Job hunter’s interview cancelled after she asked about her salary

[Ace Pace]

Or the HR person can do another HR trick and just ask you how much do you expect to be paid.

And forgive me for my ignorance of non IT hiring, but what's the problem with that?

If you tell them what you're willing to work for they can legally pay you below the fair market value if you don't know what the average wages for your job are. It gives them a legal out to short change their employees.

Who the fuck doesn't know the average wage for his field unless he's entry level? I'm assuming professional work and not data entry or consumer service jobs.

[General Zod]

And forgive me for my ignorance of non IT hiring, but what's the problem with that?

If you tell them what you're willing to work for they can legally pay you below the fair market value if you don't know what the average wages for your job are. It gives them a legal out to short change their employees.

Who the fuck doesn't know the average wage for his field unless he's entry level? I'm assuming professional work and not data entry or consumer service jobs.

Well. Compensation is a needlessly complicated field in the states. So you've got massive ranges in salaries for similar sounding jobs that can change drastically depending on dozens of different things. Throw in the fact that they make you stay quiet on how much you make and it's really easy to undersell yourself even if you know what the "typical" salary might earn.

[Napoleon the Clown]

Indeed. Many companies have a policy forbidding people from discussing their pay. When there was a bill before Congress to make it illegal for companies to forbid discussing pay (as part of an effort to help combat the wage gap), the Republicans stopped it cold because they're sexist motherfuckers that value corporations above actual humans it would "hurt job creators."

There are websites out there like GlassDoor that help you do some research on the industry or even individual employers, but you've gotta be able to find the numbers on those sites.

[Crazedwraith]

Huh. Weird. In the UK the propose wage range for the position is right there in the job ad in most cases.

[General Zod]

Huh. Weird. In the UK the propose wage range for the position is right there in the job ad in most cases.

Sometimes they give you a range in the job ads here sometimes they don't. There's no laws requiring it that I know of.

[Eternal_Freedom]

Huh. Weird. In the UK the propose wage range for the position is right there in the job ad in most cases.

Indeed, it's the ones who don't specify either a salary or an hourly rate that you're suspicious of. Especially when it just says "Salary/Compensation/Benefits: Competitive." That's a big red herring. Or where they give you a day rate or weekly rate but don't state what the hours are.

A tangent, but I do remember going to an interview for call centre work for Sky in Cardiff (it was to satisfy the jobcentre, I wasn't that desperate) that listed, among its highlighted staff benefits, a "Death in Post Provision."

It's a call centre. In Cardiff. How fucking dangerous do they expect it to be?

[Starglider]

A tangent, but I do remember going to an interview for call centre work for Sky in Cardiff (it was to satisfy the jobcentre, I wasn't that desperate) that listed, among its highlighted staff benefits, a "Death in Post Provision." It's a call centre. In Cardiff. How fucking dangerous do they expect it to be?

It just means someone thought a discounted group buy on life insurance was a worthwhile job benefit. It's a standard thing in the finance industry, at least for people who actually go permenant (in finance IT contractor pay has surged ahead of perm pay recently, hardly anyone wants to be perm).

[Eternal_Freedom]

Oh I get that, it's just slightly disturbing when it's one of the three benefits highlighted (the other two being a bonus/commission scheme as well as regular pay, and free Sky TV).

[Lonestar]

This company has weird terminology. Wages are not compensation.

I frequently refer to salary or wages as compensation.

I got offered a job in Houston this past fall, but we couldn't agree on how much they were going to pay me. I don't say that though, I say "we couldn't agree on compensation".

[Lonestar]

Who the fuck doesn't know the average wage for his field unless he's entry level? I'm assuming professional work and not data entry or consumer service jobs.

Depends if you do government work or not. Someone in a government position may make a lot less(or a lot more!) compared to a similar job in the private sector.

I happen to know that some positions in my field vary wildly within a state. And I don't mean "oh yeah it pays better in a city than in the sticks", I mean for some reason it may pay a lot better in one large city than in another large city.

[General Zod]

This company has weird terminology. Wages are not compensation.

I frequently refer to salary or wages as compensation.

I got offered a job in Houston this past fall, but we couldn't agree on how much they were going to pay me. I don't say that though, I say "we couldn't agree on compensation".

In the compensation world, compensation usually refers to your salary + benefits. Salary is just your base wages before you tack on perks like health care or travel allowances.

[B5B7]

The main problem that I have with the use of the word 'compensation' in these circumstances is that the general meaning of the word is recompense for harm done to one - that implies that a job is harmful. Of course, once a word starts being used in a certain way different to its "original' accepted meaning, it is a forlorn hope to reverse that usage being used widely. For example, look at 'momentarily' and 'fulsome'.
Of course, there are words we now all accept as having a certain meaning that didn't start out that way, quite often ending up with opposite meaning to the original eg 'awful'.
END PEDANT MODE

[General Zod]

Since Merriam Webster includes payment for services you're really making a non point.

