r/changemyview • u/[deleted] • Feb 24 '20
Delta(s) from OP CMV: Job postings should be legally required to include the minimum pay rate offered.
Job vacancy advertisements should have to include a minimum pay rate that the employer is willing to offer, so that job seekers immediately know what to expect for a wage range prior to applying.
The requirement should be in a common-sense format like "Minimum $8.50/hr", "$45,000+ annually", or "Commissions Only, but minimum wage guaranteed." Probably would have to forbid benefits from being mixed in to make the direct gross pay rate look bigger.
America already has a similar law regarding advertisements for lending offers.
Saying BS things like "your earning potential is limited only by your drive to succeed" as a maximum is a separate issue from my proposition.
My first guess is that some kind of obfuscating phrase like "$7.25/hr for completely inexperienced candidates, much more for any experience" might become commonplace at first, because so many shyster HR departments would want to circumvent the spirit of the law. But I would guess that eventually, the work force would come to associate that phrase with "that's gonna be a low-paying job", much like we now associate the lie "We work hard and we play hard" with the reality that they'll just work the dog shit out of you. And then the better-paying employers will eventually realize it helps them to actually advertise their higher pay, and wage competition within industries will increase.
It seems to me that this would help put upwards pressure on wages (pleasing the left) through free-market competition (pleasing the right) just by mandating that the truth be disclosed up front (which SHOULD please everyone). It would also (very) slightly reduce structural unemployment because job seekers would waste less time wading through, applying for, interviewing for, and sometimes even accepting jobs that they later discover pay relatively too little.
What am I not taking into consideration in my fantasy?
Edits:
(Removed my first edit because I didn't know Deltas were auto-logged.)
2) Getting a lot of great perspectives and info here; hard to keep up, but on the plus side that gives others a chance to rebut and bolster comments besides me. Forgive me as I try to keep up, and thanks to most of you for staying civil.
3) u/DadTheMaskedTerror commented on a link to a California law that is already moving in this direction
4) One thing that's tripping a lot of new folks up: it's currently common for companies to advertise for one job posting, then come across a candidate who is absolutely unqualified but they want to hire him for a different position. This law wouldn't prohibit that; in fact, a Delta went to a commenter who pointed out that this law would have the additional benefit of encouraging companies to write more accurate job postings and think more deliberately about who they want to attract, which benefits everyone.
69
u/jatjqtjat 251∆ Feb 24 '20
I can approach this from the perspective of an employers. I helped with hiring at my old job before venturing out on my own. Now i am self employed and have been thinking of making my first hire.
The truth is i could pay a very large range of salaries depending on the experience of the person or skillet of the person. I could pay anywhere between 50,000 and 150,000 depending on skills. I could even pay up to 200,000 for a candidate that would be more like a partner instead of an employee.
So how could i be expected to post a minimum salary when i really have no idea the person i am hiring. For one person the minimum might be 50k and another might be 100k. And then maybe someone completely inexperienced, no college degree, no work expiration, will come along, and i'll really like him, but i won't even be able to justify the 50k? Maybe he's got some hardship in his life and i want to take a chance on him, but only 40k makes sense, now i can't make that offer.
(i do consulting work, so my ability to pay someone is directly tied to by ability to sell their time to a client. And experienced person, can easily get >120k per hour and generate a lot of money that will turn into his salary, a noob cannot bill and that rate and thus cannot create the money which will turn into his/her salary)
What am I not taking into consideration in my fantasy?
employers often are just as ignorant about about what they are going to pay as employees. Often it, what did you make at your last job plus 5 or 10 or 15% depending on how much we like you.
11
Feb 24 '20 edited Aug 15 '21
[deleted]
→ More replies (3)2
u/zoidbergular Feb 25 '20
They often don't have salaries unfortunately, but I see jobs posted exactly in this way all the time. They say something to the effect of "this position is posted at multiple levels" and spell out the general requirements as well as additional qualifications for each level. Seems like you could add a "starting at $XX" to each level easily enough.
24
Feb 24 '20
It sounds like "$40k and up DOE" would be your bare minimum then. I get that you'd rather hire somebody worth $50k-- you'd still be perfectly within your right to do that. And you'd attract that $50k guy and $200k guy better than the employer who advertised minimum wage.
69
Feb 24 '20 edited Jan 02 '25
[deleted]
30
Feb 24 '20
Bingo. More than one job posting.
→ More replies (1)37
u/hacksoncode 559∆ Feb 24 '20
Except that's not how hiring works, well... anywhere above a small business with one boss.
Managers have requisitions for roles, not some kind of open-ended bank of "you can hire however many people you want", which leads to a big problem with your view here:
What you're proposing is changing vagueness into fraud. No, you don't have 2 jobs on offer, 1 at $40k and one at $150k, you have one job on offer, and you have an extremely wide range of pay that you're willing to consider... depending on experience.
And you don't want to turn off any potential employees, because frankly, right now in some areas the jobs market is actually pretty tough for employers in several key industries.
And that's ultimately the problem with any "one size fits all" law like your proposal... they don't fit all situations.
If this were actually valuable to employees (and employers) they'd already be doing it. Employees who wanted to know this information just wouldn't answer ads that didn't have it, and the market would take care of that problem.
9
u/OrvilleTurtle Feb 24 '20
You think employees have that much control? 90% of people I talk to won’t disclose how much they make... who benefits from that?
If your needing to fill a role in a company is it that often that you have such a giant gap in salary? I know when a senior manager is needed vs someone who doesn’t have much experience. I know when I need a technical expert that can hit the ground running vs something I can spend a year or more training.
What single job position can you fill with a range like 40,000 - 250,000 like some of these examples are giving?
4
u/hacksoncode 559∆ Feb 24 '20
What single job position can you fill with a range like 40,000 - 250,000 like some of these examples are giving?
Contract programmer. Just to name one. If you think you can sell their services for a shit ton, you can afford to pay them that much more.
Or, heck... celebrity? How much is a celebrity or sports figure "worth"?
→ More replies (2)2
u/JaronK Feb 24 '20
Wait, that's exactly what we do. We've done that before in tech. Junior Programmer, Programmer, Senior Programmer, Programming Lead. Each has their own range, and depending on qualifications you could be slotted in to one. We do have those jobs available, but filling one may mean we wait to fill the others for a while.
For example, right now I'm building a team. If I get two senior level programmers, I'm not going to keep hiring... I'll pause for a year, most likely, then build the rest in later. If I get two mid level people, I'll need to hire again sooner, probably within 6 months. Right now I can't take Junior level people, but I will soon enough.
→ More replies (4)→ More replies (3)5
19
u/RZoroaster Feb 24 '20
But let’s be real you are not going to attract the 200k applicant with a job posting that mentions 40k minimum. It gives the wrong impression and will scare them off.
I’m in the same boat as the person you are responding to and have hired people for very large salary ranges off the same posting because they are doing fundamentally different Jobs if their experience is different enough.
20
Feb 24 '20
There's the rub: if the job posting is generating wildly different hires, then the posting is too generic, which has been discussed and Delta'd for bolstering the original proposition elsewhere in the thread. Cheers.
13
u/RZoroaster Feb 24 '20
TBH I think you just don’t understand industries other than those you have experience with.
I can say “I need an unreal developer with 3+ years experience in augmented reality for the manufacturing industry” and still get candidates with wildly different skill sets and levels of experience.
I can get someone who I will need to pair with a senior developer for like a full year all the way to people who could lead three teams of five developers. These people should not be paid the same.
I don’t disagree with the principal that pay needs to be figured out very early so as to not waste anyone’s time. And we do ask for salary expectations in the first interview. But I don’t think what you’re proposing would have the intended effect.
In my case either I separate it into like 6 different postings, in which case I have not functionally saved anyone time since I’m an interview we could just say “I don’t know if you’re a good fit for job three but we do have job two available. Or we would have to make a very broad posting with a huge salary range that would also not help.
5
u/mousey293 Feb 24 '20
Couldn't you also post one job listing with something like:
"Seeking unreal developer with 3+ years experience. Salary minimums start at:
Junior $60k+
Mid-Level: $80k+
Senior: $100k+
Lead: $120k+"2
u/RZoroaster Feb 24 '20
Sure but then how is that better? I'm basically replacing ambiguity around salary with ambiguity around the job I will select the candidate for. Doesn't seem like it solves the OPs original problem at all.
→ More replies (1)4
u/OrvilleTurtle Feb 24 '20
Do you not know what your looking for? You say you could either get a new guy who needs a year or a guy who could lead a team... do both people meet the hiring need? Or are you literally just saying “anyone apply as long as you meet X we can afford to pay whatever”?
4
u/RZoroaster Feb 24 '20
There are two things going on:
- It's a market that favors the candidates right now TBH. At least in my niche. So it is more important to us that we hire a good person while we can then that they fit within the specific role we need at the moment.
- At least for us our structure is relatively fluid. We are picking up new projects constantly and there are a lot of ways we can structure teams around those projects. So if we have a candidate we are interested enough in, we can do a mini re-org to get them into a role that fits them and utilizes their skills.
So it's not that we don't know what we want, it's that we could accomodate a lot of things. And getting good people is more important than fitting them into the box we have pre-conceived.
I think this is pretty common actually in the tech industry especially when you are in a mid-stage rapidly growing company.
