Quote:
Originally Posted by SoCalCpl2
What I find LAUGHABLE is the fact that almost everyone on here is making light of someone asking about wages and because they are either retired or already in a great job, they have to belittle anyone who isn't..
...
Instead of looking down at these people how about helping them with advise or information.....
|
Let me tell you something.
When I was in my 20's I had no sense of responsibility. I felt that I was "owed" a job. As a result I wouldn't stay at any job for longer than a year for one reason or another. Back then I was perfectly satisfied focusing on the hourly rate, and I was perfectly fine making $15/hour as a customer service rep, but complaining when I found it harder and harder to get that amount or even get a job. I would apply over and over only to be rejected outright. I could get telemarketing jobs at the snap of a finger but couldn't stand cold calling.
In 2003 I got wise and applied to a position I was grossly underqualified for, managing contracts which I'd never done before. They wanted a bachelor's degree, years of experience, yada yada. They didn't get many hits because the work was boring to others plus their requirements were too darn high. When I interviewed the director we hit it off right away, because I knew how to sell myself. I was analytical, a high performer in the customer service realm, and I knew technology, all of which were key things they were looking for but hadn't advertised. They offered, I accepted. That was the beginning of my change as a worker; I stayed at that company for 5 years.
The difference? It was an internal position.
That's when it struck me. It didn't matter what position I got to get into the company. It didn't matter whether I was qualified for the internal position or not. All that mattered was that I took a risk and learned how to handle interviews and sell my strengths without focusing on my weaknesses. Since that job, I've only ever gone to three other companies, staying at two of them for at least 3 years (this one I just started in December), and it's been the same strategy.
The interview was always the ticket. I haven't been rejected for a job in over 11 years. Once I figured out how to handle the interview it didn't matter what they claimed they wanted. It only mattered that I had the best pitch. That's what people lack: the ability to sell themselves. They get turned down because they're not worth the company's time.
Quote:
Originally Posted by nikitakolata
I'm guessing this was at least partially targeted at what I posted since you mention bench jewelers specifically. Of course, my research on the position was similar to what you posted (I expected an hourly rate closer to $15). I don't understand why a company would even bother to interview someone who listed a salary requirement of $40k when they are only offering $20. That just doesn't make sense and wastes everyone's time.
|
I can answer this: Due diligence.
A company that doesn't bother interviewing applicants especially if they don't have a lot of applicants is wasting money. They have HR reps whose job is to screen people, if they screen nobody, they might miss the right person.
Some companies will waste a lot of time screening. Some will waste time not screening. You can always tell the difference because if you get all the way to an interview with the people you would work with and then don't get a call, it means HR liked you but the peers had something picky they didn't like.
The key is to not only respond when they ask for the interview but to sell yourself. Frankly, if you feel you're worth $40k, you simply need to sell that fact but in a position like this one where the market doesn't bear out such a salary, you also have to sell the company on the concept of demand. Is there a demand for bench jewelers in your area? If not, it's a harder sell.
Sounds like you found something more lucrative and you realized that what you want to do is better reserved for hobby. That's the right approach. Never give up on what you want to do, but accept that sometimes, what you want to do and what makes you a reasonable salary are almost always going to be mutually exclusive unless it's in the IT field.
Quote:
Originally Posted by FBJ
I feel that anyone who accepts a minimum wage job as a full-time job may not have confidence in their abilities or job searching skills. I say that because why would someone feel the need to settle for minimum wage if they making much more than that in their previous job? Now you may have to take a slight pay cut when losing your job but there is never ever any reason to go that low.
|
I disagree.
Some employers look negatively on the absence of work experience. It's identified to some as being ineligible for hiring for some reason. Likewise, other employers look negatively on "job hopping" - too many different jobs and not enough longevity at each. In other words it's better to take a $8/hour job for 3 years and then apply at some other place than to skip the lesser job altogether and collect unemployment - unless you're in college.
Either way, you have to explain to the recruiter why you did or didn't take the lesser job. If you took one, you explain that you accepted temporary work while you searched for more appropriate work, but while working at the lesser position, you continued studying and improving your skillsets (which is exactly what you should be doing). That will impress 8 out of 10 recruiters. The other 2 aren't worth your time.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Iamme73
To me an employer's salary offer is the indication of your worth to that employer. Being low balled means that employer doesn't value your time or job skills, and it can be a signal that the employer who doesn't value their employees by offering them crap pay, treat those employees like crap as well.
|
You've got things backwards.
The bold part is inaccurate. A salary offer in today's world has NOTHING to do with your worth to the employer and everything to do with the least amount of money they're willing to pay based on the specific position's value to them. It's almost always negotiable, and it is this negotiation that either will or won't bear fruit based on your perceived worth to them. But the initial offer is always going to be the lowest amount they will pay for that position, period. If you don't believe that, Google it. It has nothing to do with you personally, it's what the company tries to do to save money where they can.
The second part is accurate, because if you see that a position's market value is significantly higher, even on the low end, than what is being offered, then you're likely going to encounter disgruntled employees. But that's based on the region. A .NET developer will make substantially more in California or Washington than they would in Louisiana or Arkansas simply because of companies in the region and what competition there is. You can't complain about not getting $150k in Hangem, Montana when the market in that region doesn't bear that salary out. If you move to Seattle, you'll probably make that easy.
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.
