I love tradition as much as the next guy, but I think there is virtually no advantage to employees from our cultural norm that comp information is as sensitive as health information. The advantage to employers is, ahem, fairly straightforward: they get to pay systematically lower salaries to people who don't realize that e.g. failing to say one sentence when you're 22 costs you almost a hundred thousand dollars by the time you are thirty. (The contents of that sentence is essentially "Your offer plus $5k.")

I came out of college in 2002 and was looking for a job in Dallas while my wife went to school. This was the lowest of the lows, right after the telecoms in Dallas had folded and just flooded the market with thousands of developers. Not that there were many jobs.

Thankfully I had some rather unique experience, and that helped me find a job. I took the first number they offered ($48k/yr I think).

That was a HUGE mistake, even in those times. After all, I had some fairly unique experience.

My second mistake was a couple of years later at the same company. We were recently bought and I took that as an opportunity to negotiate my salary. They asked me what I was looking for, and while I had done my homework on market rates...I really undersold myself. A part of me hoped that they'd come to a more competitive number on their own.

They didn't.

It put me in the weird position of asking for a proper market-rate adjustment just 6 months later. I got exactly what I asked for the third time too, but this time it was much more fair.

Over that period I probably lost $70k all told.

Huge mistake.

That's not the worst mistake you could have made though. For my first job, I was interviewing with a company that a college acquaintance was working for. Through a mutual friend, I had a rough idea how much this acquaintance was making... or so I thought.

When the salary portion came up, the company recruiter asked me how much I was expecting. Being incredibly naive about such things, and thinking I knew how much they were willing to pay, I gave a number.

What happened next is something I'll remember in every salary negotiation for the rest of my life. The recruiter apologized, and said that they simply didn't pay anyone that little, and she told me their company minimum and asked if I was ok with that. Sheepishly, I accepted, knowing that I had just completely screwed myself and I really was no longer in a position to negotiate for more.

I came to find out that not only was he not making less than their minimum, but he was actually able to negotiate for $2k more due to some previous experience in summer jobs / co-ops.

The actual kicker in this story, and I'm only remembering this now, is that I actually knew the real number, but I just didn't realize it. This company had interviewed/hired a few people in my class, and I vaguely recall hearing of a different guys negotiations for a number close to what above-commented acquaintance managed to get. So, I could have probably negotiated a slightly higher salary, but thanks to some poorly timed misinformation by our mutual friend, I didn't know my numbers and I lost out.

2) Bob has fallen into a special case in our accounting package (e.g. "joined company through acquisition"), causing his salary to be marked "exempt from standard rules", and his manager has not been diligent with raising it to the company norms.

3) #2, but manager knew what was happening and did nothing to correct it anyway. Bob never complained, after all, and it made manager's budgets easier to balance.

4) No individual human anywhere in the corporation is responsible for evaluating Bob's compensation. Whoops. He's an orphaned node on the org chart because he was assigned to division A but expensed to B for the duration of a project which has since been canceled, was informally lent to C, but nobody told A yet, C doesn't expect him on their books, and B was eliminated in a reorg last year.

5) #4, except it is more severe: no one is in charge of reviewing Bob's salary because no one knows Bob exists. (This one is funny folklore... until it isn't.)

6) Hiring manager is citing a policy which does not exist and has never existed. This entire thread is based on a mistaken premise to begin with.

7) Hiring manager is citing a policy which exists for all Systems Engineers but Bob is classified as a Programmer: Systems (II) by manager Dave in 1997. P:S(II) was deprecated in 2002 -- didn't you get the memo, Dave?

8) #7. Dave didn't get the memo because he died in 2001.

After negotiating like patio suggested, you receive the offer and ask a few days to consider.

You then contact back and say that currently there are two/three offers on the table that you are considering. And since each has its merits, you decided to choose based on compensation and ask if there is any wriggle room on their offer.

Usually works perfectly, and even if it doesn't. You end up feeling that you really got the best they could do.

Use the extra days to your benefit and come back with a realistic counter offer.

Remember, it does you no good to be that guy who extorted the company, but it does you no good to lowball yourself. Everyone needs to make a profit off the exchange of services for cash.

I can think of a handful of companies off the top of my head that would immediately rescind the offer if you made this proclamation. I'd be careful about doing so.

This is why companies don't rescind offers unless people do something really bad. It's much less risky to have the person work for a few months, fire the person if he or she doesn't disprove the negative opinion (which is hard to do, because once a negative opinion is formed of a person, it's almost impossible for that person to change it) created by the bad behavior, and get a non-disparagement clause in severance.

What this means is: just because you're hired doesn't mean they actually like you. The post-offer stage and first 180 days of any job should be considered an extended interview. In that light, respectful negotiation is actually a good thing but being a jerk is not. Saying "I'm going to choose based on compensation" makes a really shitty impression. It's best to say, "I think I'm actually worth $<X> and here's why." Also: don't mention other firms or their pay packages, ever. One of the easiest and most common ways to make a bad impression in job searching is to disclose sensitive information (and competitors' salaries qualify).

