"Take it or leave it" No Negotiation. Standard now?

After 8 weeks of interviewing and back and forth, I was formally offered a job over email Monday night. The initial offer was about 12-15% under market value for this position (IT Systems Administrator w/ virtualization skills) for the area. They offered 58k. I put together a counter offer of 65k and sent it over fully expecting to accept 60-63k. Two days later I was contacted by HR who told me their initial offer was the best they could do. They basically told me to take it or leave it and that there was no room for negotiation. She stated she was aware they paid less than market but their benefits more than made up the difference. I asked for two additional days for consideration and and this was declined. The HR lady was adamant about a decision right then, and I told her I wouldn't be able to accept for that salary. Shortly after I sent an email back informing them I was still interested and I would accept the job as is, and I was rejected and told they had moved onto other candidates.

I went through two, hour long phone interviews and an almost two hour inperson interview over the span of 8 weeks with this company. They offered me the exact same thing I was making previously (I told them this up front) despite this job being an extra 30 minutes away and myself obtaining multiple new certs since the last job. I know I was an excellent candidate for this position based on the feedback and vibe that I got at each step of the interview process yet the fact that they wouldn't even work with me about a 2-3k increase in salary is very disappointing. I've operated under the assumption that all offers are negotiable... and when I got the initial offer I figured it was low due to that reason and they expected some sort of response.

How common is this now? The IT industry seems stronger than ever so I can't imagine this will be the norm moving forward.

Find more posts tagged with

Free for TechExams community: Cybersecurity salary guide

Compare cert salaries and plan your next career move

Button

Comments

Asif Dasl

AverageJoe wrote: »

I just logged on to LinkedIn and one of the headlines is: Microsoft lays off 18,000 with ridiculous letter. Not a good job market for IT...

12,000 of which are part of Nokia which might have happened anyway if they didn't get taken over. IT is booming in Ireland, I don't know how it is everywhere else though...

AverageJoe

Asif Dasl wrote: »

IT is booming in Ireland, I don't know how it is everywhere else though...

I've heard that. As a matter of fact, I have an associate who's flying out to Ireland for a job interview. He considers it a better prospect than what he's finding here in the states.

Asif Dasl

If they are in IT then they should be OK - all the other sectors like tourism etc. are still finding things rough with a 12% unemployment rate! yes I said that right 12%... the professional sector is about 5% unemployment rate though.

Chitownjedi

I believe there is just the normal shift of tides happening right now, organizations will always try to find a way to cut cost and reduce the impact of needing workers on their bottom line.. I have not seen any sign that IT is any different then any other time. However, distinguishing your skillset obviously is valued, I believe that's because IT is becoming more and more focused and valued, that the market will naturally produce better talent over time. So in order to by entry level now, you have to have more education/skills then before... which is natural progression. The jobs are still out there... however competition is increasing

paul78

Thacker wrote: »

How common is this now? The IT industry seems stronger...

It's really as common or as uncommon as it was 25 years ago. The IT industry seems stronger as a whole but there are a lot more IT workers today than 25 years ago. It's simply supply and demand. Also, I personally do not subscribe to the notion of market-rate compensation. The compensation is whatever someone is willing to accept and/or an employer is willing to invest. The market-rates are just rough average guidelines which usually never apply to any particular employer or employee.

The way you described your offer and experience with this company does sound disappointing. Its quite an unsophisticated tactic for the HR recruiter to demand an answer on the phone. But as for no negotiation - that's really highly dependent on the company. In my personal experience, HR doesn't make the salary decisions, the hiring management does. HR isn't accountable for headcount on operating expenses, the line of business is.

From a management point of view, I only ever consider "no negotiation" under 3 circumstances, (1) my budget constraints, (2) the negotiation exposes that the candidate may be a management challenge, and (3) another opportunity presents itself during the interview phase.

