That dev's salary is higher than mine | Hacker News Reader

That dev's salary is higher than mine

itmanagement.earthweb.com

178 pointsbhoung162 comments

The takeaways seem to be disconnected to the article. Do we have evidence that the phone calls mattered a hill of beans? That sounds like a post-hoc justification to cover an employee's sudden unexpected possession of reliable market data.

I love tradition as much as the next guy, but I think there is virtually no advantage to employees from our cultural norm that comp information is as sensitive as health information. The advantage to employers is, ahem, fairly straightforward: they get to pay systematically lower salaries to people who don't realize that e.g. failing to say one sentence when you're 22 costs you almost a hundred thousand dollars by the time you are thirty. (The contents of that sentence is essentially "Your offer plus $5k.")

> failing to say one sentence when you're 22 costs you almost a hundred thousand dollars by the time you are thirty.

Wow. As a CS-grad about to take a full-time job offer, I'd surprisingly never thought of this at all. But how easy is it to say "Your offer plus $5k"? What could be the possible consequences of this?

There is virtually no downside to this. Your university/college has coop advisors and employment offices. Go and get some advice for salary negotiating.

You'll get a mark on your permanent record.

Worst case, their reply will be "no", and then you can still decide you want to take the original offer. More likely, they'll agree to give you some more money.

I'm no expert on the state of the art in salary negotiation books, but http://www.amazon.com/Negotiating-Your-Salary-Make-Minute/dp... is decent for getting you in the right mindset.

Decision maker: Alright, let's talk numbers. What is your desired salary?

You: I don't know, you're in a much better position to judge my worth to the firm than I am.

Decisionmaker: But in terms of an actual number?

You: [Polite nothings. Repeat as necessary.]

Decisionmaker: Alright, how would $80k do?

You: That's interesting. Would you do $85k?

Decisionmaker: OK.

That is literally how simple it is, and your downside risk is "Alright, in that case, $80k is alright" and nobody will remember this conversation 2 weeks from now except your checking account. You can do more complicated things, like demonstrating value to the firm, or treating any no as a suggestion that you negotiate some other aspect of the offer instead, but the simplest way to improve outcomes at negotiation is to actually negotiate.

The marginal $5k gets compounded at every annual raise you have, virtually certain to be calculated by an HR drone's spreadsheet by multiplying a contentious number by a very non-contentious number (your current salary -- now $5k larger). It will increase other benefits you receive, such as employer match to your IRA. If you actually treat questions about salary history at face value when switching firms, it will also act as an anchor for your pricing for the rest of your career. (Giving out salary history? Yeah, that's another thing that can't possibly help you. Anyone asking you for salary history is saying, in as many words, "Please give me a reason why I should give you less money.")

Right in that scenario the salary was a question "how would $80k do?", in my experience employers have rarely been so cavalier. They're a little more firm, i.e. "The offer is £80k"

I'd be interested to see if anyone had a good comeback for that

The comeback is identical.

"90k and we have a deal."

It's also often in a letter/email, not a phone conversation where you might mention that +5k as a natural reply.

Negotiating comp is even easier in emails! You have a written record of numbers that they can't ever go below now, and virtually infinite time to squash the butterflies in your stomach and craft your counter-offer.

80,000 sterling is an interesting number, and while I'd love to work with you, it would depend on the entire package. How much $PICK_A_PERK does that include? 20 days of vacation? Interesting. I believe we could compromise on the 80,000 sterling number if you were prepared to offer 24 days of vacation instead.

The other option is treating the firm number as what it is, which is a suggestion which they intend to scare you into not negotiating. The CEO heard the firm number line once, too. He laughed at it, because haha, it is funny.

There's a good book about negotiating that I think people here should read, it's called "Secrets of power negotiating". I have a blog post that summarises it but I haven't written it up yet, although I hope to do this soon. It's very practical and includes many examples on how to negotiate, including the example you said (create new items of negotiation to move the focus of another one).

I've always wanted to take a negotiation class. I feel like I would learn a lot more being able to actually practice in person.

One of the great benefits playing a MUD back in the day gave me was the ability to negotiate a lot when trading stuff, so I got a feel for when to push, when to take the offer, when a negotiation just wasn't working out, etc etc. That said, this book has about 90% of everything you need to know.

I don't really like self-help/improvement books and the like, but this was just no-nonsense and straight to the point.

Lots of really good negotiation examples in the comments on this post. I just want it to become a skill that kicks in when I need it.

I got a firm offer like this. I responded with "Great, I'll have a think about it and call you soon". When I called back the next day I said "I really like the company, and would be thrilled to join the development team, at $85k". The hiring manager said, "Well.. we think $80k is a fair offer. It's what we offer to all our junior developers". I responded with "As I said, I really do want to come on board. If we agree to say, $82k, then I'll happily join.". Again, he said "We have an outside company determine our pay levels for different grades of developers. As such, I can only offer $80k, but we'll review the salary at the beginning of next year. (9 months away)".

Also, while the position was for a junior developer, I already had over three years full time experience. I also didn't feel like I could negotiate a specific increase for the next review. And considering the increase they gave me at my next review, I'm sure I would have 'negotiated for' less!

I'm just saying it's not always possible to negotiate a higher salary.

"I do not have authority to give you what you want" is literally in the playbook for ways to win at aggressive negotiation. How to put this gently: his statement may be true, but is not the whole of the truth.

OK Dave, I understand having worked at large organizations before that sometimes our hands are tied. I still think we can make this happen, though. How much vacation comes with the offer? [Hear answer.] You have enough authority to approve a higher number than that, right? [Hear affirmative.] Great! In lieu of giving me the $85k you would like to give me but can't, why don't you instead approve X extra vacation days?

A close variant of this line worked on a Japanese megacorp. Your HR policies are not as rigid as theirs are. Really.

In a reverse of that, I like to add "sacrifical lambs" -- givebacks -- to my first quote.

For example, in 2008 I took a step into the big leagues (as I saw it). I had a mid-grade developers salary ($75k) for a couple years, and 7 years in the industry, and I wanted to step up.

I found a great opporunity for a profitable bootsrtapped startup in a beautiful city but one that was not by any stretch a technology hub.

I nailed a phone interview. He asked what I was looking for. I said $110k, match my current 3.4 week vacation, and $6k for relocation. He asked what I was making now. "About 10% less than that" i said. (I fibbed).

I focus on the top-line. The relo and extra vacation were nice, but most importantly they were bargaining chips.

I was flown down for interviews. Things went great. HR directory during the interview asked my comp needs, I told her the same I told the manager on the phone the previous week.

Everything went great. I flew home. Two days later, I get a call from HR lady.

"We think you'd be a great addition to the team. We'd like to extend you an offer."

Her offer was.... $75k, match my vaca and my relco request. My heart sank.

I paused for a moment and said "I make more than that now (lie). My original quote has some room to negotiate but that's outside my range." To which she said "We think this is fair, many of our senior guys make this." We talked for 10 more mins, I was getting nowhere. She was your usual hard-nosed HR type. So I excused myself and told her I'm thrilled they made and offer and I'd like some time to think it over.

For a moment I was bitter. That this was all a waste of my time. I flew across the country. I told them up front the range I was considering. Twice!

But then I thought, it's possible that they have no less a notion of actually paying me $75k than I have of actually getting everything in my quote.

So, I decided I needed to skirt HR. The hiring manager gave me his card at the interview. I called his office line. I said "Look, let me level with you" (lie) "The comp package I presented to you is fair I think. But I'd be willing to give a little back and earn the rest on merit once I'm working for you. I think being on your team would be a great thing for my career. But i just cannot take a pay cut to work for you." He asked what I was making now. I reiterated my fib from earlier. "I've hit bonus here every year, and my total comp is about $100k exactly."

I thought, I'm making him wince. He had to feel like he came up with a good deal. But my lie here boxed him in. He could offer $100k -- a lateral move -- but that seems a little wrong. He could do a token increase -- $103k but that seems almost a joke.

