5 ms·

I don't get why companies play such games when paying someone. I've been interviewing with companies and even after doing well on the on site, they keep trying

I don't get why companies play such games when paying someone. I've been interviewing with companies and even after doing well on the on site, they keep trying to skirt the issue of compensation by asking weird questions like "so how do you think you did?" Its like you know that i did well, otherwise you wouldn't even be talking to me, you are just gauging my confidence level so you know how much i'd be willing to bend when it comes to compensation. I wish they just had standard incoming compensation based on titles or something, its exhausting trying to duke it out with HR when all i want is to be paid fairly and write some code. They aren't doing anyone a favor to underpay because when when people find out, and they will find out, their work quality will decline if they feel they are being used and they will most likely not care about ditching the company for better compensation.

kache_ 5y ago
As you collect more leverage, you get to straight up ignore them when they exhibit behavior. Until then, punish that behavior by job hopping ever year. If they want to play a game, we can play it too
SllX 5y ago
It allows both sides to negotiate. If you can convince them you’re worth a premium, you can command a premium relative to your new coworkers. But if you come across looking like a bargain, employers will gladly pay a bargain to have you. What it boils down to is agency: standardized wages is just another way to fix the price of labor. People that believe they are worth more also believe they should get paid more, and they can use their individual agency to test that theory on an open job market.
- dmead 5y ago
  It could be agency... but it's just a circus. Do you do the same negotiation for a burger? maybe haggle with wendy's over the number of fries in your order?
  - pacificmint 5y ago
    If the burger would cost $100k plus RSUs, yes I probably would negotiate for it.
    - filoleg 5y ago
      That + if the price of the burger is gonna be locked at that number for at least a year, and you would be locked-in from purchasing burgers anywhere else for that duration.
  - slt2021 5y ago
    all expensive items in US have no fixed price and vary based on negotiation outcomes: car, housing. Negotiation is actually a sign of a healthy and competitive market, because there is always a spectrum of talent available, and demand for such talent. only monopolies can set fixed prices and it leads to inefficiencies
  - SllX 5y ago
    Those aren’t equal. I “haggle” for burgers by choosing the restaurant that will serve me a burger I will be satisfied with for a price I will not be dissatisfied with. For me that’s a local chain that’s fairly consistent and fairly good for more than I will pay at McDonald’s for the same type of dish, but less than half the price of a “better” burger somewhere else. This “haggling” happens before I even enter the store, and influences my choice of stores, but at the end of the day we’re talking about dollars for burgers and fries. Prospective employer-employee negotiations are an exchange of time into work product in exchange for dollars and benefits measurable in dollars. Time is more valuable than dollars, and I want a good price for it, commiserate with what I think my time is worth, and informed by what I’ve been able to receive in compensation for it in the past because I’m taking a risk by taking the job, including leaving my old job. The employer is also taking a risk, onboarding new employees is costly in both time and money, and they want some idea that you will be worth the money they spent because they expect to make more money than they put into you, so if they can get away with paying you less, of course they will. That’s what makes this a market. I’d rather have a bad lunch I paid too much for and a good employer than a good lunch for a good price and a an employer that doesn’t pay me a compensation I am satisfied with.
- HWR_14 5y ago
  Wouldn't workers better be able to negotiate if salary information were public? Like if you think you're worth more than person X, and you know X is being paid Y, it gives you a floor to ask for.
  - VWWHFSfQ 5y ago
    Why would I want people to know how much money I make.
    - compscistd 5y ago
