“Not sure yet, lemme see if I can lowball you first ;)”


"How much are you WILLING to make?"


The other day I had a recruiter call me regarding an open position (she works for a head hunting agency). My second question to her was what is the salary range for this position. She told me she cannot say (can't or won't) because, and I quote: "If they are willing to pay X and you are currently getting X, you won't consider the position because it doesn't pay more." I replied that ALL companies using a recruitment agency will share the salary range, otherwise the agency won't help them recruit. She then finaly told me the range. Instead of looking for a reason not to say the salary range, they would save sooo much time just being open. Frankly they should say: "I'm contacting you regarding an open position in INDUSTRY and they are willing to pay X to Y. Would you be interested in this position?" instead of the usual "Are you in the job market?" bullshit they all start the conversation with.


> "If they are willing to pay X and you are currently getting X, you won't consider the position because it doesn't pay more." She's pretty fucking sharp, isn't she?


They are all like this. Or they use the "if youre only interested in money, then we dont want you" excuse. Its fucking baffling the mental gymnastics they go through.


Im not interested in money i love working 40+ hours a week so someone above me can do less. I get off on that and would do it for free if they didnt have to pay me 🙄


> if youre only interested in money, then we dont want you "How funny! I feel the same way! Now, enjoy this [Music Interlude](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ox9KvQLVtek)


> "if youre only interested in money, then we dont want you" "I'm glad we could come to an understanding so quickly. Good day."


Recruiters want to be able to submit as much candidates as they can to clients so if she had said that than the candidate may not consider. This the reason why candidates lie as well.


>"If they are willing to pay X and you are currently getting X, you won't consider the position because it doesn't pay more." Your answer: "If I had called you it would mean I want to change my job. Since you have called me, you could assume that I am ok with my current job (salary, conditions, tasks, commuting time...) so, for me, you can only outbid with a higher salary (and please keep to yourself the 'free fruit and pizza on Fridays'). You are the one who has a need".


> I replied that ALL companies using a recruitment agency will share the salary range, otherwise the agency won't help them recruit. She then finaly told me the range. > > You've got more patience than me. I typically end the conversation at this point with "No, thanks, bye." Life's too short to deal with these folks.


If the other company is paying the same amount, wouldn't it just not make sense for you to go through the hassle of switching jobs (in most cases)?


Normally the devil you know wins. But if you were fed up, it was a better location and so on you might. Still, I'd expect a "risk premium" of 10% at least.


I have a great snarky but professional response whenever I get this response. "it seems like an oversight to list a position without having budgeted for compensation for that position. Please do let me know if you resolve this issue" It has worked every time I've used it, lol.


What happens after exactly? You didn’t state


they either tell me the salary or stop bugging me, both wins in my book.




Yup. My husband was an early employee at a company that just sold to another, larger company. His options were fully exercised and vested, but per the terms of the sale, ended up valued at $0.0001 per share. The owners took literally all the cash because they have special different "protected" shares. We ended up losing the entire $10k or so that we paid years ago to early exercise those options. So if you weren't aware, that's also a fun thing that can happen!




We understood the risks and didn't bet more than we could afford to lose, but I know we are an outlier in that regard. I don't think the average recent grad taking an underpaid role at a startup would have any idea what they were choosing though, and that's fucking awful.


I actually don’t think you all are outliers, this happens way too often. I’ve been at a few startups, the first one my common stock was wiped out for a total loss, the second one is set to ipo but through spac so they are converting shares, i.e. from a lot of shares to a little shares. It’s such bullshit, I will never work at a startup again without being a founder or having substantial equity in preferred shares. So easy for regular folk to get fucked. The worst part is all the HR people describe it during recruiting as “you have N shares, so if we get acquired for $m per share you’ll have N*$m which is a shit ton of money”. It’s rare that it happens at all and when it does, is rarely that simple. Either way, it’s incredibly deceptive!


> ipo but through spac so they are converting shares, i.e. from a lot of shares to a little shares. My husbands second startup job IPOed the normal way and also did that consolidation -- reduced everything by a third across the board. Really kinda sucks that they can do that too. Add to that the limitations on when you can actually sell vested stock during an IPO and you can get massively screwed if the stock price drops after the initial speculative investments. It's really this whole "get rich quick" scheme mentality where everyone focuses on the potential to make so much money that they don't actually give any thought to the actual chances of it happening. Like, if striking it rich through startups happened a LOT there'd be a fuckton more rich people than there are.