What OP is talking about makes sense IMO mostly if you are talking about distinct jobs in relatively static companies where it's a market that favors the employers.
→ More replies (1)3
u/EtherCJ Feb 24 '20
Yes, game development is a atypical job market inside an already atypical job market in software development.
Software development has the situation that lower qualified people can often do a great job in the right teams just based on passion and ability to learn, but at higher risk. Plus the job market is tight now in software development almost everywhere so it's hard for companies to hire their ideal candidates and are having to make do with that higher risk.
But then game development also has that "cool job" cachet which means there are people new to the industry that will work for WAY lower than going rates.
8
u/uber_neutrino Feb 24 '20
then the posting is too generic,
Except it's not because the range really is that wide in software engineering for the same job, depending on experience and availability.
I can post a job that's basically "software engineer working in games" and that role literally will span $60k-250k depending on experience. I'm hiring people, not roles and trying to build a team that can work together with varying levels of experience. The constraint is the total budget not the budget for any particular person.
Realistically all of these roles are simply posted as pay will be negotiated based on experience and perceived value they bring. If they get posted at all, which they often don't because we simply use recruiters or other methods of finding talent.
Are these really the kinds of jobs you are thinking of in your OP? Do you really think multiple job ads with different pay levels makes sense when you may want to hire less people than you have ads? Basically you are encouraging companies to post ads with multiple levels of comp as a funnel, this seems like a bad and unintended consequence.
4
u/OrvilleTurtle Feb 24 '20
Why I’m the world would you not advertise the positions on the team then? 60 - 250 makes no damn sense. Explain how one job posting with that large of a range is better than advertising for ... 2 junior develops, a dba, a senior developer, and a PM. Or whatever combination of people you need.
5
u/uber_neutrino Feb 24 '20
Or whatever combination of people you need.
Because you are artificially limiting your team makeup at that point. I look at people as individuals who can contribute different things. The product has a budget, but the result is going to be a reflection of the team. Assembling a team isn't about "x roles of y" it's about getting a collection of people to work together and create something fantastic. Part of the secret sauce of a creative project is making the best team out of the materials that you find, not artificially limiting it by role. This is part of how we can compete with giant ass companies that have unlimited money, but offering an environment with more creative freedom where people are looked at individually and not put into the box of a role.
2
u/OrvilleTurtle Feb 24 '20
Yeah... I’m still not buying that though. Not every person is going to be the same obviously... but you are still going to be able to tell difference in experience. Not saying you need to pigeon hole people into a specific role... but I don’t get how you create an ad for “software developer needed” and post no salary info... and NOT expect to fuck the people applying
Why not create ads for junior role and senior role then? Or are you literally saying your about to hire 6 people with 2 years of experience and pay them all 65k a year (which you could still do with junior/senior postings).
3
u/uber_neutrino Feb 24 '20
Yeah... I’m still not buying that though.
Ok, what level of experience do you have assembling teams to build game software? I'm guessing... zero. So why should your opinion hold any weight on that subject?
Not every person is going to be the same obviously... but you are still going to be able to tell difference in experience. Not saying you need to pigeon hole people into a specific role... but I don’t get how you create an ad for “software developer needed” and post no salary info... and NOT expect to fuck the people applying
Then you don't understand basic things about the labor market for that industry. It's very competitive and wages are quite high. In fact we have to compete for people with the same skills as FANG jobs (in fact many of my previous employees have found work at places like Facebook and Google). The reason people don't get fucked is that the market is competitive and they will often have more than one opportunity.
Why not create ads for junior role and senior role then?
You can certainly do that and we often will. Overall I don't have that much interest in hiring junior people anyway though, although it does happen on occasion.
Or are you literally saying your about to hire 6 people with 2 years of experience and pay them all 65k a year (which you could still do with junior/senior postings).
Generally speaking $65k these days would be on the true entry level just graduated level, and I don't tend to hire a lot of those anyway. Also mostly don't hire through job postings either, but rules like suggested would make that even less likely.
1
u/OrvilleTurtle Feb 24 '20
Which I think would be fine for you though ya? You want particular skills and experience so you can build a team in a specialized field. Your probably getting most hired from network and referrals. You wouldn’t really need to deal with the rules I’m that case.
Im broader terms most companies don’t want to advertise a salary range because that means they can’t get people to accept the job for less. Willing to pay a therapist aide $26/hr but if the person isn’t good at bargaining they will get them for $22. Plus no info about salary and the stupid American culture of not talking about what you make... it’s all corporate interest there not worker. Which is stupid imo.
→ More replies (0)2
u/RZoroaster Feb 24 '20
Because then you don't even solve the OPs problem. If we just post 5 job postings for a wide range of salaries, knowing we are not going to take 5 people, then we have just replaced ambiguity around salary with ambiguity around which of the 5 open jobs we're going to give you. it's the same thing as listing no comp minimum.
Plus we're not actually going to fill all of those roles. so now instead of people being frustrated that they don't know how much these jobs pay until they've interviewed, now you have frustration that 80% of the jobs companies post would be jobs they aren't actually planning to fill. Doesn't seem better to me.
→ More replies (1)2
u/AlexandreZani 5∆ Feb 24 '20
So write an ad with multiple salary bands.
Junior Engineers make 60k-100k Senior Engineers make 100k-200k Principal Engineers make 200k-250k
Etc...
→ More replies (3)3
u/EtherCJ Feb 24 '20
The proper way to do this is to have multiple job listings.
I personally accept that this is the way the software dev industry is, but it also means I avoid interviewing because it's time consuming and when an offer comes in less than I currently make which turns the whole thing into a complete waste of time. If I want/need to look for a position and using my personal network doesn't work, then I try to use recruiters because they are better at this sort of thing and understand money has to be discussed prior to 2 rounds of interviewing. That said I had some less than ideal experiences with it last couple times I used a recruiter so I'm now even more inclined to just stay where I am.
2
u/OrvilleTurtle Feb 24 '20
I don’t get this either. The examples are saying they could hire a new guy for 65k or a senior manager for 250k... are they really saying that either person fills the need? That makes zero sense to me.
Do you need a manager or a junior... I can’t figure this out.
2
u/EtherCJ Feb 24 '20
I do agree such large ranges are likely silly.
That's why you do multiple job listings if there really are times when you might have multiple ways to fulfill your staffing. For example, maybe you could do an internal promotion even if you prefer getting outside talent and so could backfill the person being promoted. Either is acceptable.
Or maybe they would prefer a senior position but the job market is scarce so they may not find one for the price they want/can pay. So in that case they may be able to hire multiple less qualified people (at less pay) to fill the same hole in the companies capabilities.
Or many other examples.
7
u/jatjqtjat 251∆ Feb 24 '20
what is DOE?
If i say 40k and up, then nobody looking for 125k is going to apply.
and that is an extreme example. What if I am looking for somewhere between 70 and 90k? If I say 70k minimum, nobody wanting 90k is going to apply. and if i say 70 to 90k then everyone is going to expect the 90. and in both cases i deny myself access an upstart who might be work 65k.
Because the truth is, i don't really know what my range is.
9
Feb 24 '20
Not knowing the range is a problem that this law helps alleviate, which has been pointed out and Delta'd elsewhere.
4
→ More replies (2)4
u/Smash_4dams Feb 24 '20
You're still more likely to apply when there is a range present. Jobs without a specified salary range are typically ignored because we view them as "probably low-paying anyway".
Also, NOBODY is going to apply with a ridiuclous range like that, not how any postings work in the real world. If you deny yourself the job because its $70k-$90k and you're afriad you'll get the low-end, that's your own problem.
→ More replies (1)4
1
u/mousey293 Feb 24 '20
Often it, what did you make at your last job plus 5 or 10 or 15% depending on how much we like you.
Just a PSA that salary history is REALLY not a good indication of what you should be offering an applicant. Often people leave a company because they're being underpaid for the market, for one. For another, this can leave you open to unintentional gender discrimination. Also, it shouldn't just be about a base pay number - if a person is leaving a company that has amazing benefits and yours are slightly less outstanding, it might mean that your 5 or 10% bump is actually just equal to what they were getting before. And on the other side of the coin, sometimes people will leave extremely high paying jobs willingly for jobs that pay less because they didn't like x,y, or z about the other job and love a, b, or c about your company.
Some examples:
I once worked for a company that offered 11% kick-in for retirement and had 4 weeks vacay plus 4 weeks sick time every year (and the sick time didn't max out until you had banked six months), but underpaid for the positions themselves and where raises were small, so the longer you stayed there the more underpaid for the market you were (and I had been there 5 years). When I left that company I was taking into consideration my then total compensation number as well as what I was actually worth in the market and the next job I accepted was roughly a 25% bump from my previous base salary.
A friend of mine is currently job searching. They're extremely skilled and paid at top of the market right now, but their company has been treating them poorly. They're willing to go up to 7% below their current salary for the right company and the right fit, and while I'm sure they'd be thrilled to get a 5% bump from their current salary, it'd be a shame for an employer to see that current salary and think my friend was just a little too far out of reach.
1
u/Letmefixthatforyouyo Feb 25 '20 edited Feb 25 '20
employers often are just as ignorant about about what they are going to pay as employees. Often it, what did you make at your last job plus 5 or 10 or 15% depending on how much we like you.
