deleted Forum

[Sackboy]

For the other posters who think this is a horrifying ask

Anyone saying this is a horrifying ask (and I'm sure you're alluding to me in that group) only thinks its a horrifying ask in the "I deserve a $55k retroactive retention bonus" sense. As I stated several times in my posts, asking to make up some or all of this amount via a salary/bonus increase is more than reasonable, which OP has now stated they plan on doing. That being said, it does seem silly that signing bonuses are being discussed in terms of pay equity, as they are one-off bonuses that are usually based on highly individual circumstances. If anything, OP's colleague getting a $55k signing bonus while OP get $0 might in fact be pay equity if, as other users have suggested, OP's colleague left before the payment of a bonus or certain retirement benefits. This is also considerably different than the Company's female attorneys making less than its male attorneys.

[Anonymous User]

For the other posters who think this is a horrifying ask

Anyone saying this is a horrifying ask (and I'm sure you're alluding to me in that group) only thinks its a horrifying ask in the "I deserve a $55k retroactive retention bonus" sense. As I stated several times in my posts, asking to make up some or all of this amount via a salary/bonus increase is more than reasonable, which OP has now stated they plan on doing. That being said, it does seem silly that signing bonuses are being discussed in terms of pay equity, as they are one-off bonuses that are usually based on highly individual circumstances. If anything, OP's colleague getting a $55k signing bonus while OP get $0 might in fact be pay equity if, as other users have suggested, OP's colleague left before the payment of a bonus or certain retirement benefits. This is also considerably different than the Company's female attorneys making less than its male attorneys.

OP here. The sign-on bonus was not for moving expense reimbursement or for any other good reason. It was just an additional payout.

[nixy]

I don’t think paying someone a bonus they’d otherwise miss out on is at all about pay equity. Pay equity is about fairness in pay within comparable employees in a company, not making someone whole for their perceived sacrifice in taking the job. Strictly speaking, pay equity would be paying anyone who came in at the same level the same, regardless of what they had to leave on the table to take the job, because in the end it’s up to that person to decide whether they want the bonus or the opportunity to do a job they presumably want more than their current job.

Now, I’m not saying that strict equity like that should apply under all circumstances or that it’s bad to pay a signing bonus. It’s a good way to get top candidates and in some industries it might be necessary to get the kinds of candidates you want. It’s just not really about pay equity. Maybe that’s what they had to do to get this particular candidate, and the OP wasn’t in that position (and you can say it’s fair in that the other person put themselves in the position to command a bonus and the OP didn’t). But it’s also possible that the other person just negotiated better (see the OP saying that they didn’t think negotiating was possible given the way the company talked about pay). Maybe the OP too left a bonus or other benefits behind, or could have made other arguments for a signing bonus. I’d want to know more about all that before saying the signing bonus has nothing to do with pay equity.

Edit: oops, cross posted with OP.

[Anonymous User]

OP, fellow in-house lawyer here. Comparison is the thief of joy.

[Anonymous User]

For the other posters who think this is a horrifying ask

Anyone saying this is a horrifying ask (and I'm sure you're alluding to me in that group) only thinks its a horrifying ask in the "I deserve a $55k retroactive retention bonus" sense. As I stated several times in my posts, asking to make up some or all of this amount via a salary/bonus increase is more than reasonable, which OP has now stated they plan on doing. That being said, it does seem silly that signing bonuses are being discussed in terms of pay equity, as they are one-off bonuses that are usually based on highly individual circumstances. If anything, OP's colleague getting a $55k signing bonus while OP get $0 might in fact be pay equity if, as other users have suggested, OP's colleague left before the payment of a bonus or certain retirement benefits. This is also considerably different than the Company's female attorneys making less than its male attorneys.

OP here. The sign-on bonus was not for moving expense reimbursement or for any other good reason. It was just an additional payout.

The amount of the bonus suggests otherwise. Why would the company pursue OP's colleague for an additional $55K if other candidates (like OP) accepted base+equity without more? Most companies weren't hurting for applicants last year.

[nixy]

Is there any reason to believe the OP has it wrong or is lying? That candidate negotiated and the company wanted them. Just because a gazillion people apply doesn’t mean that the company doesn’t have preferences among them. I used to work in a profession with an EXTREMELY terrible job market, with hundreds of applicants fighting for a shot at a job, but it didn’t stop employers from getting into bidding wars over the candidates they wanted.

Plus, negotiation makes a difference, which is why it matters who feels able to negotiate.

