Hacker News

points by taneliv 1 day ago | 0 comments

I have never applied to a job in the UK (or in USA), and wonder why you are being voted down. Is that not an appropriate question? Or will the employers and hiring managers not give answers?

[–] reedf1 1 day ago

They more than likely will not answer or will dodge the question entirely. This is so ubiquitous that if you decided to only go through processes that do answer this question, you might not get anything at all. In many cases when they do answer, it is a bold lie; and if challenged "who told you that range?", "well if you hit certain performance parameters by year three your total package may be x...", "that's for the senior position, we are offering you the standard position".

[–] vovavili 1 day ago

Do your due diligence and research companies that behave in this manner via platforms like Glassdoor. AI makes this process much easier. And always publicly call out companies that do this instead of sucking up.

[–] eru 1 day ago

If they don't answer, then you call off the interview.

[–] ajb 1 day ago

You will basically have to be willing to walk away to get an answer other than "tell me what you're looking for and we'll let you know if you're in our range", which basically loses the negotiation. Most people are not comfortable doing that.

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

I'm in the UK and always ask about salary range and if the role is remote before I agree to do an initial interview. It saves everyone involved from having their time wasted. The first contact is usually a recruiter though, I don't mention pay and benefits in interviews.

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

> You will basically have to be willing to walk away to get an answer other than "tell me what you're looking for and we'll let you know if you're in our range", which basically loses the negotiation.

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.

[–] wmorgan 1 day ago

They're already anchored, because they know what everyone else is making. You won't kick them loose unless they are teeny tiny. The advice in this thread is basically straight from the patio11 blog post.

[–] eru 1 day ago

Yeah, that part of the blog post ain't that great.

> They're already anchored, because they know what everyone else is making.

Different people make different amounts of money.

[–] n4r9 1 day ago

The suggestion that it's OP's/the candidate's fault jarred me a little. In my experience this is such a common situation in the UK that you could be jobless for much longer if you insist on early salary disclosure.

[–] 6510 15 hours ago

If you delay two million people looking for work by 1-2 months you are missing out on a lot of tax revenue, economic activity and perhaps even the real-estate market?

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.

[–] tokioyoyo 1 day ago

Yeah, weird, I’d say? Even in Japan salary range talks come up during the first call. Or in intro emails.

[–] em-bee 1 day ago

because you ask for their range, but you don't tell them your range.

[–] pbalau 1 day ago

From GP:

> 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

yes, never tell them what you are looking for until you know what they are offering and are ready to reject the offer.

[–] eru 1 day ago

Why not?

[–] ks6g10 1 day ago

If you tell them what you are looking for, if they are honest, can say no or short-change you.

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.

[–] eru 1 day ago

> But in the end, if you provide a quote, they may save themselves money if you value yourself below market.

There's no single market value for workers, because there's no one archetypical worker, especially not for the kind of knowledge work many people here do where you have salary negotiations at all.

So it's your responsibility as a candidate to portrait yourself as the highest and most valuable kind of worker and ask for compensation that's commensurate with that. That number is also part of the signalling.

> Or they can just lie and say yeah we cover that.

Well, you'll detect that lie at the latest when it comes to signing the contract. If you do, that's a big red flag and you will save yourself a lot of hassle by walking away.

> I find it easier to lie on a yes or no question, than a question of quantity.

I'm not sure that makes much of a difference. But let's grant it for the sake of argument: in that case, you giving them a number also has bigger signalling effect.

[–] eru 1 day ago

Why not?