MUScoop
MUScoop => The Superbar => Topic started by: 4th and State on October 02, 2018, 04:20:38 PM
-
Guys,
I recently accepted an offer for a new position and, when attempting to put in my two weeks at my current firm, got a counter offer (somewhat expected). My intention is still to go to the new firm, but there is a no longer much of a salary bump because of the counter offer. Anyone have experience reaching back out to the new firm, explaining the counter offer, and asking for a slightly higher salary than agreed upon? I don't want to ruffle feathers at the new company, but I don't want to leave $$ on the table.
Any suggestions here?
-
Guys,
I recently accepted an offer for a new position and, when attempting to put in my two weeks at my current firm, got a counter offer (somewhat expected). My intention is still to go to the new firm, but there is a no longer much of a salary bump because of the counter offer. Anyone have experience reaching back out to the new firm, explaining the counter offer, and asking for a slightly higher salary than agreed upon? I don't want to ruffle feathers at the new company, but I don't want to leave $$ on the table.
Any suggestions here?
IMO, I think you lost that option once you accepted the position. If you did this post-offer, but before acceptance, I think it would be fine. But I would find it in poor taste if someone came back to me at that point.
-
Guys,
I recently accepted an offer for a new position and, when attempting to put in my two weeks at my current firm, got a counter offer (somewhat expected). My intention is still to go to the new firm, but there is a no longer much of a salary bump because of the counter offer. Anyone have experience reaching back out to the new firm, explaining the counter offer, and asking for a slightly higher salary than agreed upon? I don't want to ruffle feathers at the new company, but I don't want to leave $$ on the table.
Any suggestions here?
Here is where you have to decide some things. Do you want to move if the salary is even? If you don't, then by all means ask for more from the new position. There are 2 risks here. One, they say no which is no big deal. Two, they pull the offer, but this is rare. I would say go for it. It's currently a job seeker market. Just let them know you received a counter offer. Also, this is a time to ask about other items too - starting with more vacation days, higher bonus potential, etc.
-
IMO, I think you lost that option once you accepted the position. If you did this post-offer, but before acceptance, I think it would be fine. But I would find it in poor taste if someone came back to me at that point.
Here's something I don't say all that often: I'm with Sultan on this one. It would leave a very poor taste in my mouth if someone who accepted my offer a few days ago came back and asked for more just because he got a counter-offer from his prior employer. Truth be told, my response would likely be, "then you should probably take that counter-offer." If you want the new position, go with it. Even if they don't pull the offer, it just seems like a bad way to start the relationship.
-
Take the new job. If your old employer valued your work they would have recognized you with an increase in salary and new responsibilities, but no, they waited for you to leave.
-
Take the new job. If your old employer valued your work they would have recognized you with an increase in salary and new responsibilities, but no, they waited for you to leave.
Great point and this would be the point that would make me feel better taking the new position.
Questions however
-Is the “bump” a BUMP, or just a “cup of coffee”?
-how long had you been working for company #1?
-Do you feel comfortable with starting over with a new company? Getting to know new people, the distance to travel to new company, the geographic location, traffic, etc
-Are you leaving company #1 under good terms?
Remember, it’s a small world out there. Never burn a bridge
Good luck on ya!
-
Guys,
I recently accepted an offer for a new position and, when attempting to put in my two weeks at my current firm, got a counter offer (somewhat expected). My intention is still to go to the new firm, but there is a no longer much of a salary bump because of the counter offer. Anyone have experience reaching back out to the new firm, explaining the counter offer, and asking for a slightly higher salary than agreed upon? I don't want to ruffle feathers at the new company, but I don't want to leave $$ on the table.
Any suggestions here?
I recommend you take the new job.
I have hired many employees over time, and many have left for better jobs.
I have had folks accept my offer, and then ask for more. I have always declined, and thanked them and moved to other candidates. On the rare occasion I still hired them, it was because they had hard to find skills. Even then, I never really trusted them to be a long term employee.
On the other side, I have had folks quit. Unless they have skills I really need, I always let them go without counter. In those cases I am quickly looking for a replacement because my experience is that once someone decides to accept another offer, accepting the next offer becomes much easier and they will likely leave at some point in the near future.
On a related note, we are seeing some folks we hire not show up. Is anyone else?
https://www.clomedia.com/2018/09/06/ghost-story-2018-when-candidates-and-new-hires-go-dark/ (https://www.clomedia.com/2018/09/06/ghost-story-2018-when-candidates-and-new-hires-go-dark/)
-
IMO, I think you lost that option once you accepted the position. If you did this post-offer, but before acceptance, I think it would be fine. But I would find it in poor taste if someone came back to me at that point.
Agreed. Part of the juiciness of the offer is usually the value given to getting you to leave your current role. Coming back because its no longer "big enough" in relation to the past salary, when you've already accepted, aka agreeing it was big enough, is poor form. If they had matched, its a big trickier, but still.
My biggest issue had always been hiring companies holding me hostage before offering salary. You agree in principle and they would flat out REFUSE to give a number without a current salary. A top ad agency and a Fortune 100 company I worked for both did it, and I tried every comment to get around it to no avail. This was only an issue because at the jobs prior to each of them, extenuating factors lead to me being severely underpaid. This hurt me at the agency, and then when I moved to the F100, after a graduate degree, I know for a fact I started $10-15K behind comparable peers cause of it. They even said "without a number, we will benchmark it against what we see as common for the position you currently hold" which was ominous to say the least.
-
On a related note, we are seeing some folks we hire not show up. Is anyone else?
[urlhttps://www.clomedia.com/2018/09/06/ghost-story-2018-when-candidates-and-new-hires-go-dark/][/url]
Thats very odd, however, my gf works for a respected asset manager in NYC and she's interviewing for an junior analyst position, basically between an entry level and an analyst, and even working with recruiters, she has about 25-33% of her scheduled interviews not show up, flat out without notice. Its wild. You'd think they were hiring for temp data entry work.
-
Gotta agree wit da Pontiff (must be somethin' in da water). Were someone ta have pulled dat chit wit me, it'll bee adios mf'er and don't let da door hit yo sorry ass on da wey out, aina?
-
Thats very odd, however, my gf works for a respected asset manager in NYC and she's interviewing for an junior analyst position, basically between an entry level and an analyst, and even working with recruiters, she has about 25-33% of her scheduled interviews not show up, flat out without notice. Its wild. You'd think they were hiring for temp data entry work.
I happened to pull data from our recruiters today so we can see what we can do better, but here are September stats for my company:
- Hired and on-boarded in September - 9 new employees
- Offered, accepted, but did not show up- 4 (two stayed with current employer and two failed to show up)
- Offered a job but never replied - 3
- Failed to show for interview 8 out of 36 scheduled
-
Take the new job. If your old employer valued your work they would have recognized you with an increase in salary and new responsibilities, but no, they waited for you to leave.
This. Your current job may value people, but they don’t value you as an individual. Don’t risk the new job offer asking for more. Make good on your acceptance, work your ass off for a year, and then in your performance review, disclose to your new employer how you turned down your previous employer’s offer and ask for a raise commensurate with said offer.
-
I happened to pull data from our recruiters today so we can see what we can do better, but here are September stats for my company:
- Hired and on-boarded in September - 9 new employees
- Offered, accepted, but did not show up- 4 (two stayed with current employer and two failed to show up)
- Offered a job but never replied - 3
- Failed to show for interview 8 out of 36 scheduled
Wild. Goes to show how the market has improved. Not counting the on campus interview for a job I never wanted, I applied and networked for 3-4 months when I graduated in 2008 to just get an interview. And got laid off twice within a year. Now apparently, interviews are like Tinder dates. Maybe you ghost
-
Here is where you have to decide some things. Do you want to move if the salary is even? If you don't, then by all means ask for more from the new position. There are 2 risks here. One, they say no which is no big deal. Two, they pull the offer, but this is rare. I would say go for it. It's currently a job seeker market. Just let them know you received a counter offer. Also, this is a time to ask about other items too - starting with more vacation days, higher bonus potential, etc.
Chili: If the salary is even I would still probably move. I am ready for a change.
Great point and this would be the point that would make me feel better taking the new position.
Questions however
-Is the “bump” a BUMP, or just a “cup of coffee”?
-how long had you been working for company #1?
-Do you feel comfortable with starting over with a new company? Getting to know new people, the distance to travel to new company, the geographic location, traffic, etc
-Are you leaving company #1 under good terms?
Remember, it’s a small world out there. Never burn a bridge
Good luck on ya!
Rocket:
1- The compensation bump originally (before the counter) was a 21% bump. I haven’t officially gotten a figure on the counter (will get that tomorrow am) I imagine it will still be a 5-10% bump at the new firm. I'll have to see on that.
2-I have worked at company #1 for 6 years. Ironically, 3 years ago i got an offer to leave, received a counter offer, and elected to stay at firm #1
3-The new position will make my commute much better, so that will be great. Firm #1 is the only company I’ve worked for, so I am a bit afraid of starting over, but people change jobs all the time and I am ready for some new challenges
4-I am sure they will not be happy I am leaving, but there’s never been any ill-will between any of us. There has been some recent turnover, but I don’t think they could really blame me for taking more $ elsewhere.
