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

[mr friendly guy]

Really?

MARCH 16, 201712:44PM

IT WOULD seem like an obvious question to ask at a job interview: “How much do you plan on paying me?”
But a young woman claims she was shown the door when she inquired about her potential salary.
Taylor Byrnes was preparing for her second interview with Canadian food delivery company SkipTheDishes when she emailed a member of the company’s HR team to ask about how much she would be paid.
But if she was expecting a run-down of the benefits on offer, she was in for a rude awakening.
The recruiter shot back with a message advising that she could forget about the interview as she was not the right “organisational fit” for the role. Ouch.
Ms Byrnes posted screenshots of the conversation on Twitter and called for a boycott of the company.
Applied for a job at @SkipTheDishes. They cancelled my interview b/c I asked about wages/benefits @CBC @CBCNews @ctvwinnipeg #boycottSkip pic.twitter.com/CjBdnFvY1P
— . (@feministjourney) March 13, 2017
“As a start-up company, we seek out those who go out of their way to seek out challenges and new opportunities. We believe in hard work and perseverance in pursuit of company goals as opposed to focusing on compensation,” the HR staffer’s email said.
Ms Byrnes said she had already had an initial phone interview for the menu development role, making it through to the second round face-to-face interview stage.
In her politely-worded follow-up email, she wrote: “I had another question that I wanted to ask you. If I do end up filling this position, how much do you think I’ll be getting paid an hour? Benefits will also be included, right? Sorry, I just thought I should ask now. Thanks for your time and have a lovely day.”

This apparently raised a red flag because it was “such an early stage” in the recruitment process.
“Your questions reveal that your priorities are not in sync with those of SkipTheDishes. At this time we will not be following through with our meeting this Thursday,” the recruiter wrote.

Ms Byrnes’ call to #BoycottSkip was re-tweeted more than 4600 times, prompting the company to backtrack by apologising and inviting her to come in for the interview after all.
In a statement to Buzzfeed Canada, co-founder Joshua Simair said the email sent to Taylor was “wrong and does not represent our team’s approach or values”.
“We are very disappointed in how it was handled. We do share a compensation package prior to hiring. As soon as we became aware of it on Monday, we reached out to Taylor to apologise for the email and reschedule her interview,” he said, promising to train staff to avoid similar situations in the future.

“Your questions reveal that your priorities are not in sync with those of SkipTheDishes. At this time we will not be following through with our meeting this Thursday,” the recruiter wrote.

You know, when someone says this, my first thought is this company isn't looking to pay its staff. Seriously, wouldn't it be beneficial to tell the job hunters in advance, so that they don't waste the company's time applying for a job which is not paying what they are looking for?

[B5B7]

This company has weird terminology. Wages are not compensation. Seems like they are after no payment slaves/volunteers.
Either you offer a proper job with set pay per hour, or a shonky scheme where workers are "contracted labor" who work on commission.

[Lagmonster]

This doesn't really sound like "Company is evil" so much as "one asshole recruiter was an asshole". There's a piece missing from this story, namely what happened to the recruiter after the company went on record as being disapproving of his approach.

[Zixinus]

The thing is that she may have dodged a bullet there. Better to find out that the company has this "you work because it is an honor to do so rather than because we pay you" attitude before she signs a contract rather than after.

[Zwinmar]

It's not like they try to hide what their employees make....wait...

[Alkaloid]

This company has weird terminology. Wages are not compensation. Seems like they are after no payment slaves/volunteers.
Either you offer a proper job with set pay per hour, or a shonky scheme where workers are "contracted labor" who work on commission.

Might be a regional thing, I've pretty regularly heard wages/salary referred to as compensation.

I've always been told/operated on the principal that when you're looking for a job you let the employer be the one to bring up salary or what you expect to be paid, but that goes hand in hand with the company giving you a general idea of what to expect early in the process/before you apply for the job. Rule of thumb I consider any ad that doesn't give a rough idea (in dollar figures) extremely suspect and probably paying below industry average.