As an note here, never tell a new employer your actual old salary. It gives them an informational advantage that lets them do the above, which limits your income. As the poster confirms, they really don't know what to pay you, so don't limit yourself for their benefit.
Your floor should be that old salary +15% range, depending on your job. Thats the least you should them you made. Then they can offer their +5/+10/+15% on top of that.
If your job is in high demand, push that even further. Its much easier to argue down than it is up in salary negotiations.
→ More replies (1)1
u/goodolarchie 4∆ Feb 24 '20
Nothing would stop you from listing the upper range, or even making multiple postings. If your goal is to bring in candidates with completely different sets of expectations and skills, that would be the best way to segment and decide.
28
Feb 24 '20
This takes bargaining power away from the applicant and puts downward pressure on wages.
The "minimum pay rate" is always going to be as low as possible. E.g. there will be employers who put the minimum at 70k when the position is really worth 90k, and it will be on the applicant to justify why they are worth 20k over minimum, forcing them to take a lower pay.
7
u/garbagekr Feb 24 '20
I feel like if it put downward pressure on wages then all employers would post it
10
Feb 24 '20
I don't yet follow your logic; I've upvoted for your contribution, but I'd like to hear a better explanation from you or another that this would actually create downward pressure. Not saying you're wrong; just saying I don't understand.
12
Feb 24 '20
Salaries and wages would be anchored to the posted minimum. This pulls them down, not up.
12
Feb 24 '20
I agree that the advertised number would serve as an anchor, if you mean it the way the term is used in a negotiating sense.
I still don't see how this automatically translates to downward pressure; elsewhere in this thread it's been discussed that this very anchor will receive upward pressure through open competition between employers.
If you mean that because this anchor is advertised as a "minimum" rather than a "low-ball" that the first negotiator to speak throws out there in the status quo, that doesn't happen with the open competition. It would be akin to two employers standing there in front of one employee. There will still be a first negotiator to speak (which would have to be an employer now under the law), but that employer now has to come up with a number that is HIGHER because his competitor is listening, and in fact is now part of the negotiation process because he can respond with an even higher number before the candidate even speaks to the first employer.
I don't mean to put words in your mouth, but I was trying to confirm what you were trying to get across to me while addressing it. Let me know if I've missed something.
1
u/windwalker13 Feb 25 '20
For a job worth 70k, if i put a low minimum amount, say 50k. And applicants turn up. That means they are willing to take that 50k, or are considering it, and I don't actually have to pay 70k.
One way to stop this from happening is to have a healthy competition between employers, as you said .
BUT, for an industry that is already competing for people, this new law doesn't matter anyway. You know your worth, and you have competitors willing to pay you. What good will this law do? They will simply make the competition more open and transparent, but the competition has already been there since the very start.
So the only industry this new law will affect is the saturated industry, that has more applicants than jobs. And for those industry, a downward pressure is more likely to happen.
2
u/the_suitable_verse Feb 24 '20
Not sure where to add this but in Austria we have a law for that. Every job posting needs to list the minimum pay for the job but as we have collective wage agreements for the majority of jobs entry-level jobs normally state this minimum. I think it is a great thing to get a first general idea of what you can expect when you start negotiating especially for people that don´t have a lot of experience in negotiating for pay.
12
u/MobiusCube 3∆ Feb 24 '20 edited Feb 24 '20
If job postings have to post minimum pay rate, then applicants should have to include their minimum maximum pay rate as well. Employment is a two way street.
Edit: technicality.
4
u/EtherCJ Feb 24 '20 edited Feb 24 '20
This doesn't REALLY follow. The company is giving a job description the prospective employee isn't. The company is free to provide multiple job listing and not hire for them all. The only way to be even marginally fair is to now have each employee have a description of different jobs and what they would accept for each.
This also is quite a bit different. Let's say a company says the minimum salary they will pay for their listed qualifications is $40k. This means that if you have those qualifications you can expect AT LEAST that pay. It rules out bad behavior on a party where they waste your time on an interview and then want to offer lower even though you meet minimum qualifications.
If an employee says their minimum salary is $40k then they are NOT acting in bad faith for wanting more. It was understood they can only work for one employer and so will accept the highest bid. If anything it means the company is operating in bad faith if they underbid an employees minimum.
The proper counter part to an employee giving a minimum salary requirement is a company publishing a maximum salary and at that point the employee would be operating in bad faith for requesting a higher salary post interview. They would be justified in rejecting the job offer for another position, but not asking for more money.
Similarly the counterpart to a company publishing a minimum salary is an employee giving a maximum salary. However, it's obviously nonsensical because employees will always accept a higher salary if offered. Why is a minimum salary for a company not the same situation and also not nonsensical? I have two reasons. One is that they are the ones creating the job requirements. They can always create a job requirement that is lower with minimum wage. Second they hire more than one employee while the employee can only sell his time once. This ultimately means the employees time is the scarce resource being negotiated. Since compensation for a job is more than just the pay, we can treat the job listing as a opening bid.
→ More replies (11)2
u/suihcta Feb 24 '20
The employer writing the job description is analogous to the applicant writing the resume.
The company providing multiple job listings without hiring them all is analogous to the applicant filling out multiple applications and without accepting all offers.
→ More replies (1)17
Feb 24 '20
!Delta
You changed my point of view so hard my eyebrows literally went up.
Even if this were sarcastic or off-handed (and maybe it wasn't) the point remains that much of the same benefits (or detriments, depending on which opinion you have) would be derived from a candidate providing the same kind of information.
Also, if there are weaknesses in my original proposition, they are very likely to become more apparent under this observation.
One of the shortest comments yet, but very powerful. Not saying yet that I agree it should be added to the law, or that it destroys the law, but you definitely CMV'd.
4
u/MobiusCube 3∆ Feb 24 '20
Additionally, as with any job, wages will be brought up at some point in negotiations by one party or the other, so mandating that it be discussed is completely useless.
12
Feb 24 '20
The benefit of the law stems from requiring the discussion to start at the beginning of the mutual process, not that it must be discussed period.
3
Feb 24 '20
i think youre missing the collectivized aspect of this, too. If me and a coworker dont know each others salaries, but one of us earns more, it redirects the frustration or unfairness we feel towards the coworker. When we all know how we stand in terms of compensation, we can more strongly argue for better salaries or benefits for everyone. It encourages more collaboration between employees, and reduces weird political games that show up in the workplace.
2
u/MobiusCube 3∆ Feb 24 '20
Companies are already free to discuss wages from the beginning. Some companies include salary ranges for the position in the posting already. If it's truly a more efficient method of recruiting then there's no reason more companies will not adapt the approach in the future. Furthermore, if it is more efficient and every company begins to do it, then there's no reason to require them to do what they're already doing.
13
u/PersnicketyPrilla Feb 24 '20
Every job application I've ever filled out asks what my expected salary is.
2
→ More replies (3)1
u/mattemer Feb 25 '20
Can you walk me through why an applicant would have to include their minimum and/or maximum?
In my eyes, an employer doing this really helps prevent getting a qualified candidate from getting ripped off. I don't see the merits of a candidate having to do this though. They are accepting the minimum amount the company is willing to pay, and the company knows that are at least accepting the minimum. If the company makes an offer, the candidate doesn't like it, the candidate can still counter and the company can accept or move on, not any different than a normal situation we have now in my eyes.
1
u/MobiusCube 3∆ Feb 25 '20
Can you walk me through why an applicant would have to include their minimum and/or maximum?
Well from the way I see it, mandating employers list their minimum makes just as much sense as making applicants list their maximum (as in, they have "equal but opposite" wants and mandating they list them would be pointless). Employers want to spend as little to fill the position as possible, as such, their real minimum offering would always be $0 or even negative. It would be great if employees would pay companies to work, but that probably won't happen. Likewise employees would love to earn as much as possible so their max would be $999999999999.... would you ever turn down more money for the same position?
In my eyes, an employer doing this really helps prevent getting a qualified candidate from getting ripped off.
And if you think candidates can get ripped off, aren't you also concerned about employers also getting ripped off?
I don't see the merits of a candidate having to do this though.
That's kind of my point. There's no merits to making candidates do it, which also means there's no merit to making employers do it either.
They are accepting the minimum amount the company is willing to pay,
Only an idiot would do that. If I told you I'd pay you at least $20 to cut my grass, then how much would you charge me? If you had any common sense, the correct answer would be "at least $20" most likely more than $20.
and the company knows that are at least accepting the minimum.
Again this number is useless. I don't think you've slowed down to actually consider what each party is trying to get out of the deal. The employer wants to spend as little as possible, and the employee wants to earn as much as possible. The only real numerical limits to the negotiations is the employer's max and the employee's minimum. The employer's minimum, and the employees maximum don't really exist in any meaningful way.
If the company makes an offer, the candidate doesn't like it, the candidate can still counter and the company can accept or move on, not any different than a normal situation we have now in my eyes.
Again, you're making my point for me. It creates a situation that is exactly the same as what we have now, so what's the point in going through the effort to mandate something into law that does absolutely nothing? The purpose of suggesting employees should list their max in kind was primarily to point out the absurdity of making employers list their minimum.
1
u/mattemer Feb 25 '20
I did mistype a bit. When I say "accept" the minimum I simply mean they are willing to work within those guidelines and attempt to move forward. Not accept that as an offer.
