10 ms·

As a candidate, I hate applying to jobs only to get a lowball offer at the end. So I appreciate bills like this. As a hiring manager, I see that this is actual

As a candidate, I hate applying to jobs only to get a lowball offer at the end. So I appreciate bills like this. As a hiring manager, I see that this is actually not so simple. You give someone a range, say $100-150k. I ASSURE you that they are thinking they are closer to 150k than 100. So good luck giving an offer for $100k, even though that might be what that particular candidate is worth to you. It's never gonna happen, but what i'd rather see is an option to instead give current median total comp on the team i'm interviewing for, plus maybe the 25-75 percentile range. That gives me a sense of what I should expect, plus what the salary growth path might be.

brianwawok 5y ago
Right, totally see both sides. Every single time I have ever given a range as a hiring manage, the candidate pictured themselves at the top end. But like you could have self taught 2 years of experience vs PhD and 12 years of experience for a similar position - there is no way everyone is at the same spot comp wise.
- learc83 5y ago
  >2 years of experience vs PhD and 12 years of experience for a similar position Why would you hire those 2 people for the same position? If the PhD with 12 years of experience is worth 50% more, then why not give them a better title?
  - deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]
  - jjav 5y ago
    When you initially post the job listing you can't predict you'll get a reponse from these two people, so you need to be flexible. Sure, they wouldn't ultimately get hired into the same job level.
    - learc83 5y ago
      Then you post 2 different job listings. It’s not hard. You’d write 2 very different descriptions for someone those 2 hypothetical candidates anyway. You also don’t need put $50k-$5,000,000 just in case John Carmack applies. If he does happen to apply to your junior engineer position, you instead interview him for another position with a higher salary band.
      - kempbellt 5y ago
        In the real world, companies can't go down to the local "Employee Store" and order up a 12 year engineer with a PhD whenever they want, even if that's what they would prefer. In many cases hiring is an organic process where a company weighs options based on what candidates are available to them at the time, their budget, timeframe, and goals. A 2 year junior dev may be able to accomplish the same goal as the 12 year one, but much slower due to lack of experience, and you don't know if you'll find either until you start interviewing. This is why many job postings fairly say "Comp: DOE" or provide a salary range. More transparent comp is great for avoiding lowballing and discrimination (which both suck), but sometimes one employee actually is a more valuable contributor than another even if they have the same title. This is why I personally find the idea of a "salary range" completely fair, but also welcome to be ignored during the offer phase. If John Carmack and a junior dev both apply to the role of "Software Engineer", I see zero reason why a company shouldn't be allowed to offer him a substantially higher comp due to his experience. He'll likely accomplish the same goals more quickly, more efficiently, with better code practices in mind. Having to put it under the guise of "a different position" is just befuddling to the process. It's the kind of unnecessary legislation that pushes companies to find shady ways of solving problems.
        learc83 5y ago
        >In the real world, companies can't go down to the local "Employee Store" and order up a 12 year engineer with a PhD whenever they want, even if that's what they would prefer. I have hired many employees throughout my career, and never once have we posted a position for which we would have taken a junior engineer or someone with 12 years experience and a PhD. Even at small startups. Not that we weren't hiring both types of people at the same time. But we weren't hiring them for the same position. At my current company we have open positions on our hiring page for 4 different levels of software engineer. In the case where someone applies for a position that doesn't fit, we let them know and move them over to a different position in our applicant tracking system. >A 2 year junior dev may be able to accomplish the same goal as the 12 year one, but much slower due to lack of experience, and you don't know if you'll find either until you start interviewing. I have never worked somewhere where they would give both these people the same title. If the more experienced dev can do the job so much better that you're willing to pay them 50% more, they aren't doing the same job. Why would you give them the same title. I don't know anyone with 12 years experience (that would be worth 50% more) who would be willing to work somewhere with a junior title. >If John Carmack and a junior dev both apply to the role of "Software Engineer", I see zero reason why a company shouldn't be allowed to offer him a substantially higher comp due to his experience. Who is saying the company can't post 1 job title and a gigantic salary range. Of course they can. I'm just saying that it's stupid. If you hire John Carmack and John Bootcamp grad, they aren't doing the same job, so what's the point of pretending like they are by giving them the same title. At that point you might as well just have one title for every position in the company. Just call everyone "Employee" and have a salary range of $1-$5,000,000. >He'll likely accomplish the same goals more quickly, more efficiently, with better code practices in mind. If he's producing so much more/better work that he's worth huge multiples more, then he's not doing the same job. There's no reason to pretend that he is. >Having to put it under the guise of "a different position" is just befuddling to the process. It's the kind of unnecessary legislation that pushes companies to find shady ways of solving problems. None of these laws say a company can't post 1 job with a huge salary range. It's just stupid to do so because it sets the wrong expectations for everyone involved.
  - brianwawok 5y ago
