7 ms·

I had an interesting interview with one of their recruiters in which within the first 5 minutes I was asked to agree to compensation below what their calculator

I had an interesting interview with one of their recruiters in which within the first 5 minutes I was asked to agree to compensation below what their calculator (which was a part of the job posting) indicated was their pay scale for my location and that position. I was told my resume wouldn't be passed to an engineering lead until I had (in writing) agreed to the lower salary range. Liiike why even... Edit: Didn't intend to make a scene or put anyone on blast here. Just thought the calculator was a little silly. Thanks for the responses gitlab staff.

s_kilk 10y ago
That all sounds kinda weird and sketchy, like the recruiter had a strange hidden motive.
connorshea 10y ago
Sorry this happened to you, I’ve brought it up with our PeopleOps team and we’re looking into it. Something like this absolutely shouldn’t be happening. If you have any more information you can share, it'd be great if you could send it to peopleops at gitlab.com.
rixrix 10y ago
be nice this is my first comment in Hacker News :D Interestingly issues gets noticed here!, there was a posting yesterday about FB hiring issue.
sashagitlab 10y ago
Hi Matt, I am the recruiter at GL, I've reviewed your case, and I wanted to follow up personally. I'd like to address your concern and explain our process. Since the time of your interview, we have changed the process of discussing compensation within the first 15 minutes of a conversation to the end of a phone call. We understand it's uncomfortable and sometimes awkward to talk pay when you've just met someone. Hopefully this improvement will prevent misunderstandings in the future. Secondly, we never would ask you to agree to something that is below the calculators suggestion, however your expectations based on Level, Experience, or Location may differ from the recruiter or hiring managers' assessments. We do talk about compensation early and upfront with every candidate, because we use it to guide our offers. I'm very sorry that your experience was less than ideal, and I apologize for any miscommunication that happened as a result! We are always striving to improve our process so any more details/feedback you'd like to share about your specific situation would be appreciated so our PeopleOps team can ensure this mistake isn't repeated.
- deleted 10y ago
  [deleted]
- aldarn 10y ago
  I'm not sure this really addresses the issue? Personally I actually would appreciate the upfront salary discussion as it could potentially save a lot of wasted time. It seems to me the issue is more there was a difference in expectations between what the candidate perceived was their situation and what the recruiter believed. This is of course not uncommon, however from the sounds of it the candidate was not given an opportunity to reason their position. It could be that GitLab is simply not offering competitive renumeration based on what the candidate believed they could achieve in the same market. It could also be that GitLab undervalued the particular skill sets of the candidate. Of course the opposite may also be true. Clearly there were differences in opinions, however by asking the candidate to sign an agreement to a specific salary based on no discussion is only going to cause issues for everyone. Either the candidate agrees, goes through the interview and decides "it's not worth it, and now there's no flexibility", they disagree and a potentially good candidate is immediately lost or they agree, take the job and feel like they are not being fairly compensated, which can have all sorts of consequences. This is usually why the discussion happens at the end of an interview process, after the candidate has had the opportunity to demonstrate their skills and experience. Then if there is still a perception of a mismatch this can be reasoned with respect to what has previously been discussed. > Secondly, we never would ask you to agree to something that is below the calculators suggestion, however your expectations based on Level, Experience, or Location may differ from the recruiter or hiring managers' assessments. The candidate has clearly stated they were offered less than what the calculator suggested. It was your recruiters opinion that they did not meet the parameters entered into the calculator, however clearly the candidate believed that they did. In this case the recruiter must judge the cause of the disparity through discussion with the candidate and set expectations in terms of the results of this discussion. Again, simply telling a candidate "this is our opinion, you must agree to it" is not going to benefit anyone.
  - ernstvn 10y ago
    Just to be clear: the calculator takes Level, Experience, and Location into account. If the candidate and recruiter arrive at different numbers while typing into the calculator, then there is apparently miscommunication about one or more of those factors. But being asked to agree to something that is lower than what comes out of the calculator is just not something we do at GitLab. If it came across that way then something got lost in the communication. Matt, since I deal with the comp calculator every now and then, if you'd like to provide more specifics of your situation, can you please email me on ernst@gitlab.com ?

