People applying for a job advertised at X to X salary and saying they want 3x more at interview

[diditbark]

This is causing me so many headaches at the moment.

We're advertising for some fairly junior admin positions. Salary band clearly stated in ad, including what the top of band is.

So many people are applying and requesting a min of far more. Say the top of band is £26k and people are applying with required salary £40k.

Bear in mind myself and those shortlisting and interviewing have zero authority to go over top of band.

We also have scenarios where people apply saying they want circa the top of band, but when offered the position after interview say they cannot possibly accept for X figure £10k higher than advertised.

Is anyone else coming across this a lot? Obviously times are hard, inflation is a bastard, many people are underpaid. But there's zero room for us to negotiate ten grand over the top of band.

30 hrs over 4 days min, 2 days a week in the office minimum. We cannot offer fully remote.

Our ads are extremely clear. Good shout on searching under agencies.

Some of the apps are absolute madness. No experience and wanting £45k.

We're getting about 20 realistic applications in every 70.

Perfectly reasonable to state that in the ad, to avoid wasting your time and theirs.
Some people seem to think there’s always potential to go above the max stated, when there definitely isn’t. I work in the public sector and there’s no chance we can offer more. If the pay was in the next band up, it would be a different job.

Some ads say “Salary in the range A to B on a scale from A to C, with an additional 1 or 2 points (£x) possible for an exceptional candidate “. That shows that the pay band is fixed, and makes it clear what is and isn’t negotiable.

It’s unusual that it’s happening so frequently with such a large gulf in difference of expectation.

would you consider posting the wording of the job advert? What’s the role title? Is it all being ramped up to appear more than it actually is, which is drawing people in to think that it’s a more senior role.

This year a relative was offered £60k plus lots of extras for a entry position after university.

They obviously saw something they wanted.

The job was advertised as half that amount.

I was

Agreed OP!

Also annoying when roles are advertised as £ commercial rates, when they aren't and you have to waste time finding out their ranges!

I think your idea is sensible as you should also confirm that when you invite to interview

I agree with PP who suggest you check the advert yourself. And I wonder if different sites conceal different information. Perhaps you could do a phone screen where you ask people desired salary before scheduling for interview. Or you include "desired salary" as a question on the application form.

I remember applying for a job that showed a salary range (e.g. 20k-40k) and when the offer came in they said the top of the band was less than stated (e.g. 30k). It turned out that the advert actually captured two salary bands (e.g. grade C and grade D, but the role/offer was for a grade C). It made no sense to me, and I didn't accept the offer because it paid significantly less than my current role.

At the same time, I've had job offers, and then realised it would entail way more effort than I originally thought - either due to the commute, workload, seniority - and therefore I wanted more money. Perhaps this was silly of me, but interviewing is a two-way process, and sometimes a candidate needs time to think things through.

So yes, I agree with PP who said maybe the role or salary needs to be re-evaluated. In the case of people asking for 65k who presumably had a lot of experience, perhaps only interview entry level candidates rather than those with exceptional skills/experience: even if you managed to hire one of these people, an over-qualified candidate might leave anyway. For example, they might be desperate for "any job" and continue to look for a better thing even after you hire them (I've done this too!).

I graduated with an arts degree in 2002 with no experience, and got an admin job paying 24k. Ran that through an inflation calculator and that's 42k in today's money. If your candidates are competent I'm not surprised they're asking for more. Your org needs to update its pay bands.

OP are the people applying school leavers/grads, early 20s?

There has been a massive culture shift from when I started work (17 years ago). When I was going for graduate jobs you didn’t negotiate pay, you took what was offered and it was very much you do what you were told. (That was after working through uni at a supermarket where again there was no question of negotiating pay).

A brief search of Google, tik tok are full of advice on negotiating salaries after job offers, very much “know your own worth” and “be prepared to walk away”. I have younger nieces and cousins who have much better boundaries regarding work and home (which I think is great); however, the downside can be an “entitlement” that they are entitled to higher rates of pay.

Unemployment is low. It’s difficult to recruit people and so people can try and negotiate.

As others have said all you can do is make it clear about salary.

The other option is to try and look at career progression and development (apprenticeship for example), and get people who want decent pay, but also the option for career progression and training.

I agree @GreenMeanMachine , there’s a definite sense of entitlement among the current generation of school leavers and graduates. There’s no understanding that in an entry level job you won’t be bringing as much to the employer as experienced people to start with, however clever you are.