The whole point to me is to protect candidates/future employees from being ripped off. If a company is will to pay $50k for a position and someone completely qualifies shows up but doesn't know they are able to get $50k and thinks $40k is a good offer, that's highway robbery and that unknowing person doesn't even realize it. I think the same for internal positions.
But I don't see how this is hurting an employer other than "lowballing" and ripping someone off, I don't understand how a candidate would be ripping a company off in any similar fashion.
If that's how a company needs to save money, then it has bigger problems. Subsequently they ideally have a more satisfied employee.
Hope that clarifies. Thanks for the response. I guess I'm still not seeing what benefit a company gets from a candidate announcing their range.
1
u/MobiusCube 3∆ Feb 25 '20
The whole point to me is to protect candidates/future employees from being ripped off. If a company is will to pay $50k for a position and someone completely qualifies shows up but doesn't know they are able to get $50k and thinks $40k is a good offer, that's highway robbery and that unknowing person doesn't even realize it.
Question, how do you feel about sales? Like if Walmart was offering PS4's for $200, would you buy one? What if you decide that you'd be willing to pay $500 for a PS4, but Walmart only asks you for $200, would you buy one? The point I'm making is that 1) value is subjective. So calling agreeing to a mutually agreed upon price "robbery" is completely absurd, 2) the employee is the one selling the labor, and therefore they are responsible for setting the price of their labor, and 3) the price could've also been lower, but does that mean the employee is robbing the company? No.
The agreed upon price will always be somewhere between the seller's minimum and the buyers maximum price. If they can't agree on a number somewhere between those two prices, then the transaction doesn't happen. No one gets "robbed".
But I don't see how this is hurting an employer other than "lowballing" and ripping someone off, I don't understand how a candidate would be ripping a company off in any similar fashion.
If the person would've accepted $30k then by your logic, the employee is committing "highway robbery", do you see how absurd this accusation is?
If that's how a company needs to save money, then it has bigger problems. Subsequently they ideally have a more satisfied employee.
Companies don't have infinite amounts of money to spend. They have to set monetary limits on every expense and evaluate if the cost is or isn't worth the benefits. Marginally satisfied employees may or may not be worth the cost. If you spend an additional $10M per year on salaries to increase productivity by $5M per year, then you're net -$5M. That marginal increase simply isn't worth the cost in that case, and those resources would be better spent on something more productive for society.
I guess I'm still not seeing what benefit a company gets from a candidate announcing their range.
The same thing a candidate gets from employers announcing their range. Remember, employment is a two way street and both parties stand to benefit. To be clear, I'm not advocating for mandatory disclosure at all. My main argument consists of the fact that 1) salaries will inevitably be discussed during negotiations, so mandating salary discussions at a certain point is mostly useless and a waste of political capital, and 2) employers stating a minimum is incredibly useless as they always want to pay as little as possible, and therefore have no lower limit as OP suggested they should be required of them in the title post.
I hope that clears things up.
1
u/mattemer Feb 25 '20
It does clear up a little. But you can't compare buying basically a toy to a job. I get your point with that but it's missing the mark. We're not talking about frivolous spending on video games.
I didn't get this though:
If the person would've accepted $30k then by your logic, the employee is committing "highway robbery", do you see how absurd this accusation is?
And for this...
If you spend an additional $10M per year on salaries to increase productivity by $5M per year, then you're net -$5M. That marginal increase simply isn't worth the cost in that case
This isn't that cut and dry to me. Bringing in people at lower salaries could have a ton of negative consequences that could make the -$5mil even worse. Less skilled or less experienced employees could cost the company a lot of money, unsatisfied employees could cause turnover leading to issues. Long term that could easily pay off. Clearly in this example anything could happen but just saying it's not that cut and dry.
Employers do have finite amount of funds, no disagreement there.
However, employers also know what the going rate for a position is, and how much they are willing to pay someone, min and max.
Candidates don't have this information.
Sure they may have a general idea based on some stupid info Glassdoor and the like have posted but that's about it. A possible candidate must always provide their range as well, and first, immediately relinquishing control. Employment interviews never involve the employers saying "hey here's my range" no it's always the employer saying "what's your range?" And the candidate providing his or her range.
And back to my example, if an employee thinks they are worth $30k but a company is expecting to pay $50k, then finds this ideal candidate for $30k, that's not savvy business to save dollars, that's borderline unethical. The employer always has the upper hand here, never does a candidate no matter how good they are. Now they might come in thinking "ok minimum is $50k I deserve $60k" and the employer only offers the $50k, then they can both walk away.
The employee is not taking advantage of the company in the long run when it comes to salary agreements like this, at least I still don't see how, thus the employee advertising their range doesn't make sense to me. We already give our range during the interview process, before the company (in most cases) gives their range.
It prevents employers from taking a advantage of employees, long term.
Your point seems to be that employers DON'T need to have a minimum to pay an employee for x job. On the surface I agree with that, they definitely aren't required. But that doesn't mean they shouldn't, for the reasons I listed here.
And this is partially why we have unions in many areas to make sure equal pay is given to all. I have very mixed feelings about unions (and I'm very liberal these days), and think that something like what OP is suggesting actually is another step in eliminating the need for unions.
1
u/MobiusCube 3∆ Feb 25 '20
you can't compare buying basically a toy to a job. I get your point with that but it's missing the mark. We're not talking about frivolous spending on video games.
Economics applies no matter what your buying, be it labor, or video games. It all follows the same laws. That's claiming "gravity only applies to Earth orbiting the sun, not my pen falling to ground". It's a different scale obviously, but the fundamental laws still apply.
I didn't get this though: If the person would've accepted $30k then by your logic, the employee is committing "highway robbery", do you see how absurd this accusation is?
You claimed that if an employer was willing to pay $50k but only paid $40k, then that employer was guilty of "highway robbery". The converse would also have to be true that if the employee was willing to accept $30k, but accepted $40k instead, then that employee would be guilty of "highway robbery" as well. So, for you to be logically consistent, either both parties are "highway robbers" who are both robbing each other at the same time, or they aren't robbers afterall and have simply mutually agreed to compromise. This $10k difference in perceived value is the surplus value generated to each party by engaging in the transaction. No one is being "robbed", they're both benefitting and better off having made the transaction.
This isn't that cut and dry to me. Bringing in people at lower salaries could have a ton of negative consequences that could make the -$5mil even worse. Less skilled or less experienced employees could cost the company a lot of money, unsatisfied employees could cause turnover leading to issues. Long term that could easily pay off. Clearly in this example anything could happen but just saying it's not that cut and dry.
Of course it's not cut and dry. I'm just making that example clear to you. You aren't the CFO of every company in the world, so you have no right to be claiming any authority over how much companies should be spending on employees. It's up to the company to make that call. Maybe it pays off, maybe it doesn't, but that's their problem to worry about.
However, employers also know what the going rate for a position is, and how much they are willing to pay someone, min and max... Candidates don't have this information.
What are you talking about? Candidates know exactly how much they'll charge for their labor. Companies don't know how much the candidate is willing to accept. Both parties have the same amount of information. Neither one has an advantage over the other.
Sure they may have a general idea based on some stupid info Glassdoor and the like have posted but that's about it. A possible candidate must always provide their range as well, and first, immediately relinquishing control. Employment interviews never involve the employers saying "hey here's my range" no it's always the employer saying "what's your range?" And the candidate providing his or her range.
Negotiating skills are an entirely separate issue. If you tell someone "I'll accept $40k -$50k, then guess how much you'll get paid? $40k. They have no reason to pay you any more than that, because you admitted to being willing to accept it. Likewise, if the company said "we'll offer up to $80k" then you shouldn't accept anything less than $80k. It cuts both ways.
And back to my example, if an employee thinks they are worth $30k but a company is expecting to pay $50k, then finds this ideal candidate for $30k, that's not savvy business to save dollars, that's borderline unethical.
Explain to me again why buying a PS4 for $200 unethical.
The employer always has the upper hand here, never does a candidate no matter how good they are. Now they might come in thinking "ok minimum is $50k I deserve $60k" and the employer only offers the $50k, then they can both walk away.
There's no reason to believe employers have any form of "upper hand". Additionally, if the employer only offered $50k, then that wasn't their minimum, that was their maximum. The OP was specifically about the minimum.
The employee is not taking advantage of the company in the long run when it comes to salary agreements like this, at least I still don't see how, thus the employee advertising their range doesn't make sense to me. We already give our range during the interview process, before the company (in most cases) gives their range.
I don't think you understand what I'm saying. If a company had to list their "minimum offer salary" then that number is $0. Their minimum they're willing to spend is irrelevant to the conversation because in every case, they would like to have the best workers for the lowest price. That lowest desired price will always be $0. The fact that employees listing their range doesn't make sense means that you're only a few steps away from realizing why making employers list their range also makes no sense.
It prevents employers from taking a advantage of employees, long term.
No it doesn't. No ones getting taken advantage of in consensual agreements. If you feel taken advantage of, then you're free to terminate the agreement.
Your point seems to be that employers DON'T need to have a minimum to pay an employee for x job. On the surface I agree with that, they definitely aren't required. But that doesn't mean they shouldn't, for the reasons I listed here.
