Post by redheadbaker on Feb 19, 2020 11:29:27 GMT -5
A reader writes:
You regularly talk about how inappropriate it is for employers to ask candidates about their salary expectations without giving any salary information out themselves.
Well, I am a medical professional, and, along with my partners, employ two staff in our small office. I became a small business owner/employer having received no training in that aspect of things, but learned early on when I am hiring to ALWAYS ask the candidate their salary expectations before giving any information out about the range I am willing to offer. Why?
Firstly, the money comes directly from our pockets and frankly if we can get away with paying $20/hour instead of $22/hour, why wouldn’t we? It also gives us room for raises, bonuses, etc. without taking too much of a financial hit. You always advocate that employees look out for their own interests. Why should that be so different for me as an employer? Maybe we tend to think of employers as BIG CORPORATION, but at least in our case it’s just hard-working individuals hoping to keep expenses in check.
The second big reason I want that information first is that if I were to give my range — say $20-22/hour — a candidate expecting $24/hour might well say, “Ya, sure, that’s fine” while planning to take the job and keep looking for something else. Frankly, I want to know if they’re likely to be unhappy with that salary! Hearing that they expect $24/hour is very valuable information for us to have! And if I can get it, I will.
So there you have it from a brazenly unapologetic employer who plans to continue asking the question. (For what it’s worth, we are excellent employers whose current two staff have been with us for about 15 years and eight years and both seem very happy).
I guess I'm just unclear why asking/talking about salary during the interview process would be off-limits for either party. I am applying for a job, to make money. You are hiring someone to do a job, for money. The amount of money I expect and the amount of money you can offer me are pretty much the most important part of the conversation in my opinion. I think both parties should be totally open about salary, and I'm not sure why it's assumed this is an uncomfortable or inappropriate thing?
TL/DR: Salaries should be included in the job posting. It saves everyone time.
Post by BlondeSpiders on Feb 19, 2020 12:11:01 GMT -5
I think Alison's advice is spot-on, but having spent a majority of my working life in the <$22/hr world, I think her advice will fall on deaf ears. The "quality candidate" argument really only works when you're paying people more, and with larger companies. This employer, a small business with 2 employees, will not give 2 shits about what bigger and better companies do. They're concerned with that extra $2/hr ($80 per week!) that they don't have to pay an employee.
I guess I'm just unclear why asking/talking about salary during the interview process would be off-limits for either party. I am applying for a job, to make money. You are hiring someone to do a job, for money. The amount of money I expect and the amount of money you can offer me are pretty much the most important part of the conversation in my opinion. I think both parties should be totally open about salary, and I'm not sure why it's assumed this is an uncomfortable or inappropriate thing?
TL/DR: Salaries should be included in the job posting. It saves everyone time.
In negotiations, whatever side you are on, it's always to your advantage to get the other side to state a number first. It's not that it shouldn't be talked about, it just puts you in the strongest negotiating position to make the other side say a number first.
Amen, Allison. This is a HUGE pet peeve of mine. I have been vastly underpaid for most of my career for a variety of reasons, and I truly don't know how much I should be asking a lot of the time. (Also, in nonprofits, salaries can swing WILDLY for similar-sounding titles based on how well-funded the organization is, and how much importance they place on my role).
I was recently contacted by an in-house recruiter for job that I'm very qualified for, but in a slightly different industry than I've worked in the past. I recently changed jobs (and LOVE my new job) so I wasn't really looking to move, but thought it would be worth it to hear them out.
I ended up in a stand-off during the phone screen because they absolutely refused to name a number. I told them that I hadn't been looking, that this was a new industry for me, and that if they could provide even a rough range it would be helpful. She refused, with a long winded explanation about why they would never name a number first. OK. Well, neither will I and I don't need your job so... nice talking to you.
There were some other big red flags in that particular phone screen, so when they followed up a few hours later asking them to get back to me with my preferred salary after I did some research, I just responded by thanking them for their time, but withdrawing myself from consideration.
They never responded to that email, but did email a week or so later to say that they had "decided not to move me forward in the process." Uh... Ok.
I read this on AAM this morning (my favorite distraction when I need a break from work) and wasn't totally sure how I felt about it. The LW's tone really rubbed me the wrong way.
