Salary negotiation

[Gnome]

So recently interviewed with a company and they came back with an offer.

The offer has a base salary which is lower than my current base. The company however has a massive sign on incentive and some other fairly impressive financial incentives.

The problem is the sign-on bonus is once off and the financial incentives taper off somewhat over time.

What would you do?

EDIT: Posted it here because I am a software dev so would like opinions of other devs.

 

[kripstoe]

Don't know the specifics of your offer, but I would not move for a lower base.

 

[nakedpeanut]

Agreed, but I would only move if there were more guaranteed training courses or a path to grow faster. Also check what their salary review period is. 6 months or a year? Do you get shares in the company after x number of years etc.

 

[cguy]

Is the new company offering anything else besides an incentive bonus and some marginal financial benefits? (Better hours, more interesting work, more room for growth, the opportunity to move away from some unusually toxic colleagues, etc.). If not, I definitely wouldn't suggest moving for a one time bonus - I doubt that it can be big enough to be worth the turmoil (how many months salary is it? This can give us an indication of the pull, without giving away any of your numbers).

I also wouldn't go for a lower base, unless there is some sort of reasonable expectation of significant monetary increases elsewhere (profit sharing, stocks, cash bonuses, etc.), or strong motivation arising from the non-financial benefits I mentioned above.

Since this is an offer, you could just throw back your current base + 10%. I don't yet know of a company that won't negotiate from their first offer. It's almost expected.

 

[sn3rd]

Based on your posts that I have read in the past, you are a marketable individual with some sought-after skills. If it were me, I would not accept an offer with a base lower than my current base.

Of course, there is more to consider than finances. As mentioned above, perhaps the new opportunity lends itself to more growth potential or career advancement opportunities. But moving (or staying!) for a "maybe" is often a risk in itself.

Unfortunately, in this situation it is difficult to provide any meaningful input other than the generic (and let's be honest, obvious) advice already posted.

 

[guest2013-1]

if you arent happy with where you are currently and your job isnt in jeapordy, then I'd recommend sticking around your current workplace until you find an offer you don't have to come ask people on a forum's about

 

[RichardG]

Remember if you permanent stay with your current employer or else moving to a new work environment can mean many things tension and if your relationship isn't good with colleagues can put your job on the line.

 

[Gnome]

EDIT: Rather want to keep the info private, sorry guys but it is the usual thing, can't talk about it really. Thanks for feedback!

I think I'm in a position now to make the best choice.

Based on your posts that I have read in the past, you are a marketable individual with some sought-after skills.

Thanks for the compliment

until you find an offer you don't have to come ask people on a forum's about

Wouldn't ask if it was an easy choice

I came to the forum because of the anonymity, much safer IMHO than asking a bunch of collogues

Remember if you permanent

I'm not currently, hence my looking. Current employer wants d#ck around by offering contracts (standard practice with a lot of IT companies lately).

 

[guest2013-1]

Wouldn't ask if it was an easy choice

I came to the forum because of the anonymity, much safer IMHO than asking a bunch of collogues

Yea I know, what I meant was stick around till you find an offer that means you wouldn't have to ask anyone, that you can just say "yes" to.

Your current employer wants to dick around by offering contracts? I assume it's not employee contracts?

 

[Fuma]

Is the new employer giving you a permanent position?
If yes, then you can take it since contract work is usually up to 2X a permanent one

 

[Ancalagon]

Dont take it.

The first job that I was ever offered in SA was around a 20% lower base than I was eventually offered, with quarterly financial bonuses, depending on targets, that were capped such that the maximum I could earn was still less than the salary I eventually took. I quickly figured out that it was because the employer wanted some "control" - obviously to them, all employees are monkeys who will only work if there is a financial incentive. Not saying your offer is like that, it just reminded me of it.

 

[Gnome]

I assume it's not employee contracts?

Essentially it is a fixed term contract, renewed yearly. No benefits, just payment, essentially.

The first job that I was ever offered in SA was around a 20% lower base than I was eventually offered, with quarterly financial bonuses, depending on targets, that were capped such that the maximum I could earn was still less than the salary I eventually took. I quickly figured out that it was because the employer wanted some "control" - obviously to them, all employees are monkeys who will only work if there is a financial incentive. Not saying your offer is like that, it just reminded me of it.

This company is more based on the idea that they don't give large salaries, instead they give you shares in the company.

I think I understand it now. They don't pay based on performance really. The bonuses and financial incentives are not based on performance. Obviously increases are, but which company doesn't operate that way.

In a sense shares = performance of the entire company.

 

[rward]

Read .. this .. now ..

 

[guest2013-1]

Essentially it is a fixed term contract, renewed yearly. No benefits, just payment, essentially.



This company is more based on the idea that they don't give large salaries, instead they give you shares in the company.

I think I understand it now. They don't pay based on performance really. The bonuses and financial incentives are not based on performance. Obviously increases are, but which company doesn't operate that way.

In a sense shares = performance of the entire company.

Well, if the new company gives you benefits like pension/life/medical that you won't get with the current company and it will actually work out cheaper for you (as in, you don't have to contribute to those things yourself) then I'd say it might be a good move. Since the higher salary you get now will be less than the lower one since you have to make all those payments yourself.

Anyway, a fixed term contract renewed yearly isn't so bad. IMO it's to weed out the dead weight so they don't have to go through much pain with CCMA when they want to let someone go who isn't performing.

 

[Gnome]

Read .. this .. now ..

Nice article. Thanks.

 

[guest2013-1]

Read .. this .. now ..

That's more for the interview IMO than it is slapping a title on your CV. I've had to review hundreds of CV's that came in for hiring new programmers and sometimes their list of skills are on the last page of a 20 page document describing their cat or some **** I'm not interested in. Never mentioning what position they're applying for or want to grow into (we had several positions open)

In an interview I usually talk about ways I saved companies money and increased productivity, not software or languages. If they bring up language or ask me if I know XYZ (which I usually don't apply for) and if I know it the answer is simple "yes" with an addition "but it doesn't matter, I can give you a solution in hieroglyphics if that is required, the logic is always the same"

 

[|3ash3r]

In an interview I usually talk about ways I saved companies money and increased productivity, not software or languages.

Yea, that's what you need to talk about in interviews. If you're talking to any manager worth his salt, then you'll definitely be hitting some hot spots in that interview!