I hadn't yet actually made a counter-proposal, so I did just that. I was going to start by sacrificing the extra vaca. That extra 1.4 weeks vacation was a benefit worth about $3k a year at this rate. But in my preamble he just in passing made a comment about the vacation not being a problem because it's a small company and HR isn't really involved in that, the manager approves vacation without any guidelines or limits.

So, the next lamb on my list was the relo money. I had 3 positions built-in to my $6k quote:

1) I designed it so they could easily counter at a nice round $5k, feel like they got a good deal, and my relo was largely paid for.

2) I would propose that I pay for relo out of pocket and the reimburse me only for the movers themselves -- about $3k

3) Outright elimination.

I said "honestly, I really want to come work for you (true). I know my current comp is so high that you're boxed-in a bit, I'm already up against the top of your range it seems. (lie).

"I've used United Vanlines before. They were great. Some looking around made me feel the movers themselves would cost about $3k. In lieu of cash, I would be happy to pay the relo out of pocket and then submit the invoice from United for reimbursement. "

He talked around it for a mement then he tipped his hand a bit: "I like the creativity", he began, "but honestly the CEO here is against any kind of cash payment for new hires. No signing bonus. No relocation. Etc. He pays it, but begrudgingly. We feel we'd rather spread that money around to existing team members because you never know how a new hire will work out."

Then he said "I'll talk this over. We can probably find a way to match what you're making now if we go ahead and just reimburse you for the movers."

I liked where he was going with that but we werent' there yet. I cut him off.

"Truthfully, you live in a gorgeous city. It's no doubt an amazing place to live. I really feel like a 10% raise and a chance to work for you will make me feel good about the decision to leave behind all my roots here, all my friends and family. I really want to come work for you guys but I feel like any hint of shortchanging myself will start us off on the wrong foot. If we can make another go at that $110k quote, I'd be happy to pay relocation out of my pocket.

He said he'd have to run it by the CEO.

He calls back 30 mins later. "The best we can do is $109k and the normal process where we do a review and increase after 6 months would, for you, be moved to your 1 year anniversary. Now tell me, when can you start?"

I was elated. I just got myself a $35,000 raise. A nearly 50% increase on top of my $75k base.

Having the givebacks is important! It got me a LOT more from than.

A little post-game analysis though:

1) I thought the HR woman always hated me. Maybe because I went around her. Maybe because she thought they were grossly overpaying me. I dunno.

2) I later learned i was the highest paid guy on the team. When I ascended into a management roll I was given access to salary info though, in an oversight from HR, my managers salary was also listed. What did he have the month I was hired? An increase. From $106k to $116k. My negotiation got HIM a raise. A manager can't make less than his reports.

3) Being the highest paid guy isn't a good thing. It's really hard to outperform everybody else. So onlookers -- like, say, a micro managing CEO -- will question the salary gap. Also, I won't forget the day I bought a new Mercedes and I was asked to not make a big deal out of it and if asked, say that "I saved up for this for years." Ugh. Please.

4) NEGOTIATE EVERYTHING in the future.

5) I would've been smart to negotiate myself a future raise. Because I wasn't given any increase for 18 months, and even then only after pestering.

EDIT:

Let me add that I did this to deliberately try to swing for the fences. I was happy enough where I was.

Also, I had a perfect resume for this company. My technical merits were very strong, but more importantly, I had a lot of relevant domain knowledge.

I therefore felt i was in a strong bargaining position. Nowadays, if you're good at what you do, the way it';s so hard to find good devs means you probably are in a strong position as well.

He asked what I was making now. I fibbed. "About 10% less than that" i said.

I would strongly recommend against doing this, for the simple reason that they will need to know your last salary so they can calculate your tax. In the UK this is the P45 form: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/P45_%28tax%29 If you have lied to them, they can terminate you immediately.

> I would strongly recommend against doing this, for the simple reason that they will need to know your last salary so they can calculate your tax.

Not in the US.

That's insane. I would never want to work in a country with laws like that.

Market rate is based on what something worth, not what it costs or what it previously cost so there is no reason for a company to need to know what you previously made.

Having said that, couldn't you just change your terminology and say "package" instead of "salary", then if there is a discrepancy you could say "well, a portion of the package was year end bonus which I obviously didn't get this year..."

Note that I'm not saying "don't negotiate" but I am saying "don't get caught in an outright lie".

I agree with not getting caught in a lie. Personally I don't like the lie approach, even if I can't be caught because it forces me to remember two sides: the truth and what I've told people.

I think the take away here is that you shouldn't be discussing previous salary in any case. If I'm asked I always say "I'm not at liberty to discuss contract conditions at my previous employer" or something to that effect. As I mentioned: as a free market entity, I should be getting what I'm worth now, not some variation of what I was worth 2 years ago when I last tested the market.

<i>I would strongly recommend against doing this, for the simple reason that they will need to know your last salary so they can calculate your tax. In the UK this is the P45 form: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/P45_%28tax%29 If you have lied to them, they can terminate you immediately.</i>

There's no equivalent in the US. There's never any reason a future employer ever needs to know what you earned in the past.

If you work for a government entity, they might be able to find that out, as it may be public information easily obtained, but barring that, there's no way they can find out (legally).

Mike Kimsal. I recognize that name. I once took on some contract work to modernize a web app for a manufacturing ocompany.

It was PHP work. And they had it built on a framework I'd never heard of called logicrate iirc. It was kinda a steaming pile man :) I mean, it just didn't age well, I'm sure. Over the last decade some awesome PHP frameworks were written that didn't exist, i'm guessing, when you wrote that.

It was started in 2000. I wouldn't say it was a 'steaming pile', but obviously I'm a bit biased. MVC structure, user mgt, automatic login/registration, database abstraction, a rudimentary ORM (very rudimentary), user groups, permissioning from a control panel that was able to be hooked in to from administrative modules. The closest thing around with any degree of flexibility at the time was phpnuke when lc was started.

It hasn't been worked on since 2003 - one of the original people behind it started cognifty.com several years ago.

<quote>there's no way they can find out (legally)</quote> Really? Is that really true? What about all the forms one signs, allowing for background information check (education, employment information, etc)?

Due to the way the legal system in the US works, there is a lot of posturing. Plenty of the forms you sign are not enforceable at all and only there to make people ignorant of the relevant laws afraid to exercise rights they actually have.

Interesting.... Could anyone be more specific? Plenty of "serious" firms ask about last salary earned (in fact, if you were to fill out an application on line, you may not proceed, as these fields tend to be mandatory). Is your advice to simply fill out $0? I've always thought "current salary" was irrelevant and just a nasty tactic.

I always refuse to answer about previous salary. As I've said in other places in this thread, previous salary is irrelevant. They have the right to ask and I have the right to refuse to answer. It's part of the negotiation. If me not telling them is enough for them not to want to hire me then I would have been underpaid and unhappy anyway.

>Plenty of "serious" firms ask about last salary earned (in fact, if you were to fill out an application on line

Are you saying that a "serious" firm would have you fill out an application (online or otherwise)? I thought any career level job would expect a resume/CV.

With online applications you can just place 0 (if required), and make a note "unwilling to disclose" or "will discuss compensation within an interview" or "upon offer" etc.

Big finance firms (EG, top 3 in the world) require tax documentation and will rescind offers if your comp was exaggerated.

OK, that was an example of hard-nosed salary negotiation. A little aggressive for most technical people, but you should see what business folks do!

Since you mentioned it, I have to say it.... a NEW benz on a 109K salary?? Dude, you just blew your entire 35K raise on a car.

I enjoy the saying "To each, their own." But if it makes you feel any better, it was a 1 year old CPO lease return with 9k miles on it, about 20% below what sticker woulda been on a new one.

My dad said the same thing as you, though :) You're in good company!

