The discord for our subreddit can be found here: https://discord.gg/JjNdBkVGc6 - feel free to join us for a more realtime level of discussion!
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/recruitinghell) if you have any questions or concerns.*
if they don't offer the top of the range, then they're lying about the range. period. if you say your range is 90k, but you never offer more than 80k, then your range is 80k.
I make about $100k right now and work remote. I was absolutely blown away with what they were offering. If you wanted me you better be prepared to offer a salary that makes me want to leave my current role. I ain't working weekends, holidays, and be on call for a fucking pay cut that is not even near market range.
My golden rule is never to accept a position with lower dollar amount in compensation than the existing one. I lived in an HCOL area before, and even when I interviewed for positions in MCOL/LCOL areas, recruiters would try to say that oh this position offers a bit lower because COL is lower from where you may be moving from. I countered by saying that depending on what I am bringing to the role in terms of my experience, education, and skillset I cannot make a move with lower than what I already make, regardless of COL. It would essentially be taking a step back in my financial goals. I now always keep numbers hardcoded in my brain for a non-negotiable base salary dollar amount for different regions of the US.
The \*only\* time I might ever agree to that is if you have to get your foot in the door in the industry you really want to work in after a long time of being out and even then don't take more than like a 20% cut.
I do agree about COL not being a reason to negotiate. You have a life built up in New York/DC/Boston/San Francisco/Los Angeles and can't just leave your family and friends for any old job that comes your way. At the very least, you're planning to move back there later so you have to save up.
100% agree! I have even had interviews where some jobs listed that salary range and they turn out to be less then what was listed. I am just really tired of these recruiters and corporate companies wasting our time.
I only apply to jobs where the salary is posted, and the amount of listings that have a deliberately misleading salary (ie rolls in market value for all benefits despite that being denoted elsewhere, or includes highly conditional bonuses) or just straight up lie is infuriating.
In those instances, I always make it a point to explain that the discrepancy (and implications to how the company does business) is the reason I am withdrawing, and ask why the job listing is so wildly incorrect. The most egregious explanation I ever got is that the listed salary included their own weird ass calculations for the money I would save on commuting.
What I donât understand is why employers continue to do this when it surely wastes tens of thousands of dollars to attempt to recruit a candidate who wouldnât have considered the job in the first place.
return the favor and send a nice letter to the DOE
everyone should do this because the more that they do it this will be next in the rules that they can't have a range and then say the range is not accurate. or something close.
whatever helps.
it's not like they're trying to be friendly, send that letter in! name and shame, 2024
At least then you know to ignore them from the word go.
I recently had a recruiter get angry with me on the phone for insisting on knowing the salary range before talking to him, and yell âfine itâs somewhere between $10 and $1,000,000 a year, now can you talk to me!â Quickest end to a phone call Iâve ever had
Waving at you from Washington state where I forgot this was a state only law that just got passed.
Sending you good wishes that you join us on the dark side where employers have to post their range on the job posting.
I just tell recruiters that I won't schedule an interview without knowing the pay range first because it's a waste of everyone's time to go through the whole process just to get some basic bare-bones information on whether our needs align.
Yup, they just try to find the âbestâ candidate they can low ball and not pay what you and the position is worth. All about keeping the profits at the highest levels
Fortunately, more states are requiring compensation disclosure on the job postings, and Recruiters and hiring managers are not allowed to ask for past salary history or compensation expectations.
Currently , Iâm a Career Coach with 14* yrs exp., and was an Executive Recruiter and Corporate Recruiting Director for 14 yrs., there are some companies that their parent company is out of the country or a state that doesnât require the above that go against state laws. For me, this is a huge concern that their HR dept. doesnât know state laws.
Good luck on your job search.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/alonzomartinez/2024/06/14/2024-state-by-state-pay-transparency-laws-key-insights-for-employers/#
loool. They can offer whatever they want. I applied to one company that gave me a range. I went through with the interviews then decided I wasn't gonna take even the max offer as it felt too low for my skillset. They called me and offered me something OVER the max without me even saying anything.
a couple of states passed a law requiring them to post the salary range (new york and colorado i think.)
if they're posting a range that is false, i'm sure those laws include a penalty.
Company: "This is the range for a Grade 27 position. We don't hire external candidates at the top of the range because we want them to have room to grow."
Easy peesy.
sure- but i would think they can't put the internal amount on an external website.
the recruiter lied about it and so did the company; pretty easy to see the listing.
whether a DA wants to take the case is another story.
A university around my area has positions with salary ranges and then a disclaimer that says the pay starts in the middle of that range and then it goes down based on things you don't have based on the min qualifications required on the job posting.
Here's and example of one of the roles
"Compensation Range
$43.10 - $61.97 CAD Hourly
The Compensation Range is the span between the minimum and maximum base salary for a position. The midpoint of the range is approximately halfway between the minimum and the maximum and represents an employee that possesses full job knowledge, qualifications and experience for the position. In the normal course, employees will be hired, transferred or promoted between the minimum and midpoint of the salary range for a job."
That's a lot of mental gymnastics to say we pay between $43.1 and $52.5
They're telling you that no matter how long and hard you work there, the posted top is as high as you'll go. They can't hire you there, it's what the senior employee is making and you *could* get one day.
Sounds like a typical listing for a government job. Often it's a range set by union contract, or in non-union positions, set by civil service rules or legislation. Government can't really do the "pay whatever you can convince management to give" because they're just spending tax money rather than trying to turn a profit, so there'd be no incentive to *not* hire your buddy and pay him $500k/yr to send emails for you.
The thinking behind is that yes, that is the range for the role. The high end is for existing employees that are very strong and we only use the lower range on new hires.
Iâve worked for companies that think like this. Hard to understand why itâs posted like that but the laws are for âoffer rangesâ but for âsalary rangesâ that include all existing as well.
Some places have long-serving employees who still aren't anywhere near the top because they got hired at a bad time or were shit at negotiating, so they think it's ok to lowball you to "not make so and so mad." Not your problem. They need to pay their existing employees more, not make you take less. They'll learn the hard way.
One of the stupidest talking points I've ever heard in any discipline. Like there's a single soul out there who would rather earn less money, making some amount less than the top of the range for 3-5 years before getting there, instead of just making the top of the range the whole time.
It's even stupider when you consider that "needing room to give raises in the future" is also them telling on themselves that they aren't evaluating their salary bands anywhere close to as often as they should be.
I havenât seen a 3% raise without a promotion in probably a decade.
I did take the job even though itâs a pay cut because severance ran out and it was the only solid offer I had. The other one was a âpaid work trialâ. So a gamble and fuck that noise
Hereâs what happens at my job: finance has a fixed salary band. The hiring manager canât bring in someone at the top b/c they canât govern the worker a raise. Finance simply wonât make exceptions to go above the band. Hence, employers donât offer the top of the salary band b/c if they do, the worker canât get a raise and then will leave.
This reminds me of performance reviews where they have a scale of 1-5 on different metrics, but in reality almost nobody scores a 5 in anything. They must be really looking for someone to go above and beyond in their job, probably to the point of personal sacrifice, to get an "exceeds expectations".
I used to work for an employer with bonus money tied to performance reviews. You really had to screw up not to do well enough on your review to get your annual merit salary increase, but getting a good enough rating for a bonus seemed to be an incredibly perfunctory and arbitrary process with no rhyme or reason. One of my colleagues and I hypothesized that our office got a pot of money from HQ every year for bonuses and would play a game of "This year Jane gets the bonus but Bob will get it next year." Welp, my friend ended up going into senior management, seeing how the sausage was made, and reported back that was exactly what was happening with how performance reviews were done and bonuses divvied out.
Lol yes. I just got a job where the ranges was 79 to 95.
I asked for the mid point. I got 80.
I'm assuming that if I had specific experience with their systems I'd get what I wanted or more though.
Don't do it. I accepted way under salary minimum with a promise of an increase but I'm still waiting even after bringing it up to numerous execs and board members. I have essentially decided to take on any projects and to ride it out until I at least get 1.5 years experience as an executive before looking. Then hit them with here is my two weeks and peace out. They will be in a hole for at least 6 months. Fuck them.
Yeah what will happen is some poor soul will take the role and realize they are underpaid compared to the market. Honestly fuck companies that pinch pennies and don't offer an actual competitive salary.
Oh man, friend of mine did this and got canned two weeks before his review for the promised increase.
He was told heâd get market rate âwhen he proved himself.â Glassdoor was full of reviews that said this was their MO.
Wayfair interviewed me twice with the same BS, I donât know if theyâre still doing it but when I stopped laughing I declined. Havenât heard from them since and given what Iâve read about them the last few years I donât think itâs any better.
