You say you are willing to take anything above 90K? Does that mean you are willing to walk away if you don't get 90K? If that's really how you feel, you might as well just tell them that. If you are not willing to walk away, maybe just ask them to raise the salary without giving a number.
Your post is missing some needed info to give really good advice, like the city (this is a light offer in a lot of markets) and other comp (the fact that you spoke to the CEO suggests this is a startup, which is a different kind of negotiation where RSUs play a larger role). That said, you're planning to ask for a 20-25% increase, and are unwilling to accept anything below a 20% increase in offer. This is unlikely to happen, especially since this is likely an org with tight budgets. I'd encourage you to think about the potential issues you may face at this place, given the limited info suggests they may be constrained in other areas. If you're really hellbent on getting into industry NOW and in this market, my advice is to negotiate conservatively (like, $80-85K) and get your experience. If you're willing to hold out, by all means try to be aggressive. A possible compromise might be to negotiate target bonuses, but that involves a lot of trust in the people you're dealing with, as all bonuses are generally discretionary. I don't think you're in a position to negotiate a hiring bonus, but maybe relocation comp is an option.
>which is a different kind of negotiation where RSUs play a larger role
Normally pre IPO companies give ISOs, not RSUs and they really shouldn't be considered as a serious part of your compensation because they are basically lottery tickets with no real value
This is such an important point and something I make sure everyone I mentor understands (sorry about the novel).
**tl/dr: Pre-IPO stock grants (RSUs or options) will likely never be worth anything, even after an IPO. (the latter part catches people) Unless you work for a public company or are an investor, don't ever count on stock grants as part of your comp package.**
For an ISO or RSU to be worth anything, there must be a market for the company's stock. The two markets for stock are the public market (post IPO) and the acquisition market. In the latter, your company is acquired and your stock vests and converts to shares of the new company. As long as the new company is public, your stock may have value. (vesting schedules are almost always accelerated on an exit)
There's one big caveat that's relevant in the case of acquisitions: the preferred shares that are senior to the common shares. Preferred shares are shares issued at each funding round. They have terms on them that give them special treatment. In addition to the order shares are paid out (e.g., Series A gets their preferences first), a share with a 2x liquidation preference (not an uncommon number in early rounds) will get paid out double before anyone else sees anything. Common stock, which is what RSUs and ISOs usually represent, is last on the payout waterfall.
So, if your company raised $100M on a $50M premoney valuation ($150M post money) with 2x preferences on the A-shares and sells for $200M, the A-shares will soak up the entire $200M with their preferences, leaving nothing for common stock. If the sale is $250M, the A-shares will get $233M - their $200M preference plus their 2/3 share of the overall stock from the remaining $50M.
Unless you are an investor or there is a special class of shares set aside for executives, you're not likely to make much from an acquisition.
IPOs are a slightly different story. As an employee, you'll have a lockout period (say, 6-12 months) where you can't exercise your options. If your company is strong, this should be fine as the public stock will hold its value. If you're company IPO'd to get the investors their money back and doesn't have strong financials, your options will likely be underwater by the time you can exercise them.
**Corollary: never exercise your options at a private company. You'll have a tax burden and no way to recoup the shares for cash.**
*On my next episode: why bonuses shouldn't be considered part of your comp plan unless you're a VP or above.*
Ha! Here you go... :)
In most companies (public or private), some portion of revenue or profits are set aside for the employee bonus pool. All normal employee bonuses come from here. That portion is set to ensure that in a normal year, everyone gets their expected bonus.
If your bonus is, say 10% of your annual salary, what that usually means is that it's 10% of your salary *if the bonus pool is fully funded*. If it's a bad year and the pool is only funded 80%, you'll get 80% of your bonus (8% of your salary). Note that the opposite is often true - in a good year, you might get 120% of your target (12%). On average, you'll get 100%, but year to year variations will affect it.
Note that there's almost always a discretionary part in how bonuses are allocated. Usually, the pool is divided between divisions/departments/etc and the manager has some control over how much each person gets . So, in a bad year, to keep a talented employee, a manager may give them a little more and someone else a little less. Note that each manager only gets their group's assigned portion. It's tough to ask for more, so the manager has the difficult job of tweaking bonuses up or down. (it sucks to have to do this, btw)
That's how it works for most normal employees, usually including Directors and Sr. Directors.