[Starglider]

Not newsworthy, of the billions of hiring interviews done every year, obviously a significant fraction involve clueless interviewers, hopeless candidates, worse-than-useless HR departments, or occassionally all three.

Might be a regional thing, I've pretty regularly heard wages/salary referred to as compensation.

It's the generic HR term for it. HR have their own preferred language for a lot of things.

I've always been told/operated on the principal that when you're looking for a job you let the employer be the one to bring up salary or what you expect to be paid, but that goes hand in hand with the company giving you a general idea of what to expect early in the process/before you apply for the job.

If you're being headhunted, the conversation usually starts with 'what would it take to get you to move'.

[Alkaloid]

If you're being headhunted, the conversation usually starts with 'what would it take to get you to move'.

Yeah, but that's a different scenario to applying for an advertised position with a different etiquette.

[Tsyroc]

It's not like they try to hide what their employees make....wait...

My employer does, and it is against company policy to discuss how much we make amongst ourselves.

I understand the reasoning behind it because, in my department alone, we have a bunch of whiney-assed fucking children who act like bitchy teenaged girls a lot of the time and they would bitch up a storm if someone they worked with was making more than them for the "same job".

On the other hand, it also lets the company off the hook a bit when it comes to raises because they so rarely publish our pay scales we don't have much of an idea whether we can move up in pay without changing positions.

[Tsyroc]

If you're being headhunted, the conversation usually starts with 'what would it take to get you to move'.

Yeah, but that's a different scenario to applying for an advertised position with a different etiquette.

I think the usual is to wait until they offer you the job, see what they are offering in compensation (pay/benefits), and then negotiate from there if necessary.

[Tribble]

It's not like they try to hide what their employees make....wait...

My employer does, and it is against company policy to discuss how much we make amongst ourselves.

I understand the reasoning behind it because, in my department alone, we have a bunch of whiney-assed fucking children who act like bitchy teenaged girls a lot of the time and they would bitch up a storm if someone they worked with was making more than them for the "same job".

On the other hand, it also lets the company off the hook a bit when it comes to raises because they so rarely publish our pay scales we don't have much of an idea whether we can move up in pay without changing positions.

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.

[Tsyroc]

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.

[Zwinmar]

While it might be right to work this still applies. Article

[Shroom Man 777]

I know someone who experienced this. The guy's pretty chill so I think it was the HR/recruitment people being the prima donnas.

[K. A. Pital]

Better to find out that way than actually get the job. I'm the second to say that, but it is so true. Assholes are everywhere. Private companies are pretty much a little club owned by an asshole or a few assholes, who then makes other assholes find people who're poor enough to work for them. This is called the "HR department" (no offense to those few exceptions where these departments actually do make sense and do a good job of helping employees develop, as well as running normal selection without the idiocy above).

If you want to find one of the rare exceptions to this asshole rule, it is better to find out where you'll be treated like a total tool before you sign that contract and actually make the assholes one penny richer than they already are with your own effort and labour.

Even in "okay companies", HR tends to accumulate the worst type of people I've ever seen - power freaks, bullies and so on. It shouldn't be even surprising.

[Shroom Man 777]

And/or various branches just accumulate vapid people. Or people too bothered by other things in life due to our unsustainable conditions, so obviously they can't do their work well and don't need or care to. And/or they are Nazis.

[TheFeniX]

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.

Firing someone for no reason means they are entitled to unemployment. Employers pay into that and many wouldn't want to pay for, just an example, a worker who embezzled but you couldn't prove it in court. Some employers don't like paying unemployment because they are assholes.

And since many of these state (such as Texas) operate on "good faith" or "verbal contracts," if an employer tells you even something as casual like "You're a good worker, keep it up: you'll always have a place here" means you can take them to court over being laid off without cause. Unions also factor in. Though they have much less power than they should, they are still employment contracts. For an insane example I doubt will ever happen, the whole "teachers can carry guns in school." If a district fired you for having a CHL but not taking on the responsibility, you would have a solid case against them as no one could realistically demand an educator also act as impromptu police/security as part of their job duties.