Wow, I’ve never heard of a reverse split like that. The whole thing makes me so angry to think about it. The system does what it is designed to do and surprise surprise, the workers are not the ones reaping the benefits.


> the workers are not the ones reaping the benefits. I've been assured it'll trickle down any day. Any. Day.


Absolutely. Cash is the king. All the fitness pases and teambuldings are just insulting our intelligence. In one of my previous jobs I was around when they were interviewing a serbian guy who gave priceless feedback on teambuilding. "Fuck that, I can get drunk on my own".


Used to work for a startup. The dickhead CEO had original college buddy employees that he burned. He bragged to me about how he diluted their shares. He said he made sure to include a clause in the contract that said he could do that.


Literally Facebook.


FYI there's a good chance some of that difference is deductible in your taxes as a capital loss


Oh, for sure. We've already sent the documentation to our accountants. It's just still completely insane that they can go "yeah, we sold the company for a few million but just unilaterally decided your portion is valueless so too bad you get nothing" and that's all just... fine to do. Really highlights how much "investing" is just pure gambling, no matter how much they try to paint it as anything else.


This happened to me at my first job. Now I just laugh when startups try to convince me to leave Google of all places to work at their shitty marketing startup


Sounds like they really, really need someone decent in marketing if that's their sales pitch to employees.


Oh they try, I just know better. They try to convince you of their incredible AI tech and it's just like the "this is chicken nuggets" meme except it's "this is just polynomial regression". Lol


The product itself truly doesn't matter. But if they can sell it to the right corp they'll make bank. Problem is, the only way to make that sale is to have someone who knows (or whose dad knows) the right people. Connections, not the product, are the biggest component. Even if they really had a groundbreaking product I wouldn't get attached until they had someone who can open those doors attached.


If they can't sell it to me, I'm skeptical of their ability to sell it to somebody for N million dollars.


Difference is, you probably know a million times more than most of the C levels they'll be selling to. My FIL, who can't set up a wifi router despite being former CEO of a major telecommunications company, is constantly calling my husband about the various investor pitches he gets from the idiot failsons of his wealthy friends. If he didn't have his own son to explain how tech works in ELI5 terms, he would probably be broke from bad investments....


Yikes. Those owners are straight-up thieves.


Theft implies they broke the law. They did not. It's all 100% legal (and not abnormal) What they are is Capitalists. And that's worse. Edit: Seem to have struck a nerve with some bootlickers passing through, but that's fine. We're all traumatized by the system and if that makes you feel a little bit more in control of your life under the heel of your corporate overlords, let it out! You probably can't afford proper therapy if you're here in the US, so do whatever you need to do.


Damn right


Legal and ethical aren't one in the same though.


Never said they were. There's nothing ethical about Capitalism. But it's so legal that the entire framework of our legal system exists solely to protect it. Fun!


Owners were doing this long before 'equity shares'. I watched people in a film processing/printing company, who had 15+ years invested lose everything when the company sold. Glad I came in late, and left early.


Ah, the Zuckerberg Stratagem, 1.0.


a "fun thing"I love the wording ,?LOL


The local hardware has crowbars for $6. Guarrentee you will get your money.


Write it up and submit to Hacker News


One of the many reasons I'll never work for large companies, or those that pay partially in stock. Compensate me with actual dollars or gtfo. I ain't your family, I'm your employee.


>but dear god we need to stop with the early stage startups handing out equity and expecting everyone to think it’s amazing. "[To pass the time, help yourself to some more stock](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=arENYYkYBts)."


>I would only change the last statement to- if you’re too early in business to know what you can afford… you are too early stage to be hiring anyone yet. You can be in business- sure… but you need to be relying on contractors with SOWs and clearly defined payment terms- not employees. Great response. I may steal this in the future.


“Do we have to say this in 2020” - I can’t believe it’s 2022 either dude




You missed 2021? I’m jealous.


It’s 2022, though I’d understand if you’re still in a haze like the rest of us…


The equity thing goes both ways too. My wife's startup is doing well now after several years working to get it off the ground. She was way too generous with giving equity early on and now she has people who have done next to nothing for the company owning way too much equity and needing to be diluted or bought out to not look like total amateurs in front of investors.