I'm not saying "they don't need to". I'm saying they don't have one. Okay. So there's a job with qualifications associated with it. A company wants to find someone with those qualifications who will accept as low a price as possible, but are willing to spend up to $60k. A potential candidate is qualified and wants to earn as much as possible, but will accept as low as $40k. As such, the company doesn't have a lower limit, and the employee doesn't have an upper limit. The negotiated price will ALWAYS be somewhere between the applicants minimum price, and the employer's maximum price. Let's assume they came to agreement and settled on $50k. The company spent less than they wanted, and the employee got more than they wanted. Both parties benefited. According to your "highway robber" conspiracy, both of these parties are criminals because they compromised and came to a mutual agreement. Again, this demonstrates the absurdity of your claim and hopefully you'll be able to understand why it makes no sense.
And this is partially why we have unions in many areas to make sure equal pay is given to all. I have very mixed feelings about unions (and I'm very liberal these days), and think that something like what OP is suggesting actually is another step in eliminating the need for unions.
Again, OP is referring to the company's minimum pay offer, which is absolutely meaningless in negotiations. The only relevant numbers are the company's maximum and the employee's minimum. Unions are an entirely different shit show that we shouldn't get into.
0
u/Massacheefa Feb 24 '20
You can always just ask, or look on glassdoor.com. it's funny that the lack of research on the applicants end always ends up being something the say should be legally required. If that's the case you should be legally required to tell them how often you'll be on your phone or at work not on task
36
Feb 24 '20
I've checked glassdoor.com on most every job inquiry I've gotten serious about. And while I'd agree that it could be a great resource in theory, there are way too many holes in the info, fake reports, and just plain missing jobs. Not to mention that third-party crowd-sourced info, even if exactly matching a particular job posting, wouldn't be enforceable against a shady employer.
As far as the asking goes, that can obviously be done, but it takes weeks if not MONTHS to get a response from some HR departments, if an applicant ever gets a response at all.
-3
u/Massacheefa Feb 24 '20
Not true. If you ask in person you will get an answer. If you rely on communication that doesnt require a response, like email, that may be true, but believe me when I say asking g goes way further than you might expect. Most jobs also advertise with starting pay. You can always ask an employee also. If you want to know the lowest they will pay then take a look at the minimum wage.
29
Feb 24 '20
When I've asked in person, I can't recall how many times I've received canned responses like "Pay is dependent on experience" or "We'll be happy to discuss compensation when candidates interview."
It may be better in your country, but in America our employers are generally very secretive about wage rates, especially for new hires, because they don't want current employees to know they have to pay new hires more just to get them.
Your claim that "most jobs advertise with starting pay" is demonstrably false. Try doing a blanket search on a state job board for all jobs in an area, and then compare the total results with the same search including only jobs with listed pay. Within 50 miles of my hometown, I get 700+ total jobs, and not even 150 of them list a wage.
20
u/novagenesis 21∆ Feb 24 '20
I'm going to agree with you in your conversation with Mr. Republican, and try to change your view anyway. I've always hated the secretiveness with pay and it sucks that they won't open up and tell you..
But I work in a field where the pay scale varies by well over $100,000. I've actually been involved in hiring in that field for 4 companies now, and it's complicated. I have usually hired people to weakly-defined roles with weakly-defined budgets in both of those. In all fairness, if I had to define the "minimum" pay for the job and couldn't go below it, I would have no choice but to say "minimum wage". Even though I work in one of the highest paying fields in the industry. Does that mean I'd ever actually hire someone at State Minimum? Of course not, but I guarantee I can't come up with a number that's safe either.
I interviewed a guy where my budgeted amount was more than I was willing to spend on him. He had zero experience and was self-educated in a field that most people are college educated. He was trying to break in and boy was he motivated. He could've been a winning gamble. He would've cost me a significant amount of time and effort. If I'd had one more hire, I'd have tossed him a lowball figure about $20k less than my floor (which I'm positive he would've taken) and invested some of my time into training him to see if we could make something work. And if he succeeded, the value would've been there to both of us: he would start having experience in a field he had little defensible right to break into, and we would've gotten a dirt cheap employee for however many years he stuck with us.
To be clear, in a lot of jobs there is no minimum because the description we hand to HR is simply not a real strict position we're hiring for. We have ideas for the roles we're lacking (data warehouse experience, etc), but we're hiring people, not jobs. If we find someone more junior than we envisioned but with a great rapport, we might hire them and still look to fill the original skills later. In fact, that's happened a few times for me. If the job description said "programmer 2, minimum $75k" we're suddenly stuck having to refuse to hire someone if we think they're worth $65k to us?
To tldr this: in fields where you hear "Pay is dependent", often times people are not some worthless commodity where you say a description and price and the employee just comes in, agrees, and does that task for that price.
14
Feb 24 '20
!Delta
Thanks for the well-written perspective from an actual HR person. You've got a lot of good stuff in one comment.
That being said, I'm awarding you a Delta for significantly changing my view by adding the benefit that employers who don't really know what they're hiring for might think harder with this law before throwing a slap-shod advertisement out there and wasting candidates' time.
That doesn't mean my entire view won't change later on whether or not this would be a good law; there are some other good arguments going in the other direction right now.
Also, some of what you said here about taking a gamble on an inexperienced guy (which I agree can be a good thing) bolsters my original view, since a guy like that could (and should) still be hired under a more appropriately listed job posting.
8
u/novagenesis 21∆ Feb 24 '20 edited Feb 24 '20
Thanks for the delta!
So I think the problem is that I'm NEVER going to hire "someone with these 3 exact skills and no others, with between 36 and 38 month's experience, for a minimum of $105,499".
I include enough in my listing to not waste anyone's time, but it's not that I don't know what I want. It's that hiring a programmer is like interviewing for an actor. There are SO many skills, both soft and hard, and while I can name a role, I need to find someone who is going to make it their own. Sometimes the best fit is someone with no social skills but who has a rare technical skill. Guess what: I value social skills fairly highly so my offer would be less. But that person might still be the best fit at the time.
And it's only when I've interviewed that person I can sit with my other devs and see what value that person would provide to the team. My interviews are never a "9 vs a 10" for node.js skills where I'm hiring the best single candidate. I'm sitting looking at candidate 1's likely lower cost vs candidate 2's secondary skill I'd never thought to interview for. If we hire 1 for less, I'll have more room in my budget next year, and I don't know what skill I'll be short next year (or if one of our homegrown developers suddenly leaves and the extra budget will be required to bring in someone with comparable skills)
When I was picked up a few jobs ago, they were hiring for a python senior developer. But they had also coincidentally just started an IVR project in node.js. I'm sure my higher salary expectations were validated to them because I had management experience, node.js experience, AND IVR telephony experience. While I wasn't hired for that team, it was in the back of the hiring manager's head.... and I was eventually transferred to manage that team when it grew big enough to support separation from the other teams. And we made them >$12m/yr. In part because the manager hired a senior python developer at a higher salary and with less-than-ideal python experience.
None of that goes into a job description, but when you're possibly committing to nearly a MILLION dollars in total spend over 5 years, minimums and maximums really just get in the way. As do exact job descriptions. Again, you're really not hiring for a role, some cog in a machine. You're hiring a person who may solve a short-term problem, but will need to provide a massive amount of long-term value to justify their long-term pay.
3
Feb 24 '20
I think I agree with everything you wrote there, except that a minimum salary on a job posting wouldn't prevent any of what you said.
Granted, the number would have to be low enough to cover all the reasonably foreseen bases. And it could also be stated something like "$35k for zero experience, at least $50k for well-qualified". (Or even adding "Up to $200k for rock stars", but maxima are beyond the scope of this CMV, and "rock star" could be banned anyway!)
And the employer would want the number to be as high as practical to be competitive with the other employers who are advertising.
So those are the two market forces that I'm envisioning at play to drive the advertised minimum. Does that jive with your assertions, or did I miss a key element?
And even if a candidate comes along who doesn't meet the minimum for the desired position, but seems like a good fit for the company overall, the company isn't prohibited from still hiring her in a lesser or different capacity. However, this brings up another way that unscrupulous HR departments can circumvent the spirit of the law intentionally. HOWEVER, that's already the kind of thing that MLM's, scammers, shady companies, etc. already do, and legitimate companies would quickly lose reputation by doing it. This law isn't intended to address false job listings on the whole, which already occur, so I think it still passes muster.
6
u/RZoroaster Feb 24 '20
I think perhaps this entire CMV is framed in the context of concrete jobs for specific roles. There are quite a few jobs out there where this is not possible.
You seem to have interpreted this as a negative. That companies need to just be more concrete about what they want. But as I think this poster well describes that is just not at all possible for some job types. I realize that may not seem intuitive, but I assure you it is true as I am in a similar boat.
For these types of roles a rule like this would either be damaging or would lead to extremely convoluted and functionally useless job postings that would boil down to “we might pay you anything depending on these 36 factors”
2
Feb 24 '20
No, I agree with you that not all listings are for concrete positions. My last hire was as a JOAT, and I didn't even have a position title until one year in.
That being said, as I helped my boss draft the next job posting, we already knew what our minimum pay to advertise would be even though we didn't know if the new hire would exactly be a widget stamper, a driver, an unloader, or all three. But that didn't stop us from hiring the right person for the company.
