I currently post ranges because we're now large enough. But when we were smaller, I wouldn't include ranges because our job posts didn't filter by seniority, and at least part of the comp was the potential for a healthy options grant. So the effective cash comp range was so large as to be meaningless on a single job post. "$0 to $1m DOE" (for example) doesn't help anyone make any decisions and is so distracting that its better to leave it off.

Also as a hiring manager, you'll also find that if you post the range, it just so happens that almost everyone's very firm minimum acceptable comp is the top of your published range.

As a counterpoint to "everyone's very firm minimum acceptable comp is the top of your published range", I find that most jobs with a published salary range seem to pay just low enough for me to not want to go through the trouble of applying.

It certainly does act as a filter. My point was more, this was much less of a thing when ranges weren't published. Many applicants had firm requirements across all the way across the spectrum. Published rates end up grouping towards top of published ranges for each role. Could be caused by something else of course, this isn't necessarily commentary on cause/effect, but it's my observation.

I suppose if you can set the top end of the range to be something that you feel is exorbitant for a senior engineer, to show that you're willing to pay well for good talent. If you come up short, then perhaps you're just not competitive enough and no amount of playing hide and seek with the salary range will help.

You'll need objective criteria as to why you're making a less than top-end offer to someone, and perhaps a contractual way to promise them how they can make it to the top end... then it could work.

> $0 to $1m DOE...

Actually, that does help me. At least I know that for the right candidate, with the right skills and fit, we can talk. That means I am not wasting my time because I am not talking to a place that has an inflexible top dollar range controlled by someone other than the hiring manager that will become a brick wall if we hit that point.

I don't mind an interview process where I need to prove my worth to get that high offer. I just feel disheartened for everyone's sake when I get through a process and both sides really want to work together, but everything comes crashing down because of the money.

This is fairly true for most businesses already, though - at least in tech. It's just a question of how they value your skills that might not be in alignment. Some companies will value what you bring to the table more than others, just because of what their needs are. Or they just can't match pay. We regularly lose people to FAANG because we just can't comp the same, and that's been true for every startup I've hired for ever.

> We regularly lose people to FAANG because we just can't comp the same,

This would seem to support the GP's point - it sounds like you do have an inflexible top dollar range, meaning listing it up front would help to avoid wasting the time of you and candidates who are expecting more.

I think a more thorough answer to this question would require me to put too much detail out in public than I might be allowed to, but suffice it to say that we don't. We also don't really have a problem hiring and we pay above market, so this isn't me lamenting how tough the market is or anything.

Why wouldn't you include the option grant in the job advert though ? I know some people (including me, couple of years ago) who specifically try to find places where there is a huge upside potential through options

Most of the times it’s a company policy. As a hiring manager i never knew the salary of the open positions i was filling, only hr snd c-levels did.

Since my last job, asking the salary range is my first question in recruiter dms and generic emails. My current company was super open to reveal salary range on the first email, and i really appreciated it and eventually accepted the offer. People should demand transparrency.

It's company policy because it's good for the company.

It's company policy because it lets them take advantage of candidates.

I meant also why does it make sense even from company's perspective. It's not like these policies are set in stone.

another motivation is that companies don’t often want other employees knowing how much the new hire could be making, then realizing they haven’t had a raise in awhile. or that they didn’t negotiate nearly enough when they got hired.

Companies are often times weasels. They will try to figure out your current salary and offer some small increase.

In my experience you need to have leverage before negotiating, so I remain “negotiable” and never tell my current salary until an offer is on the table. Once they want you comp can be more easily negotiated.

People should know that even if you never tell them your current salary, they can often just look it up: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29834753

I know they can. I see no reason why I should volunteer information they can find on their own with a little effort on their part. If I have to research a corporation to get a job, they can damn well do some due diligence before trying to hire me.

That’s good to know. However, if someone wants to recruit me, they will need to offer significantly more than my current gig. Otherwise, I will simply not accept the offer.

Yes but if `negotiations` fail in the end because the max they can offer is lower than your acceptable minimum, both company and you end up wasting valuable time because now both of you need to do entire loop again.

I'm not allowed to. I've made the arguments for, and HR controls the actual job listings, and they won't put salary in the JDs. I've been trying for two years to make this happen.

Reasons I've heard -- and again, this is not me, this is what I'm told -- include * we can't as a matter of company policy, which can't be changed * we offer great benefits (true, they're the best I've ever had) and so it's not fair to us to post salaries, because it'll look low and we'll lose candidates * we want to start the conversation about the company and the position, and not the money * it lowers our ability to negotiate with candidates and thus costs the company money

I've made all the arguments you'd expect for why we should, generally, and why specifically not doing so costs us candidates, and in return I don't get an engaged debate, just select 1-2 of the above reasons and then refuse to elaborate or work to find a way to "yes"...

Which makes me suspect there's something else going on, but what? We pay significantly above-average, with good incentives, great benefits, it's not like we're a used car lot where the goal is to get someone on the phone or property to work the high-pressure magic.

