Demystifying Salary Information

Arun Jacob points us to an article in the NYTimes about online tools that can help in salary negotiations. The article concentrates on two websites — Salary.com and Payscale.com — that use different approaches to provide information on standard compensation packages for particular positions and roles. The theory is that, armed with information that was once available only to corporate HR departments, you could have an easier time negotiating your pay using a fact-based rather than a feelings-based approach.

Comments

my two cents

[User 956]

you could have an easier time negotiating your pay using a fact-based rather than a feelings-based approach.

Tip #1: get salary info from friends with similar experience in a similar job before the interview Tip #2: whoever mentions a number first, loses.

Re:my two cents

[CrankyFool]

Mentioning a number doesn't have to be to your disadvantage. I usually shy away from it, but in this current position I named a number -- about 5% more than what I actually wanted -- as the bottom of my range, and that's what I ended up getting offered (plus a 10% annual bonus). You just have to be liberal.

(And this is for work for a major staffing company).

Re:my two cents

[forkazoo]

Mentioning a number doesn't have to be to your disadvantage. I usually shy away from it, but in this current position I named a number -- about 5% more than what I actually wanted -- as the bottom of my range, and that's what I ended up getting offered (plus a 10% annual bonus). You just have to be liberal.

(And this is for work for a major staffing company).

Ummm... I'm not sure why you suggest that this worked to your advantage. You named a number which was obviously well within their comfort zone or they would have had to decline it or negotiate it. If they had named the first number, it might have been higher since you don't know the full range of their comfort zone. It's also possible that their initial offer would have been lower, but you could still negotiate past your goal. Once you have named a number, then they know that they won't need to offer anything higher. You will never be able to negotiate higher than your first offer. Likewise, if you are offering a job, when you go first, you can never negotiate lower than your initial offer because the candidate knows you can do better.

Re:my two cents

[SocialWorm]

Tip #2: whoever mentions a number first, loses

I've heard this a lot, and I'm genuinely curious: has anyone ever actually done a study to figure out how going first affects negotiations and haggling? It shouldn't be too hard, at a minimum, to set up a small experiment in which person A has something that's worth about $5, person B actually has $5, tell them to trade, and then observe how going first or second affects the average result.

You can't always trust folk wisdom, and such an experiment, or carefully conducting a survey, seems so straightforward that I find it hard to believe no one's done it before.

Re:my two cents

[ranton]

Maybe he could have gotten 10% more than what he wanted.

Re:my two cents

[theshowmecanuck]

The salary surveys are good if you are moving from one region to another. You need to have some way to know the market rate if you are moving to a new area.

This is a good tip I got once, and it works for most types of negotiating: Always be willing to walk away if you don't get what you want. That means if you don't get what you want, really walk away and don't look back. If they really want you, they will follow and compromise and you win. If they don't, you won't feel bad about getting less than you want. That doesn't mean you might not haggle a bit with them. What it does mean is that you will be able to work from a position of advantage. And you won't have a look of desperation.

If you really need the job, you can always bluff, but in the end you really need the job so take what you can get. That is why it is always better to look for work while you are working. You can afford to walk away.

It's free advice. You get what you pay for.

Re:my two cents

[senatorpjt]

Well, I'm an idiot. I had a domain name that someone asked me if I'd sell. I never got around to putting up the site that I had planned to, so I just gave it away. (drunkreport.com :)

Then again, the guy actually put up a site and keeps it updated, so I guess he put a lot more into it, than I did just by thinking of the name first.

Re:my two cents

[senatorpjt]

I've heard this a lot, and I'm genuinely curious: has anyone ever actually done a study to figure out how going first affects negotiations and haggling?

Sounds like a game called "Poker". You may have heard of it, I hear it's becoming popular.

Re:my two cents

[mgblst]

Remindes me:

A guys walks up to a pretty girl at a bar.

"Would you sleep with me for a million dollars?"

She looks him up and down, "Well, OK"

"Well, then, would you sleep with me for a dollar?"

"Hell no, what sort of girl do you think I am" she replies.

"I think we have already established that, now we are just working out price!"

Re:my two cents

[Anonymous Coward]

The parent poster named a salary that was higher than the minimum he or she was comfortable with. If you get the salary you want (or better), shouldn't that be sufficient? Or are people today just not happy until they make everyone else bleed?