As for trying to claim another offer to get more pay... Bad idea! You're unlikely to have the offer retracted-- simply divulging that your offer was rescinded in the right corners of the internet will damage the firm's reputation in a way that is more costly than the cost of retaining you for a few months, but the "I have another offer" trick, if you use it to negotiate more compensation than you deserve, is going to damage your reputation among those who know you used the tactic. Yes, they'll hire you because rescinding an offer leads to negative press, but they won't like you much.

Also, firms that lowball are generally not places you want to work. It's a huge warning sign. I got an offer at a company that lowballed me, I negotiated a 25% increase, and went to work there, and it was still a mistake. My observation is that the initial offer gives you the best sense you'll ever get (better than performance reviews!) of what those in power at the company think of you. If you negotiate a higher offer, you'll get a little bit more cash, but won't improve their perceptions of you. So you'll get crap project allocation and a high salary. When layoff season comes around, guess who's at the top of the list?

A good company will pay you fairly regardless of your salary history and other alternatives, and likewise not be pushed around by high offers from, e.g., Wall Street, an industry that throws money at people so they ignore its deep cultural problems and generally low quality of work.

If you want to negotiate a higher salary, there's a right way to do it and a wrong way to do it. The wrong way is to say, "I have an offer at Goldman Sachs for 50% more", to which most self-respecting recruiters will say, "Then go work at Goldman." The right way is to say, "according to my research <don't disclose what your research is, especially if it involves people at the firm> the proper salary for a person of my position is $<X>. I also believe that I have considerable long-term potential both on the technical and executive ladders, so add 10%. Also, I don't need the 10% hiring bonus upfront so why don't we just include that in my salary, which allows you to pay it on a later schedule. So $<1.2X> is what I consider a fair number." The negotiation needs to be about what you can do for them, not what you can get from a competitor.

You claim another offer to expedite hiring processes and to have leverage to ask for more insight into the work you'll be doing (and for more interesting work, to the extent that such things can be bargained). What you want to show is that you respect yourself and are looking for the best fit for you and your career, not that you're a mercenary who is only going to be there because of $5-10k in marginal compensation. People talk more than they should and you can get a negative reputation before you start if you do this.

That is to say, a tiny minority of recruiters.

On the other hand, I know that if I were trying to build a team, and someone said that he could get 10% more as an "analyst" at Goldman, I'd advise him to do so. Why would I want to hire someone who wants to work an entry-level banking job? Some people care more about remuneration and cachet than interesting work and that's fine, but like should dance with like. If 12 months of punishing hours and miserable work humbled him a bit, and he realized he wanted a work environment that assessed him according to ability rather than pointless sacrifice, I'd be willing to talk to him again after that point.

I feel like you're just the other side of the coin, thinking your company is "exciting", while the guy thinks he's worth more than you're offering.

If (a), I want to hear what he has to say. If (b), he should work at Goldman.

I'm 27 and have 4 years development experience. And I'm talented. I could realistically make $250-300k if I sold out and worked in investment banking-- a lot more than I'm worth at my level of experience, and more than I'd expect in a normal software job. I'd hate my life and probably burn out in the first 45 days, but I could do it if the thought of being a banker didn't disgust me.

This is also the point where you have the highest leverage. Your leverage is always based around the idea that you might go to another company. When you're considering multiple offers, it's very credible that you might work for another company. Once you've been hired and you've been working there for a year, they figure the inertia of leaving your job and going to another company is big, and limit your salary raise.

You need to be careful with your advice to others, I know you mean well but it could really mess somebody up in a very real way.

I actually use a small tweak: rather than "all are equally good so I'm choosing based on salary," I pick the company I want, then go to the others and say "another company has offered me X. Could you offer me a little more?" Once they do, I go back to the company I want and say "another company has offered me Y. I really want to work for you, so could you match Y?" Perhaps the "I really want to you," and only asking to match another offer, is more important than I thought?

The best thing is to get the company excited about you. They get excited by knowing that a) you're awesome in your skills, b) you're gonna be easy to coach, c) you're gonna hit the ground running, and d) you're passionate about the company because you buy into the culture and mission.

My advice: go to salary.com and such sites and look at that data for that job, and tell them you are in the 80th, or 85th or 90th percentile, and why (what a typical guy in your fild does not know or what makes you exceptional).

However, I think using post-offer leverage to negotiate extra pay is a bad idea. The leverage exists, but it's limited. I'd rather use it to get insight into (and favor in) project allocation than a measly few grand. Project allocation is the difference between having a successful career-- learning a lot, working with great people, getting the promotions-- and needing to find a new job in 12 months. A few thousand dollars is nothing in comparison. This style of negotiation is more subtle, and takes the form of a "reverse interview" than a line-in-the-sand "I want $10k more" statement, but I think the former is better at (a) presenting yourself well, and (b) getting you what you actually want, which is a successful career.

