Being in the business field for some years, there are some things that I have come across and feel are wrong, and would like them to be changed. So I write this article, and I hope people working in society will accept my suggestions and make changes. How to make changes? Two things you need to do: First, if you agree with my points, share this article on your social media, so more people can be aware of these issues and understand my advice. Second, if you are a manager or a boss who can make decisions, make changes and raise awareness in your company. If you are a subordinate who can’t make decisions, raise awareness of these issues in the company you work for. Let’s start.
*Note:
1. Throughout the article, the phrase “the business field” or “the business world” means the whole society where people join the workforce. It does NOT only represent people who work in a business-type position, but also every people who work in office jobs.
2. Throughout the article, “Boss” only refers to the CEO or the owner of the company; it does not refer to the “Supervisor” who is not a CEO but manages some employees. “Boss” and “Supervisor” is different in the article as above describes.
3. Throughout the article, “employers” is referred to the boss, hiring manager, and HR. It is NOT only referred to as a boss or an owner of a company.
4. When a situation in the article is not specifically pointed to as a “situation in Taiwan”, such a situation happens in the West, too.
1. Provide Salary Ranges In The Job Descriptions
Most companies in the world don’t include salary ranges in their job descriptions at the current time, but it’s actually necessary. Why?
Because candidates can know the salary ranges in the job description to decide whether or not they want to apply for a job or go to an interview. This actually saves a lot of time for both sides. Companies will save a lot of time on reviewing resumes whose candidates aren’t interested in getting this amount of salary, and in having an interview with such candidates. Candidates will save a lot of time on asking for personal/annual leaves and going to interviews, too. Moreover, candidates can save time that would otherwise be spent on filling out different forms on the Internet which many big companies require in an application. In many cases, candidates spent a lot of time and money asking for leaves, preparing for an interview, and going to an interview, but the results of these interviews are unsuccessful due to mismatches of salary expectations from both sides. Let me ask you: Why should a candidate give up the money they would otherwise earn by doing their jobs, give up their precious time to have an interview with you, and share her/his experience for free to you only because she/he is interviewing, only finding out there is a mismatch between the expected salary of him/her and the salary range you can offer, while you can earn your salary and get candidates’ knowledge for free only by sitting in the office and interviewing with that candidate? This shouldn’t be acceptable even if a candidate is unemployed so won’t need to ask for leaves from work, because everyone’s time is precious. To the hiring managers and HRs who are reluctant to provide salary ranges, let me ask you one question: Really? What will be your feeling if you go to an interview by spending your time, share your experience with a hiring manager, and provide an expected salary to an employer one day, but the hiring manager tells you he/she can’t offer you this amount of salary and then reject you?
There is a concern that companies will determine a salary based on applicants’ abilities so can’t provide a salary range. Yes. Salaries should be determined based on applicants’ abilities, but that shouldn’t be the reason that companies can’t provide salary ranges for every position. Please notice, what I am saying is a salary “range”, not a specific number of a salary. The range itself already allows employers to determine a salary based on applicants’ abilities. Rather than asking about a candidate’s expected salary, determining salary based on that if you can offer it, and perhaps wasting the time of both sides, the way to determine a salary should be this way: An employer offers a salary “range” in the job description. Candidates who are willing to take a salary in this range will apply for that job. Then after an interview, an employer and a candidate start negotiating “the specific number” of the salary based on that salary range which is already disclosed in the job description. If a candidate’s ability is good, she/he may get a salary that is close to the highest number in that salary range. If a candidate’s ability is bad but she/he is given the job offer anyway, she/he may get a salary that is close to the lowest number in that salary range. I would also advise candidates to confirm with the companies they will be interviewing with about the job title and the salary range before going to an interview. This may save you time and money.
