|
Anecdote: I took a counter-offer once, and stuck around another 2 years after and was quite happy. It's very situational, though. And my boss was super pissed when I resigned the second time for real.
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2016 19:06
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 24, 2024 15:56 |
|
|
Judge Schnoopy posted:My old boss can't find anybody willing to work as hard as I did. He's over being mad that I left and is moving on to asking me to come back. I gave him my compensation requirements (current + benefits) and he seemed to balk a little bit... That's three strikes right there. 1.) He's not willing to pay the right rates to get the work done. 2.) He reacted emotionally/took it personally that you departed to begin with. 3.) See #1. Don't do it.
|
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2016 19:09
|
|
|
Lord Dudeguy posted:That's three strikes right there. What he said. Seriously there are very, very few times when it makes sense. If you think yours is one of them, you're probably wrong.
|
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2016 19:11
|
|
|
Is this what it feels like to be a goon in a well? Try not to piss on me just yet but I totally understand if you do. The job I left was fun, I liked working with everybody there, and it was challenging work. I left 4 months ago so I likely wouldn't put my new job on my resume at all. The MSP is undergoing plans to restructure so I'd get a direct report and a title change after I help dig them out of their current workload. They're offering my current compensation (when I left, I asked for a counter-offer 2k less than what they're willing to give now, they wouldn't budge). I think I've more than proven my point that if compensation isn't there I'm willing to walk. I made him well aware of my plans for 6 figures by 10 years of my career so he knows what to expect. Yeah, my boss was mad when I left, and it left a really sour note over the business (which was understandable since I went from happy worker to walking out the door in no time flat). Since then he's reached out multiple times and we got together for a beer around the holidays to rebuild our professional relationship. We're both past that bad time now. Another reason I left was that I started feeling a little burned out. I now work where a group policy I design, test, and prove still takes 2 weeks to be implemented, and it will have been the only thing I did for those two weeks. It's sooooo much worse than working hard and I have a lot more perspective on the joy of actually doing IT. So it's either I stick around this boring rear end place and try to find the will to learn new poo poo so I can jump ship in a year, or I go back to the friends I worked with before, put my head to the grindstone and whip out work I can feel accomplished for, and make the same compensation I have now. Ok commence the pissing.
|
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2016 19:22
|
|
|
by all means put the company's needs first
|
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2016 19:25
|
|
|
ratbert90 posted:Don't take a counter offer. To be fair it's not exactly a counter-offer. He's already gone but dissatisfied at the new company. And the thing he disliked about the old job (money) is being resolved. That said, it still seems shortsighted. You'll get the immediate pay bump, but good luck ever seeing another raise if you're getting paid on par with the executives and they're openly resentful of that fact. Starting to look for a new job entirely, which satisfies your pay requirements and isn't boring as hell, seems like the safest move. One or two short stints that didn't work out isn't going to get you blacklisted for job hopping.
|
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2016 19:27
|
|
|
Why is a counter-offer almost always nearly a awful terrible idea?
|
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2016 19:28
|
|
|
Judge Schnoopy posted:The MSP is undergoing plans to restructure so I'd get a direct report and a title change after I help dig them out of their current workload. This right here? This is probably a lie.
|
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2016 19:30
|
|
|
Tab8715 posted:Why is a counter-offer almost always nearly a awful terrible idea? They know that you're not happy, and you know they're paying more than they want to pay for the position. Odds that one party makes a move to change are really high and it's not worth stressing over
|
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2016 19:31
|
|
|
Four months doesn't seem like long enough for them to have found the funding to compensate you properly.
|
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2016 19:32
|
|
|
Tab8715 posted:Why is a counter-offer almost always nearly a awful terrible idea? Because too often the counter offer is to stop the bleeding long enough to replace you without losing coverage. Short term, getting an employee to stay for more money is a lot cheaper than alternatives. If an employer is only going to give you a raise in the face of you leaving then the odds aren't great for long term stability for either side.
