Hacker News Reader

Comment by sbt | Hacker News Reader

If this contains one great truth it's this

> By The Time You Give Them a Raise, It’s Too Late.

I have seen this happen often. If you get a higher offer from a second company, you will think that the first employer paid you below par, which leads to a feeling of being taken advantage of. At that point, it doesn't really help if the offer is countered, the feeling of being exploited has already taken root.

Unfortunately, most managers just don't get this, or they somehow believe that they can counter offer. Maybe that works in sales/marketing, who knows, but I think it's different in dev.

View on HN

If you are dissatisfied with your compensation, speak up before you go looking elsewhere. If you say you're leaving, do it.

Accepting a counter-offer is almost always a bad idea; no matter how much money is on the table. After accepting a counter-offer you are bought and paid-for, you decided to stay for the cash and, unfortunately, your loyalty to the company will be questioned forever after.

That is the standard advice and I have agreed with it for a long time.

However, that highly depends on the company, especially large one. There is very often a disconnect between line management, HR, and all the parallel hierarchies that make up the company - meaning there is no direct relationship between people caring about your loyalty and people that have the means to do anything about it.

Personally, nowadays I'm almost convinced there is no drawback. I have seen just too many people offered a red carpet for years after such threats.

Maybe you didn't know you were worth more, and neither did your employer?

> your loyalty to the company will be questioned

If loyalty means "you can fuck me over and I'll stick around," it's a vice, not a virtue.

Loyalty keeps sweatshops fully staffed while keeping good businesses from replacing anyone who is a bad fit.

In fact, why would any business want a "loyal" employee, someone incapable of recognizing or acting in situations that have grown lopsided? If someone struggles with strategic decisionmaking in their own life, why trust them to aggressively act in the best interests of the business?

Feudalism is long dead. The occasional job change shouldn't merit a scarlet letter.

Your model is too simple.

In my mind, a loyal employee is one who will ride out the ups and downs in a relationship, and put in the effort necessary to make things work. The same is true for a loyal employer.

To that end, I think a loyal employee should speak up when they think they deserve more money, because it is in everybody's best interests that they be fairly paid. And I think a loyal boss should a) do their best to make sure that employees are already fairly paid, and b) when they slip, to be grateful that an employee has taken the risk of talking about something that can be difficult.

I get what you're saying, but I don't feel like calling his model "too simple" is fair when yours is predicated on loyal employers. They exist, but I think I'd be hard-pressed to rely on their beneficence.

I don't think any healthy relationship involves relying on beneficence. Loyalty for me at work is more about recognizing and acting for long-term benefit, not short-term gain. I think loyalty, along with trust, gets built over time, and it's something both parties have to work toward.

By "too simple", I meant that his model of the world was too black and white. Trust isn't a binary condition. It's a continuum. A collaboration.

In your estimation, how often does loyalty come from the side of the table with all the money? :p

I can't really estimate that, but I've seen it happen a fair bit. And I've benefited from it as well. But then, I'm choosy about where I spend my time.

I think you would benefit from learning more about human psychology.

I've actually studied psych. Econ and game theory are worthwhile disciplines too, and sometimes make better predictions when money is on the table.

Every time I see the word "loyalty" used in the business and employment concept I cringe.

If my boss ever mentions it in a sentence. I swear I'll quit within a week.

Loyalty to a capitalist legal entity who will fuck you for a dollar is absurd. Reserve your loyalty for your family.

It's primarily around future raises - once you accept a counteroffer, your future raises won't be as good (if they happen) as "What if he leaves right after?" is always on their minds.

The counterpoint is you've ID'd yourself as someone who cares about their comp and is aware of their value on the market.

Those signals are positively correlated with future raises. (I agree that getting an off-cycle counter will have some negative correlation to your future raises, mostly because "you already got some of it" will be on the mind.)

You don't get what you're worth, you get what you negotiate.

If an employee feels taken advantage of, then I'm afraid they're going to go through life with a victim mentality, and probably aren't a rockstar to begin with.