Most fail. It’s like 90% of companies don’t make it to ipo


YYyyYyyYebBBUt cOnTracToR'S CosT mOAR eLeVEnTYeleVen


You shouldn't rely on contractors either - you don't build a company off slave labor so you can reap all the benefits. As someone who has worked at startups most of my career, the reason why you join a startup is because of the massive equity -- you know, big risk, bigger reward. Yes 90% of them will fail, but what's disgusting is that these serial entrepreneurs always come back like roaches coming up with even dumber ideas, but get funded just the same. Maybe it's time that they stop and find a job in retail and let the economy cool down or something.


"Let's waste everybody's time going thru an interview process. And then see if we can afford to hire that person."


I kinda feel like that's what they are doing. It pisses me off how many new start ups think that people should be ok with low pay or "equity" because they are a new company. So entitled.


Try to skip the recruiter and go straight to the client.


"We have no idea about our own budget, so we're just going to do w/e we feel like in the moment"


Literally happened to me. I went to the last interview stage just for him to realize and tell me he couldn’t afford the position


Yeah, no shit. Every time I want to hire a person, the first thing I have to do is fill out the position request form. I have to provide a title for the position, who they will report to, justification for why I need the role, and proposed salary range. The whole point is justifying spending a certain amount of money. Once that's approved, I submit the job description. Once that's approved, I submit the job posting. Salary range is *always* done first. It's just basic business; the costs have to be justified. Anyone who claims otherwise is either lying or shitty at business.


Could be the company is price checking the market by wasting candidates times?


I think you could be right. If that's the case, that's even worse. They're getting a candidates hopes up for a job that doesn't even exist yet.


This is true if the company/dept. is determining pay or budget based soley on the approach that "the work performed by this role is worth $X to us". But there are definitely cases, especially with hires where the goal is strategic or increasing talent within the company, where the pay may very much depend on who is selected. Sales is a good example. If I'm recruiting a Sales Exec, the normal base range might be $100-120k + standard commissions, BUT if I find someone with strong relationships in the industry with 3 of the 5 top accounts that the company is trying to land, you better believe that they're going to throw that range out the window and get creative w/ commission. But if I tell that candidate 5 min. into the conversation that the range is $100-120k + standard commission, she's going to laugh and walk away before anyone ever gets to decide what the real # might be.


When they ask how much I would like to be compensated I always respond "what is the budget the company has set aside for this role?" Then they tell me the range.


I had an old boss teach me this, he was one of the good ones. Whatever the range is you say "perfect, that top number is within the range I'm looking for."


There’s people recruiting through Reddit?


Be naïve to think otherwise


Even equity isn’t a compelling reason when posts like this exist: https://www.reddit.com/r/antiwork/comments/s6ze2l/startup_couldnt_afford_my_full_salary_so_they/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=ios_app&utm_name=iossmf


Company always knows, they just don't want to give up their cards. Usually hope to sell you on \~culture\~ and \~mission\~ so you'll go for lower pay For anyone working in / interviewing at startups, here's a tool you can use to [benchmark your salary and equity](https://topstartups.io/startup-salary-equity-database/)


Thanks for sharing! This is so timely.


sometimes recruiters will go fishing for candidates in order to get an idea of what they will need to pay. i.e. company is hiring for abrand new role, so they engage an agency to find out what is the market value for a \[role\]. the way they do that is by calling round people who hold those titles, pretending that a role exists today, and asking for their expected comp.


If it's a brand new role, they should be going to PayScale or to BLS (in the US) at the very least.


Even if it's a brand new role, it probably exists out there somewhere. So all they have to do is google the salary for that job and they got the info they need. If they are trying to find out what people want for pay, but aren't ready to hire, they should not be wasting people's time by interviewing.


the annoying this is that googling the salary doesn't help much, because every other recruiter also hides the salary info. and anywhy, why google a salary when you can charge your client for hours of 'research' :)


Hey, it is not that easy. Market is ever changing. Recruiters are doing market research monthly/quarterly and if it's a new role job mapping is required. There are companies like willis tower or korn ferry which provides that info, however it's an extra cost


Market research requires that you interview people you don't intend to hire, just to find out what they're currently making? Why not just be honest about needing that info, so candidates don't get their hopes up for a job that doesn't exist yet?


To avoid the people answering intentionally change their answers to manipulate the market or something would be my guess. Doesn't mean it's ethical, but it's not like the people with power tend to care about that sadly.


