Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
They are not likely to have a salary range in mind until they are able to evaluate you and other candidates and decide how badly they want you and where you fall in the lineup of potential candidates. The other concern is if you as for something too high, you may turn them off and make them think you will never be happy there even if you accept a lower offer. If you ask too low, you are cheating yourself. Personally, I think it is better to let them make and offer and then negotiate if necessary. If they ask you what you are looking for, I would give them a range not a precise number. If you are not that interested in the job, but would take it for enough money, then by all means give them a high number early on.
I don't think it's inappropriate at all to ask - I once had an office interview and they wanted to pay the person 8.15 an hour....LOL..yet they were asking for all these qualifications. Needless to say, I saw they were advertising 60 days later - whoever they hired ran for the hills (probably after seeing their paycheck)
I would ask because I wouldn't be willing to change jobs unless I were guaranteed a certain amount. I would certainly feel out the interview and try to ask at an appropriate time/in an appropriate way.
I read/heard that it isn't appropriate to ask until the job is offered. Why? I want to know the salary before anything is offered so I don't waste time. Wasting time and gas and to find out the job I want pays so low! $15. It is quite funny the job title and duties seem higher than entry level but the pay is entry level.
I hate this job searching process.
I would ask right away prior to the interview.
Quote:
They are not likely to have a salary range in mind until they are able to evaluate you and other candidates and decide how badly they want you and where you fall in the lineup of potential candidates
That sounds like incredibly poor planning. Surely they have a broad idea of what this work will cost them, and know the range of salaries in their own company?
A salary range is not an offer. An offer would require an idea of the applicant pool and so on, but a salary range should give a floor and a ceiling so people know whether it's an aspirational position or what.
Like with many, I've been taught by my college, and other sources to not talk about salary until THEY bring it up, for the same reason that you give the impression that you're only care about getting paid. It's still ingrained within me.
.
I have been surprised, thrown in for a curveball, but also delighted when they've brought up salary requirements much sooner... end of final in-person interview, 1st in-person interview, or even as early as the screening call.
.
I went to a career/job fair where many of the companies were asking salary requirements up front... as part of the info gathering process even though some of those candidates will NOT end up getting an interview, let alone an offer. I hear what another user already posted... it's a huge waste of time, for both the job seeker AND employer to go through the whole process, only to not be able to meet eye-to-eye on salary, and both sides having to rinse and repeat yet again. Companies may genuinely be lowballing people, and job seeker expectations may be too high. Or, each side may be delusional in rejecting what could objectively been considered a good rate. Either way, it's time saved.
On a related note, one person who works with a lot of companies directly told us in seminar to stop submitting cover letters! There was a bit of murmuring in the crowds, as this too was another thing we've been ingrained with. She was told that companies simply don't have time to go through both resumes AND cover letters. When asked why their system still has that option.. her response was many companies use off-the-shelf systems for job applicants (e.g. Taleo), but it does NOT give them the option to say "No cover letters please!". Again.. ingrained in me. Unless I'm explicitly told NOT to submit a cover letter, I'll still do it. However, I'll be sure to keep it even shorter... 2 to 3 SHORT paragraphs at most.
Quote:
Originally Posted by SportyandMisty
Yes, but some employees wish to choose jobs which maximize current cash compensation to the exclusion of everything else.
Most employers want to hear employees say something such as "Money isn't the only consideration; I'm interested in career growth and enhancing my skills and X and Y and Z. Having said that, I'm sure your company wants to recruit and retain competent employees, and to do so I'm sure you have a competitive total compensation package."
The above is part of the BS compensation dance, but better than an employee saying something like "I'm only here for the paycheck. I'll work for you if you give me a larger paycheck than your competitors, but if you fall behind I'm outta here."
This is the game we have to play, even though it's always bugged me to no end. I'm sorry, but companies are delusional if they place too much emphasis on what salary a job seeker wants. They're looking for jobs b/c they have bills to pay, not unlike the employers themselves. They shouldn't be finding work ONLY for the pay (since having some knowledge about the industry, and extra drive can be essential). However, employees sure as hell won't work for free. If their pay gets cut, you can sure as hell bet they're jumping ship.
.