    You may just need more developers, and sort out everyone’s exact skills later. People aren’t just cogs for a machine.
- kerkeslager 5y ago
  > But like you could have self taught 2 years of experience vs PhD and 12 years of experience for a similar position - there is no way everyone is at the same spot comp wise. If these are really similar positions, then you don't need the PhD candidate with 12 years of experience--you're wasting money paying someone that overqualified. The fact is, these probably aren't similar positions, and that's why they aren't at the same spot comp wise.
learc83 5y ago
Instead of having 1 role with such a huge gap. Why not multiple roles. If you find a candidate who you really think is worth 50% more than the average salary for Role X, then obviously that candidate is qualified for Role X + 1.
- stickfigure 5y ago
  The logical conclusion of this is a long chart that looks like this: ... Role #125,798 - salary $125,798/yr Role #125,799 - salary $125,799/yr Role #125,800 - salary $125,800/yr ...
  - lscdlscd 5y ago
    It doesn't have to be that granular. If one engineer is getting (deservedly) paid 50% more than another in the same role, the company owes it to that engineer to give them a title/role that reflects their merit/contributions, at the very least for their career progression.
    - kempbellt 5y ago
      Requiring titles and pay to be interchangeable doesn't solve any of the real problems trying to be solved here. Instead of offering to pay you less, company suggests you apply for a less valuable role (or demotes you), and then pays you less. Instead of offering to pay you more, company suggests you apply for a more valuable role (or promotes you), and then pays you more. If a company is trying to lowball or discriminate, they'll just do it by title and wage, instead of just wage. If a company is trying negotiate in good faith, it's made the process needlessly complex. I don't see what problem this solves.
      - loonster 5y ago
        It would be equivalent to government pay grade.
  - plorg 5y ago
    The exercise of putting together job descriptions and requirements should be enough to narrow it down to probably fewer than 3 Roles.
WalterBright 5y ago
> As a candidate, I hate applying to jobs only to get a lowball offer at the end 1. Before you go to the interview, let them know your expected compensation 2. Counter with your desired compensation. If you're worth it, you'll get it.
- gowld 5y ago
  That doesn't solve the problem of "I can't afford to spend all my time interviewing", but corpo can afford to spend tiem interviewing everyone.
  - sokoloff 5y ago
    In my experience, #1 does substantially cut down on the time-wasting.
  - WalterBright 5y ago
    Of course it does. If the company isn't going to meet your salary requirements, why would they waste time interviewing you? > corpo can afford to spend tiem interviewing everyone This is very untrue.
  - _3u10 5y ago
    Why not? It’s super lucrative. If you play that game for a year or two you’ll be in a top salary band.
- ThrustVectoring 5y ago
  Note that letting companies know your expected compensation is only beneficial when you know that it's extraordinarily high and you wish to no waste time in many interview processes. Less senior engineers should refrain from leaking salary expectations - there's no reason to lowball yourself.
  - freedomben 5y ago
    Good point, if your number is lower than what they would have offered, don't tip your hand because most likely (there are some exceptions) they will offer what you're asking.
dheera 5y ago
I don't understand people who give ranges. If a company gives a candidate a range, of course the candidate will pick the highest end of the range. If the candidate gives a range, of course the company will pick the lowest end of the range. Just give one number and then negotiate.
- sokoloff 5y ago
  If I have to publish a figure before I’ve even talked to anyone for the job, how can I avoid giving a range? When we get to the point of an offer, I’m not going to say “@dheera, would you prefer to be paid X or 1.25*X? It’s up to you.”
  - dheera 5y ago
    What that realistically mean? "If you're a white male you'll get 1.25X and if you're a black female you'll get X?" More specifically, why can't someone who meets the JD get the stated number? If they interview and don't demonstrate the ability to meet the JD then don't give them an offer, it's that simple.
    - sokoloff 5y ago
      Do you think that all salespeople are equally productive? Do you think that all waitstaff or customer service people are equally productive? Do you think all software engineers (at a given level) are equally productive? I think there's large spreads of productivity in many of those types of workers and if you pick a single number for a range of possible productivity, you either overpay some people or you cut yourself off from the most productive workers. (Some people argue that there's a 10x spread in SWEs, others that there's a -10x spread, but I don't think anyone thinks there's realistically less than a 2x spread at a given level among competent SWEs.)
      - mitchdoogle 5y ago
        Perhaps, but you won't know their productivity before you hire them
CPLX 5y ago
I'm the person hiring. I used to have this problem a lot and I solved it. I started just deciding what the pay for the position would be in advance and posting it. I don't negotiate, if that comes up I say we give very aggressive raises and promotions to people who exceed expectations (which is true) but I understand if that's not something you can rely on. As an exercise in transparency we're posting the actual exact starting salary and this is what it is. Feedback has been across the board positive. Presumably some people look at the pay and feel like it's slightly too low and we don't get them. That's fine, it's a reasonable tradeoff for eliminating the confusion and bad feelings created by not being transparent. There's nothing stopping us from posting a similar position as well (perhaps with a slightly more senior title) with slightly higher pay. I think the whole kabuki dance of not telling people the actual comp is inefficient and pointless and I'm fine if it goes away.