      Why wouldn’t you? As a person with a job, are you ashamed of how much you make (either too much or too little)? Or is it a violation of your privacy? If you were a person looking for a new job, you want to know how much people are making in that company (or others in the same market) so you aren’t being undercut for the same job. No reason why my coworkers should make more or less than me if we have the same title. Making salary information public either through averages per title or ranges (upper and lower) should naturally even out the salaries per title. As things stand, some people are privileged in all sorts of ways when it comes to a company’s undisclosed salary ranges. For example, in my last role I had a friend in the company who could confirm two separate salaries for the role I was applying and I was offered 10% lower than those two salaries. I can ask for a 15% increase in my counteroffer and be confident this is a valid number. If I didn’t have friends who were in the industry that weren’t comfortable sharing salary ranges, I’d have to stick to the Levels FYI site, but my last company wasn’t on there. When I left, I learned new hires, who were new to tech, earned less than I did when I was at their title. It may be awkward socially to have people know how much I make (or even within a range) but it’s better than the economic disadvantages that unconnected applicants face in today’s job markets. Hope that offers some insight.
      - pc86 5y ago
        > No reason why my coworkers should make more or less than me if we have the same title. Of course there is. You wrote a book and they didn't. They have more relevant experience than you. The hiring manager really wanted you but you had a competing offer and they didn't. They are young and wanted more equity and you wanted higher cash. There are a whole host of reasons why people in the same title can make wildly different salaries - they're not all nefarious.
- sanderjd 5y ago
  Yep, this would be all fine and good if there were symmetrical information. But there isn't.
  - strikelaserclaw 5y ago
    this, it is hard to negotiate with companies where you have no info on what they are paying others at your level
lordnacho 5y ago
Wouldn't you just end up negotiating the title or band instead? That's what ends up happening at banks where they have that kind of thing.
- strikelaserclaw 5y ago
  its much more clear in larger companies where you can see how much people get for a certain role, it is not so clear in smaller startups with not so much public information. In such cases HR do things like "So whats your number".
jjav 5y ago
To be fair on the hiring side, reality is that many job postings are open ended on comp depending on who shows up. Even at large (>10K people) companies, certainly in startups. The posted job might be for a senior engineer, but if an extremely promising recent grad shows up maybe I'll take a bet on them instead, but they'll start on a lower salary. Or sometimes an extremely experienced person shows interest and they're a perfect fit so they end up getting hired at a distinguished level which wasn't the plan but the stars aligned. It's not useful to post the job with a range of 50K-400K, but it's sort of what the range really is.
- Spivak 5y ago
  Which is what "standard compensation based on titles" would solve. If you come in for a senior position but you get your hypothetical star college grad you say, "we don't think you're ready for the senior position but we'd hire you as a mid."
  - hiharryhere 5y ago
    Titles are incredibly malleable and don't always line up to comp. And situations are almost always complicated by external factors. Not all employers are enormous Microsofts/Googles either, where there's a line out the door of candidates. E.g. Imagine you have a software business with < 20 total staff. What would you do in this situation: Candidate is interviewed and we think they would be a good fit for the role, say it's a mid level role. We're desperate to fill it as we have xyz project to complete. The candidate has an offer somewhere else that is 15k higher than the usual mid-level title compensation. They say "I'd love to work with you, but money is important to me right now as I'm saving to buy a house". Do you... 1. Offer the standard, lower mid-level amount, lose them to the other offer and allow the business to suffer a larger impact. OR 2. Match the other offer and undermine your "standard compensation based on titles" rule. Either option is problematic and compounded by pay band/published salaries rules. If you overpay them and then can't give them a raise for a while because they were hired above their pay band, then they will be annoyed/offended and may leave. "Sorry we overpaid you when you were hired so no raises for a while until you can progress to the next title" If you overpay them and everyone's salaries are published internally, then their peers will be annoyed and demand the same salary, which your business can't afford. If you don't hire them you are letting a hiring rule affect your broader business strategy and risk missing out on opportunities that would benefit the whole team. This has been my experience. Yes this is quite one dimensional, and money isn't always the driver. But sometimes it is, and I think "standard compensation based on titles" is a one dimensional solution. Open to ideas
vanusa 5y ago
I don't get why companies play such games when paying someone. Because (some of them) are narcissistic jerks and play games with others on general principle, just to test their mettle. Or to separate the wolves from the sheep, as it were.

