Ask HN: Should I let someone poach me?

Would it be wise to say "raise by 1.5 or I leave" if they decline at first?

The very fact you're asking these questions means you don't necessarily want to leave, so don't put yourself in the position where you have to if your employer offers less than 1.5. If your employer is sensible any negotiation that uses the phrase "or I leave" will result in you leaving. They will pay you what they believe you are worth to them - any offer you have from someone else is largely irrelevant.

Also, check your contract and the large company's contract very carefully. There's probably a clause that says you shouldn't leave to work for a customer in your contract, and the large company shouldn't approach you with an offer in theirs. Accepting the job could be difficult, and if you leave before checking you'd end up without a job at either company.

Good point, though you should also check the laws in your area because such contracts may not be enforceable.

It is rare that an employee is unique enough to be worth the cost of bringing lawyers to the table.

True, but the small company would presumably lose the contract if he left and went to do the same job at the larger company. That might well be worth fighting for.

Even in a state like California, which is very employee friendly, the OP and the company trying to poach him would probably have a difficult time if there's an anti-solicitation clause in place. The OP is still employed by the consulting firm, and actively engaged in work for the client company. California court cases have suggested this type of scenario might not be a good fit for 16600 protections[1].

If the OP now believes he's underpaid and wants to look for greener pastures, he should consider that he doesn't need to join the client company to find them.

[1] http://www.theiplawblog.com/2007/12/articles/trade-secrets/c...

You're distracted by the money. Take that out of the equation, then answer the question—then add the money back in and see if that changes your answer (it probably shouldn't). This will force you to answer questions like: "Do I want to work for the client PM full time?" "Do I like the work at BigCo?" "Does the big company / small company divide concern me?"

If you're going to be doing the same work for the same people anyway, take the money and run. If you want to do something different, then do something different.

Remember how consulting works: your hourly cost rate to BigCo is easily 1.5x your take-home pay. Your client PM is doing simple math: he'd like to keep you around for the long term, and it's easy to cut out the middleman. He might even be coming out ahead: it's a win-win. (The loser is your current company.)

Because of this, it's unlikely you'd get 1.5x from your current company... because the client won't pay 2x. It never hurts to ask, but recognize the economics of the situation.

I keep coming back to this. What I think a lot of the other comments are missing is:

1. This is a LATERAL move 2. You are being paid at MARKET RATES in BOTH COMPANIES: the business models just differ

You are NOT being underpaid and this is NOT a foundation for negotiation.

Think about it this way. You take home $20/hr currently. Your costs to your current company (salary, benefits, taxes, overhead, etc.) are probably around $35/hr. They're billing you out at $45/hr and making a 20% margin.

Your client sees an opportunity to pay you $30/hr directly (call it $40/hr loaded with benefits, taxes, etc.) for the EXACT SAME WORK. They are saving $5/hr.

If you go back to your current company and demand a 1.5x raise... well, let's do the math. You make $30/hr. $40/hr loaded costs. So they'd have to bill you at $50/hr to make it worth their while. The client won't pay that, so the market won't bear a raise.

Market rate means what can be achieved in the market. Only being able to offer low wages means that the company cannot compete at the market rate. Typically a consultant will have a multiplier of at least 2x and more likely 3x. They have to cover overhead and risk and generate a profit directly from the rate. A company that makes widgets makes their profit mainly on the price and sales volume of widgets...reducing overhead helps but isn't the driving force.

The consultancy may need to raise its rates or its principals may need to accept lower rates of return on their equity in order to pay market rate salaries. Or they can bill out staff with lower expertise at lower rates. Particularly if they are competing on price.

But if a consultancy is competing on price, then their also probably looking to profit from the buy out clause on their employees. Letting talent go to their clients is good for business. If the OP moves on to the client, the consultant has a relationship with someone inside. This is good [usually] when it comes to getting future work.

Yeah I agree with this, especially "Do I want to work for the client PM full time?"

The OP is no more distracted by the money than their employer. It's business and a 500 person company isn't really small by any social measure, it left the ten pizza rule size a long time ago.

I think you may have covered this, but I would first check whether there's some sort of contractual agreement between your current (consulting) company with the client, where no person would be poached (or recruited) within a certain period of time, during and after providing consulting services. This alone will save you a lot of grief.

From the gist of your questions, I can certainly say that you're driven with the financial rewards. But do note that money is only part of the equation. There's a lot of stories abound similar to your situation where they've chosen the side of salary numbers and ended up being unhappy and downright unproductive.

If you know your value, and the value for which employees at the client company pays, then you could certainly do the math. Asking a n% increase should be commensurate to the business value your bring to the table.

Well. Don't go into negotiations with, I make 100k, I need 150k to come over. Just say your price is 150k.

Without knowing either company, hard to say. Probably the smaller one though just because they are more likely to not have a corporate structure that will take forever to move up in.

Both have their advantages and disadvantages. Consultant = Ability to move from problem to problem quickly, ability to solve problems in any number of ways. Big Enterprise = "Proven" track record (in theory a well known company isn't hiring just anyone that walks in).