- mywittyname 5y ago
  See, I like good raises (10%+ per year). The main reason to start looking for new jobs is that 2% annual raises are quickly outpaced by the 10-20% increase in market wages. Plus, I feel like jobs that give double-digit raises also have better processes in place for performance reviews. Places giving out 3% a year almost always just go through the motions on performance reviews, since each manager can only give out one or two "good" raises. Even if you did a great job, they are kind of forced to hand over their one 5 star review to the person who always gets them.
neogodless 5y ago
Perhaps you have to choose the number that best fits what you're prioritizing. If you're looking for "entry-level", then perhaps "starting at $100k", but if you really need someone with the experience or skillset pre-loaded, "up to $150k".
romanows 5y ago
I guess you're saying that putting the 150k number in the candidates head is going to make the eventual 100k offer sound worse than it otherwise would have? Can't you have a conversation with the applicant, walk through your reasoning, explain their path to 150k in the company, and covert at least some percentage to candidates that accept? I would almost appreciate that more than believing that I'm being taken advantage of by a single number offer.
- lscdlscd 5y ago
  Totally agree. My first job out of college, there was a range for the position of $75 - $105k. I got the offer, and the salary offer was for 75. I asked for $90 and we settled on 85, as the 105 range was for 2+ years of experience, and I was a new grad. I thought it was very fair.
  - tjridesbikes 5y ago
    Almost literally me. Before I graduated, I applied for a job, got offered $80k, negotiated up to $90k, and have seen significant increases in salary since then. I’m being paid area-average salary for interesting work, great work-life balance, and insanely great non-monetary benefits. Another job I applied to before graduating offered me $60k and told me I couldn’t negotiate. Guess who didn’t even bother responding to them?
    - lscdlscd 5y ago
      Nice, I'm interested in what your non-monetary benefits are? I now get paid better than average, but that's essentially my only compensation.
asdff 5y ago
If your range is that wide commiserate with experience, what are you even shopping for? All this bill asks is for hiring managers to be less flippant about what they are buying when they are entering the job market and shopping for talent. If they are wanting a candidate with experience they value at $150k, then put that as the posted salary. If they can get away with a candidate with experience they value at $100k, put that as the posted salary. If you want both candidates, post both listings. If you only want one of the two, take the other listing down when you have your first candidate. It seems simple to me.
- jjav 5y ago
  But that approach means opening something like four job postings for every role (junior, mid, senior, principal) and suddenly closing the other three when you find someone. I don't know if this might fall foul of any job posting rules? Since basically three of the four postings are "fake" in the sense that you're only hiring one person. It's just that nobody knows ahead of time which of the four postings will end up being the real one.
  - learc83 5y ago
    Companies do this all the time. There’s generally no problem with it. We have an opening for an staff engineer at work, but we’d settle for a senior engineer. We definitely wouldn’t hire an unqualified person as staff and just pay them less. Or an overqualified person as senior and pay them way more. That just doesn’t make sense. Companies also routinely have permanently open positions without exact numbers of positions.
  - asdff 5y ago
    I don't think you have to fully commit to hiring on every job posting you make. A lot of biotech jobs seem to have standing listing for these sorts of tiered roles (junior scientist I II III IIV, scientist I II III IV etc..) presumably because the applicants can be pretty stratified in biotech in experience and in degrees.
mattnewton 5y ago
A 50% difference in salary sounds like a slightly different role / level with different expectations. Why not put up two job postings, one for 90-110k for the junior devs and one for the senior devs at 140k-160k? Why are you dangling 150k in front of junior devs if they aren't worth it to your company in the first place? If they are the same role and the difference really is 50k based on interviews and negotiations alone I am of course going to shoot for the full 50k.
- toast0 5y ago
  Sometimes it's not so much the same role, but you need someone to work on X and do the other things; depending on experience and interview, the compensation and the other things will vary, but you're not going to hire more than one person to work on X, so having two open positions will confuse HR.
  - kerkeslager 5y ago
    Why are you hiring a $150k candidate to work on X if a $100k candidate can work on X? That's a waste of $50k. It sounds like you need to figure out what X is worth to you.
    - wallacoloo 5y ago
      > Why are you hiring a $150k candidate to work on X if a $100k candidate can work on X? That's a waste of $50k. i think that’s the point. X takes an engineer who’s worth $100k. if an engineer worth more than that comes along, you want to let them do X for $100k, but since they’ll get it done easier/faster either you’re only letting them work part time (silly restriction to force on them), or you let them help out around the org in general for extra money. hence, you advertise the role as $100k (for doing X) - $150k (a rough judgment of how much extra capacity the company could easily absorb from a candidate that tackles X quickly). that seems… pretty reasonable to me.
      - sarchertech 5y ago
thr0wawayf00 5y ago
> You give someone a range, say $100-150k. I ASSURE you that they are thinking they are closer to 150k than 100. So good luck giving an offer for $100k, even though that might be what that particular candidate is worth to you. This is exactly how markets are supposed to function. If you feel that a candidate isn't worth what they're asking for, then you have every right to pass on them. Keeping a lid on the salary range is a dark pattern that benefits employers at the expense of workers.