Can I ask what the city was? It seems to me like it might be easier to achieve those numbers in NY or SF, but I could be wrong

"It's unfortunate that company policy means losing talented new developers over a measly $5k but I wish you the best. Have a good day."

and if they say 'how would $Xk do', where X is a half of the market salary of a developer?

so if you just say X + 5k, you would still be underpaid.

in Russia they act as this, if you refuse to name your own expectations

One problem with this is that it cedes the initiative to the company and allows them to anchor the negotiations with a number of their choosing. In the absence of any reliable information on what a reasonable salary would be at the firm in question, this might be the only approach possible. However, if you do have an idea of the range of salaries that might be possible, you can anchor the discussion at a higher initial value, leaving open the possibility of doing better than "base offer +5K" that is the best possible outcome with this approach.

I think one should also have a better opening line than "I don't know, you're in a much better position to judge my worth to the firm than I am." Something along the lines of "I can do x, y, and z for you and my skills are in demand in the current hiring climate. I think that I am worth $xx to your company."

"The range for this position in the market is x to x, is that the range for this position?" But, that could / may have been used or brought up in an earlier interview. Talk up your worth or unique skill-set before a verbal offer is made and establish you are "high range" as a candidate.

Yes, yes and yes. This is awesome advice. If they have a very fixed salary, they'll say no, and then that's fine too. But it's also quite likely they'll say yes.

It's HARD to find good people to hire. And when you make them an offer, you really want them to take it. 5K doesn't make a dent.

There are number of biographies of women CEOs that mention that this is a huge problem issue for women. They consistently forget to negotiate for their salaries since they consider it poor form and confrontational.

However the simplest come back after a salary offer: please let me consider it.

Then a day later or after some thought, reiterate the value you will be bringing to meet and exceed with their expectations/plans, then say: Is that the best you can do?

Then shut up and wait.

I tried this once. It was easier than I thought.

Money is temporary. The experience, the people, the company culture, their mission, and growth are more important to be than money, in general. They are priceless facets.

However for most people a job is a job. As someone said the skill that they value the most and are at expert level at is apathy.

Also Jeffrey Fox says always go for salary - it is what everyone uses to measure your value and that is what they value so....to each their own.

Are you after a job or are you trying to creating a future for yourself?

I remember a recruiter told me to take the job that was not able to outbid for me in a bidding war. I thought that was odd. As she said, these people loved you and they are a established profitable company. The others are startups, that are just looking for just in time body and never mentioned why they valued me. I went with the money, actually I went with the technology because it was sweet - stupid mistake. I wished I listened to her.

Money has marginal utility for me. After a certain amount I do not care. Isn't that ultimately made me the geek I am, spending time on things that others saw very little social value?

>Money has marginal utility for me. After a certain amount I do not care.

And this is exactly why I go for the absolute maximum I can: I care about my own projects more than I could ever care for any company or their projects. The more money I get the less I have to work for other people.

I disagree. The more you make, the more your employer expects you to work overtime, be more dedicated to the job and the company, etc.

I disagree with you; Fox also agrees with me on this point:

If the company can overuse its employees, it will regardless of what they are paying for salary.

If you are going for money (which if you have no other choice) than maximize! You will be abused so at least get the moola for. There is a reason why they call work work and have to pay people for it.

In the above scenario, where the job is just a job go for the money and kiss up to the boss. Less work and you are well insulated in crisis as others have mentioned.

There are plenty of people at work who do nothing more than be friends with the execs. They add little value in a company. This oddly considered acceptable. It is almost as if work is daycare for your not so bright but very happy friends. It reminds me of the cliques in high school.

Sadly this true in even in startups. So-so went to high school with the founder. Great but the nice guy is incompetent. Basically you soon realize that the startup is an adult daycare center as well.

> Money has marginal utility for me. After a certain amount I do not care. Isn't that ultimately made me the geek I am, spending time on things that others saw very little social value?

You should please consider the effect it has on the overall profession. If you are not getting remunerated appropriately for the value you create, that surplus is captured by someone else. If this continues at a systemic level, many interesting people who could have been your colleagues will be turned away from the profession. The layman's description of what you are doing is is "pissing in the pool". You are, of course, free to make your choices and live by them; but please make sure you are building a healthy ecosystem in which you can indulge in activities that give you pleasure.

Are you after a job or are you trying to creating a future for yourself?

Lots of companies say something like, yes our salaries are low but it's great experience that will set you up for the future. That may be true... But someday you have to actually get to that future.

I always say, in business there is no such thing as cheap or expensive. There's only worth the money, or not. Well the company is buying your time...

That is literally how simple it is, and your downside risk is "Alright, in that case, $80k is alright" and nobody will remember this conversation 2 weeks from now except your checking account.

It depends on the size and culture of the firm; is the "decision maker" your future boss or someone in HR you'll never see again? You generally don't know the answer to this so early in the process. Respectful negotiation is never damaging, but it's important to be careful. The "I have an offer from Goldman at $90k" tactic is a bad idea. It's not really respectful negotiation at that point, because you're trying to exploit a competitive offer rather than arrive at what is fair.

Also, the decision-maker might call your bluff and either (a) say, "fine, go work at Goldman" or (b) call Goldman and verify your offer. By the way, if (b) happens and your story checks out, it's still bad for you because the mere act of checking up on someone is an act of distrust and, even though you were "proven innocent" that person is going to remember the call as a token of having not trusted you.

you're trying to exploit a competitive offer rather than arrive at what is fair

What definition of fair are you using such that what you're worth to someone else isn't a key consideration?

Candidates A and B are applying for job X at a tech company. They'll be equally competent in the role. Candidate B has a rich father who can get him a position in Goldman Sachs paying a bit more.

If both A and B choose the tech company, shouldn't they get the same pay? B's alternative is irrelevant to what he deserves at the tech company. Obviously, if the money is important to him, he should take the Goldman offer instead.

Er. . . how the guy got the other offer, be it via a rich father, taking the trouble of applying to more than one job, or sacrificing pigs to demons is completely irrelevant.

Someone out there is willing to pay $110k for his time. Ergo, $110k is a fair price to ask for his labor.

Tell you what, let's talk about waffle irons instead of people. Say I'm throwing a giant waffle party and I need ten waffle irons. I ask around to my friends and neighbors and offer them $5 for their waffle irons, and most say, "Sure, sounds fair. Not like I actually use the thing."

But when I get to one guy's house, he says, "Well, I'd love to help you out . . . but the elementry school already offered me $10 for my waffle iron."

And I say, "$10? Don't they know they could get a waffle iron for $5? What makes yours so special?"

And he says, "I don't know. Maybe they want them clean. Maybe they want a particular brand. Maybe they don't know they can get them for $5, and maybe it's that my wife teaches there and they want to help her out. Doesn't matter. School offered me $10, but if you'll pay me $10 as well, I'll let you have it instead."

Now, you seem to be saying that $10 is an unfair price to ask for his waffle iron, and that he's greedily exploiting a competing offer to get extra money out of me. But from my perspective, the guy's waffle iron is worth $10 -- to him and to the school. They have their reasons, and their reasons don't matter. If the waffle iron isn't worth $10 to me, I should move on and find somebody with a $5 waffle iron to sell.

Things are worth what people will pay for them. I do not know an alternative sensible definition of "worth".

Well, it's like buying a car or a house but in reverse. The employer isn't going to pay you more than they have to so they'll make an offer at the low end of the reasonable range. Unless it's some minimum wage job, there is a range of valid salaries and they probably have budgeted 10% or more higher than their initial offer.

Now, you may have to convince them you're worth getting paid higher in the range for that role but you should definitely counter-offer.

Also, my general rule of thumb while negotiating is to counter with a number higher than you'd be happy with and then negotiate to something near the middle of the two.

(I learned all this the hard way in my first job, but fortunately my manager was awesome and I got a 50% raise after a year.)

Absolutely ask for more. They never come in with their highest offer. You ever go in buying a car offering the highest you'll pay right off the bat?

They won't retract the offer or anything. And even if they did, you probably wouldn't want to work for them in the long run, so would be doing you a favor.

Tell me about it.

I came out of college in 2002 and was looking for a job in Dallas while my wife went to school. This was the lowest of the lows, right after the telecoms in Dallas had folded and just flooded the market with thousands of developers. Not that there were many jobs.