I also tend to subscribe to the philosophy that the first 120 days of any job (including post-offer negotiation) are an extended interview. What you want to show is that you care about your work intensely and that you have the potential to reach very high levels, but also that you expect to be challenged and given appropriate work; not that you are a mercenary who makes career decisions based on a few thousand dollars.

I suppose, though, I've never tried to get into Facebook or Google. And I suppose in those companies, with huge applicant pools, they'd chose somebody else if I indicated I only saw working for them to be equal to working for my other offers (unless, of course, one was one of them, and my other offer was the other).

Salary matters-- you need enough that money isn't a personal problem for you, and salary is an indication of how the firm perceives your professional maturity-- but small margins don't.

False symmetry. For a company, an extra 5k per year shouldn't even make a blip on the radar. If it does then I would have to question the stability of said company. For me however, as my sole income it does make a very obvious difference.

Wow. As a CS-grad about to take a full-time job offer, I'd surprisingly never thought of this at all. But how easy is it to say "Your offer plus $5k"? What could be the possible consequences of this?

You: I don't know, you're in a much better position to judge my worth to the firm than I am.

Decisionmaker: But in terms of an actual number?

You: [Polite nothings. Repeat as necessary.]

Decisionmaker: Alright, how would $80k do?

You: That's interesting. Would you do $85k?

Decisionmaker: OK.

That is literally how simple it is, and your downside risk is "Alright, in that case, $80k is alright" and nobody will remember this conversation 2 weeks from now except your checking account. You can do more complicated things, like demonstrating value to the firm, or treating any no as a suggestion that you negotiate some other aspect of the offer instead, but the simplest way to improve outcomes at negotiation is to actually negotiate.

The marginal $5k gets compounded at every annual raise you have, virtually certain to be calculated by an HR drone's spreadsheet by multiplying a contentious number by a very non-contentious number (your current salary -- now $5k larger). It will increase other benefits you receive, such as employer match to your IRA. If you actually treat questions about salary history at face value when switching firms, it will also act as an anchor for your pricing for the rest of your career. (Giving out salary history? Yeah, that's another thing that can't possibly help you. Anyone asking you for salary history is saying, in as many words, "Please give me a reason why I should give you less money.")

I think one should also have a better opening line than "I don't know, you're in a much better position to judge my worth to the firm than I am." Something along the lines of "I can do x, y, and z for you and my skills are in demand in the current hiring climate. I think that I am worth $xx to your company."

I'd be interested to see if anyone had a good comeback for that

The other option is treating the firm number as what it is, which is a suggestion which they intend to scare you into not negotiating. The CEO heard the firm number line once, too. He laughed at it, because haha, it is funny.

I don't really like self-help/improvement books and the like, but this was just no-nonsense and straight to the point.

Also, while the position was for a junior developer, I already had over three years full time experience. I also didn't feel like I could negotiate a specific increase for the next review. And considering the increase they gave me at my next review, I'm sure I would have 'negotiated for' less!

I'm just saying it's not always possible to negotiate a higher salary.

OK Dave, I understand having worked at large organizations before that sometimes our hands are tied. I still think we can make this happen, though. How much vacation comes with the offer? [Hear answer.] You have enough authority to approve a higher number than that, right? [Hear affirmative.] Great! In lieu of giving me the $85k you would like to give me but can't, why don't you instead approve X extra vacation days?

A close variant of this line worked on a Japanese megacorp. Your HR policies are not as rigid as theirs are. Really.

For example, in 2008 I took a step into the big leagues (as I saw it). I had a mid-grade developers salary ($75k) for a couple years, and 7 years in the industry, and I wanted to step up.

I found a great opporunity for a profitable bootsrtapped startup in a beautiful city but one that was not by any stretch a technology hub.

I nailed a phone interview. He asked what I was looking for. I said $110k, match my current 3.4 week vacation, and $6k for relocation. He asked what I was making now. "About 10% less than that" i said. (I fibbed).

I focus on the top-line. The relo and extra vacation were nice, but most importantly they were bargaining chips.

I was flown down for interviews. Things went great. HR directory during the interview asked my comp needs, I told her the same I told the manager on the phone the previous week.

Everything went great. I flew home. Two days later, I get a call from HR lady.

"We think you'd be a great addition to the team. We'd like to extend you an offer."

Her offer was.... $75k, match my vaca and my relco request. My heart sank.

I paused for a moment and said "I make more than that now (lie). My original quote has some room to negotiate but that's outside my range." To which she said "We think this is fair, many of our senior guys make this." We talked for 10 more mins, I was getting nowhere. She was your usual hard-nosed HR type. So I excused myself and told her I'm thrilled they made and offer and I'd like some time to think it over.

For a moment I was bitter. That this was all a waste of my time. I flew across the country. I told them up front the range I was considering. Twice!

But then I thought, it's possible that they have no less a notion of actually paying me $75k than I have of actually getting everything in my quote.