There's a lot of companies, especially big brand, that do this. They know that getting "X Brand" experience on the resume is valuable and some of the cheap ambitious kids will stay if the Managers are decent and everyone can get along.
However, couple this strategy with sh-tti underpaid micromanagers and you get a terrible meat grinder work environment with a rapidly cycling revolving door at about 2 years.
Saw this happen where they replaced A great, empathetic leader with a douche. 30% out in a year. All the best people.
Not to mention that the requirements for that role are _way_ too steep for 65k. Weekends, holidays, and on-call? Fuck that. Iâd probably need to be offered at least 250-300k before Iâd ever consider it
The second you quit your old job and take the new one, you lose all leverage. They did you a favor, they showed you exactly who they were before you signed up.
Companies complain about employees not staying long, but then offer low salaries that push people to seek higher-paying roles. There's nothing wrong with changing jobs to improve your pay. I'm just tired of hearing companies complain about a lack of workers when they offer subpar pay below market rates just to save money.
I was having a conversation with my peer about this a few months ago. A competitor in our area has been pulling a lot of high-value tenured colleagues away from us. They were getting huge raises and promotions. He couldn't for the life of him understand why people were leaving. "We offer so much more than the competitor - visibility, interesting projects, opportunities to try new things". It did not compute to him that money is a huge motivating factor, if not the single most important factor, for a job.
Leadership inside of corporates are full of these types of people. And yes, these people will work in dead end positions for years in the hopes of getting promoted making below market wages. A very sad state of affairs. He didn't realize exactly what that looked like until I got an offer from that same competitor and left. I showed him the promo I got and the massive raise that came with it. I could see the color drain from his face, shattering years of misconceptions and false ideas. I'll never forget it.
Yup. "Cool, interesting work" can matter if it's 80k here vs 88k there. Or, your employer is the company trying to do the cool thing. But at 80k vs 120k, that's real quality of life improvement.
I've never worked anywhere that even after 2 years, I still considered the work interesting.
I've been doing software consulting for ten years, and while projects differ wildly, it all still blurs back together into "work".
I can't disagree more. I've worked on quite a few fun projects as a software developer. Not that they were ever sold to me as fun outright but they were anyway.
The job I did 2 years ago, after 5 years of more and more responsibilities paid so little that the minimum wage laws here would now make what they paid me illegal. There's a huge problem with anything a fee levels above NMW now where they didn't go up when NMW did. So I am finding jobs wanting 5 years experience and professional qualifications for 2k over. Why bother at that point.
They underpaid someone internally as they rose ranks. They probably got on their nerves and finally left for a better job. The recruiters didn't adjust pay ladders
Possibly title inflation in the company as well. Job might be much lower than title implies. Probably an on-call grunt that does a lot of OT if hourly
I switched from one government agency to another for a modest initial salary increase but greater growth potential. And, more importantly, a MUCH lower stress level and workload even with a longer commute. When those at the top canât maintain low and middle level employees, folks like me ended up doing our own job and the work of the missing employees. But since it didnât directly affect those at the top, they just doubled down on the issues causing the problems.
More likely to be a position where they know someone wonât move on ASAP: visa workers. The hurdles to change jobs are much higher and contain some risk.
Everything about that offer sounds awful. The salary compared to the range, the desire to give you Senior responsibilities with no salary bump, and the weekend and on-call work.
Good decision. That place sounds awful.
I got offered a similar role as a promotion. Every third weekend (12 hours F, S, S) and rotating days during the week when not scheduled for that weekend. Offered 7k more than my current role. No. Thank. You. They were floored when I declined.
I went through this twice and the internal scream was so excruciating that I ended up deciding to just stay at my current job until the market improves đ
>They did express interest in moving me into a senior position due to my qualifications but maintained that the salary would remain within the $50,000 to $90,000 range.
Here, we can give you more responsibility so you can be a senior on paper but you'd still be paid as an entry level employee. Biggest red flag there, I would've told them no thank you right at that moment.
If you don't offer the top of the salary range, then the "top" is actually much lower. They just post that to bypass the search filters and get people to apply.
Iâve worked at companies that Iâve had to provide metrics on bill rates and pay rates. The companies hit certain targets if they pay you below the max range. Itâs usually a cost savings mechanism and a kpi the group is scored on each year. For example if the max pay rate is 100 an hour and you come in at 80, they get credit for that.
Iâve also seen job seekers absolutely dominate the max pay rate. People coming in at 150/hr when max was 100. Itâs really stupid how that salary range is out there like that to lure applicants in.
Itâs more concerning that the job market is so saturated with applicants that someone who is qualified / worth $130k has to take a job at $65k because they need to feed their family. Weâre in a race to the bottom. We need unions. Shit is really bad.
Agreed. However, it will get far far worse if a plan called Project 2025 is implemented. They'll turn America into a Christofascist state under 'God.' You can only get good jobs and advance if you're a vetted ideological loyalist, NOT because you have any skills that may be required for that job. It's really fucking scary, and I'm usually not into public politics, but this needs to be stopped at all costs. People are speaking out against it, but time is running short and more people need to know about this before they vote in November. [https://www.stopthecoup2025.org/](https://www.stopthecoup2025.org/)
Bullet points from the nearly 900-page right wing manifesto: [https://static1.squarespace.com/static/6547d46ce0be13435001c0ad/t/663d101970106d75bbfce2c0/1715277849753/REVISED+12.16+\_For+Release\_%7B10+pgs%7D\_Key+Proposals+of+Project+2025+by+Stop+the+Coup+2025.pdf](https://static1.squarespace.com/static/6547d46ce0be13435001c0ad/t/663d101970106d75bbfce2c0/1715277849753/REVISED+12.16+_For+Release_%7B10+pgs%7D_Key+Proposals+of+Project+2025+by+Stop+the+Coup+2025.pdf)
Value any semblance of ideological or economic freedom? Help shoot this abomination down.
IKR? This is why the word needs to get out and people need to VOTE. Vote blue like your lives depend on it--because they likely do.
People find out the hard way that when individuals and groups publish manifestos like this, they MEAN them. It's not parody, it's not satire, and these people are deadly serious. They want to turn us into Gilead, basically, and it's up to the sane people in this country to stop them.
A friend of mine does a lot of canvassing and phone calls for the Democrats. She's retired, so she has the time. She didn't know about this. I sent her the links, told her to read it, and then to spread the word. She will because a fascist state is not what we signed up to be.
Get the word out. Vote blue. Let's defeat this thing because we HAVE to if we want to stay free.
That your friend didnât know *aa a volunteer canvass worker for the DNC* or whatever branch of it, is wild to me - but also not, how they chronically fumble so much of their messaging - even now, on the very real dangers of the 2025/GOP playbook. So frustrating and terrifying to watch it happen.
I had a poli sci professor in grad school who used to say, "Never underestimate a Democrat's ability to shoot themself in the foot." It's unfortunately true, and the Dem's inability to get its messaging straight is one of their biggest weaknesses. The Lincoln Project shows them again and again how they should be dealing with the fascist trash on the right, but it's like they'd rather fall into Michelle-esque "When they go low, we go high" feelgood-ism and purity testing of their own ranks rather than deal with the fascist danger head-on. The fact we have so many on the left who seem to think Biden holds a dual-appointment as POTUS and Prime Minister of Israel is troubling.
>People find out the hard way that when individuals and groups publish manifestos like this, they MEAN them. It's not parody, it's not satire, and these people are deadly serious.Â
As I like to say, when fascists tell you who they are, believe them. I'm pretty happy with my life and career right, but the November election is hanging over my head like a dark storm cloud. Trump's an unqualified moron who couldn't administrate his way out of a paper bag (something that probably caused more hardship than needed during COVID), but there are a lot of very capable fascists who are banking on using him to create the U.S. version of Russia.
You can live safe in the knowledge that they will skimp, someone will accept, theyâll then leave in a few months time and then this dog shit process will start all over again and none of them will be able to figure out whyâŚ
Im not exactly sure what the goal is here. Do people work for essentially half what the going rate is? Iâve worked for below market but only about 10% below market. Sometimes companies offer something other than money. This doesnât sound like they offer anything good. Run away.
This is true.
For example, I work for a community/junior college that is funded by the state. As such, I make less salary than my colleagues in the private sector, but I have a pension and top tier healthcare. I pay roughly $6K-8K in premiums a year but have a $0 deductible. It has come in handy because my partner was diagnosed with stage 4 cancer and racked up almost $1 million in treatment bills and we've only had to pay a couple hundred in co-pays.
I hate it that people will eventually accept these low pays too. It really ruins it for everyone.
Not to mention that they basically agreed to work two years for one years salary. So dumb.
