A recent LinkedIn post by recruiter Joey Blaauw caught my attention. A candidate currently earns €5,200 gross per month and receives an offer of €4,400. But don’t worry, the employer offers unlimited holidays and a football table. Apparently, that’s supposed to compensate for an €800 monthly salary reduction. I had to laugh, although the situation is actually rather depressing. And while the original example comes from the construction and engineering sector, anyone working in IT will probably recognise the underlying problem.
Anyone who regularly looks at job vacancies knows the standard phrases by now. Competitive salary, dynamic working environment, informal company culture, exciting challenges, excellent career opportunities and, naturally, fantastic colleagues. Sometimes a company laptop and mobile phone are proudly listed among the benefits, as though providing the equipment required to perform your job is an extraordinary act of generosity. Meanwhile, the actual salary is often conspicuously absent. You might discover the numbers after two or three interviews, only to find that the employer’s budget doesn’t even come close to your current compensation.
A Career Move Should Make Sense#
After spending years in IT, I’ve developed a fairly clear understanding of what makes an employer worth working for, and perhaps more importantly, what doesn’t. A good salary matters, but so do technical freedom, professional autonomy and an environment where experience is genuinely valued. Changing jobs should be a step forward, not an exercise in giving up established working conditions in exchange for a few corporate perks.
And no, the highest salary doesn’t automatically mean the best job. Obviously, compensation matters. I haven’t spent years building experience in Linux, infrastructure, automation and security just to start at the bottom of another salary scale with the promise that I might eventually grow into the position. But I also look at the complete package. A generous salary means considerably less when it comes with five mandatory office days, endless approval procedures and a management structure where every technical decision needs to pass through three committees before anyone is allowed to touch a server.
I enjoy working with technology. Linux, infrastructure, automation and security aren’t merely things I do to collect a salary at the end of the month. They’re subjects I’m genuinely interested in. Give me an interesting technical environment, knowledgeable colleagues and the freedom to solve problems properly, and I’m perfectly happy. Put me in an organisation where procedures are more important than technical understanding and where every deviation requires approval from a governance committee, and that enthusiasm disappears rather quickly.
That’s also why I’m increasingly attracted to smaller organisations with genuine technical expertise, short communication lines and people who actually understand the systems they’re responsible for. I’ve had enough exposure to large corporate environments to know that organisational size doesn’t automatically translate into technical competence. Sometimes it just means more meetings about the work nobody has had time to finish.
A Lease Car Is Not a Football Table#
One of my non-negotiable employment conditions is a lease car. I currently drive an electric Citroën ë-C4 X, and I’m quite satisfied with it. If a new employer can take over the existing lease agreement, that’s perfectly fine. If that isn’t possible, I expect a new lease car of at least comparable quality and equipment to be ordered, with a suitable temporary vehicle available until the new one arrives.
This isn’t about demanding a more expensive car or collecting luxury benefits. I already have a perfectly good electric vehicle, and I see absolutely no reason to give it up only to purchase a car myself or become dependent on trains and public transport because a new employer expects me to commute to their office. Changing jobs should represent an improvement, or at the very least not a deterioration of the conditions I already have.
Of course, providing a lease car costs money. So do salaries, pensions, training budgets and every other serious employment benefit. That’s simply part of employing people. A company is perfectly entitled to decide that it doesn’t offer lease cars, just as I’m perfectly entitled to decide that such a company isn’t an interesting employer for me. No hard feelings. We’re simply not a match.
And that’s precisely the difference between a meaningful employment condition and a corporate perk. A lease car affects my mobility and financial situation. A football table gives me something to do during a break. One is part of a serious employment package. The other is office furniture with ambitions.
Trust Is an Employment Benefit Too#
The same applies to remote working and technical freedom. I’ve been working largely from home for years, something I discussed in The Office Is Not a Productivity Metric. I have very little interest in mandatory office attendance policies that appear to exist primarily to verify whether someone is physically occupying a desk. I’d rather be evaluated on the work I deliver than on how frequently my access badge appears in the building’s attendance records.