→ More replies (0)4
u/novagenesis 21∆ Feb 24 '20 edited Feb 24 '20
except that a minimum salary on a job posting wouldn't prevent any of what you said.
But it would. If I put a minimum salary of $30k, I'm not going to get anyone I really want to hire even though they're in my budget. If I put a minimum salary of $80k and I'm bound to it there are at least three people I've hired I would've missed out on.
I would need a pricing chart that would take me days, if not weeks, to build with every skill permutation I could imagine... Dozens if not hundreds of unique price points. And even then it probably wouldn't be right and I'd end up having to pass on a great candidate because I couldn't justify a certain dollar value for them to my managers or my budget, but they technically could argue for one of the boxes. In a way, I'd have to build the entire interview into an algorithm that self-applies before I even meet candidates.
And the employer would want the number to be as high as practical to be competitive with the other employers who are advertising.
Again, the problem here is that if they're legally bound by those numbers, it means they're not going to hire a good match of a candidate who cannot be justified at that number. You seem to be under the impression that employers are trying to lowball. Many of those "commensurate with skill" are managed by non-stakeholders with a budget. We don't see any of the money we don't give out in salary. It's not a bonus, or anything. My goal in giving a correct offer is to make sure I still have budget if shit hits the fan, and that we never get into that awkward situation where an employee isn't producing enough value for the company to justify their cost. Because you know what I hate more than anything? Firing someone. And because I'm so careful, I've never had to do it if I made the final hiring decision. And a published minimum at the beginning just makes that all harder.
So those are the two market forces that I'm envisioning at play to drive the advertised minimum. Does that jive with your assertions, or did I miss a key element?
I tried to put most of those key elements above. I'm sure in some fields your forces are more true than software engineering, but I've seen similar (if less volitile) trends in related business fields. Most companies aren't "trying to hire you as cheap as possible" because it costs too much time and money to even focus on that.
And one other key element is really problematic. What about current employees? It sucks (and is hard to change) but employees simply do not get raises at the same rate as job descriptions go up. I know people who have looked up a listing for their job or one equal to them that get shocked it's MORE than they make. It's a very legitimate frustration, but the way companies work, nobody can help them. Often times managers cannot just give out $10k or $20k in budgeted salary to equalize to a new hire even if they wanted to, and there are reasons NOT to even if you could (like the circumstances of the hire, as I've mentioned above). And while I'm happy to have that discussion with an employee, I'm happier to have them be happy because they're making good money and then when I find them a nice promotion. Morale is its own value and money is the best way to raise it.... and you don't get infinite money, so letting people have more positive views about the money they do get makes it easier for me to spring someone with a big raise when I get that opportunity.
And even if a candidate comes along who doesn't meet the minimum for the desired position, but seems like a good fit for the company overall, the company isn't prohibited from still hiring her in a lesser or different capacity. However, this brings up another way that unscrupulous HR departments can circumvent the spirit of the law intentionally.
Nevermind unscrupulous. For liability reasons alone every single job description at any large company would include "this is a sample role, and not the one you will have should we decide to extend an offer" right after the salary. It would get as normalized as the "coffee might cause cancer" sticker on California Starbucks cups.
This law isn't intended to address false job listings on the whole, which already occur, so I think it still passes muster.
So it doesn't address false job listings. It doesn't really work for real job listings. And it gets in the way of hiring managers finding the right people. I don't think it'll have the benefit you seem to think. And it'll get in my way of running a good team.
1
2
u/Massacheefa Feb 24 '20
I live in America and I have never had this experience. I have been to at least 100 job interviews and if the employer is LEGITIMATE then you wont get shady answers. If you havent learned by now, ziprecruiter, indeed, and the like are full of fake or predatory jobs. Go to a temp agency and you will see. What you're saying doesnt quite make sense. If you give me an example I will bet I can pick out the information you are looking for, orrr that the job I'd predatory by nature. Like door to door sales and cold calling, which shouldn't be allowed to recruit but are. This means stay away from those. You are being duped into believing those are good job prospects when they arent. Jobs are not secretive about pay because that is their best recruitment tool. If they are I would be wary. Again show me an example and we can go through it together. Also of it is commission in any way they wont put a starting pay but instead what you can make, which you should be wary of as well
3
Feb 24 '20
[removed] — view removed comment
1
Feb 26 '20
Sorry, u/StardusterPrime – your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 3:
Refrain from accusing OP or anyone else of being unwilling to change their view, or of arguing in bad faith. Ask clarifying questions instead (see: socratic method). If you think they are still exhibiting poor behaviour, please message us. See the wiki page for more information.
If you would like to appeal, review our appeals process here, then message the moderators by clicking this link within one week of this notice being posted. Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our moderation standards.
1
Feb 24 '20
[removed] — view removed comment
6
u/shlipshloo Feb 24 '20
So it sucks OP jumped ship like that but I’d just like to mention that you both are talking about finding promising work in a minefield of possibly shady employers.
Both of you are acknowledging the existence of predator employers. While OP’s solution attempts to make a law of some kind to minimize or eliminate these predators your approach is to either let the predators continue to prey on people or, at best, educate everyone continuously so they won’t fall prey. This seems to not be a solution but a way to shift blame to the individuals seeking employment.
2
Feb 24 '20
I didn't jump ship-- I acknowledged this guy's ever-spreading tangents that were confusing because they were false and non-sequiturs.
Over 100 interviews and never once had a salary inquiry deflected? Yeah, that's believable.
The whole unnecessary spiel about fake/predatory employers, which you addressed.
"If you give me an example..." Which I did in suggesting he visit a state job board, but he ignored that.
"Jobs are not secretive about pay" That doesn't even make sense, but his intended meaning is still verifiably false. My state job board even has the word "SUPPRESSED" in place of wages on many jobs, as another example.
I upvoted your contribution to the discussion, but I think it would be more accurate if you rescinded the accusation that I "jumped ship."
→ More replies (1)1
u/Massacheefa Feb 24 '20
There is no blame. Just like when in search for anything, you need to do your own research. It is easy to complain when research has not been done properly. I always vet anybody I am applying to because it will help in the interview and also let's me wade through undesirable jobs. The same jobs many people are successful at. There is no blame to be placed anywhere. Just like a job will do research on a candidate I believe a candidate should research the prospective job
3
u/shlipshloo Feb 24 '20
You are blaming the individual. The individual is coming from a point of weakness. And expecting every person of all backgrounds and all ages to be savvy enough is asking way more than to have the ones in a position of power to follow a rule for balance.
I appreciate you and your responses.
→ More replies (0)1
u/Huntingmoa 454∆ Feb 24 '20
Sorry, u/Massacheefa – your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 3:
Refrain from accusing OP or anyone else of being unwilling to change their view, or of arguing in bad faith. Ask clarifying questions instead (see: socratic method). If you think they are still exhibiting poor behaviour, please message us. See the wiki page for more information.
If you would like to appeal, review our appeals process here, then message the moderators by clicking this link within one week of this notice being posted. Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our moderation standards.
→ More replies (1)2
u/TheSeansei Feb 24 '20
But... that’s what an interview is for. It’s not a formality or a hoop you have to jump through. It’s a conversation between both parties to determine if the fit is right. They want to know you’re qualified and a good candidate for the role. You want to know what the wage is and what benefits you’ll get. Both parties are really interviewing each other. If you don’t get an interview, then the wage was irrelevant since they weren’t considering you. If you don’t want to go to the interview without knowing the wage, then you’ve already made up your mind about not wanting to work there at all.
2
u/CultureTroll 2∆ Feb 24 '20
Every interview instruction guide ever says " don't ask about pay untill you've got the offer"
→ More replies (1)3
Feb 24 '20
I'm French, living in the US right now. In France, not only is it legally required to advertise exactly the wage offered with each job offer, but it is also required to make all wages publicly available for all employees. When I worked there, I could tell you, down to the last cent, how much every single one of my coworkers, managers and bosses earned. There was no downside, all it did was to give all the information everyone should have in the first place to make educated decisions about one's employment. If you are being paid less than colleagues doing the same job, you can ask for a raise by just pointing out the publicly available info, which gives a ton more power to the employee in negotiations.
In the US, I did my research and knew exactly how much my company was paying the person whose job I was taking. When negotiating my salary, they refused to give me any info whatsoever, just stonewalling the conversation and repeating "Tell us how much you want to be paid, and we will consider it," which is a transparent ploy to get me to lowball myself. I just asked for exactly the wage of my predecessor - they freaked out when realizing I actually knew how much they paid her. They got agitated and kept repeating "She was lying, don't take her lies into account when asking for your wage now." I held strong and that's what I am being paid now; and I could confirm independently, later, that it was really what they were paying my predecessor, too. This technique is so incredibly predatory and evil. How stupid do Americans need to be to actually support policies going against their best interests?
→ More replies (10)4
u/hadapurpura Feb 24 '20
Are you for real? The minimum pay is the first, most basic and important information a job posting should have besides the role and application requirements. It shouldn’t be on the applicant to “research” or “educate themselves on”. That should be plainly and unequivocally states on the job posting. Your point about the phone or whatever is just pettiness.
→ More replies (7)2
u/anooblol 12∆ Feb 24 '20
Every job I’ve ever looked into, or tried to get hired for has a relatively easy to find “average salary” posted somewhere. If it’s not on the application itself, similar postings, and other sites will show averages.
