Salary or total comp?
Tell HN: You can't hire because you don't post salary ranges
181–190 of 544 posts
Re: Tell HN: You can't hire because you don't post salary ranges
#182What use are salary ranges when a majority of compensation is equity-based?
For most jobs that is not true.
Re: Tell HN: You can't hire because you don't post salary ranges
#183We just went through a large hiring cycle. We posted two versions for every job posting- one with salary ranges and one without. The ads performed equally well in regard to total responses with the better candidates responding to the ones without salary ranges. And... before you say, perhaps your salary ranges were bad, they weren't. Our salary offerings are very aggressive to the developer's benefit. In my opinion,…
Very poor advice. Salary is a huge part of job satisfaction. I normally line up multiple offers at places I'd like to work and negotiate on the salary. If a place I really want to work can't offer me compensation that the market is already offering me, then by definition that place isn't a good place to work. They don't value my labour.
Re: Tell HN: You can't hire because you don't post salary ranges
#184Complicating things here is the fact companies like Amazon top up their compensation with stock grants (or maybe ISOs, it's been a while since I worked there.) So you see a job offer from Amazon that says the salary range for a SDE I is $85k-$160k, but I'm pretty sure they would low-ball you on salary but give you a stock grant that might be worth $80k over 4 years if AMZN stock holds its value. I think my point is..…
Companies like amazon... So, what, maybe 100 companies out of tens or hundreds of thousands? Why even bother talking about it.
Re: Tell HN: You can't hire because you don't post salary ranges
#185I could try to ask companies to list their salary but it’s a fight I’m not going to win, at least not alone. So instead, I stay mine. The vast majority of any applications for me for the last 10 years have started with an incoming message from a recruiter (usually external, very often not engaged by the company). To filter out irrelevant conversations, I respond “Thank you for your interest” and I immediately put: *…
This is my method for recruiters (when I'm looking/interested). I have a blob of text saved in my notes that outlines what I'm looking for and not to bother me (in a nice way) if they can't meet that. The only difference I don't share my current compensation, I share what I'm looking for.
Re: Tell HN: You can't hire because you don't post salary ranges
#186Earlier quoted context omitted.
Why not post the range and say what you just said?
I think I can see a scenario. You think you're hot shit on a silver platter. You apply for jobs with high TC listed and others which you believe will also be high TC based on... reasons, even though they don't list their salary ranges. You get callbacks from some of the high TC positions you applied for. You also get callbacks from the non-listed salary positions. Cool. None of the highest, none of your first choices…
but in that case... isn't it bad for the employer if the person is not actually happy with the salary is they are going to bail as soon as they find something else?
Re: Tell HN: You can't hire because you don't post salary ranges
#187We just went through a large hiring cycle. We posted two versions for every job posting- one with salary ranges and one without. The ads performed equally well in regard to total responses with the better candidates responding to the ones without salary ranges. And... before you say, perhaps your salary ranges were bad, they weren't. Our salary offerings are very aggressive to the developer's benefit. In my opinion,…
Then why post skills at all?
If cultural fit and believing in your mission is the most important thing, then just hire people who are really good at that
Re: Tell HN: You can't hire because you don't post salary ranges
#188While I agree that the information should be there, I've had some success with asking "do you have a salary range you can share with me". Some quickly give a range, a few will reply "well... it depends" and about half dodge the question or ignore it. Most of the "well... it depends" group will end up giving a range if communication stops. The ones that completely refuse, well, that's part of their corporate culture and they'll have to deal with the shrinking pool of candidates who are willing to invest time in the hiring process without knowing the compensation range.
Re: Tell HN: You can't hire because you don't post salary ranges
#189I could try to ask companies to list their salary but it’s a fight I’m not going to win, at least not alone. So instead, I stay mine. The vast majority of any applications for me for the last 10 years have started with an incoming message from a recruiter (usually external, very often not engaged by the company). To filter out irrelevant conversations, I respond “Thank you for your interest” and I immediately put: *…
I like the cut of your jib, I'm going to try that with unsolicited recruiters for a while and see what happens. I've been getting pings over the last two years and if I can get them to a range, it's routinely 80% of my current comp and that never changes. Nobody is getting the idea that you need something to attract talent away from a current job to hire for a new one. There's no salesmanship in this at all.
I’ve had many recruiters think they can try to sell me on the job _after_ I’ve told them it would be half of my compensation…
And, look, I’d love to join a Series A start-up that offers a ton of early stock in a promising idea; I’m typically the rare profile that would happily discuss that, with a spreadsheet and all. But those are almost always meat-by-the-slice “agencies” with no bonus structure. I’m really taken aback by the glib of those recruiters.
Re: Tell HN: You can't hire because you don't post salary ranges
#190Earlier quoted context omitted.
Getting that good work life balance issue settled usually takes 2 or 3 rounds to pry some useful info out.
Great. We're talking about responding to an ad. Your response equates to just dealing with 1-4 hours of work, often requiring some juggling from the candidate's side (= more time), just to get some of the most important information. Not only are you supporting my argument, you're also showcasing how ridiculously inefficient the hiring process is from the candidate's side. Without it being obvious whether this is a ne…
>Not only are you supporting my argument, you're also showcasing how ridiculously inefficient the hiring process is
I don't think the GP was arguing with you; was the poster's first comment on this article.