Discussions

That I could apply for positions based on my love of the job. The reality for most people is that the wage does matter because of those pesky bills to pay.

Some employers are stuck in the dark ages when it come's to advertising a job.  
In real Citie's (not like Brandon a City the size of a small town or village) Most employers will post a salary and will expect you to either apply online and/or submit a Resume. At no time do they normally allow walk-ins. A huge majority of employers will not allow this. You must apply through the appropriate website and/ or email.  
 
I don't understand why some employers in Brandon are so behind with the times.  
There are large companies in Brandon that do show salaries and qualifications expected, but generally the smaller employers seem to decline from showing an expected wage range or salary.  
 
I have lived in some real highly populated Cities (with populations exceeding 1 million) and have found Brandon to be very very behind the times. I was told it was very laid back here and to be honest I find that its not so much laid back. More like a can't be bothered attitude with some of the employers.  
 
I also get fed up with hearing and seeing this overqualified subject being brought up. Maybe they are just using a job as an inbetween job, but on the other hand I have known people to stick at a job they were overqualified longterm. Some people just want to try a different career. We really need less small minded employers in Brandon.

and to most its a lot of repeat ads, interviews, training, and doing it all over again because as you said a lot DO NOT get to anywhere near the 90/95%. Prime example current place hired green over seasoned, after 5 months the green is still green, at about 30%, and couldnt care. People also work as minimalists now a days too. So now the process starts over again when had they hired the seasoned one it wouldnt be on repeat which in the end is more expensive and annoying for all involved.

true..any of the employers my group have come a cross that want to see you in person to apply, are the ones that are choosing or forming opinions based on looks. In some trades it makes sense to a point(modelling) but in most its prejudicial point blank. Ill never get how someones looks should have more bearing on a position being offered over their qualifications and personality.

About not posting wages-there are firms in this town who have 5 or 10 employees with each of those employees making a different hourly wage. They are all doing something similar as far as work goes, but none of them know what any if the others are being paid. They know they are not to talk about it amongst themselves. So, if one starts at $14 and another starts at $22...no hard feelings because they do not know.

I had experience with hiring in which wages were posted and then not posted.  
 
When I didn’t post a wage, it was not in my authority to post. My boss didn’t want it posted, so I couldn’t. But this was early on in my career and I just didn’t understand yet the value in the entire hiring process and how much work should go into it. But I have always believed that wages should be posted, there are always exceptions of course, but on a whole not posting is greatly abused by employers.  
 
I spent most of my career in two other provinces and have been here five years but have known friends and family here for about three decades. It’s different here that’s for sure.  
 
I was in charge of anywhere from 9 to 11 people at one place of work for 11 years. Very diverse positions, from admin to agronomists/soil science (BSc were a must, we had 2 that held Masters), and then middle management like shipping and propagation heads and then labourers which also included much diversity in skills that worked under the positions mentioned.  
 
We always posted wages, for all positions and each time we posted. The owners did this even before I started working there. Essentially, we took on a union system but wasn’t unionized. The best thing we ever did as a business and once we got the hang of it, and it certainly was a learning curve, we had we strong group of employees.  
 
Of course we had some crappy ones along the way, but they weeded themselves out pretty quick as we got more efficient in our HR processes.  
 
As a business, the more we evaluated and revised the HR processes from year to year, we saw less turnover from year to year and secured what I believed was a productive and happy group of employees.  
 
But it certainly took a lot of work and frustrations to work through, and ya it cost us sometimes, but we learnt.  
 
Wages ranged from $12.90 to approximately $37.00 (that includes hourly and salaried wages). Every position had a predetermined scaling system that was reviewed and revised each year.  
 
We did not play games in the interview process; we provided the exact starting wage (and at posting) and told them what the $ increments where and what they had to do to get those wage increases (this part was in the interview only).  
 
We laid everything out in the interview. We told them after the first year of employment we had a benefits plan, after two years, you were part of profit sharing. But told them they had to last that long, and we saw the shitty ones filtered out before they hit year two for sure.  
 