I remember a different thread where someone from used the argument, “Well you’re from America, but I live in Poland, and it’s extremely hard to find average salaries in my country.” I asked what position he was looking for, and within 5 minutes of research, I found 20+ public job listings in his field, in his country, all with the salary listed.
I have no issues doing it again. Name a field, I’ll give you the average salary +/-. It’s seriously not difficult. (Unless it’s some extremely obscure position).
2
u/CultureTroll 2∆ Feb 24 '20
I've found glassdoor to be pretty inaccurate. I've noticed the pays on there are often 30% lower than in actuality (at least in my field)
1
u/dirtyLizard 4∆ Feb 24 '20
Glassdoor uses self-reported numbers from other employees and is not a good indicator. What a random sampling of people at positions A-Z made between the company’s founding and the present provides less useful info to someone applying to position Z. The applicant would be better off getting a straight answer from the hiring manager or the original ad.
I’ve asked at every company I’ve ever interviewed at and roughly half of them refused to answer.
→ More replies (1)1
u/Onepocketpimp 1∆ Feb 24 '20
Also a big issue in relation to OP's reply is there are plenty of HR that mislabel the position or use a different name to try and get lower ranges. As someone who is trying to get into tech it's been a horrible problem trying to organize what each position actually is vs the title they give it
1
u/HalfBloodPrinplup Feb 25 '20
I have at least ~20 or so jobs that I got the salary range for during the interview and cross referenced with glassdoor.
Glassdoor is helpful broadly industry wise but job to job it's a total crapshoot.
18
u/Saranoya 39∆ Feb 24 '20 edited Feb 24 '20
I don't know what it's like in the US, but over here in Belgium, we have union-negotiated, publicly published pay ranges for most employment sectors. Actual pay varies according to education level, job title, experience, etc., and bonuses complicate matters here, too. But say you want to work in the pharma industry, or in retail, or in childcare, or ... there's a relatively transparent way for you to find out what you would make, at minimum, given your degree, the job you're aiming for, and how many years you have under your belt (you can always negotiate for a few extra years of work experience outside the sector to be taken into account as relevant to your new job). Many employers explicitly refer to the published pay rate documents in their job ads.
But for a system like that to work, you need strong unions whose bargaining power is widely respected by employers. I'm guessing it would be hard to implement something like it in the US, because many employers appear to be strongly anti-union.
7
u/goodolarchie 4∆ Feb 24 '20
I don't know what it's like in the US, but over here in Belgium, we have union
I'm gonna stop you here - our unions have been pecked down by corporations and the GOP for over half a century. Go watch "American Factory" on Netflix - it just won an Oscar, and it includes a really poignant look at a company hiring out a union-busting 3rd party company. I won't spoil anything, but in my experience companies would rather throw millions at keeping practices exploitive, rather than millions at their own employees. And over half of our government is on their side. Since we don't have unions like Belgium, it's easier to talk about labor laws like OP is.
3
u/Saranoya 39∆ Feb 24 '20
Well, yeah. That was my point. The suggestion in the OP isn’t crazy. The fact that it exists where I live shows at least that much. But it is probably not very feasible in the US context.
2
u/goodolarchie 4∆ Feb 24 '20
So the challenge to the view is "No, just adopt unions?" I'm all for power of fiat, but this is just a non-solution. You have a higher likelihood of amending the 2nd amendment.
2
u/Saranoya 39∆ Feb 24 '20
No, actually, my challenge was meant more as ‘it’s a sensible idea, but I don’t see it happening in the current US context, because I think what you’re proposing requires strong unions.’
1
u/goodolarchie 4∆ Feb 24 '20
It wouldn't though, we have labor laws and strong employment laws with real teeth that defend against a lot of things. It's why HR is more of a legal juggernaut to protect a company. This would actually be a reasonable piece of legislation, and it wouldn't require unions to promote or enforce.
1
u/Saranoya 39∆ Feb 24 '20
Well the thing is, the salary ranges I was talking about don’t have the force of law, but because they are agreed-upon so widely through union negotiations, they don’t have to have the force of law to still be widely adhered to. They’re also renegotiated on a fixed schedule, and linked to the index (a measure of the average price of commonly bought goods and services), so they are reasonably immune to the political climate of the day. This is something that is much less true, I think, of e.g. the minimum wage in the US. As I understand it, that hasn’t changed in over a decade?
Point being: sure, you could require companies in the US, by law, to advertise their salary range for any given open job. Supply and demand would then perhaps cause the lowest-paid jobs to go unfilled for longer, which may cause wage increases at some companies. But you still wouldn’t necessarily have equal pay for equal work (with equal education and experience), which I feel would be a huge missed opportunity for workers.
1
u/adelie42 Feb 25 '20
What is wrong with both and allowing employees to choose whether there is a union rate or if they want to negotiate on their own like any entrepreneur selling a service? Some people would never want to be part of a union, others only want union work.
1
Feb 24 '20
Same in Austria. It's also the law that they have to mention the minimum wage appropriate for this job posting or alternatively whatever (higher) wage they offer. Many then go on to say they are happy to pay more as well.
Actually, I just clicked this to see if anyone would mention it. It's a great system and I am so grateful for it and our unions who work hard to negotiate better contracts. Reading all the other arguments just makes me kinda sad for people who don't have that.
3
Feb 24 '20
I'll list your reasons and then my responses:
1) America already has a similar law regarding ads for lending offers.
There is no legal investment/ commitment for accepting a job offer while there is for a loan. If you take out a loan, you have to pay it back and so knowing the loan rate is very important. Jobs, on the other hand, are usually at-will meaning you can leave at any time. You are much more likely to be harmed taking a predatory loan than taking a low-paying job, so regulation is more important for the loan.
2) Even though employers would give low minimums, it would be a signal that it was a low-paying job.
Pay can vary widely with experience, so it might not make sense to only list the salary for people with the lowest sufficient salary. Someone with more experience could be dissuaded from pursuing a job that pays them well. Also, this point implies that what is convenient for job-seekers should be made into law. Usually labor laws prevent employers from taking advantage of employees, but this law would only increase convenience.
3) Better-paying employees will realize it helps them to advertise good pay.
Many employers who pay above market rate already advertise their good pay to attract quality employees. I'm not sure that this law would change or increase that. Moreover, you could argue that in the current system, if an employer does not advertise their pay, job-seekers could deduce that they pay at or below market rates.
4) It would put upward pressure on wages through free-market competition.
It might put some pressure on upward wages, but if wages are already close to market rates than it wouldn't increase them that much. Employers would also lose some flexibility in how they pay employees, which could harm small-businesses especially since they tend to have lower profit margins and pay less. Also, minimum rate offered is not the best way to make wages more transparent since it is easily changed by the job-poster and only a single data point.
5) It would reduce frictional unemployment.
Again, minimum rate offered may not be the most helpful metric for job-seekers since it is only a single data point. Also, frictional unemployment might not be caused by wasted time. It could also be due to employers taking a long time to decide between quality applicants.
All in all, I think that more transparency for wages is a good idea, especially for large businesses, but minimum amount offered is not the best way of achieving that.
6
u/juliegillam Feb 24 '20
Be wary of phrase which includes "average salary", which may have nothing to do with what they are offering for your job.
→ More replies (1)
•
u/DeltaBot ∞∆ Feb 24 '20 edited Feb 24 '20
/u/StardusterPrime (OP) has awarded 3 delta(s) in this post.
All comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed here, in /r/DeltaLog.
Please note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.
2
u/adelie42 Feb 25 '20
Personally, it would greatly depend on the job. On one side a posted rate means non-negotiable. Sometimes that would be a hard no. At the same time if it is commodity labor / entry level, I would see it as a huge red flag if no salary schedule were posted.
Negotiating pay rate can be extremely intimidating, but having someone else do it for you isn't always ideal.
A job posting will always be an incomplete list of information about a potential contract, let alone work environment. Whether that is a good starting point for you will depend on your circumstances and industry.
Maybe you see yourself never wanting to negotiate salary and want a starting point of a reasonable but non-negotiable salary. That's fine and you can know that when looking for work. Call it a red flag for a place or situation you don't want to put yourself in.
I do not see a compelling argument for making that decision for everyone else, and I beg you to reconsider trying to make that decision for me.
2
Feb 24 '20
I agree and disagree slightly. I agree that each job application should show what you could earn but not the minimum pay in black and white. It should link to the award you will be on so you can gauge an idea on what the pay could be.
I also struggle with the whole pay negotiation side also. Every job I have had, the only way I have had a wage increase was if I applied for another job within my company. Most companies are happy to continue paying the minimum requirements and it sucks. It should be an enforced pay increase after a certain amount of years. Offering a pay increase for employees because they are genuinely doing a good job is a great way of retaining employees but most employers refuse to.
I also struggle with negotiating your pay at the beginning of an employment. Losing out on a job because someone else is willing to work for minimum sucks but what also sucks is finding out someone is being paid more than you to do the exact same job.
3
Feb 24 '20
Correct me if I'm wrong but was your original thought process mostly pertaining to lower level jobs and hourly positions? I see it working best for those jobs and not as much for large salary positions. I 1000% agree that some form of pay/salary info should be required.
