5 ms·

> you think the extra 10k I'm asking for will be more than offset by the productivity gains I'm bringing to the table Then your initial offer wasn't made in go

> you think the extra 10k I'm asking for will be more than offset by the productivity gains I'm bringing to the table Then your initial offer wasn't made in good faith. No-negotiation forces the person making the offer to actually consider what that hire would be worth, and offer accordingly.

Nursie 13y ago
Sure it was made in good faith, it was a perfectly reasonable offer, it just didn't work for me. This is a very soft, subjective and hard to measure area. That's basically the point.
- thedufer 13y ago
  You're misunderstanding what I mean by "good faith". If you don't allow negotiations, a good faith offer is exactly what that person is worth. This is why employees should prefer no-negotiation employers - either you're getting what you're actually worth, or the company is making lowball offers that can't be fixed by negotiation. This makes them vulnerable to market forces (and will presumably go out of business if enough possible employees are shopping around).
  - Nursie 13y ago
    >> You're misunderstanding what I mean by "good faith". If you don't allow negotiations, a good faith offer is exactly what that person is worth. As an employer, how do I calculate this ahead of time? It's next to impossible. This is not a hard science. We may find that gender biases exist here as well, as worth is very subjective. If you mean "expected revenue potential for the company" then they pretty much have to try to lowball to some extent, because an employee that makes exactly what they bring in is not a net asset. --edit-- I probably sound a bit pompous. Maybe there is a way to calculate this stuff ahead of time, I genuinely have no idea. I know in sectors unlike ours, where there is a shortage of positions rather than a shortage of people, that non-negotiable salaries are indeed used. In that situation you can easily say "We need a person to do X, this pays Y" and you'll get lots of worthwhile applicants.
    - Crito 13y ago
      > ">> [...] a good faith offer is exactly what that person is worth. [...]" > "As an employer, how do I calculate this ahead of time? It's next to impossible. This is not a hard science." Perhaps if the prospective employer guesses the prospective employees worth incorrectly, the prospective employee could politely correct them. ...wait, that's negotiation re-invented. ;)
    - thedufer 13y ago
      > As an employer, how do I calculate this ahead of time? Then how do you decide how high to go in negotiations? Its exactly the same thing, except you start there.
      - Crito 13y ago
        "Then how do you decide how high to go in negotiations?" You discuss it with the prospective employee. You make a guess at what they are worth to your organization. If they disagree, they explain why they think that they are worth more. Explanations may include new information about what other companies in the market believe that person to be worth. Without negotiation, you make a guess, the prospective employee tells you that they disagree.. and you're done. You've wasted that entire recruiting and interviewing cycle.^ It doesn't matter if both parties want to work together; without negotiation if the hiring party makes an incorrect guess then they do not get to work together. Any correction or attempt to re-guess falls under the umbrella of negotiation. Perhaps they could reapply, go through the interview process again, and have you attempt to guess a good salary again, but that is nothing but inefficient negotiation. You could publish the offered salary before the beginning of the interview process, making that information known during recruiting, but then any attempt to communicate with failed recruiting attempts would be again another form of negotiation. Recruiter contacts a developer, says "I've got an position for you to look at, it offers $120k/yr" and the developer responds "I am worth at least $140k/yr"? If the recruiter relays that information to the hiring party, the hiring party would not be able to act on that information and adjust the offer because that is just pre-interview negotiation. "Make the initial guess the maximum you would be able to pay somebody in the most extraordinary of situations" is very obviously not a viable strategy. I hope I don't have to explain why. -edit- ^ Note that while this is bad for the prospective employer, it will often be even worse for the prospective employee, who in many cases will be looking to become hired as soon as possible as they are either in an unsatisfying job (in which they are forbidden from asking for a raise...) or worse, unemployed. Without any negotiation, an unemployed person would be placed in the wildly unfair position of being forced to immediately settle for an unsatisfactory salary, or spend more time without income looking for and applying to another job.. hoping that that one doesn't accidentally lowball the salary. Most unemployed prospective employees would tend to settle immediately since some income is generally better than no income. In this way, bans on negotiation screw over individual employees and place unemployed people in an even tighter bind than they are in currently.