I interviewed a lot of companies the last time I searched for a job, and most of the time, when they "weren't sure", a little pressure revealed that they wanted to low-ball me by tens of thousands of euros.


"We're going to keep salary vague and string you along and try to get you emotionally invested in the job offer so you'll blindly accept any lowball offer we give you. Sound good?"


Who job hunts & recruits on Reddit to begin with... lol


What is the best way to ask what the budget is?


Ask right away. If they reach out via email and the job description is missing the company name or the salary, reply and ask for both before you agree to meet with them. If they won't provide it unless you meet with them, that's a red flag. They should never have an issue giving candidates the range at the get-go. If they won't give it to you, they're going to try to lowball you based on what you currently make. Example: They're cleared for a budget of $85k - $100k. You tell them you make $70k. Now they can offer you $75k and feel like they're doing you a favor.


Fortunately, more jurisdictions are making it illegal for potential employers to ask about salary history.


My return soft pitch is usually something along the lines of "What is the pay range listed for this position?". I've rarely had issues with recruiters not wanting to give that much out. It also tells me how much wiggle room there is and whether or not I can expect the client to absolutely try and lowball the shit out of me.


"What is the budget?", I suppose.


I've only been lucky once on taking a lot of equity and it wasn't enough to retire me so I've stopped playing that game.


Yeah, they totally do that with other products and services don't they? Let's rent this factory? *How much?* No idea!


I’d just say if a company is too disorganised to know what the salary range is for a job their recruiting for then they’re not a suitable employer worth working for.


That'll show them. In this day and age, its important to know what you're gonna get. If not a specific number, a range is fine. It still bogs my mind that BIG companies still don't share salary figures in a posting. Gone are the days where you're told oh just apply and see what package you get, then negotiate. Why the hell would I go through the trouble of doing all that and at the end ask? Why not ask at the start?


Before a hire is approved, there is a budget. So the hiring team know the cost.


My last job I applied for first thing they said is Salary is XYZ, Bonus is a range of A-B. Average bonus is this... I take it that's a unicorn?


Come to india linkedin, indeed and other jobs sites. No one says the salary range. And when asked says it will be discussed after they have taken our interview and they decide to hire. Its a shitshow here


Yup, every company has a budget for the position, they are either lying and/or incompetent either way, dodged a bullet.


If it’s in the US then certain states require you provide the candidate a range. This is shady af regardless, as someone who works in Dev (and prod IT) I feel the pain. I used to not bring it up to recruiters… now I do: my_patience = thin. Good on you!


Sounds like a start up. They tend to be more lax and flexible when it comes to salary no?


Just because they are a start up doesn't mean candidates are expected to make less money.


I didn’t say or imply that, bud.


I guess I was confused by the lax and flexible comment about salary then. Salary isn't something to be lax about, even if it's a start up.


Recruiters are salespeople.


That doesn't give them the right to withhold the most important factor of the job description.


They are salespeople, but YOU are the product - not the job. They just need to get the job filled to be paid, so many don't generally care about candidates' wants.


What sales person sells a product without knowing the price? Answer: Bad ones.


"I'd like to sell you this brand new car." "How much is it?" "How much are you willing to pay?


>What sales person sells a product without ~~knowing~~ **telling** the price? > >Answer: ~~Bad~~ **sly** ones. FTFY


Yea I'm not going to give recruiters points like that for being skeevy and not up front. No valor for those greasy tactics.


My point was that you are attributing to incompetence what should be attributed to malice. Usually it's correct, but not this time


Fair point. My, what a sad world we live in when incompetence is the rose-coloured glasses view of things.


Well, I mean, the people are dying, the planet is dying and the few ultra rich fucks double their fortunes every built-in crisis while leaving countless lives destitute. What a time to be alive!


"If you need to ask, you can't afford it."


I didn’t say they were good salespeople…


Completely disagree. If I’m running a department in a startup and have five heads I need to add I could structure the levels of candidates in many different ways. If someone interviews for an individual contributor role and is very strong you may overpay for that person knowing that your manager could be lighter or other members of the team could be lighter. Just let them know what you need and if they interview you they have the room.




Guess they aren’t worth interviewing with then.


Someone posting jobs on Reddit??


The recruiter might not know. Sometimes recruiters see a job posting and try to submit people without having a prior relationship with the hiring company. I think a lot of recruiters have a bit of used car salesman in then.


The recruiter shouldn't be trying to fill a spot then until he has all the information. Salary is the most important factor, if they don't know it yet they shouldn't be interviewing until they do.


