Show me the salary!

http://blog.jobbox.io/common-reasons-salaries-arent-disclosed-job-offers/

by pauloteixeira • 11 years ago

128 187 11 years ago

blog.jobbox.io

collyw• 11 years ago

The culture of hiding salaries can only work in an employers interest. I can't see situations where it would be in the interest of the worker (unless they are earning silly money and feel they need some kind of "protection").

austenallred• 11 years ago

We don't broadcast our salaries with our job listings because reality is how much we're willing to pay varies candidate to candidate. Interviewing, for example, someone with seven years experience vs. fifteen (I'm simplifying what matters greatly for the sake of argument - years experience is the easiest thing to put a number to) and we would pay way more for one than the other.

Maybe that's unfair, but I don't think we've ever chosen not to hire someone because of the salary level they wanted.

e-dard• 11 years ago

Then have a range? Of course you need to pay different employees different salaries, but that doesn't mean you can't expose potential employees to the salary they might expect to earn.

michaelt• 11 years ago

Someone who applied hoping for the top of the salary bracket, and who gets an offer for the bottom of the salary bracket, is still going to be upset. And if you advertise "Salary range: $0-$10,000,000" you aren't really telling people much anyway :)

notahacker3• 11 years ago

Because if you can afford to stretch your range up to attract an elite candidate you will do.

Explaining to people who are perfectly well qualified for the job including your own existing employees why they're at the bottom of the range is an uncomfortable conversation... much more uncomfortable than explaining why an actually-hired elite candidate whose been given additional responsibilities earns 50% more salary.

CalRobert2• 11 years ago

This is counter to a lot of advice given, but because of this I try to address salary as one of the first questions during the initial contact I have with a potential employer. I'm fine with a range, but if they're not even in the same ballpark we've both just saved a lot of time. Similarly, if there's no way they can afford me it does us both good to wish each other well and move on.

leeoniya• 11 years ago

yes, i've had major issues with this. i know what i will and will not accept and if my number is not something the employer is willing to pay, that should be the first thing discussed so we don't waste each other's time.

it's very annoying to be dragged through interviews for what turns out to be a laughable offer at the end.

exelius3• 11 years ago

Agreed; this is usually the first thing I ask as well. It's basically a gauge of how serious a company is -- if they're looking for a candidate that perfectly matches my resume, but they're only offering half of what I make now, it's going to be a waste of my time to even engage with their interview process. It's also telling when they won't disclose this information: it means that they are the kind of company looking to lowball their employees, not make them partners in the success of the business. Top talent is not interested in working for a company like that.

WhitneyLand2• 11 years ago

Seems like an awe shucks kind of answer, if that were truly the primary concern you could post the highest and lowest salaries you hire at and explain the range.

I do agree with your policy but for different reasons. For one I haven't seen a scalable way to roll out total salary transparency with a net gain in company psychology. The problems seem to outweigh the benefits, although I think it may be possible and just not figured out yet.

crdoconnor6• 11 years ago

I haven't seen a scalable way to roll out total salary transparency with a net gain in company psychology

#1 Make sure everybody is paid as much as they deserve as far as you can tell. #2 Roll out total salary transparency.

Not being "scalable" sounds like another way of saying "we don't want to do #1, it sounds expensive. Secrecy is cheaper.".

odonnellryan2• 11 years ago

The problem is, and this has happened to me personally, is you'll be told the salary is "competitive" without further details even when pushed. Of course, everyone wants to save a buck, but when you've gone through multiple rounds of interviews...spending personal days...personal time doing projects.. then you get an offer that is 1/2 the starting range for the industry and location, you have a problem!

steverb• 11 years ago

The two times I've had that response, I've just taken my current estimate of high salary, added $20,000 and then asked them to confirm that that amount is in their definition of competitive.

First time, they said no and we stopped talking. Second time got me my current job. YMMV.

Mister_Snuggles7• 11 years ago

You should have a budget for the position that you're hiring for, so a salary range should fall out of that. If you don't have a budget, how do you know what you CAN offer?

johnward4• 11 years ago

You are probably missing a lot of candidates. Maybe that's ok because employers seem to be ok with a ton of false negatives to avoid one false positive. I can't count how many positions that don't list salary that I came to find out pay about half what I expected. It's almost of waste of time for job seekers, actually for both of us.

jonnathanson• 11 years ago

"We don't broadcast our salaries with our job listings because reality is how much we're willing to pay varies candidate to candidate."

This sounds reasonable. But just to play devil's advocate for a second -- for any given role, is your variance really that high? Do you expect to field a dramatically variable range of candidates for the same level, title, or position? So variable, in fact, that establishing a ballpark range is an exercise in futility?

If you're fielding candidates with N years of experience, 1.5N years of experience, or 2N+ years of experience for the same role, maybe it's worth recalibrating your expectations for that role. Fine-tune them a bit. If your expectations are all over the map, then you're going to make a lot more work for yourself by taking on variance and trying to sift through it.

It's totally fine, even admirable, to take the position that each candidate is unique. But how unique, really? Unless we're talking about very high-level or rare positions, a reasonable and market-appropriate range will usually cover most of the variance. (That's not to say that you can't have some sort of discretionary, secondary range available for rockstars or competitive bidding situations. But aren't those typically the edge cases, and not the norm?)

amelius2• 11 years ago

I wonder what happens if test-engineer Bob finds out that there is a new job-opening for a test-engineer in his company, with a salary that is significantly higher than his own current salary.

MagicWishMonkey6• 11 years ago

He does what I did in the same situation, spend 5 minutes finding a new job before turning in his 2 week notice.

I don't do the "lets re-negotiate my salary" bit, it's up to my employer to keep me at or above market rate for my skills, I shouldn't have to ask for it.

amelius2• 11 years ago

Ok, with the strategy of employers to be reluctant with publishing salary info, how do you currently determine your market rate?

And given the fact that this market rate is not a clearly defined value (also thanks to employers' reluctance), don't you think it is necessary to at least negotiate with your current employer if you believe you're being paid below par?

vkjv• 11 years ago

He asks for his salary to be re-aligned with industry standards and in many cases they will oblige.