plorg 5y ago
The way I have seen this addressed, in a way that seems fair and forthright to me as an applicant, is to create titles with job descriptions and requirements and minimum salaries for those titles, and advertise that you are looking to fill a position with one of the titles. Tell the applicant which title(s) they are interviewing for, and you both have a much better idea of what to expect.
mandevil 5y ago
If your employees find out that there is a 50% difference in their salary's for the same official job title I suspect that they are going to be very upset, unless you've been open and clear with them up front. Shrink your salary bands and break this out into different jobs, as a suggestion.
- colinmhayes 5y ago
  Does everyone at your company with the same title create the same value? Plenty of people at my office with the same title create double or triple the value.
  - learc83 5y ago
    Yes those discrepancies exist. But they are almost always a result of imperfect information at hiring. No one hired 2 people into the same role assuming that one would only be half as productive as the average and one would be 2x more productive. Had they known that going in they would have hired them into different positions or at least different levels within the same position. And typically those high performers either get promoted or leave to find higher paying jobs.
kerkeslager 5y ago
> You give someone a range, say $100-150k. I ASSURE you that they are thinking they are closer to 150k than 100. So good luck giving an offer for $100k, even though that might be what that particular candidate is worth to you. This comes across as whining that you won't enjoy the same unfair advantage in negotiation as you previously enjoyed. Interviewees are almost universally expected to give a single number (not a range), sometimes in the application process, even before the interview. If I can put a single number on what I'm looking to be paid with incomplete information about the position, you can put a single number on what you're willing to pay with incomplete information about the candidate. Also, a range as broad as $100-150k tells me that you either don't know what candidate you're looking for, or you're trying to snag a $150k candidate and only pay them $100k. There's no way I'd apply for that job as anything other than the lower end of that range. A healthy business relationship starts from understanding that both interviewer and interviewee should have the same goal, trying to match an appropriate candidate with appropriate work and appropriate pay.
- jjav 5y ago
  > If I can put a single number on what I'm looking to be paid with incomplete information about the position, you can put a single number on what you're willing to pay with incomplete information about the candidate. To be fair, that's not true. One person interviewing can say what number will make them happy to consider a move. The company though, is open (usually) to all kinds of people who might fill the role. These people may range from a recent graduate to someone with tons of experience. Just depends who shows up and how good of a match they are. Open positions are hardly ever so statically fixed, there's always room to make the scope (and pay) smaller or larger, depending who shows up. Software roles are fairly open-ended on what the person will ultimately end up doing, so it'll depend on their experience and interests. It's not like hiring someone for a widget factory where I know in advance they'll be stamping widgets 8 hours a day. In such cases, the pay can be predicted easily.
- sneak 5y ago
  > Interviewees are almost universally expected to give a single number (not a range), sometimes in the application process, even before the interview. I think a better description of the situation is "prompted" or "demanded", not "expected". As many interviewing advice sites will happily point out, providing any salary information prior to an offer is not usually a hard requirement (though employers like to make it seem like it is).
jjav 5y ago
> As a candidate, I hate applying to jobs only to get a lowball offer at the end. So I appreciate bills like this. These bills are nice but I don't feel very strongly about it because whenever I talk to a recruiter, the very first conversation is where I'll give my comp expectations. If they want to proceed, great, if it's too much then fine. Proceeding through interviews and waiting for an offer to see if they can match your expectations is not a good use of time.
stjohnswarts 5y ago
Don't give them the chance to stretch it out. Ask up front or tell them what you want, again up front, ask for what the "standard package" is for the position (trust me they have one). Judge them by their response and how sincere they seem. Some HR won't necessarily know up front but they can find out.
benjaminbachman 5y ago
> As a hiring manager, I see that this is actually not so simple. You give someone a range, say $100-150k. I ASSURE you that they are thinking they are closer to 150k than 100. So good luck giving an offer for $100k, even though that might be what that particular candidate is worth to you. This claim appears multiple times in this thread but it doesn't actually make sense to me. If I'm currently making $x and I see a job listed for $1.2x - $1.5x, I'm not going to turn down a 20% raise just because I wanted a 50% raise.
runako 5y ago
TL;DR; you may be limiting the pool of applications by posting wide ranges. The funny thing about this is that if I see a range of $100-$150k, I would assume the actual budget is in the $130k range. Further, with a range that wide, I would infer that the hiring team has no idea what the role is worth. That would lead me to expect the role to be ill-defined and poorly supported and that there would be significant work just to carve out an actual job there. Given these and the huge number of open jobs, I don't see why anyone with capabilities at the high end of your range would waste time considering a posting like that. This reads like a posting for a $100k role where an applicant skilled at interviewing could earn $150k for the $100k role.

