8 ms·

That surely sounds like a negotiation tactic was played on you. "I cant give you a raise without taking it from someone else" or "It's out of my hands" are cut

That surely sounds like a negotiation tactic was played on you. "I cant give you a raise without taking it from someone else" or "It's out of my hands" are cut and dry sales tactics. I am a bit pejorative to that tactic because if answered correctly, it actually harms the salesman: proclaiming you cant give X salaries means that they dont respect market rates and thus an employee is incentivized to leave to someone that does. Their inability to give raises is a showing of weakness not of strength.

AcerbicZero 10y ago
I've worked at a number of places which had this basic policy. Upper management gives middle management a % of their budget for merit increases, and its up to the middle manager to break it up how they see fit. While you can certainly try to negotiate increases in compensation outside of this, I've never seen it happen successfully.
- byoung2 10y ago
  I've never seen it happen successfully. I've done it at least half a dozen times in my career. I was told "the maximum we can give is a $7k raise since there is a fixed pool for raises in the department." I said if I quit and you have to replace me, not only will you have to hire 2 devs to replace me (as I pulled dev and sysops duty) and pay them market salaries, you will have to pay a recruiter 20-30%. They still wouldn't budge, so I got a counteroffer for $30k more than I was making, plus some other perks. They not only matched, they also matched for other devs on the team. Do not fall for that fixed budget BS...the pie can always get bigger.
  - cgore 10y ago
    It's often a bit true though. I bet your direct manager didn't have that authority himself and had to go up higher and justify it to either his boss or his boss's boss.
    - byoung2 10y ago
      That is true but in this last case I became that manager and suddenly there was no such set pool for raises.
  - _puk 10y ago
    Honest question, did that affect your working relationship with your manager / their manager, or did it work out well long term for everyone?
    - byoung2 10y ago
      Honest question, did that affect your working relationship with your manager / their manager, or did it work out well long term for everyone? It worked out well for all parties, depending on how you look at it. Management was a little out of touch with market rate salaries, since they weren't tech guys (once the CEO referred to engineering as "black magic" since he didn't understand it). So while they were shocked at an offer I was able to get in a few days, they understood that engineers are in an enviable position in the job market. This was 2013 and I was making $110k in Los Angeles, and they were offering $117k. The counteroffer was for $130k plus perks valued at about $10k (401k plus match, extra week of vacation, etc). So they matched at $140k. I stayed there and after a year I got a promotion to director of engineering and a raise to $155k + up to $25k bonus. A few months later I renegotiated to have the bonus removed and the base salary increased to $175k. During the time after I pulled my stunt I expanded on a pet project using sentiment analysis and that became the core of a new product that is now 40% of their revenue. In December 2015 I left to work as a remote freelancer, which would have happened eventually regardless.
      - jimbokun 10y ago
        Thank you for including real numbers. Helps understand what's possible or realistic. "During the time after I pulled my stunt I expanded on a pet project using sentiment analysis and that became the core of a new product that is now 40% of their revenue." This is the most important number you give! Very important to understand the need to point to concrete revenue generated (or costs cut) when negotiating a raise. Otherwise, management will probably just call your bluff.
        nikatwork 10y ago
        > management will probably just call your bluff. You don't need some enormous revenue or productivity win on the board to ask for a raise (although it helps). It just needs to be less hassle for them to pay you a raise than to replace you. In most cases it's really that simple.
  - branchless 10y ago
    That's the puppy. You have to have a card, you have to be willing to play it, and they have to believe you are willing to play it. And they have to value you. That is base camp for negotiating.
  - cel1ne 10y ago