I fully understand why asking salary history is not okay because of how it disadvantages women, POC and others who, for whatever reason, have been comparatively underpaid. But asking salary expectations isn't quite the same. I guess it's problematic because people with privilege are more likely to make a more audacious ask, and end up being paid more? ETA: I think she was right in her response, but could have been more clear about it.
Practically speaking, I can also see how this practice could disqualify good candidates who might happily agree to the employer's ideal salary once they see the full package, even if they had initially hoped for more. I think AAM also makes a good point about how asking a candidate what they want, when they have very limited context, doesn't really make sense. What does the employer lose by stating the salary range upfront?
I guess I'm just unclear why asking/talking about salary during the interview process would be off-limits for either party. I am applying for a job, to make money. You are hiring someone to do a job, for money. The amount of money I expect and the amount of money you can offer me are pretty much the most important part of the conversation in my opinion. I think both parties should be totally open about salary, and I'm not sure why it's assumed this is an uncomfortable or inappropriate thing?
TL/DR: Salaries should be included in the job posting. It saves everyone time.
Because when a company asks a job candidate to name their ideal salary, the job candidate feels pressured to state a "competitive" salary and the practice often results in employees being underpaid. Or white men earning higher salaries because companies are more open to salary negotiations from them. In practice, it leads to wage discrimination and violates the law.
And it's definitely uncomfortable when a company pressures YOU to name numbers first!
No one is arguing that companies shouldn't mention salary--in fact, they're the ones who should be transparent about it from the start. Put it in the job posting and save everyone's time, like you said. Plus, it's an easy way to weed out companies that want to cut corners on everything (in this example, the company would save a whole $80 per week by making the candidate name a salary $2/hr less than they want to pay). I'm in a slightly different situation as a freelancer, but I rarely apply for contract jobs that don't name a salary because I assume they want to pay 1 cent a word or some ridiculously low rate.
I fully understand why asking salary history is not okay because of how it disadvantages women, POC and others who, for whatever reason, have been comparatively underpaid. But asking salary expectations isn't quite the same. I guess it's problematic because people with privilege are more likely to make a more audacious ask, and end up being paid more? ETA: I think she was right in her response, but could have been more clear about it.
Practically speaking, I can also see how this practice could disqualify good candidates who might happily agree to the employer's ideal salary once they see the full package, even if they had initially hoped for more. I think AAM also makes a good point about how asking a candidate what they want, when they have very limited context, doesn't really make sense. What does the employer lose by stating the salary range upfront?
But salary expectations are almost always tied to salary history. If you've always made $20/hr, you're unlikely to ask for $30/hr. Plus, think about how men apply for jobs if they meet 60% of the requirements while women often only apply if they're at like 110%. In salary negotiations, men often get higher starting salaries and higher raises, both because they are more likely to demand more and because employers are more receptive to high asks from men.
I was on a salary equity committee in academia where a dean told me the university just HAD to give three male professors raises . . . because they asked. None of the women professors asked, and as a result the university's salary equity got worse. And the (female) dean didn't see any problems with only giving raises to people who specifically walked into her office and demanded a raise.
IMO, the only reason employers don't state salary ranges upfront is to screw over employees--just like this letter writer pretty much admits.
But asking salary expectations isn't quite the same. I guess it's problematic because people with privilege are more likely to make a more audacious ask, and end up being paid more? ETA: I think she was right in her response, but could have been more clear about it.
Practically speaking, I can also see how this practice could disqualify good candidates who might happily agree to the employer's ideal salary once they see the full package, even if they had initially hoped for more. I think AAM also makes a good point about how asking a candidate what they want, when they have very limited context, doesn't really make sense. What does the employer lose by stating the salary range upfront?
The most compelling reason, in my mind, is right in her answer:
"[Y]ou’re far better equipped than your candidates are to know what the job should pay. You’re intimately familiar with the role’s responsibilities, pressures, and challenges in a way an outside candidate never can be. You’re asking candidates to name a number first when they’re not the one with the deep understanding of those factors — which can result in new hires who discover the salary doesn’t match up with the job after they start, which can mean they don’t stick around or don’t go above and beyond in the way they might if they felt fairly compensated."
