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.
And just why would a company pay $65k if they could pay an equal candidate $45k? They love that Boston accent? They despise people from Tennessee? Or maybe, just a longshot here, just maybe the candidates are not equal?
The candidates could be completely equal, but with a salary verification, they can fairly reasonably guesstimate who will accept what.
And just why would a company pay $65k if they could pay an equal candidate $45k?
If you have a plumbing job, let's say, that needs to be done, what do you do? Get three quotes, right? And which do you take? The lowest that you believe will get the job done, right?
Why should an employer do anything different? They're paying to get a job done. That's it. Of course they want the most economical way to do it! And yes, some are "cheap", and will always try to pay the lowest possible. So what? How and why are they not free to run their own business the way they want? Why would you want to try to force the "cheap" guy to pretend not to be cheap so you get suckered into working for him?
Frankly I don't understand why employers won't state the pay range in the posting to begin with so they don't waste anyone's time including their own. I mean a position like web app developer with 15+ years of experience could have companies hiring at 70k or 110k which is a huge difference and I don't want to have to go in to interview just to find that out. Someone experienced would like to see a stated range like $90k-$110k and then prospects would know the company is willing to play and looking for real experience since it's at the higher end and to expect serious responsibilities. If you're only paying out $70k for a job that someone should be making $110k at, what kind of employee do you think you'll fish up? It's not like they won't know the salary in the end and have to accept an offer anyway... what kind of employee are they expecting for bottom-dollar prices (relatively speaking) - certainly not experienced ones. An appropriate stated range will shorten the game, even if they can only afford the lower end for a given role.
Then you'll know they are cheap and aren't serious about finding a good hire. Good for us. Cheap companies deserve what they get (like the type who would accept $40k for an $80k job). My dad (retiring soon) works for a company who let them get out early on Christmas Friday, then proceeded to deduct those hours from their paychecks after the fact. Screw these guys who treat employees like dirt.
You can just turn that around and say why don't you provide your salary requirements when you apply? It comes down to leverage. Neither side wants to show their cards first. Of course, some place will provide a range , and there are plenty of people who have zero reservations about throwing out what they are looking for. But there is also a potential downside to that. If your range is higher than norm, you may get folks that are under-qualified but is taking a shot for that money - which is a time waster as well. Of course, if your salary is limited by budget (but you can make it up with benefits), you may lose out on a good candidate who simply is using basic requirements to filter you out.
The point is, this is simply a negotiation tactic. How you perceive your position will dictate how much information you want to reveal. Some companies feel they don't need to provide a range because they are getting (from what they can tell) good responses. Of course, what you perceive may not be realistic (or at least what everyone else perceives) - they may actually get better candidates if they provided more info. There are pros and cons to everything, but just because something has a con doesn't always mean it should be legislated.
All I have to do is ask if you will voluntarily authorize salary disclosure. If you say yes, you continue in the process. If you say no, I can won't ask but may not consider you anymore. All the law does is require we get your permission to discuss. It does not say we have to continue considering you if you refuse to authorize the disclosure.
The candidates could be completely equal, but with a salary verification, they can fairly reasonably guesstimate who will accept what.
That doesn't answer the question. It was your example, seemingly to show how a company offers above their planned range. But why would they do that if they have an equal candidate that would accept within or below their planned range?
And if by some miracle the law has the intended effect, do you really think employers are going to roll over and take it? They will rely on some other criteria which may be far worse for the applicant.
If the employer is deciding between two employees and is prohibited from asking about their salary histories then that will eliminate reliance on a possible history of sex discrimination in salaries from the decision of whether to make an offer and how much to offer. I'm not seeing how that's a bad thing.
Location: In a city within a state where politicians come to get their PHDs in Corruption
2,907 posts, read 2,068,439 times
Reputation: 4478
Quote:
Originally Posted by jackmccullough
If the employer is deciding between two employees and is prohibited from asking about their salary histories then that will eliminate reliance on a possible history of sex discrimination in salaries from the decision of whether to make an offer and how much to offer. I'm not seeing how that's a bad thing.
What sex discrimination do you speak of in wages? Do you really think I, as a business owner wouldn't hire a woman over a man if I could get a woman for this 78 cents on a dollar discount? Wage gap doesn't exist. If it did, the evidence would be of more women hired at the expense of the men, not the other way around you claim the case to be.
If the employer is deciding between two employees and is prohibited from asking about their salary histories then that will eliminate reliance on a possible history of sex discrimination in salaries from the decision of whether to make an offer and how much to offer. I'm not seeing how that's a bad thing.
And I'm not seeing how it eliminates that at all. If a company values women less, knowing or not knowing their salary history isn't going to change that.
That doesn't answer the question. It was your example, seemingly to show how a company offers above their planned range. But why would they do that if they have an equal candidate that would accept within or below their planned range?
They may need more than one candidate. The candidate from Boston may be slightly more qualified. They may be willing to take a gamble on an iffy candidate at an iffy wage.
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.