    Same here. If you're somewhat good, getting a new developer will always be expensive and it is a risk for the company. The new developer needs to familiarise himself with everything and what happens if he's actually worse than you? Of course no sane boss will ever tell you this. Just nag them and don't accept "no" for an answer.
    - byoung2 10y ago
      As director of engineering, I gladly gave generous raises to retain people, because it cost way more in lost productivity to read resumes, interview candidates, and onboard new devs, not to mention the $30k check you have to write to the recruiter. And you're right, one bad hire can be disastrous...apparently the guy that replaced me wanted to prove his value by rewriting the whole architecture. So they spent a whole year doing that which I'm sure is much cleaner than the original under the hood, but to the end user, it is not apparent.
      - Can_Not 10y ago
        > apparently the guy that replaced me wanted to prove his value by rewriting the whole architecture. So they spent a whole year doing that which I'm sure is much cleaner than the original under the hood, but to the end user, it is not apparent Anecdote: We had a guy show up, he claimed that we had to do a rewrite. We spent 2 years catching up to the base product. Complete waste of time, had to fire him 1 year into the rewrite. Gained no value from it. He was simply too arrogant, vain, and/or unskilled to bother to read other people's code.
        zo1 10y ago
        What position did he come in as? Seems awfully odd to have a new-hire making such a decision. From the sounds of it, he effectively tied up resources for almost a year before being pushed out? There are two problems there, from what I can ascertain: 1. The guy wanting to rewrite your product. 2. Management that allowed him to do so without proper motivation and/or cost-benefit analysis.
  - redwards510 10y ago
    > They still wouldn't budge, so I got a counteroffer for $30k more than I was making, Getting a counteroffer is not the same as what the OP is suggesting. Using another job offer as a leverage for a raise is not recommended by most experts. Just google "Should i accept a counteroffer?". Mainly because you create bad blood at your current employer and you have to be ready to follow through on your threat. Also, that employer you just pushed right to the edge of hiring you is going to be mad you were just using them. There are entire top 10 lists about why it is a bad idea! I have pleaded the entire "it would cost you thousands to train a new guy, and you will have to pay him to start what i'm asking for right now!" line to bosses before. They are unmoved by financial arguments. It's as if management just decided to take a hard line against "persuasive" raises across the board, nevermind the damage it costs to lose talent.
    - Can_Not 10y ago
      I've read that, are you sure it's not a scare tactic by recruiters?
    - JamesBarney 10y ago
      Just as a head up, most of the people who write answers to "Should I accept a counteroffer?" are recruiters who next mortgage payment is contingent on you not accepting the counteroffer.
    - toennisforst 10y ago
      Of the top five results Google gives me, all are by recruitment agencies who have a strong incentive not to loose candidates and their commission. The notion that accepting counteroffers is always hurtful to your career is contested to say the least: See this [1] HN discussion from about a month ago. [1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12624112 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12624112
    - op00to 10y ago
      When considering this tactic, ask yourself one question: "Do I work for psycopaths, or for (relatively) rational human beings?" If rational, go ahead and let them know the market rate of your labor by showing a competing offer, knowing full well that you're ready to take it and move on. It's only business. If you work for psychopaths, just take the offer and leave because fuck that shit.
JustSomeNobody 10y ago
Sure it's a weakness, but they (management) don't care. If the developer leaves, they'll hire another and in the mean time the remaining devs get to pick up the slack. It's actually a convenient excuse for the schedule slipping; they blame it on the developer who left because he "wasn't a team player", even though management knows the real reason is because they simply don't ... know ... how ... to ... manage.
- dwightgunning 10y ago
  The type of company and management I'd recommend people strive to work with prefers to retain good staff rather than hire fresh.
