Thoughts on Pay Scales/Rates/Ranges?

[Lost_in_the_HTTP]

Years back, most every job listing in the classifieds in the papers (remember when there were pages and pages and pages of them?) has a base pay rate, either hourly or salary. Not all, but most.

A couple of years back there was a listing on a local utility company website for a dispatcher .... very vague and no numbers at all. Made contact and asked some questions including about pay. They refused to answer ANY of the questions. 'After we do an initial interview, we'll make an offer'. Why would I go through all that not even knowing the most basic information?

Not posting a pay scale in a job listing is very shady to me. I think it should be required by law under Equal Opportunity rules. How do we know pay isn't biased by gender or ethnicity? Experience and qualifications can vary pay of course, but a range should be required in listings and it should be made clear that those are the only variables.


Don't give me any crap about the new rules of corporations .... fark all that.

 

[IndyColtsFan]

You’ll probably get some responses saying something to the effect of “never discuss salary until an offer is made.” That’s terrible advice and ignore it.

At the very latest, I’ll ask point blank in the first interview. I’m not going to waste my time going through multiple rounds of interviews unless I know how I am going to be compensated.

 

[deadlyapp]

I haven't applied outright for a position in many years, but get recruiters bouncing off me pretty regularly. Same as you, I won't spend any significant time without knowing what the pay range is, because if it's a complete mis-match, all it does is waste mine and the interviewers time. If the job manager doesn't want to share the range, it generally means they are trying to get someone worth more, and pay them less by making them jump through hoops. At the end of the day, if I ask for the top end of your range, and you offer me lower, it's only up to me to decide if that's right or not. But if you make me an offer, and it isn't even at the bottom end of what I find acceptable, then it's never going to work.

 

[shortylickens]

You’ll probably get some responses saying something to the effect of “never discuss salary until an offer is made.” That’s terrible advice and ignore it.

At the very latest, I’ll ask point blank in the first interview. I’m not going to waste my time going through multiple rounds of interviews unless I know how I am going to be compensated.

Yeah if you are used to 30 dollars an hour and expect to get it theres no point arguing over a 14 dollar an hour job. Thats wasting your time and theirs.

 

[brianmanahan]

ask them if they pay at least ATOT minimum wage

 

[Zeze]

It's 2021, do recruiters still want to waste their time by not revealing the salary range?

Whenever I get a cold call from recruiter, the first thing I ask is the rate before the end of the phone call.

Many of them list the rate right in the email, from various recruiting firms. But then this is mainly contract or contract-to-hire.

Ask asap. If you have people skills, it's rather easy to ask on the first phone call without any issues.

 

[purbeast0]

I get hit up probably 3-4 times a week by recruiters on linkedin. I send all of them a canned response of "While I'm not looking for a job I'm always open to new opportunities. If you can let me know the salary/benefits that come along with the position I can let you know if it is something I would realistically consider."

I'd say I hear back from those people about 20% of the time. And even then, I'd say like 75% of those people say "we pay above market value" or some bs like that, and I just reply "Thanks but I'm not interested."

Some come back with the salary and it's always lower than anything I'd accept so I just let them know "Thanks for being candid about the salary but I'm going to pass." Sometimes they ask for feedback on why I am passing, sometimes they just say thanks. The only feedback I will tell them is that the salary simply isn't in the ballpark that it would take me to make a move and (usually) it's lower than what I currently make.

Very rarely do they give details about benefits. Like exact PTO, 401k match, premiums for insurance, etc.

All of that said, if they are paying to low and won't tell me what the benefits are, then that right there tells me enough about the company and that it's not a company I would ever want to work for. If they were paying great salaries, they would be up front about it to try and get top talent. So knowing that fact, it means even if I went there I'd be working with mediocre people.

So yeah, I just don't get why companies are so secretive about it. I mean I do get it in a way because they want to get people as cheap as they can, but in my industry (software dev) you get what you pay for. You simply aren't going to get top talent as lead positions if you are maxing out your pay scale at a salary I made like 5 years ago.

 

[jpiniero]

So yeah, I just don't get why companies are so secretive about it. I mean I do get it in a way because they want to get people as cheap as they can, but in my industry (software dev) you get what you pay for. You simply aren't going to get top talent as lead positions if you are maxing out your pay scale at a salary I made like 5 years ago.

Most companies don't want or really even need "Top Talent".

 

[Captante]

They do it because the only real goal of most companies is profit. (not difficult!)





The less they can pay "talent" the more is leftover for shareholders and very often that means companies end up with a lot of "bare-minimum" level employees since they will usually cost less in the short-run.

 

[MrSquished]

Colorado passed a law earlier this year that salary ranges and benefits for jobs must be on their postings, among other things

“It Applies To Us?” -- U.S. Employers Surprised by Expansive Job-Posting Requirements in Colorado’s New Equal Pay Law

What is happening out in Colorado? Sitting here in my New York City office, I have in the last few weeks received an unusual uptick in queries about a relatively new Colorado employment law, the

www.natlawreview.com

 

[jpiniero]

Colorado passed a law earlier this year that salary ranges and benefits for jobs must be on their postings, among other things

Yeah and as the article notes, companies outside of Colorado are refusing to consider people in Colorado because of it.

 

[purbeast0]

Most companies don't want or really even need "Top Talent".

And that's why I wouldn't want to work for most companies and am paid better than most companies pay.

 

[shortylickens]

Yeah and as the article notes, companies outside of Colorado are refusing to consider people in Colorado because of it.

well if we can get the entire country on board with such a program then they wont have a way to weasel out of it.
but god forbid we should do something to protect American workers.

