top 99 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] 295 points 1 week ago (12 children)

Almost realized their problem is expecting higher talent at lowballed prices.

  • source
  • hideshow 12 child comments
  • [–] 104 points 1 week ago (11 children)

    I'm almost convinced this guy realizes it?

    It's so on the nose, surely no one is that dense

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 11 child comments
  • [–] 49 points 1 week ago (6 children)

    There are people that you can ask about homelessness and they will, in total lack of self awareness, wonder why the homeless aren't cashing out their trust funds to stabilize their financial problems.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • [–] 15 points 1 week ago (5 children)

    Please tell me you’re kidding.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] 17 points 1 week ago (4 children)

    you meet people who have never felt hunger in their lives and it's very surreal.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 1 week ago (3 children)

    When have you met these people?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 4 points 1 week ago

    In my cousin’s case, at school. There was a girl they knew that was shocked to learn that not everyone had a private boat. To her, that was something everyone had, because of course they could afford it. Why couldn’t they?

    This is in high school by the way

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 9 points 1 week ago*

    Recruiters, HR and consultants are very often psycho and sociopaths, they kind of can't do their jobs for very long and not be... so... no, yeah, they are that dense, if by dense you mean craven and morally bankrupt.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 208 points 1 week ago (6 children)

    So instead you are going to spend how many hours interviewing people who will just turn down the lowball offer?

  • source
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • [–] 23 points 1 week ago (1 child)

    @socsa It's not just about saving that money though.Anyone that accepts the lowball offer is either ill-informed, or desperate, and they would prefer desperate employees because desperate employees will bend over backwards and suffer any amount of injustice or mistreatment just to keep their job. @twinkwithahammer

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 7 points 1 week ago

    I've done this. Told them up front what my current salary was. Tild them directly they could meet or beat it and we'd be good. Went through weeks of interviews.

    They offered me a $20k per year lower salary than what I was making. Because that was their salary for my region.

    I told them that was unacceptable. That I was uo front about the minimum I'd accept. They countered with a $15k paycut.

    They seemed genuinely syrprised when I said no.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 131 points 1 week ago (18 children)

    So close to being self-aware.

    Because its not the low-ball wages that are the problem, it's being honest about them that's the problem /s

    All you're gonna do by being dishonest like this is waste people's time and make them avoid you in the future.

  • source
  • hideshow 18 child comments
  • [–] 148 points 1 week ago (17 children)

    They genuinely believe this.

    I interviewed at a place a few weeks ago. They promised everything I wanted - mostly remote, salary range what I was looking for, and so on.

    Did the full circuit: initial screening, initial tech call, then a ~4 hour tech challenge + talk with the team, team lead and finally the CTO.

    The CTO, at the very end, tells me that the salary range actually tops out £10k below the minimum they advertised (£60-80k instead of the advertised £90-120k) AND that remote work would look much different - they need people 4 days a week in the office plus at least 2 weeks a month full 5 days. Basically, if you're lucky, you get the inverse of the advertised 1-2 days a month from the office...

    Of course I stood up and left, but these assholes are banking on people being desperate enough to ignore massive red flags like constantly being lied to from the very beginning.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 17 child comments
  • [–] 78 points 1 week ago (2 children)

    You have to start black balling these companies. Leave named reviews everywhere.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 40 points 1 week ago (4 children)

    Company name, please and thank you. Your experience is worth little if you don't share the company name.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 1 week ago (3 children)

    I would usually agree, but this company seemed vindictive enough to try and corner me legally if I shared details.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 5 points 1 week ago (2 children)

    don't be a dick don't be a dick don't be a dick

    Well, I suppose that's the whole point of the imbalanced power dynamic, and the only way to make changes will be to all potentially make personal sacrifices for the collective good, but sips tea, that's just like, my opinion, man.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 1 week ago (1 child)

    To be fair, that's easy to say when you're the one asking someone else to make that sacrifice

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 1 point 1 week ago

    Agreed, but pressure from the outside is all any of us have until we are in the situation ourselves, and my hope is that if I were, there would be enough pressure to amount to support if I saw consequences. I wouldn't think twice to contribute to a legal fund for someone in that situation.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 10 points 1 week ago (2 children)

    There ought to be a law against that kind of bullshit advertising.