So, I decided I needed to skirt HR. The hiring manager gave me his card at the interview. I called his office line. I said "Look, let me level with you" (lie) "The comp package I presented to you is fair I think. But I'd be willing to give a little back and earn the rest on merit once I'm working for you. I think being on your team would be a great thing for my career. But i just cannot take a pay cut to work for you." He asked what I was making now. I reiterated my fib from earlier. "I've hit bonus here every year, and my total comp is about $100k exactly."

I thought, I'm making him wince. He had to feel like he came up with a good deal. But my lie here boxed him in. He could offer $100k -- a lateral move -- but that seems a little wrong. He could do a token increase -- $103k but that seems almost a joke.

I hadn't yet actually made a counter-proposal, so I did just that. I was going to start by sacrificing the extra vaca. That extra 1.4 weeks vacation was a benefit worth about $3k a year at this rate. But in my preamble he just in passing made a comment about the vacation not being a problem because it's a small company and HR isn't really involved in that, the manager approves vacation without any guidelines or limits.

So, the next lamb on my list was the relo money. I had 3 positions built-in to my $6k quote:

1) I designed it so they could easily counter at a nice round $5k, feel like they got a good deal, and my relo was largely paid for.

2) I would propose that I pay for relo out of pocket and the reimburse me only for the movers themselves -- about $3k

3) Outright elimination.

I said "honestly, I really want to come work for you (true). I know my current comp is so high that you're boxed-in a bit, I'm already up against the top of your range it seems. (lie).

"I've used United Vanlines before. They were great. Some looking around made me feel the movers themselves would cost about $3k. In lieu of cash, I would be happy to pay the relo out of pocket and then submit the invoice from United for reimbursement. "

He talked around it for a mement then he tipped his hand a bit: "I like the creativity", he began, "but honestly the CEO here is against any kind of cash payment for new hires. No signing bonus. No relocation. Etc. He pays it, but begrudgingly. We feel we'd rather spread that money around to existing team members because you never know how a new hire will work out."

Then he said "I'll talk this over. We can probably find a way to match what you're making now if we go ahead and just reimburse you for the movers."

I liked where he was going with that but we werent' there yet. I cut him off.

"Truthfully, you live in a gorgeous city. It's no doubt an amazing place to live. I really feel like a 10% raise and a chance to work for you will make me feel good about the decision to leave behind all my roots here, all my friends and family. I really want to come work for you guys but I feel like any hint of shortchanging myself will start us off on the wrong foot. If we can make another go at that $110k quote, I'd be happy to pay relocation out of my pocket.

He said he'd have to run it by the CEO.

He calls back 30 mins later. "The best we can do is $109k and the normal process where we do a review and increase after 6 months would, for you, be moved to your 1 year anniversary. Now tell me, when can you start?"

I was elated. I just got myself a $35,000 raise. A nearly 50% increase on top of my $75k base.

Having the givebacks is important! It got me a LOT more from than.

A little post-game analysis though:

1) I thought the HR woman always hated me. Maybe because I went around her. Maybe because she thought they were grossly overpaying me. I dunno.

2) I later learned i was the highest paid guy on the team. When I ascended into a management roll I was given access to salary info though, in an oversight from HR, my managers salary was also listed. What did he have the month I was hired? An increase. From $106k to $116k. My negotiation got HIM a raise. A manager can't make less than his reports.

3) Being the highest paid guy isn't a good thing. It's really hard to outperform everybody else. So onlookers -- like, say, a micro managing CEO -- will question the salary gap. Also, I won't forget the day I bought a new Mercedes and I was asked to not make a big deal out of it and if asked, say that "I saved up for this for years." Ugh. Please.

4) NEGOTIATE EVERYTHING in the future.

5) I would've been smart to negotiate myself a future raise. Because I wasn't given any increase for 18 months, and even then only after pestering.

EDIT:

Let me add that I did this to deliberately try to swing for the fences. I was happy enough where I was.

Also, I had a perfect resume for this company. My technical merits were very strong, but more importantly, I had a lot of relevant domain knowledge.

I therefore felt i was in a strong bargaining position. Nowadays, if you're good at what you do, the way it';s so hard to find good devs means you probably are in a strong position as well.

There's no equivalent in the US. There's never any reason a future employer ever needs to know what you earned in the past.

If you work for a government entity, they might be able to find that out, as it may be public information easily obtained, but barring that, there's no way they can find out (legally).

>Plenty of "serious" firms ask about last salary earned (in fact, if you were to fill out an application on line

Are you saying that a "serious" firm would have you fill out an application (online or otherwise)? I thought any career level job would expect a resume/CV.

Big finance firms (EG, top 3 in the world) require tax documentation and will rescind offers if your comp was exaggerated.

It hasn't been worked on since 2003 - one of the original people behind it started cognifty.com several years ago.

I would strongly recommend against doing this, for the simple reason that they will need to know your last salary so they can calculate your tax. In the UK this is the P45 form: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/P45_%28tax%29 If you have lied to them, they can terminate you immediately.

