4 ms·

Counteroffers are poison for both the employee and the company. The employee now knows that he could have gotten the same thing the employer is now offering be

Counteroffers are poison for both the employee and the company. The employee now knows that he could have gotten the same thing the employer is now offering before the counteroffer. The employer knows that the employee is spending a non-trivial amount of time to interview and talk to other employers. I agree there should be no trust here, but we are conditioned to think that there should be. Exceptions aside (and you don't know if you're in one of those exceptions), a counter offer allows you to exist in a poisoned relationship for a few more months.

robalfonso 10y ago
Some times office policies prohibit giving employees good raises and precipitate an environment where a counter offer is necessary to get a good pay bump. The act of the employee looking elsewhere usually removes those internal handcuffs. Its not always about shafting an individual so much as managing the entire business. This can also be wholly subjective to the company, culture, boss, and employee.
- imagist 10y ago
  > Its not always about shafting an individual so much as managing the entire business. I read this as: It's not always about shafting an individual so much as shafting all the employees who will let you shaft them.
  - robalfonso 10y ago
    I don't think of my employees this way,in fact I just had one raised to the new "average" because it turned out they didn't negotiate well and were below average ( not my hire, just now my report) - it was a 12% raise. Play devils advocate and see how a "mega corp" runs things. If you could pay everyone discretionally (ie decided by mid level manager) you'd be out of business tomorrow. Those companies keep cost controls just because they are so large. Larger businesses offer more employee security, but there is also less chance for financial growth. The counter offer is essentially a hack on the system.
    - imagist 10y ago
      > I don't think of my employees this way,in fact I just had one raised to the new "average" because it turned out they didn't negotiate well and were below average ( not my hire, just now my report) - it was a 12% raise. That's very good of you. > Play devils advocate and see how a "mega corp" runs things. If you could pay everyone discretionally (ie decided by mid level manager) you'd be out of business tomorrow. Those companies keep cost controls just because they are so large. This is true, and a clear indictment of large corporations. Unsuprisingly, this logic only applies to the lower end of the pyramid, however--upper-level management rarely chooses to put cost controls on their own pay.
- st3v3r 10y ago
  I fail to see how that's any better. Sure, the direct boss is no longer to blame, but the company as a whole still looks crappy.
imagist 10y ago
> The employee now knows that he could have gotten the same thing the employer is now offering before the counteroffer. This only matters if the employee was under the delusion that the company had the employee's best interests in mind. This is true at very few companies. If your company speaks of itself as if it's "a family", it's likely that this is just an attempt to create employee loyalty that they can leverage into lower salaries. > The employer knows that the employee is spending a non-trivial amount of time to interview and talk to other employers. This only matters if the employer is under the delusion that their employees are in it for anything other than money. It would be extraordinarily difficult to prop up this delusion in the tech industry where staying at companies more than two years is unusual, so I can't imagine many employers care. > I agree there should be no trust here, but we are conditioned to think that there should be. If you agree there should be no trust here, why are you making an argument based on trust? Just because people are conditioned to think something which allows them to be exploited doesn't mean they should stick to the exploitable thinking in the rare case where it ceases to be exploitable.
- jimmywanger 10y ago
  > It would be extraordinarily difficult to prop up this delusion in the tech industry where staying at companies more than two years is unusual, so I can't imagine many employers care. I dispute that. I generally stay at companies for 4 or 5 years, and I know multiple people who have stayed at Google for 10 years. >If you agree there should be no trust here, why are you making an argument based on trust? I'm not making an argument. I'm saying that trust (rightly or wrongly) sometimes seems like something that should be expected (to those who haven't been working for a while especially) and can be used to guilt people into acting in not their own best interests, or to act in a retaliatory way against employees.
  - imagist 10y ago
    > I dispute that. I generally stay at companies for 4 or 5 years, and I know multiple people who have stayed at Google for 10 years. Yeah, but Google isn't representative of the industry as a whole. > I'm not making an argument. You said, "Counteroffers are poison for both the employee and the company." That's a very strong position you're taking. > I'm saying that trust (rightly or wrongly) sometimes seems like something that should be expected (to those who haven't been working for a while especially) and can be used to guilt people into acting in not their own best interests, or to act in a retaliatory way against employees. This is true, but inapplicable to the decision of whether to take a counteroffer. If you're the employee, "I might be being guilted into not acting in self-interest" is a concern that doesn't really support OR oppose taking counteroffers in general, it's just a general consideration (and the answer is basically to recognize that most companies only care about you as much as you can produce value for them). And while certainly some employers are prone to acting in a retaliatory way toward employees who look elsewhere, making a counteroffer is exactly the opposite of retaliatory behavior--it's recognizing that the loyalty ploy didn't work, and renegotiating.

