Another tale from an interview (that sucked so now we're arguing politics again)



  • Them: how much do you expect to earn?
    Me: This and this much after taxes.
    Them: Hm... Is this sum negotiable?
    Me: Of course it is, but only upwards.

    I wonder if I hear from them. :-D



  • That's why you start high and then start lowering depending on how much you want to work there.


  • sockdevs

    @wft said:

    I wonder if I hear from them

    Hate to say it, but unless you're Mr Super Amazeballs McProgrammer, they'll probably look for someone cheaper. Or at least more open to negotiation.



  • @RaceProUK said:

    unless you're Mr Super Amazeballs McProgrammer,

    And even if you are, there's a good chance they're not looking for you anyway. Most companies don't need to be all rockstars, and they've probably filled their rockstar quota.



  • The worse for them.

    Actually, this "rockstar" talk is utter bullshit, the key thing being able to act together as a team. If one's social skills are so poor that nobody can really like them, no one will care how much of a rockstar they are, they are going to impede the team in its progress.

    However, since I've got gobs of experience and shit which exceeds my prospective employer's expectations, I have some minimum expectations of my own. If they don't feel comfortable with them, I'm going to find someone who does; there's no need to force a square peg into a round hole.



  • @Eldelshell said:

    start high

    Work out a minimum you need/want then add at least one salary increase to give yourself some negotiating room.

    @wft said:

    Of course it is, but only upwards.

    Sorry but if I was on the other end of the table you would end up on the 'no' pile for being a smuck/smartass. Do I want that kind of attitude in my company/team? People only here for the money are not that interesting to have as a team member. I would be concerned about your commitment and it would raise questions about your long term employment.



  • @Luhmann said:

    Sorry but if I was on the other end of the table you would end up on the 'no' pile for being a smuck/smartass. Do I want that kind of attitude in my company/team? People only here for the money are not that interesting to have as a team member.

    You usually ask about the money at the end of the interview — after you have built your impression about the "commitment" and "team player" part. If you asked that in the beginning, you would end up prejudiced that I'm here only for money, and I would be prejudiced that you want a cheapo piece of workforce right away. Things have little chance to go anywhere but downhill from there.


  • Discourse touched me in a no-no place

    Ah, so they brought up the moneys in the middle of the interview? That piece was missing from the original post. Nice :trolleybus:!

    :trollface:



  • @lolwhat said:

    Ah, so they brought up the moneys in the middle of the interview? That piece was missing from the original post.

    Nope, they brought it last, as it should be. Actually it was a decent interview, actual work-related questions, how I would deal if such and such kind of shit happens, and there was no major character mismatch, we were having a really good time talking. No moving mount Fuji or that kind of bullshit.

    Also, they actually liked my reply.

    I sometimes think that negotiating a salary down is also a kind of test, sort of how much shit are you going to put up with. A few of my previous employers did it, and when I succumbed to this, they happily overtaxed me with more work than my sanity would cope with, unpaid weekends and such.

    Also, the sum I named was above the average average (sic), but not unreasonable, as far as my private market study says.



  • @wft said:

    after you have built your impression about the "commitment" and "team player" part.

    So you mean that I can't revisit my 'score' on the candidates commitment & team/company fit after the first part or first interview is done?
    In all my job interviews both parts where rather separate and with different people even. Team lead/manager looks for a fit within the team but this says nothing about the long term fit within the company. Will we keep this guy after this project has ended? Could be you just want to cash in on this one project, ok fine but maybe I'm looking for someone that will stay on my team when we move on to the next project.



  • @Luhmann said:

    Could be you just want to cash in on this one project, ok fine but maybe I'm looking for someone that will stay on my team when we move on to the next project.

    Sometimes this might even be a mutual consensus. I'm seeking a job that gets me two things: a rewarding feeling I'm not just pushing buttons meaninglessly but doing some Real Work (which will make someone else's work/life happier, easier, etc), and an adequate monetary reward so my life outside work doesn't suck. I'm pretty much sure there's a point of consensus between some employer's expectations and mine :smile:

    I think that free market economic theory has something interesting to say about supply and demand, and that one and the other adjust until they meet.



  • @Luhmann said:

    So you mean that I can't revisit my 'score' on the candidates commitment & team/company fit after the first part or first interview is done?

