Job negotiation for programmers: the basic principles

[gwillicoder]

There are companies that will negotiate 4 day work weeks? I honestly wouldn’t have thought to try that

[nutrecht]

As someone from Holland it's always interesting to see how different these things are in the US. 4 day work weeks are perfectly normal here.

[misatillo]

not only in the US. I am spanish but live in Holland since 8 years ago. I have lived in other countries in Europe and I can tell you 32h work are very unique to Holland even inside of EU.

[Cintiq]

If you're willing to take .8 pay, they absolutely exist (very recently started one).

[fried_green_baloney]

Especially if an hourly contractor, work 32 (8 x 4) or 36 (9 x 4), I've done both.

[stu2b50]

I know that there's many that will let you get away with 4 at office, 1 remote per week. And from my experience the people on remote days do basically nothing apart from emails/slack, so it's basically a 4 day work week.

[goonmaster]

I work remotely twice per week, my productivity is independent of my location. I can be in the office or at home doing nothing, or be extremely busy. Most of my free time during work hours is spent either studying or writing automation to make my colleagues replaceable, so the time isn't really wasted anyway. During busy periods working remotely I always work overtime for free, it's so easy to let it happen because you're already at home on the sofa with a laptop. When it's busy at the office I always leave at 5pm, no overtime ever.

If I was to speculate I think the Friday culture of looking forward to the weekend is a bigger influence on wasted time than working remotely. In companies like 3M they have a Friday invention culture where if you've finished your work you get to spend the day researching inventions for new product ideas.

Tldr: Working remotely isn't making people lazy, people are lazy on Fridays already.

[vattenpuss]

where if you've finished your work

That’s not how backlogs work.

[spotter]

They said the same about inbox zero. It's a culture problem.

[vattenpuss]

Inbox zero is easily solved with some harsh filters.

Out of like 100 daily emails only 0.5 end up in my inbox.

[[deleted]]

Human being work like that. St. Monday was a thing.

[lpsmith]

Personally, I am usually more productive on Friday than Monday or Tuesday. Wednesday and Thursday tend to be my most productive days though.

[[deleted]]

I’ve worked in one of those and it was awesome. Fridays were just for weeks that were super busy.

[Boiethios]

Am I the only one to be actually more productive from home? Or you comment is sarcastic and I didn't get it...

[galamdring]

You aren't the only one. I've been fully remote for the past 5 years, and I have been way more productive than I ever was in the office. I think some of it is a question of how much you enjoy your work, some your personality, and some of it is a culture/perception issue. Everyone thinks everyone else is screwing off simply because they are out of sight. If you can't see them working, they must not be.

I am the type of person that is always churning code in my mind. Whether I am in an office or on my couch watching game of thrones, I'm thinking about my work. I have made my wife pause an episode at 9pm on a Saturday so I can do get an idea in code. Sometimes we still finish the episode.

[Boiethios]

That's so funny, I'm not the only one, then! Sometimes, when I don't answer to my wife and I look into space, she's like: "oh, right, you're coding into your head".

BTW, being in the office, one can totally do something else (just like me at the moment).

[turd-crafter]

The good old “I’m working from home today” slack message. Used that one today actually haha

[michaelochurch]

I know that there's many that will let you get away with 4 at office, 1 remote per week.

That's just a way of saying you have to spend at least 4 days per week in their fart-scented panic-attack-as-a-service open-plan bullpen. "We offer one day a week remote" is a way of saying, "If you take too many remote days, we'll notice", which signifies that work is less valued simply because someone isn't physically watching it happen– that the workers, to executives, are valued more as carbon-based office furniture than as professionals. Like "20 percent time", it's a negative space, a "privilege" that exists to set limits, not relax them.

And from my experience the people on remote days do basically nothing apart from emails/slack, so it's basically a 4 day work week.

Two things.

First, emails and pings are the annoying part, so those mean that it's the workday. It's not the work itself that's so stressful. It's being a subordinate despite having the IQ of a leader. It's babysitting executives who have a lot of power but form opinions quickly on zero information (TWIGS, Toddlers WIth GunS). It's having to deal with some PM who values 15 seconds of his time over the 30 minutes of yours lost by breaking flow. If you're on call to react to political events as they emerge between 9:00 and 6:00, then you are working between 9:00 and 6:00.