brianwawok 5y ago

Right, totally see both sides. Every single time I have ever given a range as a hiring manage, the candidate pictured themselves at the top end. But like you could have self taught 2 years of experience vs PhD and 12 years of experience for a similar position - there is no way everyone is at the same spot comp wise.

learc83 5y ago
>2 years of experience vs PhD and 12 years of experience for a similar position Why would you hire those 2 people for the same position? If the PhD with 12 years of experience is worth 50% more, then why not give them a better title?
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
- jjav 5y ago
  When you initially post the job listing you can't predict you'll get a reponse from these two people, so you need to be flexible. Sure, they wouldn't ultimately get hired into the same job level.
  - learc83 5y ago
    Then you post 2 different job listings. It’s not hard. You’d write 2 very different descriptions for someone those 2 hypothetical candidates anyway. You also don’t need put $50k-$5,000,000 just in case John Carmack applies. If he does happen to apply to your junior engineer position, you instead interview him for another position with a higher salary band.
    - kempbellt 5y ago
      In the real world, companies can't go down to the local "Employee Store" and order up a 12 year engineer with a PhD whenever they want, even if that's what they would prefer. In many cases hiring is an organic process where a company weighs options based on what candidates are available to them at the time, their budget, timeframe, and goals. A 2 year junior dev may be able to accomplish the same goal as the 12 year one, but much slower due to lack of experience, and you don't know if you'll find either until you start interviewing. This is why many job postings fairly say "Comp: DOE" or provide a salary range. More transparent comp is great for avoiding lowballing and discrimination (which both suck), but sometimes one employee actually is a more valuable contributor than another even if they have the same title. This is why I personally find the idea of a "salary range" completely fair, but also welcome to be ignored during the offer phase. If John Carmack and a junior dev both apply to the role of "Software Engineer", I see zero reason why a company shouldn't be allowed to offer him a substantially higher comp due to his experience. He'll likely accomplish the same goals more quickly, more efficiently, with better code practices in mind. Having to put it under the guise of "a different position" is just befuddling to the process. It's the kind of unnecessary legislation that pushes companies to find shady ways of solving problems.
      - learc83 5y ago
        >In the real world, companies can't go down to the local "Employee Store" and order up a 12 year engineer with a PhD whenever they want, even if that's what they would prefer. I have hired many employees throughout my career, and never once have we posted a position for which we would have taken a junior engineer or someone with 12 years experience and a PhD. Even at small startups. Not that we weren't hiring both types of people at the same time. But we weren't hiring them for the same position. At my current company we have open positions on our hiring page for 4 different levels of software engineer. In the case where someone applies for a position that doesn't fit, we let them know and move them over to a different position in our applicant tracking system. >A 2 year junior dev may be able to accomplish the same goal as the 12 year one, but much slower due to lack of experience, and you don't know if you'll find either until you start interviewing. I have never worked somewhere where they would give both these people the same title. If the more experienced dev can do the job so much better that you're willing to pay them 50% more, they aren't doing the same job. Why would you give them the same title. I don't know anyone with 12 years experience (that would be worth 50% more) who would be willing to work somewhere with a junior title. >If John Carmack and a junior dev both apply to the role of "Software Engineer", I see zero reason why a company shouldn't be allowed to offer him a substantially higher comp due to his experience. Who is saying the company can't post 1 job title and a gigantic salary range. Of course they can. I'm just saying that it's stupid. If you hire John Carmack and John Bootcamp grad, they aren't doing the same job, so what's the point of pretending like they are by giving them the same title. At that point you might as well just have one title for every position in the company. Just call everyone "Employee" and have a salary range of $1-$5,000,000. >He'll likely accomplish the same goals more quickly, more efficiently, with better code practices in mind. If he's producing so much more/better work that he's worth huge multiples more, then he's not doing the same job. There's no reason to pretend that he is. >Having to put it under the guise of "a different position" is just befuddling to the process. It's the kind of unnecessary legislation that pushes companies to find shady ways of solving problems. None of these laws say a company can't post 1 job with a huge salary range. It's just stupid to do so because it sets the wrong expectations for everyone involved.
- brianwawok 5y ago
  You may just need more developers, and sort out everyone’s exact skills later. People aren’t just cogs for a machine.
kerkeslager 5y ago
> But like you could have self taught 2 years of experience vs PhD and 12 years of experience for a similar position - there is no way everyone is at the same spot comp wise. If these are really similar positions, then you don't need the PhD candidate with 12 years of experience--you're wasting money paying someone that overqualified. The fact is, these probably aren't similar positions, and that's why they aren't at the same spot comp wise.