[B5B7]

Dictionaries are like mirrors - they do not determine the meaning of words, but reflect (report) the general usage.
I didn't deny the word was being used with this secondary meaning; just saying that it was not the primary meaning.
The point is possibly over your head.

[Terralthra]

The meaning of "salary, wages" for "compensation" dates from 1787. Your point is that you really don't want a word to mean what a wide swath of people use it to mean, and have used it to mean that for literal centuries.

[General Zod]

Dictionaries are like mirrors - they do not determine the meaning of words, but reflect (report) the general usage.
I didn't deny the word was being used with this secondary meaning; just saying that it was not the primary meaning.
The point is possibly over your head.

The point is you might need to apply more KY before cramming those logs in your ass.

[Rogue 9]

Is that even legal? Up here it's not - while there are plenty of indirect methods an employer can use to discourage employees from talking amongst themselves, they are not allowed to flat out make it a part of company policy, nor demand that you do so.

If it's illegal no one has challenged it, and it's been in place awhile.

Arizona is an "At will" work state so employees can be fired for no reasons if the employer decides to do so. In some ways it's funny. My employer has all of these internal policies that seem to make it difficult to fire people but Arizona law lets them fire people for no reason at all.

It is illegal under the Fair Labor Standards Act to retaliate against employees for discussing their wages. If your employer were to fire someone for explicitly that reason, they'd have a surefire wrongful termination case.

Of course, Arizona being an at-will employment state, they would simply fire the person for "no reason" instead.

[General Zod]

Is that even legal? Up here it's not - while there are plenty of indirect methods an employer can use to discourage employees from talking amongst themselves, they are not allowed to flat out make it a part of company policy, nor demand that you do so.

If it's illegal no one has challenged it, and it's been in place awhile.

Arizona is an "At will" work state so employees can be fired for no reasons if the employer decides to do so. In some ways it's funny. My employer has all of these internal policies that seem to make it difficult to fire people but Arizona law lets them fire people for no reason at all.

It is illegal under the Fair Labor Standards Act to retaliate against employees for discussing their wages. If your employer were to fire someone for explicitly that reason, they'd have a surefire wrongful termination case.

Of course, Arizona being an at-will employment state, they would simply fire the person for "no reason" instead.

In theory it's illegal. In practice it's amazingly difficult to prove, even if it's not an "at will" state.

[The_Saint]

Huh. Weird. In the UK the propose wage range for the position is right there in the job ad in most cases.

Yes but we come leftist commie countries where companies have to pay a minimum wage that isn't peanuts and in most cases they say "we'll pay you x" and bang you know everything you're getting, you don't have to worry about medical plans and perks to make up any potential shortfall.

In education here we teach kids TO ASK about wages/salary/pay but to be polite you wait for the interviewer to raise the topic otherwise you make it one of your later questions in an interview.

Heck the Federal government has a handy website to tell you what you should be paid at minimum (https://www.fairwork.gov.au/awards-and- ... -my-award/)

[General Zod]

I've found the trick to dealing with jobs that don't tell you how much they'll pay but ask you to put in a desired salary is to mark down some crazy number that they'd never realistically pay you. Most companies won't dismiss you for being optimistic and if they do then fuck em.

[blenkins90]

I saw this awhile back. Seriously, since when did anyone work for something other than compensation?

This company is full of @$%#. It's legit to ask for what the compensation package is, because honestly, if it's not going to work on that level, then why bother with the rest of the process and waste everyone's time?

[mr friendly guy]

Huh. Weird. In the UK the propose wage range for the position is right there in the job ad in most cases.

Yes but we come leftist commie countries where companies have to pay a minimum wage that isn't peanuts and in most cases they say "we'll pay you x" and bang you know everything you're getting, you don't have to worry about medical plans and perks to make up any potential shortfall.

In education here we teach kids TO ASK about wages/salary/pay but to be polite you wait for the interviewer to raise the topic otherwise you make it one of your later questions in an interview.

Heck the Federal government has a handy website to tell you what you should be paid at minimum (https://www.fairwork.gov.au/awards-and- ... -my-award/)

Most job adds I see in the paper would have the income advertised, although it would be a range and presumably subjected to negotiation. This is a few years ago. Since I work in the government the renumeration is based on the award and its easy enough to find. Of course there are other perks, like salary packaging.

[Skywalker4eva]

Ugh just hate the whole job process overall.