to think that if a job is advertised at a certain pay scale the company should be prepared to pay it.

[Ohbehave1]

Applied for an internal job advert. It said it was pay scale 10 (£24950 pa) and the scale is from 70-130% of that.

When I went for the interview I was told that the position was only going to be 80% and that was the same for similar roles across the business.

I stood my ground and said 100%. If I went for 80% I would stay on the same money, have to do unpaid overtime (its salaried) and would not be eligible for a review for 19 months due to the way the review dates fall.

I haven't got the job and the person who has is less qualified than me.

AIBU to expect that the 100% should be attainable. I am pretty sure that the reason I didn't get it is money - I have been doing the job for 4 months on a stand in basis already.

[DeoGratias]

Some employers are quite mean. It tends to work if you are invaluable and present them with a rival job offer when negotiating a pay rise but it's certainly not easy.

[OneMoreCasualty]

Yanbu, but the company is entitled to pay less and choose someone less qualified if that's what they think is best.

[fredfredgeorgejnrsnr]

It was within the pay scale, so they were prepared to pay the scale? If the person who got the job is able to do it, then they are not less qualified than you for the job - assuming they can actually do it, they may be less qualified in other areas but that's not relevant to the job.. They are just cheaper than you.

[Tiggeryoubastard]

It was within the pay scale.

[MackerelOfFact]

YANBU. In a previous job, the company I was working for were advertising a role identical to mine at, I think, £25-30k. I was on about £23k at the time, so I went to my manager and asked about a pay rise, on account of the fact I had more experience than the advertisement was looking for but was earning below the minimum salary. I was told there 'wasn't the budget' to pay more than £25k - so why advertise it as such then?

It's misleading but I guess it's difficult to prove that they definitely wouldn't pay 100%+ for the 'right' candidate.

[LockTheTaskBar]

What they mean is they know what you were on already and decided they wouldn't give you any more. They probably gave the less experienced person that they appointed the 70% - maybe less, if they buttered them up with a load of horseshit about "great experience" and "opportunity to review in due course".

I hate this kind of thing. I went to a third job interview where I was asked by the HR director what money I was on in my current job (underpaid, part of why I was looking around). Of course I told the truth - what idiot would lie in a job interview? In my mind this was a completely separate point - a matter of fact - from a question that would open up a salary negotiation, and I was too inexperienced, and hustled on too quickly, for me to open up that negotiation myself.

I was soon offered the job on the exact - low - salary I was already on. I did open up a negotiation and I did get closer to what I wanted, but it wasted time because they should have been prepared to talk turkey in that third interview and it made them look a bit like dicks to me. I took the job anyway, and after a little while I was interviewing for a junior to me. the same HR director came into the second interview with me and pulled the same dick move on the guy I wanted to offer the job to - she asked his current salary and then afterwards told me that he could be offered that, and no more.

Of course to his credit he explained that he was looking for a pay rise as part of his reasons to move, and that offer wouldn't do. I took it to my boss, didn't even attempt to argue the HR position and just presented it as "we're being twats if we don't give this candidate the reasonable salary he is looking for, and we shouldn't lose him". It worked.

anyway to cut a long story short, what that HR person was effectively trying to do was to cut through the advantage of negotiation that people changing jobs temporarily have. Once you are in a job / company it is really easy for them to put pressure on you to accept the status quo, which amounts over time to a real terms gradual pay cut - your experience and value to the company increases, inflation takes effect, and you are getting a worse and worse deal year on year. for some stupid reason - I have no evidence that it ever worked - she believed that she could apply this same pressure to people looking for new jobs. (Is this standard practice? Does it ever work?)

In your case I think if you want a pay rise you will have to look externally. They have decided they've "got" you and you will have to sell yourself externally for a better deal. The irony is that your experience actually makes you of higher value to the place you're at. They just don't want to reward it. So they'll end up with someone cheaper and less valuable.

[Ohbehave1]

The point is - 100% is not attainable. They told me thT in the interview

[hefzi]

It's not uncommon to pay at the bottom end of a payscale advertised in a job, in all honesty. In my industry, you very, very rarely manage to negotiate up from that- but on a positive note, the only way for advancement for me is to move into management, which I don't want (and there are very few opportunities anyway) - so at least I have a few years left of pay rises before the 25 years between now and retirement (ha!) on the same salary.

[Namechangenell]

What's the point in advertising a salary and then saying you might only get 70% of it? Why not just say the lower starting salary band?!

YANBU, OP. I wouldn't be doing them any more favours if this is how you're treated.

[lostInTheWash]

They told you that Ohbehave1 - they may well have told other candidates something different.

So either didn't want you at that price - as they didn't think you worth it but might another candidate but couldn't say that to your face in such blunt terms or they wanted the advert to look more appealing generally - which could mean they waste a lot of time if people only want the top rate.

I hate the what do you currently earn question in initial interviews as well though I've never just been offered that - I try and be vague then get pined down they point out I'm looking for more and I'm aware what the market rate is. I've always been offered got the bit more I was looking for which is odd because I don't think I interview that well - perhaps they read I would be uncomfortable negotiating and would just keep looking - I don't know.

[OneMoreCasualty]

When asked the "what are you currently paid", counter with "my expectations for my next career move are..."

[LockTheTaskBar]

I know that now, OneMoreCasualty!

[fiorentina]

My old company had bands similar to those you mentioned. Part of that was that it gave employees the opportunity to earn more over a number of years in the same role as their experience increased? They said the idea was that employees wouldn't be going for promotion just to earn more. I'm not really sure it worked like that but I could have been applicable in your case? Chalk it down to experience and find a new role elsewhere, moving companies is the best way to improve your pay in my experience.

[Theoretician]

Lots of people get pay increases to keep them from leaving their current job, so if you want to reduce turnover I suppose it makes sense when you take on someone new, you start them near the bottom of the range, as it gives you room for future increases.