Pay on Job Adverts

[Tom8]

See the government is thinking of enforcing salaries being published on job adverts. Whilst I wish the government would focus on things that matter this one is something that is really annoying.

Job ads are written almost inflating the requirements of the job so it is often difficult to work out what it is worth. Putting a CV and a cover letter together takes a lot of time so you really don't want to waste time on a job that is too junior or senior and then get the usual non response to your application.

Some companies ask you to put in salary expectations so you have to go through the application to then be kicked out if your assumption is wide of the mark.

I always think it is a bit like buying a house or a car. If it says POA I ignore it, why advertise something if you won't put a price on it?

[Slow.Patrol]

Agree, this is a good thing.

I have a relative who is in HR. She left one company because they decided not to put salaries on adverts. She would spend weeks trying to recruit, only to discover a miss match on salaries. (She did warn them).

So the company decided to add salary expectations to the application form. Applicants left if blank, plus some it seemed, didn't bother applying.

Not only did the company struggle to recruit, they lost an experienced HR Director.

[Tim330]

I can see lots of arguments coming when a team needs to recruit a replacement and any current team member spots they are paid less than the advertised role for doing the same job.

[borcy]

I think it's a good thing, cuts down on timewasting dealing with hopeless employers.

[Countdown]

Tim330 said:

I can see lots of arguments coming when a team needs to recruit a replacement and any current team member spots they are paid less than the advertised role for doing the same job.

I think this is the reason why some Employers don't want to publish the salary - they want to pay the last amount necessary in order to retain somebody.

[Gargamel]

Been around this argument for a long time. Fine for me, companies should have well defined job architecture and pay bands that go with it.

If you cannot explain to any employee why they are paid the way they are paid, then you are doing it wrong.

[craigjm]

Gargamel said:

Been around this argument for a long time. Fine for me, companies should have well defined job architecture and pay bands that go with it.

If you cannot explain to any employee why they are paid the way they are paid, then you are doing it wrong.

100% this, Every job should show the pay range for the job. Saves everyones time.

[TheHeadhunter]

Tom8 said:

See the government is thinking of enforcing salaries being published on job adverts. Whilst I wish the government would focus on things that matter this one is something that is really annoying.

Job ads are written almost inflating the requirements of the job so it is often difficult to work out what it is worth. Putting a CV and a cover letter together takes a lot of time so you really don't want to waste time on a job that is too junior or senior and then get the usual non response to your application.

Some companies ask you to put in salary expectations so you have to go through the application to then be kicked out if your assumption is wide of the mark.

I always think it is a bit like buying a house or a car. If it says POA I ignore it, why advertise something if you won't put a price on it?

I'm completely with you on salary transparency. After 30 years in executive search, I insist on putting salaries in any advert I run. I've even fallen out with clients over it. Advertising a job without mentioning the remuneration is like a restaurant presenting a magnificent menu and refusing to tell you what dinner costs until you've eaten it.

But I might gently challenge the notion that candidates are spending hours lovingly crafting CVs and cover letters before applying. Some are, absolutely, and they deserve a proper response, but the wider reality is rather less romantic. 'Easy Apply' has turned job applications into something resembling a trigger-happy teenager playing Call of Duty.

I recently advertised a role that attracted over 1000 applications. Twenty-three arrived within 60 seconds of publication, despite the advert taking three minutes to read, dozens admitted to not reading the advert when I went back to them to highlight why I wasn't going to interview them.

[boxedin]

I'm trying remember when salary / hourly rates stopped being made available upfront, instead becoming a childish game.

[Jamescrs]

I’m probably out of touch on this but I simply wouldn’t poly for a job that doesn’t at the least provide a salary range at the outset.

[alock]

The current rules allow the terrible employers to advertise how stupid they are directly in the advert. They're too dumb to even realise they never get the best candidates applying.

Enforcing they publish the rate of pay, just means the best candidates might have to waste their time on them.

