Listing salary on job adverts
Discussion
Why are some (many?) companies so reluctant to list a salary, or even salary range, on their job adverts?
Do they not actually know what they want and so want to be flexible? Are they trying to get away with offering as little as they can to tempt the candidate of choice? Or are there more legitimate business reasons?
Do they not actually know what they want and so want to be flexible? Are they trying to get away with offering as little as they can to tempt the candidate of choice? Or are there more legitimate business reasons?
Because quite often if a job of salary £50-60k is advertised, the majority of applicants will expect £60k automatically, even if they were previously on £30k.
Similarly, if a candidate with the correct experience and skills interviews for a job, and is given a salary range they will go for the upper limit. By keeping the salary as unspecified it allows companies to be flexible and negotiable to offer the correct salary on a case by base basis, everybody is different.
On the other side, I find that specifying a salary often discourages those with the completely incorrect skill set from applying, so it does have its advantages.
Similarly, if a candidate with the correct experience and skills interviews for a job, and is given a salary range they will go for the upper limit. By keeping the salary as unspecified it allows companies to be flexible and negotiable to offer the correct salary on a case by base basis, everybody is different.
On the other side, I find that specifying a salary often discourages those with the completely incorrect skill set from applying, so it does have its advantages.
stevenjhepburn said:
Why are some (many?) companies so reluctant to list a salary, or even salary range, on their job adverts?
Do they not actually know what they want and so want to be flexible? Are they trying to get away with offering as little as they can to tempt the candidate of choice? Or are there more legitimate business reasons?
This really annoys me. I assume they want to just pay the lowest amount; which seems justified as when I've asked for an indication of salary, it has nearly always been on the low side. Do they not actually know what they want and so want to be flexible? Are they trying to get away with offering as little as they can to tempt the candidate of choice? Or are there more legitimate business reasons?
Sometimes they answer that it depends on the candidate, but don't tell you they have a maximum salary in mind. This renders the time taken to apply/attend interviews wasted when you eventually realise they can only pay up to an amount which is £10-15k less than you're currently on!
topless360 said:
Because quite often if a job of salary £50-60k is advertised, the majority of applicants will expect £60k automatically, even if they were previously on £30k.
How does their previous salary have bearing on their worth in the new position? Unless you are confirming that one of the reasons is so the company can 'get away' with paying the minimum they can.topless360 said:
Similarly, if a candidate with the correct experience and skills interviews for a job, and is given a salary range they will go for the upper limit. By keeping the salary as unspecified it allows companies to be flexible and negotiable to offer the correct salary on a case by base basis, everybody is different.
If the candidate has the correct experience and skills (presumable minimum and desired), then why shouldn't they expect the top of the range?Edited by stevenjhepburn on Saturday 1st February 14:45
stevenjhepburn said:
Why are some (many?) companies so reluctant to list a salary, or even salary range, on their job adverts?
Because as often as not, new hires will be coming in at market rates that are higher than people already in the job whose annual raises have been held back during recent years.stevenjhepburn said:
If the candidate has the correct experience and skills (presumable minimum and desired), then why shouldn't they expect the top of the range?
Quite often companies prefer not to pay the max, reason being they like to have room for movement when it comes to a salary review 6-12 months down the line.Edited by stevenjhepburn on Saturday 1st February 14:45
Otherwise you end up with a situation where a candidate is already at the upper limit in their band, and cannot get a raise for years to come. This can be bad for moral and long term staff retention.
The above isn't always the case, but just an observation after various conversations I have had.
It allows the company to pay the most cost effective amount it needs to. I.e. the least it needs to on order to get the most profit.
Somebody young/fresh/naive/ desperate who meets the criteria might only ask for the bottom end of the scale.
Somebody experienced/knowledgeable might ask for the heavens but will know what a realistic top-end of the scale is.
The company can look at the skillet offered and choose the most cost effective combination (as in "cheapest person who will contribute the most").
Somebody young/fresh/naive/ desperate who meets the criteria might only ask for the bottom end of the scale.
Somebody experienced/knowledgeable might ask for the heavens but will know what a realistic top-end of the scale is.
The company can look at the skillet offered and choose the most cost effective combination (as in "cheapest person who will contribute the most").
