5 ms·

Don't be this guy, employees will figure it out. > He recalls walking away from negotiations with a newly hired employee thinking, “Man, this guy is underpaid—

Don't be this guy, employees will figure it out. > He recalls walking away from negotiations with a newly hired employee thinking, “Man, this guy is underpaid—we got a good deal.”

hitekker 8y ago
Yes, calling the start of a relationship a "deal", frames that relationship as transactional. That plus bragging about underpaying him simply means "I'll stab you in the back the moment you look away"
- wyclif 8y ago
  Wait, an employee-employer relationship isn't transactional? I agree with you that bragging is a bad look but I also agree with an above commenter who says that the point of using OI is that you're trying to find $X to avoid outlier mistakes. But I think it's naive to expect that salary negotiation isn't adversarial. Both sides are trying to get an optimal deal. Employees making data-driven acceptance decisions is better than "employees figuring it out" later.
  - hitekker 8y ago
    A transactional relationship is fine if the employee is not integral and will remain not integral throughout their employment at the company. But if a founder is hiring the first few engineers, or executives, or anyone of importance-- he or she should be thinking about their futures: in particular, how they might feel about being low-balled vis-a-vis their peers. "If I pay this smart, black, female engineer less than every other male engineer, just because she doesn't have a college degree, how would that look if everyone found out?" [1] "Adversarial" is expected in a negotiation. Short-sightedness is not. "Bragging" about stiffing staff isn't just a a bad look, it's a sign that the dealmaker is an animal in human skin. I'm sure 10% of OI's users have good intentions. The rest are living examples for why hiring collusion is outlawed and subject to prosecution. [1] Yes, I worked for a startup that did exactly that, and was surprised when the engineers started quitting weeks after the truth came out.
    - wyclif 8y ago
      I don't think any of your concerns are necessarily (important qualifier) driven by use of OI data on the employer side, and the use of the typical salary estimate services on the employee side. Of course there are going to be bad actors and toxic workplaces where the data is being used to lowball. I don't deny that it happens. I don't think those that do are going to be able to survive long, because once the word is on the street that a company is doing that it's gonna be very tough for them to hire talent competitively. FWIW, when I mentioned "bad look", I meant it in the extended sense that you're talking about here, so I agree that employers should never do that, and even that it's a warning sign. I think it definitely impacts the culture of a startup in a negative way and it's a horrible way to treat people.

Don't be this guy, employees will figure it out. > He recalls walking away from negotiations with a newly hired employee thinking, “Man, this guy is underpaid—we got a good deal.”

hitekker 8y ago

Yes, calling the start of a relationship a "deal", frames that relationship as transactional. That plus bragging about underpaying him simply means "I'll stab you in the back the moment you look away"

wyclif 8y ago
Wait, an employee-employer relationship isn't transactional? I agree with you that bragging is a bad look but I also agree with an above commenter who says that the point of using OI is that you're trying to find $X to avoid outlier mistakes. But I think it's naive to expect that salary negotiation isn't adversarial. Both sides are trying to get an optimal deal. Employees making data-driven acceptance decisions is better than "employees figuring it out" later.
- hitekker 8y ago
  A transactional relationship is fine if the employee is not integral and will remain not integral throughout their employment at the company. But if a founder is hiring the first few engineers, or executives, or anyone of importance-- he or she should be thinking about their futures: in particular, how they might feel about being low-balled vis-a-vis their peers. "If I pay this smart, black, female engineer less than every other male engineer, just because she doesn't have a college degree, how would that look if everyone found out?" [1] "Adversarial" is expected in a negotiation. Short-sightedness is not. "Bragging" about stiffing staff isn't just a a bad look, it's a sign that the dealmaker is an animal in human skin. I'm sure 10% of OI's users have good intentions. The rest are living examples for why hiring collusion is outlawed and subject to prosecution. [1] Yes, I worked for a startup that did exactly that, and was surprised when the engineers started quitting weeks after the truth came out.
  - wyclif 8y ago
    I don't think any of your concerns are necessarily (important qualifier) driven by use of OI data on the employer side, and the use of the typical salary estimate services on the employee side. Of course there are going to be bad actors and toxic workplaces where the data is being used to lowball. I don't deny that it happens. I don't think those that do are going to be able to survive long, because once the word is on the street that a company is doing that it's gonna be very tough for them to hire talent competitively. FWIW, when I mentioned "bad look", I meant it in the extended sense that you're talking about here, so I agree that employers should never do that, and even that it's a warning sign. I think it definitely impacts the culture of a startup in a negative way and it's a horrible way to treat people.