Thanks for the input everyone. Seems like most are saying it is not worth the risk if I do in fact want to go to the new firm, which is valid. I definitely don't want to start the relationship out on a bad foot. I also would be surprised to see them pull the offer because circumstances changed and I asked for a slight increase in the offer.
-
DON't DO IT!!!!. Even if they take you, you're integrity will be suspect. And, stats show most people who take a counter offer, leave within a year.
-
This. Your current job may value people, but they don’t value you as an individual. Don’t risk the new job offer asking for more. Make good on your acceptance, work your ass off for a year, and then in your performance review, disclose to your new employer how you turned down your previous employer’s offer and ask for a raise commensurate with said offer.
Yeah this is really good advice.
-
Take the offer from the new employer and do great work on the new job. Nothing says flake more than some one who comes back and tries to renegotiate after having agreed to a deal. We have had people do that to us several times and in all cases we did not end up employing them.
-
I had an intern try to pull this back in April. Said he had an offer from a direct competitor, I operate in an open bidding environment. We were 50/50 on this Platteville savant to begin with and I told him we were no longer interested.
Ran into a manager of the competitor at a conference in May and asked how the intern was doing. He had no idea what I was talking about. Never heard of the kid. Heard he ended up taking a job with Lafayette County, a job posted with a starting salary 18% less than our offer.
-
To any of you guys out there, has your experience been to respectfully offer exit interviews to exiting employees or does one have to consent to one or are they not all that common today? Has anyone given an exit interview?
-
To any of you guys out there, has your experience been to respectfully offer exit interviews to exiting employees or does one have to consent to one or are they not all that common today? Has anyone given an exit interview?
I once dated a girl who worked in HR for a major corporation... part of her job was to conduct exit interviews. I recall her saying they were completely voluntary and the no-show rate was actually slightly greater for those who quit than those who were fired.
In any event, I would suspect an exit interview isn’t going to be of much benefit unless you have properly trained personnel to conduct them.
-
I once dated a girl who worked in HR for a major corporation... part of her job was to conduct exit interviews. I recall her saying they were completely voluntary and the no-show rate was actually slightly greater for those who quit than those who were fired.
In any event, I would suspect an exit interview isn’t going to be of much benefit unless you have properly trained personnel to conduct them.
Thanks Benny. My thinking was that this would be the last ditch effort to keep an employee that say, unexpectedly was leaving you, caught you by total surprise and then, allow you( the boss) to wish them well and leave the door open for possibly a future opportunity should things change
My experience with one was a hygienist whom I couldn’t quite offer the hours she needed to pay the bills. I totally understood and we had a very pleasant “exit interview” if you want to call it that. She ended up staying in touch, subbing for my other hygienist on vacation or sick time or just other times I needed the extra help. Well, not to long after she “left” me, I was able to hire her back, full time With the hours she needed
-
IMO, I think you lost that option once you accepted the position. If you did this post-offer, but before acceptance, I think it would be fine. But I would find it in poor taste if someone came back to me at that point.
I agree with this, but will also add that Chili is right.
You lost your window to negotiate in good faith with the new employer the moment you accepted the offer.
But, that opens a door with the current employer. If you would consider staying where you are, you need to make sure your current employer puts their money where their mouth is. Ask for a big raise. Find a number that would entice you to say, and ask for it. Worst case, they laugh at you, and you move on to the job you accepted/wanted anyway.
In my industry, they only way you get a raise is to get an offer from somewhere else.
-
Take the new job but pout and threaten to hold out if they don't give you a long-term contract. Then, if you get a paper cut and have to miss some time at work, flip everybody the bird on the way out the door.
*Pulled from the Earl Thomas Employee Manual
-
In my industry, they only way you get a raise is to get an offer from somewhere else.
As they say... pimpin’ ain’t easy.
-
As someone who manages recruitment in the technical space, I cannot believe some of the stuff candidates are pulling. But, demand is high enough so they can get away with it.
But yeah don't ask for more money. That's not gonna start things off well and could really backfire. You could use it as a little leverage for things like PTO.
-
Did you go through a headhunter? If so, ask them to see if he/she can get them to sweeten the pot on a sign-on bonus or relo. First, the headhunter won't want to lose the commission. Second, they face this all the time and know how to handle it. One time kickers usually come out of a HR recruiting budget.
If no headhunter, take the new job but perhaps probe on the details of the relo which chances are they haven't shown you in full yet. You likely signed a letter of intent on the offer pending background and drug checks anyway.
Salaries and bonus ranges are in bands in most likelihood so that is tighter. Kickers are typically at discretion of the HR Recruiter. It is also probable that that window is closing/closed at this point, however, but worth the try. Better to use naïvete about cost of living adjustments and unexpected/unplanned moving costs (or spouses), than the old job that you hate. Also, there will be less resentment on the new company's end.
-
Your current company is probably using some of the raise you would have gotten at the next review in your counter. Your new employer probably will give you a normal raise at review.
Also my company always like employees with multiple company experience. Once someone has been at the same place to 10-15 they get "set in their ways" typically.
-
Also my company always like employees with multiple company experience. Once someone has been at the same place to 10-15 they get "set in their ways" typically.
This is cyclical... in an employer's market, job-hopping isn't seen as a negative, but in an employees' market, it is. As hard as it is to hire right now, companies and recruiters are going to start treasuring people who aren't hopping around from job to job every 2-3 years... unless you work in the call center or other high-attrition industry.
-
Late to the game. Don't retrade on the original offer that you already accepted. You can choose to stay at company #1 or you can go to company #2 at the agreed wage.
Good luck.
-
I agree with the sentiment here. Take the new job PERIOD. The only other advice I can offer is if you have an exit interview don't "burn your bridges". For some weird reason the new job doesn't work the old place will take you back if you leave on great terms and no negative feedback.
-
[quote/]My biggest issue had always been hiring companies holding me hostage before offering salary. You agree in principle and they would flat out REFUSE to give a number without a current salary. A top ad agency and a Fortune 100 company I worked for both did it, and I tried every comment to get around it to no avail. This was only an issue because at the jobs prior to each of them, extenuating factors lead to me being severely underpaid. This hurt me at the agency, and then when I moved to the F100, after a graduate degree, I know for a fact I started $10-15K behind comparable peers cause of it. They even said "without a number, we will benchmark it against what we see as common for the position you currently hold" which was ominous to say the least.
[/quote]
Thankfully this is not as common as it used to be and in some states, illegal I believe. Pretty sure this recently became illegal in Porky’s home state of NY. In places where it’s still common practice, it’s easier to circumvent if you’re later in your career and have been at the same company for a long time. Never disclose your current salary because it inevitably dips below market once you’ve been at a place more than a few years even with good annual reviews and fair merit increases. What folks in this position can do is just be honest and say look i’m not going to provide my current compensation but what I can say is that the base salary would have to be at least X to even consider leaving my current organization for anywhere. If it isn’t that’s OK. The problem is prospective employers are a lot more accepting of that type of response from someone in their late 40s as opposed to someone in their late 20s or early 30s because they’re in a different life and career stage. You won’t be able to get away with that if you’ve only been out of school for say five years. About a year and a half ago I had multiple conversations with a rival employer and suspect was on the road to a potential offer, but it was taking longer than expected and at the end of the day I put a stop to it because even though comp had never come up, I said look I’ve been at my current employer for a very long time and at this stage of my career and life, the comp would have to be very close to double my current, otherwise it wouldn’t be worth the risk of leaving my current position/organization which I’ve been almost 20 yrs. The problem was double my current comp at that time exceeded what would be reasonable for the position we were discussing. I knew it and they knew it, so we ended discussions amicably and are still on good terms to this day. Porky wasn’t greedy at all it’s just that you eventually get to a point in your career unfortunately where its unlikely you’re going to be offered something so far and above where you currently are to make the risk of leaving worth it, But I suspect I’m much older than you so it’s generally not a situation someone in their late 20s early 30s would typically find themselves in. Hope that helps.
-
Here's something I don't say all that often: I'm with Sultan on this one. It would leave a very poor taste in my mouth if someone who accepted my offer a few days ago came back and asked for more just because he got a counter-offer from his prior employer. Truth be told, my response would likely be, "then you should probably take that counter-offer." If you want the new position, go with it. Even if they don't pull the offer, it just seems like a bad way to start the relationship.
Me too!
Changing a position is never just about money. Understand why you want to leave. Plus, if you go back, you've already signaled you're not long for the company. All you are doing is giving them a chance to find your replacement.
-
Your current company is probably using some of the raise you would have gotten at the next review in your counter. Your new employer probably will give you a normal raise at review.
Also my company always like employees with multiple company experience. Once someone has been at the same place to 10-15 they get "set in their ways" typically.
Now that Companies no longer offer pensions I understand that trend. My wife worked at her company for 35 years and her salary was competitive when she retired with other Fortune 500 companies that were comparable. My wife was one to never be "set in her ways". She worked in R&D, always striving to improve products already on the market and develop new products for market and keeping her skills up to date. There was a time when loyalty went both ways; but not any more from what I can see.
