View Full Version : Polis Attracting National Attention
eddiememphis
07-02-2021, 09:02
https://www.nationalreview.com/2021/07/colorados-governor-unemployment/
Highlights
"...a state that has gone from the nation?s lowest (https://www.bls.gov/news.release/archives/laus_06162017.htm) unemployment rate to one of the highest (https://www.bls.gov/news.release/archives/laus_06232021.htm) in a few short years..."
"Big companies are hiring for remote positions that can be performed in any state across the U.S. except one: Colorado."
"A 2019 law to overhaul the state?s long-standing regulatory regime for the energy industry has already eliminated nearly 8,000 jobs..."
"...a rising minimum wage causing business closures, job losses, and reduced hours for employees."
"...in 2018, Polis promised to eliminate tax loopholes and reduce taxes for all."
And much more.
And on the other side, he's being praised for all the "gun crime" legislation.
Great-Kazoo
07-02-2021, 12:14
No mention of his same sex marriage?
The remote job thing is because CO law requires posting a salary range, which I agree with.
In short, shitty companies are shitty.
Companies are excluding Colorado from their remote employment opportunities in order to avoid sharing the salary range of their open positions.
In May of 2019 SB19-085, titled the Equal Pay For Equal Work Act, was signed into law in Colorado. It's a fairly short read if you're not familiar with it, but its main goal is enabling pay transparency to allow for people to know if they're being discriminated against with their wages and file a complaint with the CDLE.
The law went into effect January 1st, 2021.
The most visible part of the law has been the requirement for all job listings open to a CO resident to contain a salary range. If you've seen an increase in salary ranges on job postings recently you have this law to thank.
Some companies however have decided that excluding all Colorado residents for a remote job that can be filled by someone in any of the other 49 US states is better than sharing how much they're willing to pay.
https://www.reddit.com/r/Denver/comments/nh7s8f/but_not_in_colorado/
Little Dutch
07-02-2021, 17:31
There?s more to the listing pay issue than meets the eye. Different states have different pay scales, and companies that operate internationally have wildly varying pay scales. The folks on my team living in Ireland make less than you might suspect, and we pay better than average over there.. For instance.
Edit to add - i should mention that I understand if people are doing the same job, remotely, as anyone else they probably deserve the same pay. However, a smart company will hire everyone out of a state making 70 cents on the dollar. Since it?s all remote and everyone is doing the same job?
No mention of his same sex marriage?
For Democrats, that's 'hero' status.
StagLefty
07-03-2021, 08:12
No mention of his same sex marriage?
"same sex" too many limitations. [dig]
FromMyColdDeadHand
07-03-2021, 17:23
After his latest round of ass-hattery, I will do anything to shorten his political career. Dead. To. Me. I thought he was one of the pro business and growth Democrats, but he is shown himself just to be a political asshole. If God has any sense of humor he let me win $100 million lottery and I’d go to town on that bald little bitch next year.
At first glance this work movement from anywhere benefits people living in Colorado, since we don’t have a lot of fortune 500 companies based here. The problem is that our cost of living is getting so high that it is going to negatively impact people who work remotely. It used to be that you’d outsource jobs to India, now it be hell of a lot better to move to Indianapolis. Cool downtown, good gun laws, nice intermediate size city. Housing is probably half or third of it as expensive as the Denver metro. Plus access to real water in Lake Michigan, and cheap cabins all over Michigan state.
Personally I like it that Colorado is hurt by the pay scale law. The Dems went full retard this legislative session with all kinds of authoritarian command and control type laws. The commuter law that Paulus wanted is the ultimate in nanny state stupidity. That there are unintended consequences it’s just delicious. I hope Colorado fails faster and harder than California has, just to prove the point with an exclamation point.
What's the commuter law about?
What's the commuter law about?
They want to mandate employers push alternatives (such as giving employees RTD passes) to "incentivise" you to not drive yourself to work.
Of course, the employer foots the bill
Great-Kazoo
07-03-2021, 18:47
They want to mandate employers push alternatives (such as giving employees RTD passes) to "incentivise" you to not drive yourself to work.
Of course, the employer foots the bill
From the same people who warned everyone to avoid mass transit, cause covid. Think they'll be mandatory proof of vaccination, before boarding a bus?
Of course there will
FromMyColdDeadHand
07-05-2021, 18:46
And a mask…. So if you want a job, or want to get to your job- vax and mask. How much you want to bet that for the next TEA Party type movement, the public transport will be down for maintenance…
They want to mandate employers push alternatives (such as giving employees RTD passes) to "incentivise" you to not drive yourself to work.
Of course, the employer foots the bill
At CDOT they are pushing a reboot your commute nonsense campaign for returning to the office. I never stopped going in, but out of curiosity I looked. From C470/Quebec to I70/Quebec areas is a 2 hr each way transit option vs 30-45 minute drive.