Thankfully I had some rather unique experience, and that helped me find a job. I took the first number they offered ($48k/yr I think).

That was a HUGE mistake, even in those times. After all, I had some fairly unique experience.

My second mistake was a couple of years later at the same company. We were recently bought and I took that as an opportunity to negotiate my salary. They asked me what I was looking for, and while I had done my homework on market rates...I really undersold myself. A part of me hoped that they'd come to a more competitive number on their own.

They didn't.

It put me in the weird position of asking for a proper market-rate adjustment just 6 months later. I got exactly what I asked for the third time too, but this time it was much more fair.

Over that period I probably lost $70k all told.

Huge mistake.

I took the first number they offered ($48k/yr I think). That was a HUGE mistake, even in those times.

That's not the worst mistake you could have made though. For my first job, I was interviewing with a company that a college acquaintance was working for. Through a mutual friend, I had a rough idea how much this acquaintance was making... or so I thought.

When the salary portion came up, the company recruiter asked me how much I was expecting. Being incredibly naive about such things, and thinking I knew how much they were willing to pay, I gave a number.

What happened next is something I'll remember in every salary negotiation for the rest of my life. The recruiter apologized, and said that they simply didn't pay anyone that little, and she told me their company minimum and asked if I was ok with that. Sheepishly, I accepted, knowing that I had just completely screwed myself and I really was no longer in a position to negotiate for more.

The kicker? It is entirely possible your acquaintance was actually working for a number well below their we-absolutely-wouldn't-pay-you-below-this number. "Sketch reasons why this could happen" would make a good interview question, since it demonstrates life skills for dealing with large corporations.

It's possible, sure, but that wasn't the case in this instance. While this acquaintance and I didn't spend a great deal of time together in college, he was the only person I knew here when I moved (n.b. the job was a few hundred kilometers from home/college) so we ended up hanging out a bit more once I got here.

I came to find out that not only was he not making less than their minimum, but he was actually able to negotiate for $2k more due to some previous experience in summer jobs / co-ops.

The actual kicker in this story, and I'm only remembering this now, is that I actually knew the real number, but I just didn't realize it. This company had interviewed/hired a few people in my class, and I vaguely recall hearing of a different guys negotiations for a number close to what above-commented acquaintance managed to get. So, I could have probably negotiated a slightly higher salary, but thanks to some poorly timed misinformation by our mutual friend, I didn't know my numbers and I lost out.

I have to ask: what reasons do you have in mind for the "sketch why this could happen". I have never worked for a large corporation, and besides usual miscommunications between departements about official policy, I cannot find any reasonable explanation.

1) Bob was hired prior to the minimum being enacted and no one has noticed.

2) Bob has fallen into a special case in our accounting package (e.g. "joined company through acquisition"), causing his salary to be marked "exempt from standard rules", and his manager has not been diligent with raising it to the company norms.

3) #2, but manager knew what was happening and did nothing to correct it anyway. Bob never complained, after all, and it made manager's budgets easier to balance.

4) No individual human anywhere in the corporation is responsible for evaluating Bob's compensation. Whoops. He's an orphaned node on the org chart because he was assigned to division A but expensed to B for the duration of a project which has since been canceled, was informally lent to C, but nobody told A yet, C doesn't expect him on their books, and B was eliminated in a reorg last year.

5) #4, except it is more severe: no one is in charge of reviewing Bob's salary because no one knows Bob exists. (This one is funny folklore... until it isn't.)

6) Hiring manager is citing a policy which does not exist and has never existed. This entire thread is based on a mistaken premise to begin with.

7) Hiring manager is citing a policy which exists for all Systems Engineers but Bob is classified as a Programmer: Systems (II) by manager Dave in 1997. P:S(II) was deprecated in 2002 -- didn't you get the memo, Dave?

8) #7. Dave didn't get the memo because he died in 2001.

9) The interviewee's friend could have been quoting his after-tax and/or after-loan take-home salary.

10) He was laid off a couple years ago but through some glitch in the payroll department, he still receives a paycheck.

11) He gets lower salary because he negotiated higher benefits instead. More options, for example.

Some combination of #4 and #5 actually happened to me once. Naturally I quit, and despite giving notice to two separate departments, HR didn't know to expect me for an exit interview until I contacted them.

The rules for hiring minimums are divorced from and can go up much faster than the rules for raises. I know at least one employer where the standard way to get a decent raise is to quit and come back a year later, because they are locked in to certain % raises but that rule doesn't apply to a new hire.

There is a somewhat questionable practise, that has proven very effective (by friends of course).

After negotiating like patio suggested, you receive the offer and ask a few days to consider.

You then contact back and say that currently there are two/three offers on the table that you are considering. And since each has its merits, you decided to choose based on compensation and ask if there is any wriggle room on their offer.

Usually works perfectly, and even if it doesn't. You end up feeling that you really got the best they could do.

Don't ever do that! Your offer will be retracted based on lack of interest unless you're a well known superstar.

As someone who has been on both sides of hiring, I think this is something you absolutely should do. When a company makes you an offer, it means all the people who interviewed you got together and decided they liked you. Mentally, the company has committed to you. For the hiring manager to lose you over a few thousand dollars a year will reflect very poorly on him/her.

This is also the point where you have the highest leverage. Your leverage is always based around the idea that you might go to another company. When you're considering multiple offers, it's very credible that you might work for another company. Once you've been hired and you've been working there for a year, they figure the inertia of leaving your job and going to another company is big, and limit your salary raise.

I disagree on the threat of retraction, obviously. Most firms aren't going to risk their reputations by rescinding an offer unless there was something severe (failure to disclose a felony) involved.

However, I think using post-offer leverage to negotiate extra pay is a bad idea. The leverage exists, but it's limited. I'd rather use it to get insight into (and favor in) project allocation than a measly few grand. Project allocation is the difference between having a successful career-- learning a lot, working with great people, getting the promotions-- and needing to find a new job in 12 months. A few thousand dollars is nothing in comparison. This style of negotiation is more subtle, and takes the form of a "reverse interview" than a line-in-the-sand "I want $10k more" statement, but I think the former is better at (a) presenting yourself well, and (b) getting you what you actually want, which is a successful career.

I also tend to subscribe to the philosophy that the first 120 days of any job (including post-offer negotiation) are an extended interview. What you want to show is that you care about your work intensely and that you have the potential to reach very high levels, but also that you expect to be challenged and given appropriate work; not that you are a mercenary who makes career decisions based on a few thousand dollars.

Thanks for your thoughts on the matter, but it has happend to me. The offer was retracted based on lack of interest on my part as seen by the company - this is back in '07 when I was in talks with a few companies and most had given me offer letters.

You need to be careful with your advice to others, I know you mean well but it could really mess somebody up in a very real way.

Wow, I'm sorry that happened to you.

I actually use a small tweak: rather than "all are equally good so I'm choosing based on salary," I pick the company I want, then go to the others and say "another company has offered me X. Could you offer me a little more?" Once they do, I go back to the company I want and say "another company has offered me Y. I really want to work for you, so could you match Y?" Perhaps the "I really want to you," and only asking to match another offer, is more important than I thought?

Thanks! :)

The best thing is to get the company excited about you. They get excited by knowing that a) you're awesome in your skills, b) you're gonna be easy to coach, c) you're gonna hit the ground running, and d) you're passionate about the company because you buy into the culture and mission.

My advice: go to salary.com and such sites and look at that data for that job, and tell them you are in the 80th, or 85th or 90th percentile, and why (what a typical guy in your fild does not know or what makes you exceptional).

I disagree. I've never had an offer retracted. I'm not a "known superstar".

I suppose, though, I've never tried to get into Facebook or Google. And I suppose in those companies, with huge applicant pools, they'd chose somebody else if I indicated I only saw working for them to be equal to working for my other offers (unless, of course, one was one of them, and my other offer was the other).