-
Now that Companies no longer offer pensions I understand that trend. My wife worked at her company for 35 years and her salary was competitive when she retired with other Fortune 500 companies that were comparable. My wife was one to never be "set in her ways". She worked in R&D, always striving to improve products already on the market and develop new products for market and keeping her skills up to date. There was a time when loyalty went both ways; but not any more from what I can see.
This leads to my 'favorite' knock on millennials...corporations broke the structural bonds of loyalty and then blame the young employees that don't value 'loyalty'
-
I'm not in a field where people tend to change jobs often, but we do frequently have members going for various promotions which have both benefits and drawbacks. What I always tell young employees is to go for the job they want to do. If they really enjoy being a firefighter, do that. If they want to drive or be an officer, do that, but do it because they want that position, not because of a bump in salary.
4th and State, if the new job intrigues and interests you, take it. Don't worry about the compensation package. Your happiness in life will not be dictated by that. I've lived a life where I've scraped by on two part-time jobs making $16,000 per year, I spent a few months homeless (but still working) after an eviction, I've worked full-time in the private sector, and now work full-time in the public sector. At every stage, from those minimum wage jobs up to six figures I've never found my happiness to be dictated by changes in financial welfare.
Yes, there is truth that money can make life easier, but there's definitely a point where no amount of money will make you any happier than you already are (studies find it to be about $75,000/year). Whatever extra money you get, you will adjust to that lifestyle and the same problems you always had will resurface. If you have a choice between jobs, take the one you want the most because it interests you the most.
-
.
-
.
Well said.
-
.
Ya've come a long wey. Solid contribution, Ma, hey?
-
To any of you guys out there, has your experience been to respectfully offer exit interviews to exiting employees or does one have to consent to one or are they not all that common today? Has anyone given an exit interview?
I've agreed to an exit interview when I left my last job. It was no big deal. My old employer was understanding. It came down to dollars and cents.
OP, take the new job. Counteroffers rarely work out.
-
Don’t let em pull a switcharoo on you (no MU82) like Amazon just did with their wiping out of RSUs, options, & incentive comp “in exchange” for a $15 min.
Could you please stop with this? Especially toward other posters
-
BJ is a d-bag and a hypocrite. Every time he does something like that to other Scoopers, it says way more about him than the rest of us.
Maybe. But it's still a crapty thing to do. He's calling you a homo. He's being insulting to you and using homosexual as a negative.
-
Don’t let em pull a switcharoo on you (no MU82) like Amazon just did with their wiping out of RSUs, options, & incentive comp “in exchange” for a $15 min.
This is a ridiculous attempt at a personal attack. Marquette taught you better than this.
-
Jay Bee will be eating Arby's for the next week instead of posting on Scoop.
-
Jay Bee will be eating Arby's for the next week instead of posting on Scoop.
(https://metrouk2.files.wordpress.com/2017/01/deadpool-2.gif?quality=80&strip=all&zoom=1&resize=540%2C280)
-
(https://metrouk2.files.wordpress.com/2017/01/deadpool-2.gif?quality=80&strip=all&zoom=1&resize=540%2C280)
I thought you were bigger than that.
-
Thankfully this is not as common as it used to be and in some states, illegal I believe. Pretty sure this recently became illegal in Porky’s home state of NY. In places where it’s still common practice, it’s easier to circumvent if you’re later in your career and have been at the same company for a long time. Never disclose your current salary because it inevitably dips below market once you’ve been at a place more than a few years even with good annual reviews and fair merit increases. What folks in this position can do is just be honest and say look i’m not going to provide my current compensation but what I can say is that the base salary would have to be at least X to even consider leaving my current organization for anywhere. If it isn’t that’s OK. The problem is prospective employers are a lot more accepting of that type of response from someone in their late 40s as opposed to someone in their late 20s or early 30s because they’re in a different life and career stage. You won’t be able to get away with that if you’ve only been out of school for say five years. About a year and a half ago I had multiple conversations with a rival employer and suspect was on the road to a potential offer, but it was taking longer than expected and at the end of the day I put a stop to it because even though comp had never come up, I said look I’ve been at my current employer for a very long time and at this stage of my career and life, the comp would have to be very close to double my current, otherwise it wouldn’t be worth the risk of leaving my current position/organization which I’ve been almost 20 yrs. The problem was double my current comp at that time exceeded what would be reasonable for the position we were discussing. I knew it and they knew it, so we ended discussions amicably and are still on good terms to this day. Porky wasn’t greedy at all it’s just that you eventually get to a point in your career unfortunately where its unlikely you’re going to be offered something so far and above where you currently are to make the risk of leaving worth it, But I suspect I’m much older than you so it’s generally not a situation someone in their late 20s early 30s would typically find themselves in. Hope that helps.
Good to know. And thanks for that insight.
And yea, at the time I was 27, had only had a "good" job for 3 years after some turbulent times, and recently added a graduate degree. I had an idea of my worth on paper from a plethora of online resources, but didn't have a ton of leverage or tangible support, especially being put in that spot after agreeing in principle and being horrifically underpaid at my role.
We've had some mention of it, but my advice to younger colleagues and peers is always "know your worth". Not in an arrogant "I deserve this" sense, but it pains me to hear about people who are making 20-25% or more below what they could, simply because they don't know comps, havent explored elsewhere, etc... Especially when its not a job you LOVE.
At the agency I mentioned I moved from, I was in strategy, but for media planning it went
Assistant->Planner->Supervisor->Associate Director
About a 20% raise each promotion every 2-3 years. However, if you jumped agencies, you could normally move faster, and that raise was closer to 40-50% early, and 30-35% later. I knew Planners making more than Supervisors, and Supervisors making more than ADs. A couple really liked the client and the team and had left and come back. I get being comfortable and secure in your job, but at a point its a bit irresponsible if you have ambition.
-
I thought you were bigger than that.
I'm giving the mods kudos for doing the right thing. It wouldn't be very consistent to only criticize when I disagree and not commend when I do agree.
-
This. Your current job may value people, but they don’t value you as an individual. Don’t risk the new job offer asking for more. Make good on your acceptance, work your ass off for a year, and then in your performance review, disclose to your new employer how you turned down your previous employer’s offer and ask for a raise commensurate with said offer.
Agree 100%.
Looks bad to accept an offer then ask for more. Act in good faith by honoring your original deal, then once you have shown them what you can do, use your actual performance with the new employer as a (very legitimate) bargaining chip next time around.
-
.
Doesn't this belong in the NM thread? ;)
-
.
Take the job - PERIOD.
Well said, chickadee!
-
You can also leverage down the road. Once you get to the new company, become a really good employee, get to know the managers, gain trust. Next performance review: "I love working here, glad I made the switch, I got offered more money before I left the last place, but I know I made the right decision." It will come across as sincere and look impressive that your made a "sacrifice" for the company.
-
And here's the deal. Whenever you take a new job, you are going to be left with feelings of "did I leave money on the table." But if you take the job at the compensation level you are comfortable with, it shouldn't really matter.
-
So, Fourth & State, what did all this advice get you?
-
So, Fourth & State, what did all this advice get you?
Here’s where I am at. The counter offer did not go as planned. They matched the offer I had from firm 2, but there is acquisition going on with firm 1 where I am currently at, and I would also get a decent signing bonus (a portion of which is equity of the acquiring firm) if I stay. This is not a crazy amount, but nonetheless it’s enticing.
I am very seriously considering staying and think it could be a bigger opportunity down the line. I also don’t want to back out of the offer from firm 2, but I believe staying would be the better career decision at the moment.
-
Here’s where I am at. The counter offer did not go as planned. They matched the offer I had from firm 2, but there is acquisition going on with firm 1 where I am currently at, and I would also get a decent signing bonus (a portion of which is equity of the acquiring firm) if I stay. This is not a crazy amount, but nonetheless it’s enticing.
I am very seriously considering staying and think it could be a bigger opportunity down the line. I also don’t want to back out of the offer from firm 2, but I believe staying would be the better career decision at the moment.
If there was any chance at all that you would entertain a counteroffer from your current employer, you should have talked to them before you accepted the new job.
Honor the commitment you made and chalk it up as a lesson learned.
-
If there was any chance at all that you would entertain a counteroffer from your current employer, you should have talked to them before you accepted the new job.
Honor the commitment you made and chalk it up as a lesson learned.
I disagree. They should do what is best for them and their family. If something happened to the market, or within the new company, they would rescind the offer/agreement or fire them in a heartbeat, without even a thought of the commitment.
Too often I have had friends take new job offers, with the promise of a "growing company," only to be laid off or fired within a week/month of taking the new job, because the company needed to undergo restructuring.
-
I disagree. They should do what is best for them and their family. If something happened to the market, or within the new company, they would rescind the offer/agreement or fire them in a heartbeat, without even a thought of the commitment.
Too often I have had friends take new job offers, with the promise of a "growing company," only to be laid off or fired within a week/month of taking the new job, because the company needed to undergo restructuring.
I understand what you are saying, but this person is telegraphing that they don't honor their commitments, and I don't want someone like that working for me. If someone pulled trying to increase an accepted offer, I would send them back to their old company.
I suppose that if your plan is to return to your current employer if the new company don't bump up their offer, you don't have much to lose by asking. However, if you would still consider switching even if they don't, you would be starting a new role with one strike against you.
-
If there was any chance at all that you would entertain a counteroffer from your current employer, you should have talked to them before you accepted the new job.