-M

Re:my two cents

[freeweed]

Sometimes, it's not all about nickel and diming your way to the absolute maximum possible salary. Sometimes, it's actually possible to be fairly compensated without resorting to psychological games with your employer.

If I'm happy and the employer's happy, it makes for a far more plesant salary negotiation than imagining my employment contract to be akin to haggling over a used car.

Re:my two cents

[IANAAC]

That's called "extra", not a disadvantage.

Re:my two cents

[ranton]

No, it is not extra. It is money that he seams to be worth (since the company is willing to pay it). He just doesnt realize what he is worth. If the company is willing to pay him $60k/yr, then he must be worth that to them. But if he thinks he is worth $55k/yr, and accepts a salary of $57k/yr, then he is missing out on $3k/yr. With constant 3% raises over 10 years that is $34k he is missing out on just because he spoke first. He lost out on a new Mustang GT Convertible just because he opened his mouth before the employer offered $60k/yr.

--

Re:my two cents

[Subsound90]

I learned it in my business classes, but it's not usually related to salary but for marketing and consumer negotiations. The correct term is anchoring, and usually it's related to the fact that most people when they set a value they will not go more then 10% in either directions in negotiating. Also, 10% is usually considered the least amount of change required to make some one switch from one vendor to another. It's less for higher priced items and stores that are closer togethor, but 10% difference is usually a garunteed steal from a competator.

Re:my two cents

[ContractualObligatio]

Your Tip #2 is flat out wrong. There's a known effect (supported by research) called anchoring, whereby whoever goes first sets the expectations of where the conversation is going to go. If you want the highest salary you can get, you need to be know what is possible (as per Tip #1, for instance) and then ask for it, or highball to a reasonable extent to allow for negotiation. What is reasonable is dependent on any number of factors - whether there's a conversation on benefits to be had, how aggressive the expected role allows you to be, the culture of the firm you're applying for, whether you have the right personality to ask for a high number without sounding like an asshole, etc.

Knowing what you can get can be difficult, but it pays off and for many roles and companies you can be sure there is some kind of market rate to guide your thinking.

If you let them go first, you're giving open invitation for them to set a lower salary than you would like, and then having to fight to get back up to what you wanted. And it is likely (remember the research!) that you will feel uncomfortable being too pushy despite only trying to get a fair price. The employer might start to see you as an asshole for being pushy, when if you had simply started high yourself the perception can in fact be one of confidence.

Never go first only really applies when you don't know enough about the situation to have a reasonable expectation of the outcome. You therefore run the risk of shooting yourself in the foot by asking for a lower salary than they were willing to offer. If you don't know what the options are, keep quiet and remember not to let a low opening offer anchor your own expectations too low.

For a great book on the subject of negotiation, try "Bargaining for Advantage" by G. Richard Shell. He gives an example of one of his better students (a successful entrepreneur) who always made the first offer as a way to fix the negotiation range low. So be wary of falling into the same trap by letting your prospective employer name the price if there's something you're aiming for.

Incidentally my handle is chosen to explicitly acknowledge that even in the tech game, contracts and all the bullshit that goes with them have far too much affect on our lives, but it's worth the time learning how they are negotiated and worked. A windfall courtesy of having a great offer handed to you on a plate is wonderful, yes, but it's even better if you know enough about the situation to have control, and to put yourself in the best possible position. I can remember being paid way less than what I was worth (oh, the arrogance!) and it was the most demoralising thing at work. After receiving a job offer where I confidently named a price, I re-negotiated my pay up ~38% and suddenly work was more enjoyable. Note I didn't get my asking price. So I'm fairly sure I got as much as possible, that I didn't have to be a hard ass to get it, and that I sure wouldn't have got 38% if I'd started with, "I believe I'm due a raise, what would you think is good?"

Re:my two cents

[Darktyco]

Does this also apply to when they ask you:

"How much were/are you making at your last/current job?"

Re:my two cents

[Dan D.]

There is a book called Behavioral Game Theory, I think edited by Camerer (he's the author associated with the title, whether he wrote all the content or not...) A collection of experiments and essentially what they mean (theoretically) in various situations. Very interesting stuff.

If it's not too late already...

[StikyPad]

On the other hand, if you're a well-paid administrator, you may want to add the following line to your HOSTS file:

127.0.0.1 www.salary.com
127.0.0.1 www.payscale.com

Re:If it's not too late already...