The first number is real and so is the dash. The number after the dash is a lie. This situation was so full of red flags, I don't know how you could see the people interviewing you through the red haze! On call and possible 7 Days of work? Worth a lot more money! And so are you.
The part that blows me away was this was salary. Not hourly. So in that case you don't even get over time pay for working weekends, holidays, and on call. They just expect you to be their indentured servant.
With the job market these days, people will accept a position at a much lower rate just to get in and have a job. Recruiters are getting hundreds if not thousands of applications for a position, itâs only logical for a business to see a saturated market and know they can offer less.
Itâs a truly sad period for job seekers, hopefully this changes soon
Executives and board members are trying to push salaries down. I had an interview with a board member last night for a Principal MLE role and he bitched about how it was still an employees market and that everyone in tech was overpaid. Get used to it. They donât want to pay you
If you don't offer the top of the salary range, it's not your range. Their range is $50k to $65k.
Red flag central!!!
đŠ Their posting should have read $50k to $65k.
đŠđŠ They weren't truthful about how much experience was needed.
đŠđŠđŠ Now they are willing to give you a senior manager position for same salary as a mid manager position (which is already a low ball offer).
What a hot đĽ đĽ đĽ mess!
That employer is probably required to be transparent about the pay range. Pay range and budget are two separate things. Pay range is created by the compensation team, itâs based on market data and annual inflation. Budget is created by the finance team, itâs what can actually be paid. One is a guideline the other is the reality. In a perfect world, companies would advertise the budget.Â
In this world, the company must advertise the budget, not fantasy. The range for this job was $50,000-$65,000. They advertised up to $90,000 to get people who might be willing to work for that amount of money, to then see if they could squeeze them down to $65,000.
Yeah, I find it EXTREMELY strange that their range goes all the way up to 90k but the best, last, and final offer is only 65k. That's almost a third less than what they're advertising. Either they need to decrease their range or increase their offer amount.
But then they would have to hire ⌠recruiters.
It is a skill to take a poorly written job posting for a technical role and weed 500 down to 5. ATS isnât going to do the work for you, and Ats isnât going to head hunt for people who might want to jump ship.
I dunno. It must depend. Six weeks ago, I resigned from my toxic job of 12 years. All my direct applications have gone into the black hole, but I currently have 4-5 recruiters that have been feeding me jobs they like me for. About one or two a week.
I already got one job and turned it down and on Monday I may be offered another. Every other application method has resulted in exactly zero results, but with the recruiters I feel like itâs just a matter of time.
Iâm guessing it just depends on many factors.
Iâm so proud of myself! Thanks to yâall I told a company to suck it after their SECOND request for unpaid work. This one was going to be create a video, and blah blah blah. So I said âwhat is the hourly stipend for the work Iâll be doing?â
Havenât heard back.
Yet still unemployed but it feels good to not allow others to take advantage of you just because you need a job.
If the most they can offer is 65k, that is the top of the range. They are lying in their job posting to drive more traffic. You already know before getting an offer that they use deceitful tactics. Itâs on you if you work there and they screw you over.
That was never specified in the job posting how many years of experience they were looking for. It was not until I did the interview they told me their ideal candidate would have 1 year of experience. The role I applied for is considered a mid level role.
I'm with you on this, but I don't get any callbacks for jobs that match my level of experience. So I switched to applying lower levels and lo and behold, the interviews start flowing.
I'm sure there's someone with 13 years of experience getting the callback for those jobs asking for 8 years of experience.
I was in a third interview when we talked about salary. I was supposed to be leaving a teaching position to be head of department and told them my current salary, and they said it was more than they could offer. I pointed out that it was about the middle of the salary range and in a lower position, so I expected more. They kind of laughed, and said money wasnât everything. I said âah, so lying is normal hereâ and ended the call and ignored all communication after that. Iâd like the time I wasted back
I agree. Donât give into low salaries offers. Important to ask about salary range in first interview. The interest thing that happened to me once is I got a different salary range from the recruiter interview and when I interviewed with the actual hiring manager he gave me a different range which was much lower. When I told him the recruiter gave me higher range he got mad at me and thought I was lying.
God. Posts like this make me so glad I quit recruiting. These hiring managers post that range to get applicants, KNOWING GOOD AND WELL that their budget is shit and they are only offering the lower end.
i was a recruiter and my company did something along these lines where they fabricate the ranges to entice candidates to apply and junk bring out the real salary offer. I hated doing this every time.
These are all red flags that need to be avoided..
1) employer not having a real sense of market salaries. If they pay you less, they will value you less (in treatment)
2) companies do not have a sense of differentiation on what a 1 year exp. Person can delivery v/s a 8 yrs exp person can deliver.. and not willing to stretch the pay.. they are immature about how to assess performance so you will struggle to grow within the company
3) having a range within the range.. just stop interacting if that happens. Its a lost cause.
This is the story for all NY and CA jobs nowadays because they have to put a range mandatorily due to regulations but they are not ready to pay the too ranges. Almost always 10-15% lower
Thatâs why theyâre looking for someone with one year experience. Theyâre looking for someone whoâs gonna accept the job and the overtime that comes with it (and most likely the abuse as well) for a lower pay than market rate.
You just have to negotiate and be prepared to walk away if they don't offer what you think you're worth.
You could probably report them anonymously to their recruitment agency if the range is misleading, as you're right, if they're not willing to appoint anyone higher than $65k then that's the top of the hiring range, not $90k.
But don't undervalue yourself and be prepared to walk away if you aren't happy with what's on offer.
We have this at work and it drives me mad when we're recruiting. Promote the salary band but all new starters have to start on the lowest band. Literally no one can explain why this is a good policy
Nah, this is when you punish them
Go forward with the interview, go all the way to the end. Start working for them, do 2 weeks.
The day after you get your first paycheck, text the hiring manager âman, I thought you guys were joking about the low payâ
Then never show up again or answer any messages
Punish them so the next person can get a decent salary
Theyâll get what they pay for, it will either be someone really incompetent thatâs been let go elsewhere and so needs to take whatever they can get or someone that just needs the title boost and theyâll move on really quickly.
Either way not your problem, youâve done the right thing by withdrawing your application
From my observations (writing from Western Europe), the market tries to lower salaries for at least this employee section. 10+ years in building and coaching agile teams, active member of a devops team, customer facing and whatnot and expected to lead teams (plural) with 30+ members for 90k⏠(only with hard negations). This may sound entitled, but I have other examples from the area of senior devs and I really see no objective reason why the salaries should be lower than 4 years ago with an inflation like that.
Si.ilar thing happened to me. They had a range from 70k-145k and had the listing as "Mid-Senior." I'm a senior and applied, only to be told that they only listed the higher salary and "Senior" because they didn't want to dissuade seniors from applying, and that they were actually looking for a mid-level and would pay 96k.
I went through the interviews and gave them my salary range, so I'm expecting to be low balled in the end, but you never know. They seem to really like me and I'd love to work at their studio
I worked for a company for 10 years, and after 10 years I was earning 46k. 4 years ago it was a liveable salary where I am from, as long as you can find some private jobs now and then to pad your income. For the last 4 years there was no increase, only my workload increased, and they can just never make ends meet to give me an increase.
Then this year I resigned starting my own business that is doing quite well being their competition. Currently they have 5 people employed to fill the void. I am certain they are not paid 10k each a year...
This sounds like they are trying to train someone up into the role for cheap, rather than paying for experience⌠this rarely works out well. Either the new hire gets overwhelmed and leaves or does not have the skillset requiredâŚ
It's not that companies *can't* offer it, it's that they *dont want* to offer it.
If the company genuinely can't afford to pay it, then they're either not big enough to really need it or they're mismanaging funds elsewhere.
To posit your last question, I would say it's not an issue. Companies lie, cheat, and steal all the fucking time. You owe them absolutely nothing - not honesty, not loyalty, not respect. Companies won't hold these attributes for you, so why should employees for them?
It has occurred to me that the top range salaries listed is just bait and the low end is closer to their planned pay to be paid. Likely they want caviar for generic corn flakes investment & courtesy.
most companies will post the salary band for that job posting with the intent of hiring between the 40% and 75% points within that range. posting the full band gives some idea of the long term range
Donât work there. If theyâre lying about the salary thereâs no way you can trust them the job in the ad is the job youâll be doing. There are plenty of companies that will pay you market rate.
We donât offer the top of the range is bait and switch, which is bullshit.
Everyone I know who's gotten into high paying jobs just lied, I would urge anybody who is struggling to do the same (unless its a job that can save lives etc, don't lie about that)
If Iâm expected to drive in to an office every single day even though the job could easily be hybrid or remote, I want the top end of the salary range. Itâs really that simple. Just told a recruiter this about a job she was about to recommend me for.
