Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

itsdan159 t1_iy4ukqt wrote

>An employer needs to know roughly what you expect to determine if it's worth the time of their generally well-paid employees to continue interviewing you. If they can't make that assessment, you'll get told to go home.
>
>The average cost of a first-round interview with 4 people involved (a recruiter, an HR person setting the interview, two actual interviewers) is going to be anywhere from $500 to $1,000. It gets more expensive from there.

Then you'd expect companies would list salary ranges in job listings, but infamously a great many don't. Even if they don't they could have told OP the salary they'd expect to pay based on their first round interview, which would have accomplished the very same thing you mention. It may not be adversarial to the degree people act like it is, but it's absolutely self-serving the way they do things.

15

theoriginalharbinger t1_iy4v5o7 wrote

The "right" answer to all the above is to just do the research. Most good jobs have some combination of salary, bonus, commission, stock/RSU, retirement, etc. A 100k straight salary job is not as good as 80k straight / 40k variable, so listing out salary is not as easy as people make it seem.

7

OneAdvertising9821 t1_iy521a1 wrote

> listing out salary is not as easy as people make it seem

It's pretty easy. My company has standard ranges for base salary, bonus target and equity. We absolutely could post those ranges. We don't because we think we have an advantageous negotiating position without sharing the range.

7

retrovaporizer t1_iy5ozu3 wrote

while youre not wrong that companies hold a lot of the cards, forcing a range in a job posting dosent necessarily solve anything. in states where this has become law, many now just say the range is "$1 - $200,000" (or whatever)

the reality too is that a high value candidate who knows their market worth can probably demand ABOVE what a company would otherwise be willing to post/pay. wheras a more inexperienced person who they see promise in they may be willing to take a chance on, but for a lesser salary. theres also no way to account someone whos under-performing in a role and not getting regular raises and is on the lower end of the salary band vs someone who is killing it and is getting tons of offers and who the employer is desperately trying to hang on to because theyre critical to client success. i guess what im saying is, a role can say its "range" is $100k-150k, but ultimately a good candidate knows what they are worth and why they are entitled to it and will make that case directly to the hiring manager either way.

1

Slammedtgs t1_iy57t0m wrote

A current role I’m have open has a $50k range from bottom to top for the position. If I tell all candidates the range they will only see the high end. It’s a double edged sword.

5

sudifirjfhfjvicodke t1_iy5dp22 wrote

Exactly. And as a potential employee, if you give an expected salary range, the company is only going to try to pay the bottom of that range because that's what they think you'll be willing to accept.

1

Slammedtgs t1_iy5enms wrote

Your second point may be true some or even most companies. If I have a that is at the bottom end of my range but see potential I’ll pay them more. Having someone join to leave in 18 months isn’t worth a few grand of savings. However, if a can didn’t doesn’t know their own value or the state of the market that’s another problem entirely.

1

Nuttycomputer t1_iy6ywd9 wrote

Why not just pay people the same? My company made this move. We just don’t have ranges anymore. You have title x you are paid y. End of story.

1

cromulent_weasel t1_iy628tt wrote

> Then you'd expect companies would list salary ranges in job listings

There's value in information asymmetry. If you don't know, you might spin too high, in which case, have a nice day, they lose nothing. But if you offer a low salary, then score, that's a massive win for them. Your only recourse is going to be jumping to a better job.

1