I have a young relative who took a part time vacation job, and thinks it isn’t fair that staff who have been there longer get paid more, because they “do the same as them”. We pointed out that they don’t do the same - the experienced people train newbies, troubleshoot, are the ones to stay late if there’s a problem, and deal with the trickier situations. This fell on deaf ears!

Cant you phone screen before interview? Then you can weed the unsuitable s out?

£26k is not going to get you much. Graduates seem to want circa £30k now

Another thing, why are you short-listing candidates who are over qualified and at £65k level?

Isn't it obvious from their CV that they are not going to commit to a £26k role?

Don't bother interviewing anyone who is too good. I would reject them immediately

You need help from an experienced recruiter

While I agree with what you're saying about people being underpaid, I earned £28k as my first graduate (professional) job in 2000 and I remember that was an amazing salary for a graduate. Inflation calculator puts that at £62k today.

So your admin position was very highly paid in 2002!!!

1. Is the job in an expensive part of the country?
2. Are employees expected in the office?
3. Are any of the lesser candidates willing to work for the stated wage?

I did just this recently, but through a decent recruitment agency. Advert at a local employer was asking for £28-33k FTE. Trouble recruiting for the role. Yup - good reason for that. I am already on £35k FTE with at least a 5% increase to come this month. So I asked for £38-40k but 4 days per week. I am very highly qualified for the role, so the employer is not just getting the basics but lots of added value. Recruiter wondered if the P/T so lower salary might help. Feedback: highly qualified but salary an issue. Yes mate - your problem not mine. Why would I move for less? Showed me the employer had little to no idea about local salaries and skills. They still haven't hired. They were offering this as a 1 year FTC with conversion to perm. I asked why the FTC - the employer wanted to see how things would work out. Again strongly suggested the recruiting manager had not an idea about employment law. He is on LinkedIn - paid at least £50k. If I was HIS employer I would be asking what value he is adding.

@socialdilemmawhattodo your example really exemplifies with OP is asking about. The advert was clear what salary range was, £28-33K, but pro rata to FT you wanted 45-50k, so 50% more than advertised. Why did you apply for a job when you knew your salary requirements were so much higher? (I’m not saying you might be entirely right about salary and how much role should pay); however, OP wants to know why in this situation did you even apply?

I note you went through a recruitment agency so it might be the recruiter did the usual recruiter patter and suggested there might be scope for increased salary/ups scaling role (with the aim to just get as many possible applicants to send to company) and so that may answer the question, but I would have looked at this ad and just disregarded as being far below salary expectations. I wouldn’t have applied thinking, “I’ll just ask for more and part time working).

I sugggest you tell the managers who do make salary decisions that they are not offering enough to recruit to the roles. And point out how much recruitment is costing in terms of both time and money. Alternatively offer more flexible options that may appeal to a wider group of people for the current salary bands: eg part time, condensed hours, flexible office based/WFH.

Bad advice. You could miss out on someone really good who may want a less stressful job.

That doesn’t sound right at all. Inflation yes, but don’t forget salaries have generally NOT risen with inflation ( hence the gulf between house prices and salary). That role is more likely equivalent to a £28k-£32k job today.

@notavillager

I agree with @Tiredalwaystired - being realistic, you simply wouldn't get £42k for an entry level admin job these days, even if you think you should because of inflation.

I'm a manager and if I look at my salary now adjusted for inflation, it's really not a lot more than when I started at my organisation in an entry level role 7 years ago. It feels like I'm earning more because the number has gone up and I've been 'promoted', but really it's a tiny increase.

Those coming in at entry level are earning a lot less than I was 7 years ago.

People going for entry level admin jobs are really having a laugh if they're expecting £40k+ salaries, especially in public sector.

It's a pain for recruiters, but on the other hand, it's good for young people. They should know their worth. If people don't push back against salaries not keeping up with inflation, then they will never rise.

Why aren’t you doing screening calls before wasting time on interview to clarify salary expectations?

It's a general culture shift plus the COL crisis. Many wages aren't realistic anymore.

My husband is currently recruiting for the company he works for. The role is more senior than the one you describe, but he's finding this. He's also finding that people with nowhere near the minimum requirements for the post are applying. Again, this appears to be a COL thing - people are taking chances in the hope of getting a much higher income.

Where are these jobs being advertised please?

My DD is looking for work and would be very happy with that salary and says she is not seeing much at all, but she is mainly looking on Indeed.