Honor the commitment you made and chalk it up as a lesson learned.
To hell with that. Whatever is in his best interest is where he should go.
-
If there was any chance at all that you would entertain a counteroffer from your current employer, you should have talked to them before you accepted the new job.
Honor the commitment you made and chalk it up as a lesson learned.
I agree. 4th will be looked at from here on out as someone with one foot out the door, and not with the program. That is hard to undo even if you are fully committed.
-
It always makes me chuckle that employees are expected to have loyalty, but employers can do whatever. Strange world.
-
It always makes me chuckle that employees are expected to have loyalty, but employers can do whatever. Strange world.
I don’t see this as a loyalty issue. I think people seem to be commenting more on accepting the offer with the new company and then backing out. That’s a completely different issue than loyalty. I’m not a big fan of that move, and think it would have been better to not accept if he wasn’t committed to leaving the old company. That said, add me to the list that thinks you should do what’s best for you and your family. If that means your reputation takes a (probably minor) hit because you backed out, they you can choose to take that hit. But, be aware that you don’t want to take too many hits like that. It’s a small world, and people talk. You don’t want a reputation for not doing what you say you’ll do.
-
I don't blame 4th for backing out and staying with his current employer. Yeah it would be better if he would have not accepted, but I think he is within the window where it is acceptable. And Still is correct - a single move like this really is understandable and isn't going to harm you long term.
-
It always makes me chuckle that employees are expected to have loyalty, but employers can do whatever. Strange world.
In my day there were many employers that had loyalty toward employees. We are product of our environment. If that isn't your situation, that is fine, but that doesn't mean your blanket statement is true.
-
In my day there were many employers that had loyalty toward employees. We are product of our environment. If that isn't your situation, that is fine, but that doesn't mean your blanket statement is true.
Am I to assume, by your lead-in, that your "day" was in the past? Things change. Culture, society, employment, etc.
-
4th, do what’s best for you and your career, whether that’s staying or going. The rest is noise.
-
In my day there were many employers that had loyalty toward employees. We are product of our environment. If that isn't your situation, that is fine, but that doesn't mean your blanket statement is true.
In your day? Are you 97 years old?
Employers have one calling, one goal, one mission: make money. If they deem that the best way to do that is to be loyal and wonderful to employees, that's what they'll do. Unfortunately, many employers do not deem that as anything close to the best way to do it.
I'll get off your yard now, gramps!
-
If there was any chance at all that you would entertain a counteroffer from your current employer, you should have talked to them before you accepted the new job.
Honor the commitment you made and chalk it up as a lesson learned.
I agree with Sister Chick.
Honesty and living up to your word is a positive moral value that defines who you are as a person.
The situationalism associated with financial compensation is less important than living your life consistent with the values you hold as a person. I recognize there are many "extenuating" circumstances in a job change, but at the end of the day, if you told someone you were going to do something based on a specific set of facts for which you had advanced knowledge, then you owe it to them to live up to your commitment.
Good luck.
-
Honesty and living up to your word is a positive moral value that defines who you are as a person.
The situationalism associated with financial compensation is less important than living your life consistent with the values you hold as a person. I recognize there are many "extenuating" circumstances in a job change, but at the end of the day, if you told someone you were going to do something based on a specific set of facts for which you had advanced knowledge, then you owe it to them to live up to your commitment.
Good luck.
In all honesty, this isn't true anymore. American's don't value honesty or integrity, they value a persons worth based on how rich they are, with the assumption that if you are wealthy that means you got there through hard work, intelligence, and values.
Actual moral values get you a pat on the back, and called a sucker when your boss walks away.
No idea how we got here, but that is now the reality.
-
In all honesty, this isn't true anymore. American's don't value honesty or integrity, they value a persons worth based on how rich they are, with the assumption that if you are wealthy that means you got there through hard work, intelligence, and values.
Actual moral values get you a pat on the back, and called a sucker when your boss walks away.
No idea how we got here, but that is now the reality.
Well I'm not going to go that far. I would say that employers by and large value honesty and integrity. But what's missing is loyalty. They don't have it and by and large aren't surprised if their employees don't either.
That is why 4th and State backing out of his acceptance, while not really the best idea in the world, is still something he can do and feel right with himself.
-
If it was me personally....I'm with Chick. If I accepted a new offer, I am going there.
I would have entertained a counteroffer before I accepted. I probably still wouldn't have taken it. Counteroffers just rarely ever work out for the best. Even if your boss is sincere about still wanting you, you have put a seed of doubt in his mind about you. Even if your boss doesn't know it yet. That doesn't mean you did anything wrong. It is just the reality.
I am not going to judge you for doing what you think is right. Maybe the counteroffer will work out. I don't think it is immoral to take the counter. I just don't think it will end well for you. But best of luck either way.
-
When I first started out of college, I applied for a job with a financial firm I was very interested in and had a good first interview. However communication went silent and they seemingly moved on. I interviewed with a diff company in a diff field and accepted an offer. In the 3 weeks between accepting and my start date, the financial firm came back and wanted me for another interview. I was torn, took the interview, but felt I was being disloyal and unfair to the company that gave me he accepted offer and my heart wasn’t in it. No further interviews or offers came.
That firm, 6 months later, was acquired by a larger company which resulted in payouts of some sort to all employees, no matter how junior, plus being absorbed into a trading desk of a respected company with a lot of stability in a turbulent 2009-2010 period. On the other hand, I was laid off, right before the holidays, 4 months after I started, when my company got tight and cut my entire hiring class.
I happened to run into the manager I interviewed with at a networking event as I was looking for a new job in that time (which is how I found out about a lot of the acquisition news) and he told me that my enthusiasm/interest is why they brought me back for another interview, but it was apparent something had changed which was why they didn’t extend an offer. REALLY hard to hear/take at the time, but a good lesson. Don’t be immoral or dishonest, but this is YOUR life and YOUR career, do right by yourself and not an employer who hasn’t demonstrated the same commitment to you outside of simple employement
-
If it was me personally....I'm with Chick. If I accepted a new offer, I am going there.
I would have entertained a counteroffer before I accepted. I probably still wouldn't have taken it. Counteroffers just rarely ever work out for the best. Even if your boss is sincere about still wanting you, you have put a seed of doubt in his mind about you. Even if your boss doesn't know it yet. That doesn't mean you did anything wrong. It is just the reality.
I am not going to judge you for doing what you think is right. Maybe the counteroffer will work out. I don't think it is immoral to take the counter. I just don't think it will end well for you. But best of luck either way.
While I agree that accepting the counteroffer isn't a great idea, I think the more egregious issue is using the counteroffer to get more money from the new employer - after he accepted the original deal. 4th had even said that the new offer was still better than his employee's counter.
Was the job change only about money? If so, you are still coming out ahead by taking the original offer. If not, the work issues that made you look elsewhere aren't going to go away simply because they are throwing more money at you. You are making a major life decision here, not trying to get a better price for a TV at American.
-
After I accepted a job from a different employer and got all the benefit terms a couple weeks before I started working there, I noticed that I would not be able to take part in the 401k plan at the new place for many, many months. That delay would cost me thousands of dollars in taxes.
I really wrestled with whether or not to pursue it. When my new boss and I had lunch shortly before I was to start working there, he asked, "Is there anything else we can do for you?" I decided to mention the 401k thing. I was very polite and let him know immediately that I didn't "expect" anything. He immediately said, "Figure out what you think our 401k policy is costing you and send me an invoice. We'll take care of you."
And they did. Cut me a check for the exact amount.
This went right into the department my mom would call, "You won't get it if you don't ask for it."
-
In all honesty, this isn't true anymore. American's don't value honesty or integrity, they value a persons worth based on how rich they are, with the assumption that if you are wealthy that means you got there through hard work, intelligence, and values.
Actual moral values get you a pat on the back, and called a sucker when your boss walks away.
No idea how we got here, but that is now the reality.
Brother Link, that is what is called a Mass Man Fallacy. Just because Americans "don't value" something, doesn't mean it is not a value that governs how a moral and ethical person lives. I never based a decision solely on money or personal reward.
At some point, I can use situationalism to justify about anything. I know comparatively this is a very small thing, but a person's word is their word. Heck, if you're not sure about a job, delay a final discussion on acceptance or just say no.
-
Brother Link, that is what is called a Mass Man Fallacy. Just because Americans "don't value" something, doesn't mean it is not a value that governs how a moral and ethical person lives. I never based a decision solely on money or personal reward.
At some point, I can use situationalism to justify about anything. I know comparatively this is a very small thing, but a person's word is their word. Heck, if you're not sure about a job, delay a final discussion on acceptance or just say no.
I didn't say that I don't value moral values.
My industry is one where you don't get a significant raise without getting another offer and use it as leverage. I've had numerous entities solicit my interest (the industry knows this is the practice so you don't get an offer until serious interest has been expressed). Had I simply feigned interest, I would have gotten offers and could have used them for 20-50% raises. I have not, because I respect my peers, and will not even express interest unless I'd seriously entertain the offer.
My employer knows of a list of 5, that if asked, there is a strong chance I leave for. It is unusual, but those are my values. That means I'm significantly underpaid, because I'm not playing the game.