In most cases, businesses are reasonable. They aren't going to volunteer to pay you more out of the goodness of their heart, but (most) of the time it doesn't hurt to ask. Just don't go threatening to leave if they don't.

UK-AL• 11 years ago

You don't threaten to leave. You leave.

MagicWishMonkey6• 11 years ago

If your company doesn't appreciate enough to pay you market rate unless you explicitly ask for it, you're better off finding a different employer.

thirdtruck• 11 years ago

Then, with any luck, he'll leave the company that's apparently underpaying him for one that will value his services more. That's a good outcome for Bob.

Compare with "What happens if engineer Bob finds out that his company has finally conceded to the current market rates, if only for new hires, but expects to continue under-paying their established employees?"

rmc8• 11 years ago

Companies like that tend to complain about how it's so hard to keep staff!

solve• 11 years ago

"Resentment"

Good call on that. Resentment is the #1 factor in practically everything in internal people dynamics. Poor managers and founders just don't realize it yet.

This tends to be less bad in major cities than in small towns though. Young people, get out of the small town you're living in.

Mister_Snuggles7• 11 years ago

I've got a handful of general rules around salary that tell me not to apply for certain jobs:

- I don't apply to jobs that don't list a salary range. This is a red flag that tells me that the employer doesn't have the budget to pay market rates and that applying and interviewing could be a colossal waste of time for both of us. I get that the employer may not be willing to pay what I want based on my experience, etc, but the salary range tells me if getting what I want is even possible.

- I also don't apply for jobs that don't list an annual salary. I get the vibe, rightly or wrongly, that when you only list a monthly salary you don't expect to keep your new hire around very long.

- Jobs that are listed as "xx months with possibility of extension" are also right out. A job, for me anyway, represents a huge commitment and if the employer isn't willing to make that same commitment then I'm not interested.

johnward4• 11 years ago

I usually follow all of these. The one thing that gets me is when a recruiter calls me up. I usually talk to them because I don't want to be a dick and you never know they my actually be valuable one day. I tell them my salary. "oh well this one pays about 70% of that and it's an 8 month contract. I'd like to put you in for this". I'm not leaving a full time position for a contract position with less pay. I might consider a contract position at about 150-200% of my current pay.

bhayden• 11 years ago

I find telling recruiters my salary is a really bad idea. They then tell the company I am applying to what my salary is, which is a really shitty way to start off salary negotiations. I actually just don't work with recruiters anymore due to such a shitty experience.

mgkimsal4• 11 years ago

Either lie about your salary, or give them a higher target. For FTE, I give recruiters a decidedly large number. It's not undoable in this region - I know a few people in that range - but it's generally high enough that they (occasionally) laugh at me. But I did have someone get back and say they could get to about 80% of that, which was a good starting point (ultimately didn't land the position, but probably would have taken it at the time).

s73v3r6• 11 years ago

In my recent round of looking for work, the first thing I've asked the recruiter is what the pay range for the job is, and almost all of them have given it.

protonfish2• 11 years ago

That's reasonable, but I've found that I am no longer put off by open-ended contracts. I found many companies doing this because they know their hiring practices aren't good enough to weed out posers. If you are good at your job, you have little to worry about. Besides, I've lost more jobs that were "permanent" than contract. Employer commitment is a fairy tale from the days of yore.

Lawtonfogle• 11 years ago

In which case they should expect to pay a premium to compensate the good employers for the risk they take on switching. Around where I live, they often use contracting companies on a contract to hire, and in that case the profit the contracting company is making is the premium, but one that the employee isn't getting. This results worse candidates on average as the best are going to either demand the guarantee from the start or that they receive the extra pay for the risk instead of it going to a contracting company.

Mister_Snuggles7• 11 years ago

This is what a probation period is for. I have no issue applying to a job that is "Permanent with XX month probation period".

emodendroket2• 11 years ago

What's amazing to me is all the recruiters who call you to ask if you want to do temp-to-perm work when you have a full-time job. Why would you agree to that?

johnward4• 11 years ago

I just said the same thing. Unless I absolutely couldn't stand another day in my full time gig I would never leave for temp work.

rmc8• 11 years ago

Well, clearly the temp salary should be much higher than perm salary in order to compensate for the extra risk, right?

vonmoltke3• 11 years ago

Screw that, how about the recruiters who call offering straight contract work?

hibikir• 11 years ago

temp work with the possibility of extension is very common around here for both ends of the skill spectrum. The lower end is hard to evaluate, so companies give themselves an out that is not called a layoff. On the high end, accounting comes into play: Consulting fits a different bucket than full time employees, so often it's much easier to hire a consultant and pay him well than to hire the same person full time.

I look at my own current job. I was offered a full time position 6 months ago, for an amount that is pretty in line with local salaries. As a consultant, they were able to offer me a whooping 60% more, and that's after I accounted for all the benefits of the full time position.

I find it pretty screwed up, but it is the realities of the local job market, where very senior full time devs are severely underpaid unless the are consultants or telecommuting for bay area companies.

falcolas• 11 years ago

As a consultant, they were able to offer me a whooping 60% more, and that's after I accounted for all the benefits of the full time position.

As a consultant, you're responsible for paying taxes that they would normally pay, which when combined with other benefits represents up to 50% of your total salary as a normal employee. You also lose out on a number of legal protections you gain as a regular employee.

Mister_Snuggles7• 11 years ago

Unfortunately, this is very true. I don't understand why it's considered "cheaper" to pay more money to a consultant than the salary+overhead of a regular employee. I get that they're different parts of the budget, but ultimately it's still money spent by the organization.

jchendy• 11 years ago

I don't apply to jobs that don't list a salary range. This is a red flag that tells me that the employer doesn't have the budget to pay market rates

Do you only work for startups? Most major tech companies don't list salary ranges, and Google, Facebook, etc obviously have the money to pay what people are worth.

Mister_Snuggles7• 11 years ago

I've always worked outside of technology companies. It seems to be the norm, at least with the organizations I've applied to, to list a salary range.