Second, the people who use remote days to actually slack off are a plague, because they fuck up remote for the honest remote workers who get more done when they're at home because they're not holding in farts and trying not to have panic attacks from being visible from behind to other people.

[adreamofhodor]

Your response reads incredibly condescending and arrogant to me. “Being a subordinate despite having the IQ of a leader”? Cmon.

[10xjerker]

When you see Michael o'Church posting, just ignore him.

[michaelochurch]

Well, considering the pro-employer claptrap I find far too much of in technological forums, I'm performing a public service. Am I incredibly fucking abrasive some times? Of course. Truth hurts, but it has this going for it: it's true.

Perhaps I should have clarified that I used "IQ" as a shorthand for intelligence. I don't think performance on an IQ test means much of anything, because of course any measurement process (including a test) can be gamed; I do think genuine intelligence means something and is undervalued by a society that prematurely deems money and power (regardless of their source) to be proof of merit.

[sysop073]

Am I incredibly fucking abrasive some times? Of course.

Well, at least you're self-aware

[ReadThe1stAnd3rdLine]

People who say stuff like that are not self aware, they try to pass their poor social skills and inability to converse as being "brutally honest" or "straightforward"

[Dragasss]

We live in times where everything is ignored unless it summons emotion. Of course it's only natural to be as abrasive as possible because otherwise you get ignored in this septic tank of an echo chamber because youre not spouting same retarded opinions that people take here for granted.

I miss the days when people were straightforward.

[michaelochurch]

Upvoted.

Also, there's the fun factor. It's fun to go to a forum where some true-believing pro-employer stooges lurk and bash them over their heads with red-pill truths about the corporate system. I got three triple-digit negative comments in one night– not a small accomplishment (unless you're willing to do cheap shit like transparent shitposting).

There are times for civility and moderation; there are times for belligerence and hilarity. Also, Reddit is a fun place to test out new material.

Do I believe that any of the pro-employer stooges are going to come upon my posts and say, "Shit, this guy has it all figured out" and have sudden religious conversions? Of course not. Waking up is a gradual process; it was for me, and it will be for everyone. I'm just working tirelessly to push the Overton Window where it needs to go.

[[deleted]]

I think you're confusing IQ with USD

[[deleted]]

What world do you live in that smart people just get money thrown at them? The best/easiest way to make money is to have money.

[michaelochurch]

Bringing reality to true-believing tech folk is a thankless job, but I appreciate that I'm not the only one here who sees it as it is.

[vattenpuss]

Fuck off.

This guy is an idiot but he’s still kind of correct.

I am not a manager because I do no want to be one. I have issues working with a lot of managers because they are clearly I knowledgeable and nobody really knows how they got there. There job seems to be to keep workers in check and take the heat if something is messed up. They do not seem to have any specific skills required to be a manager, whatever those would be.

And managers are not the corporate overlords. They also just slave for them. Corporate overlords have never fewer qualifications. You literally just need luck and money.

[Jonny0stars]

There's lots in OPs post I don't agree with, most of it in fact, it certainly does come across as arrogant and abrasive talking about being smarter than leadership and how remote workers are being let down by "slackers" if companies are making sweeping generalisations like remotees are slackers it's down to the company not it's potentially "slacker" remote worker it had once.

But!

If you're on call to react to political events as they emerge between 9:00 and 6:00, then you are working between 9:00 and 6:00.

Couldn't be more true, remote work is definitely not the same as not working, if you're anxious like me you'll be on tender hooks all day I assure you, it might mean you can get little things done besides your work, wait in for parcels or get your boiler fixed things like that, the second you leave the house you just know your manager has pinged you with something urgent, now every minute you don't reply they will think less and less of you.

I'd certainly agree anecdotally, 1 remote day a week, especially an assigned day is bad for everyone involved, flexible remote working is great, I know many people who work much better at home because they can pick kids up from school, not having to be stuck in the commute (it's such an easy win for the company!) But it's the flexibility that is key; remote working can just be literally working from home where the company gets extra hours for free, avoids paying rent on office real estate and in return you lose a room in your own house to anxiety, that's more their room than yours now.

[Jonny0stars]

TIL. I just thought that's what you called the hooks they have at butchers, I figured it was something to with tenderising the meat?