|
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2016 19:43
|
|
|
Tab8715 posted:Why is a counter-offer almost always nearly a awful terrible idea? You've proven that you're willing take the risk in finding employment elsewhere - hopefully a place that will treat you better. They've proven that they're not willing to be the place that will treat you better - unless they have a gun to their head. Once the threat/damage of your departure is diminished, there's nothing stopping them from terminating your employment. Remember, it's expensive for an employee to quit. It's cheap to fire them.
|
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2016 19:47
|
|
|
Lord Dudeguy posted:Remember, it's expensive for an employee to quit. It's cheap to fire them. Uh I'm pretty sure this depends on where you are. If you terminate an employee here under normal circumstances, labour law requires you to pay them potentially a significant amount of severance if they've been around for a while. If they quit of their own accord, no compensation is required.
|
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2016 19:50
|
|
|
CLAM DOWN posted:Uh I'm pretty sure this depends on where you are. If you terminate an employee here under normal circumstances, labour law requires you to pay them potentially a significant amount of severance if they've been around for a while. If they quit of their own accord, no compensation is required. Shocker, America is a dystopian corporate hellhole. I'm not sure I ever heard 'severance' in an American-company context.
|
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2016 20:03
|
|
|
Judge Schnoopy posted:The MSP is undergoing plans to restructure so I'd get a direct report and a title change after I help dig them out of their current workload. They're offering my current compensation (when I left, I asked for a counter-offer 2k less than what they're willing to give now, they wouldn't budge). NOPE You start with the new title and the direct report, or you're not getting them. Hey, you're already back and you've started work without them so giving you them ain't a priority. And even then they'll only consider that if you've got paperwork to say "title change and minion by $DATE", because they have to keep pushing $DATE back. If it's not on paper, it's worth less than a wet fart. Likewise, never move for the same amount. You can stick around and make that, yeah it's boring but it's also not having to deal with the hassle of going back someplace you've already been; it's like moving back home after college. Wring every advantage out of any job move you can.
|
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2016 20:07
|
|
|
feedmegin posted:Shocker, America is a dystopian corporate hellhole. I'm not sure I ever heard 'severance' in an American-company context. It happens in American companies, typically when someone is laid-off vice getting fired or leaving on their own.
|
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2016 20:07
|
|
|
Sickening posted:Because too often the counter offer is to stop the bleeding long enough to replace you without losing coverage. Short term, getting an employee to stay for more money is a lot cheaper than alternatives. This leads back to it not quite being a counteroffer. I asked for a counteroffer, they said "We're not willing to do anything with a gun to our head but please stick around and in a month or two we'll revisit the issue." Now they've gone through three employees to replace me and they've hated every one of them. It's sinking in that paying more to keep valuable employees is a better strategy for the business than getting cheap as dirt college grads and building them from scratch. That lesson learned has brought them back to offering me a job at the correct compensation. It's not like they're trying to hire me to stop their bleeding and eventually replace me. It's a pretty young business and they had some lessons to learn, hopefully some of which I brought light to. Now they want quality employees at market prices and I'm first on the list since I've already proven to be exactly what they want. Edit: My main concern is that this will all play out over again in two years. I'll be at a position to want 10k+, they won't be in the position to pay it, and I'll move on to a job that will. Not that it's the worst thing in the world but it wasn't very fun quitting the first time. Judge Schnoopy fucked around with this message at 20:11 on Jan 4, 2016 |
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2016 20:09
|
|
|