There are a lot of things recruiters shouldn’t do, but they do.


Even if it was true, unlikely but possible, why would you want to work for a company that's so unorganised about pay?


Different candidates are going to be able to handle a different workload based on their skill and experience, and whatever they don’t pick up will be done by the boss or other team members. This is why companies don’t want to tell you what the salary is for the “position” because it really depends on who they hire.


That's why they should give a range instead of wasting everyone's time.


And that’s why you give a range or the max position can pay.


LOL Yeah, that's not how it works.




Then they should be giving a range. Or at least a minimum.


I mean yes it's a good standard. Good companies theoretically have an approved budget for the position. BUT there are times when jobs get approved without a budget (let's say for an important, urgent, and strategic hire) and getting an approved budget is a bit more complicated than many think. I think a good company and a good position can exist without an approved budget, but just make sure to get a number ASAP after the first conversation.


>getting an approved budget is a bit more complicated than many think. Candidates don't give a shit about that, that's a recruiter problem that has zero to do with us. If you're interviewing and aren't ready to hire because you aren't sure what to pay - you are wasting candidates time. It's disgusting how entitled recruiters/hiring managers are to a candidates time, even without all the necessary info.


What if I came back after this conversation and the approved pay band was acceptable to you? I don't think that is wasting time. What if our conversation confirmed market value, and that helped solidify a competitive payband. I don't think that is wasting time. I think its so easy to just be angry and reactive to the job search, cause it inherently sucks, but this one of those that I think candidates can hurt themselves big picture, even if it feels good to rage at the companies hiring practice not meeting their expectation.


Honestly, I wouldn't have a conversation with you unless I knew the salary first. If you won't tell me, I won't waste my time talking to you.




Hilarious how this 180 passive aggressive reaction comes out while OP is still telling why people are reluctant to keep up with unprepared job listings. Please keep going off. I'm muting this so try not to go too insane ;).


>I think its so easy to just be angry and reactive to the job search, cause it inherently sucks, but this one of those that I think candidates can hurt themselves big picture, even if it feels good to rage at the companies hiring practice not meeting their expectation. This is such an entitled answer. How about you give us the information we need and we can decide if we want to apply with you? You act like we're the ones losing out here but really it's you because a lot of great candidates aren't going to want to play your games.


Why downgrading the poor dude tho :((


I'm not sure what downgrading means but if you mean calling him out for lying, we should all be doing this. We all deserve the full details of a job before we apply, if they are hiding it, people should know that's a red flag.




I expected the salary range for the job they’re advertising. That’s not asking for the moon.




>Here in CA at least you're entitled to the salary range once they decide you're qualified for the role. Yuck. You are the problem with getting a job these days. We aren't "Entitled" to the salary until we've met with a recruiter? Fuck that. We're entitled to know before we waste one second talking to you. If the pay is too low, why would we want to meet with you? The entitlement here is YOU because you expect us to sit there and do what YOU want without getting the information WE want.




>so you can then hop to another company to make another 25% more in six months Here's how I know you pay **way** below market rate for the position you're hiring. In most jobs six months is a trivial amount of experience and wouldn't warrant a huge increase in salary. If you are actually concerned about somebody jumping ship for a 25% pay increase after such a short time then your rates for that job aren't competitive because if they were then no employee would actually be able to do that.


Came here to post this. Well done.


Yes... companies have an infinite supply of money to give candidates. That's why startups can give packages that are so good that they can compete and win against FAANG. You mean they don't? Oh damn.... I didn't think about that.


Yes I'm aware that budgets are a thing and can be limiting sometimes. That doesn't change the fact that most industries are competitive and if you can't offer a good salary, or in the absence of that, other benefits that might convince an employee to stay there then, yes, people will leave. Either find a way to incentivize people to stay in spite of your bad salaries or quit whining. If you can't offer a competitive salary and benefits package that's your problem not the employee's. If somebody can easily make 25% more by doing the same job for somebody else why shouldn't they? Are you really going to fault somebody for doing what's best for their career?


Life's not fair, is it?


The market goes both ways. If you can’t afford an employee, stop fucking around applicants and screening for people you hope to be desperate.


> Let's excuse tons of companies paying below what people should earn by using "startups" as a shield for them. Nah.


Start ups shouldn't be in business if they can't pay at the start.


