Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Tired of the salary games. That's why one of my first communications to recruiters is now politely stating looking for 150k+ minimum comp. At this point I will just turn off my LinkedIN "open to new opportunities" because it's very clear 90% of recruiters only handle high volume junior level positions now. I am in NYC there is no reason that there should not be a plethora of 100k+ jobs coming across your desk as a recruiter.
Depending on your seniority I would not even be open to a range. Just tell them what you need to move and don't waste your time if they aren't immediately saying "We can do that". It all depends on your leverage. Right now I have strong leverage so I'm not budging on it.
Yep it does get annoying doesn't it? Sometimes they even pretend my salary will work for their client and I get through the interview, they love me and the offer comes in and I'm like what?! No your wonderful company isn't so great that I'm going to take a 30k pay cut. Give me a break
so i followed up with the guy who just said, thanks so much McBridge. I just asked if he thought there'd still be fit. HE said yes there might be but apparently what has him second guessing me is this:
One thing I wanted to call out is that you shared you're looking to maintain ~40 hours a week in your next role. I would say that most folks take 45-55 hours a week to meet their goals, and generally closer to 50-55 hours for the first 6 months while onboarding. With that in mind, is this still an opportunity you want to pursue?
I am used to working 40 hours in my current role now and then doing more work at home. not sure if i'd want to job where the expectation is to put in 50-55 hours a week.
Sheesh, McBridge. Not sure how old you are and how many years you have been working... so I'll explain.
Regarding salary requirements: for your request of $85K to start - typically the "range" listed is THE complete forever salary range for the job. Unless the position is re-evaluated and/or re-classified in the coming 2-3 years. You come in at $85K, pretty close to the top $$ of the position, you better be 110% committed and walk on water. There can be no doubt of your commitment or your abilities. Understand now?
The manager's concerns and statements to you about on boarding - that is not unheard of or unexpected. He wants to make sure that you are committed and willing to do the legwork to learn a new job and not get in there and be a prima donna and not work your butt off to become part of the team and learn the new gig.
If the above isn't something you want to do, i.e., you feel you are worth the $85K, and you don't want to work more to prove yourself at the beginning, then pull out and keep looking. Don't waste your time or the interviewing manager's time. Write a nice Thank You note so you don't burn a potential future bridge in 10 years, (yeah, old school but manager's love them) and be on your way.
Interviewing 2019 is a lot more complicated than even 5 years ago. Managers don't want to pay what you know you are worth (usually) unless you bring something super unique, and are often looking for someone who would come in at a lower rate in the salary range and "earn" their way up. Understand that when you have already done it for another company it is very frustrating. Have you considered going to an headhunter? Sometimes they have "an in" at a certain company and can help pave the way for a good interview by prepping the manager about how wonderful you are, etc., and then a forthcoming job offer. They also help with all of the salary talk, which can be very difficult when its YOUR money you are fighting for.
Last edited by Turbogyrl; 03-27-2019 at 04:52 PM..
Sheesh, McBridge. .
Interviewing 2019 is a lot more complicated than even 5 years ago. Managers don't want to pay what you know you are worth (usually) unless you bring something super unique, and are often looking for someone who would come in at a lower rate in the salary range and "earn" their way up.
It is no different than 40 years ago.
Unless there is a need for a unique specialty, the pay will will depend on the job they need to fill. If you apply for is worth $60,000 to the firm they will only pay $60,000. They list the range for that position to show max as you work your way up. A $85,000 person, is over qualified and more than needed.
Unless there is a need for a unique specialty, the pay will will depend on the job they need to fill. If you apply for is worth $60,000 to the firm they will only pay $60,000. They list the range for that position to show max as you work your way up. A $85,000 person, is over qualified and more than needed.
Or 20 years ago.
I can’t recall, other than hourly jobs very early on, when I worked 40 hours a week.
In OP’s case the expectation is to be in the office 45-55. So that means 55, maybe 45 for the occasional slow week. That is likely engrained in the company’s culture.
And to another comment about work efficiency, if the job is doing processing or some other standalone task, that may fly, but not when you have to interact with others.
There is a recent trend amongst some companies and departments to move AWAY from WFH or telecommuting to improve collaboration.
OP, if you’re second-guessing the commitment the best thing to do is pass on it. You won’t be sticking around long enough to really benefit if you do take it.
The "complication" I was referring to are minority hires, affirmative action hires etc. We don't know if the OP fits into a class. I have seen a hiring manager do a tap dance to discourage a qualified candidate via a negative interview and bogus feedback because an executive higher up in the food chain has decided at the last minute a certain demographic is "desired" to fill a position to make their numbers.
Interesting comments from oldtrader and markjames68. My experience has been that I had to fight for the buck a little less harder 5-10 years ago than I do today. Many of my contemporaries share that view as well.
The "complication" I was referring to are minority hires, affirmative action hires etc. We don't know if the OP fits into a class. I have seen a hiring manager do a tap dance to discourage a qualified candidate via a negative interview and bogus feedback because an executive higher up in the food chain has decided at the last minute a certain demographic is "desired" to fill a position to make their numbers.
Interesting comments from oldtrader and markjames68. My experience has been that I had to fight for the buck a little less harder 5-10 years ago than I do today. Many of my contemporaries share that view as well.
If by a "certain demographic" you mean H1-B you'd be 100% correct
The "complication" I was referring to are minority hires, affirmative action hires etc. We don't know if the OP fits into a class. I have seen a hiring manager do a tap dance to discourage a qualified candidate via a negative interview and bogus feedback because an executive higher up in the food chain has decided at the last minute a certain demographic is "desired" to fill a position to make their numbers.
The biggest beneficiaries of Affirmative action
have been White Women and Asians. Biggest scam out there.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