It was literally the best system collectively adopted from anywhere I worked, but the owners were progressive thinkers, they had to be because in wholesale profit margins are very slim if you wanted to survive and be successful. I shared in that mindset as well so when I was there, and prior to me, had a good thing going for a long time.  
But you as the employer and upper management you have to plan it out, review it, evaluate it, and revise it on an on-going basis.  
 
I started off as a seasonal student laborer and by the third year I was in charge of the overseeing the department I’m writing about. I loved working there and what I did and they knew it, but I never felt they took advantage of that. They helped flourish it.  
 
I knew exactly from the day I applied to that entry level position to my last day 11 years later exactly what was expected of me in that entire time and exactly what I can expect from my employer.  
 
This is security. An employee needs to have some sort of outlook for the future, we all do, it is simply human nature. There is nothing sinister about it. People want security and they can’t feel that or feel they can attain that if they do not have the information that makes that a possibility.  
 
This is your best way of gaining loyalty and producing a healthy workplace is having an informed workplace. Deal with the problems, be transparent, set up processes where the weeds filter out fast, and stop playing the control and power card over employees for sake of control at the cost of a productive workplace.  
 
So many places simply do not see value in this system. It’s easier to blame everything else but their own processes or recheck their own mindset.  
 
Of course we had the most to filter through when it came to the entry and then a farther second, the mid-level positions, I think it is reasonable to expect that. But we got real efficient at honing in on the best candidates.  
 
You are honestly misguided if you truly believe that posting a wage is a problem, it’s not. It’s your process. I stick adamantly by my first post.  
 
You need to spend time re-evaluating your HR processes and your own hiring techniques, because if you do, you will find that herein lies your shortcomings for the endless stream of shitty candidates you all complain about as employers.  
 
And a little off topic but related, for the love of humanity, employers need to stop asking mundane and useless questions in an interview like “what are your strengths and weaknesses?” That horseshit tells you nothing, most people lie or even if it was the truth, wtf are you as an employer going to do with that information???  
 
If an employer is still asking that question in 2020, a word of advice to the candidate: run, run, run very far away!  
 
My daughter was asked this a couple weeks ago for a job interview. She’s 19 and she even knew this was ridiculous. She chose another job and good for her.  
 
Sorry for the long post. It is just so frustrating witnessing this nonsense.

There is no rule saying that employees cannot talk about their wages with each other. Employers have pushed the narrative that it is verboden so that they can get away with such wage imbalances. Theyve done such a good job that even close friends grow too uncomfortable to even talk about their wages. It's ridiculous.  
 
In my humble opinion people SHOULD be talking about their wages more, and this is just another example of why.

I found it interesting that Brandon is stuck in the dark ages. In real cities…. you will still get a variety of ways to get a job. Showing salaries and submitting online. It is all personal preference in the field you are working in. I just looked up jobs for Boeing, Bombardier, and Weyerhaeuser. No salaries but apply online. What is your definition of large companies that are with the times? Saying behind the times when comparing us with cities of over a million population…. just think about that for a second. Why would you even compare? Heck comparing Brandon to Winnipeg is a simple laugh. We lack industry but small business is abundant around here.  
Anna it isn’t about looks for me. A resume is a simple piece of paper that anyone can write for anyone they want. Including themselves. Nobody lists their personality in a resume. When I am greeted with a firm handshake, look at me when talking, and a firm willingness to want to talk to me goes a long distance when deciding on an employee. Qualifications, those don’t mean much. I took some college classes in computers. There was a student that was brilliant in reciting the textbooks and aced written tests. Yet in the practical world he was totally useless. Was he qualified? Yes? Could he do the job? No. Coming in person also tells me about the person. I have had parents come in with kids and basically try and sell me on why their child would be a perfect fit. I have had spouses come in with husbands because they could not speak English. I was running a quick errand one day and there was a guy walking down the road in a pouring rain, I was a little “That must suck moment” but when I got back to work, I watched him walk up to the building. I gave him an interview and hired him. Any person who is willing to walk through a storm for a job was worth giving my time. I have hired women, men and a little in between, various races, out of jail I could be your second chance. Exchanging a few words where both parties are interested, I have proceeded to give instant interviews and also tour of workplace to further check interest. I have had HR go through resumes and when interviewed totally not what was expected. Many didn’t even know what we did. Many didn’t even know what the job was they were applying for.  
All my employees make a different wage. It all depends on what you are capable of doing and your experience doing the job. It makes no sense posting a wage like a government ad. Wage $31,987 to $56,673 depending on experience. Well Jesus that is a large spread and you know almost everyone expects to be in the higher end of the pay scale. Why don’t employees get with the times even better…. Why not just post on your resume what you expect? Wouldn’t it make sense to just post on your resume. Wanting full time work, need at least $50,000 base salary to make ends meet. Available after dropping kids off at school. Must be done work before 3:30 to pick up kids from school. Only available Monday thru Friday. Weekends are family time. Must also include benefits. A good dental plan with brace coverage is a must. Also, must have employer pension plan. I hear it in an interview, why not put it in your resume?