Silhouette8• 11 years ago

I don't apply to jobs that don't list a salary range. This is a red flag that tells me that the employer doesn't have the budget to pay market rates and that applying and interviewing could be a colossal waste of time for both of us.

This one also has an evil sibling: you say something meaningless like "Salary: Competitive" and then when an applicant turns up to interview, you ask them what they're currently on. I see absolutely no reason, from the candidate's point of view, that discussing current compensation with a prospective future employer would ever work in your favour.

Worst case (edit: for not disclosing your current deal) is that the manager/HR drone stick to their guns and won't move the discussion on before you give a number, in which case you know what kind of employer you're dealing with and can decide to leave the interview early if your interest in working with them has faded.

sukilot6• 11 years ago

You tell them the number you want, and you round waaaay up, of you reply "Confidential", or "X-to-Y, variable".

I had a hiring manager push me hard for this info at one job. I ended up taking the job (maybe lower pay than I could have gotten) and he turned out to be one of the worst people to teamwork with at the company.

maxsilver• 11 years ago

"Salary: Competitive" almost always means "15 to 40% undermarket", in my experience. If the Salary was truly competitive, they wouldn't be ashamed to post it.

Similarly, if they say "Good" or "Great" benefits, the benefits are probably poor or average at best. If they actually had really good benefits, they'd be specific about naming them.

silver1• 11 years ago

It looks like showing salary is more common in USA but in other countries it is NOT a norm.... and unfortunately this gives an edge to the employer to play the game the way they want as very rarely supply is less than demand!

ryandrake8• 11 years ago

These are good rules when the going is good. But you need to be flexible when times are bad. In technology (and probably many other industries), it's feast and famine. Whilst today, a good engineer can expect to see recruiters spamming them weekly or even daily, this wasn't the case in, say, 2001-4, 2008-9. Your rules also seem to be for people who already have jobs. When you're unemployed, your pickiness factor has to be zero--any job is better than no job.

vonmoltke3• 11 years ago

A good engineer with the right buzzwords and in the right location.

Silhouette8• 11 years ago

When you're unemployed, your pickiness factor has to be zero--any job is better than no job.

This is true only if you also have nothing put away from the good times to cover your essential living costs for a while and give you a safety margin.

Assuming you do -- and you need a very, very good reason not to in this business -- then taking the first offer that comes along just because you're currently unemployed is very much not the optimal strategy. You voluntarily reduce your negotiating power to nothing, and if that were really necessary, no professional contractor/freelancer would ever survive in business for long.

Mister_Snuggles7• 11 years ago

I absolutely agree. These are the rules I follow right now, but if my situation changed I would definitely become more flexible on them.

inthewoods2• 11 years ago

My experience is it doesn't matter what you post in the job description - you still have to wade through applications.

As for the article, I think the author lists a lot of real concerns that exist at companies - and then sort of dismisses them as if they are invalid because they aren't ideal. I'm sorry - but companies aren't ideal.

Let's also look at the function of job postings - from my point of view, the goal is to get as many candidates into the pipeline as possible and then get them qualified. I want to minimize the number of filters whenever possible.

Finally, he doesn't provide a lot of benefit from doing these actions aside from perhaps not having to wade through a lot of resumes - but as I mentioned above, I don't think that turns out to be the case.

runako• 11 years ago

> it doesn't matter what you post in the job description - you still have to wade through applications.

One of the points in the post is that not posting salary information is also a filter. Some would argue that the absence of even a salary range filters out the top end of candidates, leaving you with a pipeline of mediocrity.

inthewoods2• 11 years ago

That's a fair point - for myself applying for jobs (vs. being the hirer), I more often did not apply for jobs based on stated salary range. Anecdotal at best, of course.

MikeTaylor• 11 years ago

This is simple. I won't waste my time applying for a job that doesn't even bother to tell me what they're going to pay -- any more than I would buy a car without knowing its engine capacity, mileage, etc. The idea is idiotic.

So: the only people who will apply for jobs with no salary listed are the ones desperate for any job.

Are they the people you want to hire?

Iftheshoefits2• 11 years ago

There's a difference between not posting salary and not telling a potential candidate when asked. Given that in America at least incredibly few companies post salary ranges to the public it is a stretch (and insulting) to claim applicants for positions with no posted salary are desperate.

serve_yay5• 11 years ago

Also the analog to buying a car would be signing the contract. Not interviewing.

randomdata2• 11 years ago

That approach is still flawed though. In a seller's market, which I do believe the developer market currently is, the buyer is the one who has to do the marketing.

Supplying expected compensation up front is one of the best ways to market your business to developers. If I, a developer, am making $100K and you make it known that you are willing to pay $200K, I'm going to get excited and get in touch with you. If I am left to assume that you are also only offering $100K, because you "pay market rates" or haven't said otherwise, I'm not even going to waste my time getting in touch with you.

It seems like a lot of businesses feel like they are in a buyer's market, which comes with completely different rules, and then cannot figure out why it isn't working for them.

rmc8• 11 years ago

So: the only people who will apply for jobs with no salary listed are the ones desperate for any job.

And people who hire complain about the bad standard of applicants!

alecco• 11 years ago

In my experience, if you are useful to the company where you are, job hopping is the only way to a meaningful salary increase or career change. Also, when you do a good job programming and are not an attention whore you become wall paper.

See previous discussion: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8940820

andrewstuart• 11 years ago

The salary isn't a predefined amount that is a secret. It's usually a broad range, negotiable to skills and experience. Usually jobseekers have an idea if their market value and can and do name the salary they re looking for. Often there's some movement up or down to get a final deal in place.

So the entire premise that there is a defined salary and it's being kept secret is flat out wrong.

MatthewWilkes• 11 years ago

I like it when they say the salary is £competitive. Presumably that's in base36, in which case they've got loads of money.

BrentOzar• 11 years ago

As a small business owner who's done a few successful casting calls, the problem with this article comes down to their first answer:

Yes, you have quantity, but what about quality? How much time will you spend sorting the wheat from the chaff? How much application spam will you have to review and dispose of? And of the relevant ones, how many under- and over-qualified candidates do you need to sift through because they lacked the vital piece of information that is a salary range?

