I have never applied to a job in the UK (or in USA), and wonder why you are being voted down. Is that not an appropriate question? Or will the employers and hiring managers not give answers?

Yeah, weird, I’d say? Even in Japan salary range talks come up during the first call. Or in intro emails.

because you ask for their range, but you don't tell them your range.

From GP:

> I'm looking for $120K to $130K. Before we get further into the process I want to confirm that this salary range is what would be discussed if we get to an offer.

yes, never tell them what you are looking for until you know what they are offering and are ready to reject the offer.

Why not?

If you tell them what you are looking for, if they are honest, can say no or short-change you.

Or they can just lie and say yeah we cover that.

If you ask for their range, if they are honest, provide their range.

If dishonest, now they have to provide a range which is within the range you are looking for, and is probably more difficult to gauge.

I find it easier to lie on a yes or no question, than a question of quantity.

But in the end, if you provide a quote, they may save themselves money if you value yourself below market.

> But in the end, if you provide a quote, they may save themselves money if you value yourself below market.

There's no single market value for workers, because there's no one archetypical worker, especially not for the kind of knowledge work many people here do where you have salary negotiations at all.

So it's your responsibility as a candidate to portrait yourself as the highest and most valuable kind of worker and ask for compensation that's commensurate with that. That number is also part of the signalling.

> Or they can just lie and say yeah we cover that.

Well, you'll detect that lie at the latest when it comes to signing the contract. If you do, that's a big red flag and you will save yourself a lot of hassle by walking away.

> I find it easier to lie on a yes or no question, than a question of quantity.

I'm not sure that makes much of a difference. But let's grant it for the sake of argument: in that case, you giving them a number also has bigger signalling effect.

Why not?

They more than likely will not answer or will dodge the question entirely. This is so ubiquitous that if you decided to only go through processes that do answer this question, you might not get anything at all. In many cases when they do answer, it is a bold lie; and if challenged "who told you that range?", "well if you hit certain performance parameters by year three your total package may be x...", "that's for the senior position, we are offering you the standard position".

Do your due diligence and research companies that behave in this manner via platforms like Glassdoor. AI makes this process much easier.

If they don't answer, then you call off the interview.

The suggestion that it's OP's/the candidate's fault jarred me a little. In my experience this is such a common situation in the UK that you could be jobless for a long time if you insisted on such details.

If you delay two million people looking for work by 1-2 months you are missing out on a lot of tax revenue, economic activity and perhaps even the real-estate market?

Governments can quite easily streamline the process. You have a db with resumes and job offers. Make the potential employers pay a fee above 1k. Require the registration to be up to date for any kind of social support. Strange requirements or strange behavior costs money. Not listing the salary is fine, it costs 10k. Want to interview more than 3 qualified applicants? 1k for each beyond 3, 5k for each beyond 10. Want more than two rounds of interviews? Pay the previous fee again for each round.

The government agency can also set the salary. They have a db full of people with the same job.

You want someone overqualified? Pay 50k per interview.

No show, unwashed poorly behaved candidate? Lower their salary range and/or cut their social support. Act professional or get thrown out.

Interviews in a government building supervised by an industry expert.

Public performance ratings for hiring companies. If they have 0 stars and are banned for 10 years you know what to expect when applying.

[delayed]

> You will basically have to be willing to walk away to get an answer other than "tell me what you're looking for and we'll let you know if you're in our range", which basically loses the negotiation.

No, it doesn't lose the negotiation. What makes you think so? Setting anchors and controlling the document is very powerful.

But yes, you need to know what you can get, and you need to be able and willing to walk away.

They're already anchored, because they know what everyone else is making. You won't kick them loose unless they are teeny tiny. The advice in this thread is basically straight from the patio11 blog post.

Yeah, that part of the blog post ain't that great.

> They're already anchored, because they know what everyone else is making.

Different people make different amounts of money.

I'm in the UK and always ask about salary range and if the role is remote before I agree to do an initial interview. It saves everyone involved from having their time wasted. The first contact is usually a recruiter though, I don't mention pay and benefits in interviews.

It isn't uncommon to be given an acceptable figure, go through several rounds of interviews and end up with job offer but with a lower salary than initially agreed because the recruiter padded the numbers.

It baffles me completely that anyone provides a CV without knowing a pay range

Would you agree to buy a house before you knew what it costs?

Literally insane behaviour

That's a pretty bad comparison. You aren't agreeing to work without knowing your pay. It's more like looking at a house before you know it's price.

Depending on your circumstances, that might be reasonable. If most people aren't quoting pay ranges and you need a job, not applying because of that isn't very smart.

I would make sure I knew the pay range before going through all the interview rounds, but not sending your CV in sounds too limiting to me.