kache_ 5y ago

As you collect more leverage, you get to straight up ignore them when they exhibit behavior. Until then, punish that behavior by job hopping ever year. If they want to play a game, we can play it too

SllX 5y ago

It allows both sides to negotiate. If you can convince them you’re worth a premium, you can command a premium relative to your new coworkers. But if you come across looking like a bargain, employers will gladly pay a bargain to have you. What it boils down to is agency: standardized wages is just another way to fix the price of labor. People that believe they are worth more also believe they should get paid more, and they can use their individual agency to test that theory on an open job market.

dmead 5y ago
It could be agency... but it's just a circus. Do you do the same negotiation for a burger? maybe haggle with wendy's over the number of fries in your order?
- pacificmint 5y ago
  If the burger would cost $100k plus RSUs, yes I probably would negotiate for it.
  - filoleg 5y ago
    That + if the price of the burger is gonna be locked at that number for at least a year, and you would be locked-in from purchasing burgers anywhere else for that duration.
- slt2021 5y ago
  all expensive items in US have no fixed price and vary based on negotiation outcomes: car, housing. Negotiation is actually a sign of a healthy and competitive market, because there is always a spectrum of talent available, and demand for such talent. only monopolies can set fixed prices and it leads to inefficiencies
- SllX 5y ago
  Those aren’t equal. I “haggle” for burgers by choosing the restaurant that will serve me a burger I will be satisfied with for a price I will not be dissatisfied with. For me that’s a local chain that’s fairly consistent and fairly good for more than I will pay at McDonald’s for the same type of dish, but less than half the price of a “better” burger somewhere else. This “haggling” happens before I even enter the store, and influences my choice of stores, but at the end of the day we’re talking about dollars for burgers and fries. Prospective employer-employee negotiations are an exchange of time into work product in exchange for dollars and benefits measurable in dollars. Time is more valuable than dollars, and I want a good price for it, commiserate with what I think my time is worth, and informed by what I’ve been able to receive in compensation for it in the past because I’m taking a risk by taking the job, including leaving my old job. The employer is also taking a risk, onboarding new employees is costly in both time and money, and they want some idea that you will be worth the money they spent because they expect to make more money than they put into you, so if they can get away with paying you less, of course they will. That’s what makes this a market. I’d rather have a bad lunch I paid too much for and a good employer than a good lunch for a good price and a an employer that doesn’t pay me a compensation I am satisfied with.
HWR_14 5y ago
Wouldn't workers better be able to negotiate if salary information were public? Like if you think you're worth more than person X, and you know X is being paid Y, it gives you a floor to ask for.
- VWWHFSfQ 5y ago
  Why would I want people to know how much money I make.
  - compscistd 5y ago
    Why wouldn’t you? As a person with a job, are you ashamed of how much you make (either too much or too little)? Or is it a violation of your privacy? If you were a person looking for a new job, you want to know how much people are making in that company (or others in the same market) so you aren’t being undercut for the same job. No reason why my coworkers should make more or less than me if we have the same title. Making salary information public either through averages per title or ranges (upper and lower) should naturally even out the salaries per title. As things stand, some people are privileged in all sorts of ways when it comes to a company’s undisclosed salary ranges. For example, in my last role I had a friend in the company who could confirm two separate salaries for the role I was applying and I was offered 10% lower than those two salaries. I can ask for a 15% increase in my counteroffer and be confident this is a valid number. If I didn’t have friends who were in the industry that weren’t comfortable sharing salary ranges, I’d have to stick to the Levels FYI site, but my last company wasn’t on there. When I left, I learned new hires, who were new to tech, earned less than I did when I was at their title. It may be awkward socially to have people know how much I make (or even within a range) but it’s better than the economic disadvantages that unconnected applicants face in today’s job markets. Hope that offers some insight.
    - pc86 5y ago
      > No reason why my coworkers should make more or less than me if we have the same title. Of course there is. You wrote a book and they didn't. They have more relevant experience than you. The hiring manager really wanted you but you had a competing offer and they didn't. They are young and wanted more equity and you wanted higher cash. There are a whole host of reasons why people in the same title can make wildly different salaries - they're not all nefarious.
sanderjd 5y ago
Yep, this would be all fine and good if there were symmetrical information. But there isn't.
- strikelaserclaw 5y ago
  this, it is hard to negotiate with companies where you have no info on what they are paying others at your level

lordnacho 5y ago

Wouldn't you just end up negotiating the title or band instead? That's what ends up happening at banks where they have that kind of thing.

strikelaserclaw 5y ago
its much more clear in larger companies where you can see how much people get for a certain role, it is not so clear in smaller startups with not so much public information. In such cases HR do things like "So whats your number".

jjav 5y ago

To be fair on the hiring side, reality is that many job postings are open ended on comp depending on who shows up. Even at large (>10K people) companies, certainly in startups. The posted job might be for a senior engineer, but if an extremely promising recent grad shows up maybe I'll take a bet on them instead, but they'll start on a lower salary. Or sometimes an extremely experienced person shows interest and they're a perfect fit so they end up getting hired at a distinguished level which wasn't the plan but the stars aligned. It's not useful to post the job with a range of 50K-400K, but it's sort of what the range really is.

Spivak 5y ago
Which is what "standard compensation based on titles" would solve. If you come in for a senior position but you get your hypothetical star college grad you say, "we don't think you're ready for the senior position but we'd hire you as a mid."
- hiharryhere 5y ago
  Titles are incredibly malleable and don't always line up to comp. And situations are almost always complicated by external factors. Not all employers are enormous Microsofts/Googles either, where there's a line out the door of candidates. E.g. Imagine you have a software business with < 20 total staff. What would you do in this situation: Candidate is interviewed and we think they would be a good fit for the role, say it's a mid level role. We're desperate to fill it as we have xyz project to complete. The candidate has an offer somewhere else that is 15k higher than the usual mid-level title compensation. They say "I'd love to work with you, but money is important to me right now as I'm saving to buy a house". Do you... 1. Offer the standard, lower mid-level amount, lose them to the other offer and allow the business to suffer a larger impact. OR 2. Match the other offer and undermine your "standard compensation based on titles" rule. Either option is problematic and compounded by pay band/published salaries rules. If you overpay them and then can't give them a raise for a while because they were hired above their pay band, then they will be annoyed/offended and may leave. "Sorry we overpaid you when you were hired so no raises for a while until you can progress to the next title" If you overpay them and everyone's salaries are published internally, then their peers will be annoyed and demand the same salary, which your business can't afford. If you don't hire them you are letting a hiring rule affect your broader business strategy and risk missing out on opportunities that would benefit the whole team. This has been my experience. Yes this is quite one dimensional, and money isn't always the driver. But sometimes it is, and I think "standard compensation based on titles" is a one dimensional solution. Open to ideas

vanusa 5y ago

I don't get why companies play such games when paying someone. Because (some of them) are narcissistic jerks and play games with others on general principle, just to test their mettle. Or to separate the wolves from the sheep, as it were.