It's easy: filter the incoming candidates based on who you want to hire. Send your favorite candidates a simple email saying what you want to pay for that position, and ask if they're still interested. Interview the ones that are. (This way, you're not posting the salary number to the public, but you're still filtering candidates quickly and respecting their time.)

If none of your favorite candidates are interested at your targeted price, there's your answer. Either lower your standards and take one of the other applicants, or ask all of your favorite candidates what number it would take to get them interested. (No interviewing - you don't have the right to take up their time until you can come up with the money - you're just asking for the salary number they would need to even step into an interview.) When the numbers come back, that's what it would take to hire your favorite candidates.

joncalhoun• 11 years ago

I would respect a company significantly more if this is how the negotiations started. It addresses their need to determine if their range is on par with the market rate, and it allows both parties to minimize wasted time if they aren't.

Sadly I rarely see this happen in practice. It would be nice to see studies about how this affects the average cost to recruit a new employee.

odonnellryan2• 11 years ago

This is the opposite of how a lot of hiring managers I know think.

The tactic they use (how can anyone think this is a good idea...) is to hope by the end of the interview process the candidate will be so attached to the position (or invested at this point! see: throwing good money after bad, or the sunk cost fallacy) to refuse! Or maybe they'll just ask for 5k more, or something.

NickPollard• 11 years ago

This only works if the candidates still apply. A lot of the time I choose not to apply for roles without posted salaries, because there's a good chance I'm either over- or under-qualified for the role. Applying to a job takes time and effort to do properly (and it's worth doing properly).

As other people have said, you can post a range rather than a single number, and that number doesn't have to be 100% ironclad - if a range is 5-10% out for me, I'd probably still apply and try to negotiate - but I'm not going to waste my time applying for jobs only to find out they're offering £50k if I want £100k.

Check out the jobs posted here: http://oxfordknight.co.uk/jobs/

They all have salary ranges, many are quite broad, but it communicates quite clearly the level that both parties should be thinking about when entering into negotiations. So much more useful.

logfromblammo• 11 years ago

I have to disagree with this. If you don't do your market research ahead of time and reserve enough space in the budget to close a deal with the person you want, you are wasting the time of everyone who could close such a deal elsewhere.

They are not wasting your time. You are wasting theirs. The candidate cannot reasonably determine how well your company is able to monetize their skills ahead of time. It's the employer's job to figure that out, and offer a reasonable fraction thereof to the employee. The employer should know that the position will be profitable, otherwise advertising it as permanent would be a misrepresentation. If you don't know how technical professionals will make you money (or cut your costs), and to what extent, you have no business hiring them.

That's why whenever a company starts to discuss salary before their goals for the unfilled position and my qualifications, I back away.

500and42• 11 years ago

I would argue that in London it's the fact that talking about salaries is considered rather taboo in tech that perpetuates non-disclosure. I wrote a post about it a while ago: http://blog.zonino.co.uk/on-salaries-in-london-startups/

exelius3• 11 years ago

It's still common practice in the US not to discuss salaries. Which is total BS because transparency on salary can only benefit the workers; the "taboo" nature of the discussion is perpetuated by big companies who try to discourage collective bargaining (btw, forbidding employees from discussing salaries with their co-workers is illegal in the US - despite what your employment contract may say).

500and42• 11 years ago

I couldn't agree more. If we want more transparency from employers we (as engineers) should start with being transparent with each other. I had no idea that legislation existed in the US - that's really interesting!

aries1980• 11 years ago

It is not industry-specific, but rather culture specific. Your wife will chase you if she figures out the neighbour earns more than you. :)

specialdragon• 11 years ago

My understanding of 'competitive' salaries are that the employer doesn't know what range they should be offering. The quickest method of resolving that is to phone them up and go, "You've specified a competitive salary range, I'm looking for a salary of £X for that position, if you feel that's sensible then I'll forward my CV", at which point my CV is then updated to reflect the amount I just specified.

If I'm applying for a job it's because what's there sounds interesting, if the salary backs it up then brilliant. If the salary is poor then maybe I didn't want to work there after all and that's very much their loss.

serve_yay5• 11 years ago

It could backfire - if I saw a salary stated on a job ad, I would consider it firm. So it it was too low I wouldn't even consider applying, when perhaps they would have been willing to work something out with me if I did.

randomdata2• 11 years ago

The figure need not be set in stone. If they find nobody responds, they can keep upping the price until they get what they are looking for. If they do find someone happy to work for them at that lower level, then everyone wins.

As a farmer, this is pretty much how we sell our crops in most cases. The buyer posts how much he is willing to pay, and if I like what I see, I make the deal. If I don't, I wait and hope the price goes up to something that matches my expectations. Sometimes someone else will sell for less and that never happens.

s73v3r6• 11 years ago

Usually they're not. Either because they don't have the budget, or "We just don't do that here".

mgkimsal4• 11 years ago

This one bugs me

"Recruiter: “Why don’t you tell me how much you think you’re worth?”"

Well... what I'm worth to a company depends a whole hell of a lot on how good they are operationally. Company A may be able to extract $500k of value per year from my skills. Company B may only be able to extract $80k of value from my skills. What am I "worth"? It's largely dependent on the environment I'm operating in, and how good they are at organizing everyone's skills to produce/extract value.

harperlee• 11 years ago

This is a very interesting comment. I've never thought of it that way, but you could argue - for big corporations at least, where they are sufficiently mature - that lower pay expectations on their side signals structural problems. Raising that point on the negotiation might even be useful, as you move from "what can I prove /how much can I convince them that I am worth?", where all the burden is on me, to a more equitable position where they need to put guesstimates on the table.

rmc8• 11 years ago

"Recruiter: “Why don’t you tell me how much you think you’re worth?”"

My response: You're the recruiter. You should know more about this company, the industry in general, the industry in this city, current skills, etc than me. It's your job to know what I'm worth.

sukilot6• 11 years ago

Patio11's famous advice article includes this great point and others, IIRC

mgkimsal4• 11 years ago

At some point in one's career of working for other people, it will dawn on most people. Came a bit faster for me when I've been working for myself.

