OT: Job offer pulled as a result of salary negotiation
Trying to take advantage of the multitude of expertise from the users of the site, especially those in hiring positions and/or HR to see if there is any experience with this kind of thing.
Disclaimer: job is a union position with no room to negotiate advancement beyond the union-negotiated contract pay step schedule. It is possible, however, to be placed at different levels when hired.
Long story longer: I applied for a position, went though 2 rounds of interviews and was clearly the #1 candidate from the start and throughout the process. Ref. checks and Xscripts already done (no issues there). I get a call from the HR director who offers the position with the starting salary and wants 48hrs for me to respond. I am pretty content with the job I have (wasn't even looking for a new position but was asked by an acquaintance to apply to the new position). I ask about flexibility re: starting salary and she mentions that in some circumstances she could get approval but likely not in this case. She ends an email later that night reiterating the offer. I respond to the email explaining my additional years of unique experience and how I'm interested in the position but would like consideration for those additional years beyond their initial offer. I basically ask for 13-15% more than what they offered which I thought left a decent window to meet somewhere in the middle.
Maybe I was to forward/firm in the email, but HR director lady responds to me by rescinding the offer b/c they "have a deliberate recuitment and selection process and we would not want to be put in a situation or have you in a situation where you are unhappy with your employment opportunity." I was pretty shocked. At worst, I thought she'd just say,"no, we can't do that please have your decision re: the original offer by the agreed upon timeline."
Now, the main person who actually interviewed me (twice) and made the decision to select me, set up interviews, call my references, check all my documents, etc. was pretty shocked that the HR person essentially trumped her and the entire hiring process. Everything I've seen on the web, reddit, some others I know were pretty confused too. The more I think about it, I'm starting to consider it pretty unprofessional behavior on the HR director's part to rescind an offer just b/c I attempted to negotial starting salary placement, but moreso that she singlehandedly trumped the entire hiring process at this place. I mean, instead of all these questions the committee asked me across 2 rounds of interviews, they could have just cut to the chase and asked me if I'd take $XX,000 dollars with no questions asked. What a complete waste of time.
I guess my questions are, 1) any experiece with salary negotiation resulting in pulled offers of employment? 2) anyone in hiring/HR have any explanation for this? 3) any recommendation about how I should follow up?
I have no criminal history, all references were checked, called and verified prior to the HR office taking over the process. I'm kind of at a loss, but it's really no big deal b/c like I said I am pretty content with my current position. Everything I've heard/read is that you should always negotiate starting salary in a professional manner, stating the reasons for your worth to the company and your excitement for the position, which I thought is what I did. Thanks in advance for indulging in the discussion.
I have been in sales and very successful, I just did not want to continue in sales. So plese get the facts traight before you make terrible generalized statements like this. Plus with the amount of sales people I have helped hire I have probably added more revenue to the bottom line that you could dream of not including the millions I have saved the company in agency placement fees!
has said that if you don't negotiate starting salary it's a mistake. Even if you don't get more it sets a good tone for you valuing yourself.
99% of the time, those books and self help directions only make you look like you aren't prepared. You read a book and followed a guide. You're not genuine and can't think for yourself. Just had an interview and the guy closed me hard for 5 minutes on when he could start. He was an excellent interview up to that point and lost the position because I didn't want someone who couldn't think for themself.
How would less knowledge make you "more prepared?" Even if you don't apply the information in the books or direction it is still nice to have the additional insight.
I disagree with that. I took a new job recently (within the last 6 months). The offer I received was an excellent offer that represented an estimated 40% increase in my total compensation. Plus the company I was working for previously was very poorly run. I didn't negotiate b/c:
A) There was 0% chance of me turning down the original offer.
B) It was extremely fair, and
C) I did not want to take even a 5% chance that a negotiation would jeopardize the offer.
My situation is different from the OP in several ways, most profoundly in that I was very unhappy in my old job and the new job represented a significant upgrade. But there are circumstances where I think taking an initial offer truly is the optimal strategy.
oh yeah- if you need a (better) job and get a very good-great offer. take the darn thing. look for a raise at the 12-24 month timeline when you've proven your worth directly to your superiors. I've done that before, but I'm in a much different position now.
In this scenario you made no mistakes in my opinion.
Occam tells me that the HR person didn't think your value was that much more than whomever the other options were.
Like I said, just my assumption. Honestly I wouldn't worry about it too much if I were you; you have a job you like and life is good
Sent from MGoBlog HD for iPhone & iPad
This is the first post I've noticed that you haven't signed "jdon"
Are you feeling allright?
As we are not privy to all the circumstances. If you have two relatively equal candidates and one wants more money than the other then you go with the one who wants less. Likewise,it sounds like much of the conversation occurred via email. As such, tone may have not conveyed well and the candidate could have come across as high maintenance.
