the title bait and switch. Does it actually matter? No... unless they won't give you the title that you applied for, because it matters to them. In which case they're showing you a whole bunch of the internal organizational rationalizations for doing fucky things. There's room to have a conversation of "I'll accept an offer for the job I applied for." but there's no room to play their little gently caress around game, because you're the one who's gonna end up finding out.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 10, 2023 16:48
|
|
|
Honestly, both options suck and I think you can do better than both of them. Take whichever seems most satisfying and internalize the fully disposable way you were treated by OldJob. They let you go when it was convenient for them. They wanted to hire you back, without any sort of flexibility or negotiation, once it was convenient for them. Internalize that this is how monetary relationships work. If commuting is as awful as Eric (and I) feel for you, take OldJob and keep looking. If it's not, take NewJob and keep looking. I think if you stay on the job hunt you can probably find something better than both, but ending your unemployment now is better than holding out for it so long as you keep looking.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 8, 2024 17:22
|
|
|
pmchem posted:IANAL but this is probably violating one or both employment contracts, this is maybe not great advice Contractual employment has consequences for terminating employment within the period of contractual obligation or failing to perform. Employers have hopped on a trend of saying they want the latitude to fire people at any time, which cuts both ways: people can overemploy and half-rear end without any liability beyond "they can fire you". Wages cannot be clawed back and all forms of deferred compensation (e.g. PTO) have to be liquidated and paid out immediately on termination. Overemployment is a reasonable reaction to employers stacking the deck in their favor. If you can handle it. I definitely can barely tolerate the responsibilities of one job.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 9, 2024 16:44
|
|
|
Lockback posted:If this is true then RTO is a reasonable reaction to prevent it. If you're making good money I'd much rather people let others get those opportunities to move up rather than ruin the remote thing for everybody. It's a reaction. Overemploying saps more of a person selling their labor's time, gives them less time to do non-work things, and likely means they'll be spending less time on either job, increasing their risk of getting fired. Office mandating (return or otherwise) requires office space for all of the humans, the ongoing costs of that space (even if you don't rent, you have to power it, provide internet, manage that on prem internet, etc), but most crucially, you are basically signing up to cut an entire part of the labor pool out of your workforce. Working in an office doesn't make financial sense for pretty much any employee (which is not to say some don't like it), and many who understand this refuse to work in an office. An office mandate basically means you're going to be self-selecting for some portion of the workforce who's willing to make inferior financial decisions. Depends on what you're doing employing people, but calling it reasonable depends on what kind of people you need to hire.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 10, 2024 19:36
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 16, 2024 00:43 |
|
|
I want to emphasize one thing that isn't clearly communicated in your post: You talk about your BATNA as if the "First Choice" offer was better than your BATNA. Your BATNA with Company Rank 1 is to take Offer From Company Rank 2, which you "valued" at $164k. Your first choice, first offer was worth $152k. Your BATNA is better than first choice, first offer, BATNAs are per agreement, not per person. The alternatives you had in total were: - Work with Company Rank 1 - Work with Company Rank 2 - Abstain and continue where you're at Since both offers were better than abstention, you created a situation where each Company's Offer had a better BATNA than abstention. The importance in understanding this is that your negotiating position was awesome because of the two offers as you identified, and that each presented the BATNA to the other because they were both better than abstention. It also psyschologically forced you to confront that there was no way it was a good move to stay where you were at: abstention was the worst possible outcome. On the hiring side; people with competing offers are rare and the most frequent problem is to just get people to agree to make the substantial life change of altering employment.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 23, 2024 20:16
|
|