'Hourly billing' is a perennial issue - people want to compare hourly rates on stuff, and yet I'm typically able to get stuff done far far far faster than many others (perhaps not the average HN reader, but def compared to many people I know).

"What are you worth?" is, likely, only something that can be readily answered by those in the sales arm of an organization, as it's most readily tracked and accounted for in those terms.

ryandrake8• 11 years ago

If your company is public, you can take a crack at that one using public data.

    My current company's Operating income (EBIT): $X
    My current company's Labor cost: $Y
    Number of employees: Z

So, on average employees at my company are worth ($X+$Y)/Z. Then you start adjusting. I'm a knowledge worker, so my contribution towards EBIT is greater than average (say, by 20%), etc. You can probably come up with an objective measure of your "worth" that is far more than you are making. That's what you start the negotiation with.

serve_yay5• 11 years ago

Hell, I'll answer that question any day. No problem. And if they don't like my answer I'll find someone who does. The fact that what I'm actually worth to them depends on their operational efficiency is Not My Problem.

gambiting5• 11 years ago

I work in the games industry in the UK and if there is any greater secret than the games we work on, it's definitely our salaries. NO ONE will even mention how much they make, and that's because the industry pays much worse than anything else. I was even openly told in the interview that yeah, they know that this position pays 10k(GBP) less than a similar position anywhere else,but it's the games industry so that's what is it. And that's with one of the largest games studios in the world. If I didn't love what I do, I would have left ages ago.

lione2• 11 years ago

To be fair, isn't the games industry one of those industries where lower salary is one of the tradeoffs for a "fun" job? I mean so many young coders want to go into the games industry to make games and do what their passionate about. The majority of them realize that being underpaid and overworked isn't their cup of tea, and that they are more likely to be working on the next Super Street Sweeper instead of Halo, but those that remain tough it out because it's their dream/ambition in life and they hope that they can put their name and effort behind a big game. The supply for games people outstripes the demand by far, so they can pay lower rates.

gambiting5• 11 years ago

Everything you said is true, and that's exactly why I am here. I get to work on one of the biggest games of 2015, but the financial hit I am taking for having a "fun" job is huge. And the demand/supply is a problem,but I think it's overplayed. Like I've said, I work for one of the largest studios in the country, so there is a thousand people applying for every junior position we have, but we have some intermediate/senior positions which we can't fill for at least 5-10 months now.

pixelcort• 11 years ago

Would a solution to Yao's Millionaires' problem help?

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yao%27s_Millionaires%27_Probl...

The candidate puts in the minimum they're willing to take into one side of the solution, and the employer puts in the maximum. Both then securely find out if the minimum is less than the maximum, without revealing the two numbers to each other.

The socialist millionaire solution is used in OTR, but this solution seems to have not caught on yet.

baby• 11 years ago

A lot of crypto have actual use in the real life :) I guess there is a zero knowledge solution to this problem as well

sukilot6• 11 years ago

As a bonus, anybody who can implement the algorithm is a strong hire.

ryandrake8• 11 years ago

So, anyone who knows how to use the greater-than operator is a strong hire?

imaginenore• 11 years ago

Every job spam email I get that has the salary listed gets my respect, and I immediately forward it to my friends and ex-coworkers (if the role fits).

To the interesting job spam I usually reply with the question of the salary range, and 95% of the time there's no reply back.

logicallee4• 11 years ago

To the interesting job spam I usually reply with the question of the salary range, and 95% of the time there's no reply back.

have you tried giving them a call and verbally stating that you find it interesting, state why you're a match, but say that you don't want to apply if it's outside your range. then ask if (number) is within what they would consider? since you've pre-qualified yourself they must answer, and will be looking forward to your application if you match.

fukupayme23• 11 years ago

A big problem here in London is the willingness of big firms, especially financial ones to pay market rate in all conditions. An example:

I work at an IB, doing Python/Quant development. We are presented with two candidates to interview.

Candidate 1 is ok, has a year or two of Python but otherwise mostly Java background. Did so-so in the algo and numerical discussions, was ok in the problem solving categories. He was currently earning 75k and was asking for a 5k bump. HR were fine with this.

Candidate 2 was unbelievable, has authored and contributed to many open source Python libraries, was well known in the community, did very well in the questions, would have been an absolute asset to the team and business. He is currently earning 50k at a Django shop. HR rejected his application as hge asked for 70k, on the grounds that the jump was too big. Even though it was less than the overall pay for candidate 1.

Employers suck hard sometimes!

MagicWishMonkey6• 11 years ago

That's pretty ridiculous. I guess I don't feel bad about being less than honest when asked by a potential employer about my current salary. It's really none of their business.

fukupayme23• 11 years ago

It can get worse - I know of people who have been asked by the IB to prove their current salary/bonus levels, to avoid inflation or overstated earnings. They do also verify via the P45 as well.

Best bet is to join one, if you have to, from a contractor route. Then you have an advantage, as they know you are most likely on a higher rate and are not willing to muck around with the usual HR demands.

rmc8• 11 years ago

This is why you shouldn't tell prospective employers your current salary.

aquadrop• 11 years ago

How HR knew about their current salary? Did they tell it themselves? Cause it's clearly not beneficial.

gambiting5• 11 years ago

In UK your employer can see what you've earned before. As explained elsewhere, it's because unless you run your own company you don't have to do your own taxes. Government does it for you, even if you have multiple jobs they will figure out exactly how much you need to pay without you bothering with it. But the downside is that yes, you have to disclose how much you've earned before(there are situations when you can make the figure appear slightly larger or smaller,but it's not very easy).

logicallee4• 11 years ago

if you're flipping something you wouldn't tell the buyer what you bought it for.

this has nothing to do with which party is stating the price.

vonmoltke3• 11 years ago

MathWorks tried to pull similar shit with me. When we started discussing salary while setting up an on-site the recruiter balked at the salary delta I was asking for, not the absolute number. It was one of a few reasons I ultimately declined the on-site.

eitally• 11 years ago

As a technical manager, I regularly have a similar problem. I often hire folks [in Mexico and Brazil] with minimal experience, either fresh from school or coming off their first 1-2yr job(s) out of school. As such, we pay them pretty low. If they prove their value and become key contributors, I naturally want to give them a 50-100% raise after a year or so. This always results in painful discussions with HR/Comp about why our typical "20% max salary increase" rule is stupid and inapplicable. I usually, but not always, triumph. Last year one guy got a 98.5% raise. :D Doing things like that always makes me feel really good.

seestheday4• 11 years ago

This is awesome. Kudos to you.