Sounds like you got it all figured out for what works for you so you should have nothing to complain about.  
 
Not picking on you but your comment about "Why not just post on your resume what you expect? " is interesting.  
 
So when you sell your house , you don't list a price and allow the buyers to be your seller as well by determining what your house is worth so it meets their budget?

I am reading through all the posts, and I wonder if some of the expectations are differences in age, in the field of work, or in private vs public sector.  
I am in my late 40s, and am a health care professional so in the public sector. Every job I have applied for in my professional life has said 'salary as per collective agreement' or 'salary dependent on experience/ qualifications'. When I was a student working in the public sector, and prior to my career, I don't ever remember a job having a salary/ wage posted - but that was 25+ years ago.  
I can see why a potential employee might hope to know the wage prior to applying for a job, but personally I think it sounds really out of line to complain if an employer doesn't post it. Like I said, if it's a unionized position, it is easy to look it up. And if it isn't a unionized position, then it is totally up to the employer and I don't think people have a right to say that a potential employer owes them the posting of the wages. People who own or manage a business needs to find what works for them.

I am in a similar age group and I 100% agree with your comments. The wage was never advertised for any position that I applied for and I never expected it to be . It’s between the employer and each individual employee.

I also agree with Farmer George and Curly Sister. I have done hiring and been the one looking to get hired.  
 
When looking to get hired, I would never expect wages posted for something I knew was a near minimum wage job. When looking for that type of employment, the work environment was much more important than 3-4 bucks an hour one way or the other. Getting paid $12/hr in a place I enjoy is a hell of a lot better than $15/hr in a crap hole that I can't wait to get out of.  
 
For a more professional position, the market dictates the wages as does your competence. In addition, I looked at it that I was interviewing the employer just as much as they were interviewing me. Either the salary was set by a given scale or competent employers were pretty close to each other.  
 
When hiring for lower wage or professional positions, I was more focused on personality and team building but that was my management style. Some managers don't focus on that.  
 
So, there are different types of jobs, different types of applicants and different types of managers. This adds up to the conclusion that there is no one size fits all solution as to how to properly advertise a job.

I am not selling a job position. I am basically buying an employee. I don't see how comparing an employee is the same as buying a house but I can amuse the thought.  
So by what you are saying I don't need to advertise a price. I have seen many times bidding wars on homes. So in theory I know what my baseline is for wages. I could sit back and have people come in based on what they want to make and give me an offer to work based upon what they need to make their family life work. Someone will say they need 20/hr someone might say they still live at home and can survive off 14/hr. Meanwhile I might start at 16 and be able to save 2/hr.

I am actually saying the complete opposite of what you think I’m saying. Lol  
 
I’m saying people list a price on a house for a reason. A selling price is listed so that all members involved like the potential interested buyers know right away if that house is within their budget, and the seller notifies the potential buyers what to expect to hand over $ wise id interested and eliminate as much as possible bargaining wars.  
 