You misunderstood, retraction is not over money, it is over lack of interest as seen by the company because they see it is as you buying time so you can wait to hear back from someone else, and thus they feel like a second choice, making you high risk, after months of training you might take off. Now you guys can be naive about it, but this has happened not just to me but to other people too. Why do you think companies ask "So why do you want to work for this company?" To gauge passion first and domain expertise second. Someone not willing to sign the dotted line is like bombing this question big time. Like I said, you speak on opinions, and I am speaking of facts. As PG as noted on a few occasions, it is important to know what you know, and know what you don’t know, championing things you haven’t a clue about will kill you quicker than anything else. And yes, I have paperwork from lawyers and the original offer letter in my possession.

Companies that attempt to pressure you into making a decision very quickly - for no apparent reason other than filling their own budget - are likely very poor places to work for.

There are many reasons why a new team member might be needed urgently...

And none of the valid ones will allow two-three days to matter. If you are humming and hawing for weeks, sure, point taken.

If they're going to retract over a couple of grand that means they're insanely cheap. Why would you want to work for an insanely cheap company?

If someone's going to turn down a great job over a couple of grand that means he's insanely greedy. Why would you want to hire an insanely greedy person?

Salary matters-- you need enough that money isn't a personal problem for you, and salary is an indication of how the firm perceives your professional maturity-- but small margins don't.

>If someone's going to turn down a great job over a couple of grand that means he's insanely greedy.

False symmetry. For a company, an extra 5k per year shouldn't even make a blip on the radar. If it does then I would have to question the stability of said company. For me however, as my sole income it does make a very obvious difference.

The good advice in here is that you should always take a few days to consider an offer. I'd use that time to get into contact with some friends or favorable interviewers at the company and get some "off the record" time to get a sense of what kinds of projects you'll get. Project allocation is more important than a measly $5,000 in salary. If compensation is an issue, figure out if you're being paid fairly. Not, "What do you make?" but "What should I expect to make?" People will give you accurate numbers.

As for trying to claim another offer to get more pay... Bad idea! You're unlikely to have the offer retracted-- simply divulging that your offer was rescinded in the right corners of the internet will damage the firm's reputation in a way that is more costly than the cost of retaining you for a few months, but the "I have another offer" trick, if you use it to negotiate more compensation than you deserve, is going to damage your reputation among those who know you used the tactic. Yes, they'll hire you because rescinding an offer leads to negative press, but they won't like you much.

Also, firms that lowball are generally not places you want to work. It's a huge warning sign. I got an offer at a company that lowballed me, I negotiated a 25% increase, and went to work there, and it was still a mistake. My observation is that the initial offer gives you the best sense you'll ever get (better than performance reviews!) of what those in power at the company think of you. If you negotiate a higher offer, you'll get a little bit more cash, but won't improve their perceptions of you. So you'll get crap project allocation and a high salary. When layoff season comes around, guess who's at the top of the list?

A good company will pay you fairly regardless of your salary history and other alternatives, and likewise not be pushed around by high offers from, e.g., Wall Street, an industry that throws money at people so they ignore its deep cultural problems and generally low quality of work.

If you want to negotiate a higher salary, there's a right way to do it and a wrong way to do it. The wrong way is to say, "I have an offer at Goldman Sachs for 50% more", to which most self-respecting recruiters will say, "Then go work at Goldman." The right way is to say, "according to my research <don't disclose what your research is, especially if it involves people at the firm> the proper salary for a person of my position is $<X>. I also believe that I have considerable long-term potential both on the technical and executive ladders, so add 10%. Also, I don't need the 10% hiring bonus upfront so why don't we just include that in my salary, which allows you to pay it on a later schedule. So $<1.2X> is what I consider a fair number." The negotiation needs to be about what you can do for them, not what you can get from a competitor.

You claim another offer to expedite hiring processes and to have leverage to ask for more insight into the work you'll be doing (and for more interesting work, to the extent that such things can be bargained). What you want to show is that you respect yourself and are looking for the best fit for you and your career, not that you're a mercenary who is only going to be there because of $5-10k in marginal compensation. People talk more than they should and you can get a negative reputation before you start if you do this.

"...to which most self-respecting recruiters will say..."

That is to say, a tiny minority of recruiters.

It depends on the individuals doing the recruiting and what their incentives are. If you're talking to someone who just wants to fill chairs in the short-term, you can make certain plays like that. Some recruiters are just trying to fill chairs and will overlook certain behaviors in order to "close the deal".

On the other hand, I know that if I were trying to build a team, and someone said that he could get 10% more as an "analyst" at Goldman, I'd advise him to do so. Why would I want to hire someone who wants to work an entry-level banking job? Some people care more about remuneration and cachet than interesting work and that's fine, but like should dance with like. If 12 months of punishing hours and miserable work humbled him a bit, and he realized he wanted a work environment that assessed him according to ability rather than pointless sacrifice, I'd be willing to talk to him again after that point.

So you would give up a quality guy over 10%?

Let's say I'm hiring people into an exciting tech company. How is a guy who is going to work for Goldman over 10% "a quality guy"? Maybe he's talented, but do I really want to hire a guy who values small differences in pay over the difference between a great opportunity and a crappy banking job? No. I'd rather let that guy work at Goldman, so he can see how much it sucks first-hand and then possibly come back looking for something more rewarding (or not).

I don't understand, is it a small difference in pay or not? If it's not, why not hire the guy? If it is, why do you think it's so strange that that would make his decision for him?

I feel like you're just the other side of the coin, thinking your company is "exciting", while the guy thinks he's worth more than you're offering.

Does he think he's worth more than I'm offering (a) because he has some talent or skill I'm not aware of, or (b) because Goldman Sachs is willing to pay him more to do 120 hours per week of mind-numbing work?

If (a), I want to hear what he has to say. If (b), he should work at Goldman.

I'm 27 and have 4 years development experience. And I'm talented. I could realistically make $250-300k if I sold out and worked in investment banking-- a lot more than I'm worth at my level of experience, and more than I'd expect in a normal software job. I'd hate my life and probably burn out in the first 45 days, but I could do it if the thought of being a banker didn't disgust me.

Ok I looked at your commenting history and it seems like you have this same discussion over and over. I disagree with you, but I definitely see merit to what you're saying.

And since each has its merits, you decided to choose based on compensation

I can think of a handful of companies off the top of my head that would immediately rescind the offer if you made this proclamation. I'd be careful about doing so.

A rescinded offer is, at least from what I've seen, unlikely. The person is more likely to be hired but with an already negative reputation, not be successful in the company, and be laid off or fired early on. How it plays out: after 6 months, the person is let go with 3 months' severance not to disparage the company. That's actually a small price to pay for silence: 9 months' pay for 6 months of work and a gag rule. If the offer is rescinded outright, there's no chance to draw up a severance contract and that person will damage the company's reputation and make recruiting harder. The added recruiting difficulty might not be much (maybe 5-10% in the candidate's school/network and 0.25-0.50% globally due to negative internet posts) but firms don't want to take that risk, because recruiting is seriously expensive and hard.

This is why companies don't rescind offers unless people do something really bad. It's much less risky to have the person work for a few months, fire the person if he or she doesn't disprove the negative opinion (which is hard to do, because once a negative opinion is formed of a person, it's almost impossible for that person to change it) created by the bad behavior, and get a non-disparagement clause in severance.

What this means is: just because you're hired doesn't mean they actually like you. The post-offer stage and first 180 days of any job should be considered an extended interview. In that light, respectful negotiation is actually a good thing but being a jerk is not. Saying "I'm going to choose based on compensation" makes a really shitty impression. It's best to say, "I think I'm actually worth $<X> and here's why." Also: don't mention other firms or their pay packages, ever. One of the easiest and most common ways to make a bad impression in job searching is to disclose sensitive information (and competitors' salaries qualify).

One can also go rummage around different salary sites and do your research in a very targeted fashion - while we should all know our market value prior to negotiation, we can refine that number based on location, industry, offered title, etc.

Use the extra days to your benefit and come back with a realistic counter offer.

Remember, it does you no good to be that guy who extorted the company, but it does you no good to lowball yourself. Everyone needs to make a profit off the exchange of services for cash.

"but I think there is virtually no advantage to employees from our cultural norm"

On average. For (perceived) good employees that have above average negotiating skill, there can be a big advantage to this system.

