Part Vent/ Part Question

I called abut a open position and talked to the HR rep. Toward the end of our conversation I asked what the salary range for the position is and her words were "We are very competitive in the market and we do not discuss the actual range at this point in the process.". Red flags are waving and she seemed a bit put out that I asked the question.

My standpoint is if the job is below a wage I am willing to work I want to know up front. Saves everyone time. The fact that she could not define the specific role of the position coupled with not listing a pay range meant a pass for me. Am I out of line in thinking this?

Find more posts tagged with

Free for TechExams community: Cybersecurity salary guide

Compare cert salaries and plan your next career move

Button

Comments

whatthehell

In my experience, I have interviewed at jobs that have posted salary ranges and jobs that don't.

It seems like the ones that post the range are pretty up front about the range, usually low ball u on the range, and are pretty non negotiable.

The ones that don't either have a lower than average salary, but don't want to scare you off, OR they actually have a pretty good salary, and are a bit more negotiable about it.

Sorry to be a bit vague, but that has been my experience. I think the most important thing is to get your foot in the door, interview, and get the offer first! Plus, the more interviews the better, as they become easier and easier (unless you have already had a lot of interviews!)

Good luck!

Devilry

whatthehell wrote: »

In my experience, I have interviewed at jobs that have posted salary ranges and jobs that don't.

It seems like the ones that post the range are pretty up front about the range, usually low ball u on the range, and are pretty non negotiable.

The ones that don't either have a lower than average salary, but don't want to scare you off, OR they actually have a pretty good salary, and are a bit more negotiable about it.

Sorry to be a bit vague, but that has been my experience. I think the most important thing is to get your foot in the door, interview, and get the offer first! Plus, the more interviews the better, as they become easier and easier (unless you have already had a lot of interviews!)

Good luck!

I agree with this.

I have been given better offers with jobs that did not list the salary, than with jobs that did almost every time.

MrRyte

I won't say that you're out of line (no one wants to feel like they're being screwed); but perhaps they really don't feel a need to discuss salary until you've been selected for a face to face meeting.

However; if the HR rep couldn't define the job position more specifically then I'd be a little leary too.....

The ad you responded to-what did it say regarding the job opening?

lochmoigh

It gave a rough listing of the job duties but I asked for more specifics ( help desk? Desktop? remote or onsite?) and she was vague. I was wanting to make sure that The position would be worth trying for. At the end of the conversation I was left feeling as though she felt offended by the questions. I did list my salary requirements with my resume so I may have it answered that way. If they contact me I am within the budget.

hiddenknight821

lochmoigh wrote: »

It gave a rough listing of the job duties but I asked for more specifics ( help desk? Desktop? remote or onsite?) and she was vague. I was wanting to make sure that The position would be worth trying for. At the end of the conversation I was left feeling as though she felt offended by the questions. I did list my salary requirements with my resume so I may have it answered that way. If they contact me I am within the budget.

Screw her. You didn't do anything wrong. You do have the right to inquire about the salary range. It would be a waste of time if you made it to the last round of interview and discover the salary to be lower than the minimum you expected.

Zartanasaurus

It's just an HR rep. It's doubtful she could intelligently explain the requirements of the position to you anyway. Get in for an interview. Find out what the job actually entails. Come up with a salary you will work for based on the job. Negotiate.

xenodamus

If I'm happily employed I wan't to know if a new position is in the ballpark before I waste my time going to an interview. If they want to do a phone interview first, that's understandable, and ok by me. But I don't want to take off work only to find out a position pays less than I make now.

networker050184

xenodamus wrote: »

If I'm happily employed I wan't to know if a new position is in the ballpark before I waste my time going to an interview. If they want to do a phone interview first, that's understandable, and ok by me. But I don't want to take off work only to find out a position pays less than I make now.

Agreed. If they want you to come in for an interview they should at least be providing a range to see if you are in the same ball park.

ColbyG

I agree with you. I try to avoid companies like that as well. It's a complete waste of time for me to do interview(s) when I don't even know if they'll pay me enough to take the job.

grauwulf

You can also look at it like so...

Job Posting #1
we need somebody awesome for reasons; one, two, three, four, and five. they should be great a xyz and fit in with our team. slackers need not apply
Competitive Salary and Benefits

Job Posting #2
blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah
Salary: $100,000 and we have an air hockey table.

Which one do you think gets (A) more viable candidates and (B) more hr spam?

MrSwissCheese

Zartanasaurus wrote: »

It's just an HR rep. It's doubtful she could intelligently explain the requirements of the position to you anyway. Get in for an interview. Find out what the job actually entails. Come up with a salary you will work for based on the job. Negotiate.