(Keep in mind we still don’t know what percentage of total comp the $55k is - it’s obviously enough to be worth pursuing but that doesn’t tell us much.)

[Anonymous User]

Is there any reason to believe the OP has it wrong or is lying? That candidate negotiated and the company wanted them. Just because a gazillion people apply doesn’t mean that the company doesn’t have preferences among them. I used to work in a profession with an EXTREMELY terrible job market, with hundreds of applicants fighting for a shot at a job, but it didn’t stop employers from getting into bidding wars over the candidates they wanted.

Plus, negotiation makes a difference, which is why it matters who feels able to negotiate.

(Keep in mind we still don’t know what percentage of total comp the $55k is - it’s obviously enough to be worth pursuing but that doesn’t tell us much.)

Negotiations make a difference? Everyone already talked about pay equity. Same title, same job = same pay.

[nixy]

Is there any reason to believe the OP has it wrong or is lying? That candidate negotiated and the company wanted them. Just because a gazillion people apply doesn’t mean that the company doesn’t have preferences among them. I used to work in a profession with an EXTREMELY terrible job market, with hundreds of applicants fighting for a shot at a job, but it didn’t stop employers from getting into bidding wars over the candidates they wanted.

Plus, negotiation makes a difference, which is why it matters who feels able to negotiate.

(Keep in mind we still don’t know what percentage of total comp the $55k is - it’s obviously enough to be worth pursuing but that doesn’t tell us much.)

Negotiations make a difference? Everyone already talked about pay equity. Same title, same job = same pay.

Well, the co-worker got the signing bonus somehow, so I'm presuming they asked for it, = negotiating. Is it somehow inconceivable to you that a company could say that it values pay equity and yet treat employees differently?

[Anonymous User]

I work in comp and I generally agree with other posters that you should let this go. I would perceive you as out of touch, rigid minded and petty for raising now.

I generally agree with the comp philosophy that “the squeaky wheel gets the grease” and I believe and live by the studies that suggest disagreeable people are paid more. I’m a big proponent of being very vocal when underpaid. But a sign on bonus is generally an inducement to employment, which may account for forfeitures at a prior employer etc. You were induced to join without the sign on bonus and you appear to otherwise be paid fairly. Let it go.

[enibs]

OP, you have an in-house “unicorn” job where you’re “very well paid” and you “feel fortunate”. You “would’ve gladly done this job for half the pay.” You’re also “very comfortable financially and don’t need the job in any event.” Despite all that, you want to make a big deal out of a signing bonus your colleague got a year and a half ago, even though you’re “otherwise on the same salary and equity scale.” Honestly, it doesn’t make a lot of sense to me. But it’s pretty clear you’ve already made up your mind to create an issue out of it, so go for it. Sorry you didn’t get the ratification you were looking for in this thread.

[Anonymous User]

OP, you have an in-house “unicorn” job where you’re “very well paid” and you “feel fortunate”. You “would’ve gladly done this job for half the pay.” You’re also “very comfortable financially and don’t need the job in any event.” Despite all that, you want to make a big deal out of a signing bonus your colleague got a year and a half ago, even though you’re “otherwise on the same salary and equity scale.” Honestly, it doesn’t make a lot of sense to me. But it’s pretty clear you’ve already made up your mind to create an issue out of it, so go for it. Sorry you didn’t get the ratification you were looking for in this thread.

Just cause someone is in a good position doesn’t mean they’re not allowed to feel they were treated unfairly.

[Anonymous User]

OP, you have an in-house “unicorn” job where you’re “very well paid” and you “feel fortunate”. You “would’ve gladly done this job for half the pay.” You’re also “very comfortable financially and don’t need the job in any event.” Despite all that, you want to make a big deal out of a signing bonus your colleague got a year and a half ago, even though you’re “otherwise on the same salary and equity scale.” Honestly, it doesn’t make a lot of sense to me. But it’s pretty clear you’ve already made up your mind to create an issue out of it, so go for it. Sorry you didn’t get the ratification you were looking for in this thread.

Just cause someone is in a good position doesn’t mean they’re not allowed to feel they were treated unfairly.

What evidence is there of unfair treatment?

[Anonymous User]

I’d probably fire both of them if I was OP’s manager - the colleague for having no common sense and OP for being insufferable

[nixy]

I’d probably fire both of them if I was OP’s manager - the colleague for having no common sense and OP for being insufferable

This is one of the weirdest takes yet. Do you mean the colleague has no common sense because they told the OP about their signing bonus? What?