[Mister_Snuggles]

I've got a handful of general rules around salary that tell me not to apply for certain jobs:

- I don't apply to jobs that don't list a salary range. This is a red flag that tells me that the employer doesn't have the budget to pay market rates and that applying and interviewing could be a colossal waste of time for both of us. I get that the employer may not be willing to pay what I want based on my experience, etc, but the salary range tells me if getting what I want is even possible.

- I also don't apply for jobs that don't list an annual salary. I get the vibe, rightly or wrongly, that when you only list a monthly salary you don't expect to keep your new hire around very long.

- Jobs that are listed as "xx months with possibility of extension" are also right out. A job, for me anyway, represents a huge commitment and if the employer isn't willing to make that same commitment then I'm not interested.

[johnward]

I usually follow all of these. The one thing that gets me is when a recruiter calls me up. I usually talk to them because I don't want to be a dick and you never know they my actually be valuable one day. I tell them my salary. "oh well this one pays about 70% of that and it's an 8 month contract. I'd like to put you in for this". I'm not leaving a full time position for a contract position with less pay. I might consider a contract position at about 150-200% of my current pay.

[bhayden]

I find telling recruiters my salary is a really bad idea. They then tell the company I am applying to what my salary is, which is a really shitty way to start off salary negotiations. I actually just don't work with recruiters anymore due to such a shitty experience.

[johnward]

Yeah my new rule of thumb is to avoid telling them what I make and try to tell them what it will take for me to leave my current position. I think I'm underpaid so I don't want to start by telling them how underpaid I am.

[sukilot]

You can tell them a high target that would absolutely get your interest in the job. If it hits, great next step in your career. If it misses, no skin off your back.

[mgkimsal]

Either lie about your salary, or give them a higher target. For FTE, I give recruiters a decidedly large number. It's not undoable in this region - I know a few people in that range - but it's generally high enough that they (occasionally) laugh at me. But I did have someone get back and say they could get to about 80% of that, which was a good starting point (ultimately didn't land the position, but probably would have taken it at the time).

[dennisgorelik]

Do NOT lie about your salary.

You do not have to tell your salary, but lying - is bad for carma.

Telling your salary target is a good idea that saves time for everyone involved, but it should be clearly outlined as a target, not as your current salary.

[mgkimsal]

on second glance, I tend to agree, but I would never disclose my current salary anyway. I have lied in the past, although the 'lie' was... more combining external benefits for a slight inflation of base pay.

But... just never bother telling your current salary. It doesn't help you in dealing with recruiters at all.

"$x is what will make me consider a new position" is all you need to say.

[s73v3r]

In my recent round of looking for work, the first thing I've asked the recruiter is what the pay range for the job is, and almost all of them have given it.

[protonfish]

That's reasonable, but I've found that I am no longer put off by open-ended contracts. I found many companies doing this because they know their hiring practices aren't good enough to weed out posers. If you are good at your job, you have little to worry about. Besides, I've lost more jobs that were "permanent" than contract. Employer commitment is a fairy tale from the days of yore.

[Lawtonfogle]

In which case they should expect to pay a premium to compensate the good employers for the risk they take on switching. Around where I live, they often use contracting companies on a contract to hire, and in that case the profit the contracting company is making is the premium, but one that the employee isn't getting. This results worse candidates on average as the best are going to either demand the guarantee from the start or that they receive the extra pay for the risk instead of it going to a contracting company.

[Mister_Snuggles]

This is what a probation period is for. I have no issue applying to a job that is "Permanent with XX month probation period".

[protonfish]

I agree that in a perfect world, that would be the proper way, but I also know I would have missed out on some excellent opportunities if I took that attitude.

[Silhouette]

I don't apply to jobs that don't list a salary range. This is a red flag that tells me that the employer doesn't have the budget to pay market rates and that applying and interviewing could be a colossal waste of time for both of us.

This one also has an evil sibling: you say something meaningless like "Salary: Competitive" and then when an applicant turns up to interview, you ask them what they're currently on. I see absolutely no reason, from the candidate's point of view, that discussing current compensation with a prospective future employer would ever work in your favour.

Worst case (edit: for not disclosing your current deal) is that the manager/HR drone stick to their guns and won't move the discussion on before you give a number, in which case you know what kind of employer you're dealing with and can decide to leave the interview early if your interest in working with them has faded.

[maxsilver]

"Salary: Competitive" almost always means "15 to 40% undermarket", in my experience. If the Salary was truly competitive, they wouldn't be ashamed to post it.

