I hate this to the point that I just want to start a job listing site where mentioning a salary range is required to list. There is no excuse for it. I can understand that you may want to keep a range depending on certain skills/experience but if you cannot provide a ballpark range, you should not list a job position. Plain and Simple.
On a similar note, kudos to employers who list a salary range specially in the whoishiring posts. I always upvote every post that lists a salary range.
Maybe whoever creates a site that requires compensation numbers will also allow applicants to leave feedback on the employers to reduce chances of that happening. (I can only hope!)
Then they are just lying and should be warned. I understand it is difficult to monetize sites like this where you restrict employers with rules but that is an ideal situation for job seekers.
I see more situations where they list a high upper salary but also high (optional) requirements. People who don't meet the optional requirements don't get above average pay.
One interview I had people adding on expectations and requirements during the interview. She talked about how they were looking for someone who knew big data in a mobile job, which is not something normally expected. And that salary is lower for people who don't meet those expectations.
Correct, but it's largely useless because the swing in the range is almost 80% in many cases and in 1 particular company all jobs titles with widely varying roles and skill requirements have the same range (see below), which makes no sense.
1) Engineer San Francisco · Full Time · $100K – $180K · 0.0% – 1.0%
2) Engineering Manager San Francisco · Full Time · $100K – $180K · 0.0% – 1.0%
3) Security Engineer San Francisco · Full Time · $100K – $180K · 0.0% – 1.0%
4) iOS Engineer San Francisco · Full Time · $100K – $180K · 0.0% – 1.0%
5) Frontend Engineer San Francisco · Full Time · $100K – $180K · 0.0% – 1.0%
6) Site Reliability Engineer San Francisco · Full Time · $100K – $180K · 0.0% – 1.0%
I wonder if the companies are doing this to get around having to fill out a salary range on angel.co
Not trying to hijack the conversation, but how useful is a very large salary range anyways? Example: In almost all the salary range jobs I've seen on SO, the difference between low and high end is anywhere from 30% to 50%. Even in the examples quoted in the blog post above, the 2 ranges shown are 85K to 120K and 100K to 135K.
As a job seeker, even if you do click through to see the job, what are you thinking you'll be able to get? In my case, I look only at the higher range, and if it's anywhere close to what I desire or expect, only then I click it. I completely ignore the lower range.
By that notion, isn't such a large range meaningless? Shouldn't the salary transparency be represented as just 1 number with a +/- %age and a note on what will allow for a + and what will account for a -.
Ex: For the 2 examples - 100K +/- 15% based on experience, 115K +/- 15% based on skillsets.
Why do you ignore the lower range. I would think you would want to apply for jobs with the highest lower range for which you qualify. The company will think it is getting you cheap. You will be more sure of getting an acceptable offer. If you get the job, you'll have plenty of room for raises. That's just my assessment, so I am curious about yours.
Because, partly from experience (hiring for companies I worked for) I know that it's a lot harder for the companies to find qualified experienced candidates to fill positions, so when they put out a range, they are telling the candidate what the maximum base it is that they are willing to pay.
So as a candidate, I only look at the higher number knowing that's what I am going to ask for, and if they really like my skills and experience, that they will most likely honor my request / demand.
Also, in case it wasn't apparent, I am in San Francisco, so I think candidates in general in this area have more leverage, but you are right, it may not always be the case in less "tech companies saturated" areas like say, Idaho or someplace else. YMMV.
EDIT: See @fecak's answer, recruiter for 20 years who also says that "The high number is the only thing many candidates hear"
Oftentimes, it's because the company doesn't want to show their hand.
But also it's because "compensation" is far more than "salary" - which seems to be what this question is really about.
They say that the first to say a number is at the disadvantage. Yet nontransparency can be even worse in compensation negotiation.
>"salary is only a small portion of compensation. Let’s say you and I both make $5000 a month ($60000 a year – make the math easy). But you have 2 weeks of vacation, and I have 4. But I took the lower-deductible insurance option, and you took the higher. Which one of us is bringing home more per month? Who cares! My individual desires and needs are, apparently, being met on my package, and yours are with yours." (https://antipaucity.com/2013/05/21/publicizing-compensation-...)
I've written about this a few times on my blog and on Quora.