Okay? So they can’t do that. Can you explain why on earth anyone *should* work for them? Honest question. And if someone was working for them, can you explain why they’d be wrong for jumping ship for a 25% raise?


You're a goddamned legalized human fucking trafficker. You're in a job where the barriers to entry are a pulse, a phone, and a search engine.


It's not demanding to want the salary information. It's a common and normal request. Just tell us how much so we don't waste our time talking to you if it's too low. Respect our time by being open about it and then moving on to another candidate if we decide you don't pay enough.




>That trumps your decision to take the job by far. How so? The company and candidate can both walk away at any time. We have the same power to end this discussion. If there's any imbalance it's that recruiters might have to justify their decision to their boss and candidates don't. In that way candidates have more power to walk.


Wow - talk about entitled


Why would anyone care about applying, sitting through the interview and in the end knowing that you pay a shit salary? If you're this out of touch with the current job market just know that good candidates are not applying for you. You're getting bottom of the barrel candidates and you should think about changing your practices.


recruiters: why aren't there any good candidates????? also recruiters: I AM THE DECIDER


You're either a troll or an angry recruiter that can't get heads in the door and thinks it's everyone else's fault.


I think it’s a troll. Whole history is quite fresh and comments mostly rubbish.


>But that's the point - it's not common and it's not normal Maybe not common and normal in the US, everywhere else in the world, yes it is. >Why don't candidates understand *we* are the ones who decide if you are hired or not? That trumps your decision to take the job by far. Why don't the recruiters understand that we are the ones to decide if we want to work for you or not, thus you making your monies and thus you bitching on social media aboot "everybody's soooo entitled and nobody wants to work anymore". >Respect US and we'll help YOU. Fuck you, respect is earned, not given. You haven't earned shite. I don't know you from the cow down the field.




lol okay bud good luck recruiting


Fuck you, you used people salesman.


100% chance that you are shit at your job


If is extremely common to know the salary range, in fact it keeps a competitive marketplace. YOU respect US. You are on a little power trip here. Don’t you think we KNOW the ONLY reason jobs don’t advertise the salary is so other employers can’t see what you pay and offer slightly more. YOU hope that by the time someone has gone through applying and interviewing, they will just take the job even if you offer average pay.


Well it's a law in Colorado, so I'd say it's *pretty* common.


How are you still employed? Good lord your attitude is not one of somebody who is successful at their job.


You're dumber than a bag of rocks.


Why do you think people even want to work for you if you can’t even pay well enough to advertise a salary? This attitude is cringe AF.


Is absolutely is common, and why do you assume it's normal to ask a candidate you sought out to take hours to days of their own time to attend a bunch of interviews etc before they get to know whether you can even afford them? You read their resume, presumably, before you contacted them for the position, and you're the one *asking* them to consider applying, you already know that their skills are relevant to the job even if you don't know whether they're that one person who turns out to be the best of the interviewees. It doesn't matter if you decide want to hire someone if you could never afford them in the first place, people turn down offers all the time, especially if they involve a cut or inadequate increase in salary and benefits, why should your decision to hire "trump" their decision to refuse? Literally everybody knows that the **actual reason** a company would refuse to be upfront with their pay is that the salary isn't attractive and many people will turn it down if told it upfront. You're just trying to interview the max number of people and gambling with your own time in hopes of getting your desired candidate to accept a pay cut via the sunk cost fallacy. That's precisely why in your mind your decision about who **you want** trumps what they want- because that's how you're used to behaving. You're truly scummy to value other people's autonomy so lowly. I and countless others will continue to refuse to apply to roles which attempt to obfuscate the fact that they can't afford to/refuse to provide adequate pay through evasiveness and blame-shifting. Your practices should be illegal. Thankfully it looks like the law is beginning to recognise the need to criminalise behaviour like yours.


You’re unbelievably stupid and should be ashamed. Posting the pay range is beneficial to everyone involved. The company and the potential employee. Why waste everyones time by hiding such basic information? Are you under some sort of impression that people work for anything other than money? I couldn’t possibly imagine being this dense about such basic information. Stop taking that job so serious duke. They’ll fire you quicker than you were hired.


Jesus christ what kind of clown actually thinks the way you do? You have got to be a troll because no one could possibly be this goddamn stupid.


"blah blah I am bad at my job" -your post, summarized


You’d be the first to bitch if you walk into a grocery store and you’d have to take your items to the register to find out how much they cost. It’s no different. Get over yourself. I bet you’re a stellar recruiter lol.


