4 ms·

Which they never do anyway, so that shouldn't come as a surprise to anyone.

mitthrowaway2 4y ago
> Which they never do anyway In terms of this being a loss of trust, it's not uncommon for managers to say "we're already paying you as much as we can afford" or "your compensation is already the highest that our rules allow for". If they are willing to go beyond that in a counteroffer, it pretty much reveals that they were previously being dishonest with you in order to get away with paying less. This is either a loss of trust, or else trust never existed in the first place.
- alexvoda 4y ago
  Maybe treating this as something related to trust is unhealthy. Thinking about it as trust forces you to accept the notion that "companies are people". Maybe thinking about it as leverage is better.
  - lcnPylGDnU4H9OF 4y ago
    Meh. Kinda reminds me of Brandon Sanderson's Stormlight Archive series. I believe there is a culture in that world, traders of which will do their best to make sure the person they're negotiating with gets the best deal possible. The people of this fictional culture don't do business with you if you try to get the best deal possible for yourself.
    - alexvoda 4y ago
      What you say is fair, but do you believe that trust is reciprocal when talking about corporations? How often are companies the ones trying to get the best deal for themselves? How often would the people of that fictional culture do business with such a corporate entity? A corporation by its very nature can not have the same values as a human.
- barrkel 4y ago
  Or the counteroffer is to retain the person until the completion of an immediate project. It could be that the short-term loss of an individual exceeds the extra cost of a raise, but the long-term cost exceeds the benefits. More likely, it's a case of non-generalizability. Profitable companies can normally afford to counter-offer in specific cases, but if the resulting raise became a rule in like-for-like employee relationships, the collective increase in payroll would not be affordable.

> Which they never do anyway In terms of this being a loss of trust, it's not uncommon for managers to say "we're already paying you as much as we can afford" or "your compensation is already the highest that our rules allow for". If they are willing to go beyond that in a counteroffer, it pretty much reveals that they were previously being dishonest with you in order to get away with paying less. This is either a loss of trust, or else trust never existed in the first place.

alexvoda 4y ago
Maybe treating this as something related to trust is unhealthy. Thinking about it as trust forces you to accept the notion that "companies are people". Maybe thinking about it as leverage is better.
- lcnPylGDnU4H9OF 4y ago
  Meh. Kinda reminds me of Brandon Sanderson's Stormlight Archive series. I believe there is a culture in that world, traders of which will do their best to make sure the person they're negotiating with gets the best deal possible. The people of this fictional culture don't do business with you if you try to get the best deal possible for yourself.
  - alexvoda 4y ago
    What you say is fair, but do you believe that trust is reciprocal when talking about corporations? How often are companies the ones trying to get the best deal for themselves? How often would the people of that fictional culture do business with such a corporate entity? A corporation by its very nature can not have the same values as a human.
barrkel 4y ago
Or the counteroffer is to retain the person until the completion of an immediate project. It could be that the short-term loss of an individual exceeds the extra cost of a raise, but the long-term cost exceeds the benefits. More likely, it's a case of non-generalizability. Profitable companies can normally afford to counter-offer in specific cases, but if the resulting raise became a rule in like-for-like employee relationships, the collective increase in payroll would not be affordable.