learc83 5y ago

Instead of having 1 role with such a huge gap. Why not multiple roles. If you find a candidate who you really think is worth 50% more than the average salary for Role X, then obviously that candidate is qualified for Role X + 1.

stickfigure 5y ago
The logical conclusion of this is a long chart that looks like this: ... Role #125,798 - salary $125,798/yr Role #125,799 - salary $125,799/yr Role #125,800 - salary $125,800/yr ...
- lscdlscd 5y ago
  It doesn't have to be that granular. If one engineer is getting (deservedly) paid 50% more than another in the same role, the company owes it to that engineer to give them a title/role that reflects their merit/contributions, at the very least for their career progression.
  - kempbellt 5y ago
    Requiring titles and pay to be interchangeable doesn't solve any of the real problems trying to be solved here. Instead of offering to pay you less, company suggests you apply for a less valuable role (or demotes you), and then pays you less. Instead of offering to pay you more, company suggests you apply for a more valuable role (or promotes you), and then pays you more. If a company is trying to lowball or discriminate, they'll just do it by title and wage, instead of just wage. If a company is trying negotiate in good faith, it's made the process needlessly complex. I don't see what problem this solves.
    - loonster 5y ago
      It would be equivalent to government pay grade.
- plorg 5y ago
  The exercise of putting together job descriptions and requirements should be enough to narrow it down to probably fewer than 3 Roles.

WalterBright 5y ago

> As a candidate, I hate applying to jobs only to get a lowball offer at the end 1. Before you go to the interview, let them know your expected compensation 2. Counter with your desired compensation. If you're worth it, you'll get it.

gowld 5y ago
That doesn't solve the problem of "I can't afford to spend all my time interviewing", but corpo can afford to spend tiem interviewing everyone.
- sokoloff 5y ago
  In my experience, #1 does substantially cut down on the time-wasting.
- WalterBright 5y ago
  Of course it does. If the company isn't going to meet your salary requirements, why would they waste time interviewing you? > corpo can afford to spend tiem interviewing everyone This is very untrue.
- _3u10 5y ago
  Why not? It’s super lucrative. If you play that game for a year or two you’ll be in a top salary band.
ThrustVectoring 5y ago
Note that letting companies know your expected compensation is only beneficial when you know that it's extraordinarily high and you wish to no waste time in many interview processes. Less senior engineers should refrain from leaking salary expectations - there's no reason to lowball yourself.
- freedomben 5y ago
  Good point, if your number is lower than what they would have offered, don't tip your hand because most likely (there are some exceptions) they will offer what you're asking.

dheera 5y ago

I don't understand people who give ranges. If a company gives a candidate a range, of course the candidate will pick the highest end of the range. If the candidate gives a range, of course the company will pick the lowest end of the range. Just give one number and then negotiate.

sokoloff 5y ago
If I have to publish a figure before I’ve even talked to anyone for the job, how can I avoid giving a range? When we get to the point of an offer, I’m not going to say “@dheera, would you prefer to be paid X or 1.25*X? It’s up to you.”
- dheera 5y ago
  What that realistically mean? "If you're a white male you'll get 1.25X and if you're a black female you'll get X?" More specifically, why can't someone who meets the JD get the stated number? If they interview and don't demonstrate the ability to meet the JD then don't give them an offer, it's that simple.
  - sokoloff 5y ago
    Do you think that all salespeople are equally productive? Do you think that all waitstaff or customer service people are equally productive? Do you think all software engineers (at a given level) are equally productive? I think there's large spreads of productivity in many of those types of workers and if you pick a single number for a range of possible productivity, you either overpay some people or you cut yourself off from the most productive workers. (Some people argue that there's a 10x spread in SWEs, others that there's a -10x spread, but I don't think anyone thinks there's realistically less than a 2x spread at a given level among competent SWEs.)
    - mitchdoogle 5y ago
      Perhaps, but you won't know their productivity before you hire them

CPLX 5y ago

I'm the person hiring. I used to have this problem a lot and I solved it. I started just deciding what the pay for the position would be in advance and posting it. I don't negotiate, if that comes up I say we give very aggressive raises and promotions to people who exceed expectations (which is true) but I understand if that's not something you can rely on. As an exercise in transparency we're posting the actual exact starting salary and this is what it is. Feedback has been across the board positive. Presumably some people look at the pay and feel like it's slightly too low and we don't get them. That's fine, it's a reasonable tradeoff for eliminating the confusion and bad feelings created by not being transparent. There's nothing stopping us from posting a similar position as well (perhaps with a slightly more senior title) with slightly higher pay. I think the whole kabuki dance of not telling people the actual comp is inefficient and pointless and I'm fine if it goes away.

