Re: FWD: How Do You NOT Mention Salary First?

["Eric L. Dunn" <edunn -at- TRANSPORT -dot- BOMBARDIER -dot- COM>]

This debate has been beaten to death on the list before. I find that it
continues to be relevant though. Personally I think that both parties
should be forthcomming. The employer should be willing to say the rage the
company pays for a given position, and the candidate should know the range
they are willing to work for. Perhaps each should pass a paper to the other
giving the respective ranges. Neither one should necessarily ante up first,
both stand to lose by doing so. If it's a big company on the other hand,
the policies are set and they should be willing to give the salary range
for a given position immediately. Their hands are tied and final
determination is always based on experience (at least that's what they'll
tell you).

It's not cut and dry, no negotiation is. Who offers first at the stereo
store? The purchaser or the salesman? Who is more desperate? The salesman
knows how low he can go (he knows the retail value), the customer should
know what it's worth (if they've shopped around). Same scenario, same
sticky situation.

Julie Bruce wrote:
>>I have been told not to expect any more than a 15% raise when moving from
>>company to company in the same field.  15% is a reasonable raise -
unless,
>>of course, you are currently underpaid.

I take exception to this however. To me this is the one area where it is
cut and dry. What I made during previous employment is none of their
business. What I am worth to one employer (whether in the same market or
not, or the same position or not) is absolutely none of their business. Why
should your earning potential be limited by previous under payment? Why
should you have to justify being overpaid at a nother position or be looked
at suspisciusly if you're interviewing for a lower paid position? Why
should the company get a free insight into the HR policies of their
competitors?

Eric L. Dunn

 From ??? -at- ??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000=