But in short: for whatever reason, I can't, and I would bet other hiring managers are in the same situation. I'd love to hear an HR/legal person explain what the actual reasons companies don't allow this are.

I think this is the real reason right here: it lowers our ability to negotiate with candidates and thus costs the company money.

I started making more money faster when I stopped answering the salary question and start countering it by saying, "How much are you authorized to offer?"

> it's not fair to us to post salaries, because it'll look low and we'll lose candidates *

Is that a valid argument ? I mean if it is low even after going through the hiring process people will end up rejecting the offer. Its just that both candidate and company would have sunk quite a lot of time in interview process.

some places are bottom feeders, they put in time trawling for people who don't know their worth

Is there anything stopping you from just telling the range to the candidate the first time you talk to them?

I do.

It could be as simple as a preference of the CEO/CFO, maybe a bad experience of someone at the top.

Beyond a certain level, salary doesn't matter. There's a base salary and there's upside, so if you create something profitable, you'll get paid significantly more. In finance, bonuses are many multiples of your salary, dependent on your performance. It's similar in tech, where the RSUs are how you make your money.

You can't post bonuses/equity, since it really depends on your performance.

Your post assumes that you're doing some task, but with most of the jobs people on this site go for, you're paid to be creative and commercial and not to just perform some job.

In finance, sales and VP+ posts yes but I think for majority of us ICs and lower Ms bonuses are usually sub 20% of the total comp (even at the FAANGs)

Have you found it helpful? Having a recruiter at a "transparent" company give me a base salary range band where the Max was more than 2x the Min actually kinda left a bad taste in my mouth

As a candidate definitely. It tells me what is the maximum company is willing to offer to me. Helps to avoid situations when after applying and going through a lengthy technical interview process me and company both found out that their maximum is actually 1K less than what I currently make.

why? if its too low you can dip early in the process, if its too wide then you get room to prove yourself. There’s only upsides for the job seeker

Probably because

1) I received multiple ranges from different people, the minimum got lower and the maximum didn't change.

2) Being told "we value transparency" and then told your salary can vary by over 100% for the same level felt like someone spiting in my face, kind of like like when a cable company says "Your time is important to us, please hold"

3) Total compensation is much more descriptive than salary. Ie; I read today that the new CEO of Amazon only got 175k in salary in 2021.

It's harder for them to shaft you after you've jumped through all their hoops just to get an offer if they're up front about how little they intend to pay you.

But if I reject the offer because its too low, doesn't it simply waste their time and resources as well.

It might, but I don't think that's necessarily your problem. That's what they get for not being up front.

I mean it is a lose-lose situation. We both end up wasting valuable time.

No but they could prevent waisting their own time by beeing upfront.

I work at a place where we have trouble finding candidates. It's hard to find a good candidate, but sometimes we find someone we really like but they don't have a lot of experience, and sometimes we find someone we really like and they're very experienced. Both can come trough the same job opening, but we'll offer them different salaries for obvious reasons. Their "level" inside the company will be different once they join.

That doesn't seem really complicated to communicate. Levels are common across large companies. Just post the targeted levels and salary bands. You can still make out of band offers if you decide the candidate doesn't meet or surpasses the intended level.

why can't those levels and corresponding salaries can be mentioned in the job post. I don't think any candidate would object and the chances of candidates rejecting your offer would be minimum.

We did an a b test on our internal job board and it was a disaster.

Posting salaries is kind of ok for applicants but does nothing for hiring folks.

could you explain what was the disaster ? You had huge uproar from existing employees once they found out that company is willing to pay more to newer employees OR not enough candidates applied for the job posting with salary information ?

Not the person you asked, but we had a flood of low-quality candidates which clogged up our pipeline. Eventually the process was redesigned to have a more aggressive funnel, but candidates don't like that either.

Highly qualified individuals were not applying to jobs that they were perfect for.

If they were not applying because salary ranges were too low for them they would have ended up rejecting your offer in any case. So to me it looks like you saved time and resources on stray leads.

Salary was too “high”. Even though it was in their promotion bands.

It was very very strange.

I recommend asking the recruiter in their initial email / LinkedIn message to you what the comp range is. If it isn't a match or they won't tell you off the bat, move on to the next one unless you're dead set on wanting to work there.

They should. Sometimes people ask me if I know anyone they could hire for a role. I ask them what the salary is. If they don't have a straight answer, I don't help them advertise. Seems fair.

not to long ago lots of company websites didnt list the price of their products, some still don't.

it will take some time for them to grasp the "well, fuck you" mind cycle.

it is all about looking at things from the other persons perspective. if you cant do that the person or their business cant be all that important to you.

maybe for scarce skills we need an employee auction platform. get rid of those vague benefits and let the highest bidder win.

For the same reasons hospitals don't tell you the prices of their services.

I want to know the amount after tax