[Joebert]

if you're a well-paid administrator

Or you work at Best Buy.

Inflated Numbers

[TheFlyingGoat]

I've never found the IT salaries to be that accurate for my region. A few companies pay the amounts listed, but most of them are around $10k less than all of the salary sites. I don't think that the IT personnel are underpaid either... I think the sites are just inaccurate. It's kind of like those places that claim they can train you for an "exciting career in computers in just 6 months". Most of their ads claim that IT people with 2-3 years of experience are making $70k/year.

While it's important to have some facts when negotiating your salary, it's far more useful to bring in a list of all of the major projects you've worked on as well as some positive review/feedback letters from coworkers (not just IT staff... talk to some other staff that like you). Bringing in a printout from a website isn't going to mean beans to a manager... it's what you actually do for their company/department that matters.

Re:Inflated Numbers

[walt-sjc]

That's interesting, I found the opposite.

I took a look at the SAGE salary survey and a few other sites. The problem I ran into is that I can't hire competent people for those rates, and have to pay 50% MORE for really good people. If you want really good people, you have to lure them away from positions that they are currently happy with, so it takes a significant incentive to get them to make a move. I've NOT had good luck with people that are currently unemployed - In general, I found their skill sets to be underwhelming.

Anyone else think those numbers are high?

[JPriest]

I have looked up a several professions on salary.com and the numbers even for my area don't even seem to be in the ball park.

I care a lot

[heyyou_overhere]

What the hell is with these retarded slashdot articles- first a lot of articles that have been duped and now this. This is just blatant advertising- the first link requires you to pay and the second requires for you to pay or get a watered down report.

Re:I care a lot

[Dadoo]

This is just blatant advertising

Big deal. At least it gets a discussion going. If you follow it, you might even learn something.

Personally, I think salaries shouldn't be secret. It's one of the ways "the man keeps us down" and nepotism runs rampant. A company should be able to justify the salary - higher or lower than normal - of every one of its employees.

Re:I care a lot

[FirienFirien]

I took a look at salary.com, since payscale.com only works if you have a (US) zip code. After answering a bunch of questions, it asked me whether I wanted to pay $20 for a big pack of information, or get the free version; I sighed and clicked the free, but got a nice graph showing the percentiles of payscale that are apparently appropriate for my area.

Advertising, maybe - but I got the information I wanted, for free. If I had wanted a big pack about how to raise my salary, how to argue about it, etc etc etc, I had the option to pay for it, but it definitely wasn't compulsory.

You can't demystify the wife.

[twitter]

Salary.com measures the salary of a stay-at-home mom. (The statisticians calculated that doing the housekeeping, cooking, babysitting, chauffeuring, administration and other jobs involved in staying at home with a preschooler in Chicago would probably take around 91 hours a week and be worth about $146,000.)

Don't tell your wife, she'll quit her job!

Re:You can't demystify the wife.

[DataBroker]

My stay-at-home Wifey tried this with me months ago. I told her that I could hire a nanny, a housekeeper, and umm... escorts... for less than she cost. She sorta snarled at me when she looked at the spreadsheet I worked up. I expect that any day now she might start talking to me again.

Re:You can't demystify the wife.

[mrcolj]

You know that's an urban legend, right? I remember hearing exactly that story 20 years ago, long before salary.com existed. As one commenter put it, "Find me a CEO with two employees, no revenue, and $200,000 in assets who makes $146,000 a year." If I do delivery for a pizza place, I do not get the combined salaries of a chauffer, a uniform tailor, a public relations consultant, a salesperson, and a french chef. Moms are basically like the best nannies, and those make $40K. My wife deserves millions, but not in a free market.

HA! Nice try !

[tempestdata]

You're just an HR manager trying to do damage control.

You aint foolin nobody mister!

They'll just fire you

[hyrdra]

I don't know about you, but many corporate companies don't like people like that...people that research what they should but paid. Many HR managers think that the job market in IT (and many other fields) is so good they would rather replace you and hire someone in that will feel like they are lucky to do the job at or under your current rate. It's largely because the attitude in many companies these days is a sense of "you should be lucky you're here" or "you should be lucky we only make you work 40 hours a week". At my job, I was told when they changed our benefits structure that "you should feel lucky the company deems you important enough to give ANY benefits at all".

