"Specify salary requirements"

What is everyone's take on the job posting that say to specify the salary requirements or your resume will not be looked at? Do you still send it with the salary you would like get?

Find more posts tagged with

Save $250 on 2025 certification boot camps from Infosec!

Book now with code EOY2025

Button

Comments

Tackle

Never seen that before but deff would mark it up $5k-7K incase they want to negotiate, if you have a solid job already and are just fishing. If you're desperate I'd put what you can work with.

ptilsen

Of course. If the employer demands it and says they will not look at your resume without it, I see no reason to believe they're lying.

Now that being said, I would still hedge a bit. If benefits, working hours, flexibility, etc. are not known, it is simply not reasonable for you to stick with one number. The right details could easily shift a salary requirement 10% in either direction, for me. So what I would say is "$XX,XXX depending on benefits" in my answer. I certainly wouldn't not provide an answer in this scenario, nor would I provide a significantly lower number than what I'm really looking for.

networker050184

Tell them what range you want to make depending on benefits etc. I never really understood the idea behind not letting them know what you want salary wise up front.

it_consultant

networker050184 wrote: »

Tell them what range you want to make depending on benefits etc. I never really understood the idea behind not letting them know what you want salary wise up front.

I never reveal what I am expecting or what I want in my written correspondence. If I am applying for the job then barring a severe low-ball, then I am interested in the position seriously. Although normally, during the first call the salary range is discussed. I have told people before that I am too expensive for them - they appreciate the candor. There is no telling how many call backs I did not get because I didn't list salary requirements or history. If they disqualify someone because of that alone, screw 'em.

NetworkVeteran

Kreken wrote: »

What is everyone's take on the job posting that say to specify the salary requirements or your resume will not be looked at? Do you still send it with the salary you would like get?

Well, the amount I would like to get is $1,000,000.

I send it in with my salary requirements--what it would take for me to accept the job. Putting these numbers up-front saves time talking with the wrong employers.

You have a salary now, right? What is your stance--

(1) This role is better than what you have; you'd even take a pay cut to work there.
(2) This role is similar to what you have; you need to be paid about the same.
(3) This role is worse than what you have; you'd have to be paid more to work there.

Of course, if you're in-demand or recently upgraded your skills, you'll end up with many offers, and end up compensated far in excess of your salary requirements. Supply and demand. This is equivalent to a desireable house that's put on the market for a low asking price.

Jasiono

Since I'm looking for an entry level position I generally put a 1 and that's it.

I used to put 35k and I never got calls but when I put in 1 I got a boatload of them.

I haven't seen the prompt to enter it in otherwise they won't look at it. I think, like mentioned, going above what you really want just in case they start negotiating is a good idea.

NetworkVeteran

it_consultant wrote: »

If they disqualify someone because of that alone, screw 'em.

I usually disqualify both employers and employees who won't discuss rough numbers. I just don't have the time to waste on someone who's expectations are too far apart from mine.

Akaricloud

I just put down a really large range and specify why. "$65,000 to $85,000 depending on responsibilities, hours and benefits".

If once I talk to them about the position more I find out I'll be working 50 hours a week, on call all the time and have a really stressful position then I would definitely be looking for the top end of my salary requirements.

NetworkVeteran

Akaricloud wrote: »

I just put down a really large range and specify why. "$65,000 to $85,000 depending on responsibilities, hours and benefits".

Precisely.

jmritenour

You know, just once I'd like to respond to that question with something like "$2,000 per week in the following denominations: 10 $100 bills, 10 $50 bills, 20 $20 bills, and the rest in rolled quarters, to be placed in a brown paper sack, and covertly handed to me as I leave for lunch on Thusrdays, while whispering the following phrase: "The man from Brussels will not stand for this much longer - be careful".

Kreken

The reason I asked this question is because I usually skip over these kind of job ads and wanted to see how other peoples react to them. I feel that if I would give them a specific number, I would pigeonhole myself into that number without a room for further negotiations.

networker050184

Thats why you give them a range with a disclaimer that there are many factors that can influence it. I know if I was looking to hire someone and they can't even give me a range of what they are looking to make I'm not wasting my time with them.

Tackle

jmritenour wrote: »

You know, just once I'd like to respond to that question with something like "$2,000 per week in the following denominations: 10 $100 bills, 10 $50 bills, 20 $20 bills, and the rest in rolled quarters, to be placed in a brown paper sack, and covertly handed to me as I leave for lunch on Thusrdays, while whispering the following phrase: "The man from Brussels will not stand for this much longer - be careful".

ROFL! Thanks for that, needed a good laugh.

undomiel

I'm with networker050184 on this. If I'm asked about salary requirements I'll tell them what range I'm looking for. I refuse to disclose what I am currently making though, as it is none of their business about whether my employer values my time lightly or heavily.

Hypntick

Yep, was asked this question recently. I gave a range based on unknown factors. I was asked "well what will you take?" and responded with the range again, depending on the other factors. (benefits, vacation, etc.)