They are also crafting a policy for work at home, not for wuflu safety but for reduce costs. They are taking inventory of vehicles at the HQ and calculating reduction to comply with some silly mandate.
They want to mandate employers push alternatives (such as giving employees RTD passes) to "incentivise" you to not drive yourself to work.
Of course, the employer foots the bill
The employer does not foot the bill.
Employers evaluate job based upon total compensation.
If as and example an RTD pass costs the employer $500 a year, that $500 is moved out of some other area of employee compensation.
With the passage SB20-205 (paid sick time), my employees got a worse deal. Time off was moved from PTO to sick and got accrued time per SB20-205 instead of a lump sum up front for the year. Their total paid time off (holidays, PTO, sick, vacation) remained the same, but how they get it got worse for them. But i don't care. People voted for DEMs in CO (and I have employees that openly say they are DEM) so they got what they wanted.
As far as the publishing salary, that is not all. A job has to be open to all employees on the same day. There is no-more promoting someone without posting the job for everyone.
8-5-201. Employment opportunities - opportunities for
promotion or advancement - pay rates in job listings.
(1) AN EMPLOYER SHALL MAKE REASONABLE EFFORTS TO ANNOUNCE, POST, OR OTHERWISE MAKE KNOWN ALL OPPORTUNITIES FOR PROMOTION TO ALL CURRENT EMPLOYEES ON THE SAME CALENDAR DAY AND PRIOR TO MAKING A PROMOTION DECISION.
(2) AN EMPLOYER SHALL DISCLOSE IN EACH POSTING FOR EACH JOBOPENING THE HOURLY OR SALARY COMPENSATION, OR A RANGE OF THE HOURLY OR SALARY COMPENSATION, AND A GENERAL DESCRIPTION OF ALL OF THE BENEFITS AND OTHER COMPENSATION TO BE OFFERED TO THE HIRED APPLICANT.
I have shocked employees asking why they their promotion has to be posted for all other employee to compete against the employee.
"But I have been here longer"
"But I am more qualified"
It funny to see someone (who I 100% know is a DEM as they have said it) being upset that they now have to compete for a promotion.
"That's no fair"
My answer:
"I don't care if it is fair, it's the law you voted for"
So, to all you go getters, I ask one question... "why"?
Have fun with the pro-business climate the DEMS have created in Colorado. It will only drive more jobs and more opportunity here......
There?s more to the listing pay issue than meets the eye. Different states have different pay scales, and companies that operate internationally have wildly varying pay scales. The folks on my team living in Ireland make less than you might suspect, and we pay better than average over there.. For instance.
Edit to add - i should mention that I understand if people are doing the same job, remotely, as anyone else they probably deserve the same pay. However, a smart company will hire everyone out of a state making 70 cents on the dollar. Since it?s all remote and everyone is doing the same job?
I can understand where different states might place different requirements on employers, hence a salary range.
I can also understand how someone might meet bare minimum technical skill requirements but otherwise are well-liked in the interview, and while a higher skill set is desirable, it's not really required for 95% of daily work, hence a salary range.
But if a position is remote and the company intends on that, I know damn well they have a budgeted range for pay. If they don't, then their CFO needs to be fired because it means they are operating without a budget.
In reality, I think we are seeing the growing pains of remote work expanding. Employers will try to screw employees because they are in BFE Arkansas or something. But eventually it will normalize.
It would behoove employers to get their heads out of their asses. Boomer business model funerals are imminent.
I can understand where different states might place different requirements on employers, hence a salary range.
I can also understand how someone might meet bare minimum technical skill requirements but otherwise are well-liked in the interview, and while a higher skill set is desirable, it's not really required for 95% of daily work, hence a salary range.
But if a position is remote and the company intends on that, I know damn well they have a budgeted range for pay. If they don't, then their CFO needs to be fired because it means they are operating without a budget.
In reality, I think we are seeing the growing pains of remote work expanding. Employers will try to screw employees because they are in BFE Arkansas or something. But eventually it will normalize.
It would behoove employers to get their heads out of their asses. Boomer business model funerals are imminent.
Do you really think that companies haven't budgeted for positions just because they don't want to publish them?
Taking a job is a negotiation. When negotiating, you never want to through a number out there. Go try buying a car and you will learn this.
But let me explain how negotiating a salary works and what I have personally seen.
I will absurd numbers so it obvious it is not real.
An employer asks an employee how much they want. The employee says "I want $1000 per hour"
Now the employer is not going to come back and say, well, how about $2000 per hour. The negotiation starts at $1000 and goes down from them. The $1000 requested salary is the TOP the employee will get paid.