I have found companies would rather hire someone who is utterly incompetent but willing to do the job for pennies and doesn't complain when they get bait switched to shitty health insurance. The types of people who have these lay down and take it attitudes are naturally people who are just morons and really don't know what they are doing. My theory is they are quiet and don't stir the pot too often because they are in constant fear of getting found out. The company doesn't care that half the work is getting done because that is harder for HR to measure than a raw starting price and capability is highly subjective. If I complain about a recent HR drone hire, the finger will often get pointed at me, with such remarks as "Don't be so hard on him..." "Have you ever considered it might be you or your department??" "What are you doing to correct the situation?". I'm sorry, I am not here to teach someone 4 years of CS that they should already know. To make it worse, the HR people saying this have no idea about anything technical, they don't understand anything that we do so going to them with a valid logical argument of why the guy they just hired is a dumbass falls on deaf ears. Try to bring any of this up to higher level management and all they can see are the good numbers from HR and how much money they are saving. Meanwhile, my shit is suffering, more work is put on me, and no one understands or let alone cares.

If you think many companies are not run this way, think again. You can usually tell a company like this from job postings. Our HR department shops for people like you would shop for a vacuum cleaner at Walmart -- they try to get the most for less. They look for whizbang things on resumes for stuff we would never need experience in or stuff that isn't relevant to what we are doing. I don't really care if someone has a masters if all they have been doing with it is designing VB forms. I really don't understand who came up with the concept for an HR department anyway, because it sucks. I would rather all hiring decisions go through the person that actually manages a team and produces a product, not some "HR Technical Specialist", which is really some moron with an HR degree who has worked for a tech company before.

So before you go up to your boss with salary figures in hand you should understand that a lot of times we don't have the capability to change anything. In the large corporations I've worked for, the manager never controls the salary and HR would always rather you quit or be miserable than risk having everyone pull those same figures and come to them, taking their precious monthly how-much-can-you-save bonus away. Many HR departments are running on the principal of separation of markets, where you don't know how much the market pays. If I was an HR manager I'd be scared shirtless of someone who quotes salary figures and can suddenly make my only bargaining point go away, I'd rather hire the no nothing guy that passes all the rudimentary hoops that will sit down and shut up and make me look good.

Re:They'll just fire you

[mrcolj]

You obviously know as little about management and hiring as they know about programming. I know about programming, and I would still blackball anyone who made comments with your tone or content. In fact, I have google alerts set up on most of my employees (and their usernames and whatever), so if I were your boss I'd probably already know you posted this and be joking about it with your other bosses... My advice, look at the Myers Briggs types (I know your type of people don't believe in that voodoo) and learn that HR people think programmers are illogical idiots as much as programmers think the same of HR people. Why? Not because one of them is right. Programmers, no matter how "management" their title is, have no more business hiring than HR people have programming. Neither HR nor management care about saving money as much as they care about making money, they just understand exactly what you just said--a new graduate probably is more excited to work there, will work for less, and won't complain or sue; and old programers have their old ways of doing things, always demand more than market forces dictate, and always end up suing. I was in one place where we had to keep the AC on full-blast at all times, AND keep a space heater (most of the time on full-blast) at every station. That's not worth it when a young punk will do 80% as good for 50% of the money, and will have ideas. And if anyone ever said "I'm not here to..." or "That isn't part of my job" within earshot of me, they'd be gone befor they finished the sentence. No exceptions.

Re:They'll just fire you

[Danga]

Programmers, no matter how "management" their title is, have no more business hiring than HR people have programming.

I notice you are going for an MBA and it cracks me up when people with MBA's think they are the God's of management when a lot of them (yes you) could really learn something by listening to the people you manage. I also think you are on a power trip if you think a programmer with a management position has no business hiring/managing, is that only reserved for the God's with MBA's? If you sincerely believe your above sentence then I hope I never work at a company you work at. Being able to be apart of the interview process for my potential co-workers is extremely important because I can evaluate the skills of a fellow developer much better than the typical HR drone. If someone has a million buzzwords on their resume it usually makes a HR person go nuts thinking they gotta get that person while I actually can figure out if they can back it up with actual knowledge. Unless the HR person or whoever is giving the interview truly understands the position in question and the technology that goes along with it then not having someone "from the trenches" be apart of the interviewing is plain stupid.

From the flip side if I was going to an interview at a company and none of my potential co-workers were apart of the interview I would be offended and I most likely would not take the job. I want to be able to ask the really technical questions about the position and get answers straight from someone who actually knows them.

Neither HR nor management care about saving money as much as they care about making money

These are the same thing in the end, if you can't save money then it eats away at the money you made and vice versa, any manager I know would be concerned about both equally.

a new graduate probably is more excited to work there, will work for less, and won't complain or sue; and old programers have their old ways of doing things, always demand more than market forces dictate, and always end up suing.

Of course a new graduate will work for less, that is true of any profession but I doubt ANY new graduate will be able to do 80% of the work at the same speed as a veteran programmer. That 50% money savings is not worth it when it takes them 4 times as long to accomplish the same thing and they can't do 20% of the things a veteran programmer can do. Now if the job truly is for an entry level programmer then hell yeah it would be a waste to hire the more expensive veteran. Find a person suitable for the position but don't bitch about a veteran programmer costing more when the job at hand requires that level of experience.

You crack me up saying they won't complain or sue, what do you want mindless drones working for you? I would rather have people working for me with a backbone who stand up for what they believe (within reason). If a person has a valid complaint why you rather have them be silent rather than speak out about it?

By the way what is your beef with "old programmers"? I am sure some of them are a pain in the ass but you just broadly group all of them together as overpaid complainers who have a little more knowledge but would never be worth any extra money. Is experience not worth anything to you?

That's not worth it when a young punk will do 80% as good for 50% of the money, and will have ideas.

There you go making yourself sound big and bad again since you have are going to have the MBA and think you are better than the "young punk" with a CS degree which is harder to get than your MBA (yes, I know this is true from the amount of friends I have who have gone to get MBA's). I don't get why you make it sound like old programmers won't have ideas. All of the "old programmers" I have met had great ideas, to tell you the truth they had some of the best ideas I have ever heard.

Get over yourself, you seem to have invented some hatred of "old programmers" just to validate your choice to hire

Easy formula

[michaelmalak]

if ( out_of_work )
salary_request = previous_salary
else
salary_request = current_salary * 1.3

Re:Easy formula

[Sobrique]

I don't know about you, but when looking for a new job, negotiations should really be starting at a point where you're have no compunctions about accepting. Drop down a 30% raise to do something similar, and I'm confident that I'd say 'yes'.

Less of a raise doesn't mean a 'no' but it decreases the odds, along with a load of other factors like prospects, travel times, and that kind of thing.

If you don't ask, you don't get :)

Re:Easy formula

[Dogtanian]

If you're running this program via cron, you might want to scale it back to only run every five years. Otherwise, you might crash your system. I ran a C implementation of this program and was doing really well until it overflowed and I found I was paying my employer huge amounts of money to work for them.

Re:Easy formula

[walt-sjc]

Here is the deal... Once you are employed, it's a LOT harder to get good raises - they are typically going to be 0 - 5%. Your big salary jumps are when you change jobs. 1.3X is QUITE reasonable. Even if you change positions vertically within a company, you are unlikely to get a large salary boost. If you are job hopping, obviously that formula isn't going to work, but it should work every 2-3 years. Remember, you have more experience after several years at a job too, and experience matters.

"Web Developer"

[nick_davison]

Ten steps to misery, bitterness and potential unemployment... or how to gain empathy for your manager.

1. Go to salary.com
2. Search for a really common job. Let's use, "Web Developer"
3. Fail to find that job. Instead get offered variants of "Web Software Developer" that appears to describe a web application engineer rather than a general web developer.
4. Look at the salary range for a job that's markedly different to what you do.
5. Take offense at how unfairly you now feel you're paid.
6. Go to manager and demand a raise that you think is only fair.
7. Feel horribly taken advantage of when the manager, fairly legitimately, claims you're already pretty well compensated for the job you actually do vs. the significantly different job you found on the web.
8. Fester about the injustice.
9. Bitch about how the company you used to love is now terrible and evil.
10. Wonder why your manager who used to love you now sees you as a morale leech and someone they need to deal with.

Now see if you can guess the real reason a lot of managers get irritated by sites like this. Hint: It's nothing about being forced to pay what's fair.

Most sensible managers will want to pay a fair salary for the job they're having done simply because it attracts good applicants and a basis of fairness improves morale and hence productivity. Granted, not all managers are good or sensible but, honestly, most do try to be. Unfortunately, sites like salary.com, through their inherrent generalizations, often give thoroughly skewed impressions of what's fair and can cause all kinds of problems once someone that is fairly treated gets the impression they're being taken advantage of.