Haven't heard anything back, and honestly, if they're not willing to accept that information it's not someone I want to work with.

it_consultant

NetworkVeteran wrote: »

I usually disqualify both employers and employees who won't discuss rough numbers. I just don't have the time to waste on someone who's expectations are too far apart from mine.

I will discuss them but if you don't indicate how much you are willing to pay in the job post, I won't put my salary requirements in the initial application. I put the responsibility on the employer to show how much they are willing to pay for the job. If I send my resume, I am OK with your range. If you call me back and ask, I will tell them what I think I deserve for the work. It comes off as rude when I see postings that say "send resume with salary requirements". I feel like saying "send me your personnel budget".

networker050184

You are applying to work for them. I don't understand why you wouldn't be willing to put how much you want when applying. Its a perfectly normal and acceptable thing to ask someone that is applying for a job at your company. It just seems silly to not want to send it IMO.

it_consultant

It is simple, the employer already knows what they are willing to pay for the job - why should I guess or bid for the work? Put the salary range in the job posting and then the whole question is irrelevant.

networker050184

Everyone already knows what they are going to pay/accept as payment. There is no point in beating around the bush as far as I'm concerned. I'm not playing salary games. Pay me what I want or I'll look elsewhere. It really is that simple to me.

Akaricloud

I don't understand how people have a problem with this. They have a price range that they're willing to pay, you have a price range that you're willing to accept and unless this is communnicated early on then you're likely just wasting eachother's time. It doesn't really matter who asks who what they're willing to pay/accept as long as it is within both ranges.

apr911

Akaricloud wrote: »

It doesn't really matter who asks who what they're willing to pay/accept as long as it is within both ranges.

I have to disagree. It does matter who asks who and when and how. Salary negotiation is often a shell game and whoever blinks first generally loses.

Companies want to hire the best people at the lowest possible amount just as individual want to get the best pay possible for their level of skill. So its never easy.

Let say a company is willing to pay up to 100k for a position. You go and apply and you put your salary requirement of 60-80k. The company now knows they can offer you 80k and you are almost certainly going to accept it saving them 20k right off the top. Of course they are more likely to offer 70k or maybe even a little lower than your bottom end range as a first offer so that they can counter offer and still pick you up for a steal. You then negotiate back and they increase that 55k to 65 or that 70 k to 80k. Since they seem willing to play ball on the salary number, you are more likely to accept the counter offer but in the end, the company still picked you up for a steal. The company makes out in the end and you miss out on what could have been a much higher salary (although you probably would never have known that)

On the other hand if the company comes out and says they're willing to pay 100-120k from the start and your goal was only 60-80k... Well guess what your new range is? Suddenly your goals align with the company's payband and you expect 100-120k (or maybe you go 110-130k) so while they might have been able to pick you up for a steal before, now they are getting you at rate or maybe even a bit above. You make out in the end while the company loses (in a manner of speaking since they arent paying any [or much] more than they set out to pay originally but still could have got you cheaper).

The other problem with specifying a salary range is you tend to box yourself in especially since most employers ask for a range up front. If you specify a range of 60-80k based on the your personal situation and the job description in the want ad and then go to an interview and find out the job responsibilities are significantly greater than originally described and thus your expectation of salary range is increased, it is difficult to move that predefined range you said you'd be willing to work for. So in the end the company and you both lose out since its a waste of both the company's and your time interviewing for a position where neither your nor the company's expectations are on the same page so the company lowballs you and you dont accept since you are now expecting more. Maybe you would have been an awesome fit for the company and the company was willing to pay your (newer) expectation but neither would know that now.

Thats why I dont like listing salary requirements. I most often fill that in with negotiable or a but a bottom end it with a + (i.e. 60k + ). At least that way we establish my absolute low. I make it clear early on that my 60k is my absolute low so if you come back at me with an offer for 55k im not taking it and if you come back at me with 60k well... It'd be a really tough decision and there better be more benefits involved to make it worth my while. We establish a floor and work from there. The company can decide my floor is to high and not pursue me or they can pursue me with the knowledge that I do expect more than the floor (maybe significantly more) and I dont box myself in to a range

Personally, I still think it should be the company that gives a range before the employee. The company is the one with the money and they are the one trying to entice a certain level of talent. That's not to say the job seeker isnt looking for something but at least at the higher levels, the job seeker tends to hold most of the cards since they are generally already employed and they have skills that are in short supply but high demand.

dave330i

apr911 wrote: »

I have to disagree. It does matter who asks who and when and how. Salary negotiation is often a shell game and whoever blinks first generally loses.

Companies want to hire the best people at the lowest possible amount just as individual want to get the best pay possible for their level of skill. So its never easy.

Not well run companies. They know the best way to keep talent is to be keep talent happy. How do you keep talent happy? pay them well and give them good benefits. Also, hiring new people all the time gets expensive.

VAHokie56

jmritenour wrote: »

You know, just once I'd like to respond to that question with something like "$2,000 per week in the following denominations: 10 $100 bills, 10 $50 bills, 20 $20 bills, and the rest in rolled quarters, to be placed in a brown paper sack, and covertly handed to me as I leave for lunch on Thusrdays, while whispering the following phrase: "The man from Brussels will not stand for this much longer - be careful".

this is awesome

networker050184

Salary negotiation is not a game. If a company is going to play like that I wouldn't work for them anyway. Every job I have had I've been completely honest and upfront with what I want. People should know their own value. If you don't know your value then you may get caught in 'games' like this, but as a professional I know what I'm worth and a company can either give me that or not. I'm not going to play hide and seek with it.

