Job Advice On Postion Offered

[petegz28]

So I applied for an open position with a company. As part of the application I gave my minimum accepted salary. When I received a phone call from them to set up an interview I asked what range they were looking to pay. Their answer: "I haven't looked yet but we are within range of what you put down for your minimum or we wouldn't have called"

Okay, fair enough. So I go to the interview. At the end of the interview I ask the HR person, "what range are you looking to pay?". I get the same answer of we have to pull numbers and this and that but what you are asking for is within our range. Again, fair enough.

Today I get an offer 10% below what I stated as my minimum accepted and told that is the highest they can go because the position is that and not that.

So I'm kinda like, WTF happened to "within range"? I asked twice on two separate occasions what they were looking to pay and both times I was lead to believe what I stated as a minimum was close to an acceptable level. I understand coming in initially below my stated minimum but this sounds kinda shitty, really.

Worth negotiating? I do want the position but I am not hurting nor in desperate need for it either.

[Iowanian]

I tend to be very firm in negotiations.

If you are serious about your minimum than you have to ask yourself if you WANT the job, if you NEED the job and what your options will be if you decline.


If you like the prospects of the position, future earnings and growth potential then counter with your number.

If they don't make that number, thank them in a professional manner and politely decline. No need to burn bridges and you never know what the future will hold.

[Bugeater]

Originally Posted by Brock

I would not counter. I'd just say no. If they asked why, I'd tell them the obvious: you assholes wasted my time.

Put me in this camp. Drives me ****ing nuts how employers just don't say up front what the goddamn job pays, they love to throw around statements like "competitive pay" which in my mind translates to "we're going to try to **** you just like all the rest of the employers out there".

[Mrs. Loopner]

Originally Posted by petegz28

1. I am taking a few days before I decide to keep the personal aspect out of it.

2. I know

3. Do you know anyone that has actually done this?

1. Agree.
2. This is a negotiation. They mentioned a range twice and opened with an offer.
3. Using vacation as a bargaining chip has drawbacks. An extra week becomes an obvious perk to other employees which doesn't always sit well. If you negotiate other compensation it’s best to agree on a perk that's only known to you, your boss, HR and payroll.

If they had someone with a comparable skill set who is willing to settle for less pay they would have the job.
If you only interviewed with HR and not your potential supervisor they’re not concerned with a good fit, they want the skill set.

[wazu]

I've been involved with a fair amount of these negotiations from the employer side. A lot of times recruiters are trying to fill a job, but the applicants are a little more qualified and wanting more money than was initially envisioned. The role is "approved" for that "initially envisioned" amount, and additional needs approval. If you are near the top of what they have approved, they may be anticipating a counter and undercut it some. It's all a game. Continue being straight forward about what you are looking for and don't settle for less.

[Rain Man]

I'm often the voice of the employer in these matters, but in this case the employer is being kind of skanky. They asked you your minimum acceptable amount and you told them. If that was above their range they should have eliminated you from consideration or told you that it was above their range immediately.

I think it's a red flag about the type of employer that they are.

[Bearcat]

Originally Posted by Mosbonian

Your looking at it all wrong....you think they are just out to screw you and get you cheaply.

I'm not sure how many job search's you have done, but what they did is exactly the norm these days, especially in a job market where good candidates are plentiful.

Originally Posted by petegz28

ah, the "be lucky they even offered you that much" routine. Got it.

I don't think it means "be lucky you got an offer," but it does mean there's a chance you were the winner of an incredibly close race (with possibly a internal candidate or someone who is otherwise just as qualified/experienced/etc.), which is just supply and demand, not "they're trying to sodomize you."

I'd guess it was a combination of supply & demand and bad/lazy HR. Talk to the hiring manager, maybe HR again, be straight with them when it comes to your interest level and minimum acceptable salary, and hope they do the same.

[Bwana]

Originally Posted by Rain Man

I think it's a red flag about the type of employer that they are.

That was my first thought as well. If they are dicking him around right out of the gate, I have a feeling it's not the last time they would try to pull something. They sound like a low test outfit and I would keep looking.

[Buehler445]

Originally Posted by Bwana

That was my first thought as well. If they are dicking him around right out of the gate, I have a feeling it's not the last time they would try to pull something. They sound like a low test outfit and I would keep looking.

I doubt they're actively trying to dick him around. If they were, they'd hide it better. Like trying to include the employer portion of SS/Medicare in his gross wages number or something like that.