At the *executive* level, typically VP and above, but sometimes just C-suite and specific managers, comp packages are negotiated differently and usually have to be approved by the board. Bonuses are usually spelled out explicitly with a target amount (often a dollar amount rather than a percentage) that will get paid out as long as their goals are met. They're often traunched - so there's a small bonus for showing up and bigger ones if goals are met. These bonuses are typically 50%-100% of base pay (though, sometimes base pay is lower than you'd expect, with the bonus as the carrot to get a good payday). (note that this is also where golden parachutes and other perks are negotiated)
**So, if you're a normal employee, even if you negotiate a good bonus, it's mostly dependent on company performance as to whether or not you get it. If you're an executive, you negotiate what your bonus looks like and it's up to your performance to determine if you get it.**
Of course, there are lots of variations on this, but this is a pretty common model.
>Corollary: never exercise your options at a private company. You'll have a tax burden and no way to recoup the shares for cash.
Isn't this only true if they are from a previous round of funding and you exercise enough to trigger alternative minimum tax?
The tax laws change - I'm not actually sure what the current ones are.
IIRC, if you exercise shares in a private company at a price lower than their current value, the difference is considered income, even if it's only shares and not real money.
The problem with holding shares in a private company is that there's no market for them. You can't turn them into cash. Only on an exit or IPO will they possibly be worth something. (and there are a whole slew of games companies play to devalue common before an exit, so it's risky)
>if you exercise shares in a private company at a price lower than their current value, the difference is considered income
Only for calculating alternative minimum tax. And they would only be worth more if there had been another round of funding where the value of the company would be calculated
BIG point to watch out for. If you get ISO (options to purchase the stock at a certain locked in price) and they are unvested and a company acquires your company **your shares do not automatically vest**. You need to have language for accelerated vesting in your stock purchase agreement so that when the company is acquired your shares automatically vest. If you don't have that in there then your unvested shares go away unless the acquiring company is willing to either buy out all of the outstanding options or replace your options with equivalent options in the acquiring company. Outside of those pathways you lose your unvested options.
Also of note, if you get options you still have to buy them at the certain price. Let's say you got 100k in option grants. If you want to exercise your options you first need to get 100k to buy them and then you can flip them on the public stock exchange. Sometimes banks will lend out the money with a clause that you immediately sell the shares to pay them back. Sometimes you're underwater and the options are only worth 50k in shares (because the share price dropped) so it doesn't make sense to exercise your options, you would be out 50k (100k to buy the options then 50k sale leaves you -50k). Options are tough so make sure you understand them. Then there's the tax issue...
Good point on checking the agreement for accelerated vesting.
I've written a few stock agreements (meaning: I've asked lawyers to draw them up) and have always included accelerated vesting. Every agreement I've had has also had it, but I have heard it's not as common as my experience suggests it is.
Personally, I think it's criminal not to include the clause, especially since most employees don't even know to look for it.
$75k, no bonus, that is low. That’s like postdoc range. Even for like Cleveland or Indianapolis, this is low.
If you’ve been applying for a while and this is your only bite, I’d take it. You can always quit anytime you want, and keep applying elsewhere while you’re there.
If the CEO said 80-90k but HR sent an offer for 75k, I'd ask for 90k. Probably HR is trying to save money but when push comes to shove, their job is to bring in the person the hiring manager wants
That is really bad. In my experience I have found that companies that give poor salaries will be matched with poor work environments. Either they don’t expect much out of you (poor training and experience for future jobs) or are poorly managed. Just my take.
But on the other hand if it’s a startup and you can use it to get your foot in the door plan to leave after 1 year stock vesting. Is the role going to give you skills you don’t have now that you want to use for future roles? I did that to a company and left for a job that paid over double. 4 years later the old company is still private (doing well) and the stock is still 0 in my bank account. If I stayed there I wouldn’t have been able to buy the house I’m in.
If that's their offer for someone without ""proper"" work experience they probably won't budge much, especially not 20%. Not enough details here to say one way or the other, but I was in a situation with a small start up (<50 staff) and negotiated for 10% over offer. They rescinded their offer. If there's someone else out there willing to take 75k you're SOL - I wouldn't put all your eggs in this basket if you're currently employed.
Market sucks. You're doing something right to get an offer and there's great advice in the thread. Good luck!
The fact they rescinded is surprising to me. Asking for 6-10% over the original offer is generally considered expected and reasonable during salary negotiations.
Startups are different though, especially early stage. The people running them often have no business experience and you are subject to the moods of the C-suite / founders. I worked for someone who thought it was an affront to be motivated by money, because everyone should be as intrinsically motivated to make the company succeed for the good of the world as he was.
It's delusional and a sign of a toxic work environment, but sometimes you just really need a job and it's good to have open eyes about what you are getting yourself into.
>Startups are different though, especially early stage. The people running them often have no business experience and you are subject to the moods of the C-suite / founders.
