About to get a hell of a lot harder for contract recruiters to match candidates with expected salary, and match companies with candidates that fall within the salary bounds.
Only solution is probably to stress to their clients to just set a max salary and expect to pay it.
Because every time I told a candidate a range, I'd hear back "ok so the salary is {{max_salary}}, cool."
Nobody in the contracting world wants to undersell themselves. If somebody on the team is getting 75/hr, everybody better get 75/hr or hell gets raised. This is why the O&G industry out in Houston pushes back hard against any salary-sharing.
That's amazing! There's nothing more frustrating than looking at job postings and having no clue what they expect to offer me until I go through the ENTIRE interview process. It's going to be a huge time waster if they won't meet my salary requirements. I'd like to know that information upfront.
I'm failing to see the problem. They're negotiating. If you don't want to pay them max_salary, then you need to have a reason why not, and counter negotiate.
i was on both sides, if somebody does not have a lot experience or does not know how much they are worth, its easy to exploit, you ask them what they currently earn and what they expected salary is, and on that you can judge the new salary. the last candidate that i hired said something even under the lover range that i expected, so i offered him a decent bump (20%) on that as i did not want to underpay him.
if i end on the other side again i will ask for the upper range for myself and see where it gets me.
Salary range x-y for a position is basically a fixed sum y allotted for doing this work with an ability to dock part of this sum if a worker is not doing all all his tasks, or doing mistakes. Using salary range even before hiring is essentially a possibility to penalize a worker for his future transgressions even before he is employed. Basically - blackmail.
I want this too, as an employee hoping to work with other qualified employees. We just extended an offer to a guy who wasn't well qualified for the role merely because he was the only candidate who requested a salary in the range for the position. The skill set was actually pretty demanding, and the amount budgeted was likely below market. Desperation hire.
Any prospective employee who asks me is going to get an answer that is 20% lower than the other job description they were eligible for prior to asking.
Sure. I can ask for salary history once the individual is no longer an applicant and if I can’t confirm they told the truth, I can fire them on the spot without cause. California is an at will employment state.
Seems like you've stumbled upon an opportunity both exploit your employees and bias your hiring towards candidates who don't realize you are exploiting them!
This seems like a really great way to ensure you never retain any decent employees ever. Who would stick around under an employer who would treat an employee like this, even if they had been totally honest about salary history?
See how long you last playing those games. Who in their right mind, other than the desperate among us, would work for a company that would do such a thing?
Well, I punch people and take their money. Most people complain about morals, but hey this is how I earn the most money. You can't blame me for trying to maximize my profits.
I think this brings up a greater issue, and the purpose of the law in general - companies are motivated to be as profitable as possible, hence laws to prevent, say, a company building a militia and enslaving a state to turn them all into farmers or something (possibly the most profitable route? Who knows).
It doesn't seem to say that you can't ask a person what they wish to be paid, right? A recruiter can ask the company their range, ask the employee what they're looking for (not what they were paid before) and match the two.
And that's exactly how salary negotiations work now -- the applicant can name an expected salary, and the employer can respond accordingly. The only thing that's changed is that what you've been paid in the past doesn't have to be a part of that discussion.
Is this actually happening? After a good interview, qualified employees are being turned away by companies in the later stages of the interview/employment process, simply due to candidates refusing to divulge their current salary? I mean, I'm sure it _has_ happened, not sure if that's a strong argument though.
Impossible to know, because employers are not required to share the reason for dropping candidates from consideration. Candidates would need to speculate about the real reason, but I can tell you with pretty high certainty that it has happened to me at least once.
I'm sorry if that may have happened to you. In my experience, this has never happened and, if anything, I was given a substantial bump above the number I gave as a current salary. I guess one anecdote vs. another. I dunno, we'll hopefully see whether or not this actually achieves its intended goals or not.