I keep telling these recruiters: if I can be at home Iâll work for much less. If I have to drive into an office unnecessarily, I want paid.
Similar thing happened to me with Amazon earlier this year. Applied for a marketing role, went through their 1 hour assessment. Role was only based in Seattle, WA and I donât live there so I put the top end of their posted salary range because thatâs what it would take for me to consider it.
Recruiter tells me that they donât offer that top end for that location, thatâs only for New York and San Francisco. Why the fuck post that as your top range when itâs too high for the only location the role is located?
The problem is this: companies have too many applicants, and sometimes HRs of different companies even communicate with each other.
On the other hand people who look for a job donât have centralised organisation of people which has some kind of influence to companiesâ image.
65K for a masters degree, certifications, weekend and holiday availability and on-call is laughable. I have forklift operators making that much with a little overtime.Â
Laugh in their face and walk away.Â
Most companies pay at the midpoint of the range, but some F100 will go to 75% point. It has to do with salary compression in existing staff, and them not giving high enough annual raises to keep your salary at market value. They also like room left to give raises in your current level.
I work for a massive company that has this stance but they actually do back up their statement that they go hard on QoL features. Insurance is great, unlimited pto, no set work hours, no weekends, many many extra holidays and closures. Really the worst thatâs expected of us is to be available at some inconvenient hours for international zoom meetings with teams across the globe but aside from upper mgmt, there are 1-2 of those per week max. And if I have one at say 8pm, I tend to leave work around 3 pm and have some free time before getting on the calls and itâs entirely acceptable
I have consistently encountered this. Itâs like theyâre trying to get around the mandatory salary postings for CA and NY by lying. Itâs a shame they canât be reported because not one job has ever, ever agreed to go the max even if youâre over qualified. Thereâs always an excuse. When the truth is more likely that they are lying.
Please please name and shame the company and recruiting agency if there is one. I suspect they were on a hefty bonus if they could get someone to accept less than 70k...
Genuinely curious, how common is this to happen? I purposely have been low balling my self to the lower end of company ranges just to get more phone screens. Okay with taking the paycut if needed at this point in my career.
Iâm proud of you for knowing your worth. Iâm getting desperate (masters degree as well) and sometimes consider going so low just to have income. But Iâll be damn if Iâm gonna work 10-12 hour days for 50k and bust my ass for entry level pay.
It's because what they want to pay is someone energy level or junior but an experienced person who is desperate. Which is just bad practice because someone entry level can't do the job or it's a steep learning curve or the person. With experience will bounce for more money ASAP. Just a dumb waste of time.
Companies have been putting all of their actual money to stock buy backs and towards paying stockholders. Companies don't really have money anymore and the people at the very top will always get paid first. That's why a lot of places aren't hiring anymore or are hiring at reduced pay. I hope it goes well for you.
There is no accountability in corporate USA. Companies can lie to their customers, they can lie to their employees, they can lie to potential employees, they can lie to their suppliers, they can lie to their contractors. In fact the only people they are not legally allowed to lie to is their investors, who are usually part of the C-suits and board members.
And in Corporate Capitalism, if you can lie, you do lie.
I ran into a similar situation when I was a hospice doctor with about five years experience. I interviewed for a medical Director position for a county owned Hospice. They only had a couple hundred patients but owned 30 clinics. I met with the county commissioners and the county medical Director and they offered me the position. They referred me to HR to work on a contract. HR wanted me to take basically a $100,000 pay cut and be on call 24/7/365. I found the position professionally challenging and was confident that I would be able to build it quickly, so I offered to take the job but with the stipulation that when I was able to double the patient population my salary would be renegotiated. HR said no. I said no. Three months later they contacted me to let me know that I was no longer being considered for the position.
Agreed. Requiring weekend and holiday work, along with being on call during the week, at that salary is predatory and exploitative. It doesn't even constitute a living wage in most areas. Everyone's time is valuable.
Don't hesitate to name the company. Predatory and exploitative practices need to be exposed publicly!
For a range that insulting, Iâd have pulled out my phone mid interview and left a google review stating that I was told they donât go above 65k so their range is an outright lie.
âThe fair market range for this position is $X - $Y. If youâre not willing to offer a fair compensation for my skills and experience, then we have nothing left to discuss. Good luck finding a qualified candidate who will work for less than market price.â
Honestly, getting the offer around the middle of the salary band is pretty typical, considering things like internal equity and how the employer has structured its performance management and comp strategy. Essentially, if you start at the top of the salary range, you're starting off red circled and there's nothing that can be done in terms of merit increases during review cycles. If an offer's being made at the top of the range, an HRBP or anyone in that type of role should be making the argument that the candidate should be hired on the next rung of the career ladder. The problem is if the employer doesn't have any need (particularly if it's a people manager role and the open spot is for an individual contributor) or budget for the next rung.
Now the employer having an entire salary band that is way below market is a much different issue and is indicative of wanting to get an Audi on a Kia budget. If qualified candidates keep turning down the employer due to salary, the employer will either realize its getting data back from the market and needs to adjust the band (may be difficult if it already has employees in the classification)...or it won't and will scratch its head as to why the role is still open.
OP that is why theyâre looking for only 1 year of experience, they donât want to pay. Even if they wonât pay the max they should be prepared to come close to it (like 5K less) but these guys sound like clowns tbh.
I think they are aiming at a different demographic. Scummy, but not new.
Many decades ago I was between undergrad and grad school, hoping I could score a job that was somewhat relevant to my field of study. I stumbled into one that I was under qualified for, but nothing ventured...
It took over a month, but I did get offered the job. I was so excited to get something relevant I forgot to ask what it paid.... As you can probably guess, the pay was abysmally low, minimum wage for a skilled position low. I stayed awhile for the experience, but left after a few months. They roped another poor soul in to take the position on a "trial" basis. This middle aged man was so passive he just would not leave the job despite knowing he was being taken advantage of. I at least had the excuse that I was still very young and just getting the hang of properly advocating for myself.
I am guessing they are looking for one of these types to take advantage of.
The discord for our subreddit can be found here: https://discord.gg/JjNdBkVGc6 - feel free to join us for a more realtime level of discussion! *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/recruitinghell) if you have any questions or concerns.*
if they don't offer the top of the range, then they're lying about the range. period. if you say your range is 90k, but you never offer more than 80k, then your range is 80k.
Funny thing I did not mention is the recruiter said $65k is probably the max they can go.
"for $65k i'm willing to put in 2 days a week. come back when you have a real offer"
I make about $100k right now and work remote. I was absolutely blown away with what they were offering. If you wanted me you better be prepared to offer a salary that makes me want to leave my current role. I ain't working weekends, holidays, and be on call for a fucking pay cut that is not even near market range.
My golden rule is never to accept a position with lower dollar amount in compensation than the existing one. I lived in an HCOL area before, and even when I interviewed for positions in MCOL/LCOL areas, recruiters would try to say that oh this position offers a bit lower because COL is lower from where you may be moving from. I countered by saying that depending on what I am bringing to the role in terms of my experience, education, and skillset I cannot make a move with lower than what I already make, regardless of COL. It would essentially be taking a step back in my financial goals. I now always keep numbers hardcoded in my brain for a non-negotiable base salary dollar amount for different regions of the US.
The \*only\* time I might ever agree to that is if you have to get your foot in the door in the industry you really want to work in after a long time of being out and even then don't take more than like a 20% cut. I do agree about COL not being a reason to negotiate. You have a life built up in New York/DC/Boston/San Francisco/Los Angeles and can't just leave your family and friends for any old job that comes your way. At the very least, you're planning to move back there later so you have to save up.
"Here's my situation. Now, let's say you're me. What would make you take this job?"
Cuz you want to shove it somewhere?đ
I don't know why you even talked to someone about a job whose maximum salary is less than what you're making.
Do you realize that most job salary ranges in the US are not posted until you do the interview right?
Which fucking sucks. Oh to live in a state that requires them to be posted. Should be a federal law. Wasting my time and theirs
100% agree! I have even had interviews where some jobs listed that salary range and they turn out to be less then what was listed. I am just really tired of these recruiters and corporate companies wasting our time.