I'd bet this is a case of laziness/unprofessionalism. Hiring manager didn't know what the range was, didn't bother to approve it or some dumb shit.

I don't handle unprofessionalism very well so that would irk me pretty good, but I would be hesitant to assume shady intentions.

[bigbucks24]

I've done a lot of hiring and made a lot of offers. When a lot people state their "minimum acceptable", they often mean "what they want". I have had a lot of people over the years state their minimum, and when I offer less, they gladly accept. Also, "within range" means a lot of different thing to different people. Again, a lot of people are stating what they want instead of the minimum they will accept. So if I offer 10% less than "what they want", i may still be "within range". They may very well be trying to lowball you. However, what they are offering may be what the job pays. You have every right to go back to the company and let them know (again) what the minimum you can accept is. In my opinion, if you came back with a higher offer (10% more that you said was the minimum), I would politely decline and move on. It's like if you are selling your house and someone comes in with a lowball offer. Do you tell them, "The price is $X and we won't take a lower offer"? Or do you tell them, "The price was $X, but now the price is $X+10%"? I don't think you get anywhere adding 10% to your original minimum. But, like I said, you have every right to remind them that you have a minimum and their offer is lower than that.

[Bugeater]

Originally Posted by bigbucks24

I've done a lot of hiring and made a lot of offers. When a lot people state their "minimum acceptable", they often mean "what they want". I have had a lot of people over the years state their minimum, and when I offer less, they gladly accept. Also, "within range" means a lot of different thing to different people. Again, a lot of people are stating what they want instead of the minimum they will accept. So if I offer 10% less than "what they want", i may still be "within range". They may very well be trying to lowball you. However, what they are offering may be what the job pays. You have every right to go back to the company and let them know (again) what the minimum you can accept is. In my opinion, if you came back with a higher offer (10% more that you said was the minimum), I would politely decline and move on. It's like if you are selling your house and someone comes in with a lowball offer. Do you tell them, "The price is $X and we won't take a lower offer"? Or do you tell them, "The price was $X, but now the price is $X+10%"? I don't think you get anywhere adding 10% to your original minimum. But, like I said, you have every right to remind them that you have a minimum and their offer is lower than that.

If that's "what the job pays" the JUST ****ING SAY SO FROM THE BEGINNING instead of jerking people's chains.

[TribalElder]

Justin bieber would egg their mansion

This shit is unacceptable

[JakeLV]

Counter offering with something higher will likely just get the offer rescinded.

Plainly state, X is my minimum, Y is my preferred. If you can't meet X, then I will have to decline the offer and move on.

[bigbucks24]

Originally Posted by Baconeater

If that's "what the job pays" the JUST ****ING SAY SO FROM THE BEGINNING instead of jerking people's chains.

Again, people often overstate what they are willing to accept. In this case, Pete may not have done that. In many cases, people do. If people would be honest in what they are willing to accept, employers would be more up front in what the job pays.

The problem may be that Pete isn't worth what he thinks he is (in the minds of the employers). Maybe the job pays $80K-$100K. Pete says he needs $95K minimum. Employers thinks, ok, we're in that range. After 2 interviews, they like Pete, but don't think he's worth $95K. His skill set and experience don't justify it. They feel he is worth $80K, but understand he wants more, so they offer $85K. Does that make them the bad guys because they didn't hit his magic number?

[TribalElder]

Originally Posted by bigbucks24

Does that make them the bad guys because they didn't hit his magic number?

It makes them jerkoffs for stating it once, following up a second time and confirming the number, and then changing terms the third time around.

[Brock]

Originally Posted by bigbucks24

Again, people often overstate what they are willing to accept. In this case, Pete may not have done that. In many cases, people do. If people would be honest in what they are willing to accept, employers would be more up front in what the job pays.

The problem may be that Pete isn't worth what he thinks he is (in the minds of the employers). Maybe the job pays $80K-$100K. Pete says he needs $95K minimum. Employers thinks, ok, we're in that range. After 2 interviews, they like Pete, but don't think he's worth $95K. His skill set and experience don't justify it. They feel he is worth $80K, but understand he wants more, so they offer $85K. Does that make them the bad guys because they didn't hit his magic number?

Hey, if you run your hiring like a used car dealership and it works for you, great. It's second rate bullshit and your rep will get around eventually. I prefer to state my terms, you state yours and we can either agree or tell each other to **** off without wasting time.