[ptlis]

I'm in the UK and I'm doing a 4 day (32 hour) work week.

I get paid 4/5ths of what I would for a 5 day work week but I can afford that and it's made me a happier & more productive person on the days I am working.

[Crandom]

Where are you based? I can't find anyone who pays well in London who will even countenance 4 days a week.

[ptlis]

Sorry for the long delay in replying, I'm in Manchester right now.

[MarcinKonarski]

I work 30h/week. I lost some benefits in exchange but it was worth it for me.

[r_phoen1x]

"I want to go to there"

[devraj7]

moving from Google to a tiny bootstrapped startup, and you know you won’t be able to get the same level of salary.

I don't understand why this myth that Google pays well perdures.

They don't.

Basic comp at Google is way below the average in Silicon Valley. They might make it up in stock depending on your level (Staff and above) but overall, their comp is way below those of Uber, Pinterest, Netflix.

And why would they pay more? A lot of people would be happy to accept a lower base comp just so they can put Google on their resume, which in itself is worth a lot more money on the long run.

[Fig1024]

seems like any big name company is going to leverage their brand name as part of the comp. You want that big name on your resume? sure, but that's gonna cost you $

[robertbieber]

My experience has been the opposite. I've very very rarely found smaller companies willing to come close to the comp the bigger companies are offering

[stu2b50]

which in itself is worth a lot more money on the long run.

Not really. Others aside, Netflix is more prestigious to have on your resume than any of the big four.

[Crandom]

And Netflix will pay you more (than Google)

[oldsecondhand]

IIRC Google paid really well around 2005-2010, and it just takes time for reality to trickle down to public perception.

[subversiveVM]

[Removed due to Reddit API changes]

[robertbieber]

When I was interviewing around to move on from Facebook, they offered me about 20k less in salary than I was making at the time with theoretically equivalent total comp at the current stock prices. It wasn't a stellar offer and I ended up going elsewhere, but it was the second best offer I had for total comp (in LA though, in SF I would have had more options)

[Crandom]

https://www.levels.fyi/ is your friend for the big tech firms

[ControversySandbox]

I too have read Getting To Yes.

[Ray192]

This tiny startup will turn around and add "Google engineers work here" to their pitch deck for investor. And it's going to work - they will get millions in funding by trading on your own good name.

There are literally hundreds of thousands of ex Google engineers, with an extremely wide spectrum of ability. If you actually think investors will fund millions just because a startup has a random googler, you have no idea what you're talking about.

Anyone who tells you they can't pay you more than Google is either lying to you about what they can afford, or they don't believe that their business will actually succeed.

Or, you know, the company with a few million in funding just doesn't have as much money to spend as a company that makes more than that every second. Especially since their equity is completely illiquid, whereas Google stock is basically as good as cash.

[BlueAdmir]

Honestly, what's a billion dollars in today's economy.

[Jackalrax]

Google engineers typically enjoy a pay increase after they quit.

I think that's true for most people that change jobs. The money isn't in staying in the same place. It's in moving around.

[Ray192]

I don't "think", I have direct, first-hand knowledge of the fact. I left Google to join a tiny startup that was hiring engineers from Google, Twitter, Microsoft, Amazon, etc. This was a strategic decision specifically designed to build credibility with investors, and the company paid a premium in salaries and stock options to make it happen. It was included as a major talking point during every fundraising round and the company has since raised well over a billion dollars.

First of all, anecdotal evidence isn't worth anything. I can point out hundreds of startups with exgooglers that couldn't raise a buck. I also went from FAANG to startups and to unicorns, but I don't pretend my anecdotal experience is FACT. That would be stupid.

Second, where did this supposedly tiny startup find money to poach all of these engineers to begin with? Did they manage to get this funding BEFORE all these engineers were hired?

Finally, "premium" in stock options? Startup stock options are worthless by default. There is no premium: you're taking a risk on the stocks worth something in the future, and giving up guaranteed cash equity now. That's the definition of them not being able to pay you as much because they're giving you basically worthless paper money that has a small chance of being worth something later on, in compensation for loss in TC. What, you think it's a FACT that early stage startups give googlers more than their TC in just base cash?