The flip side works against employees too... The last thing an employee wants is an ignorant manager finding a far less skilled job that kind of sounds similar and deciding 20% pay cuts or terminations and new hires are merrited.

Sure, they're a useful tool - but be seriously careful about building assumptions off over generalized data.

Re:"Web Developer"

[Dadoo]

Most sensible managers will want to pay a fair salary for the job they're having done

Except that, as someone above mentioned, most managers aren't in control of the purse strings. My manager is always complaining about how he'd like to pay more, because he's having an incredibly hard time finding applicants who'll work for what we're willing to pay. Unfortunately, his manager won't let him. Now, I suppose that could be an act, but as far as I can tell, he's not that kind of a guy.

Re:"Web Developer"

[beakerMeep]

If he claims his manager wont let him, it's very likely true -and- an act all at the same time. for whatever reason he is scared to push his manager for what he is telling you deserve. so either he's lying to his manager that he can run his deparment on a low budget, or he's lying to you about how much he thinks you are worth.

But dont let him get away with the "my hands are tied" argument. as your manager, if he is the one who can talk about your salary with you, then his hands are not tied. if he claims that his boss wont let him, then his boss is the one you should be talking to with merely a written review or reccomendation from your manager.

dont go over his head though, that will just cause animosity. what you should do is respectfully (and this part isnt easy, so dont kid yourself) request that you have a meeting with both your manager AND his boss. Again though, be careful, dont make it about him just say that you believe him but since rent is tough, or some other reason, you would like to take a crack at talking with the boss yourself.

Re:"Web Developer"

[Jah-Wren Ryel]

Except that, as someone above mentioned, most managers aren't in control of the purse strings. My manager is always complaining about how he'd like to pay more, because he's having an incredibly hard time finding applicants who'll work for what we're willing to pay. Unfortunately, his manager won't let him.

That is HR's job. Don't be fooled, HR's #1 job in any company of any size is to reduce labor costs. The bigger the company, the stronger HR's ability to enforce salary caps. In some companies HR will turn away exceptional talent rather than pay a commensurate salary because it "sets a bad precedent. HR is *never* an employee's friend.

Re:"Web Developer"

[Aceticon]

sensible managers

So we're talking about roughly 20% of managers here, right?

I've seen a lot in my industry (software development) which seems to contradict your "enlighted manager" theory:

• Most companies state that their employees are in the top 10% of their industry. Since this is a mathematical impossibility, it indicates either a high level of self delusion or a lot of bullshiting
• Many managers bring in "good enough" people because "we need more people but we don't have the budget". I work as a freelancer nowadays and often end up cleaning up the mess made by these "good enough" programmers
• As many senior developers around here can attest, many managers proclaim that they value experience and quality but in practice aren't willing to pay for it. When you reach a certain level of expertise you find that in many companies there is a ceiling to what a technical person can earn - those are the companies whose salary scales (especially at the top of the technical career) look bad by comparisson to those that are willing to pay for the added value of experience
• A very common situation is somebody that has entered a company as a junior "whatever", gained experience and expertise and some years later finds himself/herself a medior/senior "whatever" but still on a junior salary. A widespred practice out there is to increase salaries faster than inflation but slower than the increase in value of an employee, especially in the beginning of one's career

The truth is, salary negotiations are business decisions. Salaries are not raised because managers are highly sensitive, enlightened, moral beings which based their decisions on concepts such as "fairness" - they are raised because an employee who brings more value to the company than what he/she is being payed is unhappy about his/her compensation and will probably leave if that isn't addressed.

From the point of view of any manager (sensible or not), the ideal employee is the one that gets payed a low salary and is happy with working there.

Employers that don't know they're being payed shit compared to the rest of the industry will stay content and not ask for a salary raise.

Employers that do know they're being payed shit compared to the rest of the industry will become unhappy at the unfainess of their situation and demand a salary raise.

Naturally, from the point of view of the bottom line (keeping costs down and margins up) it's beter for a manager that employees don't know the real value that the industry is willing to pay for their work - this is why this kind of site is bad for any manager: it impacts their bottom line.