Now lets say the employer through out a number first. The employer throws out $500 per hour. The employee doesnt come and say, "that seems high, about $250" When the employer throws out a salary number it is the BOTTOM of the pay negotiation. It not going down from there.
In general with negotiations, you don't want to be the person who give the first number.
Have you ever walked into a gun store, seen a gun on consignment, and offered more money for it? Of course not. The person putting it on consignment threw out the first number. Price is only going down from there.
(all of this assumes typical supply and demand and not manipulated markets)
What the law is trying to do, is make employers through out the first number.
I can say I had an interview for an engineer. 2 years out of school. Asked for $180K because of the new law. The candidate said "X company has engineer jobs range posted from $70K to $180K, and I am really good so I should be at $180K. That was end of discussion.
Boomer business models wont be having funerals nearly as quickly as you think. Businesses still have to make money or they dont pay employees or have employees.
The millennial 15 hour work week is non-productive and it will bit millennials in the ass.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Uo0KjdDJr1c
Do you really think that companies haven't budgeted for positions just because they don't want to publish them?
Taking a job is a negotiation. When negotiating, you never want to through a number out there. Go try buying a car and you will learn this.
But let me explain how negotiating a salary works and what I have personally seen.
I will absurd numbers so it obvious it is not real.
An employer asks an employee how much they want. The employee says "I want $1000 per hour"
Now the employer is not going to come back and say, well, how about $2000 per hour. The negotiation starts at $1000 and goes down from them. The $1000 requested salary is the TOP the employee will get paid.
Now lets say the employer through out a number first. The employer throws out $500 per hour. The employee doesnt come and say, "that seems high, about $250" When the employer throws out a salary number it is the BOTTOM of the pay negotiation. It not going down from there.
In general with negotiations, you don't want to be the person who give the first number.
Have you ever walked into a gun store, seen a gun on consignment, and offered more money for it? Of course not. The person putting it on consignment threw out the first number. Price is only going down from there.
(all of this assumes typical supply and demand and not manipulated markets)
What the law is trying to do, is make employers through out the first number.
I can say I had an interview for an engineer. 2 years out of school. Asked for $180K because of the new law. The candidate said "X company has engineer jobs range posted from $70K to $180K, and I am really good so I should be at $180K. That was end of discussion.
Boomer business models wont be having funerals nearly as quickly as you think. Businesses still have to make money or they dont pay employees or have employees.
The millennial 15 hour work week is non-productive and it will bit millennials in the ass.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Uo0KjdDJr1c
It would behoove you not to assume I'm an 18 year old dumbass, sir; I've negotiated salaries plenty of times. I've sat with managers and had those conversations as a team lead when looking at candidates' resumes and what they bring. I've felt bad for the underpaid and explained to them how it was explained to me to negotiate: take no prisoners. My time and labor (be it physical or mental) is not a charity. As the saying goes, "fuck you, pay me". It would also be incorrect to posit that as the actual core of my argument being put forth is that they don't budget.
OF COURSE they have budgeted, which is why they should post the range. Anyone applying to a job with an honest resume has already shown their hand, simply; to wit, they have shown their market value range. Any employer looking for a Ruth's Chris meal on Golden Corral pay is laughable. Part of negotiation is honesty about what each party brings to the table. When an employer doesn't post a range I immediately, and rightly, assume two things:
1) they pay shit, or otherwise want to screw over people due to location - geofencing salaries is retarded for remote positions; they either have a value add/business sensible hire, for which there is a budget, or they don't. Full stop. If they want the added benefit of a larger labor pool to choose from, they get to pay to play. Otherwise, hire within a geographical boundary which makes sense for people to go into an office (which is a money sink). Simple as that. You don't get to screw over a programmer or security analyst or network engineer just because they don't have an NYC loft or Los Angeles 1br apt to pay for. They either bring the value, or they don't. Remote immediately jettisons boomer business model geofencing for cost analysis on the labor.
I've been burned two times by assuming the employer wasn't out to screw me earlier on in my career. Wasted PTO and other time to be a good interviewer, do the interview, etc. only to find they wanted to pay 15-20k less than I was making at my then-current position. It cuts both ways. Now, if they won't state a salary range on the first call with HR, I hang up. Email, same thing. I don't have time to mess with shit companies.
2) they want to waste their time, and mine/yours - on average, when applying for a job, it takes about 20-30 minutes with most modern systems (things like Indeed's "easy apply" nothwithstanding). Especially if they use a system that forces import of a resume and then mangles it all to shit in the pertinent fields, so I end up having to manually correct everything. That's the bare minimum. If I actually research the company, C-suite, etc., it's more time. And frankly, unless it's something immoral/unethical, I don't care about any of that or even what the company does. They could have a business flying rubber dog shit out of Hong Kong for all I care. I'll monitor your security situation, I'll pay attention to any industry pertinent ATP's, etc. But I'm not, and never will be, a company man. And don't expect loyalty, either, cus I know the company has none. Gone are the days of working from loading dock to VP of international sales (as my grandfather did).