    (Parse that both ways: 1. Maybe there is one if you look hard enough for it, and 2. If there isn't then maybe it's time to talk to a legislator about crafting one.)

    Not to give you homework in particular.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 4 points 1 week ago (3 children)

    If you had the initial offer in writing I would email it to them and say you'll take the job for no less, and based on their response and your local laws, take it to either a lawyer, a minister of parliament, or the reviews section of any site they post their jobs.

    Maybe even CC somebody important for extra spice

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 118 points 1 week ago

    This guy later:

    Nine people ghosted me after I offered them a job. People just don’t want to work anymore.

  • source
  • [–] 109 points 1 week ago (6 children)

    So you waste your time interviewing the 135k guy and he obviously rejects your shitty offer?

  • source
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • [–] 16 points 1 week ago

    They're hoping to somehow talk $135k guy into it.

    They'll bait the hook with things like "unlimited" PTO because there is a chance the reason you're interviewing is for an easier work environment, not more pay.

    It won't work most of the time but that's why it's called fishing and not catching.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 3 points 1 week ago (1 child)

    Charitably the best i can come up with at least the business would know they're not offering enough if people keep rejecting them. But then that's the status quo and all evidence points to wage suppression so clearly they're just making up bullshit to justify wage suppression.

    My wife applied to a job this weekend, no salary mentioned at all and a required field on the form was her salary expectation that would only permit a single number, no letters, not a range.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 79 points 1 week ago (17 children)

    The person making $135k probably keeps scrolling.

    This is nonsense from the very beginning. Of course they'll keep scrolling, would you accept more than 30% pay cut when you already have a job? I wouldn't, for pretty much any position. Even if you're being selfish and choosy, you want to filter them out so it doesn't waste your time.

  • source
  • hideshow 17 child comments
  • [–] 20 points 1 week ago (14 children)

    I mean, if you're already scrolling for job positions making $135k, you're probably not doing it for a raise. It's probably because you're not happy in your working environment.

    Still though, I would argue it speeds up the process to post the salary. Because if your 135k dude comes in for an interview and hears 90k, they'll bounce anyway, and we'll all have had our time wasted.

    🤷‍♂️

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 14 child comments
  • [–] 7 points 1 week ago (3 children)

    That's not what they want though. What they really want, is to pay the best person they can get the absolute minimum they need to pay them.

    They don't think about "what is the value of someone doing this job properly?"

    They are counting on candidates not knowing their worth and exploiting that, and this guy is basically saying that

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 1 week ago* (2 children)

    What they really want, is to pay the best person they can get the absolute minimum they need to pay them.

    Right, but workers aren't robots lining up for the quickest hiring they can get. They compare salaries to other places, lol.

    I don't think people are that clueless about their worth.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 6 points 1 week ago (3 children)

    Not happy in my work environment here. I’m not quite to 135k but I’m over 100k. I’ve scrolled through looking at jobs and still skip jobs that pay 30k less.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 1 week ago (2 children)

    I'm sorry you're not comfortable at work, first of all. But yeah, isn't it great that you wouldn't waste time going to interviews for those low paying jobs? Win win for everyone.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 1 week ago (1 child)

    That’s what I was getting at. If they don’t post the salary, it goes to the bottom of the list and if I apply and get told the range in a phone screening, I stop trying if it’s under my pay by more than $15,000 but still do reply but half-heartedly.

    Leading with the pay keeps from wasting time and theirs.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 9 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago) (1 child)

    I would love to be making 135k. And I would be very content. But A) baseline cost of living is different everywhere, B) Some people support big families on one salary, C) Some people have others that they care for with chronic health or developmental issues that are very costly, etc. So not everyone would necessarily be content at that salary. Plus, if you are making 135k and you CAN be making more, there is no reason not to be looking for opportunities to do so. There is no honor in making less than you are worth to someone else just because. Job hopping to get that raise is very much perfectly reasonable. And having more than you need means you can be generous and give to those who don't.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 3 points 1 week ago (3 children)

    Even being unhappy I'm not switching jobs unless there's going to be a pay raise. No guarantee the new place won't be worse. Unless I somehow manage to land something that pays the same but lets me just fuck around all day.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 1 week ago (2 children)

    Have you been in a situation where you were unhappy at your workplace?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 72 points 1 week ago (1 child)

    Right exactly, if you want someone already making $135k then you should offer $135k or more.