There are a lot of people hunting for very few jobs, it's an employers market at the moment.

To disqualify you before you had the chance to explain why you're a fitting match? Tell me, why do you make such stupid statements?

This way you reveal your salary expectations first, which gives the other side the upper hand, in case they were prepared to pay more than you expect.

> It is within your power as a job applicant to ask the salary range in the first phone call.

For me, being fresh out of university, I didn't really think to press on salary too much and was just happy to land a job. In my first job, I recall not knowing the salary until I got the contract and offer (luckily, it was surprisingly above average pay).

When I moved into the software industry, I started to realise my worth a bit more and job-hopped for 10-50% pay bumps on an annual basis for the first few years and just started chasing higher salaries and turning down interviews unless they were in my desired range.

I know many other engineers who never changed this behaviour (or were never taught to be more ruthless and know their worth) and were just happy to receive any increase in salary - and as a result had 10+ years in the industry and had utterly pitiful salaries due to their employer simply taking advantage - you'll never receive the same increase in pay by remaining loyal to a company versus job hopping. I'm not sure if it's a cultural thing in the UK or what but this is the type of advice that should be given in schools more IMO.

Yeah, this is my experience too, trading up every couple of years (though sometimes I've taken a sideways or slight downwards step to broaden my experience or work for somewhere that I thought was interesting or worthwhile). I've had a couple of longish spells at companies, 7 or 8 years, and in both those cases I left because my pay wasn't keeping pace with the market or my growing responsibilities and management wouldn't budge. The irony being that at those places i was at my most valuable because of my institutional and political knowledge. I think companies greatly undervalue the benefits of long term employees.

Same here. You don't even know what you're worth if you keep working at the same company. And even then, if you don't know what you could ask, you will never know how much you're really worth.

Let's say you could command 100k/year but your first job is 30k/year and stay there for several years because you like the work environment. Then you'd go to the next company and ask for, I dunno, maybe 50k/year and think that's a huge bump. If you saw salary ranges for your job you'd be more inclined to start looking around even if you were happy at your current employer.

Nowadays things are a bit more transparent in the tech world with stuff like levels.fyi (but you have to know about those), but I'm thinking it would benefit people in all fields.

Just taking what you're offered is understandable when you're young and don't know any better. I think a lot if not most people had that experience with their first job(s). But there's no excuse for not taking agency over your own life when you're a bit older and more experienced. These people have to grow up and stop acting like kids, or accept that people will take advantage of them.

> It is within your power as a job applicant to ask the salary range in the first phone call.

Sure, but the first phone call happens after you have already spent potentially hours putting together a tailored resume, cover letter, and 3 creative writing prompts about how you resolved a conflict with a coworker.

This sounds great in theory. I've had a ranges that was very healthy on application, gone through a lengthy process including showing work examples and meeting the team to be offered below the bottom of the original offer - "We feel like this is a good starting sallary, we will review it in 6 months" - "The company has changed its investment direction so this is a revised number" - "We've created a new role that better fits your needs" etc etc...

This law will force them to actaully stick to a number.

>> This law will force them to actaully stick to a number.

No it won't - such a thing would never be pursued by anyone or enforced it's not worth the effort.

As I said, if you get lowballed after making it clear at the start then just withdraw and move on, find a company that is professional.

If the law is worth its money, than you can start working in this position, wait for the trial period to end (or until they let you go) and then sue for the compensation stated in the job ad (well, in a country with some level of work place protection you could).

Or play their game, sign the contract, keep your original job, not show up and later tell them why they did waste their time themselves. If they then threaten you, you can point at the law.

> such a thing would never be pursued by anyone or enforced it's not worth the effort.

How are you so sure about that? Seems to me that without enforcement this law is useless.

Some recruiters get paid on commission, meaning after 6 months of you being in the role they get paid. Other internal recruiters don’t work that way so they have no incentive to get you in the door for a minimum term.

The law will make it visible how much a company values someone with those skills. Companies won’t advertise the salary though, they will advertise the range.

From the article, this self disclosure of range is part of the problem. People who have been given lower salaries in the past for discriminatory reasons may well low ball themselves if they offer up the range.

It's also within your power to negotiate price of emergency treatment. If they want too much, just turn and walk away. Look for a professional clinic. Firmly stand your ground.

Consider that a lot of people don't have the luxury of just not working until proper work appears. Because they have to pay for housing and food and if they don't have work, they would not be able to.

In software or other high paying jobs where you have experience in the industry this is true.

There are plenty of jobs where that is not true. I think the article using a picture of a jobscentre as a stock photo should give you a clue as to who it is there to help.

And it was in their power to refuse. Now it won't be.