Pursuant to those factors, I personally enjoy employer/managerial honesty, assuming the interviewing manager is technically competent to provide such feedback. If they like me, and want to hire, but feel like I'm a teachable candidate who can get up to speed and provide value, I honestly don't mind a low-end range offer; I wouldn't have applied if the low end was unacceptable beyond redeemable factors. If they think I'm everything they want and they aren't providing a serious pay bump, they should reject me because staying at any position for more than 3 years, at this point, is leaving money on the table. Maintenance, rather than progress, is an epically stupid move for anyone who isn't in a career with obvious hold points. But I want to know the range because I'm tired of companies abusing the market and being a time sink since they can't get their shit together. Hell, I'd personally take a 15K pay cut right now for a truly remote position (and this is the other side of the value coin employees need to consider - wear and tear, gas, clothing, food costs, mental and emotional strain of commute, etc.). But I'm not applying if the range isn't posted. Simple as that.
Maybe I should start gutting my resume and leaving desired salary blank. Ya know... to negotiate. LOL. Get real.
Do you really think that companies haven't budgeted for positions just because they don't want to publish them?
Taking a job is a negotiation. When negotiating, you never want to through a number out there. Go try buying a car and you will learn this.
But let me explain how negotiating a salary works and what I have personally seen.
I will absurd numbers so it obvious it is not real.
An employer asks an employee how much they want. The employee says "I want $1000 per hour"
Now the employer is not going to come back and say, well, how about $2000 per hour. The negotiation starts at $1000 and goes down from them. The $1000 requested salary is the TOP the employee will get paid.
Now lets say the employer through out a number first. The employer throws out $500 per hour. The employee doesnt come and say, "that seems high, about $250" When the employer throws out a salary number it is the BOTTOM of the pay negotiation. It not going down from there.
In general with negotiations, you don't want to be the person who give the first number.
Have you ever walked into a gun store, seen a gun on consignment, and offered more money for it? Of course not. The person putting it on consignment threw out the first number. Price is only going down from there.
(all of this assumes typical supply and demand and not manipulated markets)
What the law is trying to do, is make employers through out the first number.
I can say I had an interview for an engineer. 2 years out of school. Asked for $180K because of the new law. The candidate said "X company has engineer jobs range posted from $70K to $180K, and I am really good so I should be at $180K. That was end of discussion.
Boomer business models wont be having funerals nearly as quickly as you think. Businesses still have to make money or they dont pay employees or have employees.
The millennial 15 hour work week is non-productive and it will bit millennials in the ass.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Uo0KjdDJr1c
Behold, the expert speaks.
[ROFL1] [ROFL1] [ROFL1] [ROFL1] [ROFL1] [ROFL1] [ROFL1] [ROFL1]
It would behoove you not to assume I'm an 18 year old dumbass, sir; I've negotiated salaries plenty of times. I've sat with managers and had those conversations as a team lead when looking at candidates' resumes and what they bring. I've felt bad for the underpaid and explained to them how it was explained to me to negotiate: take no prisoners. My time and labor (be it physical or mental) is not a charity. As the saying goes, "fuck you, pay me". It would also be incorrect to posit that as the actual core of my argument being put forth is that they don't budget.
OF COURSE they have budgeted, which is why they should post the range. Anyone applying to a job with an honest resume has already shown their hand, simply; to wit, they have shown their market value range. Any employer looking for a Ruth's Chris meal on Golden Corral pay is laughable. Part of negotiation is honesty about what each party brings to the table. When an employer doesn't post a range I immediately, and rightly, assume two things:
1) they pay shit, or otherwise want to screw over people due to location - geofencing salaries is retarded for remote positions; they either have a value add/business sensible hire, for which there is a budget, or they don't. Full stop. If they want the added benefit of a larger labor pool to choose from, they get to pay to play. Otherwise, hire within a geographical boundary which makes sense for people to go into an office (which is a money sink). Simple as that. You don't get to screw over a programmer or security analyst or network engineer just because they don't have an NYC loft or Los Angeles 1br apt to pay for. They either bring the value, or they don't. Remote immediately jettisons boomer business model geofencing for cost analysis on the labor.
I've been burned two times by assuming the employer wasn't out to screw me earlier on in my career. Wasted PTO and other time to be a good interviewer, do the interview, etc. only to find they wanted to pay 15-20k less than I was making at my then-current position. It cuts both ways. Now, if they won't state a salary range on the first call with HR, I hang up. Email, same thing. I don't have time to mess with shit companies.