And pay is something both sides have to deal with. Companies need to remain competitive. OTOH, people have bills to pay, and if you really want some of these skills that they offer, you need to try to meet them on that. You can't lowball people who work in NYC or the Bay Area because salaries are generally higher in those areas, and that's what the competition typically offers.
If you're in a situation where the ball's more so in their court, than probably not bring up salary. If it's more in your court, or you don't want to deal with wasting time, then definitely bring up salary.
If they ask and you say $70-$90k/year, won't they always offer you no more than your minimum, in this case $70k?
Not necessarily. Companies want to save money whenever possible, but even they'll understand that squeezing every penny isn't always in their better interests. It may be out of genuine concern and kindness, or it could be masked by even more greed. They have gone into the higher range, and even beyond, including but not limited to the following reasons:
--If salary is negotiated towards the end, your professional references* may have sold you even better than realized
--They were going to offer you EVEN MORE than that anyways. For example, if the budget for such a position was $90K to $100K, then they're still within their budget, even if it exceeds your expectations
--If the range was stated early on, conducting an interview may have gotten them to realize you're better than they thought. For example, you aced the technical portions of the interview. The IT team confirms that you're a candidate that indeed knows your stuff.
---related, paying $20K more for you is actually a SAVINGS vs. someone else who requires the time, effort, money, and other resources to match what you have
.
--they hear through whatever sources they have that competitors are looking for candidates, and they want to secure you first
--they recently had one guy quit or announce he's doing so. It's more important to secure a new employee than saving a mere $10 to $20K per year
---... especially if they need to go through the whole hiring process again. A higher salary is an EVEN BETTER incentive that you'll take the job.
---It's a good incentive to ensure you'll stay too.
For example, I was shocked when I got even higher offers for new jobs, despite being unemployed for around a year. I always like to be paid more, but I wasn't as pressed into jumping ship because what I was making worked out.
--They're more desperate than you are
Especially in situations where they have A LOT of ducks to line up... competent, knowledgeable, educated, have background checks/security clearances, laundry list of certifications, in a low amenity area, in a area that has lousy weather, timing issues like fiscal year
--don't expect large raises, if at all. If so, they can still stay within budget due to that
--No other benefits
For example, I had to relocate at my own expense for one job, that saved them money there
* Reminder that these are people you worked with who YOU ask to serve as such. These are people you worked closely with, on a daily-basis. As opposed to HR people who for the most part, only confirm job title and dates of employment. Another distinction for me was many of my professional references I used were no longer with the company in question since they too got laid off the same time I did.
Quote:
MetroWord
The salary is not and should not be the entire reason why people work.
Quote:
nobodysbusiness Of course!
The entire reason people work is for salary, so to pretend that it is not important is
The 2 of you could meet middle ground...it indeed shouldn't be just about the pay. However, pay is STILL a large factor, for either or both parties.
Last edited by ackmondual; 12-20-2017 at 04:05 PM..
Reason: Some tweaks and clarifications. Added another bullet point
I wouldn't say there are any hard rules because it depends on the context and details. But in general, I would not bring up salary first. Some say they don't want to waste time but here's another way to look at it. By the time you're in an interview you've already invested time. Maybe researching the company, preparing for interview questions, getting there and back, rearranging your schedule, etc. Heck, just time thinking about it, who doesn't rehearse it in their mind over and over?
If you ask early and they are put off then you've wasted all that time. An interview is seldom over an hour in my experience. So why risk wasting 2-8 hours to save less than an hour? If it looks like it's going to be a really long interview process with possibly multiple interviews, or I'm getting a vibe they pay very low, then that is one of the contexts where I might ask.
If they ask and you say $70-$90k/year, won't they always offer you no more than your minimum, in this case $70k?
They will offer you enough to meet market rate. If $90k is closer to market, you will get that rate.
Years ago, I applied at Chase bank for $60k total. They offered $68k plus 10% bonus. I got $8k more base and a bonus than my minimum. Another company offered $75k base, no bonus, to beat Chase.
I was happy to get $60k, but ended up with $15k more.
If I am applying for McDonalds for their cashier position and tell them minimum wage to $90k/yr, I am getting minimum wage.
Third party recruiters are a different story. They will submit your resume, while already knowing the client's salary range. They will look at your bottom range to match up with clients. I got lucky with clients ending up offering more, but there were special circumstances that led to getting more than requested.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