How am I supposed to name a salary expectation when I have little idea, or even none, of what you envision for the job? MANY job titles could have wildly different expectations.
I just got a job and they offered me my exact salary I have now (a Fed job requiring salary disclosure). I had to negotiate a higher rate. Their range was very small (5 dollar in the range) and they told me in the interview they needed a fresh perspective because the old person was there 30 years. So I KNOW they are still saving money with me even with the higher pay rate. It irked me they offered what I'm making now.
ETA: I'm also a hiring manager. I do not always know their ranges and can negotiate with HR, not with me. The starting pay is exact in my listings though.
Jesus. You can tell the person asking has never had a woman or minority counter-offer for the job. I bet that would incite a "forget you, so there!" response.
The employer always has the upper hand in these negotiations. They have a budget for the position and they know what it is, it is completely disingenuous for them to not give the salary range up front. The only reason they ask for a range from the candidate first is to get them to set a limit on what they need to pay them. Studies have shown this practice screws women and minorities, so why can't they just be up front with what they can afford to pay? Because they know everyone is going to ask for and expect the top amount and they want to get away with paying less if they can.
I'm so glad MA passed a law that prohibits employers from asking about salary history. That's another way women/minorities get screwed. I've had the same experience of getting stuck on this question in an HR phone screen because we both refused to name a number first. It is very uncomfortable, but it does give you valuable feedback on the company culture.
I guess I'm just unclear why asking/talking about salary during the interview process would be off-limits for either party. I am applying for a job, to make money. You are hiring someone to do a job, for money. The amount of money I expect and the amount of money you can offer me are pretty much the most important part of the conversation in my opinion. I think both parties should be totally open about salary, and I'm not sure why it's assumed this is an uncomfortable or inappropriate thing?
TL/DR: Salaries should be included in the job posting. It saves everyone time.
In negotiations, whatever side you are on, it's always to your advantage to get the other side to state a number first. It's not that it shouldn't be talked about, it just puts you in the strongest negotiating position to make the other side say a number first.
I'm pretty sure this isn't actually true. My old job was sales-adjacent and we had countless trainings about this very aspect of negotiating.
That's why I love my current department's philosophy - we tell the (very narrow) range right away in the first discussion because we don't see hiring as a negotiation. We want the best person in our range. We have a small range that we've researched and feel comfortable with and will give the best candidate all of that money. Unfortunately, if that amount doesn't work for the candidate, they're not the best person in our range so we move on.
“With sorrow—for this Court, but more, for the many millions of American women who have today lost a fundamental constitutional protection—we dissent,”
In negotiations, whatever side you are on, it's always to your advantage to get the other side to state a number first. It's not that it shouldn't be talked about, it just puts you in the strongest negotiating position to make the other side say a number first.
I'm pretty sure this isn't actually true. My old job was sales-adjacent and we had countless trainings about this very aspect of negotiating.
This is what they're teaching in business school as well. Last spring I took a Negotiations & Conflict Mgmt class, and this was the #1 rule.
Post by thelurkylulu on Feb 19, 2020 12:50:41 GMT -5
I agree with PP who said salary range should have to be posted in the job posting or description. I also have gotten really good at saying, “I am open to negotiation. What is the salary range for the position?” The majority of the time they give a range and then I aim higher.
I am curious to know how much people waiver from their ideal range based on benefits and PTO. Ultimately I want to make as much money as I can but I’ve also grown to appreciate flexibility, more PTO, and good health insurance too. It sucks when the salary isn’t great but the other options are.
At my last company, our HR started to include salaries in job listings as part of an overall approach to being more trauma informed. I'm not quite sure how that translated, to them, but I was so glad they did it. It's much more respectful of everyone's time. Then you don't have to worry about getting resumes from people who would never consider the salary you can offer (nonprofit social services life).
I know for a fact I was underpaid when I started my last job because that was when they were still able to ask about salary history. When I got licensed, they didn't call it a raise, HR called it a 'market adjustment' because my salary went up over $10,000. I wouldn't have known to ask for that much when I was being hired. Companies will absolutely take advantage and try to get away with paying as little as possible. I agree with Allison, they should be the ones being up front with the information.