-
I didn't say that I don't value moral values.
My industry is one where you don't get a significant raise without getting another offer and use it as leverage. I've had numerous entities solicit my interest (the industry knows this is the practice so you don't get an offer until serious interest has been expressed). Had I simply feigned interest, I would have gotten offers and could have used them for 20-50% raises. I have not, because I respect my peers, and will not even express interest unless I'd seriously entertain the offer.
My employer knows of a list of 5, that if asked, there is a strong chance I leave for. It is unusual, but those are my values. That means I'm significantly underpaid, because I'm not playing the game.
Brother Forgetful, I appreciate that and I know that often, you have to be a hot commodity that someone else values to get a reward or other concessions that reflect your worth.
I would challenge you on the sense that leaving for five other firms is a "value." It's a tactic. You are not an indentured servant. You can leave and if someone expresses an interest, guess what, you have leverage. But when you say you're headed out the door and you don't that's another story.
I'll concede that most companies do not do as effective a job as they should mentoring. I have some people who work for me that, given the chance, will go far. Others won't. The key is to communicate effectively and make it clear what has to be done to get to the next level. Often, that means time and time is one thing that Millennials, like we Boomers, thought was in very short supply.
-
In all honesty, this isn't true anymore. American's don't value honesty or integrity, they value a persons worth based on how rich they are, with the assumption that if you are wealthy that means you got there through hard work, intelligence, and values.
Actual moral values get you a pat on the back, and called a sucker when your boss walks away.
No idea how we got here, but that is now the reality.
Many broad statements here.
-
In your day? Are you 97 years old?
Employers have one calling, one goal, one mission: make money. If they deem that the best way to do that is to be loyal and wonderful to employees, that's what they'll do. Unfortunately, many employers do not deem that as anything close to the best way to do it.
I'll get off your yard now, gramps!
More broad statements.
Actually, not all employers are for profit, so you are wrong with all due respect. Furthermore, even the for profit companies often have departments, or even divisions that are not meant to be profit centers and employees work in those areas, too.
I'm sorry your experience is what it was, though you shared an anecdote for the employer stepped up and covered for your 401k shortage. I have worked for great companies where loyalty mattered, great companies where loyalty didn't matter. Also for lousy companies. Overly broad statements don't help here.
-
Dear lord. Saying no to an offer you preliminarily accepted because the situation changed is not dishonest or immoral. People change their minds once they get all the facts. Why should one be unhappy for years with regret? Rick Majerus did it. Al did it. May they burn in hell!
-
Dear lord. Saying no to an offer you preliminarily accepted because the situation changed is not dishonest or immoral. People change their minds once they get all the facts. Why should one be unhappy for years with regret? Rick Majerus did it. Al did it. May they burn in hell!
+1. At worst, I'd call it "shady" which is a few notches towards the center on the Blago/Newborn Scale
Blago---Immoral---Deceitful---Dishonest---Misleading---Unethical---Shady---Borderline---Newborn
-
Dear lord. Saying no to an offer you preliminarily accepted because the situation changed is not dishonest or immoral. People change their minds once they get all the facts. Why should one be unhappy for years with regret? Rick Majerus did it. Al did it. May they burn in hell!
I think there is a bit of a difference between immediately withdrawing an acceptance after your employer counters and going back for another bite of the apple with the offering employer simply because the pay bump is now smaller.
In any case, I hope 4th has dealt with it one way or another by now, because it's coming up on 2 weeks since his original post. The longer he waits to do anything other than show up for his new job on the agreed-upon date, the worse he makes it for himself.
-
I think there is a bit of a difference between immediately withdrawing an acceptance after your employer counters and going back for another bite of the apple with the offering employer simply because the pay bump is now smaller.
In any case, I hope 4th has dealt with it one way or another by now, because it's coming up on 2 weeks since his original post. The longer he waits to do anything other than show up for his new job on the agreed-upon date, the worse he makes it for himself.
Why? You can do it with a car with Lemon Laws. You can do it with your house after inspections. Heck, you can even do it at Walmart on price matching for a roll of toilet paper. Why not with your job option after all the facts are in or your situation changes?
Crean did it at IU when he found out the situation he inherited wasn't fully what he was told when he interviewed and initially inked.
-
Why? You can do it with a car with Lemon Laws. You can do it with your house after inspections. Heck, you can even do it at Walmart on price matching for a roll of toilet paper. Why not with your job option after all the facts are in or your situation changes?
Crean did it at IU when he found out the situation he inherited wasn't fully what he was told when he interviewed and initially inked.
Walmart doesn't price-match anymore, at least not like they used to. You have to download their app and scan your receipt(s) into the "Savings Catcher" within seven days and hope that Walmart's own "ad trackers" find a lower price somewhere locally. It's complete garbage, which I guess is ironic considering that just about everything I buy from Walmart anymore ends up in the trash (or the bottom of a lake).
-
Why? You can do it with a car with Lemon Laws. You can do it with your house after inspections. Heck, you can even do it at Walmart on price matching for a roll of toilet paper. Why not with your job option after all the facts are in or your situation changes?
Crean did it at IU when he found out the situation he inherited wasn't fully what he was told when he interviewed and initially inked.
Could you please PM me your real name in case your resume ever comes across my desk?
-
Walmart doesn't price-match anymore, at least not like they used to.
4th isn't even price matching, though. He is saying to Walmart, "I saved 2 bucks by buying it here, but Target lowered its price by a dollar, so now you are going to have to lower your price a dollar so that I am still saving 2 bucks."
-
4th isn't even price matching, though. He is saying to Walmart, "I wsaved 2 bucks by buying it here, but Target lowered its price by a dollar, so now you are going to have to lower your price a dollar so that I am still saving 2 bucks."
But unless I am misreading his latest post, that's not what he is doing. He received a counter-offer from his current firm, including a signing bonus, and is considering staying. I don't think he went back to the new firm to get them to up their offer further.
-
But unless I am misreading his latest post, that's not what he is doing. He received a counter-offer from his current firm, including a signing bonus, and is considering staying. I don't think he went back to the new firm to get them to up their offer further.
He was asking if he should.
Guys,
I recently accepted an offer for a new position and, when attempting to put in my two weeks at my current firm, got a counter offer (somewhat expected). My intention is still to go to the new firm, but there is a no longer much of a salary bump because of the counter offer. Anyone have experience reaching back out to the new firm, explaining the counter offer, and asking for a slightly higher salary than agreed upon? I don't want to ruffle feathers at the new company, but I don't want to leave $$ on the table.
Any suggestions here?
-
chick, I think the rest of us were responding to his update.
Here’s where I am at. The counter offer did not go as planned. They matched the offer I had from firm 2, but there is acquisition going on with firm 1 where I am currently at, and I would also get a decent signing bonus (a portion of which is equity of the acquiring firm) if I stay. This is not a crazy amount, but nonetheless it’s enticing.
I am very seriously considering staying and think it could be a bigger opportunity down the line. I also don’t want to back out of the offer from firm 2, but I believe staying would be the better career decision at the moment.
-
chick, I think the rest of us were responding to his update.
Gotcha. Although I must say that I have been through two acquisitions of firms I worked for, and in both cases, my entire department was s-canned due to "redundancy". If 4th is in any type of support role at his firm, I would think twice about staying. Sure they want him to stay. Who is going to teach the new guys how to do his job?
As an aside: in both cases, the company went straight down the crapper after they got rid of me. I just don't understand why an organization would pay a premium price for a successful, profitable company and then get rid of everyone that made it successful and profitable.
-
Al did it.
Al had a friggin contract and everyone involved knew it.
And when Marquette University said no, Al accepted that he had a contract and moved on to a NatChamp.
He was not employed at will.
-
Ended up staying at firm 1. I just think the potential opportunity is too good to turn down. Obviously there are risks involved, but in my gut it felt like the right decision. Thanks to everyone for your input, as there are many different angles to view this from, and many of you who have been in similar situations.
I told firm 2 yesterday about my decision to stay and was very upfront about the situation and how it happened. The recruiter was disappointed, but understood the decision. I was expecting him to be very upset, but he just said "these things happen" and have to do what is best if for you. It went as well as it could have given the situation.
Anyway, thanks to all for sharing your thoughts.
-
As an aside: in both cases, the company went straight down the crapper after they got rid of me. I just don't understand why an organization would pay a premium price for a successful, profitable company and then get rid of everyone that made it successful and profitable.
Sister Chick, the concept is that employes are disposable. Customer relationships are not. Sometimes companies are so hasty to put merger deals together that they fail to see that there is a relationship between good customer relationships and happy, engaged employees.
I don't get it either -- and I work in M&A -- but it happens.
-
More broad statements.
Actually, not all employers are for profit, so you are wrong with all due respect. Furthermore, even the for profit companies often have departments, or even divisions that are not meant to be profit centers and employees work in those areas, too.
I'm sorry your experience is what it was, though you shared an anecdote for the employer stepped up and covered for your 401k shortage. I have worked for great companies where loyalty mattered, great companies where loyalty didn't matter. Also for lousy companies. Overly broad statements don't help here.
Please show evidence of a corporation - not a non-profit - that doesn't have making money as its primary goal.
-
Please show evidence of a corporation - not a non-profit - that doesn't have making money as its primary goal.