Similar article

[ejd3]

Just by chance I was looking into similar information just hours earlier today and happened upon similar solutions offered by the WSJ. The most useful site in my option was payscale. It offered really detailed information about many interesting things, like salaries of recent graduates of my college in a variety of fields (assuming that these students are telling the truth, and gave me pretty good insight into what the career I am heading into should pay.

Ways to avoid having to mention a number, politely

[patio11]

* You're in a much better position to evaluate my worth to the company than I am. (I *love* this one.)
* I am sure we can come to something mutually satisfactory. What would you suggest?
* I will entertain any offer commesurate with my skills and experience. (I don't like this one -- concentrate on them, not you.)

Ways to counteroffer:

* That figure could be workable with a few minor modifications to the contract. Lets table it for a moment and discuss...
* I have a comparable offer in hand from another firm but would much rather work for $YOU. Does $YOU have any money in the budget to increase that offer so we can make this happen? (Note the phrasing: HR Man has an ego just like you do, and doesn't want to say "Oh no, we're poor" to justify paying you less. He works for a big, strong company for which an extra $X,000 is a drop in the bucket! Hah, take that, applicant who doubted our financial health!)
* I could quite possibly be pleased with that number, depending on the other specifics of the offer. Where does this fit into the big picture?
* I notice you have offered me a $PERK. That is not that important to me. Could we perhaps eliminate $PERK in favor of increasing my base compensation?
* I notice that you have not offered me $PERK. I am rather more interested in it than I am in my base compensation number. What level of $PERK do you think would be appropriate? (listen) That is almost what I had in mind, but keeping in mind that I am accepting a lower base compensation in return for $PERK, perhaps we could do a little better. I know $PERK is cheaper for you than increasing my base compensation because $PERK doesn't cause my total cost of employment, for example taxes, future raises, and overhead, to increase linearly like base compensation does (listen). Sounds great.

These assume that the initial offer was roughly in line with your expectations. I once got offered $30,000 and poor benefits when I was expecting a package in the neighborhood of $55,000. That calls for a firm handshake and a "Thank you for your time, we'll be in touch."

Re:Ways to avoid having to mention a number, polit

[cerberusss]

You: "I notice that you have not offered me $PERK, where $PERK is an unsigned integer variable, 4 bytes long, automatically allocated on the stack.
HR: "?? WTF ??"

The art of salary negotiation ...

[Ihlosi]

I would be extremely cautious haggling with my boss over large sums of money.

... is knowing where a "large sum" begins for the boss.

Mystical? Pah

[isorox]

There's nothing mystical about my salary.

I get paid a basic salary, plus London weighting, about 5-6% of that is deducted for pension, which they then match. I get paid 10% extra pre-pension for unpredictable hours, then 3/70 of my pre-pension weekly wage for every hour of overtime I work. Any hours between midnight as 4 attract about $15 an hour bonus, and between 4 and 6 attracts an extra $30 an hour. I then have Income tax deducted (post pension), the first $10K tax free, the next $4K at 10%, the next $70K at 22%, and the rest at 40%. On top of that I have 11% of another part of my monthly salary for national insurance (pre-pension) on every pound of my salary >$800/month, and 1% of my monthly salary over $5000 a month. However that reduces somewheat (I have no idea how much) because of my pension. I then finally have money deducted (pre-tax, post-pension) for my student loan (10% > $30K) perks like taxi journeys home > 40 miles when public transport isn't working (40 miles is free, but I used to live 55 miles away), membership of the work club. The occasional work-paid do has tax deducted (although not all). Fortunatly there's no tax on company mobiles any more, and as I work in Central London there's no need or desire for a company car, which save more tax.

Easy as pie. My next salary negotiation will involve me coming off one set of terms (with the hourly overtime) and onto a set of terms that will pay me a fixed rate for working an extra day, but no hourly extras, however my basic pay (and therefore company pension contribution) will increase accordingly.

My role has increased in responsibility over the last 6 months too (hence the renegotiation rather than the standard 2.5% yearly increase). I've taken over someone on a much higher basic salary, but with more experience, and on non-overtime conditions.

So working out my next required wage and conditions is a walk in the park.

Re:crap!

[Dogtanian]

I'm getting paid like 20k$ too much... oh well, at least I've got this awesome list of tips to negotiate a fairer salary. Have you ever noticed that when a child yells "It's not fair!" it's never because they've been given *more* chocolate (or whatever) than someone else?

Information Hoarding.