s_kilk 10y ago

That all sounds kinda weird and sketchy, like the recruiter had a strange hidden motive.

connorshea 10y ago

Sorry this happened to you, I’ve brought it up with our PeopleOps team and we’re looking into it. Something like this absolutely shouldn’t be happening. If you have any more information you can share, it'd be great if you could send it to peopleops at gitlab.com.

rixrix 10y ago

be nice this is my first comment in Hacker News :D Interestingly issues gets noticed here!, there was a posting yesterday about FB hiring issue.

sashagitlab 10y ago

Hi Matt, I am the recruiter at GL, I've reviewed your case, and I wanted to follow up personally. I'd like to address your concern and explain our process. Since the time of your interview, we have changed the process of discussing compensation within the first 15 minutes of a conversation to the end of a phone call. We understand it's uncomfortable and sometimes awkward to talk pay when you've just met someone. Hopefully this improvement will prevent misunderstandings in the future. Secondly, we never would ask you to agree to something that is below the calculators suggestion, however your expectations based on Level, Experience, or Location may differ from the recruiter or hiring managers' assessments. We do talk about compensation early and upfront with every candidate, because we use it to guide our offers. I'm very sorry that your experience was less than ideal, and I apologize for any miscommunication that happened as a result! We are always striving to improve our process so any more details/feedback you'd like to share about your specific situation would be appreciated so our PeopleOps team can ensure this mistake isn't repeated.

deleted 10y ago
[deleted]
aldarn 10y ago
I'm not sure this really addresses the issue? Personally I actually would appreciate the upfront salary discussion as it could potentially save a lot of wasted time. It seems to me the issue is more there was a difference in expectations between what the candidate perceived was their situation and what the recruiter believed. This is of course not uncommon, however from the sounds of it the candidate was not given an opportunity to reason their position. It could be that GitLab is simply not offering competitive renumeration based on what the candidate believed they could achieve in the same market. It could also be that GitLab undervalued the particular skill sets of the candidate. Of course the opposite may also be true. Clearly there were differences in opinions, however by asking the candidate to sign an agreement to a specific salary based on no discussion is only going to cause issues for everyone. Either the candidate agrees, goes through the interview and decides "it's not worth it, and now there's no flexibility", they disagree and a potentially good candidate is immediately lost or they agree, take the job and feel like they are not being fairly compensated, which can have all sorts of consequences. This is usually why the discussion happens at the end of an interview process, after the candidate has had the opportunity to demonstrate their skills and experience. Then if there is still a perception of a mismatch this can be reasoned with respect to what has previously been discussed. > Secondly, we never would ask you to agree to something that is below the calculators suggestion, however your expectations based on Level, Experience, or Location may differ from the recruiter or hiring managers' assessments. The candidate has clearly stated they were offered less than what the calculator suggested. It was your recruiters opinion that they did not meet the parameters entered into the calculator, however clearly the candidate believed that they did. In this case the recruiter must judge the cause of the disparity through discussion with the candidate and set expectations in terms of the results of this discussion. Again, simply telling a candidate "this is our opinion, you must agree to it" is not going to benefit anyone.
- ernstvn 10y ago
  Just to be clear: the calculator takes Level, Experience, and Location into account. If the candidate and recruiter arrive at different numbers while typing into the calculator, then there is apparently miscommunication about one or more of those factors. But being asked to agree to something that is lower than what comes out of the calculator is just not something we do at GitLab. If it came across that way then something got lost in the communication. Matt, since I deal with the comp calculator every now and then, if you'd like to provide more specifics of your situation, can you please email me on ernst@gitlab.com ?