But asking salary expectations isn't quite the same. I guess it's problematic because people with privilege are more likely to make a more audacious ask, and end up being paid more? ETA: I think she was right in her response, but could have been more clear about it.
Practically speaking, I can also see how this practice could disqualify good candidates who might happily agree to the employer's ideal salary once they see the full package, even if they had initially hoped for more. I think AAM also makes a good point about how asking a candidate what they want, when they have very limited context, doesn't really make sense. What does the employer lose by stating the salary range upfront?
Speaking only for myself, I find it extremely difficult to guess at a number for the following reasons:
1. I took a step back in my career when my kids were young, and have worked less than full time for the past decade. Generally, my salary was not only pro-rated for part time, but was also generally lower than average due to the types of jobs and organizations that will allow part time. When guessing full time salaries, I really have no idea.
2. I have largely worked in nonprofits, but in a way that makes me marketable to pharma companies, CROs and other for-profits. The pay scale between a 20 person nonprofit and, say, Merck, is so wildly different that I could not even guess at what they would pay. I'd be very afraid of leaving money on the table. (Side note: I did once talk to a recruiter for a pharma-adjacent job. She forced me to name a number first, and I because there was a lot of travel and I wasn't sure I wanted the job, the number I gave was triple my current salary. It was exactly in their range, but I thought I was aiming super high. How much more would they have offered???)
3. Every job that I've had in my entire career has been a newly created position that starts lower-level and has grown to an integral role. The job I just left I started as "Coordinator" went to "Manager" and left as "Director" in the span of 4 years. The small pay bumps that they gave for each new title did not make up the difference between a standard "Coordinator" salary and a standard "Director" salary. So I really don't know for sure what "Directors" should be making, although I know it's a lot more than what I made.
4. In nonprofits especially, the budget is not always necessarily flexible. They know what their number is, so just tell me. I hate guessing games.
Post by lolalolalola on Feb 19, 2020 12:54:31 GMT -5
I’ve always had to name a number first and have never been told a range by a hiring manager. I’m surprised so many of you have such different experiences. I thought mine was the norm. Good to know! I know my current job gave me exactly what I asked for which led me to believe I could have gotten more...
I agree with PP who said salary range should have to be posted in the job posting or description. I also have gotten really good at saying, “I am open to negotiation. What is the salary range for the position?” The majority of the time they give a range and then I aim higher.
I am curious to know how much people waiver from their ideal range based on benefits and PTO. Ultimately I want to make as much money as I can but I’ve also grown to appreciate flexibility, more PTO, and good health insurance too. It sucks when the salary isn’t great but the other options are.
PTO is a big deal to me and a better salary doesn't really solve a low PTO issue. An extra 5K won't give me a two days off to see my parents who are 6 hours from me.
I get 20 days now and I use them all. I would give up some salary for comparable or better PTO if I was looking (which I am not). I would have to earn a lot more to give that up.
Some benefits are also non-negotiable (401K match, healthcare) and I'd be very skeptical about a company that didn't offer them in my field.
I just got a job and they offered me my exact salary I have now (a Fed job requiring salary disclosure). I had to negotiate a higher rate. Their range was very small (5 dollar in the range) and they told me in the interview they needed a fresh perspective because the old person was there 30 years. So I KNOW they are still saving money with me even with the higher pay rate. It irked me they offered what I'm making now.
ETA: I'm also a hiring manager. I do not always know their ranges and can negotiate with HR, not with me. The starting pay is exact in my listings though.
And this just starts you off on the wrong foot, too! I had a similar experience in my current job - they told me a range, and the low end of the range was what I was making in my previous job (after taking a 5k pay cut for that job, so I already felt underpaid). They hired me to bring new experiences and background to the position and department, and my manager has said repeatedly that he brought me in because I have a wider skillset than the last person in this position. But, they offered me the bottom of the range when they gave me the job. I was able to negotiate up a whopping $2500. Worse, I was able to look up the salary of the person who was in the role before me (it's a state job)... and it's exactly the same as what they offered me. So they want me to do more than her for the same salary, when technically they budgeted up to 10k more than what they offered me. Cool.
I’m also at a point where I won’t apply for jobs without a range advertised (unless I know the company well). It’s a huge red flag that they’re paying below market. My job title is on the generic side so it can encompass a wide array of positions - does a company use it as an “important sounding” beginning position or are they following professional conventions? Sometimes I can tell from the job description but usually I need that salary range to determine whether a company is being serious.
