Re:New law bans California employers from asking applicants ...
by ryandrake on Wednesday October 18, 2017 @05:34PM
(#15503371)
> I never consider interviewing to be a waste of time.
Most on-site interviews require you to take a day off. If you've got 10 days of PTO, you can do a maximum of 10 interviews a year, and that's if you don't get sick or take any vacation. There is definitely a cost to interviewing.
Re:New law bans California employers from asking applicants ...
by dragonwriter on Wednesday October 18, 2017 @08:09PM
(#15504408)
> If you've got 10 days of PTO, you can do a maximum of 10 interviews a year
Well, at no cost. Whether you can do more without adverse employment consequences depends on your company's unpaid leave policy.
Of course, if you only have 10 annual PTO days, that's a problem in itself.
Re:New law bans California employers from asking applicants ...
by oshepherd on Wednesday October 18, 2017 @08:04PM
(#15504380)
The idea of only getting 10 days PTO a year continues to be incredible to me.
Re:New law bans California employers from asking applicants ...
by udkl on Thursday October 19, 2017 @01:10AM
(#15505614)
Previous discussion for this comment - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14060327
Even if they wind up not hiring you because they find out you're too expensive for their current budget, their budget might increase in the future and they might try to hire you again. Or the people who you made a favorable-enough impression to want to hire you might look to hire you when they're working for some other employer with a bigger budget. If you disqualify yourself by naming too large a number at the outset you'll never get the chance to make that great impression.
Finally, not everything's always about money. If you wind up at the point where they want to hire you and finally you start talking numbers, if their best salary offer is below what you're looking for there might be able to compensate you in some other ways that you could both find acceptable -- that is the essence of negotiation. Here once again, if you had disqualified yourself by naming too high a number at the outset, you'd never get the chance to negotiate.