My technical working environment matters just as much. I work with Linux and want to use my own laptop and operating system. Not because I enjoy being difficult, but because I know which tools make me productive. Hiring an experienced Linux engineer and then insisting that they work exclusively on a heavily restricted Windows laptop seems like a rather strange way to benefit from their expertise.
That doesn’t mean I object to security requirements, access controls or reasonable technical standards. Quite the opposite. Security is part of my profession. But security should be based on actual risks, sensible architecture and appropriate technical controls, not the assumption that installing enough corporate agents on a managed laptop automatically makes everything secure. A company that cannot distinguish between technical security requirements and administrative convenience is unlikely to be the environment I’m looking for.
On-call duties aren’t necessarily a problem either. Critical infrastructure doesn’t always respect office hours, and sometimes systems need attention outside the normal working day. As long as the arrangements are reasonable and responsibilities are clear, that’s part of the profession. What I do expect, however, is that flexibility works both ways. If an employer expects me to take responsibility when something breaks on a Saturday evening, I expect that same employer to trust me to organise my work effectively on a Tuesday morning.
Market Competitive Is Not a Number#
One of the things that frustrates me most about recruitment is the lack of transparency. Recruiters regularly send lengthy messages about fantastic opportunities, exciting projects, ambitious organisations and wonderful teams, while somehow forgetting to mention the salary. When you ask about compensation, the response is sometimes that money shouldn’t be the most important consideration.
Well, no. It isn’t the only consideration. But it’s a fairly significant part of an employment agreement.
I have no interest in attending three interviews, completing a technical assessment and touring an office building only to discover that the maximum salary is a thousand euros below what I’m already earning. Just tell me the salary range, the mobility arrangements, the remote working policy and the technical environment before we start. That allows both parties to determine whether a conversation is worthwhile without wasting anyone’s time.
And please, stop presenting a laptop, mobile phone or Friday afternoon drinks as extraordinary benefits. A laptop is a tool. A company phone is often just another way for your employer to contact you. And while some people genuinely enjoy Friday afternoon drinks, I don’t particularly need to spend additional time socialising with colleagues after a full working week to demonstrate that I’m part of the team.
There’s also the famous promise of career development. Apparently, accepting a lower salary today is supposed to be attractive because you might earn more in the future. That’s wonderful, but my mortgage provider doesn’t accept potential career growth as payment. Neither does the supermarket. If an employer genuinely values someone’s experience, that should be reflected in the offer being made today, not hidden behind vague promises about tomorrow.
A Good Job Is More Than a Payslip#
There are perfectly valid reasons why someone might deliberately accept a lower salary. A shorter commute, less stress, more interesting work, better colleagues or greater freedom can make a significant difference. I completely understand that. But it should be a conscious decision made by the employee, not a sales pitch used by an employer to justify offering less than the position and experience deserve.
For me, the calculation is relatively straightforward. An attractive employer values experience, offers fair compensation, provides proper mobility arrangements, supports hybrid or remote working and respects professional freedom, including the choice of a Linux-based working environment. Preferably, it’s an organisation where technology still matters, people understand what they’re doing and not every decision requires a steering committee.
Those aren’t particularly exotic demands. They’re the conditions under which I can do my job effectively and actually enjoy doing it. An employer doesn’t have to agree with them, but then we’re simply not a suitable match. There’s nothing wrong with that, and nobody needs to be offended.
What I find increasingly strange is the idea that candidates should somehow feel grateful for being offered a job, regardless of whether the conditions represent an improvement. Employment is an agreement between two parties. The employer needs knowledge, experience and responsibility. The employee provides those things in exchange for compensation and working conditions. Both sides should benefit.
If a recruiter asks why I’m not particularly excited about unlimited holidays, free pizza or a football table, the answer is fairly simple. I’m not looking for a social club with a payroll department. I’m looking for an organisation where I can practise my profession, where my experience is valued and where the employment conditions reflect the responsibilities I’m expected to carry.
A good working environment matters. So do interesting projects, competent colleagues and the opportunity to develop professionally. But none of those things should be used as an excuse to avoid offering fair compensation or meaningful employment conditions.
A football table is nice. But I can’t pay my mortgage with it, replace my car with it or buy professional freedom with it.