Also every place I have worked with has salary bands. If you are applying for a position that has a $100k-$120K range HR policy states you can not work in that position for less regardless of how much you asked for. I'm sure there are some mom and pops out there without these kind of policies of course.

apr911

dave330i wrote: »

Not well run companies. They know the best way to keep talent is to be keep talent happy. How do you keep talent happy? pay them well and give them good benefits. Also, hiring new people all the time gets expensive.

Even well run companies do it. Yes they want to keep their talent happy and yes that often involves paying them well and having good benefits. The problem with that is paid well, good benefits and happy are all subjective view points.

Take 2 people living in 2 different cities... Both people have the same experience, education, certifications, benefits, etc
Person A makes 60K/yr and lives in City A where the cost of living is X
Person B makes 120K/yr and lives in City B where the cost of living is 2X

Now reverse there roles. Even though their standard of living is going to remain the same, Im fairly certain you'd be hard pressed to get person B to take a perceived 50% paycut over their current salary and be happy about it, even if their standard of living remains unchanged at 90K. Meanwhile Person A would probably be ecstatic to double their pay even though again, their cost of living remains the same.

Its psychological and its a hard gut-instinct to ignore. Dont believe me? Go read "Predictably Irrational"

And its not just about the money and benefits that can make a person happy.

Take 2 companies... Both have identical positions offering the same benefits, sick days, etc.
Company A offers 100k/yr, the environment and everyone you've met (or know) at the company is open and friendly.
Company B offers 105k/yr, the environment and everyone you've met (or know) at the company is standoffish and rude.

Or maybe instead of the people its goals, expectations and deadlines.

Which job are you more likely to take? Companies know this. Look at the Fortune list of Best Companies to Work For. Most of the companies on that list aren't noted for their high pay, in fact most of them have pay listed as one of the downsides since many pay below market, but they are listed because of their work environment, benefits or for other reasons.

networker050184 wrote: »

Salary negotiation is not a game. If a company is going to play like that I wouldn't work for them anyway.

I did not intend to make light of salary negotiation. Salary negotiation is serious business but it is a process or system with predefined rules and procedures and just like any other process or system you (or the company) can game those rules to your (or their) advantage. Its one of the things we learn early on as kids... Mom said no so lets ask dad he might say yes.

networker050184 wrote: »

as a professional I know what I'm worth and a company can either give me that or not.

Therein lies the problem... You "know" what you are worth, which really just means you know what you expect to get. A company may not "know" your worth or the value of the position they are hiring for. In some cases this is bad (such as the time I was offered a position with a salary range that I could have sworn was for a part-time position but no it was a full-time position) but in some cases this can be good in that you can get a lot more than you expected because the company didnt know what your worth.

Similar to how "well paid" is subjective to people, so to is it to companies because at the end of the day the decision on what to pay for a position is made by a person with a subjective view point and a position may be more or less valuable to that company and/or that person making the decision in the company than the market would otherwise indicate.

networker050184 wrote: »

Also every place I have worked with has salary bands. If you are applying for a position that has a $100k-$120K range HR policy states you can not work in that position for less regardless of how much you asked for. I'm sure there are some mom and pops out there without these kind of policies of course.

In my experience, salary bands are great in theory but generally flawed in practice.

The problem with salary bands is they are very rarely tied to a job title or job description but rather to a pay grade. Companies do this because job titles and functions change with time. At my current company which Ive been at for 2 1/2 years now, we have a role that has remained functionally the same but has had its name changed 3 times in the time Ive been here, we've also had the reverse occur where the title has remained the same but the job is functionally different than it used to be and thats just in the IT department. When you get into management, we have managers who have the same title but are functionally different from each other. To avoid issues of having to redefine paybands every time a position title or function changes, its easier just to associate the paybands with paygrades but there's the problem with paybands...

Who sets the pay grade for the job? Usually the hiring manager does and the hiring manager can usually change the paygrade almost at will. Yes for some of the more generic positions, HR may be able to try and enforce some sort of policy regarding "this title=this paygrade" but even then the policy can still be ignored or overridden and exceptions made.

At my company I transitioned from a Senior Windows Admin to a Junior Network Admin. When I transferred, my pay should have gone down as the paygrade associated with a Sr WinSysAd was lets say 3 while the paygrade associate with the Jr NetAd was lets say 2. My pay remained the same. Since I was paid higher than other Jr. NetAdmins, I was ineligible for a raise until I was promoted out of a NetAdmin but still they didnt cut my pay and I dont know many companies that would.

networker050184 wrote: »

Every job I have had I've been completely honest and upfront with what I want.... ...I'm not going to play hide and seek with it.

To be clear, Im not advocating you dont tell them at all Im just saying you should use caution on the when, how and why you are telling them. You dont want to box yourself in and come up short in the end.