4 ms·

It is hard to convince someone they are wrong when their salary depends on being right. But I'm going to try. I've done hiring myself as a founder, so I have

It is hard to convince someone they are wrong when their salary depends on being right. But I'm going to try. I've done hiring myself as a founder, so I have some experience here. > The fact is that many employers don't actually know what they would be willing to pay someone. Then they need better data. A great way to get that would be looking at all the other job listings with salary ranges if they don't already have access to back channel data. > It is also true that a single job ad might be aiming to employ a number of people at various positions of seniority and experience. Then it should be multiple listings with different requirements, even if the only difference is years of experience. > So it does not surprise me that governments would legislate to require job ads to do the same - essentially because of ignorance about how the world works. The way the government does it is more equitable, so it makes sense that they are trying to legislate that to the private sector. > If it makes you mad that job ads do not list salary, then there are good reasons and you will just have to get over or it not apply for that job. It's that easy - if the ad doesn't specify salary and that is a key requirement for you, don't get angry, just don't apply. This is exactly the problem. If they aren't required to list it, they won't. And this is harmful to people who aren't good negotiators. And also harmful to women and minorities, as countless studies have shown they are chronically underpaid in large part because they aren't willing or able to negotiate. That's why there is a push to force companies to list the salaries. > Far more important is to know the salary target that you are aiming for. You're right! The best way for me to know what salary to target is with lots of data about how much similar jobs pay. A great way to get that is job listings with salary ranges, since I don't have access to data like the person offering the job does.

NovemberWhiskey 4y ago
>> The fact is that many employers don't actually know what they would be willing to pay someone. > Then they need better data. A great way to get that would be looking at all the other job listings with salary ranges if they don't already have access to back channel data. You're missing the point: the variable is the candidate, not the role. I know the market rate for a candidate that is just over-the-bar for my role, and I know that market rate for a super-star who can not only do this role, but is probably already capable of doing the next one. > Then it should be multiple listings with different requirements, even if the only difference is years of experience. So, what if you apply for a role that turns out to be wrong for you based on my assessment of you then I should reject you so you can re-apply for the other role? That's ridiculous.
- jedberg 4y ago
  > So, what if you apply for a role that turns out to be wrong for you based on my assessment of you then I should reject you so you can re-apply for the other role? That's ridiculous. No of course not. You simply offer the better role at the higher salary. Or if they turn out to not be good, you tell them that you are going to deny them this role because they are not qualified, but you'd be happy to offer the lower role if they are interested. In fact, I'll bet this will happen a lot as a workaround for this law.
  - NovemberWhiskey 4y ago
    If the only way to operate realistically is to engage in some form of borderline-compliant workaround then I suggest the entire exercise is ill-conceived.
    - bradleyjg 4y ago
      At least in that case I can read the job descriptions of low, medium, and high before applying. If I don’t know where my salary expectations line up with the company’s job requirements at all there’s a higher chance of wasting my time.
- showerst 4y ago
  > I know the market rate for a candidate that is just over-the-bar for my role, and I know that market rate for a super-star Great, then you know the good faith range and you're good to go. > then I should reject you so you can re-apply for the other role In my experience this happens all the time at big corps and the government. Except it's not a rejection, just an "oh actually we have this other open job on the books that would be a better fit - let's transfer you over to that"
- joe5150 4y ago
  The law doesn't say you can't offer someone a different job than they applied for.
  - 4y ago
renewiltord 4y ago
Did you list public salary ranges at Reddit? If so, why? Else, why not? Not a gotcha, just curious what were the factors that made you take that decision.

NovemberWhiskey 4y ago

>> The fact is that many employers don't actually know what they would be willing to pay someone. > Then they need better data. A great way to get that would be looking at all the other job listings with salary ranges if they don't already have access to back channel data. You're missing the point: the variable is the candidate, not the role. I know the market rate for a candidate that is just over-the-bar for my role, and I know that market rate for a super-star who can not only do this role, but is probably already capable of doing the next one. > Then it should be multiple listings with different requirements, even if the only difference is years of experience. So, what if you apply for a role that turns out to be wrong for you based on my assessment of you then I should reject you so you can re-apply for the other role? That's ridiculous.

jedberg 4y ago
> So, what if you apply for a role that turns out to be wrong for you based on my assessment of you then I should reject you so you can re-apply for the other role? That's ridiculous. No of course not. You simply offer the better role at the higher salary. Or if they turn out to not be good, you tell them that you are going to deny them this role because they are not qualified, but you'd be happy to offer the lower role if they are interested. In fact, I'll bet this will happen a lot as a workaround for this law.
- NovemberWhiskey 4y ago
  If the only way to operate realistically is to engage in some form of borderline-compliant workaround then I suggest the entire exercise is ill-conceived.
  - bradleyjg 4y ago
    At least in that case I can read the job descriptions of low, medium, and high before applying. If I don’t know where my salary expectations line up with the company’s job requirements at all there’s a higher chance of wasting my time.
showerst 4y ago
> I know the market rate for a candidate that is just over-the-bar for my role, and I know that market rate for a super-star Great, then you know the good faith range and you're good to go. > then I should reject you so you can re-apply for the other role In my experience this happens all the time at big corps and the government. Except it's not a rejection, just an "oh actually we have this other open job on the books that would be a better fit - let's transfer you over to that"
joe5150 4y ago
The law doesn't say you can't offer someone a different job than they applied for.
- 4y ago

renewiltord 4y ago

Did you list public salary ranges at Reddit? If so, why? Else, why not? Not a gotcha, just curious what were the factors that made you take that decision.