Similarly, if they say "Good" or "Great" benefits, the benefits are probably poor or average at best. If they actually had really good benefits, they'd be specific about naming them.

[Silhouette]

"Salary: Competitive" almost always means "15 to 40% undermarket", in my experience.

That sounds about right, though it could be even less if they're aiming at new graduates and can throw in some sort of impressive-looking benefits. An employee stock options scheme or contributory pension scheme often seems like a great addition to a new starter, because the naive candidate doesn't understand how much such things are really worth and how much of the package they'd probably get from other employers as well.

[sukilot]

You tell them the number you want, and you round waaaay up, of you reply "Confidential", or "X-to-Y, variable".

I had a hiring manager push me hard for this info at one job. I ended up taking the job (maybe lower pay than I could have gotten) and he turned out to be one of the worst people to teamwork with at the company.

[jchendy]

> I don't apply to jobs that don't list a salary range. This is a red flag that tells me that the employer doesn't have the budget to pay market rates

Do you only work for startups? Most major tech companies don't list salary ranges, and Google, Facebook, etc obviously have the money to pay what people are worth.

[Mister_Snuggles]

I've always worked outside of technology companies. It seems to be the norm, at least with the organizations I've applied to, to list a salary range.

[ryandrake]

These are good rules when the going is good. But you need to be flexible when times are bad. In technology (and probably many other industries), it's feast and famine. Whilst today, a good engineer can expect to see recruiters spamming them weekly or even daily, this wasn't the case in, say, 2001-4, 2008-9. Your rules also seem to be for people who already have jobs. When you're unemployed, your pickiness factor has to be zero--any job is better than no job.

[Silhouette]

When you're unemployed, your pickiness factor has to be zero--any job is better than no job.

This is true only if you also have nothing put away from the good times to cover your essential living costs for a while and give you a safety margin.

Assuming you do -- and you need a very, very good reason not to in this business -- then taking the first offer that comes along just because you're currently unemployed is very much not the optimal strategy. You voluntarily reduce your negotiating power to nothing, and if that were really necessary, no professional contractor/freelancer would ever survive in business for long.

[ryandrake]

Yea, yea.. On the Internet, everyone has a fully-stocked 12-month emergency fund (and a supermodel girlfriend). In reality, nobody does. I can tell you, as someone who's been unemployed and a month away from living in my car, you take whatever job comes along. You can fret about your "optimal strategy" and "future negotiating power" while you are enjoying your next hot meal.

[Silhouette]

In reality, nobody does.

I'm sorry for the situation you found yourself in, but that isn't remotely true. I've been working independently for a while, and I've sometimes discussed how much is worth putting somewhere safe in the current economic climate with friends in broadly similar positions. The idea that anyone wouldn't do that was universally regarded as crazy.

Of course there might be exceptions. If you're starting your first business and you're bootstrapping, you might choose to accept a much higher level of risk than most normal employees ever would in order to maximise your chance of eventual success. (I know reasonable people who would disagree with even this, but there is at least a decent argument in its favour.) If you have a dependent with a serious medical problem and you need the money to fund treatment, you do what you have to do.

But if you're working in IT, in a good period, and you really are living month-to-month without either building up an emergency fund or having a clear reason to be spending everything you've got on something that is more important to you, I'd recommend consulting a good financial advisor and working out a budget so you can live within your means and better protect yourself before the next down period in the industry.

[ryandrake]

That's awesome that you can do that, congrats! It's definitely a great goal for anyone, to one day get to that point, I totally agree.

[Silhouette]

Just for anyone who is reading this and wondering if they could or should be saving up this kind of fund, here's a very simple but not unrealistic example.

Suppose you're working in software development in the UK, recently graduated and now with a little experience but still quite early in your career.

If you're outside London and living in a shared place, maybe your salary is £30k, and your monthly living costs for rent, bills, and essentials like food and travel are £1,500. Your net monthly income after taxes and student loan repayments is probably about £1,850.

So, you have a surplus of £350 per month. If you set that aside throughout your next year of employment, sticking it in an ISA (a tax-exempt savings account), then by the end of that year you have nearly three months of safety margin.

Suppose, ignoring inflation to make the maths easy, that your salary increases at about 10% that year, without any negotiation or changing jobs. Now your take-home pay is probably about £2,000 after deductions, giving you a £500 surplus each month. If you saved that away the following year, you'd have more than 6 months of safety margin set aside within 2 years of starting to save.