You are doing these guys a favour, but it is also very beneficial to the company in the long run. If they are good and aren't treated well then they will leave. It is as simple as that.

I'm also guessing that since you're getting them so cheaply to begin with then they're likely still under market rate with a ~75% bump in pay.

mallyvai4• 11 years ago

Market rates are complicated, and it's not unusual for employers to do this. For high-value people, the big guys (Google, Amazon, Microsoft) can and will match crazy high counteroffer numbers a lot of the time. It sucks, and this leads to the exact scenario you're describing. The justification these places use is that, "We don't ever want to lose good people simply because of money."

The flip side of this is that it's easy to bump your market rate - just get counteroffers. This provides the basis firms are looking for. Some people are more ruthless about than others, of course - it can lead to the sorts of disparity you're seeing.

In an ideal world we would have more uniform salary numbers with transparency around them, but until we get to that world, it's contingent on individuals to put in the work to set themselves up for success.

[0] I founded http://OfferLetter.io - we provide negotiation advice and career services

[1] PS - you should check out the Offer Drive (http://offerletter.io/drive.html) - "Confidentially submit your offers. Learn if you're paid fairly." as the tagline goes.

fukupayme23• 11 years ago

For financial IT in London specifically, I would always advise people to state you have multiple interviews and roles on the go, and do so, so that if you are made an offer, get it in writing, even though then pretend it is an time limited offer, and then get at least one or two rounds of counter offer. And don't feel bad about doing it. They will squeal a bit, but it is just business at the end of the day. And yes, do job hop from time to time or else your pay will stagnate. A good rule of thumb is to interview every three to six months to establish your market potential and look at the difference on your current role.

bjackman2• 11 years ago

Offer Drive looks interesting. You should either internationalise it (right now the salary field only accepts numbers and doesn't specify what currency, and there's no "country" field) or clarify that it's only for your country (presumably the USA, but there's actually no clue about that on your site).

Brit here, wanted to take part but wasn't sure if my submission would be meaningful.

wallflower• 11 years ago

It is all about the employer maintaining the power in salary setting.

Think of airlines. In the handful of times, I've asked how much people have paid for their seat. I've gotten ranges of a couple hundred dollars in both directions for a cross-country flight. Some of it was when the ticket was bought. And I thought I was getting a deal on Priceline...

There are always disparities in salary. The most glaring and entrenched - being that of males and females of near equivalency being paid different amounts.

If all salaries were made public, you would have to equalize salaries to prevent the fomenting dissension.

This can be done at smaller organizations. For larger organizations (think Fortune 500), the higher-ups could not keep their larger salaries because a) they would not be able to justify them (as much) and b) their larger salaries may have been largely due to 'taking a larger share of the pot'.

grecy• 11 years ago

It is all about the employer maintaining the power in salary setting.

I agree 100% and I've always found it kind of creepy - like giving candy to a kid levels of creepy.

"Here is your pay check Mr. Jones - but be sure not to tell anyone how much it is"

is very similar to

"Here is some candy Jonny, but make sure you don't tell anyone else I gave you that candy, or how much I gave you"

In both scenarios why is the "giver" trying to conceal the details of the transaction?

Because they've got something to gain by keeping it a secret.

logicallee4• 11 years ago

Guys, there are countries where the candidate is expected to state their salary and not the company. The thinking is that the candidate is the seller (i.e. receives cash) and the company is the buyer (i.e. pays cash)!! We can use an ISO99-standard car analogy here for their thinking:

Think of the candidate as the salesman of a car (themselves), and the employer as the buyer of the car, who wants to use it for something.

Then this actually makes perfect sense. Doesn't the seller usually list their price rather than the buyer? (who keeps their range a secret, or even has a much wider range as they have a choice of cars.)

It would be like walking into an auto showroom and the seller (get your mind around this: in the analogy the job candidate is the car/salesperson, but selling themselves rather than a car) asking the shopper to state how much the shopper is willing to pay (shopper = employer in this case, since employer is the one paying, and has a choice of 'cars'). Or at least state a range. Shopper (=employer) don't have to do it - you can ask what the cars are going for first.

Who is at more fault: if a car salesperson refuses to tell you what the cars are going for (job candidate doesn't say how much he or she will work for) or if a buyer refuses to tell you what they have budgeted (the shopper doesn't say how much they're willing to pay, and just wants to see some cars.)

Like all ISO99 car analogies, it's quite a good one, in this case because in fact the buyer and seller both do have a range, i.e. the buyer can consider different prices, and the seller can often be flexible within a single car.

Also there is another reason not to list salary ranges: absurdity. We can conceive of a buyer of a car, given certain circumstances such as a new well-paid job they must drive to or near, but being broke after a period of unemployment, considering everything from $500 to $50,000. It's conceivable, depending on the terms involved, for this particular purchase ("hire"). But that is a range of two orders of magnitude.

Sound absurd? A one-person startup might hire someone from an intern salary all the way through six figures, even doing similar things (if not much has been built), depending on age, experience, whether any of the salary can be deferred, who they can find, etc..

You don't need much imagination to realize that a cofounder salary range is: $0-$100K salary, 0%-50% equity.

With a little imagination, that range actually widens considerably, but I don't want to make your brains explode. (With negative salaries or much higher than 50% effective equity, etc.)

It's all on the table.

If you don't want to interview for positions outside of your salary range, here's a thought: 1) call up whoever posted the advertisement and tell them you don't want to apply if it's far outside of your salary range. tell them what it is - you don't even have to identity yourself. if it's outside their range they'll tell you. 2) (I don't really recommend this.) Send your CV (your car or house brochure) with a price range.

