Is it acceptable to offer to take a lower salary than advertised?

ScorpiondeRooftrouser

mattcanary wrote: »

Does your company run at a financial loss? Doesn;t sound a very shrewd attitude at all....

No, it doesn't. Explain why you think it is not shrewd to employ people for salaries they are worth rather than for more than they are worth.

I know that in local authorities and such like they have a job and will pay "the rate for the job" regardless of the competence of the person employed.

In industries like mine you pay what the person is worth. Some people are worth a lot more than others when ostensibly doing the same job. What's your issue with this?

Some guy came in the other day having been told "the job paid £40K" by an agent (the agent had been told £30-40) and on interview it became painfully obvious he wasn't worth anything like £40K. It transpired his current company, which he had been with for 10 years, was paying him £30K. Now, we might have employed him as a steady plodder for £30K, but not for 40. We wanted somebody with more ability for that money. The agent had wasted everyone's time in telling him to ask for more money than he was worth.


EDIT: Actually, I think most people are missing the point here. If someone is on £30K from their old company (and hasn't been stuck on £30K for years) then I have no problem for them making the case that we should pay them £35K, or £40K. The issue is if they come in and say they are willing to do the job for £30k I am going to assume they don't think they are worth any more than that and I am not going to consider them if I want someone who is.

Gavin83

ScorpiondeRooftrouser wrote: »

Well I'd say you are wrong, and my experience, in my industry, backs me up on this. People with 20 years experience on a low salary are generally poor, while people with 5 years experience on a high one are good.

There are exceptions, but I don't believe that every other company is run by incompetents. A small few are. Most are run by sensible, capable people who pay salaries accordingly.

It's my experience that companies will pay the minimum they can get someone for, not necessarily what someone is worth. Maybe it depends on the industry, I work in IT, maybe your industry is different. I'm actually one of the best paid people in my department but it doesn't make me better at the job.

As you brought it up does years of experience equate to ability? Not necessarily but I'd still suggest it's a better guide than current salary, hence why many employers ask for a number of years experience in their adverts.

Wait, aren't you the guy a month or so back that suggested people should lie about their salary when applying for jobs? If so the irony of these comments is laughable!

ScorpiondeRooftrouser

Gavin83 wrote: »

It's my experience that companies will pay the minimum they can get someone for, not necessarily what someone is worth. Maybe it depends on the industry, I work in IT, maybe your industry is different. I'm actually one of the best paid people in my department but it doesn't make me better at the job.

As you brought it up does years of experience equate to ability? Not necessarily but I'd still suggest it's a better guide than current salary, hence why many employers ask for a number of years experience in their adverts.

Wait, aren't you the guy a month or so back that suggested people should lie about their salary when applying for jobs? If so the irony of these comments is laughable!

Yes, everybody exaggerates their salary. Which is true, and doesn't clash in the least with the idea that what people are being paid is a reflection of their ability; and certainly not with the basic idea that you should ask for more than you are currently on if you think you are worth it; which is where I started from. I work in IT as well and there are people better than me paid less but they will not be paid less for long - they are paid less because of their lack of experience. They will quickly come up the ladder. A young person who has gone from 20K to 30K in 2 years is a different prospect from someone who is sat on £30K after ten years with the same company.

Current salary is an excellent guide of how much their current employer values them. If their current employer has had them for five years and doesn't think they are worth paying much money to, they are likely to be making that decision on much better information than I can gather in an hour long interview.

bugslet

I'm basically with Scorpion on this.

Although it's a world of difference to his work, the principle is the same for us.

A short while back there was an ad for a major haulier based about 15 miles from our Southern depot paying artic drivers £9.00 an hour basic ( the overtime and general terms weren't brilliant either). I pay £3.00 more an hour. Admittedly I'm not in general haulage, but I don't take drivers with experience in my sector, so I'm taking someone on and training them up.

In theory I could get cheaper drivers, but I want someone decent that doesn't mind hard work and has a good attitude. I get them and they stay for years, well decades sometimes.

Gavin83

ScorpiondeRooftrouser wrote: »

Yes, everybody exaggerates their salary. Which is true, and doesn't clash in the least with the idea that what people are being paid is a reflection of their ability; and certainly not with the basic idea that you should ask for more than you are currently on if you think you are worth it; which is where I started from.

Aren't they in direct contrast to each other though? Let's take two people, one earning £20k and the other £30k applying for a job at your company for £35k. By your logic the guy on £20k isn't as good at his job as the other guy so you wouldn't employ him. However let's say they both lie (which you suggest is acceptable) and both say they earn £35k. Therefore by your own logic they are both equally as capable of the job. So despite you suggesting you wouldn't employ a person on a lower salary you may well be regardless so the salary someone earns becomes somewhat redundant.

ScorpiondeRooftrouser wrote: »

A young person who has gone from 20K to 30K in 2 years is a different prospect from someone who is sat on £30K after ten years with the same company.

You'll never find out this information though. You could potentially find out current salary but salary progression throughout their career is unlikely. Therefore on paper these guys are the same.

