Actually, I'm willing to bet the opposite. She's going to get significantly more than $12 an hour. Why? Because by saying she's willing to accept $12/hr and fetch lattes to get where she wants to be... she (deliberately) puts herself in a position with no negotiating power. You can't play hardball against somebody like that without feeling like a dick about it.
It's like saying to somebody who's about to punch you.. "Ok, you can punch me if that's what you want, if that makes you feel better", and if you say it right you make it almost impossible for that person to punch you.
You don't want to get into a fist fight with somebody who's unwilling to raise his arms, and you don't want to negotiate with somebody who surrenders all leverage.
I'm confident she'll get an offer that the employer genuinely believes is fair.
I'm not advocating the tactic at all. I'm simply predicting that she'll get a significantly better deal than $12/hr because only one employer has to step up and make a reasonable offer. You don't have to get the best offer on average, you simply have to get one good offer from one employer.
Some people assume that because she states she's willing to work for $12/hr that's automatically the best rate she's going to get offered. I think it will affect her average salary offer, but I don't think it will affect her best and worst offers much if at all.
Having seen several of these postings, I agree with you - the $12/hr rate helps her stand out in a positive light.
I'm not as sure about the leverage stuff, but it definitely communicates that she's someone who's looking to break in anywhere she can, as opposed to a bratty kid who thinks their "reverse job posting" is just too clever.
Ok, so if she comes to work for you she's in good shape. In the real world, however, when a jackal sees a gazelle it doesn't care if it has "pouty eyes" or not. Meat is meat, the easier to catch the better.
Many smaller companies make all salary information publicly available, and otherwise it leaks out anyway. The moment she figures out she's earning half the money her peers do she's going to feel taken advantage of and hurt her employer out of spite when given the opportunity to do so. Or she'll get a raise and then still resent her employer.
If morale is bad already and turnover is high, then sure, take the jackal approach. Otherwise you're better off with happier and more productive employees.
First, I do agree that she's selling herself short. Actually she shouldn't even mention salary to start with.
But I keep hearing that X is too low for living in the Valley, for varying values of X.
Out of curiosity, I checked the minimum wage in California and it's $8/hour. In SF it's $9.8. So how do blue collar workers survive? Do they all (mostly?) commute from outside the Valley? If they have to live in the Valley, are their living conditions terrible?
Blue collar workers have a hard time surviving and there is a massive problem of low/low-middle class flight in SF. This predominantly affects minorities, who have to live in less safe neighborhoods like the Tenderloin or Bayview/Hunter's Point, or move to cheaper places like Oakland.
SF prides itself on its diversity, but every year it gets whiter and whiter.
It's like saying to somebody who's about to punch you.. "Ok, you can punch me if that's what you want, if that makes you feel better", and if you say it right you make it almost impossible for that person to punch you.
You don't want to get into a fist fight with somebody who's unwilling to raise his arms, and you don't want to negotiate with somebody who surrenders all leverage.
I'm confident she'll get an offer that the employer genuinely believes is fair.