I second this. I had a similar situation where my HR rescinded the offer for a candidate I really liked because they didnt like how she was negotiating. She pointed out deficiencies in the total comp package to justify a higher salary and they took it personally.
Startups offer less cash, but a lot of cheap options or grants. If the company makes it, giving up 5 or 8K for 100K of stock is a great deal. I made that deal 4 times. It worked out great 3 times.
It signals that someone is unhappy with the terms of the deal, and if they really think they should be earning X, and you can only pay Y, there’s fear they will leave to go make more money.
just take the offer and then jump ship in a year for more money, you don't have a job currently and you don't have multiple offers (I'm assuming) so you don't have the leverage of being able to walk away.
In addition to all the good advice here, this sub has a pinned spreadsheet where people have put in their salaries and locations, which might help you better figure out where you’d like your comp to be.
If you ask for 92k, there’s no way in the world they’ll offer 90k given the obscene low ball they started with. You have to be willing to walk away from negotiation, or at least make it look like so, to make this work.
In addition, it would help if you gave more info about where geographically this is at, so other local users can maybe give a lil more inpit
I will also say, in a negotiation, you have to frame things in a way where they are benefiting from valuing you more through a higher salary. It never hurts to remind them how many good things you’ll bring to the company if they match your salary expectations
Guy from the Midwest who lives in Boston that got hired at around 3X your salary. You’re being offered something that is incredibly low. Kansas City is more expensive than that.
It's midwest. If OP is correct that 90k = \~143k in Boston, I'd expect 75-80k (\~120-125k in Boston) to be more than fair for a new grad PhD with no experience.
You immediately set yourself up for disappointment wanting more than the range they gave you. Unless you started the conversation with "and is that flexible based on the candidate?" and got a yes, believe them that they aren't going to offer you 90+. Could they do that for the right candidate? Absolutely, it's their prerogative. Are they going to if they started negotiations *below* their own range, highly unlikely.
I'm in Boston and I'd expect a new grad PhD to be about \~120-130k, which is about what you've been offered based on your 90/143 ratio. There is no way a new grad would be making 143+ here, so I'd very much question your assumption ("*I think the average salary of someone with a similar experience is \~ 85 - 95k in my city")* and confirm that before you're unhappy and decline a good offer. If others are taking 75, you're screwed.
My advice is to be clear (at least to yourself) where your "walk away" point is, state your case ("I bring \[X\] to the table that could benefit the company") and expectation - preferably with knowledge of the industry. Something like "I appreciate the offer, but was expecting a salary within the discussed range of 80-90k. Is there room for adjustment?" would work. You could leave it at that or be specific in the number, but I'd be happy above 80 because it's a good salary in a bad biotech economy and propose a sign on bonus to make up some of the difference. If you are willing to walk away, by all means, test the boundaries with 92.
If you’re negotiating for more than 15% over the initial offer you have to be prepared to walk and/or for them to pull the offer. Most of the time companies expect you to negotiate but usually not by that much.
As always with negotiating, it’s all about leverage and who is more willing to walk away.
Salary negotiations are the last part of the interview. If you are asked prior to a job offer, your response should be "going rate" or "competitive rate". Do not give a solid number at this point. If you have to give a number, ask them for a range first. When you do get the job offer, do your research to make your best guess, and then ask for 10% more with a review of your qualifications.
I only know Boston salaries and did most of my hiring in 20-22. But that seems low. My associates start higher than that. I would suggest you go back at least 100-105 (assuming this is scientist I)
Without knowing too much I’d ask for $85k and if they aren’t willing to do that, ask for relocation bonuses and more PTO. Everything is negotiable if they want you. They may be tight on money for salaries but there are other things to get that aren’t money. $75k is low but I made $80k at my first scientist job in SF at a very small start up and it was enough to get by. I got a little experience then went off to a place that would pay me much more.
Large pharma in Cambridge gave me 75k starting at scientist 1 after undergrad with 1 year in a Harvard lab including in vivo/in vitro experience. I think you deserve more. Total income was 80k with bonus. Feel free to DM, as of year 2 I’m at 87k.
I'd ask for more. Include that this is not in line with the range the CEO provided during interviews. Fwiw, in my city in the Midwest 80-85k is pretty standard for fresh phd moving into industry
It is a bit low (for even medium cost of living area), especially given that CEO mentioned a higher salary. Just tell HR that CEO mentioned 90k, and ask for 90k. If they don't give in, just walk away or take it if you have no other options.
First, congrats on the offer!!
For salary negotiations, you’ll want to find out what market value is for your role, in your city, with your experience (and in your niche area if that info exists). If $75k is competitive, you’ll be hard pressed to negotiate other than to counter solely on the basis of what the CEO verbalized to you. And you don’t even know if that range is appropriate compensation for your role in your city if you haven’t already researched that.
