[–] wewewedxfgdf 1 day ago
[–] northernsausage 1 day ago
This law will force them to actaully stick to a number.
[–] wewewedxfgdf 1 day ago
No it won't - such a thing would never be pursued by anyone or enforced it's not worth the effort.
As I said, if you get lowballed after making it clear at the start then just withdraw and move on, find a company that is professional.
[–] patall 1 day ago
Or play their game, sign the contract, keep your original job, not show up and later tell them why they did waste their time themselves. If they then threaten you, you can point at the law.
[–] illwrks 1 day ago
The law will make it visible how much a company values someone with those skills. Companies won’t advertise the salary though, they will advertise the range.
[–] taneliv 1 day ago
[–] reedf1 1 day ago
[–] ajb 1 day ago
Also, large parts of the UK culturally have difficulty talking about money. (Exceptions are Yorkshire, which is proud of it's difference here, and (parts of?) Scotland). That's not going to change overnight, so making disclosure a legal requirement is a fair solution.
[–] crimsontech 1 day ago
It isn't uncommon to be given an acceptable figure, go through several rounds of interviews and end up with job offer but with a lower salary than initially agreed because the recruiter padded the numbers.
[–] eru 1 day ago
No, it doesn't lose the negotiation. What makes you think so? Setting anchors and controlling the document is very powerful.
But yes, you need to know what you can get, and you need to be able and willing to walk away.
[–] n4r9 1 day ago
[–] 6510 14 hours ago
Governments can quite easily streamline the process. You have a db with resumes and job offers. Make the potential employers pay a fee above 1k. Require the registration to be up to date for any kind of social support. Strange requirements or strange behavior costs money. Not listing the salary is fine, it costs 10k. Want to interview more than 3 qualified applicants? 1k for each beyond 3, 5k for each beyond 10. Want more than two rounds of interviews? Pay the previous fee again for each round.
The government agency can also set the salary. They have a db full of people with the same job.
You want someone overqualified? Pay 50k per interview.
No show, unwashed poorly behaved candidate? Lower their salary range and/or cut their social support. Act professional or get thrown out.
Interviews in a government building supervised by an industry expert.
Public performance ratings for hiring companies. If they have 0 stars and are banned for 10 years you know what to expect when applying.
[–] em-bee 1 day ago
[–] pbalau 1 day ago
> I'm looking for $120K to $130K. Before we get further into the process I want to confirm that this salary range is what would be discussed if we get to an offer.
[–] em-bee 1 day ago
[–] eru 1 day ago
[–] ks6g10 1 day ago
Or they can just lie and say yeah we cover that.
If you ask for their range, if they are honest, provide their range.
If dishonest, now they have to provide a range which is within the range you are looking for, and is probably more difficult to gauge.
I find it easier to lie on a yes or no question, than a question of quantity.
But in the end, if you provide a quote, they may save themselves money if you value yourself below market.
[–] bluerooibos 1 day ago
For me, being fresh out of university, I didn't really think to press on salary too much and was just happy to land a job. In my first job, I recall not knowing the salary until I got the contract and offer (luckily, it was surprisingly above average pay).
When I moved into the software industry, I started to realise my worth a bit more and job-hopped for 10-50% pay bumps on an annual basis for the first few years and just started chasing higher salaries and turning down interviews unless they were in my desired range.
I know many other engineers who never changed this behaviour (or were never taught to be more ruthless and know their worth) and were just happy to receive any increase in salary - and as a result had 10+ years in the industry and had utterly pitiful salaries due to their employer simply taking advantage - you'll never receive the same increase in pay by remaining loyal to a company versus job hopping. I'm not sure if it's a cultural thing in the UK or what but this is the type of advice that should be given in schools more IMO.
[–] tomgp 1 day ago
[–] sjamaan 1 day ago
Let's say you could command 100k/year but your first job is 30k/year and stay there for several years because you like the work environment. Then you'd go to the next company and ask for, I dunno, maybe 50k/year and think that's a huge bump. If you saw salary ranges for similar positions elsewhere you'd be more inclined to start looking around even if you were happy at your current employer.
Nowadays things are a bit more transparent in the tech world with stuff like levels.fyi (but you have to know about those), but I'm thinking it would benefit people in all fields.
[–] carlosjobim 1 day ago
[–] forgotusername6 1 day ago
[–] flaunf221 1 day ago
Consider that a lot of people don't have the luxury of just not working until proper work appears. Because they have to pay for housing and food and if they don't have work, they would not be able to.
[–] xboxnolifes 1 day ago
Sure, but the first phone call happens after you have already spent potentially hours putting together a tailored resume, cover letter, and 3 creative writing prompts about how you resolved a conflict with a coworker.
[–] scotty79 20 hours ago
[–] hkt 1 day ago
Would you agree to buy a house before you knew what it costs?
Literally insane behaviour
[–] doix 1 day ago
Depending on your circumstances, that might be reasonable. If most people aren't quoting pay ranges and you need a job, not applying because of that isn't very smart.
I would make sure I knew the pay range before going through all the interview rounds, but not sending your CV in sounds too limiting to me.
[–] illwrks 1 day ago
Recruiters at big companies will be told to advertise the role within the payband (the min to max pay for that role at that pay band)
So if you see a top end number and think you’ll get that, you probably won’t it will be around the middle of the range.
At that point you go back to the recruiter and state that you would expect the top end of the range. They may agree with you but then keep in mind that may also impact your salary increase at the end of the year, meaning a smaller increase for you compared to your peers which over several years would even out and out you back in the middle of the payband like your peers. This is why the common idea is to jump roles every few years.
[–] graemep 1 day ago
That is only about 50% more than full time minimum wage!
[–] julianlam 1 day ago
There are job ads in Canada for "senior" devs at non-tech shops for $70-$90k. There are signs you'd be the only dev at the shop (or one of very few)
It is your fault if you allow the recruiting process to get to the third interview without at least knowing if the salary range is acceptable.
If you lack confidence in talking money, here is what you say:
"I'm looking for $120K to $130K. Before we get further into the process I want to confirm that this salary range is what would be discussed if we get to an offer."
You might add:
"$120K is my minimum but I am really hoping to find a role at the higher end - $130K is what I'm aiming for, depending on the job."
If, after saying all this, you get lowballed, then you have good reason to be very annoyed, and express calmly but clearly that you have had your minimum salary on the table since the first phone call." At that point you withdraw from the process and go look for a job with a professional company.