mywittyname 5y ago
See, I like good raises (10%+ per year). The main reason to start looking for new jobs is that 2% annual raises are quickly outpaced by the 10-20% increase in market wages. Plus, I feel like jobs that give double-digit raises also have better processes in place for performance reviews. Places giving out 3% a year almost always just go through the motions on performance reviews, since each manager can only give out one or two "good" raises. Even if you did a great job, they are kind of forced to hand over their one 5 star review to the person who always gets them.

neogodless 5y ago

Perhaps you have to choose the number that best fits what you're prioritizing. If you're looking for "entry-level", then perhaps "starting at $100k", but if you really need someone with the experience or skillset pre-loaded, "up to $150k".

romanows 5y ago

I guess you're saying that putting the 150k number in the candidates head is going to make the eventual 100k offer sound worse than it otherwise would have? Can't you have a conversation with the applicant, walk through your reasoning, explain their path to 150k in the company, and covert at least some percentage to candidates that accept? I would almost appreciate that more than believing that I'm being taken advantage of by a single number offer.

lscdlscd 5y ago
Totally agree. My first job out of college, there was a range for the position of $75 - $105k. I got the offer, and the salary offer was for 75. I asked for $90 and we settled on 85, as the 105 range was for 2+ years of experience, and I was a new grad. I thought it was very fair.
- tjridesbikes 5y ago
  Almost literally me. Before I graduated, I applied for a job, got offered $80k, negotiated up to $90k, and have seen significant increases in salary since then. I’m being paid area-average salary for interesting work, great work-life balance, and insanely great non-monetary benefits. Another job I applied to before graduating offered me $60k and told me I couldn’t negotiate. Guess who didn’t even bother responding to them?
  - lscdlscd 5y ago
    Nice, I'm interested in what your non-monetary benefits are? I now get paid better than average, but that's essentially my only compensation.

asdff 5y ago

If your range is that wide commiserate with experience, what are you even shopping for? All this bill asks is for hiring managers to be less flippant about what they are buying when they are entering the job market and shopping for talent. If they are wanting a candidate with experience they value at $150k, then put that as the posted salary. If they can get away with a candidate with experience they value at $100k, put that as the posted salary. If you want both candidates, post both listings. If you only want one of the two, take the other listing down when you have your first candidate. It seems simple to me.

jjav 5y ago
But that approach means opening something like four job postings for every role (junior, mid, senior, principal) and suddenly closing the other three when you find someone. I don't know if this might fall foul of any job posting rules? Since basically three of the four postings are "fake" in the sense that you're only hiring one person. It's just that nobody knows ahead of time which of the four postings will end up being the real one.
- learc83 5y ago
  Companies do this all the time. There’s generally no problem with it. We have an opening for an staff engineer at work, but we’d settle for a senior engineer. We definitely wouldn’t hire an unqualified person as staff and just pay them less. Or an overqualified person as senior and pay them way more. That just doesn’t make sense. Companies also routinely have permanently open positions without exact numbers of positions.
- asdff 5y ago
  I don't think you have to fully commit to hiring on every job posting you make. A lot of biotech jobs seem to have standing listing for these sorts of tiered roles (junior scientist I II III IIV, scientist I II III IV etc..) presumably because the applicants can be pretty stratified in biotech in experience and in degrees.

mattnewton 5y ago

A 50% difference in salary sounds like a slightly different role / level with different expectations. Why not put up two job postings, one for 90-110k for the junior devs and one for the senior devs at 140k-160k? Why are you dangling 150k in front of junior devs if they aren't worth it to your company in the first place? If they are the same role and the difference really is 50k based on interviews and negotiations alone I am of course going to shoot for the full 50k.

toast0 5y ago
Sometimes it's not so much the same role, but you need someone to work on X and do the other things; depending on experience and interview, the compensation and the other things will vary, but you're not going to hire more than one person to work on X, so having two open positions will confuse HR.
- kerkeslager 5y ago
  Why are you hiring a $150k candidate to work on X if a $100k candidate can work on X? That's a waste of $50k. It sounds like you need to figure out what X is worth to you.
  - wallacoloo 5y ago
    > Why are you hiring a $150k candidate to work on X if a $100k candidate can work on X? That's a waste of $50k. i think that’s the point. X takes an engineer who’s worth $100k. if an engineer worth more than that comes along, you want to let them do X for $100k, but since they’ll get it done easier/faster either you’re only letting them work part time (silly restriction to force on them), or you let them help out around the org in general for extra money. hence, you advertise the role as $100k (for doing X) - $150k (a rough judgment of how much extra capacity the company could easily absorb from a candidate that tackles X quickly). that seems… pretty reasonable to me.
    - sarchertech 5y ago

thr0wawayf00 5y ago

> You give someone a range, say $100-150k. I ASSURE you that they are thinking they are closer to 150k than 100. So good luck giving an offer for $100k, even though that might be what that particular candidate is worth to you. This is exactly how markets are supposed to function. If you feel that a candidate isn't worth what they're asking for, then you have every right to pass on them. Keeping a lid on the salary range is a dark pattern that benefits employers at the expense of workers.