    Requiring salaries was passed as a pro-labor move. We know it increases wages over time. That's the point.

  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 70 points 1 week ago (2 children)

    If you want the 135k guy then offer to pay 135k idiot.

  • source
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 68 points 1 week ago

    That's too many words to say "I'm a piece of shit".

  • source
  • [–] 58 points 1 week ago* (3 children)

    And if you don't list wages, you'll get exactly the same talent pool (at best), but you waste the time of people who are already earning more.

  • source
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 42 points 1 week ago (2 children)

    And then they get pissed off, never consider the recruiter again, and that recruiter ends up with a green circle.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 56 points 1 week ago (1 child)

    What does he think will happen here?

    If you trick the person making $135k through a few interviews, they won't change their mind and take the lower paying position.

    You still end up hiring the $75k person, but with extra costs, overhead, and waste of time.

  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 55 points 1 week ago (1 child)

    Everyone wants nugget numbers posted on every menu.

    Fair enough.

    Here's the question:

    If you post chicken nuggets are 3 piece or 4 piece who is more likely to order?

    The person who wants 2 pieces is going to get a good deal.

    The person who wants 6 pieces is going to need to order two.

    So your customer base isn't the purchasing pool because you won't convince the 6 piece person to come in.

    It's the people who only want 2 nuggets that are willing to order.

    That's the difference.

  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 104 points 1 week ago

    "If people knew I was going to underpay them, they wouldn't apply for a job!" 🤡

  • source
  • [–] 50 points 1 week ago
    [–] 88 points 1 week ago (11 children)

    So, he wants to hire a person who is valued at 135k for 90-110k.

  • source
  • hideshow 11 child comments
  • [–] 51 points 1 week ago (1 child)

    he wants to hire that 135k person at 75k.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 34 points 1 week ago

    No, it's even worse, what he wants that 135k person to go through the application process.

    The guy seems to be from a placement agency so he doesn't actually care that the 135k applicant is going to tell the hiring manager to fuck of at the end of the application process when they get a 110k offer and thus not get hired, what he cares about is being seen sending tons of applicants.

    He literally has different motivations than those doing the hiring.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 16 points 1 week ago (7 children)

    I interpret this as the company willing to pay more if there's an exceptional match, but posting ranges practically filters these profiles out.

    But yeah, I'd be happier to actually see these ranges, way less room for companies to lowball you.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 7 child comments
  • [–] 37 points 1 week ago (3 children)

    Not posting salaries shows an utter lack of respect for my time.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 16 points 1 week ago (1 child)

    I remember when I was working as a contractor that I would simply not deal with certain placement agencies after they sent me towards positions which were way below my rate and wasted my time on it.

    In fact it's generally a pretty good red flag on an agency or potential contract that they're not willing to tell you early in the process what's the range of rates for the job.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 7 points 1 week ago*

    Yeah when I was working with recruiters the first question out of my mouth was "what's it pay?" Eventually got down to primarily going through one agency where the guy knew not to fuck me around but I made up for any annoyance that may have caused by being reliable. That was the only recruiter I ever dealt with who gave me multiple postings at a time to choose from.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 43 points 1 week ago (3 children)

    If you wanted someone making 135k to come work for you, then you should probably pay at least 140k.

    Greed. The answer is always fucking greed.

  • source
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 16 points 1 week ago (2 children)

    Well if they are unhappy with their job you could probably offer the same... But I am not switching jobs from something I like to something unknown without a minimum of 10%. So $150k is more reasonable.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 7 points 1 week ago

    This.

    Going from a reasonable job to an unknown is a significant risk, it needs to compensate that risk appropriately.

    If I hated my $135k job, I may take a very small pay cut but I'd really have to hate the current place, enough so that I couldn't stand a few months more of searching for something better.

    If I like my current role, well that risk premium grows significantly. They'd also have to find me, I'm not actually looking if I like my job.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 82 points 1 week ago (1 child)

    It's almost as though you're not supposed to get that person because you're not fucking paying enough for their talent… 🤔

  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • load more comments
    view more: next ›