 

[MrSquished]

Yeah and as the article notes, companies outside of Colorado are refusing to consider people in Colorado because of it.

Some companies, and for only fully remote work. What do you suggest, states cower to big business rather than start to take a stand at business practices that try to minimize the value of labor?

You should be applauding Colorado and pushing for a more nationwide adoption of these rules.

 

[jpiniero]

Some companies, and for only fully remote work. What do you suggest, states cower to big business rather than start to take a stand at business practices that try to minimize the value of labor?

I suppose it would also cover if you were willing to hire someone in Colorado and relocate them.

I would have to see what the law actually says but it would just be too easy to post a extremely high range. Or put a range that's very low and, you know, wink wink nod nod. I think what HR doesn't like is that people seem to think they are entitled to the high end of any posted range when in reality they want to pay the very bottom.

 

[Lost_in_the_HTTP]

Colorado passed a law earlier this year that salary ranges and benefits for jobs must be on their postings, among other things ..

Yeah and as the article notes, companies outside of Colorado are refusing to consider people in Colorado because of it.

well if we can get the entire country on board with such a program then they wont have a way to weasel out of it.
but god forbid we should do something to protect American workers.

Like I said up top, it needs to be Federal EEOC due to all the glass ceiling and urban redlining crap. Make sure all genders and ethnicities are paid the same for the same job. I've seen cases where people from a 'certain' part of town are offered less [housing doesn't cost so much there, so they don't need as much pay]. 'And even less if they don't have their own vehicle and have to rely on public transportation [may not be able to get to work on time]. The real answer is 'we don't want them working here'.

 

[MrSquished]

Like I said up top, it needs to be Federal EEOC due to all the glass ceiling and urban redlining crap. Make sure all genders and ethnicities are paid the same for the same job. I've seen cases where people from a 'certain' part of town are offered less [housing doesn't cost so much there, so they don't need as much pay]. 'And even less if they don't have their own vehicle and have to rely on public transportation [may not be able to get to work on time]. The real answer is 'we don't want them working here'.

I read a long article yesterday on Apple and remote work - how Apple is holding strong on a hybrid model but there is a small but vocal (small as in the thousands, but small relative to their 145K employees) who are actively petitioning for full remote work or bust. Anyway, they did also get into general HR stuff about Apple, and from studies done so far with the limited information available to them, so far the data shows women at Apple receive 6% less in pay for the same job.

 

[Scarpozzi]

I applied for a job at my wife's company a few years ago doing the kinds of things I do now. (basically business intelligence and IT-level data analysis) They called me up within a day of me applying. The job posting was very vague on what the pay would be because it was a new position/new unit. The hiring manager had just been hired herself and when I inquired what the job paid, it sounded like it was only $40k. Basically, they were going to end up filling that with a glorified office clerk if they were lucky.

I told her I'd be wasting both of our time if I went any further in the process and she appreciated that. I can understand companies trying to hold numbers close to their chest in some cases, but in others, they need to put a valid range out there.

 

[[DHT]Osiris]

The last time I went job searching, one of my first questions to the recruiter/whomever responded to my application was what the pay range was, or what the salary was if it wasn't a range. No sense going through tons of talky talk if we aren't even in the same realm.

Spoiler: we usually weren't in the same realm.

 

[Lost_in_the_HTTP]

A couple of years back there was a listing on a local utility company website for a dispatcher .... very vague and no numbers at all. Made contact and asked some questions including about pay. They refused to answer ANY of the questions. 'After we do an initial interview, we'll make an offer'. Why would I go through all that not even knowing the most basic information?

By the way, that utility ended up moving about another 20 miles further away from me. No matter what they were going to pay or what the benefits were, I would have quit. They were already farther than I really wanted to drive twice a day.

I'm not sure I would have expected them to disclose that, but it would have crashed the plan for certain.

 

[rh71]

My wife's been doing some job searching while working an IT job that doesn't pay great for our COL and that's the reason she's constantly looking. Half of the jobs do present a pay range (like her current job when she interviewed). Despite her almost-2-decades of experience, they only offered her the lower end of the range regardless of any negotiating attempt she made. She got more vacation time instead.

Bottom line, MANY companies will only offer viable candidates what they're willing to accept - skill/experience be damned, which is why they don't disclose first. And if they do, don't expect much because they will come up with an excuse.

 

[Red Squirrel]

IMO it should be the LAW for a job posting to post a salary range/scale as well as average hours. It's ridiculous how they give you the run around on that now days. Reminds me of online stores that don't show prices of what they sell. What the hell is up with that anyway? Seems to be more prevalent here in Canada. Piss or get off the pot. You want to sell something, then show me the price and give me an option to buy it, don't want to sell it, then take down your site and go into another line of business. Same with jobs, you want an employee then disclose all the pertinent details like salary and hours. Salaries also should be based on the job, not on negotiating skills. It's ridiculous how one person can make more money than the other doing the same job just because they're better at negotiating.

 

[Lost_in_the_HTTP]

What if you sent a resume with only your name and phone number? All other fields regarding history, experience, education and qualifications just said 'negotiable based upon compensation'.

 

[BarkingGhostar]

I've spent the last two months cleanup up the mistakes of 'top talent'. AT&T =/= America's Top Talent.

 

[Lost_in_the_HTTP]

See? I'm not nuts after all.


NYC companies will have to share job salaries upfront — and it could help close the pay gap

Business Insider|16 minutes ago
Women and people of color have trouble earning as much as their male and white counterparts. NYC's pay transparency law hopes to fix that.




Well, I am, but that's another thread.