Anyways, if Doctor dude hasn’t hired anyone in 8 years then maybe he needs to butt out of the conversation. Things change.
Ironic because I had an interview today and the last question was what my salary expectations were. I was very put off, as I have never been asked that in an initial interview before.
I agree with PP who said salary range should have to be posted in the job posting or description. I also have gotten really good at saying, “I am open to negotiation. What is the salary range for the position?” The majority of the time they give a range and then I aim higher.
I am curious to know how much people waiver from their ideal range based on benefits and PTO. Ultimately I want to make as much money as I can but I’ve also grown to appreciate flexibility, more PTO, and good health insurance too. It sucks when the salary isn’t great but the other options are.
Leave and flexibility are my "golden handcuffs", so to speak. I work for the state and get a TON of leave and there is no way private industry will ever meet it, even though I could probably make more $$. Maybe once I'm an empty nester I'll focus more on $$, but for now, leave/flexibility is what I put more emphasis on.
I’m also at a point where I won’t apply for jobs without a range advertised (unless I know the company well). It’s a huge red flag that they’re paying below market. My job title is on the generic side so it can encompass a wide array of positions - does a company use it as an “important sounding” beginning position or are they following professional conventions? Sometimes I can tell from the job description but usually I need that salary range to determine whether a company is being serious.
Anyways, if Doctor dude hasn’t hired anyone in 8 years then maybe he needs to butt out of the conversation. Things change.
Right? "Here's a thing I feel strongly about and will insist that I'm right and you're wrong, BTW it's a thing that I haven't actually had experience with in almost a decade".
I love AAM's response. I run a state contract and we have a limited, set, amount of funds to work with. I am always upfront about the salary, it's one of the first things I let applicants know in the initial phone call. Some end up withdrawing their resume, but all are appreciative that no one is wasting their time (and I'm not wasting mine). A lot of people are surprised I am upfront, which leads me to believe that most organizations are not. I'm also upfront in the initial phone call about the benefits, flexibility, autonomy and office morale (which are all pretty good) and I've been able to attract and keep really good staff by following through on that.
Many, many years ago (several years post dot com bubble... maybe a year pre-2008 crash) I was in an interview where I was asked my salary requirements during an interview. I gave them a number that was entirely reasonable for my industry, and they were stunned that I was asking for such a "high" base pay. They'd been planning to offer about $20-30K less than what the number I gave, plus a shitton of worthless stock. I was like nope, I'm pretty firm on this salary requirement and they ended the interview right then and there. I have no regrets.
I got my long term job shortly there after, although they were sketchy about salary too, just in different ways. I found out immediately after I got hired that they would have paid me a big signing bonus (thanks a lot coworker for not telling that BEFORE my negotiations - I was working as a contractor, and he knew I was interviewing for FT). Also by the time I left the company almost 8 years later they were bringing on brand spanking new college hires with zero experience for $10-20K more than I was making. My foot was already out the door when I found that out, but I was pretty furious.
I am curious to know how much people waiver from their ideal range based on benefits and PTO. Ultimately I want to make as much money as I can but I’ve also grown to appreciate flexibility, more PTO, and good health insurance too. It sucks when the salary isn’t great but the other options are.
I am a Fed, and I could almost certainly make more money in the private sector, but the benefits and stability make it worth it to me to stay. DH works in a high-paying but unstable industry and doesn't have great benefits, so we both feel better with me having a stable job so that it's highly unlikely we'd be laid off at the same time.
jinkies, what do you do? I work in clinical research at a non profit cancer center and I'm always curious how much more I could be making by moving to industry (but I don't know that I'd ever actually do it).
One thing I really like about working in large non profits is that our salary structure is pretty rigid (and at my level, I'm now able to see the ranges, so I actually know where my salary can max out if I never leave my role). Negotiating for a salary would be a completely foreign experience for me.
H co-owns a small company and they have always paid their employees above market even though, as the original LW points out, that money reduces his own pay. It's way more important to them to have happy and hard-working employees than to bring home the extra money. The LW is out of touch if he thinks his views represent those of all small business owners.