My opinion, for what it's worth:

The manager at the big company wants you. You want the money. Working at the big company doesn't seem so bad that you're unwilling to consider it.

Your current employer forces you to demand raises raises rather than just paying you what you're worth. This is basically an adversarial relationship and your demands only have teeth if you are willing to walk out the door.

Assuming that both companies are more or less equally acceptable as places to work, the choice is:

  Big company: guaranteed 50% pay bump on the table.
               same sort of work you are doing now.
               more room for growth.
               clearly sees value in the work you do.

  Current company: maybe a pay bump, maybe not.
                   paying below market rate.
                   makes salary increases confrontational.

One thing to consider is that if you get the 50% raise at your current company, how long will it be before you resent the fact that they were underpaying you before you played hardball? My experience tells my gut that once someone has to threaten to leave in order to get a raise, everyone is usually better off if the person just takes the other job.

Finally, in any large company, it is likely that a manager in a position to offer you a job has already worked through any contractual obligations in regard to hiring you away from your current firm. Such contracts typically acknowledge the possibility ways that are reasonable on both sides. But, it is important to ask the manager offering you the job, what the process is.

Good luck and congratulations on the offer if nothing else.

Could I demand for even more than 1.5 at the project's company -> Yes absolutely. First, decide if you want to move for double the salary. Then ask for 2x. If they say yes (they likely would), tell your employer: I love it here, but they're doubling my salary, I have to take it.

On wage negotiations: the big corp offer and your current wage as per negotiations are unrelated. You can use the offer as a datapoint as you estimate your own worth but you cannot use it as a rationale to ask for a wage increase. You can always ask for more.

I'm not sure what the situation with the big corp offer is but if you want to move I would use the initial offer as merely as an anchor point and ask for more (as much money that the decision to move does not feel wrong). Negotiate, point out your value.

I don't know where your salary would rise faster. Be aware that some big corps keep people tenaciously on the wage level they are at.

As per future career prospects - signaling that you are smart and get things done is always a good bet. This means that you should have a brief description of what you've achieved at your current project at the end of it. This means if you can't describe your experience as "achieved x at y which delivered value z" it's time to try to change your current assignment. If this red flag condition is not met then careerwise you could be doing worse.

A well known reputable name in a CV creates a sense of positive familiarity, no doubt about it.

It sounds to me you need to figure out what you want to do, formulate a plan how to achieve it, and observe at yearly intervals have your goals changed and is your plan working. Figuring out ones career is an empirical and personal thing - the most important thing you can do about it is to be proactive and have a plan (that probably needs adjustments at intervals).

You are grossly underpaid at your current company. A company as large as the one that wants to hire you might be paying above market salary, but not by 3x. Say you are making $50-60k, and they offered $75-90k but other developers make $150-200k. Staying at your current company is holding you back financially, do you should take the offer at the new company if everything else looks good (hours, workload, people). Don't bother with a counter offer from your current job for a jump that big. 25% is about as big as you want to go when threatening to leave. I would start the negotiations by letting them know you are aware of what people make and that you should be in line with that, or there should be a valid reason why not. That should get you somewhere between 1.5x and 3x. Big companies usually have strict raise guidelines so you might be capped at 5% a year so you need to get all you can in the initial negotiations.

Don't take the offer from this bigger company as an indicator that you need to demand that much from your current company, they are two completely different situations.

If you choose to negotiate with your current company, only do it from the standpoint that you are worth that much to them because of the revenue you bring in or because of your productivity. They don't care what someone else is willing to pay you, only you care about that.

If you choose to go to the new company, just make the decision and do it, don't give an ultimatum or anything like that... if you do that, they might give you what you want initially but there is likelihood that you will be let go in 6-12 months, or at least shoot your chances for advancement in the foot.

As far as career... having varied experience is probably good, but working in the bureaucracy of a large organization can be soul-sucking and exhausting.

To demand a raise of that size from your current employer would likely sour your work environment there. Put yourself in the current employer's shoes: it is either an admission from the company that you're severely underpaid or carries the expectation that you'll be more productive to earn that raise. Yes they didn't have to try to recruit and train to replace you, but a raise of that size quickly overcomes the cost of a new hire (if they're brought on at 1x or less of your current salary).

If the money is important enough to you that you want it, then I think you'd be best off getting it from the poaching company. They'll be glad to have you - it's why they made the offer - and they are bidding for your current/potential productivity level.

Is there really no clause in your contract with MediumCo that you won't leave to work for a company you are consulting for without approval? Seems like both employee -> consulting shop, and customer -> consulting shop often both have some kind of agreement in place.

> What would be the best point to start off for a possible change of employment in the future; Consultant or Big Company?

Depends-- McKinsey and Accenture are considered strong consultancies known for their smart talent. But people really like to buy Brand Names. Recall the old slogan "No one ever got fired for buying IBM"? Same idea, if Big Company has strong brand, that experience is typically a CV plus.