>>The takeaways seem to be disconnected to the article

You can say that again. The takeaway should have been to find another job, who would want to work for a company like that?

Quick poll: Has anybody here ever received a year-end salary increase on the same order of magnitude as what they'd get from simply switching jobs?

I didn't think so.

Early in your career, your market value increases so fast that there's simply no way a percentage raise can keep up.

I remember a situation at my 2nd job after college, where I knew that I was worth almost double what they were paying me. I told them as much and laid out the case as to why. They bent over backward and scraped together something like a 20% raise, which they probably thought was pretty good.

Of course, on top of a junior dev salary it was still way out of line with what I should have been at. I polished up the resume and within a couple weeks I accepted an offer for roughly double my pre-raise salary. At my exit interview I told them how much I loved working there (it really was the best job I ever had), but I just couldn't afford to leave that much on the table.

It was probably the smartest career move I could have made, and it really drove home the point: You don't adjust your salary through raises in this industry. If you want to be paid what you deserve, you need to switch jobs.

Aaarrgghhhhh... I raise my coffee to you.

I just got a 2.6% increase after two years - despite that I am a one-guy centre of competence. However, they are paying for me to emigrate (shipping + language courses + letter of guarantee for apartment deposit), replacing the inappropriate job-title-suffix 'assistant' with the awesome prefix 'research', and it is an awesome job.

If you look around you might find you can have all that plus more money. You only live one time, I wouldn't sell myself short if I were you.

well said.

Time != money

Money can be made. Time is much hard to make if at all.

Exactly. We're trading our time for money so the more we make, the less of our time we need to sell (if we're responsible financial planners anyway).

EDIT: Ambiguous wording

Yes - but I am also learning a lot. I don't think I would have ended up knowing the things I know somewhere else. I am pretty good at dead-panning through negotiations :). In two years I will have a full suite of financial modelling code that has been tested on billion dollar products.

Yes, throughout my career I've averaged around a ~25% raise/year (I quit to start my startup after 6 year when it was getting to the point where it would be unrealistic to try and get that kind of payrise anymore).

The trick is knowing your value and making sure your company knows your value as well.

I'm about to graduate in June, so this comment is particularly relevant to my interests. Thanks.

How early is too early to switch jobs?

2 years. Before that you're so green that you're essentially still a college graduate with no experience.

It also depends on what you're doing and whether you're genuinely good. If you have a chance to build something that you can point to to prove that yes, I really am good at what I do, then you'll have a much easier job convincing the next place to take you on.

metawhimsy.com is my current (crappy) resumé. I'm not quite a college graduate, but I wouldn't say I have no experience, either. Unfortunately, I don't have much to point at, either, since most of my experience is sysadmin-y stuff.

Does that change things at all?

My friend is taking a 1 credit hour "learn to get a job" type course in his senior year. Among the few pearls of wisdom, they told him that the average duration for a college grad is 18 months. So I'd say 12-24 months is definitely plausible, as I've heard of people leaving in as little as 8 months. I don't think at that point it's for the money, it's more for the environment because most people don't have a lot of work experience coming out of college to know what type of work environment they'd like. Money isn't everything, and you have to enjoy life beyond your salary.

Experience per unit time would really depend on the company, or if you're in a large company, the team you're working in. My last job was a medium sized company (~200) but my IT team was 7 people when all 5 of the interns came in. I got to do a ton of things that I probably wouldn't have done in a company with more bureaucracy, and that was at intern level.

That pearl is valuable to me; thanks.

2 years is a good but somewhat arbitrary number. As you say, it depends on what you did in that time. At a smaller company, you can be productive almost instantly, allowing you to make major contributions in two years if you really push yourself. At a bigger company, you might spend the first six months just getting up to speed on their sprawling codebase before you can make any contributions. Even after that period, the inertia of politics and legacy code will still be slowing your pace. Two years at Microsoft circa 2010 isn't the same as two years at a fast-moving 20-person company.

So my advice is to make sure the first company you join is one where you can make big contributions right away. Kill yourself working that job. Don't worry too much about screwing up (you will in any case). Do it right and you'll be set on the right path for the rest of your career.

getting up to speed on their sprawling codebase

That too is valuable experience, of getting up to speed on sprawling codebases, which is a skill in its own right, and not one you get taught at college, and one you will need if you want to get involved in substantial projects later on. Negotiating corporate politics is valuable experience early on in your career as well.

There is a cost in switching too soon, and that is that you will be earmarked as a person who flits between jobs. 2-3 years at the first job is de rigeur IMHO. Yes you will learn an awful lot in your first year on the job, but you also have no perspective on how much there is. I remember in the dotcom days kids with 1 year of experience out of college would call themselves "senior software engineer". Good luck getting hired by a guy with 10 years experience!

Sorry for the belated reply:

My first job was at Epic Games working with Unreal Engine 2 which had a codebase of well over a million lines of C++ and UnrealScript. So, I agree with you of the value of learning your way around sprawling legacy codebases. But the company was still small back then (I think I was the 25th employee and the 10th programmer) and you could jump in at the deep end and quickly start getting things done. I've since worked at a massive company. I learned a lot from that, but it would have been frustrating had I gone there in my early career. That's the distinction I was trying to draw.

Getting red-flagged if you have too short stints at jobs is definitely a risk with taking Jason's advice. When I'm hiring people in the game industry, the most important clue in that respect is whether they stayed long enough to ship the projects they started, within reasonable limits. That usually works out to a 2-3 year minimum. That criterion isn't just meant to weed out job hoppers. The final six months of shipping a game are just qualitatively different (often in unpleasant but educational ways) from the rest of the development cycle. If you fucked up your design in the earlier stages, that is when your chickens come home to roost.

2 years is long. 1 year is fine.

For your first job out of school? Really?

Would you hire a guy with 1 year experience into a non-junior position? If not, then where is the advantage from jumping from one junior position to another?

You need to put in a few years of grinding at the beginning of your career to get yourself into a spot where you're probably good. If you jump around too early, you just have to start that grind all over again at the next place.

Depends what they did in their job, and depends what they did on the side.

Don't forget that you can switch jobs internally as well. Companies love to recruit internally, because it's a low-risk hire and they get to retain talent.

But also keep in mind that this has some big caveats: http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2437005

Indeed. After my first year, I got a 36% raise staying on; on changing jobs, I got an effective 200% raise (i.e. tripled my salary).

You can switch jobs inside the company. My salary roughly doubled over 3 years when I started work in the 90s; but my job title changed several times, too.

Depends on the company. A lot of companies will have must-get-CEO-involved-for-exceptions style caps on raises under any situation, so moving to a different part of the company still puts you with a max possible raise. The new team will also know everything about your previous conditions, making negotiation harder.

This may be an outlier, but Google's 10% raise last year + adjustments to base salary, in my case anyway, made them way more competitive and would easily match what switching a job would be.

As a manager, it's been a personally eye-opening experience seeing how companies pay staff and how the constraints a manager has to work under affects their pay rise decisions. People wishfully hope that they get paid based on their contribution/skill level, but there are so many additional factors that come into play.

In all the technical teams (sysadmins, dbas etc) that I've managed, I've consistently seen variations of between $50k-100k between the lowest and highest paid person of the same skill (ie I'm not comparing junior to senior staff).

The things I learned as a manager:

* Always know what the market is paying for your skills. Even if you are not looking for another job, remain subscribed to job websites so you understand what the market is after and what it is paying

* Sharing salary information with people you trust is incredibly valuable - you need to know where you stand. It's in the companies best interests to keep everyone in the dark - it means you won't know your true worth.

* If you love your job, by all means stay - but make sure you aren't using that as an excuse to cover up the fact that you are scared to make a jump, or that your ego is wrapped up in your job title. There are no medals for long service - and as companies (in my experience) generally only pay market rates to external hires, you are better jumping jobs every few years than staying in the one place. You'll develop more skills, earn more money, and I believe in the long term more employable.