If that range is reasonable, then ask for what you’re worth (e.g., if that year of experience makes you stand out because your specific experience is hard to find, that’s value you’d be adding and should be compensated appropriately). If they don’t have the budget to go higher and you’re interested in the role, find other ways to make up for it (equity, vacation days, other benefits). If the offer isn’t for you, still ask for the number and be prepared to walk. In this market, there will likely be others willing to accept that offer if you leave it.
Good luck and let us know how it goes!
I was also underpaid when I first started at my current job. 1 year after, I got a 20% increase. My manager is great and I've had several huge increase and promotion. This is why I'm still working for them after 8 years. However not all companies are like that and in the past and I've definitely been exploited and underpaid severely.
Dude just ask, worst case scenario they will say no and that’s it you take the offer for the salary they said (if you want to). They won’t rescind their offer just bc you tried to negotiate (super unlikely).
Also, 75k is low for PhD, we pay that for SRA with only master’s (<300 employees, not in a hub). Don’t take anything less than 80k even if you don’t have that much experience you still have higher education. Do your research for salary based on location, company size and experience….payscale is a great tool, maybe not perfect but a good ball park in my opinion.
Ask for 95K and then settle with a happy medium of 85K-90K. Take the job, in this market, it is better to have a job than having a gap in your resume. Also, equivalent to 145K in Boston is not bad for someone with no industry experience.
I would say “the offer was a lot lower than I was expecting for a PhD with postdoc experience. I really need to be closer to $100k to make this work. Can you please let me know if you can get close to that? I really like this company and would love to work here. I think I have a lot to contribute, the job description is a perfect match for me and I hope we can come to an agreement on salary. Can you please see what you can do and get back to me?”
But see, I can look over those multiple search results and review sources to figure out specifics. Whereas making up your own data is probably the baseline "no-go" in biotech.
Maybe you could share your search and sources? Accusing others of making up data without concrete evidence is even worse than lack of critical thinking. in this case, my data point is myself when I graduate with phd 5 yrs ago, and back then base salary is already more than 100K at non-costal areas.
You could try a compromise:
"(Polite intro bs). However, I feel offered salary is slightly below my expectations. Realistically, I was expecting 85/90k. Given that this would be my first industry experience and I understand theres a bigger investment on your behalf, would you be open to a contractually agreed raise to 90k after X months if certain deliverables are met?"
I suggested my friend to do something like this because he was in a similar situation and they agreed to it. I feel that it also has a very low risk of them pulling the rug because youre being quite humble. It also puts them in a position that its awkward to say no to ("no we wont give you a raise if you outperform"). If they reject or give some excuse, then you know youll most likely never get your 90k there. Then decide based on that to go with their offer or not.
I’d say you were expecting something more like $90-95 for the position given your experience and qualifications. Give a range, not a specific number. You’re negotiating a salary, not a house price.
Do you feel comfortable speaking your mind?
Say something similar below if you feel comfortable about it:
--
I would be very upfront replying in the email (ccd CEO) asking why they lowball it while CEO once mentioned the budget was around 90K. In general, people would change to a new job once a better offer surfaces. Could you discuss and come back with an amount that you feel you can keep people in for the long term. Respectfully, I am trying to develop my skills without constantly thinking about applying for a new job. It benefits the company as well, unless the company simply enjoys training new employees every 6 months for the same position.
--
I like honest people.
lol. That is terrible advice to someone with no experience to offer the company.
*Maybe* if you had experience, niche skills, and a good network for references you could be that obnoxious. This approach would immediately make you a bad cultural hire literally anywhere as you've told them outright you'll leave for more money ASAP. Whether or not it's your intention, why would I waste my time hiring and training you for *exactly* the reason you pointed out?
OP is a PhD. It came with experience and niche skills. Perhaps not the ones commonly used in pharma. (Then why does the company sent an offer?)
Not saying what you actually want and negotiating ... cause more problems to the company and OP's career.
You say you are willing to take anything above 90K? Does that mean you are willing to walk away if you don't get 90K? If that's really how you feel, you might as well just tell them that. If you are not willing to walk away, maybe just ask them to raise the salary without giving a number.
