Google’s Answer to Overheated Job Market: Demanding Proof of Rival Offers | Hacker News Reader

Google’s Answer to Overheated Job Market: Demanding Proof of Rival Offers

theinformation.com

32 pointsjedberg43 comments

Netflix actually encouraged us to interview at other companies. They (rightly) felt it was a win for everyone. You got to learn a little bit about another company as well as about yourself and what you wanted in a job.

And if you decided to leave, then it freed up a space for someone else who would be happier in your role, and if you stayed it provided information to HR for level setting not only you but all your peers as well.

Wow thats a good look for Netflix

More money than deities. Still cheapskates.

It's not enough to win; the other side must lose too.

Capital cannot concede any bargaining power to Labor, no matter the cost.

Just one historical example. The railroads nuked the unions (Wobblies), centered in Spokane WA. One tactic was charging more for freight to and from Spokane, the geographical center of the Inland Empire, than to bypass Spokane. So Seattle to Chicago was cheaper than Spokane to Chicago, even though the trains still go thru Spokane. Broke the union. And Spokane never recovered.

Start a company that makes offer letters.

Oh hell yes, I love this.

In order for Google to match my FB offer, I did need to show them evidence of the offer amount (just an email from someone with a facebook.com email address casually confirming the numbers was sufficient). I thought it was weird, but luckily the evidence was easy to get so it didn't affect me.

I would personally quit out of principle if an employer asked, let alone demanded, to see an offer I received from another company.

This has been the case with any counter offer situation I've been in.

I didn't realize this wasn't being done everywhere.

I've never even considered a counter-offer - when I put in my notice, I'm already committed to the new role.

Counter offers just say 'yeah we thought we could get away with paying you that all this time, but here's what we could have been paying you'

My last gig gave me a 2% raise then rubbed salt in the wound by saying that I should feel privileged because only a few people got a raise.

When I left a few weeks later, they attempted to provide a counter and the promotion to a level that was still below where I probably should have been hired into.

Exactly, I cannot fathom why someone would accept a counter-offer, it just puts a huge target on your back. You get branded as not loyal or as a "money grubber". Every company I've left, I left for a reason that was always more than just money. Money might have played into it but in those cases it was "I don't want to work for a company that refuses to reward my effort even when pressed". When I choose to leave a job it's often because of cultural or fundamental ways a company operates that doesn't work for me, no counter offer is going to change that.

So not loyal money grabbers get to label you as a not loyal money grabber. Not a big loss. The higher somebody is in the management chain, the less loyal and the more money grabby they are.

I don't disagree with you but doing so can really hurt any chances you might have for advancement at the company. So, in my opinion, you are shooting yourself in the foot to accept the counter offer. Yes, in the short term it might work well but except to have all routes to advancement (or even new/cool/interesting/etc projects) closed to you and eventually you'll have to get a new job to continue to grow/move up. Better to take the new job you have now and roll the dice on how well the new company will reward your hard work. At worst you are in the same situation in a few years but with new experiences.

Your advancement depends on your personal relationships with the right people. They all are not loyal money grabbers and they are gonna jump the ship one day. Your goal is to find a common ground with them and call them when you also need to jump ship.

As an employer, I think it would also better to let the person go on their merry way. I feel this is like taking back an ex. Once they go, be gone; don't come back. One can't help but have a suspicion they'll be looking again.

As an employee I don't think I would agree to a counter offer either. Once you make a deal (agree with the other company's offer) that's what you "shook" on. Obviously people have a diff pov on this and that's okay.

I agree with your second paragraph completely but I don't draw any parallels between a relationship and working for a company in the same way "we are a family" is immediately translated to "we expect you to put in more effort than we are paying you for and we will drop you at the first sign of trouble" (a LOT of people learned this the hard way throughout the pandemic). In a relationship I wouldn't be ok if my partner was always "window shopping" for "someone better" or, probably the better analogy, still on Tinder/Bumble/whatever-they-are-using-these-days while we were dating. When it comes to work I try to treat it purely as business. If a company could get the same output from someone else for less money than they pay me they would take that option in a heartbeat, they can't get mad if I do the reverse of that.

I agree. If you don’t like something are you currently coming speak to them before even going on interviews. Accepting the counter offer is the worst thing that one can do.

