5 ms·

It is a sign of disrespect. If they actually thought of the author as a good developer or good <whatever X> position is, they would have already paid him the 2X

by swang 14y ago

It is a sign of disrespect. If they actually thought of the author as a good developer or good <whatever X> position is, they would have already paid him the 2X salary increase beforehand, or at the very least not gone to war over what the author calls a "pittance" of a raise relative to what he was earning. While it's true that they're desperate to keep him longer, it's because they're trying to stall, not because they think its a good developer.

chaostheory 14y ago
It depends on how large the company is. A big large corporation has a lot of protocol and rules for determining raises. At some of the past places I've worked, the best raise you can get is 10%. > While it's true that they're desperate to keep him longer, it's because they're trying to stall This is most likely true. Based on the anger in his post, I'm guessing the real wrong was done in the past. It didn't seem like he was treated well. I still don't see the counter offer as bad. If anything it's flattering.
- notaddicted 14y ago
  If an inadequate raise (thus inadequate compensation) is a sign of disrespect, then creating a rule which causes inadequate raises is institutionalizing disrespect. What I'm trying to say is, it isn't better, it's worse. By creating pre-commitment not to give raises in excess of a certain amount, if they make it more expensive for them to do so. quoting: ``Here we find the manager striving to achieve his goal by eliminating opportunities, contracting his set of alternatives, although discussions of bargaining often rule this out axiomatically. [...] The resolution of the paradox is that the manager, by his tactic of "tying one hand behind him" hopes for a favorable effect on his employee's expectations.`` from The Theory and Practice of Blackmail by Daniel Ellsberg (http://www.rand.org/content/dam/rand/pubs/papers/2005/P3883.pdf http://www.rand.org/content/dam/rand/pubs/papers/2005/P3883....), I swapped blackmailer/manager and victim/employee. The document is a really insightful take on negotiation I think except for the fact the it used the loaded terms blackmailer/victim. There are plenty of organizations which are unable to recognize and/or reward high performance, and plenty of organizations which create compensation plans as if employees were fungible with infinite supply at their set salaries, and then depend on the psychological comfort of certainty and corresponding fear of the unknown to retain the workers, so although it isn't rare or even uncommon, that might be the sort of thing that made him angry.

by swang 14y ago

chaostheory 14y ago

It depends on how large the company is. A big large corporation has a lot of protocol and rules for determining raises. At some of the past places I've worked, the best raise you can get is 10%. > While it's true that they're desperate to keep him longer, it's because they're trying to stall This is most likely true. Based on the anger in his post, I'm guessing the real wrong was done in the past. It didn't seem like he was treated well. I still don't see the counter offer as bad. If anything it's flattering.

notaddicted 14y ago
If an inadequate raise (thus inadequate compensation) is a sign of disrespect, then creating a rule which causes inadequate raises is institutionalizing disrespect. What I'm trying to say is, it isn't better, it's worse. By creating pre-commitment not to give raises in excess of a certain amount, if they make it more expensive for them to do so. quoting: ``Here we find the manager striving to achieve his goal by eliminating opportunities, contracting his set of alternatives, although discussions of bargaining often rule this out axiomatically. [...] The resolution of the paradox is that the manager, by his tactic of "tying one hand behind him" hopes for a favorable effect on his employee's expectations.`` from The Theory and Practice of Blackmail by Daniel Ellsberg (http://www.rand.org/content/dam/rand/pubs/papers/2005/P3883.pdf http://www.rand.org/content/dam/rand/pubs/papers/2005/P3883....), I swapped blackmailer/manager and victim/employee. The document is a really insightful take on negotiation I think except for the fact the it used the loaded terms blackmailer/victim. There are plenty of organizations which are unable to recognize and/or reward high performance, and plenty of organizations which create compensation plans as if employees were fungible with infinite supply at their set salaries, and then depend on the psychological comfort of certainty and corresponding fear of the unknown to retain the workers, so although it isn't rare or even uncommon, that might be the sort of thing that made him angry.