Not that it isn't consistently abused in favor of employers: but it's a tricky situation. You keep records on everything. You fire someone for cause, you back it up. A coworker won backpay on wages and unemployment after his boss fired him for "no reason," then fought my coworkers unemployment claim by citing he was fired for cause. The judge did not like that.

[Elheru Aran]

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.

Firing someone for no reason means they are entitled to unemployment. Employers pay into that and many wouldn't want to pay for, just an example, a worker who embezzled but you couldn't prove it in court. Some employers don't like paying unemployment because they are assholes.

As I understand it, most states will accept even flimsy pretexts as long as they're given at the time of firing, not retroactively. It doesn't help workers that most employers run a fairly lax house on their own workplace rules, so if an employee gets let go, it's an easy enough trick for them to find an example of that employee breaking one of their rules.

[TheFeniX]

As I understand it, most states will accept even flimsy pretexts as long as they're given at the time of firing, not retroactively. It doesn't help workers that most employers run a fairly lax house on their own workplace rules, so if an employee gets let go, it's an easy enough trick for them to find an example of that employee breaking one of their rules.

If the employee takes it, no one cares. The "problem" is evident when there are enough lawyers willing to work on contingency for clients handled this way. This is how my coworker did: walked into a law office, lawyer took the case, one court visit, coworker got paid, lawyer took most the money. IMHO: this kind of protection should be built into the system, not "go get a lawyer."

Running "lax workplace rules" generally hurts the employer, not the employee. Twice now I've dealt with employees that couldn't be actioned for buying personal effects on company credit because there was no usage policy for the card. Best we could do was write off the loss and report is as "income" for the employee.

For just an example: Saying "we fired him/her for dress-code violations" when you have no dress-code can get you sued for damages. It can get even worse when you get into actioning protected groups without cause or evidence. If you (and this happened) promote a newer white guy over a minority with much more experience based on "performance" and you have no performance tracking.... not good.

We had an employee we brought in to handle some of our compliance writing. After a time, she began delivering less and less and billing fewer hours to a point we're she wouldn't even get a paycheck. Contacting her was difficult to impossible. I picked up the slack and just did the work and we assumed she quit. Then we find she filed an unemployment claim against us, which I consider unfair. We HAD work for her, a lot actually. But my bosses lawyers comment was "just pay it." Such is the nature of small business.

Based on my experience, the "lack of evidence" is nearly always a negative for the employer. I've said this before: Judges, even in shitholes like Texas, do not like employers bullshitting them about workers and offering nothing to back it up.

[Phantasee]

One thing that occurred to me: how difficult will it be for this woman to get an interview elsewhere, with future employers knowing she went straight to social media and television media about her experience? I'd imagine it would have a chilling effect on her employability.

I recall another Canadian protest story: the Senate page who walked on to the floor with a "Stop Harper" stop sign found it difficult to find employment later in life, even within the NDP movement.

[Aether]

I was always told that you should not ask about compensation during the interview process. It's only when are you given an offer then you start the negotiations on compensation.

In the last 15 years of my career, I have held 4 positions. In the first three positions, I kicked myself afterwards after I accepted the offer with no negotiation. Only this last time, did I go back and started to negotiate afterwards. For me, it is no longer about base pay; stock, bonus, and healthcare coverage all come into the mix and that is a harder to put a dollar amount to.

[B5B7]

I queries the use of the word compensation when this thread started. I simply thought it was a poor word choice.
But a realization hit me today - it is actually ignorance that led to the use of this word.
Compensation has a primary meaning of recompense and a secondary meaning of salary and other benefits.
Yet there exists an appropriate word that conveys the meaning they wish to convey, yet without the alternate recompense meaning, and that word is remuneration.

[Zixinus]

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

[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?

[General Zod]

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.