One of the first things that Recruitment Agents ask is what remuneration I am looking for.

They take that away, hopefully, and relay that unchanged to their client.

Often, however, I will undergo various stages of interviews.

I’m told at the end that they really like me, really want me, and yet, when the offer comes, the money is less than I stated I needed as a minimum.

Most recently, I had a company that offered the money that I wanted, but only if I achieved, and the company achieved, everything to pay the maximum bonus.

Now bonuses are just that, a bonus, if you need your bonus to make ends meet, you are setting yourself up for failure as that it mainly controlled by the company’s performance.

Why do they do this?

I clearly stated what I needed, and they clearly believed that I would add value. Why would they have wasted the time of their hiring team and my time if they couldn’t make that minimum offer?

Should my first interaction with a new company be an argument over pay?

They’ve just given me a poor impression of the business.

They knew my monetary requirements.

They shouldn’t have entertained me if they couldn’t meet that.

Bonuses are just that. Something that should be paid, when deserved, as a bonus above the needed remuneration. If I need the bonus, then the remuneration is insufficient.

Am I greedy thinking like this?

I’m just thinking that I tend to make decisions all day. Do I need the extra stress at the back of my mind as to whether my money will be sufficient?

From a company’s perspective, maybe they didn’t perceive the role to be valued enough to meet my monetary demands, but if that was the case from the offset, why make the time and effort to go through the next stages?

Incidentally, I would have lost around 40K off my Salary to take this job, but ideally, I only wanted to lose around 30K.

It was a really good role that I would have been able to do something with. Only the red flags so early on just put me off.