not hedge said:

---

Agree, I still think there should be more transparency IMO

---

I can tell you the range 50-75K. If I think, based on your resume, you are worth $45k then that is want I am going to offer. If I think you are worth $75k that is what I am going to offer. That's the way the world works. Sorry if you don't like it.

That's fine, just don't be surprised when nobody works for you because you offer less than the minimum that was posted.

And to reiterate what others said, a good company or employer wouldn't do that and is a big red flag to not work for said company

not hedge said:

---

I'm not talking about demanding a high salary. I'm talking about going into a job with the minimum expected salary base, but once you get it they say "oh that's not correct on the job posting or some other BS"

For example company x posts salary range for 70k - 100k. I go in with the expectation I'm getting 70k, but once the dust settles they say something like 55k or 60k.

---

Honestly, based on your posts in this thread, i can see why.
Sounds like you weren't worth it, and they settled for you to fill their position.
Don't like it?
Find a place where your current skills are more appreciated or get better at what you do. Make yourself indispensable.

A good starting point will be to not blame someone else (Corporations) for your inadequacies.

dmart90 said:

---

not hedge said:

---

Agree, I still think there should be more transparency IMO

---

I can tell you the range 50-75K. If I think, based on your resume, you are worth $45k then that is want I am going to offer. If I think you are worth $75k that is what I am going to offer. That's the way the world works. Sorry if you don't like it.

---

This.

I was two months out of college when they did that, I have no problem admitting my skills and resume weren't great at the time. I still think it's a scummy thing to say a stated minimum then offer less

Salary transparency is important. It gives the employee a more fair negotiating position without having to go union. If you are anti union you should be pro salary transparency however I imagine that those of you who worship the cooperative overlords with disagree

If it were up to me everyone's salary would be posted on the wall and I'd venture to say I'm a high earner.

Mandating it with law mean there is teeth when the company lies to you, which they will and do

not hedge said:

---

I was two months out of college when they did that, I have no problem admitting my skills and resume weren't great at the time. I still think it's a scummy thing to say a stated minimum then offer less

---

Ok.
thanks for the context

Absolutely scummy. And that should be a red flag to you in terms of your employer.You should not work for them,. but this is hard out of college, because you have no experience.

I noticed this out of college too, companies advertise higher wages, and i was never oferred them, but then again, i was very mediocre getting out of college. So accepted a low end offer (but from a stable company, important when you are on an H1)

Most of the Americans who were hired, were under-qualified, so were happy.

I moved on from that company as fast as i could. There are tons of companies out there who appreciate your skills.

Keeper of The Spirits said:

---

Salary transparency is important. It gives the employee a more fair negotiating position without having to go union. If you are anti union you should be pro salary transparency however I imagine that those of you who worship the cooperative overlords with disagree

If it were up to me everyone's salary would be posted on the wall and I'd venture to say I'm a high earner.

Mandating it with law mean there is teeth when the company lies to you, which they will and do

---

Complete nonsense.

Texas doesn't require salary transparency and unions aren't getting any foothold here.


There's a reason this is happening in liberal states.

When headhunters call me, I'm not shy to ask them what the salary range is first. If it's not at least 20-25% higher, I thank them for the call but that's as far as we go. No sense in wasting time.

Sounds like you didn't meet the minimum skill set requirements for the hourly job minimum salary

not hedge said:

---

That's fine, just don't be surprised when nobody works for you because you offer less than the minimum that was posted.

And to reiterate what others said, a good company or employer wouldn't do that and is a big red flag to not work for said company

---

Agreed! But you don't need a law to address this. It's just silly and a waste of time!

So then why hire me

Keeper of The Spirits said:

---

Salary transparency is important. It gives the employee a more fair negotiating position without having to go union. If you are anti union you should be pro salary transparency however I imagine that those of you who worship the cooperative overlords with disagree

If it were up to me everyone's salary would be posted on the wall and I'd venture to say I'm a high earner.

Mandating it with law mean there is teeth when the company lies to you, which they will and do

---

i think companies will get around the law by posting a higher range.
Engineers in our company make anywhere between 60K to 250K based on a number of factors.
Besides salary, there are other ways to compensate employees - like RSUs

I don't think this will be as effective as folks think it will be.

I probably wouldn't. Some may see a sliver of hope and willing to give you a chance, others may need a warm body and hope you are salvageable.

not hedge said:

---

So then why hire me

---

Lots of reasons:
Could be a tight job market
Could be that the hiring manager got tired of interviews
Could be that they "settled" and thought that's what you were worth. Again, it doesn't mean anything bad about you, its just that they didn't get someone with more experience for example

Could be that the company is scummy.
Could be that they tried to lowball you and you agreed. Did you ask for a higher amount? (This is hard to do when you are out of college)

Quote:

---

Besides salary, there are other ways to compensate employees - like RSUs

---

That also has no be disclosed in these states. Any benefit must be included.

No one has given any logical reason why we need such laws.

not hedge said:

---

I was two months out of college when they did that, I have no problem admitting my skills and resume weren't great at the time. I still think it's a scummy thing to say a stated minimum then offer less

---

From 30+ years of experience in a couple Fortune 500's, we would share salary data annually with a benchmarking service to ensure our salaries were competitive with the market. For each job level we would calculate a midpoint, a market range, and an absolute min/max.

Market was defined as 90% to 110% of the midpoint, giving you a range to work with a qualified candidate that was considered an "established" candidate, depending on just how established they were. If your skills were considered "emerging" -- not quite up to par for the market -- we would offer somewhere between 75% (minimum) and 90% of the midpoint. Over time as your skills improved, your salary moved up in the range. And for those considered "expert" candidates -- with highly advanced skills -- the range would be 110% up to 125% (maximum) of the midpoint.

