4 ms·

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 j

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
      Or you could just give the more qualified person a different title/level since they are clearly in a different role. A role that might be superset of role x, but a different role nonetheless.
      - altairprime 5y ago
        This is how the US Federal Government does it, with 15 'levels' (Paygrade) and 10 'levels' within each grade (Steps). Salaries scale up by 20-30% by Step, and a GS-1 step 10 makes more than a GS-3 step 1. > The General Schedule (GS) payscale is the federal government payscale used to determine the salaries of over 70% of federal civilian employees. An employee's base pay depends on two factors - the GS Paygrade of their job, and the Paygrade Step they have achieved (depending on seniority or performance). — https://www.federalpay.org/gs/2022 https://www.federalpay.org/gs/2022 The job's pay grade range (from step 1 lowest to step 10 highest) is what would be published to comply with Washington's laws. What's missing in the private sector is, at most employers, any communication whatsoever on which 'step' one is at; while HR often has this data, it is almost universally withheld except upon request, and often gated behind an HR conversation and verbal-only replies.
    - kerkeslager 5y ago
      "absorb from a candidate that tackles X quickly" sounds a lot like "waste" to me. The fact is, if X can be done by a $100k candidate, and you're hiring a $150k candidate, you probably expect more than X of them, and those extra expectations need to be communicated.
  - Nimitz14 5y ago
    > Why are you hiring a $150k candidate to work on X if a $100k candidate can work on X? Because the world isn't black and white. There could be soooo many different reasons why you're willing to pay one person a lot more than someone else to do a job.
    - learc83 5y ago
      It’s also very easy to just give the higher paid person a different title. Surely if they are worth 50% more, you can give them a better title to go along with it.
    - mattnewton 5y ago
      I mean, the ones that come to my mind are variations on the market rate being closer to $150k and you are trying to get a deal lowballing people. Which of course every business is going to do, I don't think they are wrong to negotiate down, but I think being upfront about the range is more honest to candidates and results in a better hiring experience for the hiring company overall. Forcing them to be upfront about the requirements for more money results in candidates better aligned with the requirements I would think. And leaving that to some negotiation without those requirements seems like it just opens the door for bias. I want to hire engineers and keep them based on their qualifications, and negotiating abilities is usually not one of them.
    - runako 5y ago
      > There could be soooo many different reasons why you're willing to pay one person a lot more than someone else to do a job. Interestingly, the architects of these laws would agree with this point.
    - kerkeslager 5y ago
      There are soooo many different reasons why that's wrong, but since you're just claiming that there are reasons without bothering to share any of them, I guess I can do the same. The fact is, if there are reasons you're paying one candidate more than another, those reasons don't need to be secrets.
  - toast0 5y ago
    Because if you can get a $150k candidate, they'll work on X and Z, but a $100k candidate may only work on X and Y or maybe just only X. Y and Z are nice to have, but only X is worth hiring for; whichever candidate gets through first gets the position.
    - sarchertech 5y ago
      So post 2 positions. If Z is worth 50% more to you, then it's clearly a different position, even if the responsibilities are a superset of the lower position. Most companies have levels for exactly this reason. It's not hard to post 2 positions, and it prevents issues like many people have been bringing up with candidates having the wrong expectations.
    - kerkeslager 5y ago
      Posting a "$100k-$150k for X" position completely fails to communicate this. Intentional or not, this comes across as either you don't know what you want, or you're trying to sneak in extra responsibilities to the position without having to pay for them. And I'll reiterate: $50k is a lot to pay for a "nice to have". I'd say you need to really think about whether you need Y and Z. If you don't, just post a "$100k for X" position. If you do, post a "$150k for X, Y, and Z" position". If you must, post both--at least that's honest. But it would be better to come to a firmer conclusion about what you need before hiring.
- mywittyname 5y ago
  Now that these laws are passing, HR will have incentives to correct this kind of situations. It might be as simple as having one job posting with pay bands associate with levels. So having a single job posting with Levels 1,2,3,... and the expectations/salary bands for each. That way, candidates asking for top-of-band should expect to be interviewed at the appropriate level. I feel like a lot of companies already do this: interview candidates, then grade them at a specific level based on their performance.
- mattnewton 5y ago
  I haven't worked with HR at small companies before, so maybe this is completely out of touch, but why would it be so hard for HR to handle two postings for the same rec/headcount? They already presumably have this problem with multiple postings on different platforms? And if they can't handle that to avoid the effects of large ranges on negotiations then the effects must not be worth that much to the company.
dariusj18 5y ago
Because depending on the candidate that walks in the door I might need them, but I know they will require a lot more handholding.
- mattnewton 5y ago
  If you need them but they won't apply for less than 150k, I think the problem is not that your range is 100-150k making them negotiate for 150k, it's that the market rate has gone up to 150k. If it is worth around 100k to you with handholding put a range closer to 100k in the description, and a separate job posting with all the additional requirements to make it to 150k, imo.
  - dariusj18 5y ago
    For a small company, just having one job posting is a lot of work, let alone managing multiple postings. Hell, there are times where we're hiring for a high level position but if a $30k resource walks in the door we might still hire them. Also, it is hard to come up with "particular requirements" that makes someone worth that extra $50k. Sometimes it comes down to a risk/reward calculation you have to do on the spot. Hiring sucks and as much as I'd love to have some great A + B = $100k, A + B + C = $150k formula, there's just too many factors, especially in a small business.
    - Fire-Dragon-DoL 5y ago
      While I can see reason, sometimes is sufficient to have the same job posting with "junior", "intermediate" and "senior" in the title as differentiator.
jayd16 5y ago
If you want to low ball, why not just always post a full range and hit every candidate with "we're not sure you're a fit but we do have another position at $50k less"?

