I feel that it is dismissive when companies do not post offered salary for the job, especially when they offer relocation.

It is very annoying when they have very specified requirements from the applicant and when it comes to the paragraph where they should say what they offer it starts to get very blurry.

Generally they copy trite phrases from the other offers. I would like to search those offers where employer treats applicants seriously and don't bother about those who don't.

There should be an option to filter it out.


I want this, in some form or another. It's something we have to work on with our current clients and get them comfortable with it. But, total compensation and not just salary is really important, and it lessens the information advantage of the employer over the candidate. That's almost always a good thing.

Only deferred for now because we're not actively working on it, but we will.

  • 1
    You could simply add two text fields(range) for salary and one list with currency. Leaving it empty means that employer does not want to give information how much he is going to pay you for your work, inserting number into one sets exact ammount of money, inserting number in both sets range. – Yoda Feb 13 '14 at 17:54

While I agree that, as a job seeker, this is annoying, it would also diminish the quality of jobs offered if each Employer had to post their compensation offers. Imagine the following scenarios:

I have $70,000 a year I am willing to spend on a qualified programmer, so I post a job and claim that amount is the compensation. I will get applicants with little or no qualifications who just see the $70,000 salary, and the ones I really want, who might be looking for a little more money, would pass me over. I spend time weeding through the unqualified applicants and never get a chance to offer the really good ones better compensation.

Scenario 2: I have a programming job I need filled. Secretly (if you want to call it that) I am willing to give this person about $70,000 a year, if they meet my qualifications. I get applicants who are interested in doing the things I say I need them to do, and who can show me they know what they are doing. I have fewer unqualified applicants to deal with and more time to speak with the qualified ones and decide if I want to pay them more if they say they require more.

The last phase of any application for employment should be to talk about compensation, never the first.

  • 1
    This is one of the reasons it isn't implemented yet. It really is nice to have, but you don't want it to be the be all end all filter which isn't going to help the candidate or the employer. We haven't figured it out yet, but we think about it a lot. – Will Cole Feb 13 '14 at 16:51
  • 4
    On the other hand, you may be wasting your time interviewing great people who will find your salary offer completely insulting if you keep it a secret until you've decided you want to hire them. – Wooble Feb 13 '14 at 16:51
  • Possibly, but I think the amount of time wasted is less and the opportunity for both parties to meet in the middle is greater and more valuable. – David Wilkins Feb 13 '14 at 16:53
  • @Wooble This is the reason why in my opinion all the cards should be on table. The way how effectively you examine candidates depends on you too. Maybe there is better way to do it. Job offer is like any other offer: product on a shelf, service. You see what you get for the price. – Yoda Feb 13 '14 at 16:58
  • Usually I would in fact be put off applying for a job that was far higher than I was expecting because I would assume I didn't have the qualifications – Richard Tingle Feb 13 '14 at 19:19

In short, I never want to see this directly on a job listing. Because:

  1. In the exact way you described it, you want to treat salary as a negative filter. Negative filters are often linear in nature and your decision to take a job is actually the result of a non linear combination of attributes about the job. IE salaries are largely based on geography, demanding a particular salary limits your geography search inadvertently when you probably mean to search for jobs that provide a certain lifestyle for the location they are in.

  2. For much the same reason, it's silly from the employers perspective to give a value for a person they haven't met yet. From their side they may be willing to consider both a very senior and a very junior candidate for the same position with varying packages that will help them make their decision. Forcing a salary up front can limit their ability to consider these options.

  3. Employers want to hire people who are excited about the problems they will be solving. When you hear about employers looking for passion in their interviews, that's really what they are saying, and the job listings are trying to sell you on the work (with varying degrees of success of course; there are lots of crappy job listings out there).

  4. It's perfectly acceptable to ask for more information in your cover letter. If a job sounds interesting and the company sounds like a place you'd want to work but you have concerns about the package, feel free to clarify things up front. That's a good thing to remember for the interviews also.

All that being said, having a full compensation package range could do a good job of helping us match candidates with jobs. So I'm not opposed to collecting this information, just opposed to exposing it directly as a filter.

  • 1
    I can't discuss all of those points because of lack of free time. Regarding to point 1. it's like buying a car. There are many factors, year, engine, color, gearbox, was it crashed or not. It is left to the buyer what is it that he/she searches. Some factor are substantial, some not but it should be left to the buyer not seller to decide. Regarding to point 3. people work for money. Employers try to glorify work in every possible way to make asking for salary inappropriate and unprofessional. I don't say there is no chance of getting excited, but I say that it is curve ball – Yoda Feb 13 '14 at 18:24
  • and does not refer to real life in most cases. – Yoda Feb 13 '14 at 18:27
  • 3
    @yoda Point 3 is what has me convinced that we have to do it in some way. Nick and I debate this a lot, but at the end of the day I hate that companies have both the information advantage going into the discussion as the only part who knows the compensation details, and find it slightly offensive that they expect to keep that advantage. – Will Cole Feb 13 '14 at 18:32
  • 1
    @Yoda your comment about point 3 is flawed. While it is true we all have jobs so we can make money, and enjoy nice things, money isn't the only reason we do what we do, or the only reason we look for something better. I know society is not Utopian by any means, but to say "no one does what they like doing, where they like doing it, they only do what they can for money" is far from the truth. If I am looking to hire someone, I don't want the person just looking for money, I want the person who fits well with my environment and who will improve it. – David Wilkins Feb 13 '14 at 18:48

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .