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.
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 agree with you. When we hire we always put a salary (at least a reasonable range). Why waste your time AND ours if you are looking for more money than we are offering!
This comes from the idea that talking about money is not civilized combined with the belief you're supposed to just take what your employer gives you.
It works okay in a depressed labor market when an employer can get away with interviewing and deciding on applicants before telling them what the job pays. It evades giving the applicant an opportunity to discuss his or her value and negotiate compensation. You just get what you get or you negotiate after you've already put in work and expressed clear interest in the job (same way car salespeople make you wait around and negotiate over and over).
There are tactful ways to bring up compensation and it should always be brought up. Think of it from the other side. Can you imagine applying for a job and telling the employer during the interview it's inappropriate to bring up job responsibilities?
In my experience interviewers only get upset when a candidate asks about salary if they have no intention whatsoever to make the hire.
For one reason or another hiring managers regularly wind up doing a number of obligatory interviews with candidates they're able to disqualify within seconds of beginning the interview, or with candidates they flat out didn't want in the first place (for example they often already have an internal candidate in mind, but may have a legal obligation to post the job publicly; in the name of honoring that process and/or saving face they'll begrudgingly do initial follow-ups with the most obviously qualified external candidates).
I understand interviewers not giving exact numbers up front; it lowers their leverage plus they'd probably rather not have rejected applicants spreading the company's pay range information around town. But their secretive behavior sometimes gets extreme -- to the point of being directly harmful to job-seekers. Some employers seriously want every single applicant to jump through 10 hoops to get a job, all without giving any of them the slightest clue what the job pays! There can be a thin line between gaining leverage and wasting people's time.
Usually when I'm in a scenario where an interview has gone well until I politely ask about their general pay range, I'll just quietly make a mental note to strike the employer from my list and move on to someone who's behaving as if they're actually interested in me.
Might I suggest instead of falsifying your social security number,you simply state that all documents to show proof of citizenship or visa will be supplied with a firm job offer. This keeps both sides clean. I'd be weary of lieing or encouraging such.
A good company/recruiter should be conducting a phone screening even before they move someone onto an interview. 15 minutes on the front end saves a lot of time on the back end.
A simple review of salary range, hours, expectations, and basic interview questions can save everyone a lot of time. It creates a dialogue. I've often had people apply to a job, and I start the screening, and by the time we are done it's pretty clear we are not on the same page.
A good recruiter should be putting viable candidates that meet all the requirements/salary range in front of the hiring manager.
I just can't understand why employers skip this process. They could be missing out on a candidate that meets all of the criteria, and will actually accept the job if presented with an offer.
IN my current position, salary was the last ting we discussed. The first ten meetings/discussions centered on whether we (I and the company) were a good fit for each other. We both knew I woudl be taking a big pay cut. The discussion ended with how much can you afford vs. home much can I cut and still maintain a decent lifestyle?
It was a close call. they closed the deal by offering me a car allowance rather than a car. Since I already had a car, this became added income and made the deal workable on my budget.
However it was the last ting we discussed. Why, because a good fit is far more important. They could have offered me twice as much, but if it was nto a good fit, I would not be here, so I would not have any income form the company.
Salary negotiations can get spirited. You want them to really want you before you start and you do not want to accidentally sell yourself short.
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.
Salary is a hygiene factor, not a motivation factor. Money doesn't motivate anyone. The lack of money un-motivates everyone though.
Salary is like job security, safety, benefits. More won't make you work harder. Less might make you quit though.
Herzberg's two-factor theory grew from Maslow's hierarchy of needs. This is 50 year old management theory, it's not like it's new
Oh, come on. Most people work for the salary. Which industry, and which position in that industry have the more complicated, interesting reasons.
Over much of my career, I worked for the stock options and performance-contingent bonuses. Cash compensation paid the bills, but stock options, stock grants, and bonuses were the basis of my retiring in my 40s.
Over much of my career, I worked for the stock options and performance-contingent bonuses. Cash compensation paid the bills, but stock options, stock grants, and bonuses were the basis of my retiring in my 40s.
I think the more accurate way to put it is the whole compensation package. I know people unwilling to leave a relatively low paying job because it has excellent health insurance, vacation, and a pension. In other cases, people might be willing to take a cut to move from something with awful health insurance, minimal vacation, and no retirement benefits to something with all three.
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.
