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:David Demyan <concord -at- IX -dot- NETCOM -dot- COM> Date:Tue, 13 Jun 1995 05:44:27 -0700
Chris Willis wrote:
(snip)
>I'm not interested in playing games. And I'm also not interested in bleeding
>others dry to make a "killing" for myself. I want to build a dedicated team
>of talented writers who enjoy coming to work and feel fairly compensated at
>the end of the day. This means something different to every person who sends
>a resume. However, it's fairly obvious that someone who is used to making $50
>K per year in a related field is not going to be happy for long at $30 K per
>year in an entry level position. I'm willing to work with these people if
>they will work with me. However, if someone's not willing to bet that they
>can come up to speed and make themselves worth a higher wage in the long run,
>why should I? It's a waste of each of our time to even proceed with an
>interview.
(snip)
Chris, your post absolutely reeks of self-righteous indignation and "us-
versus-them" attitude. By attitude, I mean statements like "I'm willing
to work with these people if they will work with me." You might as well
say, "I won't consider any resumes that come in printed on gray paper."
You are right: it would be a total waste of time for any professional
technical writer (entry or experienced) who knows their own value to apply.
Why be so restrictive when you admit in your opening paragraph that the
pool of available writers is shallow? The effect (of saying you won't
consider resumes without salary history) is to further limit the pool. If
you are serious about hiring good people, it is worth while negotiating
with candidates (might take a little time) rather than trying to get them
at the lowest rate. My meaning in this last sentence is that I believe
the true intent of required salary history is to force people to work at
the lowest possible wage and prevent free-market negotiations (read that:
"anti-competitive"). Further, as I said in a separate post, another
effect is to prevent quality-minded writers from applying. The message
an employers sends, loud and clear, is that we are interested in hiring
only the cheapest; quality-minded pros need not apply.