Of course these are just example figures, hopefully not unrealistic for someone early in a software development career in the UK today, and they ignore any one-off major expenses you might have like getting a car serviced and MOT'd once a year or taking a foreign holiday. But even if you do those things, you can surely still save something, and when it comes to having a bit in reserve in case your career hits a bump, anything is better than nothing.

Edit: After checking a few prices, it turns out that some costs of living have gone up much less than I expected since I was that young. :-) So actually £1,500 is probably a lot more than you really need to spend on essentials under the conditions I mentioned, even if you're living in a tech-focussed area, and saving a few months' worth of essentials expenses should be much quicker than I worked out above.

[Mister_Snuggles]

I absolutely agree. These are the rules I follow right now, but if my situation changed I would definitely become more flexible on them.

[vonmoltke]

A good engineer with the right buzzwords and in the right location.

[emodendroket]

What's amazing to me is all the recruiters who call you to ask if you want to do temp-to-perm work when you have a full-time job. Why would you agree to that?

[johnward]

I just said the same thing. Unless I absolutely couldn't stand another day in my full time gig I would never leave for temp work.

[rmc]

Well, clearly the temp salary should be much higher than perm salary in order to compensate for the extra risk, right?

[emodendroket]

The salary numbers tend to magically shrink if you actually say you'd like to hear more.

[firebird84]

Not just the extra risk, but often times you are missing out on very significant benefits which you will have to pay for out of pocket if you want them back. In my position, salary is probably about 75% of my compensation, all told. Maybe less.

[vonmoltke]

Screw that, how about the recruiters who call offering straight contract work?

[hibikir]

temp work with the possibility of extension is very common around here for both ends of the skill spectrum. The lower end is hard to evaluate, so companies give themselves an out that is not called a layoff. On the high end, accounting comes into play: Consulting fits a different bucket than full time employees, so often it's much easier to hire a consultant and pay him well than to hire the same person full time.

I look at my own current job. I was offered a full time position 6 months ago, for an amount that is pretty in line with local salaries. As a consultant, they were able to offer me a whooping 60% more, and that's after I accounted for all the benefits of the full time position.

I find it pretty screwed up, but it is the realities of the local job market, where very senior full time devs are severely underpaid unless the are consultants or telecommuting for bay area companies.

[Mister_Snuggles]

Unfortunately, this is very true. I don't understand why it's considered "cheaper" to pay more money to a consultant than the salary+overhead of a regular employee. I get that they're different parts of the budget, but ultimately it's still money spent by the organization.

[Silhouette]

It's not necessarily cheaper, but in a large organisation it could well be easier in practice.

The person making the hiring/firing decisions probably isn't responsible for the bottom line. They'll be working within defined constraints on what they are authorised to do and how much they are authorised to spend on doing it. If they want to go outside those constraints, they probably have to follow a standard procedure to request authorisation to do so, which may well involve legal as well as accounting approval, explicit approval from management at increasing levels of seniority depending on the request, etc.

If senior management haven't kept a careful eye on how their policies are actually being implemented, this can easily create perverse incentives where doing something is favourable to the person making the decision even though it is less favourable for the overall success of the organisation. The current example, hiring expensive contractors for very long term gigs instead of salaried staff, is not unusual.

Other similar results of potential interest to geeks would be things like renting SaaS rather than buying (often more expensive in the long run, but done because the relatively low recurring opex is preferred to relatively high up-front capex) and buying commercial software from a preferred supplier rather than using something Open Source for free (because preferred suppliers have been pre-vetted and approved so their product can be bought immediately, while using someone's FOSS might need legal to review the licence if it's one they haven't seen before, which can involve all kinds of "business justification" paperwork and extensive delays).

Edited to add: Of course, there may be other factors as well. Contractors might be more expensive per day but often don't come with the long-term legal obligations of hiring an employee (a big deal in places with relatively strong employment rights laws, such as most of Europe). For software purchases there may be issues of ongoing support contracts or (re)training and migration costs that dominate the total cost of ownership, making rent/buy or COTS/FOSS decisions a relatively minor factor. Sometimes the incentives set up by senior management who are looking at the big picture aren't as perverse as they look from below.

[falcolas]

> As a consultant, they were able to offer me a whooping 60% more, and that's after I accounted for all the benefits of the full time position.

As a consultant, you're responsible for paying taxes that they would normally pay, which when combined with other benefits represents up to 50% of your total salary as a normal employee. You also lose out on a number of legal protections you gain as a regular employee.

[silver1]

It looks like showing salary is more common in USA but in other countries it is NOT a norm.... and unfortunately this gives an edge to the employer to play the game the way they want as very rarely supply is less than demand!