Sometimes counter offers can work out, it's rare so I won't argue against the general advice, but I've seen them work pretty well. In my org they are mostly get used to strong arm HR into bumping up the paybands for certain positions. edit: for more context our company's salary data doesn't really consider how hot the Austin market is for programmers with the skillset we're looking for. Several folks here have used competing offers to get HR and management to match salary offers. More of a "Look, I really like my job and the work I'm doing, but company X is willing to pay me $$$,$$$, and I would love to stay if you can match it, but if not I have to take this offer" type situation. Anyone unhappy in their job should leave and not look back. Generally the counter offer is a one shot deal though, I wouldn't advise trying to do this every 18 to 24 months, at some point they'll just let you go and move on. edit2: I know a lot of the recent conversation has focused on small businesses/MSP's and the like, but I can tell you the attitude for the big company I work for is not trying to find cheaper replacements. We actually want to pay well and keep happy employees around. Losing talent can cost us millions by setting projects back, even an extra 15 to 20K in salary to keep a key person onboard is trivial compared to the potential consequences. The key though is 'key person'. If your easily replaceable you have no leverage, if your a key guy on a team shipping 200 Million of product this year you're in a good position to negotiate. skipdogg fucked around with this message at 20:28 on Jan 4, 2016 |
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2016 20:20
|
|
|
CLAM DOWN posted:Uh I'm pretty sure this depends on where you are. If you terminate an employee here under normal circumstances, labour law requires you to pay them potentially a significant amount of severance if they've been around for a while. If they quit of their own accord, no compensation is required. In US at-will states, terminations (either with-cause or no-cause) don't require severance packages to be paid out. I don't think layoffs do, either. In the case of a termination, the employer has every opportunity to "prepare" for the loss of knowledge and staffing in advance, mitigating the large expense of a surprise resignation. In Schnoopy's case, his former employer is struggling to bear the brunt of the expense of Shnoopy quitting. He's mitigating it by eating the increased wage costs, but he'll likely be fastidiously searching for a cheaper replacement. That way, when he terms Schnoopy, the shock/cost of the loss of skillset will be much softer than the first go-round. Lord Dudeguy fucked around with this message at 20:25 on Jan 4, 2016 |
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2016 20:22
|
|
|
I took a counter offer about three years ago that was an actual promotion and raise, but I understand it's very rare. I am still there 
|
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2016 20:24
|
|
|
Lord Dudeguy posted:In US at-will states, terminations (either with-cause or no-cause) don't require severance packages to be paid out. I don't think layoffs do, either. So say if I work at a company for 10 years, I could be terminated for no reason at any time with no notice and no severance?!
|
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2016 20:25
|
|
|
CLAM DOWN posted:So say if I work at a company for 10 years, I could be terminated for no reason at any time with no notice and no severance?! I don't think there's any legal requirement, no. No-cause allows you to collect unemployment. This, of course, excludes things like company stock, profit sharing, and 401(k). If you're vested in that, you still own it.
|
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2016 20:26
|
|
|
CLAM DOWN posted:So say if I work at a company for 10 years, I could be terminated for no reason at any time with no notice and no severance?! Correct. To play devils advocate: Why do you think you need any notice or severance, legal or otherwise?
|
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2016 20:29
|
|
|
H.R. Paperstacks posted:Correct. ....because it's a pretty basic labour right. How are you asking this. Why do you think you need paid vacation, etc 
|
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2016 20:32
|
|
|
CLAM DOWN posted:labour right hahahahaha
|
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2016 20:33
|
|
|
Tab8715 posted:Why is a counter-offer almost always nearly a awful terrible idea? From stories / anecdotes I've heard, those people are usually first on the list if cuts are going to be made. Like others have said, you have made it clear you are wanting to leave, and for a lot of managers, they don't want you to stay if you aren't committed. Even if you do get more money, you will most likely not get raises/promotions down the road due to that. They will also probably make promises they have no intention of keeping. Generally, it's a really bad idea, and if you aren't happy, just leave. However, in some places like academia, getting another offer is sometimes the only way to get a raise. But that typically applies more for tenured faculty than staff.
|
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2016 20:34
|
|
|
H.R. Paperstacks posted:Correct. There is a big number of non-US posters who don't really understand the madness that is the US workforce.
|
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2016 20:35
|
|
|
CLAM DOWN posted:So say if I work at a company for 10 years, I could be terminated for no reason at any time with no notice and no severance?! Yes
|
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2016 20:37
|
|
|
CLAM DOWN posted:....because it's a pretty basic labour right. How are you asking this. Why do you think you need paid vacation, etc But I paid you for the labor you did during those 10 years of employment. Why should I continue to pay you some portion thereof when I've decided to terminate our employment arrangement?