In short, "your" $90k and "my" $80k are different for more than just the money. Maybe I have more vacation, or better 401(k) contributions, or any of a number of other factors.
It would be great if employers would list their vectors of compensation in their first offer to you (https://antipaucity.com/2013/03/25/what-to-offer-to-be-the-b...) - but what I get offered, and what you get offered for the same position will probably be different: our experience is different, so our value to the company will be different.
I agree that compensation is more than just salary BUT that is the starting point. I don't want to play the "benefits" game until I know a minimum number that you are even willing to entertain. Remember, even benefits are seen differently by different people. When I was young, I could not care less about benefits as I just wanted as much cash as possible. As I got older, benefits like vacation days etc. started becoming more important. But again, before we even get to all this, tell me the damn range.
None of your example figures are in the top decile (U.S.), so it wouldn't be worth it for me to evaluate the other aspects of compensation. In this case, getting out front with a $60K-$90K range would save us both some time.
Of course if your company's tech team lives for free in a seaside expat compound, or a ski-in/ski-out chalet, then definitely lead with that.
It's not just not wanting to show their hand-- they're trying to create an asymmetry and its stupid. I no longer answer questions about how much I'm currently making, I usually answer "It's negotiable" or "If you'll tell me your range I'll tell you mine."
You can post the benefits too! And those have the advantage that they're probably going to vary a lot less over the entire company — e.g., everyone is offered the health/dental/vision, whereas salary depends on things like skill, position.
I just hate the conversation that always ensues with the recruiter; after refusing to name a number, "but we have great benefits, and options! Options!" Options that I am going to value at $0, recruiter. Especially when I haven't had 6 months of experience at your company yet to really see how things internal tick — or don't.
Huh. I assume (perhaps naively) that all non-egregious benefits packages will make me equally happy.
The only consideration is, how much rent can I pay? How nice of a place can I get, for how much commute time?
And then maybe, does this salary-location pair give me any hope of owning a condo similar to that apartment, and if so, how many years will it take to save?
I've never thought about compensation in any terms other than housing, because it seems like every tech job would meet all of my needs except (maybe) housing.
As a fresh graduate, the most important factor is the cash. As one of the replies mentioned, when you get older you will look for benefits. So posting the range will save time for the company and the candidate. Several times I decline offers that took a lot of time and interview because their pay was no where I was expecting and it was not appropriate to ask at first. So I start looking on jobs that actually post their range to save my time.
1 - The high number is the only thing many candidates hear, which can lead to lost deals even when the offer is fair. Tell a candidate the range is 110 - 130K. Even if the candidate is "worth" 110K, an offer at 110 feels like a slight to him/her, as if he's left money on the table.
If there had been no range given in this case, the candidate might not have had the negative emotional response to the offer.
2 - There isn't a range because the company would be willing to accept a range of candidates, and a range of salary would not be useful. If you're willing to consider 2-7 years of experience, it's not all that useful to list 60-120K as a salary range.
I worked mostly with startups on the east coast if that helps (Philly market, some NYC).
1 - Maybe 20% gave an actual range.
2 - A mix. Most that did give numbers gave a ceiling. If I was dealing with a CTO, it might have been in the context of 'we're not going to pay more than n, because that's about what I make'.
Part of the reason I didn't get ranges was probably because my clients trusted that I knew the market, so if candidates were priced appropriately they were typically open to seeing them. I imagine junior recruiters probably got ranges from companies (and perhaps even the same companies I worked with) more than I did. I could be wrong.
Good luck with your venture, feel free to reach out directly.
Mainly because the company doesn't know how much it wants to pay the offered candidate ahead of time.
This depends on a few things, but the main points here are that:
1 - The company is willing to hire a range of skill levels and qualifications for this position, and the compensation will vary depending on the actual qualifications of the candidate.
The company might set out looking for say, a generalist senior engineer, but end up interviewing a machine learning expert. Alternatively, the company posts a listing for a senior engineer but end up deciding that they need someone more junior.
In both cases stating a compensation range upfront will cause difficulties - the domain expert is dissuaded from applying because the range seems low, and the junior has an acrimonious negotiation because the stated range is above what they are being offered.
There is always a lot of uncertainty when companies set out to hire, and companies very often end up hiring someone different than the initial job posting's description.
