Real question here, how do people know whether to bother applying for a position if they don't know the pay range? Why would I put myself through a weeks long process if I thought there was a chance the pay was too low?
As an employer won't you get a really mixed bag of candidates if you don't give a number? Why would you want new grads mixed with 20 year veterans in a pile of CVs?
I interviewed recently and the recruiters all gave a number, or at least OKed that what I wanted was possible.
It’s not so much about hiding the numbers from candidates, though there’s some of that too. The main thing is desperately keeping new hire offer numbers away from existing employees.
Unless you've been seriously underpaying your existing employees, it's gonna be ballpark plus negotiation, isn't it? In any case the new guy is gonna try to make some friends over a beer, isn't he?
In many companies employees are hired at market and then given as few raises as humanly possible regardless of changes in the larger market, their own skills, or responsibilities.
Employees know this in the back of their mind, but seeing it play out with a concrete new hire is dangerous for employers.
In terms of discussions over beer, many companies successfully create taboos around comp. Larger cultures that are squeamish about talking about money, which includes many of those prevalent in the US, make that even easier for those companies.
> In terms of discussions over beer, many companies successfully create taboos around comp. Larger cultures that are squeamish about talking about money, which includes many of those prevalent in the US, make that even easier for those companies.
<-- US-based. In every salaried position I've held, discussing salary with coworkers was very taboo. At the second place I worked, on my first day on the job, the head of the department pulled me into his office before I even met with my team (aside from the two I'd met in the interview) and told me that I should be aware that "here at $COMPANY, it's against policy to openly discuss salaries with coworkers." Then he winked and said, "we wouldn't want to have to lower you to the standard rate."
I was too shocked to do anything except chuckle awkwardly, nod, and leave. I was a pretty junior dev- if my salary was above their standard rate, I feel badly for anyone who'd been there longer. Though I'm sure it was a joke to lighten the encounter, keeping salaries down by discouraging discussion about compensation is a very real thing.
I believe that’s technically illegal (under the National Labor Relations Act) so IME it’s rare for it to be that blatant. However, the message seems to get across almost everywhere. Even when executives’ comp is in public SEC filings it is seen as uncouth to talk about.
It's in the employee handbook of my previous employer. I think the people writing the handbooks just don't necessarily know what the laws are (or are willfully ignorant). I had to ask them to remove a rule prohibiting any and all alcohol possession on company premises because I said that every time we have beer in the fridge or have a work party we were all technically in violation of a rule that's very clear.
It's extremely common for companies to underpay their long term staff.
I've been at my current place for about 2 years and after my latest cost of living raise of ~5% I'm still earning 5-20% under what recruiters reach out to me with regularly. I'm on the low end of the salary scale so need at least 10% to see any noticeable difference in monthly income.
At a previous position at a very large international corp, my colleagues who had joined as graduates and now had 5 years experience with the company were being paid <1% more than the initial offer for new graduates.
This seems like a strawman. How would you even write a job description in such a way that new grads and 20-year vets would both apply to it? You have a pretty good sense from a job ad what they're looking for even before looking at the title.
The reason recruiters can give you numbers is that they get ranges from the companies, a range from you, and give you the lowest number they can (usually).
You'll find plenty of jobs where a range is given and the bottom is half the top though, so no it's not a strawman. People actually do write job ads where they are happy with a newbie or a veteran.
Because they might pay you more if they disclose upfront: Two candidates with a similar history may get two different offers because one candidate got paid more in the past than the other. And then in general, this means that over time, they get paid less too because raises are often percentages.
Disclosing upfront not only means that this practice can't really stay as is, but means that you might wind up with some folks that aren't getting paid what new hires are getting paid.
If you want to have a 20 year vet, say so in the job qualifications and offer a salary that would attract that group.
As an employer won't you get a really mixed bag of candidates if you don't give a number? Why would you want new grads mixed with 20 year veterans in a pile of CVs?
I interviewed recently and the recruiters all gave a number, or at least OKed that what I wanted was possible.