With this in mind, how much value can a only-with-salary-disclosed-app bring?
On the other hand, if the employer requires the applicant's current salary on the application, and Mr. Qualified Engineer applies, they can offer him $55k instead (just enough to make him consider the offer if he's unhappy with his current job).
Using this strategy, the employer can make sure their employees never know their real worth, since every raise/promotion/new job they get is based on a "just good enough" improvement over their current salary.
Meanwhile, on the other side of the coin, I can show up at salary negotiation with a stack of W2s that said I made ~$280k per year while I was at Google, and they will still offer me something like $140k. That is good money and all, but I have data that I can do better ;)
So I am not sure that everyone is economics-textbook efficient. Rather they have some number in their head, and nothing will change their mind. ("Everyone we interview is so awful, it was so nice to meet you!" then "No way we'll pay you that." It's cute.)
So, even if you made $280K at Google, you'll get the $140K offer for that role because $140K is the top end of that range. You could get targeted into a different rank to get into a different range if you're work it. This is where you end up in a different title or level. It's much easier in the HR system to click the different title in the drop-down for you, than it is to get escalations and approvals to pay you outside the defined salary bands.
Note there are definitely some places with weirdly wide job bands. eg. some of the big banks has ranges that vary hugely to account for differences between the trading and back-office salaries - eg. VP on a trading desk with high salary vs VP in IT with low to middling.
1) Big companies already decided what your job position is worth, and don't have time to negotiate. They have 75,000 other employees, growing that to 75,001 is not worth special-casing you.
2) Small companies have not realized how expensive custom software is yet, and are low-balling you out of general ignorance. Or, when they're aware of the true price, they decide they don't need custom software anymore. (Which I think, in many cases, is the right decision.)
I still think that making the employer put a number or a range down, which might translate into some market research, would benefit everyone.
When someone asks me, to show I'm honest, I provide my paystub. I accept that the data I receive might not be accurate, but that doesn't stop me from trying.
I never apply to jobs that ask these questions. It shows they're more concerned about holding you back than competing with the market.
Disclaimer: Not a lawyer, not your lawyer.
This is very good to know, thanks.
It's also unlawful to ask about current or past compensation in New York.
My friend and I interviewed for the same job, he was working making 45k. They offered him 50, he declined. I was unemployed, so they inexplicably offered me 120k.
It won't stop all places, but it will stop some places. You have to be OK with that.
I'd never assume that your salary is a secret. It's pretty easy to figure it out. Making a material misstatement about it will be perceived as a character defect at best if you are caught, which may happen in the future when you are in some stupid internal dispute.
So if the range was 80-100K and you had a candidate at the lower end of the experience/skills range for the job, that candidate becomes attached to that 100K number. He tells his friends "I found a job that pays 100K". Candidates don't pay much attention to the low number in the real world.
So the interviews happen, the candidate performs as expected (not superb) and gets an offer for 80K. He thinks he's leaving 20K on the table if he accepts, or that he's getting lowballed. If the job had been posted 60-80K, he wouldn't have felt shorted at all.
This is a simplification of course, but posting salary led to lots of refused offers when the offer < the top figure.
When a range is given, in my experience a candidate will usually say "I'd only be interested at the top of that range" from the beginning if that's indeed the case. The point I made in my initial comment is more aligned to situations when a candidate says they are OK with the range but don't 'commit' (prior to interviews) on where they feel they qualify on that range.
So, simply put: if they don't want to give you top of the range it means that they weren't impressed enough by you, and you should continue your job search until you find a company that is.
If the company only had one ideal candidate profile that was acceptable, that would change things a bit.
"Junior" and "Senior" probably oversimplifies it. You could have a senior with 10 years and one with 20 years. The salary difference often won't be as pronounced (because salaries tend to plateau at a certain point), but there will usually (and should) be a difference.
Maybe you're looking for a $100k type guy... but all you get are $70k applicants so you decide to hire one of them.
You don't want to pay dramatically more than you should, or insult them by offering less than the job listed or set them up for thinking they're getting a raise shortly after or something.
There are a lot of theories about negotiation and gamification and I think plenty of that is true, but I also think that for most places looking for a specific role, they're not 100% sure what they're going to get and thus can't say exactly what they'll pay.
As much as I loath job hunting, trying to get through the hiring industrial complex before I get to talk to the technical guy... I also don't think every job offer thing is a sort of dark pattern. I think folks hiring are flying blind too to some extent and thus not willing to commit to a number until they know the person they want.
Over the last 12-14 years, I've never, ever had a "job" that had specific, clear requirements and duties.
In the field we're in staff are not line-replaceable units. Each employee is like a box of chocolates, and you'll never know what's inside until you bite (hire them).