    Nope, I just mean that you want to have all sides of the picture before drawing conclusions. Bringing the cash too early might easily blind both sides of the table.

    There is no amount of money that would pay me off the trouble of going to the job I hate, and working with people I don't like, or working with people that dislike me.

    Also, I might want a high pay (heck, there is "Senior" in the title for a reason), but if team productivity boosts when I'm on board, I'm pretty sure ROI would cover it. Unless the management is really screwed and team productivity doesn't really affect the revenue.


  • Winner of the 2016 Presidential Election

    @wft said:

    There is no amount of money that would pay me off the trouble of going to the job I hate, and working with people I don't like, or working with people that dislike me.

    I'd do it for a million a day, quit after a month or so and be free to pursue my own interests



  • I have some dignity and I want the feels that the cash that lands onto my bank account is deserved. Call me a conservative moron if you like. :smile:

    Also, have you considered the career of a Highly Paid Consultant? They are often like that.


  • Winner of the 2016 Presidential Election

    My current job I got a 20% pay bump over the last one. That's put me in the position where I'm paying off debts and saving, for the first time in my lirfe. s I don't actually know what I'd do with a HPC's salary



  • HPC's usually are not salaried but are paid per hour.

    And certificates and shit enable them to charge fortune. Count in some big companies policies to do big spendings at the end of the quarter/year.



  • @wft said:

    Me: Of course it is, but only upwards.

    Ugh. You are TRWTF this time.

    Not that you guys might not have ended up in agreeable territory, but that's horrible negotiating.



  • @boomzilla said:

    Not that you guys might not have ended up in agreeable territory, but that's horrible negotiating.

    Maybe. I'm keen to see how it works out. If it fails, a lesson will be taken.

    The fact I came with this reply stems from the fact that a few previous employers took my ability to negotiate down as a weakness and an opportunity to give more and more work, as if it were some sort of honour. And they were somewhat right, because I was too dumb to flat out refuse to take it.



  • @RaceProUK said:

    Or at least more open to negotiation.

    Goes both ways.

    @Luhmann said:

    People only here for the money are not that interesting to have as a team member. I would be concerned about your commitment and it would raise questions about your long term employment.

    I have a bottom line too.

    Sorry, if you're not that interested in providing for me and my family...
    I'm not that interested in being a team member.

    @boomzilla said:

    but that's horrible negotiating

    Ultimately agree with this statement. But see first comment.



  • @RaceProUK said:

    unless you're Mr Super Amazeballs McProgrammer

    which I of course am ;-)



  • If nothing else, I'd recommend giving a range with your actual desired salary at the bottom.

    @wft said:

    a few previous employers took my ability to negotiate down as a weakness and an opportunity to give more and more work, as if it were some sort of honour.

    Well, if you're going to apply to work with Klingons, I guess that sort of thing is going to happen.

    @wft said:

    And they were somewhat right, because I was too dumb to flat out refuse to take it.

    I imagine they would have piled on the work either way. Bad bosses are bad bosses, IME.



  • @boomzilla said:

    negotiating

    I prefer the term. Manipulating.



  • @xaade said:

    I prefer the term. Manipulating.

    I admire the brazenness of the Democrat party. Let's just call it Hostage Taking (when the other guy does it).



  • Like that blue dog guy that was stalling on Obamacare, got on a plane with Nanci Pelosi, and then got off and changed his vote, resulting in the bill passing.

    Something tells me the conversation went like this.

    Pelosi says, "Either way, you won't get re-elected. Either you will vote for the bill and your constituents won't re-elect you, or you will vote against it and the party won't support you. But, if you vote for the bill, there's a job waiting for you once the dust clears."



  • Oh look....



  • I didn't mean to derail @wtf's thread here, just talking about the "niceties" of negotiating styles.



  • Well, maybe they should pull a Pelosi.

    Get on a plane with them and tell them they won't leave the plane until they haz a job.


  • Winner of the 2016 Presidential Election

    @xaade said:

    I have a bottom

    :giggity:



  • How can you be more annoying, than the guy you depicted....

    :rolleyes:



  • @wft said:

    The fact I came with this reply stems from the fact that a few previous employers took my ability to negotiate down as a weakness and an opportunity to give more and more work, as if it were some sort of honour. And they were somewhat right, because I was too dumb to flat out refuse to take it.