Fine, but if I find somewhere willing to treat me like a respectable human involved in building their business and not just a cost centre to be minimised...

Take the following scenario (forgive me for using $--your word choice leads me to believe you may not be in the US)

Say I have $10 to pay you. I ask you what you'd like. You say $7. I offer you $7. You agree.

Where is the disrespect?

If I wanted to buy some good will, I could offer you $8, and you'd be happy because I paid you more than you asked.

In this scenario, I gave you the upper hand by allowing you to tell me what you'd like.

I could have "anchored" the discussion by making an offer, or telling you the salary range for the position.

Now you would feel disrespected if you found out that I actually could have paid you $10, but instead only offered $7 or $8. However you got what you wanted, so being upset is irrational.

In all likelihood, you were upset because you would rather be given the $10, instead of having to negotiate.

People get upset because they feel uncomfortable about negotiating, and mix emotions and feelings when doing so. It's not an emotional affair. Negotiation is about leverage, and with some practice, you can get good at it.

For negotiating salary, you should do one of two things:

1. Figure out exactly what you want to be happy. Ignoring if you're asking for too little. Ask for that figure. It helps if you can justify the reasoning.

2. Figure out what you are worth, and ask for that. Again, it helps if you can justify this with facts.

If the company does not make you an offer that matches, and instead counter offers, then you should weigh their reasoning or just politely tell them no, and find someone else that will.

> People get upset because they feel uncomfortable about negotiating

Some of that discomfort is justified, as negotiation and other methods of hidden pricing can lock in discrimination.

Ian Ayers found this effect when examining negotiations leading to car sales, leading to widespread racial and gender discrimination. Negotiation discrepancies were found to account for 10-15% of a gendered salary gap observed in Portugal by Card, Cardoso, and Kline. A survey of the lit on gender discrimination in employment is provided in Linda Babcock's "Women Don't Ask." (I feel like I've seen HUD research on negotiation effects for housing, but can't track it down.)

Not saying it's not a skill people should learn to deal with the realities out there, but it can be a pretty insidious activity too, even when none of the participants think they're doing anything wrong.

I 100% agree with you.

That's why I try not to approach salary negotiating with people I'm going to hire in an adversarial manner.

My goal is to get them to join the team, and to pay them a salary they can feel proud of, and allow them to focus on doing great work for the company.

But, I also have the very real constraint that I only have so much money to spend.

>>Where is the disrespect?

There is a clear display on lack of honesty here. And such people don't deserve any loyalty at all. If a company can't be honest with its own people they will definitely cheat their customers.

>>so being upset is irrational.

Right, if some doesn't know they are being cheated. Cheating is now perfectly justified. In fact if they discover later what happened its wrong on their part to be refuse to be cheated further.

>> There is a clear display on lack of honesty here. And such people don't deserve any loyalty at all. If a company can't be honest with its own people they will definitely cheat their customers.

In the hypothetical scenario I outlined, was there a lack of honesty?

There is an imbalance of information, certainly, but I don't think that information should be disclosed.

>>> Right, if some doesn't know they are being cheated. Cheating is now perfectly justified. In fact if they discover later what happened its wrong on their part to be refuse to be cheated further.

Along the same lines, where is the cheating occurring?

I am surprised you don't see the lack of honesty. A person/system knows what the fair measure of pay is towards labor of an individual. Instead of paying that they turn this into a negotiation game, and hope they can squeeze as much out based on how ignorant a person is.

Please note this negotiation attitude is unacceptable on job. They demand a more human requirement, called 'loyalty'.

>>where is the cheating occurring?

I am not sure how else would you term that.

I agree with what you're saying. I (assuming I am the system) should not take advantage of people, and use negotiating tactics to get them to work for less pay than they deserve.

However, "market rate" isn't just a flat value you get when punching in a formula, and is subjective.

Also, I think you've read more into what I wrote.

I didn't mention what was fair pay. I just said I had $10 to pay someone, and asked what they wanted, and offered them just that.