I only apply to jobs where the salary is posted, and the amount of listings that have a deliberately misleading salary (ie rolls in market value for all benefits despite that being denoted elsewhere, or includes highly conditional bonuses) or just straight up lie is infuriating. In those instances, I always make it a point to explain that the discrepancy (and implications to how the company does business) is the reason I am withdrawing, and ask why the job listing is so wildly incorrect. The most egregious explanation I ever got is that the listed salary included their own weird ass calculations for the money I would save on commuting. What I donât understand is why employers continue to do this when it surely wastes tens of thousands of dollars to attempt to recruit a candidate who wouldnât have considered the job in the first place.
return the favor and send a nice letter to the DOE everyone should do this because the more that they do it this will be next in the rules that they can't have a range and then say the range is not accurate. or something close. whatever helps. it's not like they're trying to be friendly, send that letter in! name and shame, 2024
Doesn't even matter. They just post ranges like $30k - $300k to get around it
At least then you know to ignore them from the word go. I recently had a recruiter get angry with me on the phone for insisting on knowing the salary range before talking to him, and yell âfine itâs somewhere between $10 and $1,000,000 a year, now can you talk to me!â Quickest end to a phone call Iâve ever had
Their ATS probably has some really angry notes about you. Which is good, less likely anyone there will ever call you again.
Because he knows that the number he has sucks and everyone is bailing on him as soon as they find out what it is...
Waving at you from Washington state where I forgot this was a state only law that just got passed. Sending you good wishes that you join us on the dark side where employers have to post their range on the job posting.
I just tell recruiters that I won't schedule an interview without knowing the pay range first because it's a waste of everyone's time to go through the whole process just to get some basic bare-bones information on whether our needs align.
Yup, they just try to find the âbestâ candidate they can low ball and not pay what you and the position is worth. All about keeping the profits at the highest levels
Fortunately, more states are requiring compensation disclosure on the job postings, and Recruiters and hiring managers are not allowed to ask for past salary history or compensation expectations. Currently , Iâm a Career Coach with 14* yrs exp., and was an Executive Recruiter and Corporate Recruiting Director for 14 yrs., there are some companies that their parent company is out of the country or a state that doesnât require the above that go against state laws. For me, this is a huge concern that their HR dept. doesnât know state laws. Good luck on your job search. https://www.forbes.com/sites/alonzomartinez/2024/06/14/2024-state-by-state-pay-transparency-laws-key-insights-for-employers/#
loool. They can offer whatever they want. I applied to one company that gave me a range. I went through with the interviews then decided I wasn't gonna take even the max offer as it felt too low for my skillset. They called me and offered me something OVER the max without me even saying anything.
a couple of states passed a law requiring them to post the salary range (new york and colorado i think.) if they're posting a range that is false, i'm sure those laws include a penalty.
Company: "This is the range for a Grade 27 position. We don't hire external candidates at the top of the range because we want them to have room to grow." Easy peesy.
sure- but i would think they can't put the internal amount on an external website. the recruiter lied about it and so did the company; pretty easy to see the listing. whether a DA wants to take the case is another story.
That's what my company does.
I would wager that recruiter is probably on a commission and you will be dodging several red flags by applying somewhere else
A university around my area has positions with salary ranges and then a disclaimer that says the pay starts in the middle of that range and then it goes down based on things you don't have based on the min qualifications required on the job posting. Here's and example of one of the roles "Compensation Range $43.10 - $61.97 CAD Hourly The Compensation Range is the span between the minimum and maximum base salary for a position. The midpoint of the range is approximately halfway between the minimum and the maximum and represents an employee that possesses full job knowledge, qualifications and experience for the position. In the normal course, employees will be hired, transferred or promoted between the minimum and midpoint of the salary range for a job." That's a lot of mental gymnastics to say we pay between $43.1 and $52.5
They're telling you that no matter how long and hard you work there, the posted top is as high as you'll go. They can't hire you there, it's what the senior employee is making and you *could* get one day.
Sounds like a typical listing for a government job. Often it's a range set by union contract, or in non-union positions, set by civil service rules or legislation. Government can't really do the "pay whatever you can convince management to give" because they're just spending tax money rather than trying to turn a profit, so there'd be no incentive to *not* hire your buddy and pay him $500k/yr to send emails for you.
The thinking behind is that yes, that is the range for the role. The high end is for existing employees that are very strong and we only use the lower range on new hires. Iâve worked for companies that think like this. Hard to understand why itâs posted like that but the laws are for âoffer rangesâ but for âsalary rangesâ that include all existing as well.
Some places have long-serving employees who still aren't anywhere near the top because they got hired at a bad time or were shit at negotiating, so they think it's ok to lowball you to "not make so and so mad." Not your problem. They need to pay their existing employees more, not make you take less. They'll learn the hard way.
The excuse an HR person gave me for this just last week was âwe need room to give raises in the futureâ. Itâs a bullshit answer
One of the stupidest talking points I've ever heard in any discipline. Like there's a single soul out there who would rather earn less money, making some amount less than the top of the range for 3-5 years before getting there, instead of just making the top of the range the whole time. It's even stupider when you consider that "needing room to give raises in the future" is also them telling on themselves that they aren't evaluating their salary bands anywhere close to as often as they should be.
But they only give out 3% raises so thereâs lots of time to get there!
I havenât seen a 3% raise without a promotion in probably a decade. I did take the job even though itâs a pay cut because severance ran out and it was the only solid offer I had. The other one was a âpaid work trialâ. So a gamble and fuck that noise
Last job I had there wasnât even reviews just handing out 2-4% raise which doesnât amount to much
Less than inflation
Hereâs what happens at my job: finance has a fixed salary band. The hiring manager canât bring in someone at the top b/c they canât govern the worker a raise. Finance simply wonât make exceptions to go above the band. Hence, employers donât offer the top of the salary band b/c if they do, the worker canât get a raise and then will leave.
This reminds me of performance reviews where they have a scale of 1-5 on different metrics, but in reality almost nobody scores a 5 in anything. They must be really looking for someone to go above and beyond in their job, probably to the point of personal sacrifice, to get an "exceeds expectations".
I used to work for an employer with bonus money tied to performance reviews. You really had to screw up not to do well enough on your review to get your annual merit salary increase, but getting a good enough rating for a bonus seemed to be an incredibly perfunctory and arbitrary process with no rhyme or reason. One of my colleagues and I hypothesized that our office got a pot of money from HQ every year for bonuses and would play a game of "This year Jane gets the bonus but Bob will get it next year." Welp, my friend ended up going into senior management, seeing how the sausage was made, and reported back that was exactly what was happening with how performance reviews were done and bonuses divvied out.
You're naively assuming that the recruiter is being honest.
Lol yes. I just got a job where the ranges was 79 to 95. I asked for the mid point. I got 80. I'm assuming that if I had specific experience with their systems I'd get what I wanted or more though.
Yes the top of our range is 14 quintillion dollars!
I am fine with only earning 10 percent of that since I'm not fully qualified."
Gotta love that Zimbabwe money
Lie about the range to get applicants to lowball. If they were honest no one would apply.
That's true.
Don't do it. I accepted way under salary minimum with a promise of an increase but I'm still waiting even after bringing it up to numerous execs and board members. I have essentially decided to take on any projects and to ride it out until I at least get 1.5 years experience as an executive before looking. Then hit them with here is my two weeks and peace out. They will be in a hole for at least 6 months. Fuck them.
Yeah what will happen is some poor soul will take the role and realize they are underpaid compared to the market. Honestly fuck companies that pinch pennies and don't offer an actual competitive salary.
To be frank, they also just lie and say they will pay that high and bait and switch later. Con men!
Oh man, friend of mine did this and got canned two weeks before his review for the promised increase. He was told heâd get market rate âwhen he proved himself.â Glassdoor was full of reviews that said this was their MO. Wayfair interviewed me twice with the same BS, I donât know if theyâre still doing it but when I stopped laughing I declined. Havenât heard from them since and given what Iâve read about them the last few years I donât think itâs any better.
This is why ppl need to agree solid time frames in writing for promotion with clear and objective KPIs
There's a lot of companies, especially big brand, that do this. They know that getting "X Brand" experience on the resume is valuable and some of the cheap ambitious kids will stay if the Managers are decent and everyone can get along. However, couple this strategy with sh-tti underpaid micromanagers and you get a terrible meat grinder work environment with a rapidly cycling revolving door at about 2 years. Saw this happen where they replaced A great, empathetic leader with a douche. 30% out in a year. All the best people.
Not to mention that the requirements for that role are _way_ too steep for 65k. Weekends, holidays, and on-call? Fuck that. Iâd probably need to be offered at least 250-300k before Iâd ever consider it
The second you quit your old job and take the new one, you lose all leverage. They did you a favor, they showed you exactly who they were before you signed up.
More likely someone desperate who needs money quickly but will then move on ASAP.
Companies complain about employees not staying long, but then offer low salaries that push people to seek higher-paying roles. There's nothing wrong with changing jobs to improve your pay. I'm just tired of hearing companies complain about a lack of workers when they offer subpar pay below market rates just to save money.