  - cormacrelf 10y ago
    Hiring itself and losses from going without are very expensive, I find it weird that any company wouldn't rather retain. I wouldn't ever be surprised that hiring cost $10k all up.
    - Taylor_OD 10y ago
      If a company only used external recruiters for any position above 100K it's going to cost them 15K+. More likely 25K. Now if they try on their own as well by posting jobs, hiring internal recruiters, network... Hiring is expensive.
    - rezistik 10y ago
      Recruiters take up to 20% of first year salary or more plus the time to retrain, a 10k dev is a cheap one.
      - jabzd 10y ago
        In Chicago, some recruiters have started asking for 30%. I've refused to work with these companies but rates are definitely going up.
Spooky23 10y ago
It's just reflective of the level of trust invested in the business leadership. Bigger orgs manage compensation seperately and usually only gives management limited levers to pull to affect changes. They do this to manage costs, avoid internal competition and because they don't trust line management. Workers are a cog in the wheel in these orgs, and treating shiny cogs better is ultimately worse for the org.
user5994461 10y ago
> Manager: "I cant give you a raise [...]" The employee got an offer the next week somewhere else for +30%. He gave his resignation letter to the manager right away. It didn't even occur to him to ask the company to make a counter offer (even though they may have). [Just to say that sometimes, negotiation strategies can backfire, but managers don't seem to realize (or care about) that.]
- nikatwork 10y ago
  Being in that situation is so satisfying. Boss: HR won't give me the money for your raise. Employee: I quit. I've been offered more money elsewhere. Boss: No wait actually I can get that extra money Employee: Too late, kthxbai
  - jaimex2 10y ago
    +1 Never take a counter offer. You'll get more pay but you're stuck in the same company run by the same narrow minds.
    - meric 10y ago
      In my experience narrow minds can be expanded.
      - MaulingMonkey 10y ago
        Sure. If you need to seek out an offer every time you want to expand them, it's going to take a bit of work however.
      - edem 10y ago
        All narrow minds can be expanded in theory. With an axe for example.
    - nowbacktowork 10y ago
      Yes, but these are the narrow minds you know. Be sure there will be a new/different set of narrow minds at the next company.
manyxcxi 10y ago
It's not a tactic. It's, in fact how a LOT of companies do it. As the guy in charge of doling out my pool of raise money it has absolutely been a zero sum game everywhere I've done it. If our across the board raise rate is 3% and I give you 5%, I had to give someone else 1%. In practice, I would like take 0.25-1% from more people to spread the pain out some. If there was someone performing at a level that made me feel it was okay not to give them a raise, I might grab it all from them. But doing this pretty much means they will leave in 3-6mos or I will wind up letting them go sooner. They were likely already on a PIP or we've had serious performance discussions throughout the year. It's not a tactic, it's simply the way it is. not giving a raise to someone is a signal that puts the wheels in motion for them to be gone. Your relationship with them will be tested, likely broken. If I want to keep everyone on my team, barring extraordinary circumstances, I need to generally even them out. Evened out seems to settle between 2.75 and 3.25%. What most people don't say is that a good company will have set aside a pool of money for retention. It could be a salary correction because someone got in cheap and we recognize that we need to adjust them up more than a simple raise- most of the time it's the emergency money I can go to the CEO and beg for in order to match that offer you got if I really want to keep you and think you'll be happy to stay.
rifung 10y ago
I don't know if you can assume it's a negotiation tactic. My friend is a manager for Amazon and he wasn't able to give people raises like he wanted to. I don't remember if he couldn't give them a raise or couldn't give them as much as he wanted to, but either way, it's definitely a thing in some places.
- LoSboccacc 10y ago
  That's still a negotiation script, just one set from above the first line manager. Double effective because now first line are insulated from negotiations and grunts don't know who are the negotiatiors they need to talk to.

