4 ms·

We're getting hung up on semantics here. What's going on is really a negotiation tactic. Here's what the company is thinking: - dizzystar would enjoy working r

by whack 9y ago

We're getting hung up on semantics here. What's going on is really a negotiation tactic. Here's what the company is thinking: - dizzystar would enjoy working remote - it would be hard for dizzystar to find other remote-working opportunities - hence, dizzystar would be willing to work for a discounted rate, in order to be remote In their perspective, there is no "right or wrong". It's purely a matter of negotiation leverage. You have a couple options here: - admit they are right, and accept a discounted rate - claim that your rates are final and not negotiable - claim that you don't value remote working, but because you value them as a client, you're willing to negotiate on your rate Option 2 is more likely to get you a higher rate, but also more likely to drive them away. Option 3 involves accepting some discount, but at least you minimise the leverage they think they have over you. This discussion over semantics is not helping anyone. Just treat it as a negotiation game, and play it the way you would any other negotiation scenario.

late2part 9y ago
^this. While there is an objective and subjective truth, in this case it's just about negotiation. If I were you, I would follow up on your thoughts with something like: "I don't think it's appropriate for us to make remote or in-office location related to salary. You're hiring me to get things done. I incur higher costs by maintaining a higher office. What recompense do you offer for costs of running a remote office since your office costs are deferred?" Or maybe softer, but that should take the idea off the table for them.
- thatoneyouthrow 9y ago
  I wouldn't even go there. I would just say that my family needs, lifestyle, or need to take care of my parents requires $X. Make something up.
dizzystar 9y ago
Right, I did go with a variant on option 3. If it matters, I've only worked on site for one job. I've always been remote otherwise. I probably should have mentioned it in my OP, but really was wondering more about the general perspective on remote.
- thatoneyouthrow 9y ago
  Another option is to work at a company for a year and then demand remote during a critical part of a project. If they don't give you remote they lose a valuable asset and are behind schedule.

by whack 9y ago

late2part 9y ago

^this. While there is an objective and subjective truth, in this case it's just about negotiation. If I were you, I would follow up on your thoughts with something like: "I don't think it's appropriate for us to make remote or in-office location related to salary. You're hiring me to get things done. I incur higher costs by maintaining a higher office. What recompense do you offer for costs of running a remote office since your office costs are deferred?" Or maybe softer, but that should take the idea off the table for them.

thatoneyouthrow 9y ago
I wouldn't even go there. I would just say that my family needs, lifestyle, or need to take care of my parents requires $X. Make something up.

dizzystar 9y ago

Right, I did go with a variant on option 3. If it matters, I've only worked on site for one job. I've always been remote otherwise. I probably should have mentioned it in my OP, but really was wondering more about the general perspective on remote.

thatoneyouthrow 9y ago
Another option is to work at a company for a year and then demand remote during a critical part of a project. If they don't give you remote they lose a valuable asset and are behind schedule.