Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Salary Negotiation

kalzumeus.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

251–260 of 419 posts

Re: Salary Negotiation

#251

Post by swombat »

pnut wrote: post #236
swombat wrote: post #212

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Indeed. We are in a highly competitive market, and have a number of interesting projects going on to disrupt that market that won't pay off immediately. If we don't manage our costs reasonably well we won't stay in business. Money is like rocket fuel. If you're accumulating it for its own sake, rather than to get somewhere, I'd say you're doing it wrong - but that's just my opinion...

The individual employee can say that too. I'm in a highly competitive housing market, and my children are in a highly competitive educational market. A number of interesting projects that won't pay off immediately. Since when is an individual expected to just defer to a greater good in an employment arrangement? Which is most likely "at-will"? I'm certain the shareholders and executives aren't making such self-defeat…

> Since when is an individual expected to just defer to a greater good in an employment arrangement? Which is most likely "at-will"?

1) You should never "defer to the greater good". I would not advise it. If this environment doesn't offer something of value to you definitely do not apply or join such an environment.

2) I completely agree that this approach is incompatible with the ultra-violent approaches to "at will employment" of the US and much of Europe. I find the process by which most people are fired in american companies abhorrent. I don't want to go into too much detail about what our current process is to deal with situations where there is a performance problem, but basically it involves engaging with the person and providing them with a lot of support to help them figure out what the problem is, and how they can fix it, and offering them a number of decision points about what they can do to fix it. Obviously, from a distrustful viewpoint this might seem even worse than a clean firing - and rightly so. This kind of stuff absolutely doesn't work in a distrustful, fear-driven environment.

> I'm certain the shareholders and executives aren't making such self-defeating sacrifices.

On what basis are you certain of this? Do you know something that I (cofounder) don't? I suspect that in the long term this approach will result in a more successful, longer lasting company that I feel even more proud of being a part of, so I don't think it's self-defeating in the long term - I disagree with doing anything self-defeating, I think no one appreciates it and it rarely results in anything good. But I don't know for sure that it will actually result in a better company. In the meantime, my cofounder and I could certainly have taken far more money out of the business and have not done so, so your assertion is incorrect in the short term (5 years) at least.

Re: Salary Negotiation

#252

Post by 15155 »

swombat wrote: post #230
15155 wrote: post #110

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Take Buffer, for instance: their salary information is "transparent." Consequently, since they've eliminated the possibility for negotiation, I will never approach them for prospective employment. A "master" engineer taking low equity living/working in SF only makes ~$155k: no thanks. https://buffer.com/salary?r=1&l=10&e=3&q=1 In my humble opinion: this kind of hiring strategy rewards low performers who get lucky and…

This is a fantastic side-effect of transparent cultures and salary structure: people like you who, for reasons good or bad, do not want to work in this kind of environment, don't apply. You may believe that sets you apart as an "A player" and means we only hire B players. I believe the concept of A players and B players is false, and have discussed this here: http://danieltenner.com/2014/09/11/there-are-no-b-players/…

> where this kind of mindset will have all sorts of side-effects that will make it difficult to work with you.

I find it difficult to work with people who are compensated less than me. I want my coworkers to be better than me.

I do not want to work with people assessed as "masters" making $155,000/year in San Francisco, CA. I am accustomed to working with people being paid more.

Full disclosure: Over four years ago, I was receiving offers $10,000+/year more for like roles (SF, FTE, backend development). I would certainly not proclaim myself a "master," either. Especially not 4 years ago.

> I love about your comment is that you are far from alone to have this reaction, but because we are very upfront about our culture, people with your reaction never seem to apply.

Please do not turn this into a matter of "culture."

I find nothing wrong with a culture of transparency. I find Buffer's actual compensation packages problematic.

The lack of negotiation ability makes what might otherwise be a fruitful business relationship impossible. I do not believe that transparency and negotiations are mutually exclusive.

Sincere counter-question: how can you retain talent with fixed salary ceilings? Why would someone stick around when they're leaving a ton of money on the table?

Entirely my opinion: this is potentially the A/B dichotomy.

If someone is developing their skills, is extremely productive, is increasing their worth, at one of these companies they can choose to leave money on the table (altruistically donating their higher value to a for-profit company) or leave. Are they a "bad culture fit" because they wanted to make what they are worth?

Re: Salary Negotiation

#253

Post by swombat »

android521 wrote: post #82
swombat wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> To answer a likely reflex-response to this: that doesn't mean we think people should be working for free, or that we judge people who want to earn more money. It's totally fine to want to make more money. Different people have different expectations and requirements at different stages of their life though. No belittling intended.

Sounds reasonable.Was this added after I replied?

Nope. But don't beat yourself up over it! Missing a piece of a comment happens all the time. Hopefully you see there was no offence intended to people who have different views on this. I think it's totally fine that different people think differently about these topics, and I don't consider my view superior in a general sense. It just works better for me.

Re: Salary Negotiation

#254

Post by sokoloff »

hrayr wrote: post #161
sokoloff wrote: post #97

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Most people reading this resume online shouldn't bother contacting me. I'm happy at __XXX__ (the work, the business, and the leadership) and very well compensated here. If you believe that you have a position for which you honestly think I'd be interested, please feel free to contact me. I insist however on restricting phone calls to principals only. I have too much to do in my day to field cold-calls from head-hunte…

Just curious, is you current employer aware of your resume and what do they think about it?