AcerbicZero 10y ago

I've worked at a number of places which had this basic policy. Upper management gives middle management a % of their budget for merit increases, and its up to the middle manager to break it up how they see fit. While you can certainly try to negotiate increases in compensation outside of this, I've never seen it happen successfully.

byoung2 10y ago
I've never seen it happen successfully. I've done it at least half a dozen times in my career. I was told "the maximum we can give is a $7k raise since there is a fixed pool for raises in the department." I said if I quit and you have to replace me, not only will you have to hire 2 devs to replace me (as I pulled dev and sysops duty) and pay them market salaries, you will have to pay a recruiter 20-30%. They still wouldn't budge, so I got a counteroffer for $30k more than I was making, plus some other perks. They not only matched, they also matched for other devs on the team. Do not fall for that fixed budget BS...the pie can always get bigger.
- cgore 10y ago
  It's often a bit true though. I bet your direct manager didn't have that authority himself and had to go up higher and justify it to either his boss or his boss's boss.
  - byoung2 10y ago
    That is true but in this last case I became that manager and suddenly there was no such set pool for raises.
- _puk 10y ago
  Honest question, did that affect your working relationship with your manager / their manager, or did it work out well long term for everyone?
  - byoung2 10y ago
    Honest question, did that affect your working relationship with your manager / their manager, or did it work out well long term for everyone? It worked out well for all parties, depending on how you look at it. Management was a little out of touch with market rate salaries, since they weren't tech guys (once the CEO referred to engineering as "black magic" since he didn't understand it). So while they were shocked at an offer I was able to get in a few days, they understood that engineers are in an enviable position in the job market. This was 2013 and I was making $110k in Los Angeles, and they were offering $117k. The counteroffer was for $130k plus perks valued at about $10k (401k plus match, extra week of vacation, etc). So they matched at $140k. I stayed there and after a year I got a promotion to director of engineering and a raise to $155k + up to $25k bonus. A few months later I renegotiated to have the bonus removed and the base salary increased to $175k. During the time after I pulled my stunt I expanded on a pet project using sentiment analysis and that became the core of a new product that is now 40% of their revenue. In December 2015 I left to work as a remote freelancer, which would have happened eventually regardless.
    - jimbokun 10y ago
      Thank you for including real numbers. Helps understand what's possible or realistic. "During the time after I pulled my stunt I expanded on a pet project using sentiment analysis and that became the core of a new product that is now 40% of their revenue." This is the most important number you give! Very important to understand the need to point to concrete revenue generated (or costs cut) when negotiating a raise. Otherwise, management will probably just call your bluff.
      - nikatwork 10y ago
        > management will probably just call your bluff. You don't need some enormous revenue or productivity win on the board to ask for a raise (although it helps). It just needs to be less hassle for them to pay you a raise than to replace you. In most cases it's really that simple.
- branchless 10y ago
  That's the puppy. You have to have a card, you have to be willing to play it, and they have to believe you are willing to play it. And they have to value you. That is base camp for negotiating.
- cel1ne 10y ago
  Same here. If you're somewhat good, getting a new developer will always be expensive and it is a risk for the company. The new developer needs to familiarise himself with everything and what happens if he's actually worse than you? Of course no sane boss will ever tell you this. Just nag them and don't accept "no" for an answer.
  - byoung2 10y ago
    As director of engineering, I gladly gave generous raises to retain people, because it cost way more in lost productivity to read resumes, interview candidates, and onboard new devs, not to mention the $30k check you have to write to the recruiter. And you're right, one bad hire can be disastrous...apparently the guy that replaced me wanted to prove his value by rewriting the whole architecture. So they spent a whole year doing that which I'm sure is much cleaner than the original under the hood, but to the end user, it is not apparent.
    - Can_Not 10y ago
      > apparently the guy that replaced me wanted to prove his value by rewriting the whole architecture. So they spent a whole year doing that which I'm sure is much cleaner than the original under the hood, but to the end user, it is not apparent Anecdote: We had a guy show up, he claimed that we had to do a rewrite. We spent 2 years catching up to the base product. Complete waste of time, had to fire him 1 year into the rewrite. Gained no value from it. He was simply too arrogant, vain, and/or unskilled to bother to read other people's code.
      - zo1 10y ago
        What position did he come in as? Seems awfully odd to have a new-hire making such a decision. From the sounds of it, he effectively tied up resources for almost a year before being pushed out? There are two problems there, from what I can ascertain: 1. The guy wanting to rewrite your product. 2. Management that allowed him to do so without proper motivation and/or cost-benefit analysis.
- redwards510 10y ago
  > They still wouldn't budge, so I got a counteroffer for $30k more than I was making, Getting a counteroffer is not the same as what the OP is suggesting. Using another job offer as a leverage for a raise is not recommended by most experts. Just google "Should i accept a counteroffer?". Mainly because you create bad blood at your current employer and you have to be ready to follow through on your threat. Also, that employer you just pushed right to the edge of hiring you is going to be mad you were just using them. There are entire top 10 lists about why it is a bad idea! I have pleaded the entire "it would cost you thousands to train a new guy, and you will have to pay him to start what i'm asking for right now!" line to bosses before. They are unmoved by financial arguments. It's as if management just decided to take a hard line against "persuasive" raises across the board, nevermind the damage it costs to lose talent.
  - Can_Not 10y ago
    I've read that, are you sure it's not a scare tactic by recruiters?
  - JamesBarney 10y ago
    Just as a head up, most of the people who write answers to "Should I accept a counteroffer?" are recruiters who next mortgage payment is contingent on you not accepting the counteroffer.
  - toennisforst 10y ago
    Of the top five results Google gives me, all are by recruitment agencies who have a strong incentive not to loose candidates and their commission. The notion that accepting counteroffers is always hurtful to your career is contested to say the least: See this [1] HN discussion from about a month ago. [1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12624112 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12624112
  - op00to 10y ago
    When considering this tactic, ask yourself one question: "Do I work for psycopaths, or for (relatively) rational human beings?" If rational, go ahead and let them know the market rate of your labor by showing a competing offer, knowing full well that you're ready to take it and move on. It's only business. If you work for psychopaths, just take the offer and leave because fuck that shit.