ScorpiondeRooftrouser wrote: »

Current salary is an excellent guide of how much their current employer values them. If their current employer has had them for five years and doesn't think they are worth paying much money to, they are likely to be making that decision on much better information than I can gather in an hour long interview.

Look I do understand what you are getting at, however I don't think salary = ability but salary does somewhat = experience. Experience can sometimes = ability but it isn't always so.

My point is employers won't generally pay someone extra money for the fun of it, the member of staff has to ask. Some are too shy to do so and therefore they get left behind. Unless social confidence is required for the job at hand it doesn't make them bad. For example at work I know a developer. He's great at developing but really quiet and lacks personal confidence. He's really unpaid for what he does but this is because he's so shy and wouldn't dare ask for extra. He doesn't deal with customers directly and therefore confidence isn't key to his job but I'd happy have him in my team any day.

On top of this I'm sure we all know that person at work who is paid a small fortune but is a bit crap at what they do.

bugslet wrote: »

In theory I could get cheaper drivers, but I want someone decent that doesn't mind hard work and has a good attitude. I get them and they stay for years, well decades sometimes.

I feel what you're suggesting is different though. Are you basically suggesting that offering a higher salary encourages loyalty and hard work? If so I totally agree with you. It's much easier for someone to put the graft in at work if they feel they're being fairly rewarded for it. If a person feels they are underpaid they are more likely to suffer from a lack of motivation or look elsewhere. Sadly not all employers agree with your stance though.

bugslet

I did say it was a world of difference from Scorpion and the OP, but I do feel the basic principle is the same.

If a driver came to me and offered to work for less, it wouldn't work for me. I've decided what I think a man's labour is worth, I'd wonder why he didn't rate himself better.

And yes, better wages and just being treat better generally does keep staff. In a role that isn't famous for staff loyalty, mine just won't go!:D.

hyubh

ScorpiondeRooftrouser wrote: »

To whom?

People who take your initial posts on this thread too literally? 'It's not about fitting the requirements. It's about actually being good at your job.' Nope, it's about fitting the requirements of the potential employer, no more no less. Of course, a tighter fit is superior to a looser fit though ;-)

You do realise I told him NOT to say he wants £30K for a £35K role, don't you?

Great - which made a bit odd that you apparently banged on with the idea that going for a job offering 35K when you're currently on 30K is out of the ordinary. Especially odd, in fact, when the context is someone going for a job in local government - for many roles, if you want to make a salary jump, it won't matter 'how good you are', but require moving the private sector where there aren't similar grading constraints.

(PS - we're in agreement that it doesn't make much sense for someone who thinks they are worth 5K lower than the salary on offer to nevertheless get the job partly because of it!)

ScorpiondeRooftrouser

hyubh wrote: »

People who take your initial posts on this thread too literally? 'It's not about fitting the requirements. It's about actually being good at your job.' Nope, it's about fitting the requirements of the potential employer, no more no less. Of course, a tighter fit is superior to a looser fit though ;-)

No. The point is hundreds of people fit the requirements. Fitting the requirements is not enough.

hyubh wrote: »

Great - which made a bit odd that you apparently banged on with the idea that going for a job offering 35K when you're currently on 30K is out of the ordinary.

I banged on about this? Really? Quote the part where I suggested this.

I said if someone applied for a £35K job and SAID THEY WOULD TAKE £30K I'd reject them.

ScorpiondeRooftrouser

Gavin83 wrote: »

Aren't they in direct contrast to each other though? Let's take two people, one earning £20k and the other £30k applying for a job at your company for £35k. By your logic the guy on £20k isn't as good at his job as the other guy so you wouldn't employ him. However let's say they both lie (which you suggest is acceptable) and both say they earn £35k. Therefore by your own logic they are both equally as capable of the job. So despite you suggesting you wouldn't employ a person on a lower salary you may well be regardless so the salary someone earns becomes somewhat redundant.

I have said that exaggerating salary is accceptable and fairly ubiquitous. What you are describing is an outright lie that would become obvious. My position would be to assume that anyone telling me they are on £33K is on £30K when it comes to making them an offer.

Gavin83 wrote: »

You'll never find out this information though. You could potentially find out current salary but salary progression throughout their career is unlikely. Therefore on paper these guys are the same.

Agents volunteer this information as a matter of course. Of course this is unreliable, but it should also be clear from their CV history how they have progressed.

Gavin83 wrote: »

Look I do understand what you are getting at, however I don't think salary = ability but salary does somewhat = experience. Experience can sometimes = ability but it isn't always so.

My point is employers won't generally pay someone extra money for the fun of it, the member of staff has to ask. Some are too shy to do so and therefore they get left behind. Unless social confidence is required for the job at hand it doesn't make them bad. For example at work I know a developer. He's great at developing but really quiet and lacks personal confidence. He's really unpaid for what he does but this is because he's so shy and wouldn't dare ask for extra. He doesn't deal with customers directly and therefore confidence isn't key to his job but I'd happy have him in my team any day.

On top of this I'm sure we all know that person at work who is paid a small fortune but is a bit crap at what they do.

Yes, but they are the minority.