6 ms·
Rule number 1, IMO, never discuss salary. I find listing your salary requirements before starting a process weeds out a lot of silly interviews. If you know you
by d4mi3n 8y ago
Rule number 1, IMO, never discuss salary. I find listing your salary requirements before starting a process weeds out a lot of silly interviews. If you know your worth and have a goal for your salary, it is the most effective way I know to avoid dumb offers.
- revvx 8y agoBut that's exactly what I did? Sorry, I didn't phrase it right. My non-negotiable requirement was 20% more than I was getting. I gave a hard number and they said "yeah we can give that" before the interview. However the recruiter just assumed I was bluffing and went ahead with that colossal waste of time.
- infinite8s 8y agoYou should list the company so other people know not to waste their time.
- mcv 8y agoThey promise that amount up front, and then renege? That's not even deceitful, that's just intentionally wasting your time. I would send them an invoice for the time spent on the interview. What a bizarre way to run a business.
- pathseeker 8y ago>They promise that amount up front, and then renege? "we can give X" is not a promise to give X.
- marcosdumay 8y agoHow is it not a promise? I fail to imagine it being said in a way that isn't one.
- revvx 8y agoIt is a verbal promise, not a contract. They just broke it. They were unprofessional.
- aoeusnth1 8y agoA verbal promise can very easily be interpreted as a contract by a court. (IANAL, and clearly YANAL)
- baddox 8y agoThe commenter hadn’t even done the interview yet. There’s no way a court would interpret this as a contract to pay the person that amount.
- wool_gather 8y agoThe legal side is almost irrelevant. The situation is that they're trying to initiate what should be a mutually-beneficial, longish-term working relationship. Leading into it with this kind of letdown isn't a good start.
- marcosdumay 8y agoThe only reason it's not a contract is because the job offer wasn't closed yet. This is more similar to false advertising.
- nwatson 8y agoThe hiring company just counters they "can give X" for an imminently qualified candidate but after the interview process they feel the candidate has too little experience or aptitude and is being offered a job in spite of their shortcomings and should be so happy with the offer.
- geezerjay 8y agoIf they replied that they could match the asking price but after all the song and dance they actually low-ball with an offer of 60% what the candidate was already earning, which is nearly half of what they initially mentioned, then that's pretty close to fraud.
- rdiddly 8y agoOh yeah people love that. They're usually so thankful to have been taught a lesson about this technicality that they not only don't mind having been told the wrong thing, they instantly become loyal to that person for life. Immense profit follows.
- mnm1 8y agoI've been promised a job by the CEO after all the interviews and he reneged a few days later. Companies lie all the time like that. At least I got a nice trip to SF out of it, but I expect this to happen. I always set salary expectations beforehand but I'm not surprised if they are not met.
- ohyes 8y agoSounds like an incompetent recruiter. Recruiters make money as a percentage of your hiring salary, why on earth would they try to place you somewhere that you are making less? They should be shopping you to whoever will give the most money.
- sundaeofshock 8y agoThe incentives don’t always work out that way. There comes a point of diminishing returns for the recruiter; trying to get an extra $20k a year for you, might take time away from them closing two or three other candidates. Also, a recruiter does not get any real benefit out of negotiations that involve things other then salary. Extra vacation, bonuses, guaranteed severance packages, etc. Key take a way from this: never let your recruiter negotiate on your behalf. Once you are at the stage, tell your recruiter to F off and get the best deal you can for yourself.
- revvx 8y agoIt was an HR recruiter that works for the company, not an independent recruiter. I agree about the incompetence part, though. Terrible waste of time for everyone involved.
- deleted 8y ago[deleted]
- sixtypoundhound 8y agoActually, most recruiters I've run into tend to try to force a candidate to accept a "reasonable" offer rather than holding out for the best offer. They only get paid if a deal closes; while it may be in your best interest to hold out for another $10K, that will likely cost them a commission (and be opposed)
- listenallyall 8y ago100% correct, recruiters want to close the deal, not let it slip away over salary negotiations. And they want to get hired again (they get paid by the company, not the recruit) so saving that company 10, 15k is definitely in the best interest of the recruiter.