JustSomeNobody 10y ago

Sure it's a weakness, but they (management) don't care. If the developer leaves, they'll hire another and in the mean time the remaining devs get to pick up the slack. It's actually a convenient excuse for the schedule slipping; they blame it on the developer who left because he "wasn't a team player", even though management knows the real reason is because they simply don't ... know ... how ... to ... manage.

dwightgunning 10y ago
The type of company and management I'd recommend people strive to work with prefers to retain good staff rather than hire fresh.
- cormacrelf 10y ago
  Hiring itself and losses from going without are very expensive, I find it weird that any company wouldn't rather retain. I wouldn't ever be surprised that hiring cost $10k all up.
  - Taylor_OD 10y ago
    If a company only used external recruiters for any position above 100K it's going to cost them 15K+. More likely 25K. Now if they try on their own as well by posting jobs, hiring internal recruiters, network... Hiring is expensive.
  - rezistik 10y ago
    Recruiters take up to 20% of first year salary or more plus the time to retrain, a 10k dev is a cheap one.
    - jabzd 10y ago
      In Chicago, some recruiters have started asking for 30%. I've refused to work with these companies but rates are definitely going up.

Spooky23 10y ago

It's just reflective of the level of trust invested in the business leadership. Bigger orgs manage compensation seperately and usually only gives management limited levers to pull to affect changes. They do this to manage costs, avoid internal competition and because they don't trust line management. Workers are a cog in the wheel in these orgs, and treating shiny cogs better is ultimately worse for the org.

user5994461 10y ago

> Manager: "I cant give you a raise [...]" The employee got an offer the next week somewhere else for +30%. He gave his resignation letter to the manager right away. It didn't even occur to him to ask the company to make a counter offer (even though they may have). [Just to say that sometimes, negotiation strategies can backfire, but managers don't seem to realize (or care about) that.]

nikatwork 10y ago
Being in that situation is so satisfying. Boss: HR won't give me the money for your raise. Employee: I quit. I've been offered more money elsewhere. Boss: No wait actually I can get that extra money Employee: Too late, kthxbai
- jaimex2 10y ago
  +1 Never take a counter offer. You'll get more pay but you're stuck in the same company run by the same narrow minds.
  - meric 10y ago
    In my experience narrow minds can be expanded.
    - MaulingMonkey 10y ago
      Sure. If you need to seek out an offer every time you want to expand them, it's going to take a bit of work however.
    - edem 10y ago
      All narrow minds can be expanded in theory. With an axe for example.
  - nowbacktowork 10y ago
    Yes, but these are the narrow minds you know. Be sure there will be a new/different set of narrow minds at the next company.

manyxcxi 10y ago

It's not a tactic. It's, in fact how a LOT of companies do it. As the guy in charge of doling out my pool of raise money it has absolutely been a zero sum game everywhere I've done it. If our across the board raise rate is 3% and I give you 5%, I had to give someone else 1%. In practice, I would like take 0.25-1% from more people to spread the pain out some. If there was someone performing at a level that made me feel it was okay not to give them a raise, I might grab it all from them. But doing this pretty much means they will leave in 3-6mos or I will wind up letting them go sooner. They were likely already on a PIP or we've had serious performance discussions throughout the year. It's not a tactic, it's simply the way it is. not giving a raise to someone is a signal that puts the wheels in motion for them to be gone. Your relationship with them will be tested, likely broken. If I want to keep everyone on my team, barring extraordinary circumstances, I need to generally even them out. Evened out seems to settle between 2.75 and 3.25%. What most people don't say is that a good company will have set aside a pool of money for retention. It could be a salary correction because someone got in cheap and we recognize that we need to adjust them up more than a simple raise- most of the time it's the emergency money I can go to the CEO and beg for in order to match that offer you got if I really want to keep you and think you'll be happy to stay.

rifung 10y ago

I don't know if you can assume it's a negotiation tactic. My friend is a manager for Amazon and he wasn't able to give people raises like he wanted to. I don't remember if he couldn't give them a raise or couldn't give them as much as he wanted to, but either way, it's definitely a thing in some places.

LoSboccacc 10y ago
That's still a negotiation script, just one set from above the first line manager. Double effective because now first line are insulated from negotiations and grunts don't know who are the negotiatiors they need to talk to.