It's somewhat rude, sure, but I guarantee it's better than not letting 100 employers see your resume/CV at all, because you've filtered them out based on a lack of listed salary and refuse to take even 5 seconds to drop an email with an attachment.

The line "Expected salary: ___" is guaranteed to filter out anyone whose budget is less. On the other hand, you might filter out people whose budgets are more or people who consider this very rude, and forward.

sukilot6• 11 years ago

That only works if you are selling a standardized service. In reality, your work product is very much a function of the environment you work in.

logicallee4• 11 years ago

yes, you're right, especially in America, corporate jobs are standardized, and it's more common for the employer to have a standard set salary offered.

I was just describing the point of view common in some other countries, in which case the employee is expected to come up with their requirement and state it. Neither one is correct or incorrect. (And both have real-world analogies - for example, auctions, which can also be an analogy for the job market in that there's only 1 of specifically you, where bidders have to offer an amount rather than the seller saying how much something costs.)

hippich2• 11 years ago

I spent quite a bunch of time on interviews with employers who promised to pay above market salary to end up with an offer 30% less than i am making.

Put another way - salary is big item in job description for me - amount employer ready to pay too often correlates with problems/technologies/colleagues/innovations i am going to work with.

So naturally first question I always ask recruiter - how much. And naturally most of them shy away from answering it straight.

As a result I created job form[1] and, unless it is someone's recommendation, or i had previous relationships with recruiter, I send all of them to this form to fill it first.

[1] https://e.l1t3.com/pavelkaroukin

cozuya• 11 years ago

Do you get a lot of responses?

hippich2• 11 years ago

zero :) granted, sent there typical spammy "job opportunity" recruiters and responded in usual way to someone who really spent some time on reading my resume :)

Dirlewanger• 11 years ago

And then there's the unspeakables that companies wouldn't tell someone like Jobbox: withholding salaries allows suppresses talk about it and makes it borderline-taboo to talk about in the workplace.

This is the status quo for many American companies unfortunately. It's an unfortunate consequence of dealing with a highly individualistic society. You as a person are an asset and you always have to be selling yourself. Your previous salary is seen as leverage when it comes to finding a new job. Once you find one, you'll most likely find that salary discussion is a very sore thumb with everyone in the workplace. I see it as competitive collaboration that's gone cancerous.

serve_yay5• 11 years ago

But I see almost nothing written in this whole thread from the perspective of the person who is making more than their coworkers (or believes that to be the case). I don't want to discuss salaries! In fact, one time earlier in my career I was in a group of coworkers who all went around and said their salaries, and mine was 2x all of them, so I kept quiet.

My point is just that I don't think it only benefits the employers.

ryandrake8• 11 years ago

Did you keep quiet because you believed you were being paid unfairly or because you believed THEY were being paid unfairly?

If you thought they were underpaid, you were kind of doing them a disservice by keeping quiet. Knowledge of a pay disparity within a group of similar employees tends to help the negotiating power of those who are making less, but does not tend to hurt those who are making more.

seestheday4• 11 years ago

I'm very curious what your take is on revealing your current salary to recruiters/potential employers early.

Do you tell them early to avoid wasting your time?

For myself I'll just say that I've done well since I realized that I should negotiate for EVERY offer I'm given no matter how high. There are no more exploding offers after you've had a couple jobs - we're not in kindergarten and our parents aren't going to take things away because we're acting selfishly.

S_A_P• 11 years ago

So I am in the early stages of starting a consulting business. Currently this business is just me, myself and I, but at some point I want to bring in and mentor junior people. I've kicked around a few ideas around salary and one of them is to tell them what I want to pay them first thing, up front. Hey, this job pays X dollars. If we move past that, then I will work to see if there is a skill/personal fit. This is as yet unproven, but my thought is you can set expectations, get the haggling out of the way first and then try to end up on a positive note instead of trying to play nice and then play the salary game.

exelius3• 11 years ago

It's a little easier to do this in professional services -- you know pretty much what you can bill that person out for, so you know what you can pay them. Employee pay has a pretty direct contribution to margins (and to revenue). This is not the case in most industries - adding an employee does not add a predictable amount of revenue in most cases.

shanemhansen2• 11 years ago

I'm not too concerned with companies not listing salaries because I think a job posting isn't actually a posting for a job. It's really just a way to let me know that a company has certain needs. They may fill that position with a senior developer, or a junior developer. Quite often there is currently one person wearing many hats who needs to hand off responsibilities in one area.

However I've found I get the best results by stating my salary requirements up front.

mallyvai4• 11 years ago

This is exactly why we are launching the Offer Drive:

http://offerletter.io/drive.html . In short - submit your offer and equity information, get back access to a statistical pool showing where you stand.

A few notes on this subject from my perspective as the founder of http://OfferLetter.io (we provide negotiation advice and career matchmaking to developers and other techies).

Companies also oftentimes just don't know what someone is worth, and don't want to publicly publish numbers that are too high or low for fear miscalibrating expectations w.r.t. large swaths of potential candidates.

0) If a company tries to play the, "What do you make?" game, it's important to deflect, deflect, deflect and if they insist, simply state, "I expect a competitive offer to be on the order of $X"

1) Market rates are complicated. As I've written about before, the outcomes that people can see because of outsize startup exit scenarios means that their market rate can be very very high. Google doesn't publish this kind of info because they can and will match even crazy startup exit numbers, but don't broadcast this for fear of screwing up expectations.

2) At the end of the day it is contingent on the individual to define their own basis and see what places are willing to offer what compensation, and how much they are willing to budge. This is how markets work.

3) On a related note, oftentimes, companies will try and prohibit discussion of compensation by saying it's confidential, or a trade secret. Confidentiality and wage secrecy requirements in the workplace are illegal under California law. The exact statue is here: http://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displaySection... As we have seen repeatedly, these kinds of requirements tend to disproportionately harm people from many kinds of non-privileged backgrounds.

