Please or to access all these features

Add post

Watch this thread

Save thread

Start a new thread

Flip thread

Hide thread

My feed

Active Unanswered threads

Getting started FAQ's

Unanswered threads Acronyms Talk guidelines

Hide shortcut buttons

Talk

AIBU?

Share your dilemmas and get honest opinions from other Mumsnetters.

Flip

1 2 3

Original poster

Salary: Competitive

74 replies

HombreLobo · 03/01/2014 20:42

Why not let me be the judge of whether the salary offered is competitive or not?

Job searching right now and it's really starting to grate.

AIBU to think that at the very least there should be a salary range or starting point stated?

OP posts:

Chippednailvarnish · 04/01/2014 11:08

Ahhh yes "worth the pay cut". That old bullshit chestnut.

DisgraceToTheYChromosome · 04/01/2014 11:45

My current agency placement tried to recruit me direct for 85% of my current rate, weekend and night working (which I won't do for health reasons) and had the fucking gall to tell me that they needed to recoup the transfer fee.

When I declined, they tried threatening me with persona non grata. Went sick for a week during the Xmas rush, came back and it hasn't come up again.

BakerStreetSaxRift · 04/01/2014 12:19

Well, I had one interview for a job with a "competitive" salary that asked for my current salary in the application.

Then, at the end of the interview, they asked me my current salary again (why can't you just have checked my application since you made me put it in there), and only after an hour long interview did they tell me the salary they were offering was quite a bit less. What a fucking waste of time.

However, I later applied for another job that had a competitive salary, wasn't until they offered me the job that they told me the salary, and it was a lot more than expected, so much that if they'd put it in the advert I probably wouldn't have applied as I'd think I wouldn't have had a chance.

But I think the latter example is the exception.

FriendlyLadybird · 04/01/2014 12:27

...the sort of employee who is most concerned about just the money isn't necessarily the right one.

I think that wanting to know the salary range does not mean you are 'most concerned about just the money'. I rang up a company once to find out about the salary range and the (young, junior) person I spoke to was absolutely shocked. She said, 'Do you just care about the money then?' I said no, but I was already earning and was not in a position to take a cut in salary, however interesting the job looked, and did not want to waste my time or theirs in applying for a job that I would not accept.

Conversely, I later applied for another job that offered a supposedly competitive salary, and the HR director rang me up, saying they'd love to employ me but thought they were probably offering too low a salary. We had a discussion about it and explored the possibility of my working part time for their full time salary but, in the end, it wasn't going to work.

FredFredGeorge · 04/01/2014 13:07

FriendlyLadybird That is a very odd story about the person being shocked, and in a pre-application conversation more info about the salary should be given, but then it can be tailored and explain why it can't be given:

As a widget operator we'd be happy to pay X, if you've already got the skills to do some widget designing we'd pay Y, we don't really mind if you're an X or Y person, we want the right person and can accommodate either but wouldn't pay the same.

As BakerStreetSaxRift said, putting in a salary can exclude people who would be the best candidate.

Original poster

HombreLobo · 04/01/2014 13:13

To me giving a range, even if it attracts inappropriate candidates (who could easily be weeded out before intreview), should surely be the better option than wasting time interviewing people who wouldn't consider the job because it pays too little.

OP posts:

FredFredGeorge · 04/01/2014 13:22

HombreLobo Because then you will still have the problem if you only think a person is worth the lower range when they think they're worth the higher. You may have convinced someone wanting 75k to apply if you, you said 30k to 80k. But if you only think they're worth 30k it was still a waste of time. Also fewer of the 80k people will apply with such a range.

Original poster

HombreLobo · 04/01/2014 13:28

Do jobs really exist with a salary range of 30k-80k???

OP posts:

LessMissAbs · 04/01/2014 13:28

YANBU. Competitive = as low as they get away with paying.

Theres still a big problem about equal pay, or lack of it, in this country. We need more transparency about salaries, and secretive advertising like this isn't doing any good.

FredFredGeorge · 04/01/2014 13:49

I've offered for positions that have had close to that range yes HombreLobo We recently offered to someone near the top of it, they withdrew after accepting (remaining with their existing employer who offered them even more to stay) and then had it filled by someone near the bottom. The two would've brought different things to the team and because we ended up with the lower we then advertised for another position to fulfil the parts they couldn't do.

TheGreatHunt · 04/01/2014 14:22

I doubt that they would have been performing the same roles though Fred?!

therighttoshoes · 04/01/2014 14:31

YANBU I hate that!

catgirl1976 · 04/01/2014 14:56

I hate that too

And it never is

BakerStreetSaxRift · 04/01/2014 16:23

My employer is advertising engineer positions with a salary range of £28k to £75k, so they do exist. Although I nearly fell off my seat when I saw it. Didn't realise it happened elsewhere too.

FredFredGeorge · 04/01/2014 17:53

TheGreatHunt it would be the same "position" as in it could be filled by a person with one set of skills, or it could be filled by someone with a much smaller set of skills. If someone with the lower skills were employed then the missing parts would have to be picked up by other members of the team, or by employing another person or...

Anywhere the complete skillset of a position is quite specialised this tends to happen, you're always keen and willing to pay a lot for a person with a full combination, but if you can only get someone with part of the skillset you can still employ them. If you limited yourself to someone with the full skillset in the adverts you'd end up with possibly no applicants or have to offer more money than you could afford, but if you only advertised for the smaller role then people who are available or want to work for you don't apply.

TheGreatHunt · 04/01/2014 17:55

You provide an interesting perspective Fred. I've been put off applying for such positions advertised as competitive where I dont meet all of the criteria, just most of them. Simply because without a salary it's hard to judge if theyd want me. Also because the job description talks about "essentials" so I think there's no chance for me!

Original poster

HombreLobo · 04/01/2014 18:08

Well I've learned from another thread that essentials doesn't actually mean essential in job adverts. Why they can't list the essentials in the essential bit and desirable in the desirable bit is a mystery to me.

It would be a whole lot easier if people would just say what they want instead of all this cloak and dagger stuff.

OP posts:

Iamsparklyknickers · 04/01/2014 18:14

the sort of employee who is most concerned about just the money

Sorry to pick you up on this point again - but every employee is concerned about the money - you'd be advertising for volunteers otherwise.

There is an argument for it being something to embrace, an employee who financially is in a position where they need the job will likely be far more reliable and motivated to do a good one.

flowery · 04/01/2014 18:22

An ad is designed to attract the right candidates.

You attract people by emphasising the best bits about the job. You exclude information about the not-so-good bits. As evidenced by this thread, people will assume that if a salary is not provided, it's not particularly attractive, and the employer will therefore lose out on loads of potentially good candidates. They might still fill the role, but recruitment isn't just about bums on seats.

You ensure the right people apply by giving the information people need to self-select themselves out if the job isn't right for them. Giving some indication of a salary range does that.

gallicgirl · 04/01/2014 18:39

It might depend on the type of role being advertised.

Engineers for example, I would expect the salary range to be quite decent as the company would clearly be paying for education and specific skills and training.
In the case of a store assistant I would expect competitive to mean rubbish.

FredFredGeorge · 04/01/2014 18:42

Iamsparklyknickers The most important things to me in job adverts are not the salary, but the flexibility in terms of start / finish times, working hours, remote working, the location of the offices etc. that allow me to spend more time -on mumsnet- with my DD.

I know loads of people who are earning much less than they could be elsewhere, but choose on other things.

I'd be pretty unhappy to employ someone who is working for me simply because they need a job, as it means once they're back on their feet they'll probably be off to another job that is more attractive to them.

I do agree that saying "competitive" for more specific jobs, or lower paid jobs where salary is much more important at the levels were people do need the job is both crap on the employer and a bad sign, I just don't think it applies to all.

TheGreatHunt They're often the best roles to apply for - you know the company is flexible, you know the company is interested in expanding the skills of the person they employee and will presumably help with that. And you know that once you get those skills you can probably get the higher salary rather than needing to move jobs.

Outside of specific professional qualifications, there's never an essential in a job advert - everything's a negotiation, you just start in a weaker place, and it may not be worth your time.

LiegeAndLief · 04/01/2014 18:45

I have always worked for small companies which never ever advertise a salary or even a range. They find someone they want to employ, ask what they are currently earning (at which point you obviously slightly inflate your current salary) and then offer something slightly higher. Sadly I have never been in a position where I've been earning too much for the prospective employer...

Original poster

HombreLobo · 04/01/2014 18:51

flexibility in terms of start / finish times, working hours, remote working, the location of the offices etc

None of this stuff is ever in the adverts either, or if it is it's couched in terms such as 'generous'. What's generous? I'm pretty certain it's likely to be less than the 42 days a year I currently get.

But all the flexibility in the world isn't going to make up for a salary 5k below my minimum expectation. (if only i was earning 70k where 5k is a small difference)

OP posts:

flowery · 04/01/2014 18:52

"TheGreatHunt They're often the best roles to apply for - you know the company is flexible, you know the company is interested in expanding the skills of the person they employee and will presumably help with that. And you know that once you get those skills you can probably get the higher salary rather than needing to move jobs."

If you are referring to roles advertised as offering a 'competitive' salary, I think it would be foolish to think the fact that they think it's better not to give an indication of salary indicates any of those things tbh.

If I've misunderstood I apologise.

RubberBaubles · 04/01/2014 19:09

It tends to mean just over minimum wage here.

Flip

1 2 3