Hacker News Reader

I really curious what was their tact with that? "We see based on your record that you're not worth as much as we thought..."

View on HN

Real reason: "oh, look, we might be able to spend less for this person's work"

Tactic: "well, we'd be taking a risk by hiring you, what if you do something bad again? or if this turns in to a PR problem?"

That was almost verbatim lol

If they refused to hire you I’d be fine with it, but lowballing 10% means they’re not seriously concerned about the risk.

They didn't low ball 10%, it was more like 25%.

If you are an insurance company and you raise someone's rates 25% it's just business -- risk management in large pools. As a hiring decision, though, any percentage discount makes it clear that you're not seriously worried about the risk -- if you were, you just wouldn't hire the person. On the individual hiring decision the risk calculus doesn't work like that -- "they're a greater risk so they'll need to provide more of a profit compared to their salary."

I loved my boss. He was openly himself and the circumstance was one such that any money he didn't pay me went to his pocket.

I understood this and had absolutely no hard feelings towards him and his honesty was one reason why I continue to respect him and vice versa.

So he tried many times to find reason to pay me less than I wanted, this was one.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com