Market rate is based on what something worth, not what it costs or what it previously cost so there is no reason for a company to need to know what you previously made.

Having said that, couldn't you just change your terminology and say "package" instead of "salary", then if there is a discrepancy you could say "well, a portion of the package was year end bonus which I obviously didn't get this year..."

I think the take away here is that you shouldn't be discussing previous salary in any case. If I'm asked I always say "I'm not at liberty to discuss contract conditions at my previous employer" or something to that effect. As I mentioned: as a free market entity, I should be getting what I'm worth now, not some variation of what I was worth 2 years ago when I last tested the market.

Not in the US.

Since you mentioned it, I have to say it.... a NEW benz on a 109K salary?? Dude, you just blew your entire 35K raise on a car.

My dad said the same thing as you, though :) You're in good company!

so if you just say X + 5k, you would still be underpaid.

in Russia they act as this, if you refuse to name your own expectations

It's HARD to find good people to hire. And when you make them an offer, you really want them to take it. 5K doesn't make a dent.

However the simplest come back after a salary offer: please let me consider it.

Then a day later or after some thought, reiterate the value you will be bringing to meet and exceed with their expectations/plans, then say: Is that the best you can do?

Then shut up and wait.

I tried this once. It was easier than I thought.

Money is temporary. The experience, the people, the company culture, their mission, and growth are more important to be than money, in general. They are priceless facets.

However for most people a job is a job. As someone said the skill that they value the most and are at expert level at is apathy.

Also Jeffrey Fox says always go for salary - it is what everyone uses to measure your value and that is what they value so....to each their own.

Are you after a job or are you trying to creating a future for yourself?

I remember a recruiter told me to take the job that was not able to outbid for me in a bidding war. I thought that was odd. As she said, these people loved you and they are a established profitable company. The others are startups, that are just looking for just in time body and never mentioned why they valued me. I went with the money, actually I went with the technology because it was sweet - stupid mistake. I wished I listened to her.

Money has marginal utility for me. After a certain amount I do not care. Isn't that ultimately made me the geek I am, spending time on things that others saw very little social value?

Lots of companies say something like, yes our salaries are low but it's great experience that will set you up for the future. That may be true... But someday you have to actually get to that future.

I always say, in business there is no such thing as cheap or expensive. There's only worth the money, or not. Well the company is buying your time...

And this is exactly why I go for the absolute maximum I can: I care about my own projects more than I could ever care for any company or their projects. The more money I get the less I have to work for other people.

If the company can overuse its employees, it will regardless of what they are paying for salary.

If you are going for money (which if you have no other choice) than maximize! You will be abused so at least get the moola for. There is a reason why they call work work and have to pay people for it.

In the above scenario, where the job is just a job go for the money and kiss up to the boss. Less work and you are well insulated in crisis as others have mentioned.

There are plenty of people at work who do nothing more than be friends with the execs. They add little value in a company. This oddly considered acceptable. It is almost as if work is daycare for your not so bright but very happy friends. It reminds me of the cliques in high school.

Sadly this true in even in startups. So-so went to high school with the founder. Great but the nice guy is incompetent. Basically you soon realize that the startup is an adult daycare center as well.

You should please consider the effect it has on the overall profession. If you are not getting remunerated appropriately for the value you create, that surplus is captured by someone else. If this continues at a systemic level, many interesting people who could have been your colleagues will be turned away from the profession. The layman's description of what you are doing is is "pissing in the pool". You are, of course, free to make your choices and live by them; but please make sure you are building a healthy ecosystem in which you can indulge in activities that give you pleasure.

It depends on the size and culture of the firm; is the "decision maker" your future boss or someone in HR you'll never see again? You generally don't know the answer to this so early in the process. Respectful negotiation is never damaging, but it's important to be careful. The "I have an offer from Goldman at $90k" tactic is a bad idea. It's not really respectful negotiation at that point, because you're trying to exploit a competitive offer rather than arrive at what is fair.

Also, the decision-maker might call your bluff and either (a) say, "fine, go work at Goldman" or (b) call Goldman and verify your offer. By the way, if (b) happens and your story checks out, it's still bad for you because the mere act of checking up on someone is an act of distrust and, even though you were "proven innocent" that person is going to remember the call as a token of having not trusted you.

What definition of fair are you using such that what you're worth to someone else isn't a key consideration?

If both A and B choose the tech company, shouldn't they get the same pay? B's alternative is irrelevant to what he deserves at the tech company. Obviously, if the money is important to him, he should take the Goldman offer instead.

Someone out there is willing to pay $110k for his time. Ergo, $110k is a fair price to ask for his labor.

Tell you what, let's talk about waffle irons instead of people. Say I'm throwing a giant waffle party and I need ten waffle irons. I ask around to my friends and neighbors and offer them $5 for their waffle irons, and most say, "Sure, sounds fair. Not like I actually use the thing."