My example of a house is referring to the fact that a house is widely recognized as an investment, while employees from an employer’s perspective, should be seen in the same way but widely isn’t.  
 
The fact that you refer to “buying an employee” (it is a person that you are referring btw) pretty much sums up the wrong mindset employers go into a hiring process with.  
 
I’m not suggesting that candidates don’t come into the hiring process with pure intentions, but I’m responding to the employers on this thread who attribute posting a salary range or rate as the reason they get poor candidates who are only interested in the dollar figure and not the job.  
 
I’m arguing that its more often than not, the employers poor screening habits of applications and poor wording in their job posting that allows poor candidates to reach the interview stage. Not always I agree, but I guarantee it can be largely reduced.

Completely agree with you. I have come to the conclusion the majority of the employers here are talking about their experience hiring in entry level/minimum wage jobs. It’s sad but some of the employer’s sound just as “greedy” as the candidates they talk about. They’ve obviously never had the stress of providing for a family while living in a expensive community. I understand minimum wage jobs have no obligation to pay more and a large portion of their employees are young & single, therefore it’s probably safe to expect minimum wage. No one will ever convince me that posting salaries for post-secondary educated careers is a bad thing. It should only take 1 minute looking at a resume to even know if they are qualified/motivated enough to be called for an interview.  
 
Edited by Brandon,Brandon, 2020-03-07 15:58:18

But I disagree with you. I was employed in fully skilled positions and none of the positions that I applied for ever posted a salary. Starting salary was always discussed at interview level and was private information between myself and my employer. As a candidate I never expected any different. As a senior technician I certainly didn't expect my salary information to be available to anyone else.

There isn't any rule per se that says coworkers can't discuss their wages, although almost every employer tries to stop it. The argument is that it's bad for morale. In your example the employer will say the $14 employee will be jealous and get mad at the $22 employee.  
 
In reality more people need to be discussing their wages. A rising tide lifts all boats. Presuming the both employees in your example do the same job there's no reason at all for a $7/hr difference.

What about length of service. Would you like putting in 10 years building up your wage then someone starts fresh doing same job making same wage. Would make you feel like your time put in wasn't worth something. Some people may do the same job but some may do it faster. Should they make the same as the slower person even though same job?

If I'm doing the same job at the same organization I was 10 years ago I screwed up somewhere along the line. If I haven't shown my value to be more than a simple cost of living raise for the last 10 years, then while I may be personally offended, they deserve the same wage as me.  
 
Regardless, it still doesn't change the fact that it is in the employee's best interest to discuss their wage/salary with coworkers. The employer ALWAYS wants to pay as little as possible, and this notion of wage confidentiality helps to achieve that.

That I ever worked the rule was simple. If you discussed your salary with other employees you got fired. It’s a simple enough concept to understand which protects everyone’s privacy. A good employee must have energy, enthusiasm , interest and show initiative in the workplace and its product or service . If salary is someone’s primary driver than I wouldn’t have them work for me.

This is just an unfortunate and backwards way of thinking. How are your employees supposed to trust or respect you if you act like you have something to hide? This attitude promotes pay inequality. If an employer can't reasonably justify their employee's pay, then there's a problem. Employers want their employees to have energy, enthusiasm, interest, initiative, sacrifice a kidney, give up their first born child, and yet will fire them simply for discussing something as basic as wages? That's twisted.  
 
In the US it is illegal to fire someone for discussing wages, plain and simple. Canada should follow suit. Ontario's Pay Transparency Act is a good start at least. Salary is not about privacy, it is about fair compensation. Nobody is forcing people to discuss their salary if they don't want to.  
 
As a side note, nobody reasonable would apply for a position if it didn't somewhat interest them or they weren't somewhat qualified. That being said, salary is a HUGE component to working, and desperate people are looking for ANY pay. Unless you inherit millions of dollars, getting paid is everyone's primary driver for work. I don't know a single person who works for the fun of it unless they're retired. Some people simply feel more fulfilled/utilize more of their skills/have more interest in in their work than others.

