3 ms·

But 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 sa

by revvx 7y ago

But 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 7y ago
You should list the company so other people know not to waste their time.
mcv 7y ago
They 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 7y ago
  >They promise that amount up front, and then renege? "we can give X" is not a promise to give X.
  - marcosdumay 7y ago
    How is it not a promise? I fail to imagine it being said in a way that isn't one.
    - revvx 7y ago
      It is a verbal promise, not a contract. They just broke it. They were unprofessional.
      - aoeusnth1 7y ago
        A verbal promise can very easily be interpreted as a contract by a court. (IANAL, and clearly YANAL)
        baddox 7y ago
        The 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 7y ago
        The 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 7y ago
        The only reason it's not a contract is because the job offer wasn't closed yet. This is more similar to false advertising.
    - nwatson 7y ago
      The 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 7y ago
    If 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 7y ago
    Oh 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 7y ago
  I'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 7y ago
Sounds 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 7y ago
  The 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 7y ago
  It 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 7y ago
    [deleted]
- sixtypoundhound 7y ago
  Actually, 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 7y ago
    100% 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 7y ago
Sorry, 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 7y ago
This 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.

by revvx 7y ago

infinite8s 7y ago

You should list the company so other people know not to waste their time.

mcv 7y ago

They 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 7y ago
>They promise that amount up front, and then renege? "we can give X" is not a promise to give X.
- marcosdumay 7y ago
  How is it not a promise? I fail to imagine it being said in a way that isn't one.
  - revvx 7y ago
    It is a verbal promise, not a contract. They just broke it. They were unprofessional.
    - aoeusnth1 7y ago
      A verbal promise can very easily be interpreted as a contract by a court. (IANAL, and clearly YANAL)
      - baddox 7y ago
        The 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 7y ago
        The 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 7y ago
      The only reason it's not a contract is because the job offer wasn't closed yet. This is more similar to false advertising.
  - nwatson 7y ago
    The 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 7y ago
  If 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 7y ago
  Oh 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 7y ago
I'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 7y ago

Sounds 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 7y ago
The 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 7y ago
It 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 7y ago
  [deleted]
sixtypoundhound 7y ago
Actually, 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 7y ago
  100% 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 7y ago

Sorry, 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 7y ago

This 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.