2) they want to waste their time, and mine/yours - on average, when applying for a job, it takes about 20-30 minutes with most modern systems (things like Indeed's "easy apply" nothwithstanding). Especially if they use a system that forces import of a resume and then mangles it all to shit in the pertinent fields, so I end up having to manually correct everything. That's the bare minimum. If I actually research the company, C-suite, etc., it's more time. And frankly, unless it's something immoral/unethical, I don't care about any of that or even what the company does. They could have a business flying rubber dog shit out of Hong Kong for all I care. I'll monitor your security situation, I'll pay attention to any industry pertinent ATP's, etc. But I'm not, and never will be, a company man. And don't expect loyalty, either, cus I know the company has none. Gone are the days of working from loading dock to VP of international sales (as my grandfather did).
Pursuant to those factors, I personally enjoy employer/managerial honesty, assuming the interviewing manager is technically competent to provide such feedback. If they like me, and want to hire, but feel like I'm a teachable candidate who can get up to speed and provide value, I honestly don't mind a low-end range offer; I wouldn't have applied if the low end was unacceptable beyond redeemable factors. If they think I'm everything they want and they aren't providing a serious pay bump, they should reject me because staying at any position for more than 3 years, at this point, is leaving money on the table. Maintenance, rather than progress, is an epically stupid move for anyone who isn't in a career with obvious hold points. But I want to know the range because I'm tired of companies abusing the market and being a time sink since they can't get their shit together. Hell, I'd personally take a 15K pay cut right now for a truly remote position (and this is the other side of the value coin employees need to consider - wear and tear, gas, clothing, food costs, mental and emotional strain of commute, etc.). But I'm not applying if the range isn't posted. Simple as that.
Maybe I should start gutting my resume and leaving desired salary blank. Ya know... to negotiate. LOL. Get real.
The entire rant shows you dont understand what goes on.
Do you really think an employer wants to waste their time/money interviewing someone just to low ball them?
I just went through interviewing three candidates. DIRECT cost (not the opportunity cost) was well over $1000 an hour to interview the people. That is just interviewing them. That is not any other part of the process.
It costs employers money and time (opportunity cost) to interview people.
You seem like a wonderful employee with an awesome attitude!
JohnnyEgo
07-07-2021, 17:58
That negotiation advice runs counter to my experience as well. The first party to offer gets to set the first bound, and more often than not, the settlement trends closer to that bound in the range. I would not call myself an 'expert', but since I set settlement offer bounds all day long for civil litigation, I do have some degree of institutional knowledge behind my experience. Sometimes you either can't or don't want to be the first to offer, but most of the time it is to your benefit to set the first bound. When you walk into that gun store to purchase that consignment piece, the seller has already set the upper bound. Unless your counter-offer is already pretty close to that bound, chances are strong the settlement will be closer to his figure than your first offer.
My employer publishes the salary range for the grade or grades of a given position with the posting, and has done so for years. So you know the minimum and maximum within grade when you post. You can ask for anything you want, but whatever we offer, it is usually going to be in the first 33% of the range. Some candidates bring enough experience to justify a starting salary outside of the first tercile of the range. When that happens, we usually offer them the next grade up for which their salary request fits in that tercile. I am sure there have been exceptions. I no longer participate in prof/tech or first-line management interviews, but the salary issues were usually pinned down by HR after we decided whether or not we wanted them for the job.
DireWolf
07-08-2021, 00:48
just my .02
There's always a defined range/expectation, and the larger the Org., the more formal, (and bullshit) it's likely to be - this includes (extremely) common -and professionally insulting- institution practices like:
---geo-weighted salary banding;
---common practice of attempting to maximize the "low-ball" end of said ranges, and attempt to "gain the upper hand" right from the outset;
---common strong institution aversion to stepping outside that framework for any reason.
---(list abbreviated)
Directly related to the above items - the larger the org, the greater the likelihood (in general) of truly rigid and disconnected HR processes (which ultimately results from lack of leadership).
Problem is, with enough enthusiasm mixed with incompetence, there's no limit to what you can fuck up...IMHO, these customary practices are a holdover from pre-internet days (really not that long ago, relatively speaking); in modern professional society, the reality is those things usually just piss people off, and provides no tangible benefit or actual strategic advantage to either party (despite some opinions to the contrary).
Here's the thing - playing games with the interview and salary negotiation process, or using overly-rigid and/or poorly designed HCM processes in general, usually just creates a huge waste of time and pain in the ass for all parties involved. (also says alot about expected quality-of-work after onboarding, if you catch my drift...)
Top-experts will often tell said Org to pound-sand in these situations; Jr. professionals (and sometimes "not-so-Jr."), will often put up with the bullshit out of pure need, breeding resentment and toxic attitudes as a result.
