5 ms·

Recruiting expert here! First off, a company "walking" without your salary information is a failure on their part, and their loss! However, to answer your que

Recruiting expert here! First off, a company "walking" without your salary information is a failure on their part, and their loss! However, to answer your question - I find the salary question to be a great indicator on many levels, here a few: It's just one data point in determining whether you're a qualified candidate 1) Why would I waste the candidate or the client/employer's time if there's too large a gap between candidate's salary & their highest potential for this role? The company has a budget, candidate have a minimum; let's get this out of the way - it would be terrible if the interview process went swimmingly only to find that the candidate wouldn't budge under $125K and client wouldn't exceed $100K. 2. Finally: it's not a huge deal if candidate prefers NOT to provide salary; sure, it makes you feel a little uncomfortable. If that's the case: no worries, but then I do ask that the candidate gives me a 10% range for their current salary & expectations. Again, employer just wants to know that we're potentially on the same page before wasting time. 3. Literally 95% of my software engineering candidates have no qualms about sharing their salary. The other 4% will at least give me a small range. These candidates that challenge this minor issue end up being more trouble than they're worth in other ways too; it's a red flag. (next stop: "no, I'm not taking a coding test"). Again, there are ways around REQUIRING the salary #. It should not result in a candidate or employer walking. Oof!

kooshball 11y ago
> 1) Why would I waste the candidate or the client/employer's time if there's too large a gap between candidate's salary & their highest potential for this role? It's trivial to solve this problem for a recruiter by simply stating the company budget range upfront. The problem is that recruiters want the client to give up their information without revealing any of their. That is where the asymmetry of information come into play and engineers end up getting the short end of the negotiation.
ef4 11y ago
> These candidates that challenge this minor issue end up being more trouble than they're worth in other ways too; it's a red flag. Speaking of red flags: organizations that think people who have basic negotiation skill are too much trouble to work with.
jacquesm 11y ago
I'm happy with your candor, at the same time you're displaying just about every trait that makes me loathe recruiters. It's refreshing to have this so out in the open, a bit like an SEO expert giving you the inside of his mind. Someone's current salary is none of your business, it's that simple and as a block of reasonably intelligent professionals we could simply all agree to never supply that information to the company hiring. Note that almost all of the risk at the time of a job change is already born by the employee, the employer using a recruiter is actively looking to dislodge employees elsewhere and has a few tools at his/her disposal to effect this. Since recruiters are paid by the future employer they should be considered an extension of that employer and in no way are they to be taken to be independents or objective, their job is simply to dislodge you for the minimum amount required. If you want to know that your employer and the candidate are on the same page then why don't you, the person initiating the contact disclose the range of salary offered plus or minus 10% so the prospective employee can decide whether or not you're on the same page? That's because you'd like to snag them for a little bit over what they are currently making, and you'd be happier if you could deliver a 'gem' well under the budget your employer has set aside. You might even get a bonus for that. If 95% of your software engineering candidates have no qualms about sharing their salary then that is what should change if you continue to game the process by asking such questions. What a software engineer makes is their private information, and asking for it is just another means of price-fixing between employers. And those candidates that challenge that requirement are not more trouble then they're worth, they are the only ones that apparently understand your game enough to not be easy marks and that is why you feel they are more trouble than they are worth because it isn't easy money.
- lscore720 11y ago
  Interesting response. Loathe recuiters? Let's take it easy on the echo chamber cliche here. Yeah, lots of bad apples out there, but ask any reasonable professional: a good recruiter is extremely valuable. You did forget that there are 2 types of recruiters: agency (outside) and corporate (inside). I, the agency recruiter, do not want to "dislodge" the candidate for the minimum amount required. Not because my fee will be higher with a greater salary, but because I'm actually incentivized to do what is best for both the employer & employee. This is called sales. When you do good by all parties to the transaction, it pays dividends long-term. So, no, we're not trying to "snag" them. I appreciate your paranoia, as you're not alone; many people dealing with bad recruiters probably need to vent. But for the most part, your perception of the recruiting industry is different from the reality.

kooshball 11y ago

> 1) Why would I waste the candidate or the client/employer's time if there's too large a gap between candidate's salary & their highest potential for this role? It's trivial to solve this problem for a recruiter by simply stating the company budget range upfront. The problem is that recruiters want the client to give up their information without revealing any of their. That is where the asymmetry of information come into play and engineers end up getting the short end of the negotiation.

ef4 11y ago

> These candidates that challenge this minor issue end up being more trouble than they're worth in other ways too; it's a red flag. Speaking of red flags: organizations that think people who have basic negotiation skill are too much trouble to work with.

jacquesm 11y ago

I'm happy with your candor, at the same time you're displaying just about every trait that makes me loathe recruiters. It's refreshing to have this so out in the open, a bit like an SEO expert giving you the inside of his mind. Someone's current salary is none of your business, it's that simple and as a block of reasonably intelligent professionals we could simply all agree to never supply that information to the company hiring. Note that almost all of the risk at the time of a job change is already born by the employee, the employer using a recruiter is actively looking to dislodge employees elsewhere and has a few tools at his/her disposal to effect this. Since recruiters are paid by the future employer they should be considered an extension of that employer and in no way are they to be taken to be independents or objective, their job is simply to dislodge you for the minimum amount required. If you want to know that your employer and the candidate are on the same page then why don't you, the person initiating the contact disclose the range of salary offered plus or minus 10% so the prospective employee can decide whether or not you're on the same page? That's because you'd like to snag them for a little bit over what they are currently making, and you'd be happier if you could deliver a 'gem' well under the budget your employer has set aside. You might even get a bonus for that. If 95% of your software engineering candidates have no qualms about sharing their salary then that is what should change if you continue to game the process by asking such questions. What a software engineer makes is their private information, and asking for it is just another means of price-fixing between employers. And those candidates that challenge that requirement are not more trouble then they're worth, they are the only ones that apparently understand your game enough to not be easy marks and that is why you feel they are more trouble than they are worth because it isn't easy money.

lscore720 11y ago
Interesting response. Loathe recuiters? Let's take it easy on the echo chamber cliche here. Yeah, lots of bad apples out there, but ask any reasonable professional: a good recruiter is extremely valuable. You did forget that there are 2 types of recruiters: agency (outside) and corporate (inside). I, the agency recruiter, do not want to "dislodge" the candidate for the minimum amount required. Not because my fee will be higher with a greater salary, but because I'm actually incentivized to do what is best for both the employer & employee. This is called sales. When you do good by all parties to the transaction, it pays dividends long-term. So, no, we're not trying to "snag" them. I appreciate your paranoia, as you're not alone; many people dealing with bad recruiters probably need to vent. But for the most part, your perception of the recruiting industry is different from the reality.