But when I get to one guy's house, he says, "Well, I'd love to help you out . . . but the elementry school already offered me $10 for my waffle iron."

And I say, "$10? Don't they know they could get a waffle iron for $5? What makes yours so special?"

And he says, "I don't know. Maybe they want them clean. Maybe they want a particular brand. Maybe they don't know they can get them for $5, and maybe it's that my wife teaches there and they want to help her out. Doesn't matter. School offered me $10, but if you'll pay me $10 as well, I'll let you have it instead."

Now, you seem to be saying that $10 is an unfair price to ask for his waffle iron, and that he's greedily exploiting a competing offer to get extra money out of me. But from my perspective, the guy's waffle iron is worth $10 -- to him and to the school. They have their reasons, and their reasons don't matter. If the waffle iron isn't worth $10 to me, I should move on and find somebody with a $5 waffle iron to sell.

Things are worth what people will pay for them. I do not know an alternative sensible definition of "worth".

They won't retract the offer or anything. And even if they did, you probably wouldn't want to work for them in the long run, so would be doing you a favor.

I'm no expert on the state of the art in salary negotiation books, but http://www.amazon.com/Negotiating-Your-Salary-Make-Minute/dp... is decent for getting you in the right mindset.

Now, you may have to convince them you're worth getting paid higher in the range for that role but you should definitely counter-offer.

Also, my general rule of thumb while negotiating is to counter with a number higher than you'd be happy with and then negotiate to something near the middle of the two.

(I learned all this the hard way in my first job, but fortunately my manager was awesome and I got a 50% raise after a year.)

On average. For (perceived) good employees that have above average negotiating skill, there can be a big advantage to this system.

You can say that again. The takeaway should have been to find another job, who would want to work for a company like that?

I didn't think so.

Early in your career, your market value increases so fast that there's simply no way a percentage raise can keep up.

I remember a situation at my 2nd job after college, where I knew that I was worth almost double what they were paying me. I told them as much and laid out the case as to why. They bent over backward and scraped together something like a 20% raise, which they probably thought was pretty good.

Of course, on top of a junior dev salary it was still way out of line with what I should have been at. I polished up the resume and within a couple weeks I accepted an offer for roughly double my pre-raise salary. At my exit interview I told them how much I loved working there (it really was the best job I ever had), but I just couldn't afford to leave that much on the table.

It was probably the smartest career move I could have made, and it really drove home the point: You don't adjust your salary through raises in this industry. If you want to be paid what you deserve, you need to switch jobs.

I just got a 2.6% increase after two years - despite that I am a one-guy centre of competence. However, they are paying for me to emigrate (shipping + language courses + letter of guarantee for apartment deposit), replacing the inappropriate job-title-suffix 'assistant' with the awesome prefix 'research', and it is an awesome job.

Time != money

Money can be made. Time is much hard to make if at all.

EDIT: Ambiguous wording

The trick is knowing your value and making sure your company knows your value as well.

How early is too early to switch jobs?

It also depends on what you're doing and whether you're genuinely good. If you have a chance to build something that you can point to to prove that yes, I really am good at what I do, then you'll have a much easier job convincing the next place to take you on.

So my advice is to make sure the first company you join is one where you can make big contributions right away. Kill yourself working that job. Don't worry too much about screwing up (you will in any case). Do it right and you'll be set on the right path for the rest of your career.

That too is valuable experience, of getting up to speed on sprawling codebases, which is a skill in its own right, and not one you get taught at college, and one you will need if you want to get involved in substantial projects later on. Negotiating corporate politics is valuable experience early on in your career as well.

There is a cost in switching too soon, and that is that you will be earmarked as a person who flits between jobs. 2-3 years at the first job is de rigeur IMHO. Yes you will learn an awful lot in your first year on the job, but you also have no perspective on how much there is. I remember in the dotcom days kids with 1 year of experience out of college would call themselves "senior software engineer". Good luck getting hired by a guy with 10 years experience!

My first job was at Epic Games working with Unreal Engine 2 which had a codebase of well over a million lines of C++ and UnrealScript. So, I agree with you of the value of learning your way around sprawling legacy codebases. But the company was still small back then (I think I was the 25th employee and the 10th programmer) and you could jump in at the deep end and quickly start getting things done. I've since worked at a massive company. I learned a lot from that, but it would have been frustrating had I gone there in my early career. That's the distinction I was trying to draw.

Getting red-flagged if you have too short stints at jobs is definitely a risk with taking Jason's advice. When I'm hiring people in the game industry, the most important clue in that respect is whether they stayed long enough to ship the projects they started, within reasonable limits. That usually works out to a 2-3 year minimum. That criterion isn't just meant to weed out job hoppers. The final six months of shipping a game are just qualitatively different (often in unpleasant but educational ways) from the rest of the development cycle. If you fucked up your design in the earlier stages, that is when your chickens come home to roost.

Does that change things at all?