Far better to have an open and honest discussion right from the beginning, and any company that doesn't realize that is truly screwing themselves and missing out.
---The wasted FTE cost (in both overhead and productivity) is real, but again; the larger the org, the more likely that doesn't even come close to being a consideration - the "hit" will be perceived less as costs related to interview effort, and mainly as an "inability to find exactly what they [think] they need".
---Cost in time/energy/frustration to the appicant is irrelevant within that equation; as such, we're back to a heavy scent of bullshit in the deal.
There are other paths, but little patience...
But hey, what do I know?
[just some random dude on the interwebz...]
That negotiation advice runs counter to my experience as well. The first party to offer gets to set the first bound, and more often than not, the settlement trends closer to that bound in the range. I would not call myself an 'expert', but since I set settlement offer bounds all day long for civil litigation, I do have some degree of institutional knowledge behind my experience. Sometimes you either can't or don't want to be the first to offer, but most of the time it is to your benefit to set the first bound. When you walk into that gun store to purchase that consignment piece, the seller has already set the upper bound. Unless your counter-offer is already pretty close to that bound, chances are strong the settlement will be closer to his figure than your first offer.
My employer publishes the salary range for the grade or grades of a given position with the posting, and has done so for years. So you know the minimum and maximum within grade when you post. You can ask for anything you want, but whatever we offer, it is usually going to be in the first 33% of the range. Some candidates bring enough experience to justify a starting salary outside of the first tercile of the range. When that happens, we usually offer them the next grade up for which their salary request fits in that tercile. I am sure there have been exceptions. I no longer participate in prof/tech or first-line management interviews, but the salary issues were usually pinned down by HR after we decided whether or not we wanted them for the job.
"When you walk into that gun store to purchase that consignment piece, the seller has already set the upper bound."
You just said the same thing I did and clearly went in detail why you don't want to give the first number.
The seller just set the upper bound for price. Lets say that was $1000 (made up number). Maybe I have been looking for that specific gun/caliber since it is just like one my grandpa had. I am willing to go to $2000. You have just taken $1000 off the table. Now I am negotiating you down from the upper bound when I was willing to go above what you have established as an upper bound. What if I would have offered you $1500 right away hoping to get it under $2000?
I guess one caveat that with this negotiation statement. These are REAL negotiations.
I can walk into the local Ferarri dealer and offer $1500 for a new Ferrari and set the lower bound.... but it is not a serious negotiation at that point.
With employment, if you are asking for $200K a year for a $50K job.... it is not a serious negotiation.
DireWolf
07-08-2021, 18:30
"...I can walk into the local Ferarri dealer and offer $1500 for a new Ferrari and set the lower bound.... but it is not a serious negotiation at that point.
With employment, if you are asking for $200K a year for a $50K job.... it is not a serious negotiation.
This is true, but the inverse situation is common as well.
Just sayin...
Whiskey Tango Foxtrot does this have to do with "Polis Attracting National Attention"?
JohnnyEgo
07-08-2021, 21:01
Whiskey Tango Foxtrot does this have to do with "Polis Attracting National Attention"?
He also likes a good dick measuring contest?
"When you walk into that gun store to purchase that consignment piece, the seller has already set the upper bound."
You just said the same thing I did and clearly went in detail why you don't want to give the first number.
The seller just set the upper bound for price. Lets say that was $1000 (made up number). Maybe I have been looking for that specific gun/caliber since it is just like one my grandpa had. I am willing to go to $2000. You have just taken $1000 off the table. Now I am negotiating you down from the upper bound when I was willing to go above what you have established as an upper bound. What if I would have offered you $1500 right away hoping to get it under $2000?
<snip>
I am sure you have your area of expertise. I don't think it is this. The model for what you just described is a conventional auction, not a consignment sale. Two different things.
I have a gun on consignment. I set a price on it. If you are willing to pay my price, I am willing to sell it to you without further negotiation. The transaction ends. Offer, acceptance, capacity, consent, and consideration. Whether or not you or I have buyers or sellers remorse is after the fact.
But you don't want to pay my price, so you make a counter offer. Now we are negotiating. I say 'no' and one of us walks. Negotiation over.
I say 'no' but make a counter-offer of my own. Negotiation continues. We are working our way down from the price I told you I wanted, to the price I am willing to accept. You were never going to offer more than my initial price in this transaction, because you are rational. I am never going to offer to give it to you for free, because I am rational. If there is going to be a settlement at all, it will be somewhere between zero and the upper bound I set, and odds are pretty good it is going to be closer to my bound than yours.
Again, there are times when it is not to your advantage to set the first bound. Particularly with a considerable asymmetry of information. Which is why auctions exist, where you want multiple parties to a negotiation to set the upper bound for you.