I was having a conversation with my peer about this a few months ago. A competitor in our area has been pulling a lot of high-value tenured colleagues away from us. They were getting huge raises and promotions. He couldn't for the life of him understand why people were leaving. "We offer so much more than the competitor - visibility, interesting projects, opportunities to try new things". It did not compute to him that money is a huge motivating factor, if not the single most important factor, for a job. Leadership inside of corporates are full of these types of people. And yes, these people will work in dead end positions for years in the hopes of getting promoted making below market wages. A very sad state of affairs. He didn't realize exactly what that looked like until I got an offer from that same competitor and left. I showed him the promo I got and the massive raise that came with it. I could see the color drain from his face, shattering years of misconceptions and false ideas. I'll never forget it.
Yup. "Cool, interesting work" can matter if it's 80k here vs 88k there. Or, your employer is the company trying to do the cool thing. But at 80k vs 120k, that's real quality of life improvement.
I've never worked anywhere that even after 2 years, I still considered the work interesting. I've been doing software consulting for ten years, and while projects differ wildly, it all still blurs back together into "work".
Exactly. âInteresting workâ is just corporate hot air. Weâre not excavating an Egyptian tomb here. Weâre sending emails.
I can't disagree more. I've worked on quite a few fun projects as a software developer. Not that they were ever sold to me as fun outright but they were anyway.
âI get to do cool work!â Ok buddy enjoy it, meanwhile Iâm over here tripling my monthly income. But Iâm sure that cool work matters!!!!
âInteresting workâ means weâll pay you with experience.
âInteresting workâ means weâll pay you with experience.
The job I did 2 years ago, after 5 years of more and more responsibilities paid so little that the minimum wage laws here would now make what they paid me illegal. There's a huge problem with anything a fee levels above NMW now where they didn't go up when NMW did. So I am finding jobs wanting 5 years experience and professional qualifications for 2k over. Why bother at that point.
They underpaid someone internally as they rose ranks. They probably got on their nerves and finally left for a better job. The recruiters didn't adjust pay ladders Possibly title inflation in the company as well. Job might be much lower than title implies. Probably an on-call grunt that does a lot of OT if hourly
I switched from one government agency to another for a modest initial salary increase but greater growth potential. And, more importantly, a MUCH lower stress level and workload even with a longer commute. When those at the top canât maintain low and middle level employees, folks like me ended up doing our own job and the work of the missing employees. But since it didnât directly affect those at the top, they just doubled down on the issues causing the problems.
More likely to be a position where they know someone wonât move on ASAP: visa workers. The hurdles to change jobs are much higher and contain some risk.
Everything about that offer sounds awful. The salary compared to the range, the desire to give you Senior responsibilities with no salary bump, and the weekend and on-call work. Good decision. That place sounds awful.
I got offered a similar role as a promotion. Every third weekend (12 hours F, S, S) and rotating days during the week when not scheduled for that weekend. Offered 7k more than my current role. No. Thank. You. They were floored when I declined.
I went through this twice and the internal scream was so excruciating that I ended up deciding to just stay at my current job until the market improves đ
>They did express interest in moving me into a senior position due to my qualifications but maintained that the salary would remain within the $50,000 to $90,000 range. Here, we can give you more responsibility so you can be a senior on paper but you'd still be paid as an entry level employee. Biggest red flag there, I would've told them no thank you right at that moment.
If you don't offer the top of the salary range, then the "top" is actually much lower. They just post that to bypass the search filters and get people to apply.
"Then I don't offer the top of my effort."
âMy work week will be 15-40 hours. Weâll see how you feel about ranges in a month.â
Iâve worked at companies that Iâve had to provide metrics on bill rates and pay rates. The companies hit certain targets if they pay you below the max range. Itâs usually a cost savings mechanism and a kpi the group is scored on each year. For example if the max pay rate is 100 an hour and you come in at 80, they get credit for that. Iâve also seen job seekers absolutely dominate the max pay rate. People coming in at 150/hr when max was 100. Itâs really stupid how that salary range is out there like that to lure applicants in.
Itâs more concerning that the job market is so saturated with applicants that someone who is qualified / worth $130k has to take a job at $65k because they need to feed their family. Weâre in a race to the bottom. We need unions. Shit is really bad.
Agreed. However, it will get far far worse if a plan called Project 2025 is implemented. They'll turn America into a Christofascist state under 'God.' You can only get good jobs and advance if you're a vetted ideological loyalist, NOT because you have any skills that may be required for that job. It's really fucking scary, and I'm usually not into public politics, but this needs to be stopped at all costs. People are speaking out against it, but time is running short and more people need to know about this before they vote in November. [https://www.stopthecoup2025.org/](https://www.stopthecoup2025.org/) Bullet points from the nearly 900-page right wing manifesto: [https://static1.squarespace.com/static/6547d46ce0be13435001c0ad/t/663d101970106d75bbfce2c0/1715277849753/REVISED+12.16+\_For+Release\_%7B10+pgs%7D\_Key+Proposals+of+Project+2025+by+Stop+the+Coup+2025.pdf](https://static1.squarespace.com/static/6547d46ce0be13435001c0ad/t/663d101970106d75bbfce2c0/1715277849753/REVISED+12.16+_For+Release_%7B10+pgs%7D_Key+Proposals+of+Project+2025+by+Stop+the+Coup+2025.pdf) Value any semblance of ideological or economic freedom? Help shoot this abomination down.
Thing reads like Hitler's pillow book! Terrifying stuff.
IKR? This is why the word needs to get out and people need to VOTE. Vote blue like your lives depend on it--because they likely do. People find out the hard way that when individuals and groups publish manifestos like this, they MEAN them. It's not parody, it's not satire, and these people are deadly serious. They want to turn us into Gilead, basically, and it's up to the sane people in this country to stop them. A friend of mine does a lot of canvassing and phone calls for the Democrats. She's retired, so she has the time. She didn't know about this. I sent her the links, told her to read it, and then to spread the word. She will because a fascist state is not what we signed up to be. Get the word out. Vote blue. Let's defeat this thing because we HAVE to if we want to stay free.
That your friend didnât know *aa a volunteer canvass worker for the DNC* or whatever branch of it, is wild to me - but also not, how they chronically fumble so much of their messaging - even now, on the very real dangers of the 2025/GOP playbook. So frustrating and terrifying to watch it happen.
I had a poli sci professor in grad school who used to say, "Never underestimate a Democrat's ability to shoot themself in the foot." It's unfortunately true, and the Dem's inability to get its messaging straight is one of their biggest weaknesses. The Lincoln Project shows them again and again how they should be dealing with the fascist trash on the right, but it's like they'd rather fall into Michelle-esque "When they go low, we go high" feelgood-ism and purity testing of their own ranks rather than deal with the fascist danger head-on. The fact we have so many on the left who seem to think Biden holds a dual-appointment as POTUS and Prime Minister of Israel is troubling.
>People find out the hard way that when individuals and groups publish manifestos like this, they MEAN them. It's not parody, it's not satire, and these people are deadly serious. As I like to say, when fascists tell you who they are, believe them. I'm pretty happy with my life and career right, but the November election is hanging over my head like a dark storm cloud. Trump's an unqualified moron who couldn't administrate his way out of a paper bag (something that probably caused more hardship than needed during COVID), but there are a lot of very capable fascists who are banking on using him to create the U.S. version of Russia.
You can live safe in the knowledge that they will skimp, someone will accept, theyâll then leave in a few months time and then this dog shit process will start all over again and none of them will be able to figure out whyâŚ
Im not exactly sure what the goal is here. Do people work for essentially half what the going rate is? Iâve worked for below market but only about 10% below market. Sometimes companies offer something other than money. This doesnât sound like they offer anything good. Run away.
This is true. For example, I work for a community/junior college that is funded by the state. As such, I make less salary than my colleagues in the private sector, but I have a pension and top tier healthcare. I pay roughly $6K-8K in premiums a year but have a $0 deductible. It has come in handy because my partner was diagnosed with stage 4 cancer and racked up almost $1 million in treatment bills and we've only had to pay a couple hundred in co-pays.
I hate it that people will eventually accept these low pays too. It really ruins it for everyone. Not to mention that they basically agreed to work two years for one years salary. So dumb.
The first number is real and so is the dash. The number after the dash is a lie. This situation was so full of red flags, I don't know how you could see the people interviewing you through the red haze! On call and possible 7 Days of work? Worth a lot more money! And so are you.
The part that blows me away was this was salary. Not hourly. So in that case you don't even get over time pay for working weekends, holidays, and on call. They just expect you to be their indentured servant.