Experience per unit time would really depend on the company, or if you're in a large company, the team you're working in. My last job was a medium sized company (~200) but my IT team was 7 people when all 5 of the interns came in. I got to do a ton of things that I probably wouldn't have done in a company with more bureaucracy, and that was at intern level.

Would you hire a guy with 1 year experience into a non-junior position? If not, then where is the advantage from jumping from one junior position to another?

You need to put in a few years of grinding at the beginning of your career to get yourself into a spot where you're probably good. If you jump around too early, you just have to start that grind all over again at the next place.

In all the technical teams (sysadmins, dbas etc) that I've managed, I've consistently seen variations of between $50k-100k between the lowest and highest paid person of the same skill (ie I'm not comparing junior to senior staff).

The things I learned as a manager:

* Always know what the market is paying for your skills. Even if you are not looking for another job, remain subscribed to job websites so you understand what the market is after and what it is paying

* Sharing salary information with people you trust is incredibly valuable - you need to know where you stand. It's in the companies best interests to keep everyone in the dark - it means you won't know your true worth.

* If you love your job, by all means stay - but make sure you aren't using that as an excuse to cover up the fact that you are scared to make a jump, or that your ego is wrapped up in your job title. There are no medals for long service - and as companies (in my experience) generally only pay market rates to external hires, you are better jumping jobs every few years than staying in the one place. You'll develop more skills, earn more money, and I believe in the long term more employable.

Disclosing/discussing your salary, while often forbidden in your employment contract, isn't enforceable in many countries.

In the US, some states have specific laws that make such clauses unenforceable (yes, even if you sign the contract). Beyond this, Section 7 of the National Labor Relations Act says that you have the "right to engage in concerted activities for mutual aid and protection." The section has more pretty clear wording on just how well-protected you are.

In the UK, the Equality Act 2010 also protects such discussion/disclosure for the purpose of ensuring you aren't being discriminated against (how can women know that they are being paid less than men if they get fired for talking about salary).

I have to believe that other countries have similar laws, but you should obviously double check.

Of course, if you piss people off, they can generally get rid of you for some other infraction (or none at all). This is easier in some places (like the US with At-will employment) than others (like the UK where I'm told it's considerably harder).

I am curious though with whom the burden of proof lies. If your employer says they fired you for no reason (as they can), but you say they fired you because you discussed your salary...something's gotta give. If you can prove that you discussed your salary before being fired, I would think it would look very badly on your employer. At-will might mean that they can fire you for no reason, but it doesn't mean that they can fire you for any reason.

The National Labor Relations Board has ruled numerous time on this..and the termination of employees who disclose salary information is unlawful.

Examples: Lutheran Heritage Village-Livonia, 343 N.L.R.B. 646 (2004)

NLRB v. Main Street Terrace Care Center 18 F.3d 531

There's also state-specific clauses, like California's Labor Code is #232.

As silly as it sounds, At-will employment lets you fire someone for no reason, but it doesn't let you fire someone for an illegal reason. You can't fire someone for taking a lunch break or vacation time which is protected by various labor laws, just like you can't fire someone for being black.

Again, to me, the question is with whom does the burden of proof rest?

Unless my knowledge in this case also happens to be woefully out of date, the burden of proof lies on the allegedly wrongfully terminated employee.

Salary increases tend to be considered in relation to your current salary, not in relation to your value to the company, unless you do something mind-blowing. Better to get in at $120k and never get a raise than to get in at $80k and get small raises every 6 months.

Part of the disparity is likely negotiating tactics (I know one employee who got a nice raise after getting a competing offer), and the desire of the company to pay the least amount possible.

For me, another big part is that my job can't be directly attributed to a revenue stream (we're in the services industry). For those who's jobs are directly paid by contract with the client, they'll pay whatever the client will agree to. For those of us in "overhead", they'll pay as little as possible because it's difficult, if not impossible, to assign a dollar amount to the value that we bring to the company.

I would venture to guess that devs that work for software development business get paid more than those that are just in IT at a non-software company.

It's not even just about salary negotiation; knowing you can walk away whenever you want to (and actually believing that you will if you decide to) gives you the freedom to take risks and just have more fun at your job in general.

I believe the only people that can truly justify their pay with any accurate metric are salespeople. They are paid entirely by commission and no sales means no income so there is no question about what they are paid. They do get additional perks like company cars, expensed meals, etc that fall outside the metrics. So 10 developers work on one product that draws in $2 million of revenue. How do you slice that up? by lines of code, hours worked, bugs squashed?

I would also say that large software companies pay developers more than small software companies. But I find this to be the case in almost every industry.

And you don't have to take any of the offers you get, you can do what ever you like with the information. But if you want to know what you're really worth this is the only true way.

Managers, read up. Do you want to make your team members feel like this? Communicate clearly beforehand about what leads to incentive pay (good code) and disincentive pay (chatty phone calls). If you didn't communicate clearly, you don't get to skimp on labour costs.