This is the nice-sounding and reasonable-sounding reason, here's the less-nice reason that is also true:
2 - Tech employees suck at negotiating. For two people of equal skill, one may accept a quarter the compensation of another - this is not an exaggeration. I've seen engineers making $70k a year while their peer at the same employer makes $250k, without a significant ability gap.
The company doesn't want to pay someone more than they have to, so in a market where a large percentage of employees have no idea how to negotiate, obfuscation around compensation is an advantage to the company.
This is true even on HN - every time compensation/salary threads come up people continually are shocked that there are thousands, if not tens of thousands, of generalist senior engineers making $300k+ at major companies all over the industry.
> Mainly because the company doesn't know how much it wants to pay the offered candidate ahead of time.
Not true in all cases. In fact many big corporations and tech firms have specific roles slotted into specific tier, and each tier / job title has a very specific salary range. I once tried to negotiate my base at an IT shop (IT Division of Large Bank) and was shown an HR document that had various tiers and the low and high end of salary ranges. I thought I was getting stifled, but found out it was common knowledge within the company and was posted on the intranet (as I later discovered once I joined the company).
So when these corps put out a job listing, their HR and Hiring manager knows well ahead of time what is the max they are willing to pay as base salary (excluding other "benefits", 401K match etc which is standard across the board, with little difference again based on your tier / title) and in 9 out of 10 cases, they won't budge from that range.
Just that most such corps also go through recruiters and middle-men to do the hiring and these middle-men mostly withold the information and not tell you till the very end, when, like someone else has mentioned here, the candidate has invested a lot of time and efforts in the process and will likely accept a base salary at the lower end of the said salary range for the job title / tier.
> "many big corporations and tech firms have specific roles slotted into specific tier, and each tier / job title has a very specific salary range"
Even these cases are highly variable, because companies often end up hiring someone into a different role or tier than the specific job they applied to.
You applied to a Tier 5 job with Team A, but upon interviewing they decide your skillset is that of a Tier 4, and Team B has an opening for a Tier 4. A premature statement of salary range here will simply compromise your ability to close the candidate, who is expecting Tier 5 pay.
Heck, even singular job reqs frequently change levels depending on interview. You post a job for a Tier 5, but the person interviewing winds up assessed at Tier 6 - the hiring manager does some maneuvering to raise the tier of the position to close the deal. This happens daily.
The compensation is always negotiable. Wrapping compensation around strict tiers is a common practice in BigCo, yes, but that doesn't stop people from negotiating. Instead of "I need $150k", it's now "I need this position to be a Tier 5".
Companies may claim that their postings are tier-locked, but that is practically never actually the case.
This is especially useful in countries like Malaysia and Indonesia. There was this company with really poor reviews on Glassdoor - most the negative reviews were low salary.
I practically canceled the interview on reading these reviews. I went to the interview to probe them on salary, which they brushed off and said there were two more stages of interview. This seems like a lot of hassle just to get to a stage where I'd possibly turn it down, so I goofed around in the interview to get rejected.
A few years later, this company publishes salary range on job posts.
They paid above average salaries for the country, great purchasing power. But most of their hires were Europeans, who got comparatively very low salaries. Basically they just screwed themselves by obscuring the salary, because they weren't meeting expectations for some people, even though they were already paying above expectations for others.
It frustrates the hell out of me how long it takes to get an actual number which is often unacceptable. Big waste of time for both sides. The only rationale I can see behind this is that a lot of applicants will accept a low salary after investing a lot of time into the process.
This is why it is helpful at the beginning of the interview process (at the recruiter stage) to make your minimum ask known. That's usually around the time where they ask for your salary.
Your response should be something like:
"I'm not comfortable/allowed/whatever-excuse-adjective-you-want with/to disclosing my salary, but I want to make $x. Is this sensible?"
(Disclosing your salary gives the recruiter implicit permission to low ball you.)
If they say no, you walk.
If they say yes and then rescind at the offer stage, you DEFINITELY walk. They'll likely come back to negotiate at that point because letting a candidate with an offer walk is money left on the table for that recruiter.
From my experience a lot of companies will agree to the desired range but later still make a much lower offer. I have made it a rule to walk but it's still a lot of wasted time.