Why did you assume that $7 was not market? Why did you assume that the individual was ignorant when asking for $7? Why did you assume the individual was entitled to the full $10, perhaps they performed only okay during the interview, but showed signs of promise?

The point I'd like to illustrate is that if you're paid an amount that makes you happy, or that you are okay with because you had some control over it (i.e. negotiating), it seems childish to accuse the system of cheating, or being unfair if you later find out there was money "left on the table."

In life, no one is going to watch out for your best interests. I don't believe in screwing people over, "cheating" them if you will, but I also don't believe in overpaying either.

At some point, for most individuals, the utility value of additional money diminishes.

Hopefully you will get to a point where making an extra $10k in salary isn't the deciding factor in joining a company.

In the same way, if an employee, say, does not "fully disclose" that they are leaving town in a month while applying to a full time job, that is also perfectly OK, right? Not dishonest at all? The distinction between a lie and not telling the full truth is a trivial detail.

What? How? Huh?

How is this about not telling the truth?

Do you walk around telling everyone everything?

The disrespect comes in not figuring out what's fair.

If an employee asks for less then market price for their skills, I pay them market price. If I paid them less, I'd be taking advantage. Fuck that.

> The disrespect comes in not figuring out what's fair.

This is besides the point of what I outlined. "Fair" is not a concept that applies to the real world. Nothing is "fair." Instead, and what I think you're saying is that you want people to act in good faith--this I agree with.

If someone doesn't know their own value, I shouldn't take advantage of them.

You've assumed that was the case in my scenario--note that I never mentioned market rate.

I also shouldn't use information imbalance, or other forms of negotiating tactics to unfairly gain an advantage on someone.

All this, I agree with. However, if I ask you "what is your salary requirements" and you make a reasonable request, and I meet that, I don't see how you can feel cheated if you could have got more money.

That you don't see some thing doesn't mean that it doesn't exist. It just means you don't see it.

That includes fairness.

For the record, I 100% believe in paying people what they are worth.

Determining that worth isn't an exact science.

I also believe that after a certain point, money has less appeal to people--that is, people are no longer motivated by the money.

By asking someone what they want, I'd like them to tell me what it is they need to be happy, so I can offer it to them.

The following video makes some pretty good points along that line: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u6XAPnuFjJc

If you ask people what they want and pay it to them, you will overpay some and underpay others. If you truly believe in paying people what they are worth, you have to go further.

You slightly miss my position; but people are emotional. Do you really want unhappy employees for the benefit of saving $1?

Say I have $10 to pay you. I ask you what you'd like. You say $7. I offer you $7. You agree. Where is the disrespect? [..] Now you would feel disrespected if you found out that I actually could have paid you $10, but instead only offered $7 or $8*

At this point, there is no disrespect, That's good. And I wouldn't feel disrespected if I found out your budget could have been higher.

However, if I asked for $5 and you paid me $5 and I was happy, and the person next to me in the same role asked for $7 and you paid it, then they asked for a pay rise to $8 and you paid it ... and then I found out, I would start feeling annoyed.

You suggest "figuring out exactly what you want to be happy" - what if that is not a number of dollars, but a sense that everything is fair and considerate throughout the company?

I work for you, fighting problems on your behalf, for your profit. I want to do that with my employer and coworkers solidly supporting me, not having my employer provide the bare minimum of support unless pushed.

Would you want an employee that was doing the bare minimum, literally only doing what you ask and nothing more, replying "sorry, can't help, not in the contract" to every customer request no matter how easy or how happy it would make them?

Why would you want to be an employer doing effectively that to your employees? Why think all you need to do is point out that it's fair because they're rubbish at negotiating, and then expect them to be happy with that?

I'd rather stay away from software jobs that want "rockstars" or "ninjas" or "gurus".

Why?

The cynic in me thinks that's self selecting.

You might end up working with a bunch of self-described 'rockstars', 'ninjas' and 'gurus', who I should imagine would be unbearable to spend time around.

I wouldn't want to work with people who self describe as top performers, unless that classification is also given by their peers, performance reviews, and accomplishments.

Please don't use the word "rockstar" in a serious sentence.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com