They (probably) are, in that I submitted the URL to them when I originally applied 13+ years ago and it's been used by different parts of the company for various corporate purposes over the years (board/VC decks, recruiting, depositions, etc).

Which angle are you concerned about: that I have a resume live on the internet, or that the contents are what they are(, or something else)?

As an employer, I would never worry about an employee having a resume out there (or being on LinkedIn/theLadders/other), nor do I care what content they put on the web that isn't company-proprietary. If a company thinks they want to control such things, they probably ought to find better things to concentrate on, IMO.

Re: Salary Negotiation

#255

Post by maxxxxx »

whack wrote: post #139

I've heard this "don't name a number first" advice so many times, but personally, it never seems to work. My current comp is significantly higher compared to others with my level of experience. So when I refuse to give a number, the recruiter ends up guessing a number that is significantly lower, and making a lowball offer. I've also had many other experiences where after many hours of interviews, I find out that the…

I always name a high number. That seems to set the tone for the discussion and they don't even try the lowball offer.

Re: Salary Negotiation

#256

Post by OpenDrapery »

Has anyone had much success with negotiating the health care benefits out of the equation? For example, if your spouse carries the benefits, then you don't need them. I'm guessing most employers don't have the luxury of substituting $20k in salary in lieu of healthcare.

Re: Salary Negotiation

#257

Post by [deleted] »

Tactic wrote: post #205
whack wrote: post #139

I've heard this "don't name a number first" advice so many times, but personally, it never seems to work. My current comp is significantly higher compared to others with my level of experience. So when I refuse to give a number, the recruiter ends up guessing a number that is significantly lower, and making a lowball offer. I've also had many other experiences where after many hours of interviews, I find out that the…

In my mind not naming your number first is advise given only if you are trying to maximize the negotiation. And even then it is quite debatable. I view it instead that I am offering a service. I am well aware of what my service is worth, what my financial needs are and what amount would make me feel satisfied with what I am being paid. So I tell them that number. I also tell them that the number is only negotiable in…

[deleted]

Re: Salary Negotiation

#258

Post by eweise »

Tactic wrote: post #205
whack wrote: post #139

I've heard this "don't name a number first" advice so many times, but personally, it never seems to work. My current comp is significantly higher compared to others with my level of experience. So when I refuse to give a number, the recruiter ends up guessing a number that is significantly lower, and making a lowball offer. I've also had many other experiences where after many hours of interviews, I find out that the…

In my mind not naming your number first is advise given only if you are trying to maximize the negotiation. And even then it is quite debatable. I view it instead that I am offering a service. I am well aware of what my service is worth, what my financial needs are and what amount would make me feel satisfied with what I am being paid. So I tell them that number. I also tell them that the number is only negotiable in…

I think it depends on what type of person the company is looking for. If they are looking for a leader then they will respect you more if you bargain hard and maximize your worth. If they're looking for an agreeable doormat, then they will like you more for compromising on your worth. I've found that management likes rank and file engineers to be doormats, easily compromising and agreeable. Imagine if they have to work hard at the bargaining table, they're also going to work hard trying to get you to work long hours and weekends.

Re: Salary Negotiation

#259

Post by ryanSrich »

jkempe11 wrote: post #217
whack wrote: post #139

I've heard this "don't name a number first" advice so many times, but personally, it never seems to work. My current comp is significantly higher compared to others with my level of experience. So when I refuse to give a number, the recruiter ends up guessing a number that is significantly lower, and making a lowball offer. I've also had many other experiences where after many hours of interviews, I find out that the…

I am a recruiter and I will tell you this: you should abandon this advice, for certain. It's funny - probably the best advice anyone ever gives on negotiation is exactly the opposite of "don't name a number first." It's "anchor high." You should be anchoring to a number that is high but realistic, and negotiating from a position of strength. This is especially true for senior- and late-career individuals who have som…

I honestly never understood the notion of not naming a number first (that is if you know what you're worth). Take the number you want to make, add 15%, and they'll likely negotiate down to the actual number you want. It's really not that hard.

Take this as an example:

Say you currently make $80k and you want a 10% bump. So you're looking for $88k. Take that number and add 15%. Your ask is now around $100k. They may say something like "we actually start all new engineers off at a base salary of $85,000". This gives you a ton of power in negotiating just a $3k bump. If you had said you wanted $88k, that "starting salary" would have likely been $75k. Thus making it a pretty big leap to the $88k you wanted.

Re: Salary Negotiation

#260

Post by eastbayjake »

zenlikethat wrote: post #173
eastbayjake wrote: post #127

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It seems like the same principle is in play: demonstrate your value first, then talk about terms after they're sold on you and want to make an offer. I can't imagine any company that would flat-out refuse a talented candidate over a 4-day week request, but I think most would sideline you if it was brought up before you'd demonstrated the value you can add to their business. In fact, I'll bet many companies would view…

I don't think so. 4 day work week would be a deal breaker for most companies. If Joe gets hired in and never works Fridays pretty soon everyone else will want Fridays off too. Salary is irrelevant, it's human nature.

I previously had a colleague reduce days in exchange for a pay cut, it was clearly messaged to us (a small startup) that there was a tradeoff happening, and the rest of us were happy to make more money working 5 days/week. I think the human nature part is wanting to be treated fairly -- it's unfair if you get paid the same and work less, but it feels fair if you make more money for working more.
Post reply on HN