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
    Or you could just give the more qualified person a different title/level since they are clearly in a different role. A role that might be superset of role x, but a different role nonetheless.
    - altairprime 5y ago
      This is how the US Federal Government does it, with 15 'levels' (Paygrade) and 10 'levels' within each grade (Steps). Salaries scale up by 20-30% by Step, and a GS-1 step 10 makes more than a GS-3 step 1. > The General Schedule (GS) payscale is the federal government payscale used to determine the salaries of over 70% of federal civilian employees. An employee's base pay depends on two factors - the GS Paygrade of their job, and the Paygrade Step they have achieved (depending on seniority or performance). — https://www.federalpay.org/gs/2022 https://www.federalpay.org/gs/2022 The job's pay grade range (from step 1 lowest to step 10 highest) is what would be published to comply with Washington's laws. What's missing in the private sector is, at most employers, any communication whatsoever on which 'step' one is at; while HR often has this data, it is almost universally withheld except upon request, and often gated behind an HR conversation and verbal-only replies.
  - kerkeslager 5y ago
    "absorb from a candidate that tackles X quickly" sounds a lot like "waste" to me. The fact is, if X can be done by a $100k candidate, and you're hiring a $150k candidate, you probably expect more than X of them, and those extra expectations need to be communicated.
- Nimitz14 5y ago
  > Why are you hiring a $150k candidate to work on X if a $100k candidate can work on X? Because the world isn't black and white. There could be soooo many different reasons why you're willing to pay one person a lot more than someone else to do a job.
  - learc83 5y ago
    It’s also very easy to just give the higher paid person a different title. Surely if they are worth 50% more, you can give them a better title to go along with it.
  - mattnewton 5y ago
    I mean, the ones that come to my mind are variations on the market rate being closer to $150k and you are trying to get a deal lowballing people. Which of course every business is going to do, I don't think they are wrong to negotiate down, but I think being upfront about the range is more honest to candidates and results in a better hiring experience for the hiring company overall. Forcing them to be upfront about the requirements for more money results in candidates better aligned with the requirements I would think. And leaving that to some negotiation without those requirements seems like it just opens the door for bias. I want to hire engineers and keep them based on their qualifications, and negotiating abilities is usually not one of them.
  - runako 5y ago
    > There could be soooo many different reasons why you're willing to pay one person a lot more than someone else to do a job. Interestingly, the architects of these laws would agree with this point.
  - kerkeslager 5y ago
    There are soooo many different reasons why that's wrong, but since you're just claiming that there are reasons without bothering to share any of them, I guess I can do the same. The fact is, if there are reasons you're paying one candidate more than another, those reasons don't need to be secrets.
- toast0 5y ago
  Because if you can get a $150k candidate, they'll work on X and Z, but a $100k candidate may only work on X and Y or maybe just only X. Y and Z are nice to have, but only X is worth hiring for; whichever candidate gets through first gets the position.
  - sarchertech 5y ago
    So post 2 positions. If Z is worth 50% more to you, then it's clearly a different position, even if the responsibilities are a superset of the lower position. Most companies have levels for exactly this reason. It's not hard to post 2 positions, and it prevents issues like many people have been bringing up with candidates having the wrong expectations.
  - kerkeslager 5y ago
    Posting a "$100k-$150k for X" position completely fails to communicate this. Intentional or not, this comes across as either you don't know what you want, or you're trying to sneak in extra responsibilities to the position without having to pay for them. And I'll reiterate: $50k is a lot to pay for a "nice to have". I'd say you need to really think about whether you need Y and Z. If you don't, just post a "$100k for X" position. If you do, post a "$150k for X, Y, and Z" position". If you must, post both--at least that's honest. But it would be better to come to a firmer conclusion about what you need before hiring.
mywittyname 5y ago
Now that these laws are passing, HR will have incentives to correct this kind of situations. It might be as simple as having one job posting with pay bands associate with levels. So having a single job posting with Levels 1,2,3,... and the expectations/salary bands for each. That way, candidates asking for top-of-band should expect to be interviewed at the appropriate level. I feel like a lot of companies already do this: interview candidates, then grade them at a specific level based on their performance.
mattnewton 5y ago
I haven't worked with HR at small companies before, so maybe this is completely out of touch, but why would it be so hard for HR to handle two postings for the same rec/headcount? They already presumably have this problem with multiple postings on different platforms? And if they can't handle that to avoid the effects of large ranges on negotiations then the effects must not be worth that much to the company.

dariusj18 5y ago

Because depending on the candidate that walks in the door I might need them, but I know they will require a lot more handholding.

mattnewton 5y ago
If you need them but they won't apply for less than 150k, I think the problem is not that your range is 100-150k making them negotiate for 150k, it's that the market rate has gone up to 150k. If it is worth around 100k to you with handholding put a range closer to 100k in the description, and a separate job posting with all the additional requirements to make it to 150k, imo.
- dariusj18 5y ago
  For a small company, just having one job posting is a lot of work, let alone managing multiple postings. Hell, there are times where we're hiring for a high level position but if a $30k resource walks in the door we might still hire them. Also, it is hard to come up with "particular requirements" that makes someone worth that extra $50k. Sometimes it comes down to a risk/reward calculation you have to do on the spot. Hiring sucks and as much as I'd love to have some great A + B = $100k, A + B + C = $150k formula, there's just too many factors, especially in a small business.
  - Fire-Dragon-DoL 5y ago
    While I can see reason, sometimes is sufficient to have the same job posting with "junior", "intermediate" and "senior" in the title as differentiator.

jayd16 5y ago

If you want to low ball, why not just always post a full range and hit every candidate with "we're not sure you're a fit but we do have another position at $50k less"?