Meanwhile Facebook is now refusing to put offers in writing without a verbal acceptance.

They're probably tired of people interviewing there just to get an offer letter for use in negotiating a raise at their current/'prior' employer.

"Tired" isn't a valid reason for a corporation to do something. Systematically insulted? Probably and they totes magotes deserve it.

I do not mean to imply that a corporation is physically tired. I also doubt that they are "systematically insulted".

Human resources personnel and interviewers are likely frustrated with the experience of interviewing and arranging for offers for many people who are not accepting; this may be causing an appreciable decline in employee morale. Additionally, interviewing is fairly expensive, especially when the success rate (of hiring candidates that make it through multiple stages of interview) declines because of the effect I am describing.

Executives may have decided upon this course of action to correct the two problems I describe immediately above.

Yeah and what an awful, insane and disconnected decision! If my intelligence is so insulted at square one, who the hell would I be working with if I accepted lol. People with no intellect or self respect?

Just out of curiosity, what difference does verbal acceptance make?

Legally: none. Making accepted applicants disrespect you? Infinite.

How do devs ask to get offers in writing? It's always been verbal in all the interviews I've had, and they're resistant to putting things in emails.

"I'd like to review the paperwork before signing". Usually when you start a new job you have to sign paperwork with the salary and other comp. It's totally reasonable to ask to review that before signing. It's also totally reasonable to go back to them afterwards and tell them you weren't happy with the offer after reviewing it.

I've never had this problem; usually it's either written in an email (rarely) or an official offer letter attached as a PDF (90%+ case). It's not at all unusual to ask for an offer in writing, and I'd never consider one real at all until I had that!

Yes but I've only received it in writing usually only after verbally accepting the offer, not before to play off of each other.

Need negotiation tips, if I may?

If I prove to Google that I am getting another better offer, how can I negotiate to make them eke out maximum salary?

For ex - Suppose I am getting USD $100k/ annum from Facebook, what is the maximum amount I can ask from Google and make them pay?

Google has tripled its profits, but of course it's whining about the rising salaries.

How does this even come up? Are candidates flouting other offers? Why not just counter-offer like an adult?

Recruiter: Congratulations! Everyone loved you so we are looking to move forward with an offer. The level we are hiring you at pays, $x salary and $y in RSUs with a 4 year vest.

Candidate: Well, I have an offer from FB for $x++ salary and $y++ RSUs.

Recruiter: Let me speak with the hiring manager and see what we can do.

Looks like recruiter are updating that last line to be something like,

Recruiter: Can you forward me a copy of that offer letter and the name of the person who sent it so that I may verify its authenticity? After that, I'll speak with the hiring manager and see what we can do.

And the correct move there is to say:

“Actually, I’m very close to going with this new offer. I really clicked with the team. If Google wants to counter, I can wait till tomorrow to make my decision”.

That sounds like illegal wage fixing to me. Companies should not be able to disclose this kind of information to each other and twisting an employees arm to consent to such disclosure is questionable. Employees don't get enough information to do similar tactics to maximize their salaries so the end result is keeping salaries artificially low.

I think constant wage fixing has actually backfired for big tech. The savings in pay they have made might be an impressive number but it is very little compared to what they leave on the table whenever they fail at a software eating the world project, and they end up with a lot more competition from companies that can afford to match their compensation despite operating in much smaller markets and having very little profit relatively.

Why would it matter if the offer was “real”? Google should pay what the employee is worth to them. I say “FB offered me 400k, what’s your offer?”, what’s the point of Google asking for proof? My value to them hasn’t changed. I’d withdraw my application with that as it demonstrates a lack of trust.

Companies pay the minimum they can afford to hire/keep employees.

Believing that [X] company "should pay what the employee is worth to them" is misunderstanding how companies operate.

Companies will pay what they have to. I encourage everyone too seek the pay they are worth.

That is good advice. I would add, you determine your worth, don't depend on any company to reevaluate your value.

Agreed!

> is misunderstanding how companies operate.

The better question is: "Does it actually bring better long-term value to the company?" For those who think it does not, then the strategy seems in conflict with achieving the best results.

It is about job candidates and not current employees asking for a rise.

Yes, it’s equally ridiculous and anti-worker either way. Trust is the foundation for good management and culture.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com