There's an established methodology at many companies, and it's linked to your capability and your performance. Focus your efforts on optimizing those two things and combine it with accurate knowledge of your market range by talking with your boss/HR. If you're paid fairly, great. If not, let them know you know it and push for improvement, and be prepared to move on to a better employer if they don't treat you right.

I did, they said no. I said thanks for your time and left and found another job

BMX Bandit said:

---

Quote:

---

Besides salary, there are other ways to compensate employees - like RSUs

---

That also has no be disclosed in these states. Any benefit must be included.

No one has given any logical reason why we need such laws.

---

The Feels.

Salary management is extremely complex, but the politicians are catering to the "corporations are evil" crowd.

not hedge said:

---

I did, they said no. I said thanks for your time and left and found another job

---

And lived to tell about it? You are one of the lucky ones!

not hedge said:

---

I did, they said no. I said thanks for your time and left and found another job

---

Good for you.
Enough people did this at my first company (they hire mostly out of college and i consider them scummy) that they were forced to raise everyone's salary by 7-10%

If someone has qualifications that are below what is listed in the initial job listing, I can see why they might be offered less.

When my company puts out a job listing, we get all kinds of resumes including under-qualified and over-qualified individuals. Often we cannot discard those applications out of hand, not if we want to fill the position. This has been particularly troublesome the last couple of years.

A few times we have had to fill a position with a lower grade than initially planned with the opening. We have work that needs doing, and we have to take a risk on them. My company generally doesn't list a salary range in job listings, so that won't lead to them being offered a lower salary than what might have been listed. But still, they are going to be paid at a level appropriate to their experience.

Let's say there was a salary listed, but a lower offer is made. It would need to be accompanied by an explanation. We were looking for staff engineer with ten years of experience and a graduate degree. Since you have a bachelor's degree and five years of experience, we can only bring you in as a senior engineer.

Maybe that's fair, maybe it's not. However the candidate is being given upfront reasoning, and he is free to accept or decline the offer.

not hedge said:

---

I'm not talking about demanding a high salary. I'm talking about going into a job with the minimum expected salary base, but once you get it they say "oh that's not correct on the job posting or some other BS"

For example company x posts salary range for 70k - 100k. I go in with the expectation I'm getting 70k, but once the dust settles they say something like 55k or 60k.

---

If you take the minimum range in your field without knowing, you suck at doing research.

If you want 70k why would you even interview for 60k?

Started a new job in Oct, told the screener what I make now with bonus's and rsu's. I know I'm already at the upper range of my title bc I network with my peers and keep track of pay ranges for my title.

Plus if the job is 70k-100k, broadcasted, everyone with a pulse will ask for 100kz

I didn't interview for 60k, they told me after the interview that's why I didn't take the job

not hedge said:

---

I didn't interview for 60k, they told me after the interview that's why I didn't take the job

---

Just like there are ****ty candidates, and there are ****ty companies. You found one such company, but fortunately you saw just how ****ty before taking a job there.

not hedge said:

---

I didn't interview for 60k, they told me after the interview that's why I didn't take the job

---

So if you didnt interview, why are we even talking about it?

Nobody is forcing you.

Are you not reading it correctly. The interview position was for 70k minimum I went and interviewed, they offered 60k. I left, it's not that hard to understand

not hedge said:

---

Are you not reading it correctly. The interview position was for 70k minimum I went and interviewed, they offered 60k. I left, it's not that hard to understand

---

Was the 70k for a fully qualified candidate? Were you less than fully qualified? If so, 14% less isn't unreasonable.

I don't really have a problem with transparency, and with my job my compensation is listed publicly. Doesn't bother me. I've been questioned many times (some on public record) but I have no problem explaining the concept of supply and demand. If my output wasn't worth it, companies wouldn't be willing to pay it.

I do have a problem with what I feel is the underlying objective here, which is trying to push everyone toward "pay equity". It's mini-communism, where everyone in a group gets the same outcome regardless of skills, effort or commitment.

It directly flies in the face of the reality of team performance - which is that an excellent employee is often worth 10x or more what an average employee is worth. And bad employees have a negative worth to their companies.

But in my hunt for the best employees - I'm pretty quick to tell them about the money transparently, including exactly where the money could go with successful work.

not hedge said:

---

That's fine, just don't be surprised when nobody works for you because you offer less than the minimum that was posted.

And to reiterate what others said, a good company or employer wouldn't do that and is a big red flag to not work for said company

---

Jokes on you. The candidate that came in behind you got offered the top end of the range (based on ability/experience). The range is not a guarantee. So much entitlement.

Once you gain experience/skill, your value will actually put you in positions to make more than the upper salary. Will you throw a hissy fit then when you are above the range?

I'm entitled because I expected the minimum range?

not hedge said:

---

Are you not reading it correctly. The interview position was for 70k minimum I went and interviewed, they offered 60k. I left, it's not that hard to understand

---

Bc this is about current employer wages not job listing wages. They aren't the same thing.

Legally, certain things change once employeed.

Maybe refrain from all the snarky comments and people might stop calling you hedge.

not hedge said:

---

I'm entitled because I expected the minimum range?

---

You're entitled because you do not meet the minimum requirements for the bottom salary in the range, get offered the position based off of your limited skills/abilities anyway, and then throw a hissy fit about how companies are out to screw you….

But I did, it was an entry level position