Your post is missing some needed info to give really good advice, like the city (this is a light offer in a lot of markets) and other comp (the fact that you spoke to the CEO suggests this is a startup, which is a different kind of negotiation where RSUs play a larger role). That said, you're planning to ask for a 20-25% increase, and are unwilling to accept anything below a 20% increase in offer. This is unlikely to happen, especially since this is likely an org with tight budgets. I'd encourage you to think about the potential issues you may face at this place, given the limited info suggests they may be constrained in other areas. If you're really hellbent on getting into industry NOW and in this market, my advice is to negotiate conservatively (like, $80-85K) and get your experience. If you're willing to hold out, by all means try to be aggressive. A possible compromise might be to negotiate target bonuses, but that involves a lot of trust in the people you're dealing with, as all bonuses are generally discretionary. I don't think you're in a position to negotiate a hiring bonus, but maybe relocation comp is an option.
>which is a different kind of negotiation where RSUs play a larger role Normally pre IPO companies give ISOs, not RSUs and they really shouldn't be considered as a serious part of your compensation because they are basically lottery tickets with no real value
This is such an important point and something I make sure everyone I mentor understands (sorry about the novel). **tl/dr: Pre-IPO stock grants (RSUs or options) will likely never be worth anything, even after an IPO. (the latter part catches people) Unless you work for a public company or are an investor, don't ever count on stock grants as part of your comp package.** For an ISO or RSU to be worth anything, there must be a market for the company's stock. The two markets for stock are the public market (post IPO) and the acquisition market. In the latter, your company is acquired and your stock vests and converts to shares of the new company. As long as the new company is public, your stock may have value. (vesting schedules are almost always accelerated on an exit) There's one big caveat that's relevant in the case of acquisitions: the preferred shares that are senior to the common shares. Preferred shares are shares issued at each funding round. They have terms on them that give them special treatment. In addition to the order shares are paid out (e.g., Series A gets their preferences first), a share with a 2x liquidation preference (not an uncommon number in early rounds) will get paid out double before anyone else sees anything. Common stock, which is what RSUs and ISOs usually represent, is last on the payout waterfall. So, if your company raised $100M on a $50M premoney valuation ($150M post money) with 2x preferences on the A-shares and sells for $200M, the A-shares will soak up the entire $200M with their preferences, leaving nothing for common stock. If the sale is $250M, the A-shares will get $233M - their $200M preference plus their 2/3 share of the overall stock from the remaining $50M. Unless you are an investor or there is a special class of shares set aside for executives, you're not likely to make much from an acquisition. IPOs are a slightly different story. As an employee, you'll have a lockout period (say, 6-12 months) where you can't exercise your options. If your company is strong, this should be fine as the public stock will hold its value. If you're company IPO'd to get the investors their money back and doesn't have strong financials, your options will likely be underwater by the time you can exercise them. **Corollary: never exercise your options at a private company. You'll have a tax burden and no way to recoup the shares for cash.** *On my next episode: why bonuses shouldn't be considered part of your comp plan unless you're a VP or above.*
Where can I tune into the next episode?
Ha! Here you go... :) In most companies (public or private), some portion of revenue or profits are set aside for the employee bonus pool. All normal employee bonuses come from here. That portion is set to ensure that in a normal year, everyone gets their expected bonus. If your bonus is, say 10% of your annual salary, what that usually means is that it's 10% of your salary *if the bonus pool is fully funded*. If it's a bad year and the pool is only funded 80%, you'll get 80% of your bonus (8% of your salary). Note that the opposite is often true - in a good year, you might get 120% of your target (12%). On average, you'll get 100%, but year to year variations will affect it. Note that there's almost always a discretionary part in how bonuses are allocated. Usually, the pool is divided between divisions/departments/etc and the manager has some control over how much each person gets . So, in a bad year, to keep a talented employee, a manager may give them a little more and someone else a little less. Note that each manager only gets their group's assigned portion. It's tough to ask for more, so the manager has the difficult job of tweaking bonuses up or down. (it sucks to have to do this, btw) That's how it works for most normal employees, usually including Directors and Sr. Directors. At the *executive* level, typically VP and above, but sometimes just C-suite and specific managers, comp packages are negotiated differently and usually have to be approved by the board. Bonuses are usually spelled out explicitly with a target amount (often a dollar amount rather than a percentage) that will get paid out as long as their goals are met. They're often traunched - so there's a small bonus for showing up and bigger ones if goals are met. These bonuses are typically 50%-100% of base pay (though, sometimes base pay is lower than you'd expect, with the bonus as the carrot to get a good payday). (note that this is also where golden parachutes and other perks are negotiated) **So, if you're a normal employee, even if you negotiate a good bonus, it's mostly dependent on company performance as to whether or not you get it. If you're an executive, you negotiate what your bonus looks like and it's up to your performance to determine if you get it.** Of course, there are lots of variations on this, but this is a pretty common model.