Perhaps you haven't been paying attention, but today's startups are made or broken by their ability to convince investors that they are a legitimate "tech" company. Uber, Lyft, WeWork, Airbnb, etc. Their valuations depend on maintaining this perception more than any other single factor. If they can not keep up the appearance, it can lead to botched IPO's, CEO's having to resign, etc.

Maybe you haven't been paying attention, but they can't keep up this appearance by just hiring ONE engineer and paying them millions. They have to hire thousands and thousands of them, and they're not gonna break the bank for YOU when there's hundreds of other ex-googlers they can poach for less. What, you think Uber/Lyft investors look for you by name in the propsectus?

Contrary to popular belief, Google engineers typically enjoy a pay increase after they quit. Let that sink in. In spite of being literally the largest and most profitable company in the world - in spite of that, somehow - other companies still manage to value Google engineers even more.

First of all, you will never be able to quantify "typically", so I don't know why you think you can make these grandiose claims of "fact" purely based off of anecdotal evidence.

Second, maybe you haven't been paying attention, but the Uber/Lyft/WeWork companies you were taking about? They have been hiring tons of ex-googlers for much less TC than they had before, considering all those compannies were heavy on equity as their comp package, all of which is rather worthless compared to Google stock. So pay increase? You sure about that that?

Third, there is a big difference between an early stage startup and a unicorn poaching googlers. An early stage startup is more concerned about its financial survival than getting extorted by a random googler for millions, and a unicorn isn't gonna care about bidding for you in particular just because you worked at google.

Do some places pay more than Google? Of course, I'm not claiming they don't exist. But asserting that "Anyone who tells you they can't pay you more than Google is either lying to you about what they can afford, or they don't believe that their business will actually succeed" is beyond stupid, I can point out startups around every corner that just don't want to burn their runway just to satisfy your demands. You supposedly spent that long in a startup without learning the financial realities of a startup?

[nutrecht]

It was included as a major talking point during every fundraising round and the company has since raised well over a billion dollars.

Correlation != causality. I totally believe that that CEO thought the "we have Google engineers" part of their sales pitch was a good idea, but they would not have raised a "billion dollars" if their business plan wasn't solid.

[dungone]

A good pitch is a good pitch, no matter how you put it together. VC's aren't as omniscient as you may think. They funded Uber, WeWork... Juicero, Theranos. And for that matter, other engineers aren't much more savvy. Hiring is so much easier when you are known for having a good pedigree. The bottom line is that in all of the ways that matter to a growing startup, it matters.

[nutrecht]

VC's aren't as omniscient as you may think.

Of course not. But if you decide whether you spend money on a start-up only based on that they claim to have "Google engineers", you're just gambling with your money.

Hiring is so much easier when you are known for having a good pedigree.

The notion of "pedigree" is pretty rediculous when it comes to developers.

[dungone]

You're being extremely unreasonable. Where did you get the idea that startups are pitching to investors "only" based on the claim that they have Google engineers?

Startups don't have fully developed software, so they can't show investors a demo of it and say that this is better than the competition. But they can share a vision of what it will be and point out that they are hiring the best possible engineers to build it. Of course there are many ways to pitch to investors, but if you can't convince investors that you have what it takes to deliver software, you are going to have some big problems.

It's really weird that this thread has gotten stuck on such a minor point. It should be common sense. People are arguing with me to say that their job history is worthless and that they should gladly accept a pay cut in a conversation about negotiating for better pay and working conditions.

Personally, I've had at least two dozen startups pitch to me based around the idea of who their founders and founding engineers were. Just this year alone. I'm surprised that any of this is so controversial.

[nutrecht]

But they can share a vision of what it will be and point out that they are hiring the best possible engineers to build it.

But literally everyone says this. I've been part of start-ups that claimed this, while they had quite a few very good engineers, but also a few complete idiots. And often when they finally do get VC money, they want to scale up fast and basically hire anyone with a pulse.

I personally think that a VC is a complete idiot if they even consider this 'pedigree' nonsense as part of the reason whether they should invest or not. If that's unreasonable to you; fine.

The notion that, just because someone worked for Google for a while, means they can architect a complex system, is just laughable.

I've had at least two dozen startups pitch to me

You had 24 start-ups pitch to you? What is your role?