Some staff will quickly exceed the expected duties and take on high levels of responsibilities and massively contribute to the organization far in excess in what anyone could have foreseen initially. Others will only do strictly what is asked of them (or less) and do the barest minimal to just get by, and basically be a disappointment.
Some staff will be able to kind-of fill the job, but not entirely, and will need some training to get there. Others will hit the ground running.
This is often why there is a large and ambiguous range for job posts. Basic IT jobs that do have specific, clear duties (and extremely limited growth potential) can have much more clear, lower, and narrow salary ranges.
It's not even about trying to low-ball someone. Low-balling might be good in short-term, but not in long-term - both from perspective of a manager who's trying to do best by the company (because you want to build trust with your employees), and from a perspective of a political manipulator (when you inflate salaries of people you manage and budget of your department, you become more important in the hierarchy - saving company money won't earn you as much political points). What it is about is simply not having enough information about the market.
Hiring a plumber on a per job basis isn't the same thing at all and getting bids for jobs like this, works.
Do you seriously think that people should bid to fill positions at companies?
"Hey there Plumber, if you do this job, I'll give you health insurance for the two days it takes you to do this job. I'll provide a gym membership, free coffee, and pay your taxes"
In the case of plumber, the benefits for plumber to take the job is they get to make money.
Your analogy might work for short term contractors but not for a full time employment, where essentially you are putting yourself at your employers service virtually 24/7 with almost no extra pay while doing intangible (aka knowledge) work where the employer might get 5x or 200x return out of your work, but essentially you will just get almost linear pay raises (even including performance bonuses).
You cannot compare a full time knowledge worker with a gig worker that does tangible physical work.
Kind of like a plumber saying "We don't need to dig up your front yard and charge 9 grand, for 500 bucks we can robotically patch the pipe from the inside".
That's probably the best strategy. It removes the problem the plumber has when quoting a price, which is "how much can I soak this guy for?"
The "problem" at many companies is "we need someone to be able to continually identify and respond to a range of problems as they come up over the next 1-4 years".
There are loads of jobs that post exactly how much they're willing to pay, it's just that they're the ones which consider workers with the minimum level of experience to be a cheap, undifferentiated commodity they won't in any circumstances pay more than the fixed rate, and the rates tend to be in the $12 per hour range
In general, salary disclosures don't lead to better outcomes. It's very hard to communicate numbers appropriately. Too low, you're skipped by candidates. Too high, you get candidates with no interest in the underlying business.
For many companies, Glassdoor is effective. I've found companies stating "competitive" compensation are generally aware of the larger market and compensate appropriately.
Most companies that pay terribly are pretty easy to pick out from their job offerings.
Government Jobs are completely transparent in this regard. You know exactly what you're going to make when you apply for the job.
Any efficiency gains from salary disclosure would be minor compared to the "inefficiency" of the hiring process in totality.
That doesn't seem much like a two way street, that seems more like a blind silent auction where lowest bidder wins. Naturally skills and experience come into play in part, but if multiple people can meet the expectations of the role, then they are bidding against each other. I'm not sure what the employee gets out of it.
> Any efficiency gains from salary disclosure would be minor compared to the "inefficiency" of the hiring process in totality.
For the company possibly, but not for the employee. Being able to see what a company is willing to pay would really help refine an employees search.
Maybe I should have called it a "two-pronged thing" or something.
The current economical climate has already made it very hard to get a good raise if you stay in the same company and be loyal. The only way to get a big pay bump is to find another company that will pay you more from the get-go. It's very sad that that's the current state of things.
You want to know as much as you can about the other party, while revealing as little as possible about yourself.
This is exactly what employers are also doing.
Or you won’t be wasting time with them.
Counterpart was silent for a moment and then said that they should be able to do that.
Of course, that only worked as I was seemingly good at my job, and my employer needed to get the head-count up. (and I might have muttered that if this got out, I guessed they'd have a lot of disgruntled people)
Other reason they're kept hidden, is that (at least in my industry) a fair number of positions are filled with specialist recruiters. They are made aware of salary guidelines the employer is willing to pay and also have a rough idea of what people on their books are wanting. They prove their value to employers by filling interview sessions with the best people at the lowest cost.
1. Companies have no incentive or competitive advantage to do so
2. Salary is a negotiation, and you don't hand the person you're negotiating with information
3. Companies can control pay variations amongst current and future employees.
Despite all this, some companies have chosen to be public about their salaries (GitLab, for example).
Public institutions often have a legal requirement to establish and publish salary ranges; for example, you can see the salary steps for GS-* ladder employees, or the steps for a public school teacher.
Even if you did create an 'app' to circulate 'only-with-salary-disclosed' jobs, I can't imagine more than a few companies wanting to participate. Why should they? What concrete, guaranteed incentive could you offer them?