With the job market these days, people will accept a position at a much lower rate just to get in and have a job. Recruiters are getting hundreds if not thousands of applications for a position, itâs only logical for a business to see a saturated market and know they can offer less. Itâs a truly sad period for job seekers, hopefully this changes soon
Executives and board members are trying to push salaries down. I had an interview with a board member last night for a Principal MLE role and he bitched about how it was still an employees market and that everyone in tech was overpaid. Get used to it. They donât want to pay you
If you don't offer the top of the salary range, it's not your range. Their range is $50k to $65k. Red flag central!!! đŠ Their posting should have read $50k to $65k. đŠđŠ They weren't truthful about how much experience was needed. đŠđŠđŠ Now they are willing to give you a senior manager position for same salary as a mid manager position (which is already a low ball offer). What a hot đĽ đĽ đĽ mess!
That employer is probably required to be transparent about the pay range. Pay range and budget are two separate things. Pay range is created by the compensation team, itâs based on market data and annual inflation. Budget is created by the finance team, itâs what can actually be paid. One is a guideline the other is the reality. In a perfect world, companies would advertise the budget.Â
In this world, the company must advertise the budget, not fantasy. The range for this job was $50,000-$65,000. They advertised up to $90,000 to get people who might be willing to work for that amount of money, to then see if they could squeeze them down to $65,000.
Yeah, I find it EXTREMELY strange that their range goes all the way up to 90k but the best, last, and final offer is only 65k. That's almost a third less than what they're advertising. Either they need to decrease their range or increase their offer amount.
Why even post a salary if it's going to be like that? To give people the illusion that they may make that much if they stick with it?
If companies stopped using recruiters, maybe they could pay $130k. External recruiters are parasites.
But then they would have to hire ⌠recruiters. It is a skill to take a poorly written job posting for a technical role and weed 500 down to 5. ATS isnât going to do the work for you, and Ats isnât going to head hunt for people who might want to jump ship.
I dunno. It must depend. Six weeks ago, I resigned from my toxic job of 12 years. All my direct applications have gone into the black hole, but I currently have 4-5 recruiters that have been feeding me jobs they like me for. About one or two a week. I already got one job and turned it down and on Monday I may be offered another. Every other application method has resulted in exactly zero results, but with the recruiters I feel like itâs just a matter of time. Iâm guessing it just depends on many factors.
Iâm so proud of myself! Thanks to yâall I told a company to suck it after their SECOND request for unpaid work. This one was going to be create a video, and blah blah blah. So I said âwhat is the hourly stipend for the work Iâll be doing?â Havenât heard back. Yet still unemployed but it feels good to not allow others to take advantage of you just because you need a job.
Middle management makes everyone read the game and teaches them how to neg
"You must get paid every time you refill this job after you have to fire the person dumb enough to accept that"
If the most they can offer is 65k, that is the top of the range. They are lying in their job posting to drive more traffic. You already know before getting an offer that they use deceitful tactics. Itâs on you if you work there and they screw you over.
Iâm seeing this shit too. âIâd want the top of the range.â âSo does everybody.â WELLâ Iâm qualified for the top of the range, bitch
Block this recruiter. Dude is a clown.
Was this a case of a salary range for the whole US market? Then they would advise of the paybands for your geolocation?
Nope average for my region/area.
'We offer 90k, but we don't offer 90k.' - lol
Attention to detail is going to be a really important part of justifying being at the top of the salary âranageâ
They always have a range. It may not be the one advertised. And believe me things wonât get any better.
Sounds like you dodged a bullet there..
Idk if the pay is low or you are just over qualified. Why apply to a role that requires 1 year of experience if you have 8?
That was never specified in the job posting how many years of experience they were looking for. It was not until I did the interview they told me their ideal candidate would have 1 year of experience. The role I applied for is considered a mid level role.
A mid- level manager with 1 year experience is going to be an unmitigated disaster.
I'm with you on this, but I don't get any callbacks for jobs that match my level of experience. So I switched to applying lower levels and lo and behold, the interviews start flowing. I'm sure there's someone with 13 years of experience getting the callback for those jobs asking for 8 years of experience.
I was in a third interview when we talked about salary. I was supposed to be leaving a teaching position to be head of department and told them my current salary, and they said it was more than they could offer. I pointed out that it was about the middle of the salary range and in a lower position, so I expected more. They kind of laughed, and said money wasnât everything. I said âah, so lying is normal hereâ and ended the call and ignored all communication after that. Iâd like the time I wasted back
Right move. They'd have tried to lowball you to 50K. Fuck them.
if it's not a really large corporation you just got your data stolen. congratsÂ
Come up with the Least Attractive Job Challenge. That company:
I agree. Donât give into low salaries offers. Important to ask about salary range in first interview. The interest thing that happened to me once is I got a different salary range from the recruiter interview and when I interviewed with the actual hiring manager he gave me a different range which was much lower. When I told him the recruiter gave me higher range he got mad at me and thought I was lying.
God. Posts like this make me so glad I quit recruiting. These hiring managers post that range to get applicants, KNOWING GOOD AND WELL that their budget is shit and they are only offering the lower end.
i was a recruiter and my company did something along these lines where they fabricate the ranges to entice candidates to apply and junk bring out the real salary offer. I hated doing this every time.
These are all red flags that need to be avoided.. 1) employer not having a real sense of market salaries. If they pay you less, they will value you less (in treatment) 2) companies do not have a sense of differentiation on what a 1 year exp. Person can delivery v/s a 8 yrs exp person can deliver.. and not willing to stretch the pay.. they are immature about how to assess performance so you will struggle to grow within the company 3) having a range within the range.. just stop interacting if that happens. Its a lost cause.
This is the story for all NY and CA jobs nowadays because they have to put a range mandatorily due to regulations but they are not ready to pay the too ranges. Almost always 10-15% lower
65k for a manager is wild
Thatâs why theyâre looking for someone with one year experience. Theyâre looking for someone whoâs gonna accept the job and the overtime that comes with it (and most likely the abuse as well) for a lower pay than market rate.
You just have to negotiate and be prepared to walk away if they don't offer what you think you're worth. You could probably report them anonymously to their recruitment agency if the range is misleading, as you're right, if they're not willing to appoint anyone higher than $65k then that's the top of the hiring range, not $90k. But don't undervalue yourself and be prepared to walk away if you aren't happy with what's on offer.
We have this at work and it drives me mad when we're recruiting. Promote the salary band but all new starters have to start on the lowest band. Literally no one can explain why this is a good policy
Nah, this is when you punish them Go forward with the interview, go all the way to the end. Start working for them, do 2 weeks. The day after you get your first paycheck, text the hiring manager âman, I thought you guys were joking about the low payâ Then never show up again or answer any messages Punish them so the next person can get a decent salary
Theyâll get what they pay for, it will either be someone really incompetent thatâs been let go elsewhere and so needs to take whatever they can get or someone that just needs the title boost and theyâll move on really quickly. Either way not your problem, youâve done the right thing by withdrawing your application
From my observations (writing from Western Europe), the market tries to lower salaries for at least this employee section. 10+ years in building and coaching agile teams, active member of a devops team, customer facing and whatnot and expected to lead teams (plural) with 30+ members for 90k⏠(only with hard negations). This may sound entitled, but I have other examples from the area of senior devs and I really see no objective reason why the salaries should be lower than 4 years ago with an inflation like that.
Si.ilar thing happened to me. They had a range from 70k-145k and had the listing as "Mid-Senior." I'm a senior and applied, only to be told that they only listed the higher salary and "Senior" because they didn't want to dissuade seniors from applying, and that they were actually looking for a mid-level and would pay 96k. I went through the interviews and gave them my salary range, so I'm expecting to be low balled in the end, but you never know. They seem to really like me and I'd love to work at their studio
I worked for a company for 10 years, and after 10 years I was earning 46k. 4 years ago it was a liveable salary where I am from, as long as you can find some private jobs now and then to pad your income. For the last 4 years there was no increase, only my workload increased, and they can just never make ends meet to give me an increase. Then this year I resigned starting my own business that is doing quite well being their competition. Currently they have 5 people employed to fill the void. I am certain they are not paid 10k each a year...
And I read if you want to get the top of the range, you have your be a unicorn who not only checks all the boxes and able to perform 100% on day one.
that company probably has a 90 percent turn over rate. Anybody who works there probably only works there for a couple of months.
What is the point of stating a salary range while also saying that the salary will be lower than what is stated?
This sounds like they are trying to train someone up into the role for cheap, rather than paying for experience⌠this rarely works out well. Either the new hire gets overwhelmed and leaves or does not have the skillset requiredâŚ
It's not that companies *can't* offer it, it's that they *dont want* to offer it. If the company genuinely can't afford to pay it, then they're either not big enough to really need it or they're mismanaging funds elsewhere.