    No, your willingness to continue doing more and more work is what they took as a weakness and an opportunity to give more work.



  • @xaade said:

    Oh look....

    Were you trying to support your argument or are you arguing against yourself? The point of the article appeared to be that those Dems were voted out of the House because they were mostly from red/purple states that generally vote Republican anyway (Texas with a Democrat rep?!), not because the Dems abandoned them or that they voted against their constituency (which they didn't). Indicating that the (D) next to their name is so big of a voter-turnoff in the red states right now that even if you do what the people want, you're still screwed. <!--DERAIL :trolleybus:-->



  • @Luhmann said:

    So you mean that I can't revisit my 'score' on the candidates commitment & team/company fit after the first part or first interview is done?

    I would say that if you discount someone's commitment because they insist on being paid, then you're not someone worth working for in the first place.


  • Winner of the 2016 Presidential Election

    You know what I love about the Internet?

    USians arguing politics. Everywhere I go. :rolleyes:


  • sockdevs

    @s73v3r said:

    I would say that if you discount someone's commitment because they insist on being paid, then you're not someone worth working for in the first place.

    I would say that you clearly didn't follow the chain of posts, and are therefore commenting out of context :stuck_out_tongue:



  • @Onyx said:

    You know what I love about the Internet?

    USians arguing politics. Everywhere I go. :rolleyes:

    I guess they think it's somehow important...


  • Winner of the 2016 Presidential Election

    @tar said:

    I guess they think it's somehow important...

    They have plenty of lawns over there. Do they have to come to everyone else's too?



  • @Eldelshell said:

    That's why you start high and then start lowering depending on how much you want to work there.

    No, sorry. When I did that, they didn't make a counter-offer...just told me good-bye.



  • I think the trick is to get them to mention a figure first. If it was higher than what you expected, so much the better...



  • Unless you put yourself over double the salary they were expecting to pay you, it's very hard for that to happen.

    During my last interview during salary negotiation I basically asked for double what I was earning at the moment and finally managed to settle for a 60%-ish raise (of course, I lied about my current salary at the time so as not to make it as egregious).


  • mod

    @Onyx said:

    They have plenty of lawns over there. Do they have to come to everyone else's too?

    Yes, now get off myyour lawn!



  • They got elected in the first place, didn't they? So at some point they had to win an election in a Republican state. It's kind of ridiculous to argue that someone that has already won an election in a certain state has little chance of winning there. They already did.



  • I'm not sure exactly where I said they had little chance to ever win an election, you know, since I didn't. But in the here and now, you'd have to be living under a rock to not notice that all the places that sometimes have democrats in office have turned full red right now. Even some places that rarely have Republicans win voted red the past year.



  • Don't you guys swap ruling party every 8 years anyway, as the normal course of things?


  • mod

    In Congress, it varies. As far as the president goes, yes.


  • Discourse touched me in a no-no place

    Me, I've never really noticed a change in ruling party... :stuck_out_tongue:



  • It's always "the government", right?



  • pretty much. while everyone is blaming things on X party president, congress/house swing towards Y. Then they'll elect Y party to president and then congress/house will back swing towards X once everyone gets tired of Y's version of screwing things up.



  • Actually I think hard term limits is one of the things the US gets right. It means you don't get stuck with the same driver at the controls for over a decade...



  • Not saying everyone would do that, but my interviewer did. And I don't know what he was hoping to pay me.

    At the time, my wage at my current employer was about 2.1x minimum wage; I asked for 3.4x and I'd have settled for 2,5x. (If I took the job, I would be moving to a significantly more expensive urban market--in effect, 2.5x was estimated lifestyle break-even.)

    So I was looking for an increase of 25% over my current wage, and set my suggested at 62% over my current wage, expecting a counter-offer. No counter-offer was made; just...Ha, ha, ha, good-bye.



  • @CoyneTheDup said:

    So I was looking for an increase of 25% over my current wage, and set my suggested at 62% over my current wage, expecting a counter-offer. No counter-offer was made; just...Ha, ha, ha, good-bye.

    I would say things probably worked out for the best if they weren't even prepared to enter into negotiations over the salary...


Log in to reply
 

Looks like your connection to What the Daily WTF? was lost, please wait while we try to reconnect.