I was reached out to about a role with #s that were way below market for my area. At the time they did not have any employees in my state and advertised one low-ish statewide salary.
When I mentioned the numbers were off-base for being in <one of the most expensive areas in my state>, they were quick to bump the salary by something like +50%.
Note that this was before doing any interviewing (though a GitLab recruiter had reached out to me first).
Or do you see what prices are, think about the options, make decisions based on what your needs are, change your desires based on what is on the car lot?
Human beings aren't cars, but just like a car dealership is selling cars, workers sell labor.
> With this in mind, how much value can a only-with-salary-disclosed-app bring?
I think that you might have a supply issue (employers listing jobs) but it'd be interesting to try. I know of at least one employer who was so fed up with salary mismatches that they started listing a range on their job listings.
As an applicant you could ask the recruiter/HR person what the salary range is for the position so you're both not wasting each other's time.
At my company, for instance, there are a number of us who were hired at the same time under the same position. But we have varying levels of skill/experience, and our salaries can reflect that even though our title may not
I certainly agree that salary doesn't perfectly reflect perceived value, but when perceived value can range from 70k to 170k there is a very significant correlation
Do you know that the salaries match that skill/experience line? Did you all just happen to request the right amount of money that plots you correctly, even though you didn't know what the other people were requesting, nor what the company is willing to pay?
The job opening that I applied for cast quite a wide net. There are people who have masters degrees and 8+ years of experience, and there are people fresh out of boot camp, and everywhere in between. If you're required to post salaries, than suddenly you have to invent more job titles which lends itself to a more hierarchical organization
You know this because you see everyone's salary, or have all talked about it? And if you've got fresh grades and people with masters and 8+ years of experience, there's already a hierarchy there, not giving a name doesn't mean it doesn't exist.
As someone who's far from a tech center, I honestly have no idea as to my worth as a developer - I have zero frame of reference. If I were to apply for a job tomorrow it would be basically a guess based upon what I'd like to be earning and could be vastly undervaluing or overvaluing myself. Sites like glassdoor kind of insight, though not really given the small sample size, reporting bias, and lack of requirements for truth, and no developers I know talk openly about their salary.
I've definitely had some discussions about salary with my friends at the company, although they're very guarded. A lot has to be inferred.
The only real way to gauge your value is to collect more data- if you don't have developer friends that share that information, the only way to collect that data is to cross-shop offers. Or you can try to glean as much as you can from recruiters.
One thing I asked when I initially spoke to recruiters, "what do you think a prospect with my skillset could command in the market?". In that first phone call they're still trying to convince you of their value, so that's when they're least incentivized to low-ball you
Listing the salary allows me to decide that I really want to work for that company, the salary is within my budget, and that I'd like to apply. All without bothering anyone else or wasting my time (or that companies time).
Say you are working at company A for $100K/yr for position X. Along comes company B, which needs to fill a Position A which you perfectly fit in. And assume they can pay $150K/yr to fill this position. But if you are like any average employee, a 10-15% increase in your salary can and will make you jump ship.
So, if they announce $150K/yr compensation on the kb listing, your brain will switch to 50% increase mode and knowing that you can get this much from them, you will most probably not settle for something less. On the other hand, let's assume the salary is not in the job listing and you get to the interview and asked the dreaded question, "What is your expectation of a yearly compensation for this position?" I am sure you will dance around a bit saying things like "Market rate" or "I am sure you will pay me in accordance with industry norms" etc. but when the push comes to the shove, you will give them a figure like $120K, a 20% increase if you will, on your current salary, to give yourself a wiggle room. And if they are like any average employer, they will low-ball you a bit to see what you are amenable to and come back with something like $116K. You are happy that you've got 16% raise while 10% would suffice you to jump ship. The new employer saved $34K/yr on you. Only you by the way and this practice can be multiplied many, many times, ending up with a huge chunk of change.
On the flip side, let's assume you were making $160K at your current position and you came to the interview to wrangle say, a $175K salary. When you say that, first they will dismiss your candidacy and look for someone cheaper. Failing to find this person, they know they can come back to you and say, yes we are willing to pay you $170K/yr, knowing your price. All they have lost is a few days or weeks in the process.
It is like the prostitute story: The guy sees a pretty woman at the bar.He approaches her and says,
"I will pay you a million dollars if you have sex with me tonight"
Woman thinks for a moment and says "yes".
The man turns around thinks for a minute and says
"How about $100?"
Woman frowns and feels insulted. Comes back saying
"what are you thinking? I am a whore or something?"
The guy answers.
"We established that fact that you are a whore. I am just trying to figure out your price"
Negotiating for a job is just that and as a company you do not want to trap yourself in a corner.