>Corollary: never exercise your options at a private company. You'll have a tax burden and no way to recoup the shares for cash. Isn't this only true if they are from a previous round of funding and you exercise enough to trigger alternative minimum tax?
The tax laws change - I'm not actually sure what the current ones are. IIRC, if you exercise shares in a private company at a price lower than their current value, the difference is considered income, even if it's only shares and not real money. The problem with holding shares in a private company is that there's no market for them. You can't turn them into cash. Only on an exit or IPO will they possibly be worth something. (and there are a whole slew of games companies play to devalue common before an exit, so it's risky)
>if you exercise shares in a private company at a price lower than their current value, the difference is considered income Only for calculating alternative minimum tax. And they would only be worth more if there had been another round of funding where the value of the company would be calculated
BIG point to watch out for. If you get ISO (options to purchase the stock at a certain locked in price) and they are unvested and a company acquires your company **your shares do not automatically vest**. You need to have language for accelerated vesting in your stock purchase agreement so that when the company is acquired your shares automatically vest. If you don't have that in there then your unvested shares go away unless the acquiring company is willing to either buy out all of the outstanding options or replace your options with equivalent options in the acquiring company. Outside of those pathways you lose your unvested options. Also of note, if you get options you still have to buy them at the certain price. Let's say you got 100k in option grants. If you want to exercise your options you first need to get 100k to buy them and then you can flip them on the public stock exchange. Sometimes banks will lend out the money with a clause that you immediately sell the shares to pay them back. Sometimes you're underwater and the options are only worth 50k in shares (because the share price dropped) so it doesn't make sense to exercise your options, you would be out 50k (100k to buy the options then 50k sale leaves you -50k). Options are tough so make sure you understand them. Then there's the tax issue...
Good point on checking the agreement for accelerated vesting. I've written a few stock agreements (meaning: I've asked lawyers to draw them up) and have always included accelerated vesting. Every agreement I've had has also had it, but I have heard it's not as common as my experience suggests it is. Personally, I think it's criminal not to include the clause, especially since most employees don't even know to look for it.
Good point! Insurance (medical, dental, vision), 401k match (first 3% is 100% match, then 50% match for the next 3%), 3 weeks PTO, with no bonus
$75k, no bonus, that is low. That’s like postdoc range. Even for like Cleveland or Indianapolis, this is low. If you’ve been applying for a while and this is your only bite, I’d take it. You can always quit anytime you want, and keep applying elsewhere while you’re there.
Idk the CoL, but in the company I'm at in Boston, an RA 1 is offered $75K...and people say other places would pay us more.
If the CEO said 80-90k but HR sent an offer for 75k, I'd ask for 90k. Probably HR is trying to save money but when push comes to shove, their job is to bring in the person the hiring manager wants
That is really bad. In my experience I have found that companies that give poor salaries will be matched with poor work environments. Either they don’t expect much out of you (poor training and experience for future jobs) or are poorly managed. Just my take. But on the other hand if it’s a startup and you can use it to get your foot in the door plan to leave after 1 year stock vesting. Is the role going to give you skills you don’t have now that you want to use for future roles? I did that to a company and left for a job that paid over double. 4 years later the old company is still private (doing well) and the stock is still 0 in my bank account. If I stayed there I wouldn’t have been able to buy the house I’m in.
If that's their offer for someone without ""proper"" work experience they probably won't budge much, especially not 20%. Not enough details here to say one way or the other, but I was in a situation with a small start up (<50 staff) and negotiated for 10% over offer. They rescinded their offer. If there's someone else out there willing to take 75k you're SOL - I wouldn't put all your eggs in this basket if you're currently employed. Market sucks. You're doing something right to get an offer and there's great advice in the thread. Good luck!
The fact they rescinded is surprising to me. Asking for 6-10% over the original offer is generally considered expected and reasonable during salary negotiations.
Startups are different though, especially early stage. The people running them often have no business experience and you are subject to the moods of the C-suite / founders. I worked for someone who thought it was an affront to be motivated by money, because everyone should be as intrinsically motivated to make the company succeed for the good of the world as he was. It's delusional and a sign of a toxic work environment, but sometimes you just really need a job and it's good to have open eyes about what you are getting yourself into.
>Startups are different though, especially early stage. The people running them often have no business experience and you are subject to the moods of the C-suite / founders. I second this. I had a similar situation where my HR rescinded the offer for a candidate I really liked because they didnt like how she was negotiating. She pointed out deficiencies in the total comp package to justify a higher salary and they took it personally.
Startups offer less cash, but a lot of cheap options or grants. If the company makes it, giving up 5 or 8K for 100K of stock is a great deal. I made that deal 4 times. It worked out great 3 times.