And, under national labor legislation, companies cannot prohibit discussion within the workplace.

mau_rs• 11 years ago

Totally disagree with the final conclusion. In a market where people (specially technical people) are in need and advertising inviting people to living on to the edge, makes Jr. Developers, Jr. Designers, Jr. Business person, think that they are more Senior than Junior. So trust me, they will apply cause they have nothing to loose.

endergen• 11 years ago

I don't agree with the assertion that listing filters out candidates on the low end. I think many dillusuonal, overly ambitious, and financially desperate under qualified candidates apply hard for salaries way above their last/current salary.

ryandrake8• 11 years ago

Correct. There is pretty much no incentive not to try to punch above your weight class. If it was common for employers to list salaries on their job boards, I'd spend an hour each day applying for every job that pays more than I make now. There's literally no down side.

seestheday4• 11 years ago

Opportunity cost and the potential of leaving a good company for a potentially toxic work environment are two bad outcomes that I can think of off the top of my head.

I'm not saying you shouldn't try to better your position, but saying that there isn't a possibility of a downside is not fair.

xivzgrev• 11 years ago

I think a big reason people get into poker is Expectation of negotiation.

If employee talks first, the number can only go down.

If the employer talks first, the number can only go up.

It's unfortunately wide spread. I wish we lived in a world where people saw a fair offer and accepted it without automatically asking for more (employee) less (employer). If something's not fair then fine negotiate, but I think people negotiate even if an offer is fair to "win" or "its expected" or "everyone else would". So employers come in below budget and employees are hesitant to give salary numbers.

Heres a good post on it:

http://workplace.stackexchange.com/questions/183/does-the-fi...

Silhouette8• 11 years ago

The solution in that case is simple: as an employee, you come in with what you regard as a fair level, and then you don't negotiate and just state that you think it's a fair offer and they can take it or leave it.

This does away with all the upside where you could have achieved something higher, but the only other downside is if you run into an employer whose policy requires their staff to get an initial number from a candidate and then agree on a reduced level, and you know what to tell them when you discover that is the kind of employer they are.

solarmist• 11 years ago

Vinnyroe's anecdote at the end of his answer is EXACTLY why people negotiate what's a fair offer is almost completely (within 10's of thousands of dollars) SUBJECTIVE. I've had places where if I had mentioned a number first I'd have lost more than $10k off my salary. Honestly many times I do accept the salary offered because it was above the range I was expecting (although nowadays I'm better calibrated to my area... Well, I hope so).

If there was an objective way to determine then people and companies would be much happier not negotiating for the most part.

shanemhansen2• 11 years ago

Here's a little bit of a horror story of what happens when the reverse question (engineer's current salary) is asked and answered honestly. Disclosure of current salary ultimately hurts both parties.

I was once offered a position by a certain well known Las Vegas based ecommerce company while I was living in Salt Lake and working in Park City. They asked my current salary and I told them (like a chump). When my offer finally came through it was for less than my current salary (ouch). I assumed this was a really weird way of telling me "no", so I declined the offer.

I immediately got a call from their HR wondering what the problem was. When I informed them that I wasn't going to move to Las Vegas and take a pay cut they dug in their heels and argued that their offer was really more than I was currently making since Las Vegas is so much cheaper than Park City (as I mentioned above, I never actually lived in Park City but that didn't seem to dissuade them).

If I had responded to the "how much do you make?" question by telling them how much they needed to pay me then instead of wasting everyone's time they could have terminated the interview process or even better, made their offer without being confused by irrelevant salary data.

At my most current job I told the recruiter right up front what my requirements were and told her I didn't want to fly out for an in-person interview unless we agreed on ballpark numbers. She came back with an acceptable number (which I accepted when I later saw it on the offer letter) and nobody's time was wasted. I also won't be job hopping for a tiny pay bump any time soon. Win/win.

mallyvai4• 11 years ago

This is exactly the right answer - if multiple rounds of deflection fail to work then you should state, "I expect a competitive offer to be $X".

Vinod_Chandra• 11 years ago

In India, We have launched a site to promote salary transparency!

KitnaDetiHai.in (coincidentally means the same as show me the money in Hindi)

The site has gone viral in top bschools in India.

The idea was born out of the thought, just for a simple mobile purchase or for a meal, we compare prices and reviews to get the best deal. Whereas for one year of blood and sweat, when HR says this is the best in the industry they are no accurate sites to refer to ask for a fairer deal.

How do I trust the HR words, when one of her prime KPI is also how much money she could save for the company while rolling an offer out.

I would be happy to hear feedback from you folks!

p.s. In Glassdoor I can post as CEO of Apple, there is no authentication and why the data is so inaccurate, whereas in KitnaDetiHai after initial search its a compulsory LinkedIn Login to search more and even after that Machine Learning Algorithm's are used to identify outliers. If found so the user's access is removed and he cannot be a part of community at all.

Another Incentive here for users to enter right salaries is, we will suggest jobs which 1. Match hiked up no's from current salary. 2. Also fairly matching skills of the job against skills listed/endorsed on LinkedIn.

brendangregg• 11 years ago

I'm sure these reasons happen, however, the most common reason recruiters don't talk salary to me seems to be that they know it is below market, and want time to sell all the other benefits. I treat it as a warning sign of a very low salary.

It also often wastes everyone's time. After going through multiple rounds of communication, the salary is finally revealed: often way too low, even after hearing about the benefits.

Other recruiters will talk salary early, and those jobs are usually the ones that pay well.

I don't waste time (mine and theirs) talking to recruiters who don't share salary information (expectations or ranges). There's a major tech company that needed my expertise (systems performance), for whom I never got past the recruiters because they wouldn't talk salary. (After several months, I don't think they ever filled that role.)

This all doesn't matter much to me now, as I'm at Netflix and very happy. Netflix does talk salary expectations.

dennisgorelik2• 11 years ago

----

http://jobbox.io/

This webpage is not available

----

You should redirect users to https://www.jobbox.io/

mwanamayi• 11 years ago

Like the point of view. I find that many companies really neglect corporate culture and feeling of belonging when it's decisive for productivity. The salary example shows this well as instead of cooperating, it's already about "confrontation, strategy and often times disappointment at a very early stage with your employer. Probably why I've always had it hard with Corporate culture. Work has to be passionating, whatever the reason.

Show me the salary!

Related Stories