Where we are in agreement is that your Ferarri and egregious salary demand examples are not serious negotiations. In my limited experience, salary negotiations are not usually irrational. Neither party is looking to waste their own time, if nothing else. Your point is it's never a good idea to throw out the first number. My point is that is a broad over-simplification and not a particularly useful truism for rational negotiation.
-
Back on track, Polis has made the state a lot less friendly to business in a lot of ways, large and small. Sooner or later, Colorado will reap what it has sown.
The entire rant shows you dont understand what goes on.
1) Do you really think an employer wants to waste their time/money interviewing someone just to low ball them?
2) I just went through interviewing three candidates. DIRECT cost (not the opportunity cost) was well over $1000 an hour to interview the people. That is just interviewing them. That is not any other part of the process.
3) It costs employers money and time (opportunity cost) to interview people.
4) You seem like a wonderful employee with an awesome attitude!
1) Yes, as I have had it happen to me twice before I stopped playing the game, and I had a recruiter straight up admit the position was low pay for the region and work involved once I asked the salary range. I know they're out there because I wish I could somehow filter them better on job sites and have to scroll through 5 pages of obvious bullshit to find the 3-4 jobs I would align well with in all aspects.
2) Yep. Which is why dumbass practices which are holdovers from yesteryear need to go. They will, and smarter companies have started getting with the times. There is a direct cost for candidates as well.
3) There is also an opportunity cost for candidates. I addressed that.
4) I am, actually. I'm a very horrible yes man though. And I've never cared for the taste of others' boots. My goal is to bring value, not make people feel good about things for which they should feel bad.
DireWolf
07-09-2021, 13:39
I am, actually. I'm a very horrible yes man though. And I've never cared for the taste of others' boots. My goal is to bring value, not make people feel good about things for which they should feel bad.
https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20210709/2fd3b0c142622d8452cb499b12e50874.gif
And this, my friends, is why the forum needs a "Fuckin' A!" button!
(though I suppose a "like" button would suffice, lol)
Grant H.
07-09-2021, 14:58
https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20210709/2fd3b0c142622d8452cb499b12e50874.gif
And this, my friends, is why the forum needs a "Fuckin' A!" button!
(though I suppose a "like" button would suffice, lol)
Hey Peter, it's the breast exam commercial!
https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20210709/2fd3b0c142622d8452cb499b12e50874.gif
And this, my friends, is why the forum needs a "Fuckin' A!" button!
(though I suppose a "like" button would suffice, lol)
Peter... watch out for your cornhole, bud.
(How's that for staying on-topic?)
DireWolf
07-09-2021, 16:48
Peter... watch out for your cornhole, bud.
(How's that for staying on-topic?)Fuckin 'A!
lol.
*polis enters the room*
Did someone say cornhole?
[ROFL1] [ROFL1] [ROFL1]
.
.
1) Yes, as I have had it happen to me twice before I stopped playing the game, and I had a recruiter straight up admit the position was low pay for the region and work involved once I asked the salary range. I know they're out there because I wish I could somehow filter them better on job sites and have to scroll through 5 pages of obvious bullshit to find the 3-4 jobs I would align well with in all aspects.
2) Yep. Which is why dumbass practices which are holdovers from yesteryear need to go. They will, and smarter companies have started getting with the times. There is a direct cost for candidates as well.
3) There is also an opportunity cost for candidates. I addressed that.
4) I am, actually. I'm a very horrible yes man though. And I've never cared for the taste of others' boots. My goal is to bring value, not make people feel good about things for which they should feel bad.
So you are upset that you have to put in too much effort to find the 3 or 4 jobs you think are for you?
You know people that are in real demand don?t have to do that? They have people looking for them.
If you are known to bring value, they will seek you out.
Hate to break the news to you, employers are not there just trying to screw employees.
There are many reasons why an employer may pay lower or higher. Easy examples are size of company and revenue. Not every company pays google wages. But they also don?t expect google hours/effort.
eddiememphis
07-23-2021, 08:56
What's the commuter law about?
Dead.
https://www.thecentersquare.com/colorado/colorado-formally-withdraws-controversial-plan-to-reduce-employee-commuting/article_2b9fcf94-eb02-11eb-abad-07ba59fed8f7.html
After backlash from business groups, the department of public health reconsidered and changed it to voluntary.
"After extensive outreach and engagement with a diverse range of stakeholders, the Division now withdraws its support and proposals for a formal ETRP rule and instead will focus on opportunities presented through a voluntary program," the notice said.
There are some silver linings after all.
There were no penalties for non compliance and business community pretty much told them to fvck off.
So the CDPHE will recommend a new round of legislation with penalties for non-compliance.
No win, just a slight delay.
1) So you are upset that you have to put in too much effort to find the 3 or 4 jobs you think are for you?