To posit your last question, I would say it's not an issue. Companies lie, cheat, and steal all the fucking time. You owe them absolutely nothing - not honesty, not loyalty, not respect. Companies won't hold these attributes for you, so why should employees for them?
It has occurred to me that the top range salaries listed is just bait and the low end is closer to their planned pay to be paid. Likely they want caviar for generic corn flakes investment & courtesy.
Pay peanuts, get monkeys, act surprised
Some companies prefer to hire desperate people. In some niches, that works, but it is probably not a place you should want to work.
Yea...65k and needing to work weekends and holidays...dream on and do better. Good luck filling this.
most companies will post the salary band for that job posting with the intent of hiring between the 40% and 75% points within that range. posting the full band gives some idea of the long term range
Donât work there. If theyâre lying about the salary thereâs no way you can trust them the job in the ad is the job youâll be doing. There are plenty of companies that will pay you market rate. We donât offer the top of the range is bait and switch, which is bullshit.
Everyone I know who's gotten into high paying jobs just lied, I would urge anybody who is struggling to do the same (unless its a job that can save lives etc, don't lie about that)
My father once told a company who wasn't willing to pay his wage, you may find someone for half my price, but they will be one quarter my talent.
*they donât offer to you. For the right candidate there is no range. Itâs whatever it takes to get you to join.
If Iâm expected to drive in to an office every single day even though the job could easily be hybrid or remote, I want the top end of the salary range. Itâs really that simple. Just told a recruiter this about a job she was about to recommend me for. I keep telling these recruiters: if I can be at home Iâll work for much less. If I have to drive into an office unnecessarily, I want paid.
Similar thing happened to me with Amazon earlier this year. Applied for a marketing role, went through their 1 hour assessment. Role was only based in Seattle, WA and I donât live there so I put the top end of their posted salary range because thatâs what it would take for me to consider it. Recruiter tells me that they donât offer that top end for that location, thatâs only for New York and San Francisco. Why the fuck post that as your top range when itâs too high for the only location the role is located?
Name and shame.
The problem is this: companies have too many applicants, and sometimes HRs of different companies even communicate with each other. On the other hand people who look for a job donât have centralised organisation of people which has some kind of influence to companiesâ image.
You are giving it too much thought, job hunting is like shopping. If you like it you buy it, if you donât keep looking.
It's a buyers market right now, and companies are the buyers.
Lol architect?
I'm hiring for a role offering a generous compensation range of 30000 to 10000000 per year. Please note we don't make offers at the top of the range.
Same thing happened to me recently. It was a 100-120k job and of course I want 120k smh
More responsibilities same pay, checks out.
No big loss dude . On call sucks
Recruiter revealed salary range fake
65K for a masters degree, certifications, weekend and holiday availability and on-call is laughable. I have forklift operators making that much with a little overtime. Laugh in their face and walk away.Â
Most companies pay at the midpoint of the range, but some F100 will go to 75% point. It has to do with salary compression in existing staff, and them not giving high enough annual raises to keep your salary at market value. They also like room left to give raises in your current level.
I work for a massive company that has this stance but they actually do back up their statement that they go hard on QoL features. Insurance is great, unlimited pto, no set work hours, no weekends, many many extra holidays and closures. Really the worst thatâs expected of us is to be available at some inconvenient hours for international zoom meetings with teams across the globe but aside from upper mgmt, there are 1-2 of those per week max. And if I have one at say 8pm, I tend to leave work around 3 pm and have some free time before getting on the calls and itâs entirely acceptable
This company sucks. Donât work tbere
âWhy donât jobs post salary rangesâ Because nobody knows what a salary range is and then they get mad lol
I have consistently encountered this. Itâs like theyâre trying to get around the mandatory salary postings for CA and NY by lying. Itâs a shame they canât be reported because not one job has ever, ever agreed to go the max even if youâre over qualified. Thereâs always an excuse. When the truth is more likely that they are lying.
why did you even interview in the first place? stop giving these companies hope that they can drive down the market.
Please please name and shame the company and recruiting agency if there is one. I suspect they were on a hefty bonus if they could get someone to accept less than 70k...
Genuinely curious, how common is this to happen? I purposely have been low balling my self to the lower end of company ranges just to get more phone screens. Okay with taking the paycut if needed at this point in my career.
Iâm proud of you for knowing your worth. Iâm getting desperate (masters degree as well) and sometimes consider going so low just to have income. But Iâll be damn if Iâm gonna work 10-12 hour days for 50k and bust my ass for entry level pay.
đ I donât take it.
It's because what they want to pay is someone energy level or junior but an experienced person who is desperate. Which is just bad practice because someone entry level can't do the job or it's a steep learning curve or the person. With experience will bounce for more money ASAP. Just a dumb waste of time.
Companies have been putting all of their actual money to stock buy backs and towards paying stockholders. Companies don't really have money anymore and the people at the very top will always get paid first. That's why a lot of places aren't hiring anymore or are hiring at reduced pay. I hope it goes well for you.
Just take the job and find second one đ if they expect 1year of experience you can perform like this, no point over-performing.
Companies are emboldened by their new ability to make candidates squirm. Donât take it.
Anything less than 20% up is not worth the trouble
There is no accountability in corporate USA. Companies can lie to their customers, they can lie to their employees, they can lie to potential employees, they can lie to their suppliers, they can lie to their contractors. In fact the only people they are not legally allowed to lie to is their investors, who are usually part of the C-suits and board members. And in Corporate Capitalism, if you can lie, you do lie.
What a great starter position for someone who would like to learn on the job.
I ran into a similar situation when I was a hospice doctor with about five years experience. I interviewed for a medical Director position for a county owned Hospice. They only had a couple hundred patients but owned 30 clinics. I met with the county commissioners and the county medical Director and they offered me the position. They referred me to HR to work on a contract. HR wanted me to take basically a $100,000 pay cut and be on call 24/7/365. I found the position professionally challenging and was confident that I would be able to build it quickly, so I offered to take the job but with the stipulation that when I was able to double the patient population my salary would be renegotiated. HR said no. I said no. Three months later they contacted me to let me know that I was no longer being considered for the position.
Agreed. Requiring weekend and holiday work, along with being on call during the week, at that salary is predatory and exploitative. It doesn't even constitute a living wage in most areas. Everyone's time is valuable. Don't hesitate to name the company. Predatory and exploitative practices need to be exposed publicly!
Pretty sure thatâs illegal. Hope they put it in writing.
Name. The. Company!
For a range that insulting, Iâd have pulled out my phone mid interview and left a google review stating that I was told they donât go above 65k so their range is an outright lie.
Probably a start up but I wouldnât trust them
âThe fair market range for this position is $X - $Y. If youâre not willing to offer a fair compensation for my skills and experience, then we have nothing left to discuss. Good luck finding a qualified candidate who will work for less than market price.â
Honestly, getting the offer around the middle of the salary band is pretty typical, considering things like internal equity and how the employer has structured its performance management and comp strategy. Essentially, if you start at the top of the salary range, you're starting off red circled and there's nothing that can be done in terms of merit increases during review cycles. If an offer's being made at the top of the range, an HRBP or anyone in that type of role should be making the argument that the candidate should be hired on the next rung of the career ladder. The problem is if the employer doesn't have any need (particularly if it's a people manager role and the open spot is for an individual contributor) or budget for the next rung. Now the employer having an entire salary band that is way below market is a much different issue and is indicative of wanting to get an Audi on a Kia budget. If qualified candidates keep turning down the employer due to salary, the employer will either realize its getting data back from the market and needs to adjust the band (may be difficult if it already has employees in the classification)...or it won't and will scratch its head as to why the role is still open.
OP that is why theyâre looking for only 1 year of experience, they donât want to pay. Even if they wonât pay the max they should be prepared to come close to it (like 5K less) but these guys sound like clowns tbh.
This reads like it was generated by AI but maybe OP is just well spoken
I think they are aiming at a different demographic. Scummy, but not new. Many decades ago I was between undergrad and grad school, hoping I could score a job that was somewhat relevant to my field of study. I stumbled into one that I was under qualified for, but nothing ventured... It took over a month, but I did get offered the job. I was so excited to get something relevant I forgot to ask what it paid.... As you can probably guess, the pay was abysmally low, minimum wage for a skilled position low. I stayed awhile for the experience, but left after a few months. They roped another poor soul in to take the position on a "trial" basis. This middle aged man was so passive he just would not leave the job despite knowing he was being taken advantage of. I at least had the excuse that I was still very young and just getting the hang of properly advocating for myself. I am guessing they are looking for one of these types to take advantage of.
Iâve interviewed for a role that states the upper range is usually for those who are already a few years in the company with the same position lol