- d4mi3n 8y agoSorry, didn’t get that when I read your previous post. If that is the case: screw those guys. If you can’t trust a company with _writing an employment contract_, how can you trust any future interaction. If your skills are in demand, move on. Not worth your time and being able to walk away is the single most valuable card one can play during a negotiation.
- danieltillett 8y agoThis approach has come up a number of times in the comment that it makes me think that many candidates are bluffing and so this might well be a rational (if very sleazy) approach.
- hpcjoe 8y agoMy favorite was something that happened 2+ years ago. I had closed down my business, and was speaking with folks, including a well funded startup in Milpitas area. I was in the area for a different interview, and spent the evening before that interview with this startup. I knew the CEO from a previous effort. After much discussion, I thought they had something interesting, though I was hard pressed to find real differentiators. I thought I could help, and the senior leadership of the company did as well. We talked over a number of projects. Started negotiations, I was asked about what it would take to get me over. I gave them realistic sets of numbers and conditions. CEO's response to me was priceless. "But that's more than I make." Um ... yeah. And this matters ... how? I know, startups push the equity side hard, as they tend to be cash poor and stock rich. He then suggested a number that was under half of my minimum acceptable (covering costs, maintaining something that looks like a quality of life). And not so much equity. Yeah. Didn't go there. CEO was out within a few months.
- andrei_says_ 8y agoI like mentally replacing “stock” with “lottery tickets”.
- ZeWaren 8y agoMy company has no investors. The first years were a bit hard revenue wise. The first engineers were paid a lot more than myself and the other cofounders until we got proper traction. Never had any issue with that.
- nkingsy 8y agoI recently explicitly gave my salary requirements up front, went through an arduous process and got an offer of about 2/3 of what we had BOTH agreed upon in the first informational interview. This from a very profitable mid-large sized established tech company in the US.
- petre 8y agoIf the rule is to get 2/3 of what is asked for, then maybe we should ask for 3/2 to be offered that amount.
- deleted 8y ago[deleted]
- abawany 8y agoTo add to the 'sucker' anecdote, when I was young and stupid (at least I am not young anymore), I was contacted by a NYC recruiter looking to hire for Bloomberg. Here was his tack to extract salary information: "being a financial company, it is required for us to know what you currently make." On this aspect, I think I know better now, hopefully.
- JauntTrooper 8y agoThat's illegal now in NYC.
- walshemj 8y agoYeh right :-)
- ben509 8y agoIt's $125,000[1] for a violation of the law. 1: https://www1.nyc.gov/site/cchr/law/chapter-1.page#8-126 https://www1.nyc.gov/site/cchr/law/chapter-1.page#8-126
- flyinglizard 8y agoIt's not that straight forward, especially if you charge on the high end. Without them getting to know you and your benefits, a high price up front would just drive them away. If you're shooting for mid market rate, it's obviously different; but if you're selling them on your value, that value needs to be demonstrated before money talks.
- arthurcolle 8y agoI agree with the rule and wish it was easier to put into practice. What I've noticed however, is that a lot of recruiters stonewall you if you don't tell them a number, or at least a range. They even say things like "Well I need to put something into this internal web app." It's super frustrating!
- jodrellblank 8y agopatio11's suggestion for this: > Objection: “This form needs a number.” > What you should think: “You’re lying to me to attempt to get me to compromise my negotiating position.” > What you should say: “Give me git access and I’ll fix it in a jiffy! both people laugh No, seriously, speaking, I’m more concerned at the moment with discovering whether we’re a mutual fit… Oh, it’s physically impossible? Put in $1 then to get the ball rolling, and we’ll circle back to this later.” https://www.kalzumeus.com/2012/01/23/salary-negotiation/ https://www.kalzumeus.com/2012/01/23/salary-negotiation/ related: https://www.kalzumeus.com/2016/06/03/kalzumeus-podcast-episode-12-salary-negotiation-with-josh-doody/ https://www.kalzumeus.com/2016/06/03/kalzumeus-podcast-episo...
- d4mi3n 8y agoPatio11 has done fantastic writing in this topic that shaped a lot of my own opinions. Worth reading if anybody hasn’t seen it before.