This is as true a post as any. Having actually talked to.coworkers who have left out their salary information by accident I can tell first hand what a silvery world we live in. The guy that has no qualms about leaving the job but at the same time eminates an aura of "won't screw the project over" seems to get more of the nod from management than anyone else. It's much less about skill and contributions than retention.

What job site(s) do you recommend for keeping up with market salaries?

www.glassdoor.com, www.indeed.com/salary

INAL.

Disclosing/discussing your salary, while often forbidden in your employment contract, isn't enforceable in many countries.

In the US, some states have specific laws that make such clauses unenforceable (yes, even if you sign the contract). Beyond this, Section 7 of the National Labor Relations Act says that you have the "right to engage in concerted activities for mutual aid and protection." The section has more pretty clear wording on just how well-protected you are.

In the UK, the Equality Act 2010 also protects such discussion/disclosure for the purpose of ensuring you aren't being discriminated against (how can women know that they are being paid less than men if they get fired for talking about salary).

I have to believe that other countries have similar laws, but you should obviously double check.

Of course, if you piss people off, they can generally get rid of you for some other infraction (or none at all). This is easier in some places (like the US with At-will employment) than others (like the UK where I'm told it's considerably harder).

Except in at-will states your employer doesn't need to state a justification to fire you. This means if you discuss your salary and get caught, you have to prove that to be the cause (which is nearly impossible).

Not sure why you say "Except..." since that's exactly what I meant and said. Beyond this though, At-will isn't practiced outside of the US (as far as I know).

I am curious though with whom the burden of proof lies. If your employer says they fired you for no reason (as they can), but you say they fired you because you discussed your salary...something's gotta give. If you can prove that you discussed your salary before being fired, I would think it would look very badly on your employer. At-will might mean that they can fire you for no reason, but it doesn't mean that they can fire you for any reason.

Actually, that's exactly what it means. At-will means that either party (the employer or employee) can end the employment for any reason, good or bad, or no reason at all. Anti-discrimination laws have amended this, so the reasons aren't allowed to be "because the person belonged to a protected class", and there are a few exceptions for things such as employers not being allowed to fire employees for refusing to take part in illegal activities, but it is otherwise largely intact and very well can be used to fire somebody discussing their salary.

Again, INAL, but..

The National Labor Relations Board has ruled numerous time on this..and the termination of employees who disclose salary information is unlawful.

Examples: Lutheran Heritage Village-Livonia, 343 N.L.R.B. 646 (2004)

NLRB v. Main Street Terrace Care Center 18 F.3d 531

There's also state-specific clauses, like California's Labor Code is #232.

As silly as it sounds, At-will employment lets you fire someone for no reason, but it doesn't let you fire someone for an illegal reason. You can't fire someone for taking a lunch break or vacation time which is protected by various labor laws, just like you can't fire someone for being black.

Again, to me, the question is with whom does the burden of proof rest?

I apologise; I am clearly not familiar with the current state of exceptions. I'm sure it's obvious that IANAL as well, but, outside of specific exceptions (of which salary disclosure is apparently one as of the last decade) at-will still means "any reason or no reason" (though, California isn't exactly the best example of "at-will"....).

Unless my knowledge in this case also happens to be woefully out of date, the burden of proof lies on the allegedly wrongfully terminated employee.

Well, the issue is that the company in an At-will state will never give any official reason for a termination. They will resist even giving a reason as long as they can and if forced there will always be something they can use.

One of many reasons to never work in a backwards "At-will" state.

I think the last point about your best chance for getting a good salary being during the interview is a pretty good one.

Salary increases tend to be considered in relation to your current salary, not in relation to your value to the company, unless you do something mind-blowing. Better to get in at $120k and never get a raise than to get in at $80k and get small raises every 6 months.

I often get the feeling that I'm significantly less well paid than others in the company. I've seen pro formas for certain management positions and some ideas on wages in a company we just acquired, and I'm sure I'm pretty low on the list.

Part of the disparity is likely negotiating tactics (I know one employee who got a nice raise after getting a competing offer), and the desire of the company to pay the least amount possible.

For me, another big part is that my job can't be directly attributed to a revenue stream (we're in the services industry). For those who's jobs are directly paid by contract with the client, they'll pay whatever the client will agree to. For those of us in "overhead", they'll pay as little as possible because it's difficult, if not impossible, to assign a dollar amount to the value that we bring to the company.

I would venture to guess that devs that work for software development business get paid more than those that are just in IT at a non-software company.

You always have to be willing to walk away. If you're early in your career, this means building up your skills (and certs, if you're in IT) to the point where you feel very confident that you can get another job quickly if necessary. If you're more advanced in your career, it means keeping your networks/skills fresh and possibly doing some freelancing on the side.

It's not even just about salary negotiation; knowing you can walk away whenever you want to (and actually believing that you will if you decide to) gives you the freedom to take risks and just have more fun at your job in general.

I work in the software and it can be just as hard for developers to figure out where they fit in the revenue stream. I've talked to guys that work IT in large corporations and they make boats more than I do for the equivalent amount of work and expertise. The only difference is they are a company of 5000 and we are a company of 25.

I believe the only people that can truly justify their pay with any accurate metric are salespeople. They are paid entirely by commission and no sales means no income so there is no question about what they are paid. They do get additional perks like company cars, expensed meals, etc that fall outside the metrics. So 10 developers work on one product that draws in $2 million of revenue. How do you slice that up? by lines of code, hours worked, bugs squashed?

I would also say that large software companies pay developers more than small software companies. But I find this to be the case in almost every industry.

Salespeople can justify their pay relative to each other, but not in an absolute sense (at least not any more than developers, anyway). If it were absolute, why would you need developers at all?

Their pay is only relative to what they sell. Which is about as absolute as you can get. Developers, and many other occupations are paid relative to each other. A mid-level developer in Missouri will not get NYC rates no matter how hard they try.

The best way to find out is to polish up your resume and actually see. We only know the value of things when people are buying them. Your time is a free market asset and there is only one way to know the actual value of it.

And you don't have to take any of the offers you get, you can do what ever you like with the information. But if you want to know what you're really worth this is the only true way.

Subtitle: the benefits of paying everybody the exact same base salary.

Managers, read up. Do you want to make your team members feel like this? Communicate clearly beforehand about what leads to incentive pay (good code) and disincentive pay (chatty phone calls). If you didn't communicate clearly, you don't get to skimp on labour costs.

Isn't the subtitle: Make sure you keep confidential info confidential?

Being cynical, I would say that up to the point the info leaked, you had a good developer at a cheap rate who actually thought he was being paid well. A win win for the manager.

I wouldn't call a situation where said developer discovering one small piece of information changes from him being a happy, productive member into a disgruntled employee a "win win". It could easily lead to a situation where much more value is lost than was ever created from this arbitrage situation (through morale-based negligence, not actual malice).

I think that people should be able to negotiate their salaries even if it leads to a large disparity in base salary. Without negotiations, companies risk losing talent.

However, I think the way raises are calculated needs to be revised. Currently raises are typically some percent of the salary and the range of percentages is fairly narrow (so the disparity remains constant). If instead raises were calculated with the goal of equalizing the salaries of like-performing employees the disparity would fade in a few years.

The problem with this, of course, is that lower paid employees get larger raises, which may seem unfair to the better paid employees. This can be solved by making salaries more transparent.

Although if salaries were more transparent then you probably wouldn't have as many problems in the first place.

Understand the following restrictions from the manager's point of view;

a) everyone thinks they're smarter / better / faster etc than the folk around them.

b) everyone thinks they deserve "above average" pay.

c) there is always someone else at the company making more. There's always some company down the road paying more.

given these constraints there are always going to be people who think they deserve, or indeed want, more. No matter what he does a bunch of people are gonna be upset.

Reminds me of the time I was managing 3 developers, and all 3 independently came to see me to complain they weren't being paid more than the other 2, when in fact they worked harder than the other 2 and were more valuable. Of course they measured "worth" differently to me, but whichever way it turned out 2 were gonna be unhappy.