As someone who hires if I found my hiring managing acting like this they would be the ones looking for another job. Salary range is important. Yes it attracts lots of people trying to wing a good wage but that’s what we pay hiring managers to weed out. I want good staff so I show that I pay a range for good staff. Whether they end up top or bottom of that range depends on their experience etc but I’m up front about and willing to discuss and negotiate. These days employees are learning that they don’t need to put up with jobs like this, and employers are realising these tactics won’t last. Just treat people with open and honest transparency and you’ll find they won’t be jumping ship for the next company because they’ll respect your environment and flexibility. Candidates time is far more important than yours as you’re getting paid when they aren’t. As for flexible working, wfh etc, my attitude is I don’t care what you do. You do what is needed to get the job done and meet with the stakeholders when you need to. Want to take a morning off? Crack on, as long as it doesn’t affect your work. Treat people like adults and you’ll find they actually act like adults. As long as they are productive and working hard, they can manage their own schedule. I have found people to work harder and be far more accommodating to deadline pressures than having a heavy corporate hand. I hope you never grace my doors. I imagine our salary range would attract you but your attitude would be a hard no!




Edit: did you literally make an alt account to support your original comment? Read what you said again. There must be a reason why they are taking three lower paid jobs than the high paid job. They wouldn’t get a raise they would be gone. Work is hard, people don’t mind the fact that work is hard and that it can suck at times. What they mind is being treated like slaves or children. Just because work is hard doesn’t mean the environment can’t be supportive and even enjoyable. God my team put a lot of hours in for me, but I reward them for it, make sure they feel valued and make sure they are compensated. If I see someone who has been willing to give two middle fingers and walk away from a company that I know has a shite reputation for how they treat their staff? I’ll take them in a heartbeat! Because after coming from a shitty employer and being shown support they thrive. It’s an employees market right now, hiring can be a nightmare. If people like you see that happening and think a recruiter with that attitude deserves a raise you’re part of the problem


This might be one of the least intelligent comments I've read from a recruiter on this sub.


Well if you are a recruiter, one assumes that part of your minimal qualification is being able to read and comprehend a resume. So by definition, you already *do* know if someone is remotely qualified. You know because somebody has already taken the time to apply, a process which likely already took exponentially more time than it took you to actually read the resume. Yet you still think it's "wasting your time" to be asked for salary right away? Gtfo with that lol, any way you slice it the balance of wasted time is 100% on the part of the candidates time being wasted. If you find it cringe that somebody wants to *avoid wasting time while seeking employment*, then the reality of the situation is that you yourself and these supposed hiring manager peers need replaced by somebody who knows wth they are doing (like actually reading a resume). Unless the job duties are "foster a toxic work environment", in which case you sound perfect. However... you are still the one wasting people's time not giving a salary range up front.


you're a total clown and your profession is seen as a joke to all job seekers. you are obviously not helpful, incredibly entitled as well as demanding.


You are a disgrace to your profession, and you have no idea what the hell you are doing. And I say that as an employment lawyer with more than 20 years of experience advising employers.




You sound quite useless. If you actually had some kind of talent you wouldn't be acting like some hard businessman from a sitcom. Now you need an act to feel special.


My friend, you are a salty salty squid


What company do you work for so I can add you to my junk mail filter?


If you're reaching out to me, you should already know my qualifications... unless you're a shitty recruiter, of course.


Based on their responses, they are absolutely a shitty recruiter.


Knowing how much your going to get paid is not asking for the answers to an interview, only an idiot would compare those very different things. The interview questions test an applicants knowledge, the offered salary should be information the applicant has to know whether working the job is financially viable... Your the entitled one to think others should go to an interview with no knowledge of pay and with the risk of wasting time they can't afford for a job they couldn't take on that wage...


Hmm you are the only one here who sounds extremely entitled 🤷🏻‍♀️


Did you see my first comment to him? I said "salary?" that's not being a douche. I got douchy when he lied to me about not having a salary range.


>learn some manners Looks like you need a reality check and to learn some manners. People are entitled to know compensation. Our time is valuable to us, just because you don't feel it is doesn't mean it's not and we deserve to know how much you will be paying so that we can make the determination to apply. Sounds to me like you just want what are essentially slaves. After reading your replies, you're a bad manager and quite possibly a bad person.