[Bright Apollo]

The one reply I hadn't seen involves what may be more common in your workplace: being paid relative to your immediate peers.

Let's imagine what would happen if everyone's salary information suddenly appeared on their office door or cubicle wall. The uprising that would follow would be interesting and justified. The company doesn't want you to know that you're paid less than the other guy, who's slack you've been picking up for the last two years. The company figures it's a wash anyway: they probably don't like overpaying for mediocre performance either, but they have you so it averages out *to them*.

Suddenly informed, you now have the advantage of knowing that you're underpaid just within the company, apples to apples, by 25%. The company can no longer average it out: it has to cut the loser's pay or bump yours, if it chooses to continue averaging it out.

If the loser doesn't like the pay cut, separation makes it easier to average it out. And the playing field is truly level.

-BA

Re:Information Hoarding.

[Aqua_boy17]

it has to cut the loser's pay or bump yours, if it chooses to continue averaging it out. If the loser doesn't like the pay cut, separation makes it easier to average it out. And the playing field is truly level.

Or, they do nothing which I think is much more likely to happen in a not-for-profit (where I work) or in government. It's been my experience that it's very rare for these types of organizations to ever actually reduce someone's salary.

As to being paid relative to your peers, you're right about salaries being transparent. If they were, there would be a revolt and no work would get done for some time. Case in point: we had a DBA fired on the spot when she was confronted and admitted to sharing salary information from our payroll system with her peers. She got busted because others in her own group found out what everyone else was making and predictably, the lower paid staff were angry and complained to their manager. It was a good six months before all the dust settled from that and the employees that remained in the admin group got over their anger and settled down to work. I don't know if any salary adjustments were ever made or not.

Bottom line, I'm happy where I am now. But if I find out that the person coming in off the street that I have to train is making more than I am, I'm going to be pissed and I'm going to be a less productive employee. But is there anything I can do about it? Depends, but probably not, at least not where I work.

Re:Ways to avoid having to mention a number, polit

[tx_mgm]

A 4 billion dollar perk, eh? I don't think Exxon needs a new CEO at the moment, but good luck with that app =)

Value is not always meausred in revenue.

[twitter]

As one commenter put it, "Find me a CEO with two employees, no revenue, and $200,000 in assets who makes $146,000 a year."

The $150,000 in created value is not a revenue. ... Moms are basically like the best nannies, and those make $40K. My wife deserves millions, but not in a free market.

Not to knock the nanny, but they don't do all of the things the wife does and that's how they measured the substitution cost. People who don't grasp this concept run businesses into the ground because they don't have a real grasp on what their employees actually do for company.

Mentioning numbers

[DrVomact]

You're mostly correct. Normally, an applicant should never specify a salary or salary range during the interview process (above all, do not do it during a preliminary "phone screen"). Your objective should be to obtain an offer, and then negotiate salary. The reason for this is that before you have a firm offer, salary demands can only hurt you--the interview process exists to weed people out, and a high number can kill your chances at this point, while a low number will not help you. (Nobody wants to hire a cheap idiot...well, almost nobody.) Turn aside questions about salary by saying things like, "I really think this is the perfect job for me, and you are the kind of employer I've always wanted to work for. Salary is only a small part of the picture--many other factors will enter into making a decision to accept a potential offer from you". Yadda yadda yadda.

The picture changes completely when the prospective employer makes you an offer. The employer is now committed--you have successfully sold yourself as a desirable employee: they want you, and you know it. You will never be in a stronger position to negotiate than you are in those magic 5 minutes just after you obtain an offer, but have not yet accepted it. Unless the offer is obviously a generous one, ask for whatever you want--go a bit high to give yourself some negotiating room. I have never had an employer withdraw an offer at this point, but you should avoid being unreasonable or appearing greedy. Thank them for their offer, act flattered that they want you, and give some reasons for why you need and deserve more money than they proposed.

The problem I have run into lately is that I'm at a point in my career (or careen) where my salary has gone much higher than the average for people who do what I do. Several times, I have gotten to the offer stage, and found that what the employer wanted to pay was completely out of the ballpark. Going through a job search and interview process is time consuming and exhausting; I really hate to waste my time by pursuing a job that I'm not going to be able to accept, but the few times I've broken the "no numbers" rule have had exactly the effect one would expect--an abrupt cessation of interest on the part of the employer. I would really like to find an answer to this dilemma...anybody out there thought of a good one?