> Also, the employer might have just offered you the match to buy themselves time to look for someone cheaper.

This is "common knowledge" but I've never seen it in real life before.

I've accepted counter offers, as has my wife and quite a few former colleagues. And none of these people were ever let go from that position.

The logic doesn't even makes sense. In large companies, the hiring manager doesn't care about salaries beyond if it fits in the budget. And firing people is a huge pain in the ass. If the company wanted to replace a person with someone cheaper, letting them go would be the best strategy. That would give the company two weeks to get documentation of the job function in place and start interviewing.

I can see this kind of vindictive behavior a very small company, where decisions are made on the whims of a mercurial owner. But you're equally as likely to get fired from a place like this for any number of mundane offenses which the owner finds insulting.

I suspect that "stay is bad" is propagated by headhunters, who have interest in candidates taking the offer and leaving the original company.

I propagate it for game theory reasons. If people can be counteroffered easily there is no incentive for employers to give raises of their own accord, they can just wait until you have another offer in hand.

This. It's not about losing the job, it's about you just showed they don't need to offer raises to keep you.

Wouldn’t employers be incentivized to give raises as soon as it was more cost efficient than counter offers?

Probably.

I was told by a manager that HR has a difficult time figuring out salary levels for tech skills. And that an in-hand offer is very effective at convincing them, and upper management to approve a larger than normal pay increase. Worst case, they might just tell me to take it.

I suspect some of "stay is bad" also comes from the employer end... even if you match an offer, is that employee likely to keep looking? They were unhappy enough to start looking - was compensation the only thing that bothered them? Probably not. May as well let them leave on their own, on good terms, and get a replacement ASAP.

If that were the case, would they stay for the money when they already have the open door and the money at the new place? Most of the best employee's I've worked with interview regularly. If I managed such employees, I wouldn't consider it abnormal for them to do so.

I expect my employees to look and interview. But, at some point, if somebody keeps coming back for counters, maybe it's time to let them go peacefully? Not sure, never had somebody do that to me, but have seen it on other teams.

I think the idea is less that they will fire you at the first opportunity, and more that if firings need to happen, you'll be on the top of the firing list.

It just happened to me, slightly different situation than a "counter offer" but it was clear upon being let go that I was retained with a short term mindset, despite what I was pitched before deciding on whether or not to sign.

"Mercurial" owners (let's just say psychopathic, it's not really a secret anymore is it?) will respect you for ruthlessly calling their BS, and then will want to make it a life's mission to teach you to heal. So they will not fire you, just make your life hell in a very subtle but undeniable way.

They'll fire you on the spot when finally you heal though.

Do you mean "heel"?

Yep, thx.

My employer counteroffered 15% higher or so. I was kinda unhappy there, but they also promised that I would be in a position to change things, and that has so far (2 years later) been true.

I don’t know, I don’t necessarily think my employer is perfect, but they’re certainly good to me.

Well if the counteroffer is significantly higher than a match then we can talk (the point about buying time is still a concern tho).

This also gives the current employer the benefit of doing nothing preemptively. It puts the onus on the employee to go through all this extra effort just to get the match. I'm sure plenty of employees take it too but shouldn't.

While true, changing jobs has a cost for the employee too. Its a cost benefit analysis. I often find being in a new job provides opportunity to quickly level up by using learnings from prior jobs. But sometimes the new job is just different enough that you're investing more time in learning the ropes and making connections than getting ahead, and it can be a while before you can start to have an impact. If you're already capable and empowered at the current place (or better yet, promoted by the counter offer), it can be mutually beneficial to stay beyond monetary reasons.

I got an offer from a small company, more or less a startup. Used it to convince my large stable company to match and they did.

Can't underestimate job security in the evaluation of salary.

Not only job security. I live just a few miles from the campus of the company I work for. I could walk to work if I really needed to. The benefits are fantastic. It is a fortune 100 company that will be around for the long term. It has amazing work life balance. I like all of my coworkers and have never had a bad, or even mediocre boss. Etc.

Which company is this, if you don't mind me asking?

I tend to agree that too much accepting matches incentivizes companies to get lazy about making sure they are paying market value. However, I don't think most employees are thinking about changing the culture—they're just being mercenary and trying to get the best job they can.

Not to mention they have proven you will need to beg for any future pay increases. Shit companies like that are not worth the time of the dignified.