Completely agree with Millenial’s post. Sorry to say but FarmerGeorge but your take on this situation is problematic.  
 
Let me ask you this, by your logic, if you had 2 farmers who were interested in purchasing cattle from you, and one offers you more money than other farmer, are you going to ask each farmer “which one of you is a more enthusiastic farmer?” Are you going to choose the one who you think is a more enthusiastic farmer even if they’re offering less money?  
 
As I’ve said on an earlier post. Salary is a huge factor in the decision in a taking a job for most people. There is absolutely nothing sinister about it. It’s called security and trying to live a life that each person is intitled to live, striving for happiness in a life they that can hopefully provide beyond than just the essentials. The way you talk as an employer makes you believe that your entitlement to this sort of life is more important than that of your employee’s trying to live the same type of life.  
 
And not talking about wages in the workplace is so 1950s. While I agree sadly there are still workplaces who have this policy and I myself have worked in places like these over my life. They have also been the most sexist workplaces against women I have every witnessed and I’m a man.

Of course there is pay inequality in the work place. Each employees abilities and skills are different and need to be treated as such. As an employee I never had an issue about not disclosing salary information to anyone else. Now if you get into gender pay inequality then that is obviously wrong.  
 
Edited by Farmergeorge, 2020-03-08 14:13:44

Auction of a commodity is a completely different marketplace.

You said “Of course there is pay inequality in the work place. Each employees abilities and skills are different and need to be treated as such.” I’m not sure what you are referring to here, do you mean pay inequity? Because pay inequity means, not getting equal pay for work of equal value.  
 
So if you’re comparing a plumber’s skills and what they get paid to what a teacher’s skills are and what they get paid has nothing to do with pay inequity. Are you referring to two people having the same job with relatively comparable skills needed to perform the job, but one may be better than the other?  
 
If it’s the latter you are referring to, then it is up to you as the employer to intervene and have a professional conversation with the employee who is not performing as well. But the last thing you do in that conversation is compare them to other employees, you have a conversation about their performance in comparison to what the job demands and not how other employees perform it.  
 
As you say, “everyone has different skills and are different”, hence staff should never be technically compared to each other from the employer’s standpoint. But this is done over and over and over again by employers. And then you don’t have to wonder why there is dissension in your ranks. Stop comparing different people with different skills and start asking the lower performing staff what they need to excel in performing the job to what the job demands.  
 
Pretty f’en simple but employers love to blame the staff and staff love to blame the employers. Be the bigger man and be professional. If the employee continues with low performance, that’s what regular review performances are for. To document and have a written track record of how the employee is doing. Try to set goals with them. So when there is a documented history you as the employer can justify why you haven’t given said employee a raise.  
 
If you carry out this system, no employer should be shitting their pants for fear of a talking staff about pay because you have done your professional duties by assessing everyone with a standardized method in accordance to the job description. Individual skill sets and characteristics should be assessed to what the job demands, and by reviewing their performance accordingly and maintaining documentation, all these are evidence to support your decisions should an employee make an issue with you about their lower wages.  
 
But employers don’t like to do this because this is a lot of work and again, I repeat, fail to see how much it could actually save them in headaches and $ down the road.  
 
And btw, the only way pay inequity like gender inequity is uncovered is literally by talking about wages. How else do you think it gets revealed? A magical eight-ball?

The reason you typically don't want to hire an overqualified person is because the have leverage over the employer. They know they could easily make more money so you either have to pay them more when they ask or watch them leave at the first new opportunity you cant match leaving the employer to start the hiring/training/ benefits all over again.

But no two employees carry out the same work in the same way which is why they must each be assessed on their own merits . My experience of employees ( that I have worked alongside) driven only by their pay cheque is that they cut corners, make more mistakes and cost the business money. I have seen this in multiple work places.

It may not be a chance of being over qualified. I am in a position where I am almost homeless, looking for a job but limited to what I can do.  
 
So that might mean I have to look for something below what I have done in the past because I cannot get a job in the field I had before.