plorg 5y ago

The way I have seen this addressed, in a way that seems fair and forthright to me as an applicant, is to create titles with job descriptions and requirements and minimum salaries for those titles, and advertise that you are looking to fill a position with one of the titles. Tell the applicant which title(s) they are interviewing for, and you both have a much better idea of what to expect.

mandevil 5y ago

If your employees find out that there is a 50% difference in their salary's for the same official job title I suspect that they are going to be very upset, unless you've been open and clear with them up front. Shrink your salary bands and break this out into different jobs, as a suggestion.

colinmhayes 5y ago
Does everyone at your company with the same title create the same value? Plenty of people at my office with the same title create double or triple the value.
- learc83 5y ago
  Yes those discrepancies exist. But they are almost always a result of imperfect information at hiring. No one hired 2 people into the same role assuming that one would only be half as productive as the average and one would be 2x more productive. Had they known that going in they would have hired them into different positions or at least different levels within the same position. And typically those high performers either get promoted or leave to find higher paying jobs.

kerkeslager 5y ago

> You give someone a range, say $100-150k. I ASSURE you that they are thinking they are closer to 150k than 100. So good luck giving an offer for $100k, even though that might be what that particular candidate is worth to you. This comes across as whining that you won't enjoy the same unfair advantage in negotiation as you previously enjoyed. Interviewees are almost universally expected to give a single number (not a range), sometimes in the application process, even before the interview. If I can put a single number on what I'm looking to be paid with incomplete information about the position, you can put a single number on what you're willing to pay with incomplete information about the candidate. Also, a range as broad as $100-150k tells me that you either don't know what candidate you're looking for, or you're trying to snag a $150k candidate and only pay them $100k. There's no way I'd apply for that job as anything other than the lower end of that range. A healthy business relationship starts from understanding that both interviewer and interviewee should have the same goal, trying to match an appropriate candidate with appropriate work and appropriate pay.

jjav 5y ago
> If I can put a single number on what I'm looking to be paid with incomplete information about the position, you can put a single number on what you're willing to pay with incomplete information about the candidate. To be fair, that's not true. One person interviewing can say what number will make them happy to consider a move. The company though, is open (usually) to all kinds of people who might fill the role. These people may range from a recent graduate to someone with tons of experience. Just depends who shows up and how good of a match they are. Open positions are hardly ever so statically fixed, there's always room to make the scope (and pay) smaller or larger, depending who shows up. Software roles are fairly open-ended on what the person will ultimately end up doing, so it'll depend on their experience and interests. It's not like hiring someone for a widget factory where I know in advance they'll be stamping widgets 8 hours a day. In such cases, the pay can be predicted easily.
sneak 5y ago
> Interviewees are almost universally expected to give a single number (not a range), sometimes in the application process, even before the interview. I think a better description of the situation is "prompted" or "demanded", not "expected". As many interviewing advice sites will happily point out, providing any salary information prior to an offer is not usually a hard requirement (though employers like to make it seem like it is).

jjav 5y ago

> As a candidate, I hate applying to jobs only to get a lowball offer at the end. So I appreciate bills like this. These bills are nice but I don't feel very strongly about it because whenever I talk to a recruiter, the very first conversation is where I'll give my comp expectations. If they want to proceed, great, if it's too much then fine. Proceeding through interviews and waiting for an offer to see if they can match your expectations is not a good use of time.

stjohnswarts 5y ago

Don't give them the chance to stretch it out. Ask up front or tell them what you want, again up front, ask for what the "standard package" is for the position (trust me they have one). Judge them by their response and how sincere they seem. Some HR won't necessarily know up front but they can find out.

benjaminbachman 5y ago

> As a hiring manager, I see that this is actually not so simple. You give someone a range, say $100-150k. I ASSURE you that they are thinking they are closer to 150k than 100. So good luck giving an offer for $100k, even though that might be what that particular candidate is worth to you. This claim appears multiple times in this thread but it doesn't actually make sense to me. If I'm currently making $x and I see a job listed for $1.2x - $1.5x, I'm not going to turn down a 20% raise just because I wanted a 50% raise.

runako 5y ago

TL;DR; you may be limiting the pool of applications by posting wide ranges. The funny thing about this is that if I see a range of $100-$150k, I would assume the actual budget is in the $130k range. Further, with a range that wide, I would infer that the hiring team has no idea what the role is worth. That would lead me to expect the role to be ill-defined and poorly supported and that there would be significant work just to carve out an actual job there. Given these and the huge number of open jobs, I don't see why anyone with capabilities at the high end of your range would waste time considering a posting like that. This reads like a posting for a $100k role where an applicant skilled at interviewing could earn $150k for the $100k role.