|
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2016 20:40
|
|
|
Sickening posted:There is a big number of non-US posters who don't really understand the madness that is the US workforce. This isn't to say that come companies don't give a little cash if you leave amicably. They're just not legally required to. The company I work for will cash out earned time off (not sick leave) if you give 2+ weeks notice, and you stay the full time of the notice. H.R. Paperstacks posted:But I paid you for the labor you did during those 10 years of employment. Why should I continue to pay you some portion thereof when I've decided to terminate our employment arrangement? I'd say that in our industry staying 10 years in a company can be a detriment in job hunting, so a little float money wouldn't hurt. Sort of like professional alimony. If you've been in a company for 10 years, there's a whole lot of mental unfuckery some people have to do during the social adjustment. Lord Dudeguy fucked around with this message at 20:44 on Jan 4, 2016 |
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2016 20:42
|
|
|
Lord Dudeguy posted:This isn't to say that come companies don't give a little cash if you leave amicably. They're just not legally required to. I'm almost 100% certain that vacation time is required to be paid out, since it was earned during the time of employment as a contracted benefit. Vacation time isn't something they can hand out if you take it, it's reserved pay for hours worked that you can take instead of coming in to work.
|
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2016 20:43
|
|
|
Judge Schnoopy posted:I'm almost 100% certain that vacation time is required to be paid out, since it was earned during the time of employment as a contracted benefit. Vacation time isn't something they can hand out if you take it, it's reserved pay for hours worked that you can take instead of coming in to work. I'll have to check on that. I'm pretty sure Vacation is treated as a benefit like anything else. If you don't take it, you don't get it. Our vacation is use-it-or-lose-it at the end of the year, with no cash-out option. You don't suddenly get your 401(k) match for an investment you didn't put into, just because you quit.
|
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2016 20:46
|
|
|
CLAM DOWN posted:basic labour right I live in an extremely liberal city in the US, out city council is exploring the idea of mandating 40 hours of sick time a year for full time employees as a minimum requirement. At the public comment session there were sincere comparisons to Soviet Russia.
|
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2016 20:48
|
|
|
Lord Dudeguy posted:I'd say that in our industry staying 10 years in a company can be a detriment in job hunting, so a little float money wouldn't hurt. Sort of like professional alimony. I agree, severance should be earned not required.
|
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2016 20:50
|
|
|
Dr. Arbitrary posted:I live in an extremely liberal city in the US, out city council is exploring the idea of mandating 40 hours of sick time a year for full time employees as a minimum requirement. That law was passed here. Employers responded by revoking all time off and giving only sick leave... requiring a doctor's note. Because gently caress you, that's why.
|
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2016 21:02
|
|
|
mewse posted:Four months doesn't seem like long enough for them to have found the funding to compensate you properly. MSP counter offer? Sounds like what you (whomever it is thinking about this reading is hard) want is an equity stake in the company. They should put their money where their mouth is, equal terms to theirs. They let you into the LLC (income on form K-1 in addition to your W-2) or you walk.
|
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2016 21:03
|
|
|
CLAM DOWN posted:....because it's a pretty basic labour right. How are you asking this. Why do you think you need paid vacation, etc I don't get that either.
|
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2016 21:07
|
|
|
Lord Dudeguy posted:That law was passed here. Employers responded by revoking all time off and giving only sick leave... requiring a doctor's note. That was a common refrain at the meeting. There was a clause that specifically mentioned that PTO exceeds the requirement and therefore is compliant, but there was a parade of small business owners complaining that they'd have to get rid of PTO.
|
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2016 21:10
|
|
|
Judge Schnoopy posted:Edit: My main concern is that this will all play out over again in two years. I'll be at a position to want 10k+, they won't be in the position to pay it, and I'll move on to a job that will. Not that it's the worst thing in the world but it wasn't very fun quitting the first time. These are all excellent points against going back to the job! 
|
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2016 21:14
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 24, 2024 15:56 |
|
|
I have a big closet if you guys want to live here and experience the value of actual labour laws
|
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2016 21:15
|
|