I understand. Isn't that what a manager's job is? Manage constraints? I have worked with some great managers and have a lot of respect for the good ones. However, we can't get our appreciation for our manager get in the way of our compensation. As a non-manager I care more about maximising my compensation than the manager's point of view.

Fair enough, as long as you recognize it's a zero-sum game. Indeed regardless of what he does it's probably at least two thirds of the people will be unhappy with the outcome. You're obviously welcome to (and should) push for your own cause.

My point is that a) you cannot make all the people happy all the time b) chances are, at least some of the time you'll be in the unhappy group. c) if you change jobs every time you're not happy (in this context) you're gonna have a lot of jobs because every manager is working under these same constraints.

Or put another way - the rules of the game are not set by the manager - therefore changing jobs to find a better manager (generally speaking - and in this context) is not a fruitful solution.

I'm _not_ saying all managers are the same, or you should work for a moronic manager who is bad at their job. I am saying that in order to play the game it's helpful to understand what the rules are. The running-back can blame the quarter-back all day long, but if what he's asking for is unachievable, then no amount of quarter-back-changing will help.

I recently interviewed for a job at a web agency that I was perfect for; literally, the job listing described my resume. Consequently, I nailed the interview. He asked me what my salary requirements were and I told him; he said he'd run it by the powers that be. It was clear they would offer me the job, the only question was the salary offer.

So he gets back to me and says they want me but my salary requirement is a bit high. Hmm, okay, what do you have in mind? He throws out a number that is $30-40k lower than my salary requirement. I laughed out loud and said good luck finding the right candidate.

I found the same job listing on Craigslist the other day. They lowered the years of experience from 5-7 to TWO, and made a bunch of required experience optional. Good luck with that!

The fact is that while you have the right to negotiate what you're paid, that negotiation works both ways. The truth is that the company will pay you the absolute minimum required to get the work they need. So, it's up to you to know the market rate, and negotiate accordingly. If you aren't paid what you think you're worth, there's no one to blame but you.

Any sympathy I had for the author was lost when he said that he would have been happy had he not seen the list. I'm aware of the cognitive biases in effect here but, really, if he was happy with his salary it shouldn't matter if someone else was getting paid more, and if he wasn't happy the list shouldn't have had anything to do with that.

you are missing the point, is not about money is about repect and professional esteem, if you are a husband and your wife tells you she loves you you will be very happy, but then you find all the other guys she is screwing around with (and loves more than you) and nothing has changed between you two but now you are pretty angry aren't you?

Tough luck, mate; you happen to be talking to a polyamorist :)

Well the part about X is getting more than me is important from a value estimation point of view. He thought he was getting close to market rate until he saw what other people were making. The proper response would have been to start looking around and find out if he actually is being underpaid.

I sort of feel mixed on this one. I myself took a very low starting wage because the company I work at does gaming technology, and it's in a fairly small town, so my costs are very low. This wouldn't be a problem except that the technology the company uses is so specialized that it can't be applied anywhere else in the world (they have their own programming language and game engine technology which is used exclusively internally).

Now, 2 years in, I have the experience out of uni to be able to move to other jobs, but i'm still on a pathetic salary, with no additional benefits or anything, even during crunch times.

Since coming to this realization, I have made a plan to do something about it, so I have started learning new programming languages and tools, generating a portfolio of project euler problems, brushing up my CV, etc. Articles like this serve as good motivation/reminder that I need to keep doing this and aim for something better.

> 5) A developer’s best chance at achieving a maximum salary increase is to negotiate during the hiring process. Once you are on board, you are at the company’s mercy unless you bail.

This is true indeed for a worse than average developer: after a year or so the employer learns that they are not really worth the money; at this point it will be hard for employer to cut back the salary.

Any developer (good or bad) stands a better chance to get hired by agreeing to lower compensation. Best developers have a good chance of successfully negotiating a significant salary raise after a year or so once they've proven their worth. At this stage they have much more leverage over the employer because it's quite costly to let a good developer go.

Overall I feel the author could have negotiated a much better deal.

That's how it should work, but not how it works.

you are at the company’s mercy

Only if you have no better options. This guy was building a house and probably had limited savings. His manager knew it. If you want a higher salary, improve your negotiating position—for example, by having enough savings to live for a year at your current lifestyle. Focus on accumulating that cash reserve before building a house or otherwise overextending your finances and you'll suddenly find yourself less of a pushover when performance review time comes along.

The author seems to feel a bit envious/jealous of the other peoples salaries and thinks it's the boss' fault (and by the way the boss is just making up stuff to tell him). My advise would have been to get over it! Salary is not black and white. Was he "happy" with his salary before he learned what others earned? If so who cares what the others make. When starting out "many" years ago I knew with certainty that I was almost paid the lowest of everyone, funnily enough it made me think intellectually about what makes the salary beyond just skill and contribution; your context, past history, current market demand (dot com hire vs post do com hire) etc. I never felt bad for even a second.. Never used it in a netotiation. Chase the passion and strive for excellence and solid dedicated work in a "good" organisation working for great people and the money will usually follow I think (or at least you will feel good and happy).

(sent from phone)

Since a lot of the comments here are about strategy when negotiating salaries - everyone really should buy a book about negotiation and then find opportunities to practice. (You might not be hopping jobs at the moment, but you can negotiate a lot more than your salary.)

I like Roger Dawson's 'Secrets of Power Negotiating' myself.

> (You might not be hopping jobs at the moment, but you can negotiate a lot more than your salary.)

Play boardgames, if you have no other opportunity. (Diplomacy is good, and can be played by email.) Or start haggling in shops.

Me and my co-workers always share how much we make. It's not a big deal. We understand that some make more, some make a lot less. Most often it's how well you negotiate. It rarely has to do with how great your skills are.

If that spreadsheet happened to be in my hands, I wouldn't know how to exploit it. What the author did is ruined the relationship with his manager over a crappy 2% raise.

I would just return it, make a joke, and started interviewing. If you're at the bottom while they tell you that you're great, it's a long way up.

Actually, I think what he did with it was what he should have done. I doubt it ruined the relationship, and from the sounds of the article, nothing indicates that. If anything, it could have strengthened it because he kept his word and approached the situation level headed.

He didn't go on the offensive when talking to the manager. It would have put the manager on the defensive and surely ruined the relationship then.

Instead, he tried to take the approach of what can he do to make more. He finally got constructive feedback, got a clear explanation of why the differences, and asked for harder assignments to prove himself.

"He didn't go on the offensive when talking to the manager."

Right, and in return the manager put the squeeze on him which cost him thousands if not tens of thousands over the years. He should have

* gone to the manager first and have asked for a higher raise (in a non-confrontational way).

* used it as leverage for a better description of what he needed to do to get a higher raise in the next review round

* not let him be pushed in a corner where he's being compared to his colleagues. This is a sure loss position. You need to differentiate yourself so that you are freed from the mental chains of other people's salaries, and you can argue a higher salary on individual merit. This is a rookie mistake I hear so often (and that people have thanked me for pointing it out to them when I discussed with them about their upcoming salary negotiations).

(apart from this, it's refreshing not to have post scores visible!)

At this point, I think a lot is being assumed by the post and it is difficult to go further than ones perception of what the author wrote.

My perception is different than yours. There really isn't any supporting facts to either.

What the author did is ruined the relationship with his manager over a crappy 2% raise.

The relationship is what it is. The only thing was before, the manager knew it and he didn't. c/ruined/revealed.

I had a problem along as a result of sharing. My friend was earning half as much as me, and had a child with a genetic disorder which made child rearing extremely demanding. I felt pretty guilty about it.

Fortunately, she changed jobs from academia to industry, and probably now makes two to three times as much as me...

Then you shouldn't feel bad. She was leaving money on the table that she needed. Your conversation led her to make necessary changes. If you had kept quiet she might still be struggling.

While salary is certainly important, I can't help but think that it's wiser to work harder on yourself than on your job. In the end, the stress/time that you spend worrying about salary increases and getting underpaid should be spent improving yourself and finding alternative ways of income besides making a living

Reply on news.ycombinator.com