I wouldn't really consider it a counter-example since in your case the guy was essentially demanding a raise. It's all about how you ask and being reasonable. Less hours for the same pay is not reasonable. Less hours for less pay would be far more reasonable, and might even have been accepted.
Less hours for same pay is an extremely reasonable compromise, in these times when many companies can't/won't pass out much in the form of direct raises.
Explicitly threatening to quit during any negotiation is the unreasonable part. Frankly, it's an implied threat in any conversation about compensation, just as being fired is an implied threat in any conversation about performance.
But coming out and saying it, is wildly unprofessional and immature; there's just no up-side.
>Explicitly threatening to quit during any negotiation is the unreasonable part. Frankly, it's an implied threat in any conversation about compensation, [...] coming out and saying it, is wildly unprofessional and immature; there's just no up-side.
If it's implied then making it explicit is simply clarifying one-anothers position. I can't see how that's unprofessional: Being honest, open and explicit about your intentions.
Leaving because negotiation didn't work for you when you made no explicit indication that your staying was part of the negotiation, that seems wrong to me.
> "If it's implied then making it explicit is simply clarifying one-anothers position"
The only reason to state it is to add emotion to the argument: to dramatically emphasize your resolve. And the problem with that, is the next negotiation has to go to at least that point again to convince the other party you really do mean it.
So if you were earnest about having been at the end of your rope in the first negotiation, you earn only the certainty of being pushed back to the end of your rope in every subsequent negotiation. It's self-defeating and adds wholly unnecessary stress to the workplace.
And if you're advocating emotional argument in every negotiation... well, good luck with that. It adds a tangible degree of stress to everyone around you and they won't appreciate it.
>he problem with that, is the next negotiation has to go to at least that point again to convince the other party you really do mean it.
But you were saying that the argument is already at that point but that card is just being held below the table despite everyone being aware that it is there.
It's not necessarily emotional - I can say "I'll leave if I don't get these terms", that's not inherently an emotional demand, nor is it overly dramatic if that's your intention.
It's pretty much all-in wrt the negotiation so yes I can see that it increases the stress until terms are agreed. But then the terms from the other side would have to include something to avoid such negotiations if they found it too stressful and/or emotional.
Nor does this necessarily lead to future difficulties in negotiation.
For sure someone could attempt to use this sort of situation for emotional leverage - I guess it depends whether you're talking about negotiation pay+conditions for a job or negotiating terms of a personal relationship.
Well less hours and same pay in the form of a raise is perfectly reasonable when you provide a substantial value to the company, though this is obviously not the case with your parent comment.
Another thing is that you only tend to add value to a company after a large amount of time (decade[s]) and even so you may not even be adding value after that amount of time.
You are adding value from the beginning or they wouldn't be paying you - that is what you are there for. Caveat - sometime it takes a little while for a new hire to be brought up to speed on exactly how a company does things, the code base, and so forth, but it is rarely as long as a month.