The place I'm at now, IT has their own HR reps - all they deal with is IT all day. Needless to say, they know very little about IT - they just help them through the application / interview / hiring process. They're still at the heart of it HR people. They are given a job description and to most of them, they might as well be a foreign language. They can pronounce the words, but don't even dream of asking for a clarification. From a legal standpoint, I'm sure they're not allowed to expound on the job description.

MrSwissCheese

grauwulf wrote: »

You can also look at it like so...

Job Posting #1
we need somebody awesome for reasons; one, two, three, four, and five. they should be great a xyz and fit in with our team. slackers need not apply
Competitive Salary and Benefits

Job Posting #2
blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah
Salary: $100,000 and we have an air hockey table.

Which one do you think gets (A) more viable candidates and (B) more hr spam?

I would have to go with #2 on both counts. I mean, what self-respecting IT guy/gal wouldn't jump on the chance of an air hockey table??

Seriously though, #2 would certainly get more qualified applicants along with a lot more highly unqualified candidates that see the dollars and figure anyone can do IT (They're the same ones that don't pay attentention when you're explaining something and ask an hour later how to do it).

It all goes along with the theory that the more "stuff" you throw on a wall, eventually something will stick. That's why no one runs honest ads - take car dealers for example - you won't qualify for the $1000 owner loyalty rebate or the $500 blue suede shoe rebate or the 0% financing - but they get enough people in there that will buy a car when they take all that stuff away. If you promised them a full price car at 10% interest, only people who are incapable of buying a car would show up.

Don't get me wrong, #2 would get an absolutely rediculous number of unqualified candidates, but also some very good candidates. Isn't HR's job filtering out the good from the bad? The drawback? See my previous post,

MrSwissCheese

xenodamus wrote: »

If I'm happily employed I wan't to know if a new position is in the ballpark before I waste my time going to an interview. If they want to do a phone interview first, that's understandable, and ok by me. But I don't want to take off work only to find out a position pays less than I make now.

Long and potentially boring story - to sum it up - I agree with you wholeheartedly. If you dare, go ahead and continue reading, lol.

On the topic of the salary issue, in both ads and interviews. . . I'm in a relatively small US capital city (even by most US capital city standards) and I had an interview with a local attorney that I thought was a prime candidate for my services. They've had a string of bad hires - either technically inept or lack any sort of communication skills. To give you an idea, the current guy still had his job (although would be losing it) and they hadn't had a successful full backup in over 3 months due to issues configuring a tape library. The first interview went extremely well, I was fielding questions from one of the attorneys, the office manager, and one of the paralegals. Last question they asked me was what my salary expectations were. I explained to them where I was currently at and was expecting $5-10k more, putting me in line with where I had been the year before (before being laid off due to downsizing).

I Got called back for a second interview (a couple of agonizing weeks later) with the founding attorney, his paralegal, and the attorney from the first interview. Although he seemed a bit scatterbrained at times (ok, maybe ADD would be a better description. . . couldn't wait for an answer to any question he asked). The rest of the interview went great and they would make a decision shortly and give me a call.

The office manager called back the next day and offered me the job - at a $10k drop from my current salary - . So even if it seems like you're on the same page - you might be far from it. . .

I let them know there was no way that I could accept the job at that rate, but appreciated the offer. I received a call back and a voicemail shortly thereafter. I figured out pretty quickly where thier IT problems lie - they want 20 years of experience at a first network admin job price. If this particular company had posted their salary range (assuming I was likely at the high end), they would have had nothing but entry level network admins applying for their job. They're stuck in a self fulfilling circle - they can't pay for a network admin that knows what they're doing, so they take whoever will take their money. He or she doesn't work out, so they start the cycle all over again. Eventually, they will get lucky and get a really good entry level network admin who really knows what he or she is doing, but they won't be there for more than 12-24 months, then they'll start all over again.

If I had known this, I feel they would have saved a LOT of time on both our parts. It should have been very obvious after my salary request at the end of the first interview that we wouldn't be able to come anywhere near each other.

N2IT

I wouldn't stress over it. I think asking the range is a fine question. I mean do you want to waste your time moving forward in the process if they are going to pay you X and you want Y? Nor should they want to bring in a candidate who is excepting Z but can only offer A.

You did fine.

lochmoigh

Thanks for the input, I wasn't overly stressed, more surprised.

PsychoFin

Over here the recruiters/managers/HR reps usually first want to check that you are interested in the job and once you are done with the first step in the process you can generally ask about the salary range. However, it is not common to be told upon initiating the first contact