I tend to offer compensation to a candidate usually to fit my own bias on what I believe the individual is capable of contributing to the organization. I always meet the candidate's minimum need and I may offer more if I truly belief that the individual is worth it. But usually, I tend make it the best offer because I do not believe in short-changing someone if they are worth it.

pinkydapimp

To negotiate, you need to be in a position to do so. Trying to negotiate more money when they know your past salary and that your not working is going to he a poor place to negotiate from. However, negotiating while employed is usually a good place. my last job i negotiated an extra 10k. my strategy is never to say a number before them. If they ask me what im looking for, i say its more important to me that i find the right role with the right company. If they ask me what im currently making i will tell them my total compensation including all perks, bonus and benefits estimated. I would usually also mention that obviously i would need to beat that to consider moving.

The other thing to note is some positions really cant go over a specific amount. however, those typically will list the salary in the job post and they are usually govt roles.

Anyway, treat it as practice and try to do a better job negotiating next time!

Good luck.

tprice5

HR: "Okay, and how much are you currently making?"
ME: "How much are YOU making? Uncomfortable, isn't it?"

Of course thats just in my head.

apr911

Thacker wrote: »

I got some feedback this morning from another one of the hiring managers and this is what they informed me. They told me that 58k was as high as the budget allowed.

If I had a nickel for every time I was told "this is the highest our budget will allow" during negotiation, just for money to miraculously materialize when trying to get an increase in other incentives....

AverageJoe wrote: »

From what I've seen, it's very common. I disagree that the IT industry is stronger than ever. There are loads of IT folks out of work or accepting salaries significantly lower than their previous salaries. Schools -- high schools -- are churning out certified techs so the competition for entry level positions is very tough. The military has been cutting like crazy, putting loads of qualified, certified, experienced techs into the job market.

Competition for entry level IT positions has always been high regardless of the state of the economy. Most entry level positions are a revolving door for one reason or another which is why they are normally hourly and pay 30-45k. Once you break out of the entry level roles and enter into Jr (45-60k), mid (60-75k), Sr and above (75-100+k) roles, competition begins to steadily decline. At some point, usually in the mid-to-senior level roles, the competition has dropped so significantly that you are in-demand.

AverageJoe wrote: »

Sometimes it works out better, but today's job market is not (in my opinion) the right market to quibble over 15% if you want the job. Better to take it (if it's a job you want) and show you're worth more when it comes time for bonuses, raises, or promotions. And if it's not a job you want, well then we shouldn't even be talking about it <smile>.

15% is a big amount and certainly worth quibbling about on both the employer and employees part imo. At 50k, 15% amounts to another $600/month and at 80k, 15% is $1000/month more and it keeps going up from there. So yes, worth quibbling about.

As for taking the job and "proving your worth." Consider this recent study that found employees who stay with a company longer than 2 years make 50% less over the course of their career:

Employees Who Stay In Companies Longer Than Two Years Get Paid 50% Less - Forbes

AverageJoe wrote: »

I just logged on to LinkedIn and one of the headlines is: Microsoft lays off 18,000 with ridiculous letter. Not a good job market for IT...

Microsoft's layoffs were almost a year in the making (the Nokia deal was announced September 2013) and I dont think they were really a surprise to anyone at Microsoft (or anyone in the industry for that matter). The market, linkedin, the news, et al have made a big deal about the layoffs due to their size but the vast majority of them were from the Nokia deal that was finalized 3 months ago in April. As a function of workforce, Nokia employed 91k in 2013, so the cut is only about 1/5th of the Nokia work force. Considering the redundancies in finance, payroll, hr, support, et al. The layoffs are rather small.

I fully expect another round in 6-9 months and possibly a 3rd round a year or so after that once MS has had the opportunity to integrate Nokia into its business further. Pretty typical for the acquiring firm to gut the non-essentials and redundant roles of the acquired. When all is said and done with Nokia, Id be shocked if Microsoft keeps 50% or more of the Nokia work force (which means they have at lest another 30k layoff to go to get to 50%). I would be less surprised if Microsoft cut Nokia down to about 30-40% of its former size.

