[slownews45]

On hiring side we screen folks out pretty quickly who can't discuss money.

I used to be much more relaxed about this, but if you get burned doing a few rounds of interviews and it was a waste you wise up pretty quickly - teams do not like time wasted.

I've also found that folks who can't / won't talk money - usually not great hires for a bunch of reasons.

We're happy to talk through the different positions, levels, progressions and comp ranges for them all. But you have to have a clue about what type of comp would work for you (early on in initial call or two) or it's just not worth continuing forward.

[pmoriarty]

Sounds like we wouldn't be compatible.

You say "I've also found that folks who can't / won't talk money - usually not great hires for a bunch of reasons."

The same goes in my experience for companies which insist on talking salary before the job offer. It's a red flag.

"you have to have a clue about what type of comp would work for you (early on in initial call or two) or it's just not worth continuing forward"

Of course I have a clue, but I'm not going to put myself at a disadvantage in the negotiation by revealing it before I've been given a firm job offer and heard a number from the company first.

Also, in my experience recruiters are the ones who push hardest to hear salary expectations up front. They know it'll give them a leg up in negotiations, and some of them are even paid specifically to get that number (as one recruiter was brazen enough to reveal to me).

[philliphaydon]

> On hiring side we screen folks out pretty quickly who can't discuss money.

That’s because it benefits you as an employer.

I’ve been on the hiring side and I know there’s a budget. If someone is too high you want to push them out right away.

My flatmate in Singapore about 6 years ago was looking for a new job. Her salary was about 2200/m and she said the recruiter kept asking about salary.

I told her not to discuss it. She doesn’t /need/ a new job. If the company really values her then they will give her an offer. They have a budget. They offered her around 4600/m.

If she told them she was on 2200 it’s guaranteed they would have given her only a small bump.

Companies should never ask for salary info. Because it’s only used to get cheap labour.

[ishiz]

Why can't you simply ask the candidate "We offer $min to $max for this position, is that acceptable?" That lets you and the candidate know whether proceeding further is a good use of time.

[cutemonster]

Maybe because there's a chance the job applicant will suggest < $min

[drunkenmagician]

I've been a hiring manager in tech for a long time now, and recently as a candidate. As has already been commented, all companies have a budget. They may be able to increase that for the right candidate, but there is always a range, why not disclose that? As a candidate I know I'm not wasting my time, and the actual during the actual negotiation, its then that the 'value' of the new candidate to the org can be assessed. Pay people what they are worth, which is of course a reflection of their experience, talent, and attitude.

[blunte]

Indeed as a candidate, I don't want to waste my time either.

Your clients know their budgets. Why not just be upfront about that to the candidates. Tell us your budget or reasonable expected range your client can pay. Then if (when) we find that it's well below what some other hungry companies are paying, we can save you and us time by passing.

If you know your client is paying low, then just be open about it. Something like, "Ok, this client is a bit below market (and tell the upper limit they will pay), but they have these good things to offer." If the client has no good things to offer, and the pay is low, then you're still likely to not seal the deal with a candidate no matter what. So just cut the game and get to the point.

[b5n]

Giving a number early on in the process only weakens my position when it comes time to negotiate, waiting for an intital offer to counter is in my best interest. I apologize if that makes me a 'not great hire'.

If you're happy to provide a range, great, if I'm still there doesn't that generally indicate that the range is in line with my expectations?

I guess your comment kind of makes sense, I can see how corporate might interpret 'this person looks out for themselves' as a potentially bad hire.

[oezi]

The problem is that companies use any salary information you provide as a candidate to adjust their offer. A lot of companies that asked me what I made at my previous job (even though it is illegal to ask in Germany) offered me just 20% on top of my number.

This makes me think that all jobs position should have rather narrow target ranges which are stated up-front. Then you can discuss if you are too high level/low level for that job and range.

[KptMarchewa]

What would happen if you refuse?

[oezi]

They just kick you out of the process.

[ummonk]

Why can’t you just talk through your comp ranges and let the candidate decide whether that works for them?

[duxup]

Why can't you just tell them a range you're offering?

[dboreham]

Because then the candidate will be upset when you lowball them because they're not as strong or experienced as your range max merits.

[duxup]

And you won't feel the same when someone picks a number?

[pdimitar]

That seems to be the going theory in these circles, yes. If there were no initial expectations then the candidate can't feel low-balled.

[BurningFrog]

Might be a way to filter out the Perpetually Angry Engineers...

[BurningFrog]

I think that question applies equally to both parties.

[tomp]

No it doesn’t. The company is fundamentally in a much better negotiating position (they have much more data on salaries) and carry way less risk than the employee (a company has many employees, each employee has just one job).

[BurningFrog]

I see this kind of argument a lot, and I don't think it's valid in general. People confuse "big" with "having power over me", or something.

In this case, obviously a job seeker does have many possible employers to apply to.

[CRConrad]

In each negotiation about a position, the company is negotiating only about one of its many positions; the candidate[1] about what will (usually) be their only job. And companies usually, AFAIK, get a lot more applications[1] per position than each applicant[1] gets offers per job search.

So no, AFAICS you are wrong and the original thesis of "the company holds the advantage" is correct.

___

[1]: Consider the connotations of those words.

[swat535]

This is great actually because you avoid wasting candidate's time, they can move on quickly to better companies that have a more fitting interview approach.

[vips7L]

Have you been up front with the type of comp you’re willing to give?