3 ms·

Recruiter here with a history of working as a developer > but companies need to start specifying their salary > range up front The costs outweigh the

Recruiter here with a history of working as a developer > but companies need to start specifying their salary > range up front The costs outweigh the benefits for employers (encouraging existing employees to ask for more money, losing candidates who will accept significantly less but wouldn't apply at a lower range, etc) -- so don't hold your breath. > I've been having a lot of time wasted lately by > getting through Tech Interview #1 or Homework #1, only > to find out their max salary is laughable for San > Francisco. State it upfront when you submit your application, rather than "find that out": "I am interested in roles paying above my current salary of $xxx,xxx only, and am looking for an improvement on that to reflect my increased experience and the risk of moving roles" > Recruiters either don't know the range Yeah they do. > or lie about not knowing "Could you tell me about offers you've previously made for this client?" They may also be lying about actually being authorized to recruit for the role(!!!) so consider asking them for a copy of the technical specification. If it's a larger company, ask what the salary banding and official job title for the range is, then head to Glassdoor. > you have to submit a big packet of info (cover letter, > history, resume, homework) before you can even talk to > a human about salary I had a hunch that roles like this weren't worth applying for when I was a developer. As a recruiter, this has been almost completely confirmed.

dclowd9901 10y ago
"The costs outweigh the benefits for employers" That's funny, I thought this was a employee's market... Better get with the program, bub. I'm actually in favor of 100% transparent salaries. I've yet to hear a compelling argument against it that wasn't simply "it feels icky."
- peteretep 10y ago
  > I'm actually in favor of 100% transparent salaries. > I've yet to hear a compelling argument against it > that wasn't simply "it feels icky." I have no strong feeling at all on them, but generally when I find myself unable to make a strong case for or against a divisive issue, and can't think of any compelling arguments either way, it's indicative that I haven't researched it properly, or am simply discarding perspectives that don't agree with my existing biases.
MAGZine 10y ago
> "I am interested in roles paying above my current salary of $xxx,xxx only, and am looking for an improvement on that to reflect my increased experience and the risk of moving roles" Are you really advocating that people disclose their salary to a recruiter, voluntarily? What terrible advice. "How to immediately throw away your best bargaining chip 101".
- peteretep 10y ago
  > Are you really advocating that people disclose their > salary to a recruiter Yes > What terrible advice No > "How to immediately throw away your best bargaining > chip 101" If they're an internal recruiter, they have a banding you can be paid in, and they don't really care where you fall in it. Decisions above that salary banding will need to be referred to the person whose budget you are. If they're an external recruiter, they have no control at all and are incentivized to get you paid as much as they can, as they're paid on commission.
  - quickben 10y ago
    And if they are an actual external company and not external recruiter?
    - peteretep 10y ago
      I'm not entirely sure what you mean, but are you sure you don't mean an internal recruiter?
  - greglindahl 10y ago
    External recruiters get paid more for getting more candidates hired with the least effort per candidate -- they are not interested in spending a lot of time getting 10% more salary for a candidate, instead of getting another hire done.
    - peteretep 10y ago
      Most external recruiters don't make much more than a couple of placements a month, so they are absolutely incentivized to amp their commission up as much as possible without losing the sale. Was this not the case when you were working as a recruiter?
kguthrie 10y ago
> The costs outweigh the benefits for employers (encouraging existing employees to ask for more money, losing candidates who will accept significantly less but wouldn't apply at a lower range, etc) -- so don't hold your breath. > State it upfront when you submit your application, rather than "find that out" As an employee, I would say the costs of specifying my expected salary range upfront outweigh the benefits.
- peteretep 10y ago
  > As an employee, I would say the costs of specifying > my expected salary range upfront outweigh the benefits That's interesting. Having well over a decade of being an employee, having been a hiring manager, having been a freelancer, and having been a recruiter, I'd do it every time.

dclowd9901 10y ago

"The costs outweigh the benefits for employers" That's funny, I thought this was a employee's market... Better get with the program, bub. I'm actually in favor of 100% transparent salaries. I've yet to hear a compelling argument against it that wasn't simply "it feels icky."

peteretep 10y ago
> I'm actually in favor of 100% transparent salaries. > I've yet to hear a compelling argument against it > that wasn't simply "it feels icky." I have no strong feeling at all on them, but generally when I find myself unable to make a strong case for or against a divisive issue, and can't think of any compelling arguments either way, it's indicative that I haven't researched it properly, or am simply discarding perspectives that don't agree with my existing biases.

MAGZine 10y ago

> "I am interested in roles paying above my current salary of $xxx,xxx only, and am looking for an improvement on that to reflect my increased experience and the risk of moving roles" Are you really advocating that people disclose their salary to a recruiter, voluntarily? What terrible advice. "How to immediately throw away your best bargaining chip 101".

peteretep 10y ago
> Are you really advocating that people disclose their > salary to a recruiter Yes > What terrible advice No > "How to immediately throw away your best bargaining > chip 101" If they're an internal recruiter, they have a banding you can be paid in, and they don't really care where you fall in it. Decisions above that salary banding will need to be referred to the person whose budget you are. If they're an external recruiter, they have no control at all and are incentivized to get you paid as much as they can, as they're paid on commission.
- quickben 10y ago
  And if they are an actual external company and not external recruiter?
  - peteretep 10y ago
    I'm not entirely sure what you mean, but are you sure you don't mean an internal recruiter?
- greglindahl 10y ago
  External recruiters get paid more for getting more candidates hired with the least effort per candidate -- they are not interested in spending a lot of time getting 10% more salary for a candidate, instead of getting another hire done.
  - peteretep 10y ago
    Most external recruiters don't make much more than a couple of placements a month, so they are absolutely incentivized to amp their commission up as much as possible without losing the sale. Was this not the case when you were working as a recruiter?

kguthrie 10y ago

> The costs outweigh the benefits for employers (encouraging existing employees to ask for more money, losing candidates who will accept significantly less but wouldn't apply at a lower range, etc) -- so don't hold your breath. > State it upfront when you submit your application, rather than "find that out" As an employee, I would say the costs of specifying my expected salary range upfront outweigh the benefits.

peteretep 10y ago
> As an employee, I would say the costs of specifying > my expected salary range upfront outweigh the benefits That's interesting. Having well over a decade of being an employee, having been a hiring manager, having been a freelancer, and having been a recruiter, I'd do it every time.