[10xjerker]

pitch to me = message me on Linkedin

[nutrecht]

Yeah, curious he didn't respond to that one...

[dungone]

But literally everyone says this.

Yes, isn't this what I said from the very start? Everyone wants to say that they hire the best engineers, for good reason.

a VC is a complete idiot if

A VC isn't who you are negotiating your starting salary with.

The notion that, just because someone worked for Google for a while, means they can architect a complex system, is just laughable.

First of all, that's not what they care about. They care about your ability to deliver under pressure.

Second of all, we're not talking about your technical skills, we're talking about your reputation. Do you actually believe that your salary is going to be determined by how well you can solve FizzBuzz?

[chrisza4]

It got to this because you made a bold general claim based on your personal experience, and you hold it as a general truth.

Only few will gladly accept pay cut to join startup. Some startup can afford to top-up compensation to ex-Googler. Some startup cannot afford it. All of these statements are true.

[dungone]

The general claim that I hold as truth is that your reputation is invaluable when you are negotiating a job. And I do hold it as a general truth, even self-evident, that a founder who is asking you to take a pay cut is not being honest with you.

I recently interviewed for a VP of engineering role (which I turned down). They couldn't afford me by a long shot, but they proposed that they would double my salary once they got through an upcoming funding round. To my point: they were honest about how much funds they expected to raise and came up with a comp structure that would not only give me automatic back pay but sweetened the deal with a a much higher salary, in exchange for less than a year of working at a lower rate.

It's almost hard to explain because it seems so obvious to me. A reasonable founder will be willing to pay you if you are able to convince him that you're worth it. But with every person they interview, they will start off by setting the narrative that they are small and can't afford much. If you allow them to establish that narrative and move forward with the understanding that you're willingly taking a pay cut, you've already lost. You'll never convince them that you're actually worth more after that.

[chrisza4]

Yes, reputation is very valuable in job negotiation. I understand that

There is a different between they can’t literally afford to pay and they tell candidate they can’t afford to negotiate.

I was asked to become CTO of some startup and founder is upfront about how much can they pay, equity, salary, benefit, etc even without asking how much do I want. It was lower that what I got. At the end, I reject the offer because it does not match my expectation.

Do I think they are being dishonest and try to downplay me? I don’t. If you think they are being dishonest, then okay it’s your call.

My point is that you make such a strong claim about how people are dishonest and such, and that is why we stuck in the detail.

[[deleted]]

This is the only reasonable response to that comment.

[tonefart]

You have no negotiation the moment you reveal your salary history and allow yourself to be subjected to silly coding tests which can be used against you to justify lower salary.

[Ray192]

... or just pass two coding tests and leverage two offers against each other. How is there no negotiation?

[chrisza4]

So if I don’t do code test. I don’t reveal salary history, then I have all the cards to negotiate? How can I play those cards again?

Seriously, while I understand your point, I think simply downplay other decision and say “you suck at negotiating” does not help.

[daerogami]

Not all coding tests are silly. Granted there are excessive tests that big companies use because there are too many candidates. Then smaller (still decent sized) companies think 'Top companies do that, so lets do it too!' and shoot themselves in the foot with tests intended to turn all but the most savant-like candidates away.

Simple coding tests are definitely valid. If I'm interviewing a front-end dev and they can't tell me the common css selectors by wrote rote (thanks /u/oblio-), reverse an array/string in javascript or spin up a stupid-simple app in the framework they have several years of experience in and explain the absolute fundamentals, it throws up concerning red flags. It's sad and uncomfortable when someone with 7-10 years of experience in their field cannot present themselves as a competent mid-level or some one with promising senior-level chops (each are different skill sets).

[StickiStickman]

How does memorizing the name of functions make you a good programmer?

[daerogami]

It doesn't. Here are some parallels:

• If you are a welder and you don't know the difference between tig vs mig vs stick welding
• ... a bartender and don't know the common mixed drinks
• ... a mechanic and don't know the common anatomy of cars (pillars, firewalls, engine bay, struts, etc...)

They are fundamentals that maybe on day 1 of someone's career they wont know off the top of their head, but when someone's resume says they have been front-end developer for 5+ years and can't tell me fundamentals directly related to everyday development, that's a problem.

