7 ms·

Then have a range? Of course you need to pay different employees different salaries, but that doesn't mean you can't expose potential employees to the salary th

by e-dard 12y ago

Then have a range? Of course you need to pay different employees different salaries, but that doesn't mean you can't expose potential employees to the salary they might expect to earn.

michaelt 12y ago
Someone who applied hoping for the top of the salary bracket, and who gets an offer for the bottom of the salary bracket, is still going to be upset. And if you advertise "Salary range: $0-$10,000,000" you aren't really telling people much anyway :)
- Mister_Snuggles 12y ago
  A range tells you if you and your potential employer are on the same page. I don't apply for a job expecting the top end of the range, but at the same time if the top end is less than what I'm willing to take then I don't waste my (and the employer's) time with an application. If I saw a range like $0-$10,000,000, I wouldn't apply since it's clear that they are not taking the hiring process seriously.
notahacker 12y ago
Because if you can afford to stretch your range up to attract an elite candidate you will do. Explaining to people who are perfectly well qualified for the job including your own existing employees why they're at the bottom of the range is an uncomfortable conversation... much more uncomfortable than explaining why an actually-hired elite candidate whose been given additional responsibilities earns 50% more salary.
- s73v3r 12y ago
  Too bad?
- crdoconnor 12y ago
  This is bull. It's about concealing from the people who are at the bottom of the range who don't deserve it. THAT'S an awkward conversation to have.
  - notahacker 12y ago
    Sure, that's also awkward, but it doesn't alter the reality that many firms are perfectly happy with their existing employees, expect to fill positions with similar calibre candidates, but are prepared to pay a lot more for better.
    - crdoconnor 12y ago
      This isn't particularly awkward.
- rmc 12y ago
  > Explaining to people who are perfectly well qualified for the job including your own existing employees why they're at the bottom of the range is an uncomfortable conversation I would imagine having to explain to your employees why you're underpaying them is a difficult conversation. But the problem is that's the employee's know, the problem is that you're underpaying them.
  - notahacker 12y ago
    Sure. But just because you're more likely to pay a new hire more than your existing staff than less doesn't mean they're underpaid, or indeed not paid comfortably above market rates for their skillset (above-market payers often have the most opaque salary structures) Most employers able to pay market rate or better would rather attract candidates for a position that are substantially better than their existing employees than substantially worse, so the feasible salary range is naturally skewed upwards even if you pad it at the bottom. Most employees don't think they belong in the bottom half of the salary range for their position, even if they do. Something has to give, and its usually transparency.

by e-dard 12y ago

Then have a range? Of course you need to pay different employees different salaries, but that doesn't mean you can't expose potential employees to the salary they might expect to earn.

michaelt 12y ago

Someone who applied hoping for the top of the salary bracket, and who gets an offer for the bottom of the salary bracket, is still going to be upset. And if you advertise "Salary range: $0-$10,000,000" you aren't really telling people much anyway :)

Mister_Snuggles 12y ago
A range tells you if you and your potential employer are on the same page. I don't apply for a job expecting the top end of the range, but at the same time if the top end is less than what I'm willing to take then I don't waste my (and the employer's) time with an application. If I saw a range like $0-$10,000,000, I wouldn't apply since it's clear that they are not taking the hiring process seriously.

notahacker 12y ago

Because if you can afford to stretch your range up to attract an elite candidate you will do. Explaining to people who are perfectly well qualified for the job including your own existing employees why they're at the bottom of the range is an uncomfortable conversation... much more uncomfortable than explaining why an actually-hired elite candidate whose been given additional responsibilities earns 50% more salary.

s73v3r 12y ago
Too bad?
crdoconnor 12y ago
This is bull. It's about concealing from the people who are at the bottom of the range who don't deserve it. THAT'S an awkward conversation to have.
- notahacker 12y ago
  Sure, that's also awkward, but it doesn't alter the reality that many firms are perfectly happy with their existing employees, expect to fill positions with similar calibre candidates, but are prepared to pay a lot more for better.
  - crdoconnor 12y ago
    This isn't particularly awkward.
rmc 12y ago
> Explaining to people who are perfectly well qualified for the job including your own existing employees why they're at the bottom of the range is an uncomfortable conversation I would imagine having to explain to your employees why you're underpaying them is a difficult conversation. But the problem is that's the employee's know, the problem is that you're underpaying them.
- notahacker 12y ago
  Sure. But just because you're more likely to pay a new hire more than your existing staff than less doesn't mean they're underpaid, or indeed not paid comfortably above market rates for their skillset (above-market payers often have the most opaque salary structures) Most employers able to pay market rate or better would rather attract candidates for a position that are substantially better than their existing employees than substantially worse, so the feasible salary range is naturally skewed upwards even if you pad it at the bottom. Most employees don't think they belong in the bottom half of the salary range for their position, even if they do. Something has to give, and its usually transparency.