Being cynical, I would say that up to the point the info leaked, you had a good developer at a cheap rate who actually thought he was being paid well. A win win for the manager.

However, I think the way raises are calculated needs to be revised. Currently raises are typically some percent of the salary and the range of percentages is fairly narrow (so the disparity remains constant). If instead raises were calculated with the goal of equalizing the salaries of like-performing employees the disparity would fade in a few years.

The problem with this, of course, is that lower paid employees get larger raises, which may seem unfair to the better paid employees. This can be solved by making salaries more transparent.

Although if salaries were more transparent then you probably wouldn't have as many problems in the first place.

a) everyone thinks they're smarter / better / faster etc than the folk around them.

b) everyone thinks they deserve "above average" pay.

c) there is always someone else at the company making more. There's always some company down the road paying more.

given these constraints there are always going to be people who think they deserve, or indeed want, more. No matter what he does a bunch of people are gonna be upset.

Reminds me of the time I was managing 3 developers, and all 3 independently came to see me to complain they weren't being paid more than the other 2, when in fact they worked harder than the other 2 and were more valuable. Of course they measured "worth" differently to me, but whichever way it turned out 2 were gonna be unhappy.

My point is that a) you cannot make all the people happy all the time b) chances are, at least some of the time you'll be in the unhappy group. c) if you change jobs every time you're not happy (in this context) you're gonna have a lot of jobs because every manager is working under these same constraints.

Or put another way - the rules of the game are not set by the manager - therefore changing jobs to find a better manager (generally speaking - and in this context) is not a fruitful solution.

I'm _not_ saying all managers are the same, or you should work for a moronic manager who is bad at their job. I am saying that in order to play the game it's helpful to understand what the rules are. The running-back can blame the quarter-back all day long, but if what he's asking for is unachievable, then no amount of quarter-back-changing will help.

So he gets back to me and says they want me but my salary requirement is a bit high. Hmm, okay, what do you have in mind? He throws out a number that is $30-40k lower than my salary requirement. I laughed out loud and said good luck finding the right candidate.

I found the same job listing on Craigslist the other day. They lowered the years of experience from 5-7 to TWO, and made a bunch of required experience optional. Good luck with that!

Now, 2 years in, I have the experience out of uni to be able to move to other jobs, but i'm still on a pathetic salary, with no additional benefits or anything, even during crunch times.

Since coming to this realization, I have made a plan to do something about it, so I have started learning new programming languages and tools, generating a portfolio of project euler problems, brushing up my CV, etc. Articles like this serve as good motivation/reminder that I need to keep doing this and aim for something better.

This is true indeed for a worse than average developer: after a year or so the employer learns that they are not really worth the money; at this point it will be hard for employer to cut back the salary.

Any developer (good or bad) stands a better chance to get hired by agreeing to lower compensation. Best developers have a good chance of successfully negotiating a significant salary raise after a year or so once they've proven their worth. At this stage they have much more leverage over the employer because it's quite costly to let a good developer go.

Overall I feel the author could have negotiated a much better deal.

Only if you have no better options. This guy was building a house and probably had limited savings. His manager knew it. If you want a higher salary, improve your negotiating position—for example, by having enough savings to live for a year at your current lifestyle. Focus on accumulating that cash reserve before building a house or otherwise overextending your finances and you'll suddenly find yourself less of a pushover when performance review time comes along.

(sent from phone)

I like Roger Dawson's 'Secrets of Power Negotiating' myself.

Play boardgames, if you have no other opportunity. (Diplomacy is good, and can be played by email.) Or start haggling in shops.

If that spreadsheet happened to be in my hands, I wouldn't know how to exploit it. What the author did is ruined the relationship with his manager over a crappy 2% raise.

I would just return it, make a joke, and started interviewing. If you're at the bottom while they tell you that you're great, it's a long way up.

He didn't go on the offensive when talking to the manager. It would have put the manager on the defensive and surely ruined the relationship then.

Instead, he tried to take the approach of what can he do to make more. He finally got constructive feedback, got a clear explanation of why the differences, and asked for harder assignments to prove himself.

Right, and in return the manager put the squeeze on him which cost him thousands if not tens of thousands over the years. He should have

* gone to the manager first and have asked for a higher raise (in a non-confrontational way).

* used it as leverage for a better description of what he needed to do to get a higher raise in the next review round

* not let him be pushed in a corner where he's being compared to his colleagues. This is a sure loss position. You need to differentiate yourself so that you are freed from the mental chains of other people's salaries, and you can argue a higher salary on individual merit. This is a rookie mistake I hear so often (and that people have thanked me for pointing it out to them when I discussed with them about their upcoming salary negotiations).

(apart from this, it's refreshing not to have post scores visible!)

My perception is different than yours. There really isn't any supporting facts to either.

The relationship is what it is. The only thing was before, the manager knew it and he didn't. c/ruined/revealed.

Fortunately, she changed jobs from academia to industry, and probably now makes two to three times as much as me...