TechWhirl (TECHWR-L) is a resource for technical writing and technical communications professionals of all experience levels and in all industries to share their experiences and acquire information.
For two decades, technical communicators have turned to TechWhirl to ask and answer questions about the always-changing world of technical communications, such as tools, skills, career paths, methodologies, and emerging industries. The TechWhirl Archives and magazine, created for, by and about technical writers, offer a wealth of knowledge to everyone with an interest in any aspect of technical communications.
Subject:Re: In Defense of Salary History From:Mark Boyer <MBoyer -at- BANYAN -dot- COM> Date:Mon, 12 Jun 1995 16:52:53 EDT
I don't know if I inadvertently started this confrontation by including a
"please give salary history" request in a job posting I put up (if so
justice is being served by the relative dearth of applicants). At any rate,
it seems appropriate to chip in.
I didn't mean it that way.
Just a joke. Actually, I really didn't mean it that way. But the debate is
not that simple, though it is relatively two-sided. A hiring individual is
reluctant to say what the salary or salary range is because he or she
doesn't want to pay more than he or she can get away with. Salary ranges in
many companies are quite wide; and a company HR person doesn't want to
spend more than necessary and often pressures a hiring manager. Assume, for
example, a candidate is making $32k, and that the job opening I have has a
salary range of $30,000 to $49,500 (that's a real range, by the way). My
goal may be not to exceed the range's midpoint of $39,900. Even that,
however, would be more than a 20% increase for this candidate (and my HR
rep would kill me; but more importantly, I have to consider the fairness
vis a vis what others on staff make). The bottom line is that I'm reluctant
to state a range.
On the other hand, the candidate doesn't want to tip his or her hand. Why
should a new salary, after all, be based on someone else's "reasonable"
decision about what an increase should be based on a steady progression, as
if salary growth were like a child's physical growth marked in inches on a
kitchen wall. Why shouldn't that individual get what his or her skills are
worth? Why can't someone get a 20% increase? (Where are these $100,
000-a-year tech writing jobs (sorry about that)). I acn't think of any
reason, because I am temperamentally more on this side than the other.
The bottom line is that if neither wants to be the first to put a number on
the table, then each side will dance around till someone has to.
If I had the job spec to do over again (and it looks like I will), I would
probably be more specific about the number of years of experience and I was
looking for and ask candidates to state their salary requirements (though
that is still a cop out).
-------------
Original Text