robalfonso 10y ago

Some times office policies prohibit giving employees good raises and precipitate an environment where a counter offer is necessary to get a good pay bump. The act of the employee looking elsewhere usually removes those internal handcuffs. Its not always about shafting an individual so much as managing the entire business. This can also be wholly subjective to the company, culture, boss, and employee.

imagist 10y ago
> Its not always about shafting an individual so much as managing the entire business. I read this as: It's not always about shafting an individual so much as shafting all the employees who will let you shaft them.
- robalfonso 10y ago
  I don't think of my employees this way,in fact I just had one raised to the new "average" because it turned out they didn't negotiate well and were below average ( not my hire, just now my report) - it was a 12% raise. Play devils advocate and see how a "mega corp" runs things. If you could pay everyone discretionally (ie decided by mid level manager) you'd be out of business tomorrow. Those companies keep cost controls just because they are so large. Larger businesses offer more employee security, but there is also less chance for financial growth. The counter offer is essentially a hack on the system.
  - imagist 10y ago
    > I don't think of my employees this way,in fact I just had one raised to the new "average" because it turned out they didn't negotiate well and were below average ( not my hire, just now my report) - it was a 12% raise. That's very good of you. > Play devils advocate and see how a "mega corp" runs things. If you could pay everyone discretionally (ie decided by mid level manager) you'd be out of business tomorrow. Those companies keep cost controls just because they are so large. This is true, and a clear indictment of large corporations. Unsuprisingly, this logic only applies to the lower end of the pyramid, however--upper-level management rarely chooses to put cost controls on their own pay.
st3v3r 10y ago
I fail to see how that's any better. Sure, the direct boss is no longer to blame, but the company as a whole still looks crappy.

imagist 10y ago

> The employee now knows that he could have gotten the same thing the employer is now offering before the counteroffer. This only matters if the employee was under the delusion that the company had the employee's best interests in mind. This is true at very few companies. If your company speaks of itself as if it's "a family", it's likely that this is just an attempt to create employee loyalty that they can leverage into lower salaries. > The employer knows that the employee is spending a non-trivial amount of time to interview and talk to other employers. This only matters if the employer is under the delusion that their employees are in it for anything other than money. It would be extraordinarily difficult to prop up this delusion in the tech industry where staying at companies more than two years is unusual, so I can't imagine many employers care. > I agree there should be no trust here, but we are conditioned to think that there should be. If you agree there should be no trust here, why are you making an argument based on trust? Just because people are conditioned to think something which allows them to be exploited doesn't mean they should stick to the exploitable thinking in the rare case where it ceases to be exploitable.

jimmywanger 10y ago
> It would be extraordinarily difficult to prop up this delusion in the tech industry where staying at companies more than two years is unusual, so I can't imagine many employers care. I dispute that. I generally stay at companies for 4 or 5 years, and I know multiple people who have stayed at Google for 10 years. >If you agree there should be no trust here, why are you making an argument based on trust? I'm not making an argument. I'm saying that trust (rightly or wrongly) sometimes seems like something that should be expected (to those who haven't been working for a while especially) and can be used to guilt people into acting in not their own best interests, or to act in a retaliatory way against employees.
- imagist 10y ago
  > I dispute that. I generally stay at companies for 4 or 5 years, and I know multiple people who have stayed at Google for 10 years. Yeah, but Google isn't representative of the industry as a whole. > I'm not making an argument. You said, "Counteroffers are poison for both the employee and the company." That's a very strong position you're taking. > I'm saying that trust (rightly or wrongly) sometimes seems like something that should be expected (to those who haven't been working for a while especially) and can be used to guilt people into acting in not their own best interests, or to act in a retaliatory way against employees. This is true, but inapplicable to the decision of whether to take a counteroffer. If you're the employee, "I might be being guilted into not acting in self-interest" is a concern that doesn't really support OR oppose taking counteroffers in general, it's just a general consideration (and the answer is basically to recognize that most companies only care about you as much as you can produce value for them). And while certainly some employers are prone to acting in a retaliatory way toward employees who look elsewhere, making a counteroffer is exactly the opposite of retaliatory behavior--it's recognizing that the loyalty ploy didn't work, and renegotiating.