Despite the layoffs, Microsoft is still hiring and offering top dollar to qualified applicants and having talked with several of my friends who work for Microsoft, there is no "Im next" unease that normally follows layoffs of such magnitude... At least not within the core MS business units (obviously that feeling is highly prevalent amongst the Nokia personnel)

AverageJoe

apr911 wrote: »

15% is a big amount and certainly worth quibbling about on both the employer and employees part imo. At 50k, 15% amounts to another $600/month and at 80k, 15% is $1000/month more and it keeps going up from there. So yes, worth quibbling about.

If you're fully employed and just considering a change then negotiating a 15% change makes a lot of sense, but when unemployed and the options are continuing to be unemployed or taking a job that you're otherwise very interested in... well, 15% seems very minor to me.

And 15% of what is also important, I think. It wasn't 15% lower than OP could live on or 15% lower than previous salary... it was 15% lower than "the average."

For someone unemployed with no imminent prospects to turn down an otherwise good job because it pays 15% less than the average is crazy, in my opinion.

Thacker

AverageJoe wrote: »

If you're fully employed and just considering a change then negotiating a 15% change makes a lot of sense, but when unemployed and the options are continuing to be unemployed or taking a job that you're otherwise very interested in... well, 15% seems very minor to me.

And 15% of what is also important, I think. It wasn't 15% lower than OP could live on or 15% lower than previous salary... it was 15% lower than "the average."

For someone unemployed with no imminent prospects to turn down an otherwise good job because it pays 15% less than the average is crazy, in my opinion.

I am feeling this way a bit now myself. I got a call from a recruiter today that had "many great positions that my resume fit directly into" and the pay was all 17-22 / hr contract with no benefits.

Makes my head hurt.

Thacker

apr911 wrote: »

If I had a nickel for every time I was told "this is the highest our budget will allow" during negotiation, just for money to miraculously materialize when trying to get an increase in other incentives....

This is what really upsets me.

When discussing with HR about increasing the salary, I lightly mentioned possibly getting more vacation time. The girl said "If I can get you a week extra vacation would you accept today at 58k". It was just the weirdest negotiation ever and I have no idea why they were so hung up on not offering any more salary. This is a growing company and they told me they had 20 positions open just in my area let alone at other locations.

LinuxNerd

srabiee wrote: »

Wow! I'd be livid.

LOL sounds like a great place to work. Just imagine the working environment of a place that sends out angry e-mails when engaging in salary negotiation and making accusations of extortion.

lopezi

Yeah, I went through a similar "take it or leave it"....went through multiple day interviewing process, create a working sample application and then multiple iterations over what was extended for an offer. Needless to say they didn't budge but, like you, I wasn't in a strong position to negotiate because I wasn't employed. I even asked them to take the amount of their signing bonus and just add it to their base salary offer and dispense with the signing bonus...nope. I was trying to make the difference between my last salary and their salary a little bit easier to swallow...emm, nope. So, that's how I ended up on this forum, I'm trying to figure out a way to make myself more marketable to get back to where I was.

BradleyHU

this is why i always ask upfront before for any interviews, when they contact me, about what their salary range is. You basically just wasted your time.

BradleyHU

22306 wrote: »

am i the only one who wouldnt tell a company how much i make.

yeah, i always add to my current total...i've learned from doing this mistake before in the past a few times...

BradleyHU

apr911 wrote: »

If I had a nickel for every time I was told "this is the highest our budget will allow" during negotiation, just for money to miraculously materialize when trying to get an increase in other incentives....

15% is a big amount and certainly worth quibbling about on both the employer and employees part imo. At 50k, 15% amounts to another $600/month and at 80k, 15% is $1000/month more and it keeps going up from there. So yes, worth quibbling about.

As for taking the job and "proving your worth." Consider this recent study that found employees who stay with a company longer than 2 years make 50% less over the course of their career:

Employees Who Stay In Companies Longer Than Two Years Get Paid 50% Less - Forbes

Yeah, I'd definitely quibble about 15% difference in my salary. Also, a lot of firms have horrible raises. You're doing "well" if you get a 5% bonus, so therefore you're never really gonna make up that lost income. And bonus are iffy as hell, especially in IT for most companies.