[LastPoster]

I broadly agree and it s pretty much one of the first questions I ask when discussing a role with the recruiter. No point wasting everyone s time if one of us is miles off

Only exception might be interim roles. I am looking for someone for Mat cover at present and haven t included the salary as it would pretty much give away how much she is paid to her team. First thing I then do with applicants is check their expectations

[valiant]

It’s like when you see a car advertised as POA.

You just move onto the next one.

[fat80b]

Doesn't it depend a bit on the role though? I do worry that this is solving the wrong problem and it might actually put lots of people off from applying rather than actually level the playing field.

We hire for software engineers, pay is mosty based on experience rather than anything else - We have a single job spec out currently - essentially the pay range is anywhere from 40K to over 100K depending on what you've done / how useful you are.

I suspect the only sensible thing to do if a salary is mandated on the advert is to have multiple (very similar looking) adverts.

As with everything the government touches, It just makes the implementation more difficult / costly without actually fixing anything......

[Venisonpie]

fat80b said:

Doesn't it depend a bit on the role though? I do worry that this is solving the wrong problem and it might actually put lots of people off from applying rather than actually level the playing field.

We hire for software engineers, pay is mosty based on experience rather than anything else - We have a single job spec out currently - essentially the pay range is anywhere from 40K to over 100K depending on what you've done / how useful you are.

I suspect the only sensible thing to do if a salary is mandated on the advert is to have multiple (very similar looking) adverts.

As with everything the government touches, It just makes the implementation more difficult / costly without actually fixing anything......

It will simply force the employer to be more considerate in what they value in terms of high, medium, low experience. They can then tailor the advert accordingly or as you suggest where a broad range could be considered run more than one ad with key requirement differentiators.

[Frimley111R]

It's an interesting point BUT I don't think the government should be telling companies what to do. If a company gets fewer applicants because it doesn't post a salary it is their problem.

[boyse7en]

Frimley111R said:

It's an interesting point BUT I don't think the government should be telling companies what to do. If a company gets fewer applicants because it doesn't post a salary it is their problem.

That's not why they are doing it. The issue they are trying to mitigate is that employers will traditionally pay less to various categories of people, women, for example, purely based on their salary negotiating skills rather than based on what they do in the role.

[fiatpower]

It's always annoyed me that they don't show the expected pay range. I've had a lot of recruiters contact me with just "competitive salary". I'm in the fortunate position i'm not looking to move but always have a look out of interest. As soon as they say that I just delete the email, not wasting my time.

[TheHeadhunter]

fat80b said:

Doesn't it depend a bit on the role though? I do worry that this is solving the wrong problem and it might actually put lots of people off from applying rather than actually level the playing field.

We hire for software engineers, pay is mosty based on experience rather than anything else - We have a single job spec out currently - essentially the pay range is anywhere from 40K to over 100K depending on what you've done / how useful you are.

I suspect the only sensible thing to do if a salary is mandated on the advert is to have multiple (very similar looking) adverts.

As with everything the government touches, It just makes the implementation more difficult / costly without actually fixing anything......

I doesn't have to be a single figure though. Most on my roles have a 20-25% spread, but with the comment that flexibility exists dependant of experience etc. I've got a SaaS dev role I'm searching for at the moment. They'd like to pay £70-85k, but would look at an Engineer stepping up, but likely would pay over £100k if the person could demonstrate VFM.

If someone is put off by knowing the salary, then it's not the job for them? Job adverts don't need to increase applicants, I seldom advertise, but when I do, I get over 500 applicants, over 90% are always rejected.

[Frimley111R]

boyse7en said:

Frimley111R said:

It's an interesting point BUT I don't think the government should be telling companies what to do. If a company gets fewer applicants because it doesn't post a salary it is their problem.

That's not why they are doing it. The issue they are trying to mitigate is that employers will traditionally pay less to various categories of people, women, for example, purely based on their salary negotiating skills rather than based on what they do in the role.

Well, according to the BBC it's to help candidates not waste time applying for jobs mostly, with, potentially, some people getting lower salaries because they can't negotiate. I honestly see this as government meddling in business detail.