This sounds like a doomed relationship and it's best to end early than late.
I'm a hiring manager for a large IT enterprise (I'm actually hiring down in the Atlanta area or Ft Lauderdale area if anyone is interested, i can give details in private. Don't want to hijack the thread).
First off, negotiating is normal. yes, many people will just accpet the offer. being that you're happy in your current job that gives you the leverage to push the envelope. It may work out, it may not. Every company has different practices. When I was hired here I got my offer from the senior director. My last job it came from HR. So where the offer comes from is of no consequence. HR people are definitely a goofy lot. I typically find them more useless than not. Personally I find it odd they pulled it. i'd file this under the red flag department and count your blessings. Even if this is a union job and there weren't teirs for you to slot into upon hire, the answer still should have been "Sorry, but negotiations are not an option for this position, please get us an answer in the next 48 hours". Sometimes there really isn't room for negotiation, but it can definitely be handled differently.
IF, you were suddenly hellbent on working here (Despite the red flag department having a big ole red flag in it) you could talk to your friend and see if they knew who the HR person reports to. Treatment of incoming employees is typically monitored heavily in most serious organizations. You could approach whomever that person is and explain that you weren't trying to be difficult, just wanted to talk through the options available as it was described that there is a possibility for a higher starting job grade and salary and you thought you would fit it. Or you can reply to their emailand not worry about who they report to and do the same thing to see if they will give you your offer back.
Personally, I'd just realize you just dodged a bullet and go back to your day to day job.
If you really really really want to test your limits, you can go to your boss and show him the offer letter. Tell him you weren't looking for the opportunity, it just fell in your lap and you don't want to leave, but is there anything he can do to get you a small bump.
If they really wanted to hire him, standard operating procedure would have been to say "sorry, we can't negotiate salary. This is our best offer.. Please let us know in X amount of time.
The fact that they just pulled the offer when he tried to negotiate is odd, and a major red flag to me.
Hi Poseidon,
I am not sure how to private message on here, but I know tons of great IT people in Atlanta and would be glad to help you out. Let me know how to get a hold of you in private and I will see what I can do.
We can talk through email. [email protected].
The company is Citrix and we're hiring an Escalation Engineer. Essentially need a senior sysadmin person. We can train them on the Citrix products, but if they know their Citrix stuff too that helps.
you were too arrogant.
That HR person must have went to StAEE , totally got accepted to Michigan, but decided to go to school with friends instead.
I have heard that so many times. They "chose" to go to school with a bunch of idiots even though they got into Michigan. Bravo.
Sent from MGoBlog HD for iPhone & iPad
Booooooo!
That's just using the company's bully position at the beginning of the process to lock people into a comp level you're comfortable with. When the candidate gains a bit of leverage and wants to use it, you pull the offer implying they're being unreasonable? This is the type of red flag / bullett to dodge being discussed in this scenario.
Slimy.
Sent from MGoBlog HD for iPhone & iPad
I think it's reasonable as an employer to try and get as close as possible to an agreement on a salary early. This way no one is surprised or blind sided in the offer/negotiation process. I think even if a number/ range is established it's fair to still negotiate, but it is also wrong for a candidate to agree to a "range" and then think they can interview or hold out for a much larger salary. It goes both ways. Some companies negotiate with candidates very well and some are not ethical the same goes for candidates. I have had candidates accept offers wait until the Friday before they start and decline because they shopped our offer for more money.
Agreed. Though I've never pulled offers, I've always established comp expectations right up front... before the first real interview. In 13 years of hiring, I've only had one or two try to push for something beyond our initial expectations. In those cases, I give them a laugh, remind them of our prior conversation and why nothing has changed since that conversation to convince me they need more... the offer is the offer. Take it or don't.
That said, I've walked away from candidates when the comp is not in the same ballpark... but I at least tell them that up front and usually agree together that the position/organization is not the best fit for what they're interested in. Never heard of pulling an offer because someone negotiated. That's just weak sauce.
It's a little beyond me why people post stuff like this on a Michigan sports blog.
Love
Jdon
Ps. Sorry you don't have anything to add to the conversation; I am going to infer that you have weakly accepted any compensation ever offered you and never asked for more: sorry about you lot.
Sent from MGoBlog HD for iPhone & iPad
See those two letters -- 'O' & 'T'?
I suspect tomfoolery.
tomfoolery or shenanigans? I feel like it's the latter, because tomfoolery is often harmless, and South Park has biased me into thinking shenanigans is a really big deal. But my mind is open to being changed.