A big reason that A-list tech companies don't post ranges is that from the company perspective it's a no-win situation:
- if the ranges honestly reflect how high the company is willing to go, existing employees making well short of the tops of those ranges are likely to become disgruntled when they realize some of their co-workers are making significantly more for the same work.
- if the the ranges are toned-down so as to not enflame the current employees, they are likely to be scoffed at by golden-handcuffed candidates from other A-list companies.
Because being hired is a modern form minionism. You give someone a big chunk of your lifetime at a flat-rate price, while he has to continuously check whether employing you is worth it. Taking that prerequisite as starting point for a journey advertised as "let's work together" by both sides comes at a price: honesty.
An employer will have a compensation range in place before hiring. Before even thinking about it (Projects rather are x-ed or delayed into next year than exceeding that range).
Its tempting to have by chance some applicants demanding even less. Lowered pay expectations out of lack of knowledge are a main driver for non-disclosure.
Therefore it may be helpful to realize a moral compass among developers: not just don't apply there, but make it publicly shameful to even try to lure other developers into it.
But: Hiring is time consuming. And a process which you want to pass smoothly. And even more important: finishing it. Upfront transparency takes away the upper hand you may need when things get out of hand. Like when choice#1 applicant lied about how he'd love to work at your company and walks off in the middle of your process.
If an employer names a range, all applicants would be demoralized if they don't reach its upper end. Probably expecting to reach that pay-grade sooner or later, somewhere else if need be.
Also applicants are different in skill level and almost always applicants will either exceed or undershoot in certain job qualifications. Qualifications that are prioritized. Your applicants are mixed bags, your job offering is. Having the ability to ponder while not aggravating them makes intransparency reasonable.
As a compromise: Why just not make the lower end of that range public?
>If an employer names a range, all applicants would be demoralized if they don't reach its upper end. Probably expecting to reach that pay-grade sooner or later, somewhere else if need be.
I don't know how much I believe this. It sounds like common-sense, but when I think about it and my own experiences this has not been the case. When last interviewing for a job, I took the lowest pay of the three offers I had. Company is small and cash-strapped and I happily signed on knowing I'm "worth more."
Further, they were looking for a more experienced dev than I, but they were lucky to afford me. Had they said, we have 10k more we were prepared to offer someone more experienced but you are not at that level. I can't see my disposition changing towards the company one iota.
Transparency makes me trust a company more, not less. I don't think I would feel more demoralized by a company for being honest with me. Additionally, how many people have walked away from salary negotiations wondering if they should have pushed for more?
On average I can't see changing the way this works being anymore demoralizing for the employee. In fact I think (on average) it would be less demoralizing and instill greater loyalty and good-will in employees.
Because they don't have to because (contrary to popular belief) it's an employer's market.
I created http://www.ceilingbuster.com/ to try to remedy this, but I never wrote a script to automatically scrape listings and thus it hasn't been updated in months
I don't see the point of including my previous salaries in my resume.
What I earned 5 years ago, does not represent my value in sector today, even if it's for the same skillset.
It's the companies job to post how much are they willing to pay in today's values.
Developers are not commodities, being a good developer requires study and hard work to keep up to date. Good developers should be rewarded for that.
I can't even remember the wasted time me and companies did only to halt all negotiations because of the salary range or other details that could've been disclosed right form the start.
That's a bit of an overstatement, at least in the US. Most employees don't work for a public entity and therefore their salaries and ranges are not in any way public record. I would say I could find the salary info of zero of my friends, family, and coworkers in the public record.
Lack of salary ranges up front is the main reason I only work through recruiters. Recruiters always know the salary and if you tell them your minimum salary requirements they won't bother you with jobs that are below that range.
Yes I know a lot of non scummy recruiters. I only deal with local recruiters and I form relationships with them before I'm actively looking.
I'm quite certain the competition see enough of each other's competing offers to have a very precise and up-to-date view into what each other are paying. At least this holds true for the Amazon/Facebook/Google/Microsoft musical chairs party as well as other companies vying for that candidate pool. The attempt at obfuscating the market rates is mainly in support of low-balling candidates.
On a similar note, kudos to employers who list a salary range specially in the whoishiring posts. I always upvote every post that lists a salary range.