I hate it when they say 'market rate' or 'competitive'
I've been called about roles like that, had the recruiter say I'm absolutely perfect, ask me roughly what I'd want, and have them go '....oh, we're about £'hillarious'k short of that, would you go lower?'
Yes, I love huge pay cuts to do what I'm doing now elsewhere.
The problem is, the range for some roles can be upwards of £40k I've found (one company to another, and even in a similar locality, so you just have to know what you want and go from there.
I've been called about roles like that, had the recruiter say I'm absolutely perfect, ask me roughly what I'd want, and have them go '....oh, we're about £'hillarious'k short of that, would you go lower?'
Yes, I love huge pay cuts to do what I'm doing now elsewhere.
The problem is, the range for some roles can be upwards of £40k I've found (one company to another, and even in a similar locality, so you just have to know what you want and go from there.
It irritates me when advertisements do not specify a salaries.
Applying for a job is a lengthy business, and just filling in the required application form can take many hours once you reach a certain level. I'm not sure why I would do all that if I couldn't be sure that the salary was more than what I was currently getting paid.
When I worked for the Hilton Group I quizzed a division director as to why they had stopped putting salaries in the adverts for vacant positions, and he replied with some utter corporate bulls
t like "we only wish to recruit individuals who want to work for us because of who we are, not what we will pay".
Also, in my experience, when a salary is stated as £42,000-49,000 or something like that, it refers to a certain grade/band which means that when you start, you are automatically started on £42,000 and will move to £49,000 over a set period of 4 years or whatever is specified in the company salary policy.
Applying for a job is a lengthy business, and just filling in the required application form can take many hours once you reach a certain level. I'm not sure why I would do all that if I couldn't be sure that the salary was more than what I was currently getting paid.
When I worked for the Hilton Group I quizzed a division director as to why they had stopped putting salaries in the adverts for vacant positions, and he replied with some utter corporate bulls
t like "we only wish to recruit individuals who want to work for us because of who we are, not what we will pay".Also, in my experience, when a salary is stated as £42,000-49,000 or something like that, it refers to a certain grade/band which means that when you start, you are automatically started on £42,000 and will move to £49,000 over a set period of 4 years or whatever is specified in the company salary policy.
I won't bother applying for a role unless I know the salary up front.
I did once get a call with a perfect role, it sounded interesting so I ask for the salary range which was lower than I was already on. Once I'd stopped laughing he asked me what I would need and then told me no one gets paid in that range in the industry. They clearly do said I as that what I already earn.
I did once get a call with a perfect role, it sounded interesting so I ask for the salary range which was lower than I was already on. Once I'd stopped laughing he asked me what I would need and then told me no one gets paid in that range in the industry. They clearly do said I as that what I already earn.
Called a recruiter recently who had posted an advert with a salary. The range was very attractive. When I spoke the the recruiter he quickly told me they were hoping to speak to the employer shortly about the salary and wasn't sure what the range was yet.
It went very quiet when I pointed out the range in the advert.
Complete waste of everyone's time.
It went very quiet when I pointed out the range in the advert.
Complete waste of everyone's time.
I have to say I've just been through this personally. Advertised rate had an interesting number on it so said I was interested at that rate (confirmed before we started any further) I then went through the interview cycle strongly & was unreservedly offered the job. Trouble was their offer was a significant chunk away from the original advertised rate (by 00000's) - so after weighing up the great oppertunity etc, I decided to stick to my guns & explain how dissapointed I was with the offer & that it was a waste of everyone's time - I declined the offer formally. Fingers crossed though, as I've since heard they are re-grading the job to facilitate paying the numbers they were advertising in the first place.. internal politics I presume.
I used to get miffed about adverts with no salary; but these days I'm in a stronger career position so it's actually less about the money & more about the job\opp knowing the money will be right or I won't be taking it. That said I have been bitten in the past on jobs which were either way over expectations or way under. On the plus side, any experience is good experience
I used to get miffed about adverts with no salary; but these days I'm in a stronger career position so it's actually less about the money & more about the job\opp knowing the money will be right or I won't be taking it. That said I have been bitten in the past on jobs which were either way over expectations or way under. On the plus side, any experience is good experience
98elise said:
anonymous said:
[redacted]
Agree, I now don't apply for any job that doesn't have at least a salary range.No salary range for me usually means its not anywhere close to market rates.
