Salary ranges?

Oh man! Ad-blocking software has been detected! :'(

This website is run by the community, for the community... and it needs advertisements in order to keep running. Blocking our ads means your killing our stats!
Please disable your ad-block, or become a premium member to hide all advertisements and this notice.

Maybe somebody here can answer this one for me. I've always wondered why some job adverts show a salary range instead of just one figure (or no figure at all sometimes).

Maybe this should be on Mythbusters but I've always been told if you go for a job where the advert shows a salary range that you are more likely to be offered the lowest number on the range or, at best, somewhere in the middle.

The reason I have been led to believe over the years is that the salary range is shown to give prospective applicants an idea of the pay scale they will acheive over the years (ie: with mandatory annual salary increases etc).

Can somebody actually clarify this please? Or, is the above just a myth and that the salary range is actually showing you (depending on your experience) what the company will be prepared to negotiate for that position?

Anyone got an answer for this one?!

 

Oh man! Ad-blocking software has been detected! :'(

This website is run by the community, for the community... and it needs advertisements in order to keep running. Blocking our ads means your killing our stats!
Please disable your ad-block, or become a premium member to hide all advertisements and this notice.

I think the adverts just take the supposed average wage (yeah right) and move it up 5K or 10K and then advertise that to get people in.

 

The range will be the range approved by the Directors for that particular vacancy. They display it so that people who are already earning above that wage can not waste their (and the company's) time applying for a job offering too little.

However, If I had a job for 25k-30k, and only posted a single figure - lets say the midrange salary: 27k. This does two things.

1) Anyone applying for the job will expect 27k if they are offered the job. If I want to hire the person, but dont think they are quite at the required standard yet, then I would want to offer 25k, causing all sorts of issues.
2)Anyone currently earning 28k is unlikely to apply, even though the job might be perfect for them. I could lose out on the perfect candidate because, although Im willing to pay up to 30k, I've only advertised 27.

The salary range is there to tell you the expected range of the successful applicant. The value you are offered is determined (within that range) on your experience (and to some extent, your current salary/salary expectations).

 

It probably varies greatly by employer so there is no set formula for these things. At my last job, which was not in IT, I applied expecting to get the lowest from the salary range in the ad. They ended up offering me the maximum!

I've had friends tell me they have hopped around to a few jobs and have always been offered the lowest in the ad.

 

Yeah, some employers do this - I have seen IT jobs with a salary ranging from 16,000 all the way to 25,000 for the same job. I think some employers want to be flexible in their hunt for a new employee as they are not always certain whether they want someone at the top of the scale or someone with good potential that they can train up.

In the UK, a lot of Public Sector positions have a very rigid salary scale and it is the salary scale that they advertise. For the most part, they will look to start new employees at the bottom figure, irrespective of their age, ability, etc etc. At least, that's been my experience so far.

 

Gotcha! It's pretty much as I thought then. One thing I have learned is to turn down any questions regarding salary until they say the figure first.

Thanks for all the great input everyone! Makes things a lot clearer now.

 

Absolutely this.

Repped.

 

Like the guys have said - usually a salary in an ad will be tagged with 'depending on experience'.
But within a company structure each job will be assigned a salary bracket which will apply to any internal or external people who do that role.

It's a case of 'this is what the role is worth to us'. If you can't command the minimum salary, you aren't ready for the job. If you should be earning more, you're ready for a promotion to a more senior position.

That having been said, as with most corporate things, this usually turns to rat-**** in real life, when secondments and bonuses, red circling and re-structuring mean that it is quite possible to fall outside those brackets or even be paid more than your own boss.

 

resurrecting the recently deceased... :P
what's the best way to handle salary questions in an interview?

'..how much were you/are you currently earning?'
'..our salary band is x-y... how much are you looking for?'
etc

 

I can only tell you how not to do it which was what I did for this one, they asked what are you on right now and what are you expecting.

I answered my current wages plus travelling I would be happy.

As it turns out they offered more then that, but I think I was lucky.

 

Depends on how badly you want the job and how much of your "hand" you are willing to show. If you are fairly certain that you know what your fair market value is, I believe there's no harm in stating your expected salary range to a potential employer. If you're willing to work for the lowest figure of the salary range, then you'll be satisfied. If the employer has more money budgeted for the position than you have requested, then you become MORE attractive to the employer - and if you're hired, the employer wins AND you win. On the other hand, if the employer has LESS money budgeted for the position, then they're either going to have to find someone capable who WILL work for what they've budgeted or they're going to have to increase their budget to get someone capable.

Either way... what have you lost?? Nothing... they'll either pay you what you require, or they weren't going to pay that much anyway.

Certainly showing your hand weakens your position, because the employer MIGHT have offered you more money if their budget exceeds your range. But is your goal to maximize your salary, or is your goal to get a fair wage and make yourself look MORE attractive to employers, thereby increasing the chance you'll get hired? I typically opt for the latter... and my salary hasn't hurt for it!!

 

y+benefits? you settle to short dear fellow

z+benefits!!!

 

ahh credit crunch smchedit scmunch

People get what they pay for, and having one bad ass tech is worth the price of two incompetent techs and the consulting to fix the mess they may make
I've never had trouble getting the salary i expect, i assume due to the fact I know what the frack i'm talking about, and can get that across in an interview with various level people

Aim high, if they knock you down to y+benefits you have lost nothing ;)

 

Pfft! z+benefits+1!!!

 

z+benefits+∞ !!!!1!!11!!!!1!!!!!!

+1

 

Damn it!! I knew I should have held out for better than a+benefits!