2) You know people that are in real demand don?t have to do that? They have people looking for them.
3) If you are known to bring value, they will seek you out.
4) Hate to break the news to you, employers are not there just trying to screw employees.
5) There are many reasons why an employer may pay lower or higher. Easy examples are size of company and revenue. Not every company pays google wages. But they also don?t expect google hours/effort.
1) No, I'm upset that employers poison the well with BS while never actually making the effort to align their expectations with market realties, and, happily enough, remain tied to their HR systems and idiotic pay structures which have requirements which misalign with all but the overqualified. In short, we have multiple 5'5", 210lbs females bitching cus they want a 6'3" millionaire with no kids and a perfect jaw structure. Sorry, Destiny, it doesn't work like that. Take your business herpes elsewhere.Get real.
2) What Mayberry Fantasy land do you live in? I'm in an industry that is has 3.5 million unfilled jobs. I have recruiters contacting me directly. The last two interviews I have done I didn't even apply - they just.. found me.
3) This is a bit of a repeat, but again, how would someone *know* if I bring value? Do you live in Mayberry? Some company with a remote position that's HQ in Maryland is talking with *checks notes* a subcontract program lead from *checks notes* an obfuscated program buried under layers of contractual and hierarchical smoke to pinpoint... me? Whatever. I know that's not true. Maybe in some place like Tulsa, or OKC, and the industry is oil/gas, and I'm specifically looking to stay in that sector. Otherwise, no.
4) You're right. That's a by-product of their misunderstanding of how to stay in business and actually have a longrunning presence in the market without being that which they despise ( a la walmart, amazon, etc.). They are there to maximize profits, just like some player is there to maximize their pleasure journal and amount of nuts they can shoot off. But they're not there to screw tinder dates. Right? Swipe left, please.
5) You are insane. The smaller companies are WORSE actually; they cannot afford the personnel to monitor the tools they also cannot afford! (well, they can, but they don't want to pursuant to #4). In the field I am employed, they have all the same exposure and yet, FAR LESS ability (or willingness) to mitigate their risk. And yes, they expect the same effort and hours, because when I'm off, Russia and China are on, baby! APT X is who is pissing on their rug. It really tied the room together, too.
Learn ya something: https://attack.mitre.org/groups/
1) No, I'm upset that employers poison the well with BS while never actually making the effort to align their expectations with market realties, and, happily enough, remain tied to their HR systems and idiotic pay structures which have requirements which misalign with all but the overqualified. In short, we have multiple 5'5", 210lbs females bitching cus they want a 6'3" millionaire with no kids and a perfect jaw structure. Sorry, Destiny, it doesn't work like that. Take your business herpes elsewhere.Get real.
2) What Mayberry Fantasy land do you live in? I'm in an industry that is has 3.5 million unfilled jobs. I have recruiters contacting me directly. The last two interviews I have done I didn't even apply - they just.. found me.
3) This is a bit of a repeat, but again, how would someone *know* if I bring value? Do you live in Mayberry? Some company with a remote position that's HQ in Maryland is talking with *checks notes* a subcontract program lead from *checks notes* an obfuscated program buried under layers of contractual and hierarchical smoke to pinpoint... me? Whatever. I know that's not true. Maybe in some place like Tulsa, or OKC, and the industry is oil/gas, and I'm specifically looking to stay in that sector. Otherwise, no.
4) You're right. That's a by-product of their misunderstanding of how to stay in business and actually have a longrunning presence in the market without being that which they despise ( a la walmart, amazon, etc.). They are there to maximize profits, just like some player is there to maximize their pleasure journal and amount of nuts they can shoot off. But they're not there to screw tinder dates. Right? Swipe left, please.
5) You are insane. The smaller companies are WORSE actually; they cannot afford the personnel to monitor the tools they also cannot afford! (well, they can, but they don't want to pursuant to #4). In the field I am employed, they have all the same exposure and yet, FAR LESS ability (or willingness) to mitigate their risk. And yes, they expect the same effort and hours, because when I'm off, Russia and China are on, baby! APT X is who is pissing on their rug. It really tied the room together, too.
Learn ya something: https://attack.mitre.org/groups/
With you vast business expertise and knowledge of human capital budgeting, I would suggest that you should be the CEO of a major company (or even a smaller one) showing them how it is done.
Why aren't you a CEO showing them how to properly run a business?
With you vast business expertise and knowledge of human capital budgeting, I would suggest that you should be the CEO of a major company (or even a smaller one) showing them how it is done.
Why aren't you a CEO showing them how to properly run a business?
He's young, give him time.
P.S. He's already running circles around you.
DireWolf
07-26-2021, 15:21
He's young, give him time.
This.
He's young, give him time.
P.S. He's already running circles around you.
Sure.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.3 Copyright © 2025 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.