Edit: Double post Shenanigans
I admit I came into the professional world with some probably unfair preconceived notions regarding HR in general from what I have heard from friends and family that are older than me and just from seeing how they're perceived as a culture. So I did my best to give HR a fair chance. So far though , HR reps that I have experienced have only hindered my view of HR. I am right now witnessing first-hand of starting in a small but growing company that was kicking ass in its industry without an HR presence . Since we have implemented HR, I believe poor HR practices have been the main cause of a serious downturn in the last half year of our company, and it's quite a shame. Short rant over .
I'm in middle-management at a large non-union company. I have worked closely with my HR department to hire several employees. Never has my HR department called the shots for me. When situations such as yours come up they run everything thru me but ultimately it would be me calling the shots with HR providing the formal communication. Again, my company is non-union so maybe the company you are referring to is structured differently, however it's difficult for me to understand how HR would have a trump card in this situation.
Here is my $0.02 worth of guess work-
Depending on the union contract, the HR person might have needed to get the union to agree to a higher starting salary for you. This involves a meeting, explaining why you should be paid more that other new hires and, possibly, people who had been there for awhile. IF the HR person could get the Union to agree to that, she would need to get a letter of agreement signed by the Union. This might also involve legal review and approval from corporate HR.
Also, many union contracts have wage scales based on time in the company. If they start you at a higher step (say two years), then you probably would have had to stay at that step until your seniority caugh up to you. In other words, you might not have gotten a raise for a while.
Putting these peices of baseless speculation together, I think the HR person decided that this was going to be a lot of work for her. She also probably figured that you might not be all that happy with the compensation, and would leave after a short period. In other words, she decided that you just were not worth the effort and moved on the next candidate. It is also possible that she got burned on this scenario once before and didn't want to touch that stove again.
Bottom line - this doesn't really have all that much to do with you. Don't take it personally, and enjoy the job that you have. Do understand, however, that union jobs often have lower starting salaries with zero ability for the new hire to negotiate a different wage. The trade off is that you are often guaranted to move up (often in big jumps) based on seniority.
I think this is as close as it gets, but it wouldn't require approval by the union b/c there's a clause in the contract that says the board in control is authorized to allow additional compensation at their discresion.
So yes, there are additional hoops to jump through but no real union issues. the thing is with the union, you can't get anywhere once you're in, there is only flexibility in where they place you on the step scale when hired (and pay isn't tied to seniority).
so it's doubly important to negotiate starting pay in this union compared to non-unions at will positions.
agreed. huge flaw in the system from a pure educational perspective of course.
Sent from MGoBlog HD for iPhone & iPad
I understand the point on wanting to limit legislature's ability to reduce wages, but most private employers do not list the future salary that you might be able to attain if you stick with the position. I know my salary and I know that if things are going well it might get raised if I do good work. That's how the majority of the private sector works, and it works just fine. I do good work, and I get rewarded.
In the teaching realm, I know my wife works her ass off, but she gets the same step raise as a teacher who does very little. Where is the incentive to good work? Money isn't everything, but there is no financial benefit to being a really good teacher compared to one who skates by doing the bear minimum. I believe that has a negative impact on the quality of teaching.
Just my opinion, but having steps that are granted based on years in the district does not reward people who put in the effort. Schools have a unique situation in that it's harder to evaluate performance than in the business world (test scores are not the answer), but I don't think unconditionally granting increases simply because you remain employed does either.
But I do know that public school teachers have a better compensation package then private, or charter school teachers do. (At least where I live). And a lot of that has to do with their ability to negotiate their contracts together.
Sent from MGoBlog HD for iPhone & iPad
Absolutely agree most teachers don't got into teaching for the money, and if they did, they were misinformed (Waters? What Waters? We're in the Desert).
Also absolutely agree public teachers have better compensation packages and that is due to unionized bargaining power. No doubt in my mind that unions have provided better compensation and benefits and protectons on the aggregate.
But with that good also comes the bad - seniority protects bad teachers from layoffs, salary steps pay teachers more regardless of output, grievances and just cause termination clauses keep poor teachers in positions longer that they should be kept.
That's a balancing act and people can logically disagree on whether or not its worth it. I realize charters are usually the "voice" of the market idea of the school, but there are a ton of issues with how they are run that make that less than ideal. I don't have the solution, but I challenge the notion that it should be part of the job that teachers arent' compensated based on effort and production. I'd be okay with keeping a union system, but the performance evluation was crafted where performance evaluations drove compensation and progression.
My boss can see I'm doing good work and get feedback on that, and then that gets factored into my performance evaluations. In teaching there's only a few performance evaluations throughout the year that I don't feel management can get an accurate picture of teaching ability (can't remember the number 2 or 3, less if you're distinguished?). That would need to be changed.
It would be a fundamental shift in the way education functions today, but I'd love to see it.
OP didn't say if it was a public school, but when salaries are public information, HR might worry about an appearance of favoritism.