There is also a relevant concern from companies that I came across on Linkedin. A man said, “Companies can (and should) train employees during their working hours. If I am missing a specialized software requirement but my application says I am great with more regular software, they know they can quickly and easily train me to do the job. This means they can issue a lower offer for a position than if they found someone already familiar. That person will want more pay because they have more training…..If they post salary expectations, they can’t lower salaries for candidates with less experience.” The man said, “I propose The revival of training pay at a lower rate for the duration of the training period in the case that the employee needs additional training on specialized software like the Sprint KMS. After the training period, all employees should receive the same base pay for the job but receive regular incentives and bonuses, as well as raises, based on experience, retention, and performance. [1]https://www.linkedin.com/posts/lizryan_q-before-you-apply-for-a-position-shouldn-activity-6787560228926976000-VgjZ/ .
Well. I don’t agree with the practice of most companies for candidates with fewer abilities that this man points out, and I don’t fully agree with the man’s proposal, either.
First, concerning the salary during the training period, yes, I agree with him on this part. If a company has a training period and “indeed” provide relevant training to new employees, the company can provide a lower salary during a training period. After the training period, the company should adjust the salary back to the normal pay that an employee who is capable of performing such work without training should receive. However, if that’s the case, the company will still have to put the salary that will be offered during a training period and the salary range that will be offered after the training is completed on the job description – Yes. Both types of salaries still have to be disclosed before an interview. The job description should look like this: “Salary during the training period is $xxx. Salary after the training period is between $XXX to $XXX”. However, in current society, only a few companies do that. Furthermore, the above-mentioned man thinks the salary after training should be higher – that’s correct, but that all employees should receive the same base pay and that the salary difference based on performance is offered with a bonus should not be applied in every case. The proposal that the man suggests will be more suitable for a Sales job, catering job, or a low-level factory worker job, in which everyone receives the same base pay and extra pay is given by a bonus based on performance is acceptable. In many other jobs, employees with different levels of abilities shouldn’t receive the same pay. When one employee may perform a certain job better than another employee after receiving training, there should be a salary range that allows employers to determine each employee’s salary based on the abilities of each of them after training.
Second, in terms of the practice of most companies for candidates with fewer abilities, as I said, the job postings should still disclose salaries during and after a training period respectively, and such practice is not fully applicable in many jobs such as marketing or engineering. For such jobs, there may be no training period. It’s more about probation for employers to determine whether a new employee is qualified enough to stay in the company. So it will be more appropriate to just provide a salary range for a position. If a candidate is less experienced or has fewer abilities than other employees, this candidate will be offered a lower salary than experienced employees, but this candidate should “at least” deserve the lowest point in the salary range because this candidate indeed did her/his job during probation and created values generated from doing the work. In addition, an employer can promise less-experienced candidates that the salary will be higher if their performance during probation is good. There is a half-lie from many employers for years in the current era.”You are inexperienced. I gave you just xxx, which is low. But you will be taught how to do the job”. In fact, this is not completely correct. If a person doesn’t meet all criteria, she/he should at least deserve the lowest point of the salary range of this position because she/he still needs to do this job as her/his colleagues do. This candidate can get a lower salary than her/his colleague who is more excellent, but this candidate deserves AT LEAST the lowest point of the salary range by the value generated from doing the work. Not to mention two points: One, many employers have switched to providing less or no training for their employees. Instead, they look for skilled candidates who have a relevant degree or have learned necessary skills via other channels such as physical classes or online platforms. Yes, there still will be differences between different skilled candidates. That’s why I suggest that companies should provide a salary range, and give candidates with fewer abilities a salary that is lower but still “at least” the lowest point of the salary range of that position. Two, nowadays, technology develops fast, and many of us won’t expect companies teach us. We learn how to use Excel at school and during the time after work; we are not those stupid old fashion who were taught how to use Excel during work. We figure out how to use Slack, Zoom, Google Ads, and much new software coming out of the market on our own, instead of getting people to teach us how to use some old software with crap interfaces that are therefore difficult to use, such as the old version of SAP. We figure out how to do our work on our own because a lot of work is newly created, and did not exist in the past. For example, digital marketing has developed fast in the past 15 years. Many marketing professionals learn how to do digital marketing on their own during and after work and therefore become seasoned marketing professionals, rather than being taught by supervisors during work, which is an old fashion way. So the company actually spends fewer costs on training new employees, compared to the past. Time changed. Companies should stop their old fashion thinking. Anyway, this point is just a note. Without considering training or being less skilled in a certain software discussed in this topic, a person still should at least deserve the lowest point of the salary range of the position. For example, some fresh marketing personnel indeed received some proper training in digital marketing from supervisors and learned some valuable experience. But even if these new employees haven’t become professional enough in doing the work as their supervisors or senior employees do, these new employees still at least deserve salaries in the lowest points in salary ranges.