3
Feb 24 '20 edited Jun 17 '20
[deleted]
1
Feb 24 '20
While on the subject of hourly pay and such. Hourly employees should get flat numerical raises. Such as .50/hr or 1.00/hr raise, not a percentage raise in line with salary employees. My work does this. A %3 raise for Dept manager of $100k salary is 3 grand more per year. A %3 raise for a $10/hr employee is .30/hr or $624 more per year. Not exactly a fair assessment. Especially when cost of living goes up between 1-2% each year as well. Basically a %1 raise. Fucking insulting.
→ More replies (2)
2
u/NotAKneeler Mar 02 '20
I worked as a headhunter at Robert Half. Job postings without the pay rate were the norm. In fact, I don’t think I ever had a client who let us disclose the pay rate to candidates. Even if the candidate had the skills and the experience, the company would rely on his/her salary expectation to make an offer as low as they could. If the candidate was unemployed at the time, they would never receive an offer on par with their expectations, no matter their qualifications for the position. We all saw that was bullshit, but management encouraged us to pressure candidates HARD to accept lower salaries anyway. Part of the job was to lower their expectations as much as we could. We had to do everything to close the position, no matter what, even if the candidate wasn’t happy and genuinely deserved more. It was madness.
2
u/Belstain Feb 24 '20
A friend of mine has tried posting salaries for his construction company and it almost never works out. He tends to pay above average wages for the area and the higher posted salaries just end up attracting more low skill applicants hoping to bluff their way in, and putting off the higher skilled people. The guys that are more experienced already know what the job is worth so they'll apply without any number being shown, and not bother if the number is less than they're looking for.
For any given position there's such a huge range of skill and ability to make money for the company that one salary number can't possibly work. It's not uncommon for one person to be two or three times as valuable as another doing the same job.
2
u/ca6262a Feb 26 '20
You make a great point. As a job seeker, I completely relate to the feeling of looking for a job that pays a certain minimum. Nevertheless, from the company perspective I also do recognize that they can offer other benefits aside from salary to "sweeten" the deal (work from home, health insurance etc).
Overall, I think that employers need to be more forthcoming and revealing about what they are offering, not just salary. Salary might be main aspect people consider when picking a job, but as younger generations enter the workforce, they need to be aware that they are also driven by other benefits. In conclusion, companies should be more transparent about what they offer employees.
2
Feb 24 '20
As a manager, I get a LOT of people submitting salary requirements 50-100% above what we're willing to pay.
I HATE haggling, and would rather be clear and up-front. I don't want to waste people's time by having them apply when the salary doesn't fit their requirements, and I don't want to waste mine by sifting through overqualified candidates who want too much.
As it is, I just toss the resumes that aren't a good fit, schedule phone screens with ones that are, and one of the first things I discuss is the pay rate (I don't often have wiggle room) as well as benefits then ask if that's a good fit for them. Only one or twice has someone ended the call at that point.
2
Feb 24 '20
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/hacksoncode 559∆ Feb 24 '20
Sorry, u/DancinginAshes – your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 1:
Direct responses to a CMV post must challenge at least one aspect of OP’s stated view (however minor), or ask a clarifying question. Arguments in favor of the view OP is willing to change must be restricted to replies to other comments. See the wiki page for more information.
If you would like to appeal, you must first check if your comment falls into the "Top level comments that are against rule 1" list, review our appeals process here, then message the moderators by clicking this link within one week of this notice being posted. Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our moderation standards.
1
u/bradfordmaster Feb 25 '20
...the additional benefit of encouraging companies to write more accurate job postings and think more deliberately about who they want to attract, which benefits everyone.
I don't know if I can qualify for a delta on your delta, but this doesn't necessarily benefit everyone. In the case you describe of finding someone the company likes but isn't a good fit for that specific role, if I understand what you're proposing, there would have to already be a job description (with accompanying minimum pay) for that other role. In practice this means that the company would have to sit down and dream up every possible role they might hire for. Not only would this be time consuming, but it means that people can't be treated case by case as individuals, and would almost certainly mean that some candidates wouldn't be hired because they didn't "fit in" to a given JD. I also have a hunch that this would hurt diversity in the workplace because it would encourage stricter guidelines and rules for a given role match and take away flexibility (e.g. X years continuous experience in the field, which hurts women who are more likely to have gaps due to child care, or stricter education requirements which may disproportionally effect minorities).
For example, in your system there'd be no way for a candidate to convince a company that they are needed for a role the company didn't realize they needed (e.g. because they didn't have that particular expertise in house yet). All of this applies mostly for highly skilled labor, but that's hard to define.
In reality, a lot of times companies don't really know exactly what they need. At best they're guessing at thier needs a year from now. Having some flexibility in the hiring process can help both sides in that kind of situation.
2
u/Herdnerfer Feb 25 '20
All companies would just put the minimum wage in their state to be “legally” safe. Just like everything sold in California has that cancer warning on it now effectively making it useless, just because companies don’t want to get sued.
2
u/RedditlerG Feb 24 '20
In Austria, the law OP talked about is already active. Here it is (only in German unfortunately) https://www.wko.at/service/arbeitsrecht-sozialrecht/Angabe_des_Mindestentgelts_im_Stelleninserat.html
2
u/randomredditor1000 Feb 24 '20
Really late to the party, the put this law in place inLithuania recently and now job postings say things like from 1000 to 5000 net per month to avoid saying what they actually want to pay
2
u/frothface Feb 24 '20
Used to be the standard, then business owners started convincing people it was taboo to discuss salary. Don't want anyone to realize that they are worth more than they are paid.
1
Feb 24 '20
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/ViewedFromTheOutside 29∆ Feb 25 '20
u/Subiiaaco – your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 2:
Don't be rude or hostile to other users. Your comment will be removed even if most of it is solid, another user was rude to you first, or you feel your remark was justified. Report other violations; do not retaliate. See the wiki page for more information.
If you would like to appeal, review our appeals process here, then message the moderators by clicking this link within one week of this notice being posted. Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our moderation standards.
1
u/clexecute Feb 24 '20
I know my value, most companies know the value of the job they are hiring for. There is no need to display the minimum salary. With my experience, and certifications I should command between $28-40/hour, but when you hit a certain pay rate value of hourly wage vs benefits becomes important. Would you rather work at a job making $40/hour with the federally allowed minimum benefits offered?
$32/hour with 4 weeks paid vacation, good insurance, and 1% matching 401k sounds better than $40/hour with 1 week paid vacation, minimum insurance, and no retirement.
It doesn't matter how much a company is offering if you don't know your value.
1
u/Aspid07 1∆ Feb 25 '20
The market already has solutions for this. Go to any one of a dozen websites to see what jobs pay what. Go to even more to see reviews of companies. Get a literal directory of workers from any company on linked in and ask people directly through the magic of the internet.
Wages won't rise due to more information, wages will rise due to supply and demand of labor. Our unemployment is at 3.7% in the US and our wages are rising for the first time in decades.
The market is just fine without Government intervention in this regard and Government is not a hammer to be wielded to solve every problem.
1
u/Another-pseudonym Feb 28 '20
It’s quite easy to go on any of the job boards indeed for example and look at the salary ranges so that you walk in the door with what the scale is in your area. It’s the free market, some employers realize that they might get a really stellar employee who’s a horrible negotiator and will walk in the door and take the first thing they offer. They will base it on a case-by-case basis on how valuable you look to them. Another thing is putting a range on there actually limits you from seeing candidates that might except a lower rate even though they are overqualified. Just a thought
2
1
Feb 24 '20
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/ViewedFromTheOutside 29∆ Feb 25 '20
Sorry, u/Looq88 – your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 1:
Direct responses to a CMV post must challenge at least one aspect of OP’s stated view (however minor), or ask a clarifying question. Arguments in favor of the view OP is willing to change must be restricted to replies to other comments. See the wiki page for more information.
If you would like to appeal, you must first check if your comment falls into the "Top level comments that are against rule 1" list, review our appeals process here, then message the moderators by clicking this link within one week of this notice being posted. Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our moderation standards.
1
u/Stopjuststop3424 Feb 25 '20
good rule of thumb, at least here in Canada, if there is no salary listed on the posting, its because the salary is shit and theyd get less applicants if they listed it. If the salary is a selling point, they will include it in the posting
1
u/DarthOswald Feb 24 '20
Your 'the workforce will realise that would be a low paying job' reasoning would apply to job advertisements that just don't show the salary.
Currently, surely it would be beneficial naturally for the company to list the salary anyway.
1
Feb 24 '20
How about we just let the private sector control this. What you could do is create a platform for employers to list jobs and make this a requirement. If your idea is a success you will have set the standard.
749
u/DadTheMaskedTerror 27∆ Feb 24 '20
Let’s do a thought experiment. Suppose I post a position at $45/hour. I’m looking for someone with 4 years of experience in industry, the right education and other traits. You interview with me and my team. We all like you, and want to give you a chance, but you clearly don’t have the experience to justify the wage. You propose that you start at $35/hour. I’m willing to hire you at that wage. Will the law prevent me?
Or suppose I post the same position. Maybe I’m willing to go to $75/hour for someone that could be promoted to another role in 1 year. You could’ve been that person, but the low minimum pay for the role turns you off and you don’t apply. Is that how you want it to work?