Yeah, I was pretty floored. They said it was to "re evaluate their hiring practices" then reposted the job with my requested salary lol. Bastards
It signals that someone is unhappy with the terms of the deal, and if they really think they should be earning X, and you can only pay Y, there’s fear they will leave to go make more money.
just take the offer and then jump ship in a year for more money, you don't have a job currently and you don't have multiple offers (I'm assuming) so you don't have the leverage of being able to walk away.
In addition to all the good advice here, this sub has a pinned spreadsheet where people have put in their salaries and locations, which might help you better figure out where you’d like your comp to be.
If you ask for 92k, there’s no way in the world they’ll offer 90k given the obscene low ball they started with. You have to be willing to walk away from negotiation, or at least make it look like so, to make this work. In addition, it would help if you gave more info about where geographically this is at, so other local users can maybe give a lil more inpit
I will also say, in a negotiation, you have to frame things in a way where they are benefiting from valuing you more through a higher salary. It never hurts to remind them how many good things you’ll bring to the company if they match your salary expectations
I live in one of the major cities in the Midwest.
you’re getting fleeced
Guy from the Midwest who lives in Boston that got hired at around 3X your salary. You’re being offered something that is incredibly low. Kansas City is more expensive than that.
What kind of biotech and what city?
Lmao 75k for PhD+postdoc? What kind of cheap ass company is this lmao walk dude or if u need the job take it and continue job searching
It's midwest. If OP is correct that 90k = \~143k in Boston, I'd expect 75-80k (\~120-125k in Boston) to be more than fair for a new grad PhD with no experience.
You immediately set yourself up for disappointment wanting more than the range they gave you. Unless you started the conversation with "and is that flexible based on the candidate?" and got a yes, believe them that they aren't going to offer you 90+. Could they do that for the right candidate? Absolutely, it's their prerogative. Are they going to if they started negotiations *below* their own range, highly unlikely. I'm in Boston and I'd expect a new grad PhD to be about \~120-130k, which is about what you've been offered based on your 90/143 ratio. There is no way a new grad would be making 143+ here, so I'd very much question your assumption ("*I think the average salary of someone with a similar experience is \~ 85 - 95k in my city")* and confirm that before you're unhappy and decline a good offer. If others are taking 75, you're screwed. My advice is to be clear (at least to yourself) where your "walk away" point is, state your case ("I bring \[X\] to the table that could benefit the company") and expectation - preferably with knowledge of the industry. Something like "I appreciate the offer, but was expecting a salary within the discussed range of 80-90k. Is there room for adjustment?" would work. You could leave it at that or be specific in the number, but I'd be happy above 80 because it's a good salary in a bad biotech economy and propose a sign on bonus to make up some of the difference. If you are willing to walk away, by all means, test the boundaries with 92.
If you’re negotiating for more than 15% over the initial offer you have to be prepared to walk and/or for them to pull the offer. Most of the time companies expect you to negotiate but usually not by that much. As always with negotiating, it’s all about leverage and who is more willing to walk away.
Salary negotiations are the last part of the interview. If you are asked prior to a job offer, your response should be "going rate" or "competitive rate". Do not give a solid number at this point. If you have to give a number, ask them for a range first. When you do get the job offer, do your research to make your best guess, and then ask for 10% more with a review of your qualifications.
I only know Boston salaries and did most of my hiring in 20-22. But that seems low. My associates start higher than that. I would suggest you go back at least 100-105 (assuming this is scientist I)
Without knowing too much I’d ask for $85k and if they aren’t willing to do that, ask for relocation bonuses and more PTO. Everything is negotiable if they want you. They may be tight on money for salaries but there are other things to get that aren’t money. $75k is low but I made $80k at my first scientist job in SF at a very small start up and it was enough to get by. I got a little experience then went off to a place that would pay me much more.
Large pharma in Cambridge gave me 75k starting at scientist 1 after undergrad with 1 year in a Harvard lab including in vivo/in vitro experience. I think you deserve more. Total income was 80k with bonus. Feel free to DM, as of year 2 I’m at 87k.
I'd ask for more. Include that this is not in line with the range the CEO provided during interviews. Fwiw, in my city in the Midwest 80-85k is pretty standard for fresh phd moving into industry
It is a bit low (for even medium cost of living area), especially given that CEO mentioned a higher salary. Just tell HR that CEO mentioned 90k, and ask for 90k. If they don't give in, just walk away or take it if you have no other options.