There are also some relevant questions.
Three relevant questions will come out from bosses, managers, and HRs:
1.1. How am I supposed to provide a salary figure when I don’t know the candidate’s expected salaries or past salaries?
This is a common question from these recruiters – bosses, managers, and HRs. In society, giving 10% to 20% more than what a candidate currently makes is often the general rule [2]https://www.indeed.com/career-advice/pay-salary/how-much-of-a-raise-should-i-ask-for . That’s why recruiters often ask candidates what their current/past salaries are. Another common practice is managers or HRs will ask “What is your expected salary”. However, as you may know, providing salaries based on a candidate’s past salaries actually indicates you are a person who doesn’t value talents. If you value talents, you will want to hire a candidate with a reasonable salary based on this candidate’s abilities, NOT with a salary based on the past salary history of a candidate. In fact – this is far more important, asking for candidates’ expected salary is pretty much similar to that: If you value talents, you will want to hire a candidate with a reasonable salary based on this candidate’s abilities, NOT with an expected salary from candidates which may result from their underestimation of how much they are worth. Seriously, if you pay a candidate a much higher salary than the expected salary which a candidate requests, or a salary that is 10% to 20% more than a candidate’s current/past salary, why would you care when a candidate has good abilities and deserves this amount of much higher salary? The common practices mentioned above shouldn’t be acceptable.
Ok, now you will want to ask this: How to know what salary range I need to offer?
It’s simple. What’s the common practice that candidates do nowadays before they go to an interview? They check salaries disclosed on Glassdoor or other websites, so they can learn how much these jobs worthies. You should do the same: Check out the market value of the position you are hiring. Some of you may think that it should be HRs’ job to do that. Yes, it should be, but as many of you know, the current problem is most HRs don’t provide a reasonable salary by investigating market values. Most HRs do the same thing as bosses and managers do: Ask about a candidate’s expected salary and provide a salary based on that expected salary. As I said, these common practices shouldn’t be acceptable. Equally importantly, don’t blame all of the things in every case on HRs. In many companies, especially small companies, it’s hiring managers who negotiate salaries with candidates, ask about candidates’ expected salaries, and report to bosses about how much salaries for candidates are. HRs are usually people who only help in filtering resumes, conducting an initial interview about some basic questions, and arranging interviews. Even in some big companies, where HRs have some powers when an employee encounters unfair treatment such as sexual harassment, it’s still hiring managers who negotiate salaries with candidates in some big companies. So how to fix the problem? I would suggest a few things in the following.
First, raise this issue internally with your CEO. Suggest to her/him the practice of determining the salary of a job offer based on the expected salary from a candidate needs to be changed – She/He should change her/his mind, and suggest him/her ask HRs to determine the salary of a position by investigating the market values of job positions on their own and discussing with CEOs about the budget of the companies instead of asking candidates’ expected salaries or past salaries. Give your CEO the link to this article and let him/her read this article and ask him/her to change his/her mind because of the reason written in this article, so he/she can understand why the common practice of determining a salary needs to be changed.
Second, start with yourself. Investigate the market value of the position you are hiring and determine a salary range if you are a hiring manager or a HR.
In the first point, I say you can suggest CEOs ask HRs to investigate the market value of job positions and discuss with CEOs the budget of the companies, then determine a salary based on the two factors. However, if you want to hire good talent, it’s not only HRs’ job to investigate pay in the market; it’s also your job to do that as a hiring manager, too. Investigate the market values of the positions you are hiring and discuss with your HRs, your supervisor, and CEOs about the budget of the companies. Hiring is always part of the work of a supervisor ( For “supervisor” here, I mean all of the people whose parts of jobs are managing employees but who are not CEOs. ). So being a hiring manager and trying to hire new employees, you should also confirm whether the offered salary from a company can both satisfy the talents you are looking for and is enough to find the talent you want – that’s both HRs and you’s jobs, and that’s why you should investigate market values and discuss the budgets with HRs, your supervisor, and CEOs.
I mentioned that it’s both HRs and hiring managers’ jobs to confirm whether an offered salary from a company is enough to find the talent they want. Some people will say it’s HRs’ job, not hiring managers. No, these jobs belong to both positions. Why? One, as making sure your employees can achieve the work result you want because of the salary offered to them is also part of the job of “checking employees’ satisfaction toward work”, which should be part of a supervisor’s or a boss’s job. HRs should do that, and so do you to get the work result you want, if you don’t want to get a terrible work result because your employees aren’t satisfied with their salaries. Two, in some cases, especially in many small companies, hiring managers are the ones who have a say in discussing salary with the boss, NOT HRs. HRs in some companies are often only a role that helps in filtering resumes and arranging interviews. Therefore, you as a hiring manager who has power should investigate salaries in the market. Three,there are some circumstances where a candidate you are interviewing is better than the majority of candidates on the job market. If you want to hire such a candidate, give her/him a top salary in that position in the market, or a higher salary than the top salary in the market – based on a candidate’s ability, NOT an average salary in that position in the market. You are the one who interview so many people and possibly managed a few employees who did this job you are hiring; therefore, you know better whether a candidate in front of you is better than the majority of candidates on the market than a candidate or a HR does. Hence, you should be the one who determines how much a candidate worthes and discuss with your CEO and HRs, NOT a candidate, and you or a HR shouldn’t determine the salary based on an expected salary or past salaries of a candidate. Of course, some candidates know their abilities better than you do. They may suggest a salary when the offered salary is not enough as they know their abilities are better than those of the majority of people. In this case, just consider whether you agree their abilities are better and whether you can offer the salary which this candidate requests. Still, it’s you should be the first one who offers a salary range for negotiation. That’s why I said both HRs and hiring managers need to investigate the market values of job positions they are recruiting. Yes, it should be HRs’ job. But you are the hiring manager who has relevant professionalism for the position you are hiring, or even if you don’t have relevant professionalism because you are a boss or because of any reason, you should know who you are looking for, and you are the one who has a deep interview with your candidates. Therefore, you should know whether a candidate is at the top of the market given what you need by investigating the market values and interviewing with some candidates. That’s why both HRs and hiring managers should investigate the market values of the job positions they are recruiting.
Third, demand your national government institution revise the law as “Companies must provide a salary range in every full-time job.
So far, only California, a few states in the U.S., and perhaps a few countries in addition require companies to list salary ranges in job postings. If you want to have salary ranges for reference when looking for a job in the future, make a change on your own by demanding your government institution do so. I did once in Taiwan 1 year ago. However, the result was terrible. I only get a bureaucratic response: “The labor law requires jobs with salaries under NT$40K is required to disclose salary ranges”. This response is clearly copied and pasted, and the official who has such a response doesn’t care about my suggestion. This response was from two government officials. I tried another time by saying “You have not submitted to the legislative department to discuss whether the law can be amended. You are only using the existing law to brush me off. Would I have taken my time to argue for an amendment if the existing law did what I request?” One of the two government officials responded that they will consider my suggestion. One year has passed, and there is no change.
Later on, I found there is a policy discussion platform in Taiwan and there are indeed some policies from the platform that get passed. So if Taiwanese want to have this salary-range policy, you may suggest such a policy in this platform with the content in this link and the link of this article. Other Taiwanese can echo this policy suggestion if there is one getting posted. The content of the policy suggestions in the link includes two things and a brief of reasons: One, forbid companies of any size to ask for the applicant’s past salary. Two, companies are required to provide a salary range for each job posting, and the salary range of each position must also be disclosed within the company. The range should be reasonable and not too large. You may revise on your own. Some Taiwanese will ask why I don’t open a policy suggestion on that platform on my own. Because I don’t want to work in Taiwan anymore. It’s your matter if you want such a policy.
People in other countries can also do the same by clicking this link if you hope to have such a policy in your country. Don’t forget to add the link to this article to let governments know the detail of the reasons.
An important note that has to keep eye on and I also write in the link of the policy suggestions is that even if many U.S companies in the U.S don’t ask for past salaries from candidates, these companies in some countries still let HRs and hiring managers in these countries ask for past salaries during an interview because there are no relevant legal regulations in these countries. The same situation will happen again in the salary-range policy case. Even if California companies do provide in California a salary range, these California companies in some countries won’t provide salary ranges in job postings, because there are no relevant legal regulations in these countries. Hence, if you want some changes in your work society, make a change on your own by demanding your government institution do so.
In addition, I would like to mention that California’s new law only requires companies with more than 15 employees to list salary ranges, and while there are also some U.S states that tend to require posting salary ranges in ads, only California’s law gives existing employees the ability to access the same information, according to Washington Post[3] https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/2022/10/03/faq-california-pay-transparency-law/ . I think every company including companies with less than 15 employees should list the salary ranges, and laws in every country should give existing employees to access the same information. Hope other countries can also have such a law and make it better than the one in California.
1.2 I often ask candidates, “How much do you need to support your living?” How do I determine a salary if I don’t know how much candidates need to support their living?
This is a comment I saw on a Linkedin post. Not only this Linkedin user, but so many bosses or hiring managers have done this thing, so I decide to put in this article.
No. I know you get a good intention, and I know if this question is asked, many candidates answer it in order to discuss salaries with hiring managers or HRs and think it’s not a big deal. However, “how much money does a candidate needs to support his/her living” is actually the privacy of a candidate. If a candidate has good abilities and therefore wants to get a higher salary, why does this candidate need to beg for money by answering “how much money does she/he needs to support the living”? A higher salary is what that candidate deserves.
Furthermore, if a candidate provides an expected salary that is what she/he needs to “support the living”, but it is higher than your budget, you still won’t give that amount of salary she/he asks. You will only say “I can’t offer this amount of salary”. So why don’t you just provide the salary range of the job you are hiring in the job description in the first place? People who are willing to accept this salary will apply for this job. Is this question – “How much does a candidate need to support the living” – important? No, not at all. Let me repeat, it’s the candidate’s privacy, and you won’t offer any amount of salary a candidate asks in every case.
Note: By the way, before reading that comment on Linkedin, I thought that’s a problem happening in Taiwan only because many Taiwanese often ask people some private questions. For example, asking “Have you bought a house yet?”, or “When will you get married” – These kinds of questions many Taiwanese ask when they aren’t familiar with the person they ask. But this question was also asked by a Westerner. Now I see this thought occurs in some Westerners’ minds, too.
1.3 What if I want to determine the salary by interviewing candidates, so I can understand their abilities and how much they are worth?
This is also a common practice that many companies do, especially small companies or some traditional companies which haven’t made their minds keep up with the time. The bosses or hiring managers of these companies often do one thing: Have a job title that is a “manager” or any position higher than “manager” on their hiring page with no salary range disclosed. However, when they invite a candidate to go to an interview, they often determine the job title of a candidate based on that candidate’s experience. For example, which is a common scenario in many small or traditional companies, when a candidate has never been a manager in the past and she/he applied for a “Manager” position, if the boss or the hiring manager feels that candidate isn’t qualified enough for a “Manager” position, the boss will tell the candidate what the position being offered to the candidate is a “Specialist” position, and determine salary based on the average salary of a Specialist position. Another possible scenario is that they are hiring a manager, but when a candidate applies and goes to an interview, if the boss or the hiring manager likes that candidate, the boss will discuss with that candidate about adding some job responsibilities which that candidate is suitable for carrying out, and the boss will offer that candidate a much higher position with a much higher salary. This scenario is a good ending to a story.
Nevertheless, let me ask you one thing: In the above cases, why don’t you separate your requirement into two positions with different salary ranges and post both of the two positions on the job pages? The job descriptions in a Manager position and a Specialist position should be different, right? And most obviously, the salary range will be different in the two positions. So why don’t you separate into two different positions? Let people who are willing to be in a Specialist position apply for that Specialist position, and let people who are willing to be in a Manager position apply for that Manager position.
You may say, I was trying to find a manager, but that candidate is okay for carrying out some tasks in a Specialist position, too. In terms of this concern, the answer is still NO.
First, if you want to find a manager and have no need to hire a Specialist, there is no need to hire a Specialist to both wastes your money and put an aspiring candidate who wishes to be a manager into a Specialist position. Since you don’t need a specialist, that candidate can find another job elsewhere, either finding a Manager position she/he wishes, or lowering her/his goal, and then finding a Specialist position in another company where there is indeed a need for a specialist. Yes, a candidate may accept that offer which is a lower-ranking position, but a candidate also may not accept that offer. It could go either way. Why are you complicating things and wasting both your and a candidate’s time by offering a position that a candidate may not want? State clearly what you need in the job title and job description in the first place – this is very important. Read this sentence more times and keep it in mind.
Second, if you want both a specialist and a manager, as I said, why don’t you separate them into two different positions? The two positions should have different job responsibilities. Let people who are willing to do that job apply for it. More often, when a candidate agrees to this lower-ranking position and becomes an employee, bosses or hiring managers often exploit such employees by giving employees work and responsibilities that a manager should carry on, but only providing such employees Specialist-level salaries. Let me ask you, isn’t what you are doing contradictory? If you think this candidate is not qualified for a Manager position, why do you assign her/him the work and responsibilities of a manager but only offer her/him a Specialist position and a lower salary? You are exploiting your employees.
That said, there are some circumstances where people can be given work and responsibilities of a higher-ranking position when he/she is not in that position yet, but those circumstances are not exploitation. However, this is different from the current hiring case I am discussing. The current hiring case is still exploited. Other circumstances, I will discuss deeper in Point 3 of this article.
My advice of separating into different positions and stating clearly what you need indicates that there is a problem with outdated management methods in many companies. Many Western companies or some big companies in Taiwan have defined job roles and their responsibilities clearly; still, many small companies around the world or many Taiwan companies don’t do that – they don’t define job roles and respective responsibilities clearly. Their minds don’t keep up with the time. What’s more, many bosses and hiring managers often don’t know what they need and who they are looking for. That’s one of the possible reasons that they open a vacancy for a manager position on their job pages, but invite candidates who are at a lower level or a higher level in their mind, and ask them if they are willing to accept a position that is NOT the title they applied for. Another possible reason is that they want to give some candidates opportunities. But as I said, a candidate may accept or may not, so why don’t you separate into two different positions instead of wasting the time of both sides? Let people who are willing to do that position apply for that position. If a candidate is willing to try both a Manager position and a Specialist position, she/he may apply for a Specialist position when there is no interview invitation for a Manager position or she/he is rejected from a Manager position. You can also send such candidates this kind of email: “We would like you to come to an interview. However, I am unable to provide you with a Manager position. I would like your interview for a Specialist position. Here is the link to the job description and the salary range. If you are interested, please reply to me.” Then let such a candidate decide on her/his own before an interview. If such a candidate isn’t interested in that position, that salary, or both, there won’t be any interviews. The time of both sides will be saved. Isn’t this much better?
Third, let’s discuss the case that a boss offers a candidate a much higher position after an interview. It’s good if that’s the end of the story. But the case could be the other way around: Offer a candidate a much lower position. It will be better when you invite someone over to an interview, you will “at least” offer that candidate the position you invite him/her to interview with a corresponding salary range. Then the candidate can know the salary range and the job title is the offer “at least” she/he can get instead of wasting time in an interview for a job that she/he may not be interested in as the salary is lower than the expectation. The salary range is the amount of salary “at least” she is willing to get. If you find a candidate who is excellent and want to offer her/him a higher-ranking position with a higher salary, that’s good and okay. But “at least” the salary range and the job title in the job description that you invite the candidate over to an interview is what you should provide.
Therefore, I would advise bosses and hiring managers that just separate their requirements into different positions and state clearly what they need and the corresponding salary range. That’s also why I advise candidates to confirm the job title and the salary range with the companies they will be interviewing with before going to an interview.
There is also a circumstance that needs to be clarified. In one earlier paragraph, I mentioned that when a candidate you are interviewing is better than the majority of candidates on the job market, if you want to hire such a candidate, give her/him a top salary in that position in the market, or a higher salary than the top salary in the market – based on that candidate’s ability, NOT an average salary in that position in the market. I also said that a hiring manager should know if a candidate who he/she interviewed with is better than the majority of candidates on the market because the hiring manager has interviewed that candidate. Some of you will ask, “Isn’t this contradictory with what I said above: Separate into different positions and let people who are willing to do a specific-ranking position apply for that position? No, it’s not contradictory. The case of what I meant previously is different from the case of asking a candidate who applies for a Manager position to do a Specialist position. The case of giving top candidates top salaries here is that those top candidates are offered exactly what they applied for – If a candidate applies for a Manager position, she/he gets a Manager-position offer, not a Director offer or a Specialist offer – these offers are higher-ranking or lower-ranking positions, and she/he will be assigned with works of a manager, which is what her/his position should do. Nevertheless, because such a candidate is better than the majority of candidates on the market, you should give such a candidate a top salary that matches her/his abilities and the value of the work of the position should do. That’s what I mean. So the two cases are different. Please kindly noted.
Ok. After finishing the relevant questions, let’s talk about other common problems in terms of salary.
1.4 Salary transparency
Salary transparency is a hot topic nowadays. Commenting on the news: “Young workers share salary information”, an individual said on Linkedin, “I began work in a workplace culture where the unwritten rule was that salaries were NEVER to be discussed. Fast forward to a few weeks ago and I attended a meeting…..A couple of the panelists admitted to discussing salary and encouraged others to do the same. As a result of being open about salary, one of the panelists even learned their salary was less than their colleagues’ salary which apparently resulted in their salary being adjusted…..Who really benefits from this unwritten rule about not discussing salary? I came to realize that the company probably benefits over the employee in nearly every situation.” Ok, I agree that salary information should be transparent. However, the person who wrote this post still has a concern about salary transparency, and there is one comment in that Linkedin post that appears to be some people’s concern about salary transparency even though they agree salary information can be disclosed, including the person who wrote this comment, so I decided to add this section and answer some concerns.
A replier commented on this Linkedin post, “I agree that it’s the company/employer who benefits from this “dirty little secret.” lol But I’m still not sure if I’m comfortable now with sharing. Especially because if I find out someone with less knowledge/work experience/education is making more than I am, I am afraid that it’ll cause me to be resentful and have an overall negative attitude toward my job and employer.” The poster of the Linkedin post responded, “I agree with you and that is exactly why I’m inclined not to discuss salary”[4]https://www.linkedin.com/posts/kennethflakes_are-you-being-paid-fairly-young-workers-activity-6927723466339082240-gqKD/?utm_source=linkedin_share&utm_medium=android_app .
No. This is not a problem. Seriously, why should you be happy when you are cheated by your employer about your salary? He/She pays you a much lower salary than your colleague but asks both of you do the exact same thing. If knowing this fact causes you to be resentful and have a negative attitude, it’s good^^. Many people will suggest such a person “ask the employer to offer the same amount of salary or leave the company”. This looks like a good way, isn’t it? You have been aware of this suggestion and agree with it, don’t you? So why would you think being resentful and having a negative attitude is bad? Otherwise, you want to be happy when you receive this unfair treatment without knowing it and appreciate your boss giving alms to you with a job? This thought is ridiculous.
Having said that though, the suggestion of “ask the employer to offer the same amount of salary or leave the company” isn’t completely correct. Some people will misinterpret my meaning as I said every employee in the same position should get a salary in the same range. NO. Notice what I said is that “in the same range”. In earlier paragraphs, I suggest that companies should disclose the salary range in the job description on the hiring page, and that “If a candidate’s ability is good, she/he may get a salary that is close to the highest number in that salary range. If a candidate’s ability is bad but she/he is given the job offer anyway, she/he may get a salary that is close to the lowest number in that salary range”. If salary information is transparent within a company, it should be this way: Every employee in the same position gets a salary within the range that is already disclosed in the job description when getting hired. Some employees’ abilities are better, so they get higher salaries which is close to the highest number in that salary range; other employees get medium-level salaries or a salary that is close to the lowest number in that salary range, depending on their abilities. Everyone’s salary is disclosed within the company. Employees can know who gets the highest salary within that range, and why that person gets that salary. If employees also want to get the highest salary in their positions, they can improve themselves. This is the way that should be implemented within a company. Back to the original point, the suggestion of “ask the employer to offer the same amount of salary or leave the company” isn’t completely correct. If salary information is transparent, two things you need to do:
One, ask your employer to define a salary range for your position.
Two, which is the most important, ask your employer to explain why he/she is offering you a much lower salary than he/she is offering your colleagues. If he/she can’t provide a reasonable reason, leave the company. But if he/she can, it’s you who should improve yourself when you want a higher salary. One thing worth noting: This point is still also validated in the example of the above comment: Someone with less knowledge/work experience/education is making more than you are. Although this case seems not likely to happen in most cases, as many employers tend to give higher salaries to employees with more years of experience or who graduated from a good college, if this case happens, ask your employer to explain why. Maybe that “someone” is indeed better than you in doing the job for some reason.
1.5. Hire the wrong people
I once discussed a problem of a Taiwanese company in another of my article regarding COVID-19. I pointed out that the Taiwanese company has issues with hiring: It hires junior-level engineers or engineers who are not exceptional with low salaries as it wants to save as much money as possible, but the company actually has a demand in recruiting senior or exceptional engineers to do national-level projects. I stated the problem of Taiwan’s vaccination platform, “We spend TWD$200 million but most of the money wasn’t spent on hiring good engineers, so we got a fucking terrible system”. If you are interested, you may read that article. Anyway, this common problem should be fixed. In the above COVID-19 case, this Taiwanese company is better as it actually pays a bonus to employees when doing some big projects. However, many companies do not. Bosses and hiring managers should be aware of what kind of candidate they should be looking for, and hire the right people with the corresponding salary. Otherwise, the lower-ranking employees will have to take on responsibilities that exceed the value of the position and don’t match their salaries; some of them may even feel very stressed because they are not good enough to take on these responsibilities. Although giving stress on work is okay, you don’t give these employees the corresponding salary or a good promotion prospect: You just want to utilize them with salaries that are as low as possible. So why should low-ranking employees be exploited by you? Bosses and hiring managers should take on my suggestions and fix this problem if they have such a problem.
Read the next part: Part 2 of this article by clicking the link.
Support me with donations and by following me on social media.
Every article I wrote is gone through days of deep research and thinking by me before it is written. If you like my articles, kindly support me, so I can write more quality articles.
( *Note: The unit of donation on the page is U.S dollars. )
If you like this article, please share the article to your social media page, so my article can be accessed to more people.
Please also follow me on social media by clicking the links at below, so my latest articles can be reached out to you.
Follow My Social Media: Facebook | Twitter | Linkedin
Reproduction of the article without permission is prohibited.References
Chrissy Slora
The articles published in this website are all written by Chrissy Slora. Chrissy Slora aims to make people learn about how the world can be better and provide her intelligent and wise insight by writing about various topics from technology to issues happening in the world. Follow her on social media: Facebook | Twitter | Linkedin