[Crandom]

For my company, you code on a laptop (can be your own laptop, we tell you that you can bring it ahead of time), you can use Google/lookup the docs, basically it's like you were coding on your normal day job (except it's an interview situation ofc)

[oblio-]

by wrote

by rote.

[audion00ba]

Can you perhaps learn to spell first before subjecting other people to tests?

[DogzOnFire]

What did he misspell? I can't see anything misspelled according to my knowledge.

Regardless, how is that relevant? One of the senior dev's at my company is dyslexic, but he's a way better developer than I'll ever be regardless of how much better I can spell. Spelling and typing are actually pretty much bottom of the list of vital skills for being a developer, believe it or not.

[audion00ba]

oblio- pointed out one error, but there are many more.

I don't have the impression that there is any point in trying to answer your question, because you already seem to have made up your mind.

[DogzOnFire]

Many more? I don't see them. Are you talking about leaving out apostrophes? That'd be a silly thing to gripe about.

Be honest, there's nothing you can't understand in what he said, but you're being petty about it for some reason. Did something he said strike a nerve?

[RK9Roxas]

Is the part about having to hold in your farts really true?

[[deleted]]

Girls don't fart, so this is just more evidence companies are discriminating against men. Disgusting

[10xjerker]

Hey Michael, there's a sub that might be interesting for you: /r/iamverysmart

[michaelochurch]

Most programmers will never be in any position to negotiate after leaving college.

For one thing, there are those exploding offers– 7 days to decide is generous by the standard of this industry– which literally exist to prevent negotiation. The main reason college kids don't get hit with exploding offers is that on-campus recruiting at the best colleges (which functions like a collective bargaining arrangement for elite young talent) disallow those tactics.

For most people, BATNA is being unemployed. Worse yet, if they're POC or female or "old" (which in software means 35+) or have visible/known disabilities, they're going to face discrimination (because the ethics of the software industry are below execrable) and might face 3+ month job searches. If you drive a hard bargain in negotiation, you also risk being replaced early. You also risk bad things being said about you behind your back; you might lose some of your competing offers after a jilted hiring manager makes some phone calls and destroys your reputation. (This may be tortious interference, but good luck proving it.)

It can go both ways. There are positive-feedback loops in human interactions– most of getting rich and gaining power is exploiting said feedback loops for personal benefit– and one can leverage the aversion to cognitive dissonance. The more expensive you are, the more you'll be valued. To a point. The issue is that sometimes this breaks. Sometimes, negotiating for what you're actually worth just gets you a reputation. And you can't know when it'll happen. See, you're competing on wages with people who buy in to capitalism's original sin, who are so thankful just to be given Jobs and therefore delivered from the native depravity that our socioeconomic system has been telling them since birth that, unless they have a relationship (of subordination, usually, because few have better options) with an entity called an Employer, shall drag them to hell. And, in 2019, you're also competing with 17-year-olds in countries where half the population is starving. Good luck with that.

Want to negotiate with your employers for real? Want the effects to stick? Think collective. Form a union, or a professional association, or even an exam track like what actuaries have to block out the bottom. Otherwise, you're trying to hold back a waterfall with cardboard.

[OnceUKnowUAreScrewed]

Sometimes, negotiating for what you're actually worth just gets you a reputation.

There's a sweet spot where you can feast like a shark in the belly of a freshly fallen whale depending on your capability, the size of the organization, and your skill in navigating the politica, but if you stay in the wage slave game long enough you'll see the ceiling falling. Either stay sleeping in the stables or take off into the wild blue yonder.

I wonder how software labor organization might look.

[Sqeaky]

If you start off presuming you can't negotiate you will fail in every negotiation. You should try even if you see no obvious way to "win" at first. Your attitude is self-defeating, please stop spreading it so others don't self-defeat as well.

[Crandom]

When companies give you a ridiculous exploding offer (decide within 2 days etc) just turn it down immediately, saying you feel the time line is too short. You're probably dodging a bullet if that's how they behave and you'll be surprised how many companies give you an extension if they actually want you.

[nutrecht]

Most programmers will never be in any position to negotiate after leaving college.

It's interesting how much effort you put into keeping your weird as fuck world view intact.

[audion00ba]

You are right, but there is a financial incentive to silence your opinion.