Nursie 13y ago

Sure it was made in good faith, it was a perfectly reasonable offer, it just didn't work for me. This is a very soft, subjective and hard to measure area. That's basically the point.

thedufer 13y ago
You're misunderstanding what I mean by "good faith". If you don't allow negotiations, a good faith offer is exactly what that person is worth. This is why employees should prefer no-negotiation employers - either you're getting what you're actually worth, or the company is making lowball offers that can't be fixed by negotiation. This makes them vulnerable to market forces (and will presumably go out of business if enough possible employees are shopping around).
- Nursie 13y ago
  >> You're misunderstanding what I mean by "good faith". If you don't allow negotiations, a good faith offer is exactly what that person is worth. As an employer, how do I calculate this ahead of time? It's next to impossible. This is not a hard science. We may find that gender biases exist here as well, as worth is very subjective. If you mean "expected revenue potential for the company" then they pretty much have to try to lowball to some extent, because an employee that makes exactly what they bring in is not a net asset. --edit-- I probably sound a bit pompous. Maybe there is a way to calculate this stuff ahead of time, I genuinely have no idea. I know in sectors unlike ours, where there is a shortage of positions rather than a shortage of people, that non-negotiable salaries are indeed used. In that situation you can easily say "We need a person to do X, this pays Y" and you'll get lots of worthwhile applicants.
  - Crito 13y ago
    > ">> [...] a good faith offer is exactly what that person is worth. [...]" > "As an employer, how do I calculate this ahead of time? It's next to impossible. This is not a hard science." Perhaps if the prospective employer guesses the prospective employees worth incorrectly, the prospective employee could politely correct them. ...wait, that's negotiation re-invented. ;)
  - thedufer 13y ago
    > As an employer, how do I calculate this ahead of time? Then how do you decide how high to go in negotiations? Its exactly the same thing, except you start there.
    - Crito 13y ago
      "Then how do you decide how high to go in negotiations?" You discuss it with the prospective employee. You make a guess at what they are worth to your organization. If they disagree, they explain why they think that they are worth more. Explanations may include new information about what other companies in the market believe that person to be worth. Without negotiation, you make a guess, the prospective employee tells you that they disagree.. and you're done. You've wasted that entire recruiting and interviewing cycle.^ It doesn't matter if both parties want to work together; without negotiation if the hiring party makes an incorrect guess then they do not get to work together. Any correction or attempt to re-guess falls under the umbrella of negotiation. Perhaps they could reapply, go through the interview process again, and have you attempt to guess a good salary again, but that is nothing but inefficient negotiation. You could publish the offered salary before the beginning of the interview process, making that information known during recruiting, but then any attempt to communicate with failed recruiting attempts would be again another form of negotiation. Recruiter contacts a developer, says "I've got an position for you to look at, it offers $120k/yr" and the developer responds "I am worth at least $140k/yr"? If the recruiter relays that information to the hiring party, the hiring party would not be able to act on that information and adjust the offer because that is just pre-interview negotiation. "Make the initial guess the maximum you would be able to pay somebody in the most extraordinary of situations" is very obviously not a viable strategy. I hope I don't have to explain why. -edit- ^ Note that while this is bad for the prospective employer, it will often be even worse for the prospective employee, who in many cases will be looking to become hired as soon as possible as they are either in an unsatisfying job (in which they are forbidden from asking for a raise...) or worse, unemployed. Without any negotiation, an unemployed person would be placed in the wildly unfair position of being forced to immediately settle for an unsatisfactory salary, or spend more time without income looking for and applying to another job.. hoping that that one doesn't accidentally lowball the salary. Most unemployed prospective employees would tend to settle immediately since some income is generally better than no income. In this way, bans on negotiation screw over individual employees and place unemployed people in an even tighter bind than they are in currently.