Got contacted by a few recruiters who know my skills and what I do with really 'amazing' oppotunities in my industry, get talking and they want roughly what my experience is (10+ years in the industry) and they are paying very competitively, recruiter gets stopped there and we discuss the salary.
It finally comes out that its about 1/2 the normal market rate which wouldnt get close to hiring someone with 10+ years in the industry and is more suited to a low to mid level experience person.
What gets my goat is that they are the expert in the market, they know what candidates bloody well cost for their experience, they know what the market rate is for experience and yet they still waste our time by pissing about with jobs that we wont take.
I have turned up to interviews were the recruiter fabricated the salary to get me there in the interview, when I find out the actual salary, I do what any pissed off candidate would do, I drop them in it big time for wasting mine and the clients time.
I have had some quite pissed off recruiters ring me up afterwards when they have been kicked off that particular contract and dont seem to get it that they think that lying to get the candidate to an interview is fine... Seem to shut up quite quickly when I tell them I will bill them my day rate for me taking a day off, on the promise that the job was A and paid X, then found out it is lower than my current day rate and would never have even bothered applying to take a pay cut when I have a job already.
You won't be surprised to hear there are a multitude of reasons for paying different rates for what may seem the same job. Those who move often and deliberately tend to have salaries at the top of the market rate. Those who do 15+ years at a a company picking up the annual salary review tend to be at the lower end. Organisations that recruit just for the backfill and the here and now will always struggle with succession planning. So whilst on the face of it somebody with 20 years doing the same job at the same level might seem like the ideal fit, that is not always the case. For the organisation sometimes the better option is the person who only has 7 years experience but has been promoted 3 times in that time. They show the progression and ambition that the organisation needs to fill future roles and perhaps some of whay they have will rub off on the rest of the team. It also shapes a message for future recruitment that progression is possible as what ambitious upstart wants to join a team where everybody has been in the same job for the last 15 years? Another reason may be a company briefing a recruiter that they expect pay to x to y range but for a superstar they will pay more. This then translates to 'above market rate' or 'highly competitive rates' etc either deliberately by the recruiter or because of the job board functionality.
Doesnt really explain when the market rates are for example £65k-£80k and outstanding is £100k, that recruiters advertise as competitive market rates as the salary and want the people from the £65k-80k range and then when you are talking to them you find out that the company is willing to pay a max of £55k.
The recruiter knows that the people that he is contacting are in the £65k-£80k range already and then talks about fantastic oppotunities and great pay, why if its so fantastic a place to work with excellent oppotunities do they:
a) not go for people of lower ratings and mould them into the role instead of just experienced people.
b) not offer the actual market rates (usually an excuse about the market conditions, etc).
c) Be upfront and honest and actually tell you the range before an interview, not stating that they dont really know and it can be discussed later, as it wastes everyones time when its too low.
Twice I have been accepted for a role and then the discussion of salary finally comes out and its less than what I was currently on, this despite the recruiter knowing full well what my expectations were before I went and being told that Im looking for a payrise to move or its not worth my time and effort.
Please dont give the excuse of thats all they think you are worth, as I was told that was the maximum range the recruiter was told and wondered why someone with more experience than they were expecting applied for it.
The recruiter knows that the people that he is contacting are in the £65k-£80k range already and then talks about fantastic oppotunities and great pay, why if its so fantastic a place to work with excellent oppotunities do they:
a) not go for people of lower ratings and mould them into the role instead of just experienced people.
b) not offer the actual market rates (usually an excuse about the market conditions, etc).
c) Be upfront and honest and actually tell you the range before an interview, not stating that they dont really know and it can be discussed later, as it wastes everyones time when its too low.
Twice I have been accepted for a role and then the discussion of salary finally comes out and its less than what I was currently on, this despite the recruiter knowing full well what my expectations were before I went and being told that Im looking for a payrise to move or its not worth my time and effort.
Please dont give the excuse of thats all they think you are worth, as I was told that was the maximum range the recruiter was told and wondered why someone with more experience than they were expecting applied for it.
topless360 said:
Otherwise you end up with a situation where a candidate is already at the upper limit in their band, and cannot get a raise for years to come. This can be bad for moral and long term staff retention.
Think I'd rather have low moral and the higher salary from the start, thanks.Gassing Station | Jobs & Employment Matters | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff