Discussions

Why do employers of Brandon not list what they are offering as a salary range when they post a position? It takes effort to write the perfect cover letter outlining how the candidate meets the criteria (or at least it should), preparing and interviewing, if contacted, only to find out that the salary is no where near acceptable for what the expectations are of the position. Stating what the salary range is in the ad could possibly save everyone a lot of time. It is my experience that “salary negotiable with experience” means very little.

It is all about the $. State a wage in the ad ( $15.00 to $20.00) and then they have to pay at least $15.00.  
 
With the salary dependent on experience and qualifications statement they can try to figure out how low they can go. If you agree to $14.00 then they save $. An average person works 2040 hours a year. So a $1.00 savings is $2040 in the companies pocket not counting benefits.  
 
It is business, and the owners are here to make a profit. Very few companies exist for the benefit of the employees.

We stopped posting wages because we noticed it actually increased unwanted applications from people only applying for wages not a particular job. For example, we were looking to fill a position awhile back and decided to post the wage for the same reasons as you give in your post. Your question is logical, makes sense.  
 
What we ended up with was 60 applications which whittled down to 15 interviews of which 13 were people who literally asked “what position was this again?” And “what exactly is this position?” They we’re applying for the wage, they were searching for a wage not a job. Not all jobs are high paying or need to be.  
 
Granted they were all great applications but overqualified...so we ended up reposting without wages and almost immediately had the position filled.  
 
Edited by Heynow, 2020-02-25 13:30:50

I think most people kind of have a rough idea what their wage will be based on the type of job they are applying for. If you are applying for a retail type position, you are likely expecting minimum wage range type pay. If you are applying for a professional type position, this means you have some kind of education in that field and are likely to know what kind of salary to expect for certain roles.  
If you are looking for a certain salary, you are likely wise to apply for several jobs, and then ask during your interview what the salary will be. If you are a candidate that has made it for interview in several positions, then you obviously have the power to make the choice of what suits you best if and when you are offered the positions. If you are applying for several jobs and only get one or two offers, then you’d probably be wise to accept a job even if you don’t feel the pay is great because it will give you the experience needed to get you in to higher paying jobs. Waiting around to see what jobs become available based on salary is likely not going to work out too well for you. So on that respect it really is pointless for an employer to post salary.

It is very frustrating to not have a wage posted.  
 
Some professions can have a huge wage gap. Years ago my husband was looking for a job in Brandon as he was working 90 minutes away. He was making $28 an hour then, found a job 45 minutes away making $31. Still was hoping to find something in Brandon and went for many interviews. wage at a lot of places were $15-$18. Even to factor in the drive it made absolutely no sense to take that big of a cut in pay.  
 
As for the comment about someone being over qualified - why not hire them?

For job postings that say 'as per collective agreement', it is pretty simple to go on the respective union website and look at the collective agreement.

How is somebody over qualified for a job? They have too much education, they have several years of experience??  
 
Can someone explain how this could be a bad thing?

If someone is overqualified for a job (assuming has a degree or multiple degrees that aren’t necessary for the position), there is a good chance that they are settling for now and continuing to look for a job in the field they went to school for (paid tuition for). The employer may fear that it is a waste of time and energy on training the individual for them to potentially quit in a couple weeks or a couple months for their ideal job. My guess is that most employers are seeking people who have a somewhat long term career fit for the position they are recruiting for.

Just out of curiosity what type of employment pays double if you drive 45 minutes away from Brandon? Don't have to name the company just the type of work.

Experience in this town in a few different types of careers/jobs is they hold back to see how low you’ll go. Not a lot of jobs pay much more than minimum wage here, regardless how much experience or schooling you’ve got. And being over qualified is a thing here too, which is sad because they don’t even bother to talk to you. Most just assume you’ll jump ship, I would love to find an employer in my fields that didn’t treat some staff like pack horses and slaves while others get rainbows blown up their butts. Always the non workers too, funny how that works

Over qualified is when someone who's between jobs, say a teacher, is looking for something to bridge the gap between Teaching jobs. They apply for a job driving a garbage truck because it pays very well but isn't what they spent 7 years in school for.  
 
If you have 20 years retail experience and you apply at the Gap you will never be considered overqualified, they'll know that you are genuinely applying for that job.  
 
You wouldn't apply to a job if you knew the employer was likely going to fire you as soon as someone better came along...employers are the same when it comes to hiring...we don't want someone who's just here for the paycheque but is going to ghost as soon as there REAL job becomes available.  
 
(Was replying to a post a few back...thought I'd hit the quote button. Wasn't replying to FargoBob, who is right, by the way.)  
 
Edited by Heynow, 2020-02-26 08:19:17

So if a person wants a career change and has the skills the job needs but has been employed as something else they won’t get hired. That is stupid.  
 
You never know a reason why the person wants to leave their current position. There are many factors and if you don’t even take the opportunity to meet you might miss out on a fantastic employee

Makes me upset. Don’t assume people will go somewhere else. Hire the right person for the right job. If they are comfortable taking the salary, why wouldn’t you hire them? You don’t know why they applied for the job or what their family situation is.  
I had a family member have a career in a fast paced and demanding work place for many many years. They finally decided to leave because it was so toxic. They had trouble finding a job because they were “overqualified”. They were perfectly fine with working 40 hours a week with a lesser salary because they didn’t want to have to work 60-80 hours a week and be available at the drop of a hat. They would have been a great employee but because they were overqualified to many employers they were passed over. Point of the story being that you don’t know what people’s home lives are like (and you can’t legally ask that in an interview).

The situation about being overqualified and the excuse that employers feel it is a temporary stop for the employee until they can possibility get another job, is somewhat of a myth and is actually tied to other concerns.  
 
There are certainly legitimate situations where this applies like when the job the candidate is really different than what they have a history of doing. Sometimes it is obvious when a candidate is just looking for a paycheque until the one in their area comes up.  
 
But the excuse of being called overqualified in the same field the candidate has been traditionally working in, is absolutely being abused by employers.  
 
Meaning the employers who still use this ridiculous idea is not just because they think that the employee will be temporary, but they use this excuse to cover for some other concern they have about the candidate.  
 
Usually, it is a combination of reasons the employer doesn’t like overqualified candidates, and the reasons usually fall along these lines:  
 
1) The employer is threatened by candidates who have a better education or more experience than their own. The employer sees this as a challenge to their authority. The employer thinks the candidate will be difficult to manage and resistant to authority.  
 
2) Many, many workplaces, especially smaller operations, usually family-owned or even non-profit organizations all say they are looking for a self-starter or someone with new ideas. This is a somewhat of a myth as well.  
 
Smaller businesses who have been doing certain things a certain way for so long actually are the most resistant to change and actually will push out ‘overqualified’ people who do come up with innovative ideas or changes.  
The reason is because it takes a very confident and well-adjusted employer or long-term upper management staff to admit that the way they were doing things no longer are not the most efficient or best way of doing things. Most don’t like that.  
 
3) Ageism does play a role when it comes to ‘overqualified’ candidates. It can swing against someone who is young who has an extensive formal education, who generally will be seen as cocky or arrogant. It can go against someone who is older with extensive experience and education and they will be perceived as too old to change and resistant to change. Either way, ageism is prevalent in our culture. There have been many ridiculous claims on ebrandon threads about age in the workplace that we all have read.  
 
So, the issue about being a temporary stop is somewhat accurate but the reason is tied to the above reasons and not isolated as the sole reason. The temporary stop is a scape-goat excuse that employers use to cover their ridiculous and unfounded perceptions.  
 
If any employer in the same field that you have been working in tells you are overqualified for not hiring you, consider yourself to have dodged a go-nowhere and small-minded mentality of a place to work. Move on to better things.

"I'm sorry, you're great and all but you're overqualified" can be read as "it came down to you and this guy over here who has no experience. We don't have to pay him as much so you're out and he's in"

There are many good points. My biggest problem with wages is that is all the person is looking at. I have posted wages and the person has no clue what the position is, no basics of the job, never even heard of the company. And well though out cover letters are a generic letter applying for positions that I am not even looking for. When I apply for a position in a certain field I already know the salary range for that position. One person applied saying they were starting a family so they needed a guaranteed position with no chance of lay off and a full benefit package. Fantastic....me too. Overqualified I find is hit and miss. It either goes well or not. Training is sometimes hard as they have been doing it "this way for 20 years" they know what they are doing. That may be fine at company A but not at company B where they now work. Another is they expect to not have to work as hard because they have experience and have put in their time already. That may be so with a previous company but not the one you just got hired at. Many times greener is better as you can shape the employee to what you want.

Agree to disagree thanks. The 20 year comment is exactly what some employers do here. That person is over qualified in that they’ll want more wage then someone who is green. Been there done that and was explicitly told so...

I have to say that I agree with the OP. Very often I come across employers/businesses who are lazy or looking to cut down on their own work, and what I'm seeing in this thread is quite a few excuses to support it.  
 
Despite all the arguments that I am seeing to support why an employer wouldn't post a salary, most of them aren't convincing. Particularly the ones claiming that it helps cut down on poor quality applicants. Is it not a standard part of the hiring process to skim resumes, plan interviews, and see whether or not a candidate is suitable? It has to be done whether or not compensation is posted on a job listing. If someone isn't a suitable candidate then simply don't hire them.  
 
I am also failing to see the issue with some people only looking at salary. We all need to make money to survive and in this crappy job market, especially in Brandon, I know many people who are desperate for any position they can find really. What's the problem with people looking for a livable wage? Unless the job requires skilled labour of some kind I don't think it's worth looking down on people for prioritizing money. It's the only reason any of us work. By the looks of this thread, those of you who are employers are looking out for yourselves the same way these applicants are trying to look out for themselves.

I would love to come to your business you own and watch you hire employees. To call an employer or business lazy because they don't post a wage when hiring really makes me laugh. I can skim over all the resumes I want. There are times I get 100-150 applications to a job posting. In case you don't know time is money. The more money I need to skim over resumes, call them in for interviews, actually interview them takes a lot longer than you think. I want to see how much time you would like to spend doing that process. In certain industries you don't want to boast wages around. In a tight market if Company A pays $15/hr and your competition is only Company B but now they start at $17/hr cause now they know what you pay....well let's just say I don't play like that. Also whatever industry I am looking at I would have already looked at similar jobs and figured out if I can make it work or not. If I haven't then the employee is the lazy one. Serving/retail what do you figure one would make? Kitchen cook-wage? Industrial labour-wage? Certified trade-these are posted wages. Union positions-wages are posted in the collective agreement. It isn't hard to figure out a wage for the job. Problem is and you said it....living wage. What is a living wage because it goes great with affordable housing. I have and can make min wage and live. Can I make min wage, buy a house, own a new car, and take vacations every year? Not unless I have a wife with money. When I want to hire I have apply in person. You can butter up a resume to look like you are God but you walk into my work the way you present yourself will speak more than that resume. Many jobs I have gotten is by showing up and presenting myself. Yet so many will still email a resume in as it is more convenient. I don't even look at them. Can't follow directions, wasting my time and any wage you think you deserve. This crappy job market has lots of potential, depends where you want to work, what you want to work for. I know many in Alberta where workers are more than job availability that would love to have our crappy work market.

Fishin Guy, you said: “In certain industries you don't want to boast wages around. In a tight market if Company A pays $15/hr and your competition is only Company B but now they start at $17/hr cause now they know what you pay....well let's just say I don't play like that.”  
 
Your example only works if Company B is also looking to hire at the same time as Company A and looking to hire the exact same position at the same time as in Company B. Do you really think this happens all the time or enough to justify this as a viable excuse not to post the wage?

If A business can hire a green guy/gal at $13 and they’ll more or less be at 90-95% expectations after 3 months why would They pay more for someone who’s been doing it longer if experience doesn’t really bring them any benefit? I mean it’s their business, they roll their own dice don’t they?

You to both you and mechanicman for speaking the truth!

The problem with overqualified is it can mean a lot of things, as a number of posts already have pointed out. But from the employer point of view, there is one more thing to consider. If a candidate really is 'overqualified' (and not just the right qualification with more experience than the new person), there is the risk that they just won't be very committed to the job - not the employer but the job. If someone is trained with a PhD in physics and gets a job stocking shelves at the grocery store - yes of course they need the money, just like we all do, but they might not care much about the job. A person hired to do a job that is a match for their level of qualification is a lot more likely to take pride in it, and make some effort to do a good job - day after day - maybe even work their way up in the company.  
 
Yes, I know, the 'overqualified' person might do just as well, but an employer doesn't know that. So here's the point. If you're applying for a job, and you know you will be seen as overqualified, but you really do want the job, and really don't intend to 'jump ship' - someone made this point earlier, and they're right - then you should probably say something to that effect in your application letter. You need to sell yourself to the employer. They need to know you want this job. "I have a PhD in physics, but I'm really passionate about a career in retail". Maybe not in those words, but you get the point.  
 
And yes, the 'overqualified' excuse is overused. Let's start calling it what it really is - "differently qualified". Then we can cut out the "20 years of experience means you're overqualified", which as someone said, is a pretty lame excuse. We all know it really means you don't want to pay the higher wage this person's experience probably justifies.  
 
Should a car repair shop not hire the guy with a degree in mechanical engineering because he's overqualified? I bet that person will find a million ways to save the shop money and do a spectacular job on all the things that nobody else could figure out. Is that 'overqualified'? But yes, the PhD in physics doesn't look like the right candidate for retail. However, as someone said, each person has their story. I once knew a guy who had a PhD (never did find out in what) who drove a garbage truck - couldn't hack the academic career path and had a nervous breakdown. Garbage suited him great, and he loved it.  
 
So employers, just be honest. Admit what you are willing to pay to start (in the ad, in person at the beginning of the interview, or in the pre-interview arrangement stage so as not to waste everyone's time, whenever). And potential employees, just accept that the employer has a limit, and if it doesn't suit you, keep looking.

My opinion is that if employers would include a wage/salary they would actually get more quality candidates. I like my current employment, but if theres a job I’m qualified for that pays significantly more I would definitely consider applying. I have no idea how young families in this town make ends meet. I feel like that lack of salary/wage info has suppressed the family income in this town. Wages are ridiculously low here, and the overflow of small time landlords who have to charge enough rent to cover the mortgage on top of the typical rental expenses like property tax, repairs, etc makes living tough in this town. I wont even get into daycare expenses...... however maybe if jobs actually paid a livable wage people wouldn’t complain about the others.

Happens more than you think. When you have certain industries that are busy certain times of the year I have seen advertising for each company. Funny thing is nobody has mentioned benefits yet. It is all about the wage. If my competition wants to pay more per hour as I have had them thrown in my face per say that company B pays more per hour. I am not getting into the playing back and forth begging for an employee to work for me. I offer a fair wage, benefits, profit sharing, pension plan, production bonus. I am not going to say all that in an ad because I want someone who is passionate about the job in hand, not thinking of how much they will make first.

you'd get a lot of applications for the wage not the job, as I mentioned earlier...which is why most employers don't post wage.  
 
I've done it all, posted wages...not posted wages, paid low wages, paid wages I couldn't afford, come up with incentive scenarios, subsidized rents/cable/phones..I've even once, as an experiment about 10 years ago posted absolute fantasy wages I could never pay..just to see if it made a difference. None of it mattered.  
 
You're either a great hire or you aren't and every single person on this thread complaining about wages would get turned around about 5 minutes into an interview...Does get turned around 5 minutes into an interview...because I've seen that movie so many times it just takes all the wind out of me when I realize one got by me and made it to an interview.  
 
A person that will work their butt off for $40 will work their butt off for $10...and a person that won't work for $10 won't work for $40 either.

Was employed I took a pay cut on three occasions in new jobs because I was ready to move on. I moved for the job rather than the money. Each time I quickly was earning more than from my previous position.

At no point did I say that not posting a wage was inherently lazy behaviour. I said that the excuses I have seen in this thread have come across as lazy. You say time is money, is the time spent looking for quality candidates not worth it? I don't imagine anybody actually enjoys the hiring process but it's a necessary evil.  
 
There is a failing to acknowledge the nuance in this situation. Some people are looking to career build while others are desperately trying to find a way to pay the bills. Perhaps you can afford to live on minimum wage by yourself but some people have a family or other financial burdens (such as student loans).  
 
People emailing you resumes seems to be a problem only because by the sounds of it, you request that they bring it to you in person instead. If applicants don't follow that, it's their problem. However many minimum wage/entry level positions request that you email your application only or complete it online, phone calls and physical resumes are not accepted.  
 
Regardless, you are speaking for yourself and your own frame of reference. I was speaking in more general terms. If you feel like what I said doesn't apply to you then feel free to move on.

Employers can make all the excuses they want for not justifying posting a wage and disclosing pertinent information. And it certainly is their choice. But taking the time to properly form a concise job posting delineating exactly what the position requires to be successfully filled can really eliminate dud candidates and increase the efficiency of your time.  
 
Take about 15 minutes and look over the middle management job posting on this site alone. It is very, very sad how employers word their postings. You do not have to wonder why you get the neighbor’s dog in your application stream.  
 
Trust me, the fact that you don’t post a wage for fear of all the reasons posted on this thread, certainly is a moot point if you post anything like some of these employers on here.  
 
I have been on both sides of this stream, having to hire and tiring to get hired. When I had to hire, I really learnt the value of taking time to really access what qualities the workplace needed. Did I still get applications that were way out there, of course, but I really think it reduced as I improved along the way with really knowing what I was looking for and what I can compromise on.  
 
There is a fundamental reason why people on a whole want government jobs and better paying jobs; it boils down to security! And money is the vehicle to gaining that security.  
 
Security is the reason!!! Financial security, which enables social security like healthcare and education and physical security which is a roof over your head and food in your belly!  
 
Please stop undermining the gravity of this fundamental human trait and stop playing petty mind games thinking that employees are out to waste your time or enjoy bartering with you so that they can gain what every single human life is after: security.  
 
It's degrading having to negotiate a wage with an employer. Pick a bloody wage and stick with it. By not setting one, you only convey the message the job really isn't that important!  
 
And if employers feel they have to negotiate with a possible candidate, move on. Wasn't meant to be.

If so how much was it? Just curious.