Chik-fil-a
-
Please show evidence of a corporation - not a non-profit - that doesn't have making money as its primary goal.
You make that sound like it’s a bad thing.
-
You make that sound like it’s a bad thing.
Exactly. People are OK with making THEIR money. In fact, they're OK every time they get more. But the people whose capital make that possible are the bad guys. WTF? Grateful is happy, envy is not.
-
You make that sound like it’s a bad thing.
Exactly. People are OK with making THEIR money. In fact, they're OK every time they get more. But the people whose capital make that possible are the bad guys. WTF? Grateful is happy, envy is not.
I didn't read 82's comment that way at all. I think he's pointing out how it's ok for business to have making money as their first priority but some look down on employees who have making money as their first priority.
-
I didn't read 82's comment that way at all. I think he's pointing out how it's ok for business to have making money as their first priority but some look down on employees who have making money as their first priority.
That's exactly what he was arguing - which would be very obvious if people looked back in the thread. Chicos was the one suggesting that businesses have some sort of altruistic motive.
And I would also suggest that many not-for-profits still engage in making money has a primary purpose. While that purpose may be charitable in nature, many will treat their employees no different than a for-profit enterprise would - both positively and negatively.
-
Please show evidence of a corporation - not a non-profit - that doesn't have making money as its primary goal.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benefit_corporation
https://www.businessinsider.com/danone-planning-to-be-worlds-largest-benefit-corporation-2018-10
-
And I would also suggest that many not-for-profits still engage in making money has a primary purpose. While that purpose may be charitable in nature, many will treat their employees no different than a for-profit enterprise would - both positively and negatively.
See also: providers, healthcare
-
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benefit_corporation
https://www.businessinsider.com/danone-planning-to-be-worlds-largest-benefit-corporation-2018-10
Making money is still a primary objective of benefit corporations.
-
Making money is still a primary objective of benefit corporations.
I always thought it was to maximize shareholder equity?
-
Making money is still a primary objective of benefit corporations.
It is one of them, yes. Among several.
-
See also: providers, healthcare
Did you say that with a straight face? Seriously, providers/healthcare. What makes you think their primary motif is not profit?
Edit: Sorry, misunderstood your post. Reading comprehension apparently is not my friend today.
-
Did you say that with a straight face? Seriously, providers/healthcare. What makes you think their primary motif is not profit?
No that's his point. He was agreeing that many non-profit health companies act as if profit is a primary motive.
-
No that's his point. He was agreeing that many non-profit health companies act as if profit is a primary motive.
I suck at reading comprehension sometimes.
-
Please show evidence of a corporation - not a non-profit - that doesn't have making money as its primary goal.
I never said corporation. I said employer, for which there are all kinds, some for profit, some non-profit, some gov't, etc.
-
Chik-fil-a
That's funny, Benny. I needed the laugh.
-
And I would also suggest that many not-for-profits still engage in making money has a primary purpose. While that purpose may be charitable in nature, many will treat their employees no different than a for-profit enterprise would - both positively and negatively.
Where did anyone say businesses exclusively? Or corporations for that matter? I said employers. Employers include schools, the gov't, charities, corporations (for profit and non profit).
-
That's funny, Benny. I needed the laugh.
Not funny at all. If money was their primary goal, why are they closed on Sundays?
-
Not funny at all. If money was their primary goal, why are they closed on Sundays?
Being closed on Sundays helps them make money. It's part of their schtick.
If altruism or religiosity or love were their primary goal, why wouldn't they give employees $20 an hour and full health benefits? Why wouldn't they let poor people eat for free?
I did not say corporations didn't do things that seemingly cost them money. Costco famously treats its employees better than any other retailer does. This undoubtedly "costs" them money. But they also have the best employee loyalty in the business - meaning less turnover, less money spent on training, less stealing by employees, employees who actually want to do a day's hard work, etc. Plus, customers seem to appreciate that Costco treats its employees well. So does Costco have a different primary objective ... or is being good to employees part of what helps Costco make money?
Same with Starbucks. They give 20-hour/week employees access to reasonably priced health insurance. Plus they take on many altruistic (some say liberal) causes. But does this mean Starbucks' primary goal is not to make money?
Corporations have to make money as Job 1 ... or else they'll go out of business. Publicly traded ones have even more money-making obligations.
Maybe Chik-fil-A is an outlier ... but I don't think so.
And chicos2 throwing non-profits into the discussion ... hilarious.
-
Being closed on Sundays helps them make money. It's part of their schtick.
If altruism or religiosity or love were their primary goal, why wouldn't they give employees $20 an hour and full health benefits? Why wouldn't they let poor people eat for free?
Schtick? They make more money as a result of staying closed? Some say they are leaving about $1.1 billion in revenue off the table by staying closed on Sundays.
Because $20 an hour would put them at a tremendous disadvantage in terms of business along with those full health benefits. Fewer customers could afford their costly food which would have to be raised in price to sustain those costs. You can't do much good if you aren't in business. How much one pays is dictated by market forces.
Employers don't always mean corporations. Keep digging that hole.
-
Schtick? They make more money as a result of staying closed? Some say they are leaving about $1.1 billion in revenue off the table by staying closed on Sundays.
Because $20 an hour would put them at a tremendous disadvantage in terms of business along with those full health benefits. Fewer customers could afford their costly food which would have to be raised in price to sustain those costs. You can't do much good if you aren't in business. How much one pays is dictated by market forces.
Employers don't always mean corporations. Keep digging that hole.
Nice goalpost shifting, c2. Keep pretending that you were talking about not-for-profits and the government. To stop your silliness, I will hereby stipulate that making money isn't always the primary goal of not-for-profits, and isn't the goal of governments.
Now ...
If making money isn't Chik-fil-A's primary goal, as you (and Benny?) seem to be implying, what do you think is their primary goal? What is the main reason they are in business? To do good deeds? Well, their owner Dan Cathy is a bazillionaire. He doesn't need to sell chicken sammiches at a profit to do good deeds. He could just do good deeds, no?
Couldn't making money be Chik-fil-A's primary goal but closing on Sundays be a sign that taking a day off or supporting Christian values or "tradition" or whatever other reasons also are important to their bazillionaire owner? Do they have to be mutually exclusive?
Don't many (dozens? hundreds? more?) companies often "leave money on the table" to create an image of themselves that help them "win" at public relations, thereby helping them succeed over the long haul?
BTW, closing on Sundays doesn't appear to have been some kind of major Christian statement at all. From Wikipedia:
In an interview with ABC News's Nightline, Truett's son Dan T. Cathy told reporter Vicki Mabrey that the company is also closed on Sundays because "by the time Sunday came, he was just worn out. And Sunday was not a big trading day, anyway, at the time. So he was closed that first Sunday and we've been closed ever since. He figured if he didn't like working on Sundays, that other people didn't either." The younger Cathy also quoted his father as saying, "I don't want to ask people to do that what I am not willing to do myself."
Being homophobic ... now that's more of a major Christian statement by Cathy and his kin.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chick-fil-A_same-sex_marriage_controversy
-
Being homophobic ... now that's more of a major Christian statement by Cathy and his kin.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chick-fil-A_same-sex_marriage_controversy
Timeout, where did Cathy or Chick Fil A make homophobic statements? They may have a different opinion on Same Sex marriage but that does not make one homophobic. Unless I missed a statement somewhere I've seen a position I wildly disagree with but I hardly would describe as homophobic
-
Timeout, where did Cathy or Chick Fil A make homophobic statements? They may have a different opinion on Same Sex marriage but that does not make one homophobic. Unless I missed a statement somewhere I've seen a position I wildly disagree with but I hardly would describe as homophobic
This from Wikipedia:
The WinShape Foundation, a charitable endeavor of Chick-fil-A founder S. Truett Cathy and his family, stated that it would not allow same-sex couples to participate in its marriage retreats.[14] Chick-fil-A gave over $8 million to the WinShape Foundation in 2010.[15] Equality Matters, an LGBT watchdog group, published reports of donations by WinShape to organizations that the watchdog group considers anti-gay, including $2 million in 2009, $1.9 million in 2010 and a total of $5 million since 2003, including grants to the Family Research Council and Georgia Family Council. WinShape contributed grants to the Fellowship of Christian Athletes, and Exodus International, an organization noted for supporting ex-gay conversion therapy
On June 16, 2012, while on the syndicated radio talk show, The Ken Coleman Show, Chick-fil-A president and chief operating officer (COO) Dan Cathy stated:
I think we are inviting God's judgment on our nation when we shake our fist at Him and say, "We know better than you as to what constitutes a marriage". I pray God's mercy on our generation that has such a prideful, arrogant attitude to think that we have the audacity to define what marriage is about.
The following month, on July 2, Biblical Recorder published an interview with Dan Cathy, who was asked about opposition to his company's "support of the traditional family." He replied: "Well, guilty as charged."
Cathy continued:
"We are very much supportive of the family — the biblical definition of the family unit. We are a family-owned business, a family-led business, and we are married to our first wives. We give God thanks for that. ... We want to do anything we possibly can to strengthen families. We are very much committed to that," Cathy emphasized. "We intend to stay the course," he said. "We know that it might not be popular with everyone, but thank the Lord, we live in a country where we can share our values and operate on biblical principles."