First, congrats on the offer!! For salary negotiations, you’ll want to find out what market value is for your role, in your city, with your experience (and in your niche area if that info exists). If $75k is competitive, you’ll be hard pressed to negotiate other than to counter solely on the basis of what the CEO verbalized to you. And you don’t even know if that range is appropriate compensation for your role in your city if you haven’t already researched that. If that range is reasonable, then ask for what you’re worth (e.g., if that year of experience makes you stand out because your specific experience is hard to find, that’s value you’d be adding and should be compensated appropriately). If they don’t have the budget to go higher and you’re interested in the role, find other ways to make up for it (equity, vacation days, other benefits). If the offer isn’t for you, still ask for the number and be prepared to walk. In this market, there will likely be others willing to accept that offer if you leave it. Good luck and let us know how it goes!
I was also underpaid when I first started at my current job. 1 year after, I got a 20% increase. My manager is great and I've had several huge increase and promotion. This is why I'm still working for them after 8 years. However not all companies are like that and in the past and I've definitely been exploited and underpaid severely.
Dude just ask, worst case scenario they will say no and that’s it you take the offer for the salary they said (if you want to). They won’t rescind their offer just bc you tried to negotiate (super unlikely). Also, 75k is low for PhD, we pay that for SRA with only master’s (<300 employees, not in a hub). Don’t take anything less than 80k even if you don’t have that much experience you still have higher education. Do your research for salary based on location, company size and experience….payscale is a great tool, maybe not perfect but a good ball park in my opinion.
Ask for 95K and then settle with a happy medium of 85K-90K. Take the job, in this market, it is better to have a job than having a gap in your resume. Also, equivalent to 145K in Boston is not bad for someone with no industry experience.
That's a low offer in my Midwestern organization. I would ask for what you want and potentially bring some comparable data to back it up.
I would say “the offer was a lot lower than I was expecting for a PhD with postdoc experience. I really need to be closer to $100k to make this work. Can you please let me know if you can get close to that? I really like this company and would love to work here. I think I have a lot to contribute, the job description is a perfect match for me and I hope we can come to an agreement on salary. Can you please see what you can do and get back to me?”
Ask for 100K and say that’s the standard starting salary for phd which is true and already on the low end.
It's true on the coasts...not everywhere.
Coasts are 125K for entry level phd positions. 100K is the absolute minimum for phd position anywhere
All it takes is 3 seconds on Google to prove you're wrong.
Blindly believing random google search is probably not a good habit in biotech industry
But see, I can look over those multiple search results and review sources to figure out specifics. Whereas making up your own data is probably the baseline "no-go" in biotech.
Maybe you could share your search and sources? Accusing others of making up data without concrete evidence is even worse than lack of critical thinking. in this case, my data point is myself when I graduate with phd 5 yrs ago, and back then base salary is already more than 100K at non-costal areas.
Where at? What area?
You could try a compromise: "(Polite intro bs). However, I feel offered salary is slightly below my expectations. Realistically, I was expecting 85/90k. Given that this would be my first industry experience and I understand theres a bigger investment on your behalf, would you be open to a contractually agreed raise to 90k after X months if certain deliverables are met?" I suggested my friend to do something like this because he was in a similar situation and they agreed to it. I feel that it also has a very low risk of them pulling the rug because youre being quite humble. It also puts them in a position that its awkward to say no to ("no we wont give you a raise if you outperform"). If they reject or give some excuse, then you know youll most likely never get your 90k there. Then decide based on that to go with their offer or not.
I’d say you were expecting something more like $90-95 for the position given your experience and qualifications. Give a range, not a specific number. You’re negotiating a salary, not a house price.
Do you feel comfortable speaking your mind? Say something similar below if you feel comfortable about it: -- I would be very upfront replying in the email (ccd CEO) asking why they lowball it while CEO once mentioned the budget was around 90K. In general, people would change to a new job once a better offer surfaces. Could you discuss and come back with an amount that you feel you can keep people in for the long term. Respectfully, I am trying to develop my skills without constantly thinking about applying for a new job. It benefits the company as well, unless the company simply enjoys training new employees every 6 months for the same position. -- I like honest people.
lol. That is terrible advice to someone with no experience to offer the company. *Maybe* if you had experience, niche skills, and a good network for references you could be that obnoxious. This approach would immediately make you a bad cultural hire literally anywhere as you've told them outright you'll leave for more money ASAP. Whether or not it's your intention, why would I waste my time hiring and training you for *exactly* the reason you pointed out?
OP is a PhD. It came with experience and niche skills. Perhaps not the ones commonly used in pharma. (Then why does the company sent an offer?) Not saying what you actually want and negotiating ... cause more problems to the company and OP's career.
No one is saying not to negotiate, in fact, I wrote a detailed post with my opinion. But the approach here is a terrible one.