TechWhirl (TECHWR-L) is a resource for technical writing and technical communications professionals of all experience levels and in all industries to share their experiences and acquire information.
For two decades, technical communicators have turned to TechWhirl to ask and answer questions about the always-changing world of technical communications, such as tools, skills, career paths, methodologies, and emerging industries. The TechWhirl Archives and magazine, created for, by and about technical writers, offer a wealth of knowledge to everyone with an interest in any aspect of technical communications.
John Posada [mailto:jposada99 -at- gmail -dot- com] argued:
>
> > Notwithstanding the chance of being outed, which would be pretty
small
> > if your company is large and/or has a lot of whatever-you-do, I
think
> > that people would generally tend to fudge _high_ in order to push
the
> > perceived pay rates higher, for the next time they're in a
negotiation.
>
> Do you think fudging either way would have any impact on the
> situation? It might go like this:
>
> Employer: "OK, we're offering $75k plus benefits. Do you want the job?
>
> Propsective employee: "$75K...that's absurd. I saw on Glassdoor that
> they've said you pay $90k."
>
> Employer: "Ohmygod...you're right! What the hell was I thinking? $90k
it
> is!"
I haven't had _that_ many interviews in my time (I tend to stay at a
place for a long while), but most of them were not nearly that abrupt.
The interviewer tended to feel me out w.r.t. expected range... while I
was feeling them out for what the current market (or their budget) would
bear.
I got cannier over the years, and I've interviewed in a few different
cities, so I've experienced regional and industry differences, as well
as different approaches between companies.
SOMEtimes it would come after other discussion, wherein we decided
whether the company (and the position) and I were right for each other.
SOMEtimes it would come early - as a "let's get this out of the way so
we don't waste our time on chat that can't go anywhere".
At some point, there might be the tacky "What is your current salary?"
Reply: "Almost enough. What are they paying you?"
Or, the straightforward "What salary range are you expecting?"
Reply: "I'm looking for something in the mid-to-high range of the
current market, justified by my experience and track record, and with
room for increases as I fit into your organization and prove my
capability. I won't consider less than my current salary once the
trial/break-in period is completed. As general guidance, I'm looking to
'standard' sources such as <name a couple of sites>.
"I completely discount the government-compiled figures, because they're
inaccurate, outdated, improperly categorized, and generally not viable
for this industry. They appear to lump technical writers in with clerks;
I've never been a clerk, and you don't need a clerk for this position.
You need a real technical writer."
Ok, I'm not that glib or capable of talking in full, extended,
extemporaneous paragraphs. There'd be some pauses and shorter sentences,
but that's the basic idea.
> Guys...there is no reason to fudge the rates. The site gives what it
> is...not what we want it to be,.
Ok, so we're given to understand that you gave them an accurate number
for yourself. You're in NYC, I believe, so it'll be on the high side
anyway. But I'm not convinced that other people approach it that way.
It's like... some people vote for the candidate, while others vote
strategically, no matter how attractive, or unattractive their local
candidate might be. Each might wish the other voted the way - and for
the reasons - that they do, but... they don't.
It won't get decided by us, here. It'd take years and independent
validation to determine whether the numbers at the site are accurate or
fudged.
- Kevin
The information contained in this electronic mail transmission
may be privileged and confidential, and therefore, protected
from disclosure. If you have received this communication in
error, please notify us immediately by replying to this
message and deleting it from your computer without copying
or disclosing it.
ComponentOne Doc-To-Help 2009 is your all-in-one authoring and publishing
solution. Author in Doc-To-Help's XML-based editor, Microsoft Word or
HTML and publish to the Web, Help systems or printed manuals. http://www.doctohelp.com
True single source, conditional content, PDF export, modular help.
Help & Manual is the most powerful authoring tool for technical
documentation. Boost your productivity! http://www.helpandmanual.com
---
You are currently subscribed to TECHWR-L as archive -at- web -dot- techwr-l -dot- com -dot-