The day after the Supreme Court of the United States struck down Section 3 of the Defense of Marriage Act, Cathy tweeted, "Sad day for our nation; founding fathers would be ashamed of our gen. to abandon wisdom of the ages re: cornerstone of strong societies." The tweet was subsequently deleted, but was archived by Topsy.
In March 2014, Cathy said he regretted drawing his company into the controversy. He told the Atlanta Journal-Constitution he has been working with Shane Windmeyer of Campus Pride since 2012. The article noted that WinShape and the Chick-fil-A Foundation had "dramatically" cut donations to groups opposed by same-sex marriage supporters.
So mu03, you can decide if Cathy's comments, donations to organizations that support gay-conversion therapy, and other comments/actions are homophobic.
If you think "homophobic" is the wrong word, I'm open to hearing another. Gay-basher, perhaps?
It does sound like in recent years he is trying to be less of a public gay-hater, for PR purposes if nothing else, so I guess that's a good thing.
-
This from Wikipedia:
The WinShape Foundation, a charitable endeavor of Chick-fil-A founder S. Truett Cathy and his family, stated that it would not allow same-sex couples to participate in its marriage retreats.[14] Chick-fil-A gave over $8 million to the WinShape Foundation in 2010.[15] Equality Matters, an LGBT watchdog group, published reports of donations by WinShape to organizations that the watchdog group considers anti-gay, including $2 million in 2009, $1.9 million in 2010 and a total of $5 million since 2003, including grants to the Family Research Council and Georgia Family Council. WinShape contributed grants to the Fellowship of Christian Athletes, and Exodus International, an organization noted for supporting ex-gay conversion therapy
On June 16, 2012, while on the syndicated radio talk show, The Ken Coleman Show, Chick-fil-A president and chief operating officer (COO) Dan Cathy stated:
I think we are inviting God's judgment on our nation when we shake our fist at Him and say, "We know better than you as to what constitutes a marriage". I pray God's mercy on our generation that has such a prideful, arrogant attitude to think that we have the audacity to define what marriage is about.
The following month, on July 2, Biblical Recorder published an interview with Dan Cathy, who was asked about opposition to his company's "support of the traditional family." He replied: "Well, guilty as charged."
Cathy continued:
"We are very much supportive of the family — the biblical definition of the family unit. We are a family-owned business, a family-led business, and we are married to our first wives. We give God thanks for that. ... We want to do anything we possibly can to strengthen families. We are very much committed to that," Cathy emphasized. "We intend to stay the course," he said. "We know that it might not be popular with everyone, but thank the Lord, we live in a country where we can share our values and operate on biblical principles."
The day after the Supreme Court of the United States struck down Section 3 of the Defense of Marriage Act, Cathy tweeted, "Sad day for our nation; founding fathers would be ashamed of our gen. to abandon wisdom of the ages re: cornerstone of strong societies." The tweet was subsequently deleted, but was archived by Topsy.
In March 2014, Cathy said he regretted drawing his company into the controversy. He told the Atlanta Journal-Constitution he has been working with Shane Windmeyer of Campus Pride since 2012. The article noted that WinShape and the Chick-fil-A Foundation had "dramatically" cut donations to groups opposed by same-sex marriage supporters.
So mu03, you can decide if Cathy's comments, donations to organizations that support gay-conversion therapy, and other comments/actions are homophobic.
If you think "homophobic" is the wrong word, I'm open to hearing another. Gay-basher, perhaps?
It does sound like in recent years he is trying to be less of a public gay-hater, for PR purposes if nothing else, so I guess that's a good thing.
Maybe an unpopular stance, but I don't view their position as homophobic, misguided certainly, but it's not like they are calling for the discrimination against people because they are gay or refusing to employ people because they are gay. They believe marriage/family is not something that should be available to gay couples, from a religious standpoint that is certainly within their rights....from a government standpoint it can be a policy position (thankfully an outdated one) but it's not gay-bashing, largely because I suspect their religious beliefs are informing their policy positions (which isn't unheard of in this nations history).
-
Maybe an unpopular stance, but I don't view their position as homophobic, misguided certainly, but it's not like they are calling for the discrimination against people because they are gay or refusing to employ people because they are gay. They believe marriage/family is not something that should be available to gay couples, from a religious standpoint that is certainly within their rights....from a government standpoint it can be a policy position (thankfully an outdated one) but it's not gay-bashing, largely because I suspect their religious beliefs are informing their policy positions (which isn't unheard of in this nations history).
Advocating for gay couples not to be married is "calling for the discrimination against people because they are gay." I don't know how you could claim otherwise.
-
Advocating for gay couples not to be married is "calling for the discrimination against people because they are gay." I don't know how you could claim otherwise.
Religious or government married? Now or 6 years ago?
-
Advocating for gay couples not to be married is "calling for the discrimination against people because they are gay." I don't know how you could claim otherwise.
No it’s not.
Is advocating for special BENEFITS to be given to gays (and others) who marry discriminatory against those - straight, gay or otherwise - who choose not to be married?
Why should special treatment be given to those who marry?
-
No it’s not.
Is advocating for special BENEFITS to be given to gays (and others) who marry discriminatory against those - straight, gay or otherwise - who choose not to be married?
Why should special treatment be given to those who marry?
::)
So your position is to lobby against all marriage then. Good for you.
-
Religious or government married? Now or 6 years ago?
If a religious group doesn't want people to marry for whatever reason, that is their right.
But we are talking about a government benefit (and they acknowledge that in their quote as well.) And advocating for that position now, six years ago, 100 years ago or 1,000 years ago is still discrimination. It's just was more socially acceptable to discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation back then.
-
Maybe an unpopular stance, but I don't view their position as homophobic, misguided certainly, but it's not like they are calling for the discrimination against people because they are gay or refusing to employ people because they are gay. They believe marriage/family is not something that should be available to gay couples, from a religious standpoint that is certainly within their rights....from a government standpoint it can be a policy position (thankfully an outdated one) but it's not gay-bashing, largely because I suspect their religious beliefs are informing their policy positions (which isn't unheard of in this nations history).
Interesting take, mu03. Walking a bit of a fine line, but I understand where you're coming from.
Still ...
Cathy did give millions to organizations that pushed Pray Away The Gay "therapy." And he invoked the Founding Fathers, as if he could possibly know what any of them would think about his stance on this. I happen to think many of the Founding Fathers would have strongly advocated for the rights of gay people, including gay marriage, if they were around today. Hell, a few of them might have been gay.
If Cathy's religious beliefs inform an anti-Jew policy - Jews killed Christ, after all, right? Or at the very least, they are hell-bound because they don't accept Jesus as their lord and savior, correct? - would that be that OK?
I do think we can agree Cathy certainly has been outwardly gay-unfriendly. Although, again, maybe at least publicly he is chilling the rhetoric.
Finally, this conversation is taking us away from the main point of my earlier comment, that corporations - even seemingly altruistic ones - must put a priority on making money. It doesn't make them evil or nasty or bad. It just is. If it isn't, then they won't be successful corporations for long.
-
::)
So your position is to lobby against all marriage then. Good for you.
Maybe it’s your position. Why should people who marry be given special treatment?
-
Maybe it’s your position. Why should people who marry be given special treatment?
I never said they should.
-
Maybe it’s your position. Why should people who marry be given special treatment?
This is the crux of my point, government marriage (rightly or wrongly) and it's associated benefits was created as a mechanism to promote what was viewed as a "stabilizing lifestyle". All tax policy, whether the people determining the policy recognize it or not, are creating incentives and disincentives around behavior.
First question, should government marriage be a policy?
Second, how do we define this marriage (two people, same and/or opposite genders, groups, etc)?
With those definitions what behaviors are we encouraging and discouraging, is that acceptable for society, etc?
-
If a religious group doesn't want people to marry for whatever reason, that is their right.
But we are talking about a government benefit (and they acknowledge that in their quote as well.) And advocating for that position now, six years ago, 100 years ago or 1,000 years ago is still discrimination. It's just was more socially acceptable to discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation back then.
Very fair point.
-
Interesting take, mu03. Walking a bit of a fine line, but I understand where you're coming from.
Still ...
Cathy did give millions to organizations that pushed Pray Away The Gay "therapy." And he invoked the Founding Fathers, as if he could possibly know what any of them would think about his stance on this. I happen to think many of the Founding Fathers would have strongly advocated for the rights of gay people, including gay marriage, if they were around today. Hell, a few of them might have been gay.
If Cathy's religious beliefs inform an anti-Jew policy - Jews killed Christ, after all, right? Or at the very least, they are hell-bound because they don't accept Jesus as their lord and savior, correct? - would that be that OK?
I do think we can agree Cathy certainly has been outwardly gay-unfriendly. Although, again, maybe at least publicly he is chilling the rhetoric.
Very fair.
-
Finally, this conversation is taking us away from the main point of my earlier comment, that corporations - even seemingly altruistic ones - must put a priority on making money. It doesn't make them evil or nasty or bad. It just is. If it isn't, then they won't be successful corporations for long.
Completely agree, there is no such thing as a purely altruistic entity. As an example, the company I work for does a lot of community engagement (United Way, UPAF, etc) but they don't do it just to help they do it in part because they want an engaged community because they feel it helps with talent attraction/retention, good PR, "free" advertisement, etc.
This leads me to my ultimate point of this topic, generating is the number one priority of all companies (whether it's called profit or not), the question is how do you create incentives so that those organizations also create other value (societal, employee, customer, etc). Our largest divides seem entirely around whether you positively incentives good behavior or if you negatively incentivize bad behavior.
-
Completely agree, there is no such thing as a purely altruistic entity. As an example, the company I work for does a lot of community engagement (United Way, UPAF, etc) but they don't do it just to help they do it in part because they want an engaged community because they feel it helps with talent attraction/retention, good PR, "free" advertisement, etc.
This leads me to my ultimate point of this topic, generating is the number one priority of all companies (whether it's called profit or not), the question is how do you create incentives so that those organizations also create other value (societal, employee, customer, etc). Our largest divides seem entirely around whether you positively incentives good behavior or if you negatively incentivize bad behavior.
Superbly stated.
I don't claim to have answers to the questions you ask at the end, though I would think the carrot (incentives) in general might work better than the stick (punishment).
-
I never said they should.
Great! Sounds like you've been enlightened. Earlier, you didn't know how it was possible to be against gay marriage and not be "calling for the discrimination against people because they are gay"...
Advocating for gay couples not to be married is "calling for the discrimination against people because they are gay." I don't know how you could claim otherwise.
Person A: I'm pro gay marriage because I'm for equality for ALL! (this is something I heard often, btw)
Person B: I'm not pro gay marriage. It's not about equality for all - it's just adding a section of the population to a special-treatment group, and for what reason? I'm for true equality for all - the repeal special treatment for married people is the most appropriate path.
Sultan a few hours ago: Person B is calling for the discrimination against people because they are gay!
Sultan a couple of hours ago: I agree with Person B!
http://www.unmarried.org/featured/martin-duberman-explains-why-marriage-equality-was-too-small-a-dream/
-
Listen... I can't tell anyone what Chik-Fil-A's primary purpose is - perhaps it's simply to serve chicken - but what I can tell is that they forego money by being closed on Sundays. Based on their daily sales from the other six days, that's about a billion dollars a year they forego, and I think it's a safe assumption that the marginal cost of being open on Sunday isn't anywhere near that figure. I also think it's a safe assumption that being open on Sundays would cannibalize sales from the other six days by 1/6. Ergo, simple logic dictates that the primary purpose of Chik Fil A is NOT to make money.
Incidentally, it should be acknowledged that the only known exception that Chik Fil A made to the "no Sunday" thing was when they opened their doors to feed first responders the day after the Pulse nightclub shooting.
And while my example has nothing to do with the owner's beliefs or reasons, it deserves mention here that at least their homophobia took a back seat to basic humanity in a crisis. I wish more people would ask themselves when was the last time they abandoned their principles to help someone in need.
-
Great! Sounds like you've been enlightened. Earlier, you didn't know how it was possible to be against gay marriage and not be "calling for the discrimination against people because they are gay"...
Person A: I'm pro gay marriage because I'm for equality for ALL! (this is something I heard often, btw)
Person B: I'm not pro gay marriage. It's not about equality for all - it's just adding a section of the population to a special-treatment group, and for what reason? I'm for true equality for all - the repeal special treatment for married people is the most appropriate path.
Sultan a few hours ago: Person B is calling for the discrimination against people because they are gay!
Sultan a couple of hours ago: I agree with Person B!
http://www.unmarried.org/featured/martin-duberman-explains-why-marriage-equality-was-too-small-a-dream/
Nice try.
-
Nice try.
You mizpelded “accurate”.
-
Listen... I can't tell anyone what Chik-Fil-A's primary purpose is
I can. It's to make money so they can stay in business.
Otherwise, I liked your post, and I'm glad often do nice things.
Love ya, Benny. And we see eye to eye on most things. But sorry ... Chik is a major for-profit enterprise. Maybe if Cathy gives everything away to disadvantaged people of all races, creeds, colors, genders and sexual orientations, and stops taking a profit (which he doesn't need because of that bazillionaire thing), you'll win me over on this. But as long as he charges $40 for a family of 4 to eat chicken sammiches and fries - even if he only does so 6 days a week - he is showing how much he values making a profit.
-
You mizpelded “accurate”.
Your logic is about as limp as my daughter says your T-bones were.
-
Your logic is about as limp as my daughter says your T-bones were.
No chance she can speak yet.
Nonetheless, are you saying gays (and no one) should be given special treatment for the act of getting “married”? Fairly easy question, hey? What’s your answer, discriminatory furniture & appliance face?
-
Nonetheless, are you saying gays (and no one) should be given special treatment for the act of getting “married”?
I have no idea what you are asking by this question.
But I think the legal benefits, such as the ability to be taxed as a single entity, that are applicable to married heterosexual couples should also be applied to married homosexual couples.
-
In before the lock.
-
I have no idea what you are asking by this question.
But I think the legal benefits, such as the ability to be taxed as a single entity, that are applicable to married heterosexual couples should also be applied to married homosexual couples.
It’s simple. There are more than 1,000 federal laws and countless state & local laws that gives different treatment to individuals who are married as compared to those who are not married.
The questions are: why is this appropriate and, if not appropriate, why do you believe yourself to be an anti-gay villan?
-
It’s simple. There are more than 1,000 federal laws and countless state & local laws that gives different treatment to individuals who are married as compared to those who are not married.
The questions are: why is this appropriate and, if not appropriate, why do you believe yourself to be an anti-gay villan?
🙄
Drinking again I see.
-
🙄
Drinking again I see.
“I’m afraid to answer these simple questions”
-
Nice goalpost shifting, c2. Keep pretending that you were talking about not-for-profits and the government. To stop your silliness, I will hereby stipulate that making money isn't always the primary goal of not-for-profits, and isn't the goal of governments.
The only one moving goalposts has been you. For some reason you keep using corporations when I said employers. I'm glad you finally stopped digging that hole.
-
I can. It's to make money so they can stay in business.
Ipso facto, their primary purpose is to stay in business, i.e. making money is simply the means to the end (the end is the purpose).
Thank you for proving my point.
And I thought we cleared it up in the other thread that calling men by women’s name is not an insult.
-
Ipso facto, their primary purpose is to stay in business, i.e. making money is simply the means to the end (the end is the purpose).
Thank you for proving my point.
And I thought we cleared it up in the other thread that calling men by women’s name is not an insult.
Profit is toxic to some people, and I never understood why.
-
Profit is toxic to some people, and I never understood why.
Arsenic is toxic to people, too. If you don’t understand, best to leave it to people smarter than you.
-
Arsenic is toxic to people, too. If you don’t understand, best to leave it to people smarter than you.
In agreement there. People seem to mix politics with capitalism at times, and it jades their opinions. Profit is not bad. Greed, can be bad. Excessive profit can be bad, it can also be good. That nuance seems to not sink in with some and the number of people I see and read about today that put all profits as evil is troubling.
-
Profit is toxic to some people, and I never understood why.
I haven't gotten that impression from anyone in this thread. I love profits, that's why I don't blame employees who value making money over company loyalty
-
I haven't gotten that impression from anyone in this thread. I love profits, that's why I don't blame employees who value making money over company loyalty
Cannot remember if in this thread, but recall a few that have said for profit healthcare is wrong. One example.
-
Cannot remember if in this thread, but recall a few that have said for profit healthcare is wrong. One example.
Saying that some industries are better as not-for-profits is quite a different statement than "profit is toxic to some people."
-
Saying that some industries are better as not-for-profits is quite a different statement than "profit is toxic to some people."
How? If some of those people are saying profits are toxic and then even go further to say all profits are toxic. No one here is saying that, but out in the country that is becoming alarmingly more embraced, especially among some millenials.
-
How? If some of those people are saying profits are toxic and then even go further to say all profits are toxic. No one here is saying that, but out in the country that is becoming alarmingly more embraced, especially among some millenials.
::)
-
Ipso facto, their primary purpose is to stay in business, i.e. making money is simply the means to the end (the end is the purpose).
Thank you for proving my point.
And I thought we cleared it up in the other thread that calling men by women’s name is not an insult.
All right, BB ... we are stuck on semantics - "purpose" vs "goal" vs "primary objective," etc. We seem to agree that corporations must make money to continue being successful corporations. Beyond that, I respect you too much to keep going round-and-round on this.
Have a good weekend.
-
Cannot remember if in this thread, but recall a few that have said for profit healthcare is wrong. One example.
Lotsa folks are preachin' Medicare four all, hey?
-
Lotsa folks are preachin' Medicare four all, hey?
Yes, and there are aspects to it that should be looked at. There are some good outcomes from it, but plenty of bad ones, too.
-
All right, BB ... we are stuck on semantics - "purpose" vs "goal" vs "primary objective," etc. We seem to agree that corporations must make money to continue being successful corporations. Beyond that, I respect you too much to keep going round-and-round on this.
Have a good weekend.
And I respect you even more such that I'd like to keep going round-and-round on this.
-
And I respect you even more such that I'd like to keep going round-and-round on this.
Oh yeah ... I respect you infinity times 10. So there!