The First Person to Mention A Number Loses–and its Usually You

Published on by Brynne VanHettinga Category: Job Market, Underemployment

Perhaps the biggest fallacy of the law in the U.S. is the presumption of equal bargaining power between employers and employees.  This is even more so in the context of a job search.  Although there are some job seekers who may already be employed in a highly-paid position and are looking for a change, many more job seekers are either un- or underemployed.  Job seekers who have been unemployed for a long time may be looking at decimated savings and retirement–and possibly looming foreclosure, eviction and homelessness–which further exacerbates the power imbalance.

Anyone who is looking for a job has no doubt been apprised by all the advice online about not bringing up the salary question.  We are instructed to focus solely on our skills and what we can do for the employer.  Indeed, this advice sometimes even exhorts us to NOT focus on the past (including our salary) because we may be looking at an entirely different position or industry.  However, what frequently happens is that the employer will bring up the salary question first. Nearly EVERY job search advice source recommends stalling and deflecting this question as long as possible so you can “sell” them on you.  Alternately, you have already done your research on job aggregator sites (salary.com, payscale.com, glassdoor.com, indeed.com), so you can truthfully give some answer along the lines of “based on my research, the salary range for jobs such as this, in this area, is…” .

One would hope that the employer has already budgeted something for this position.  Sure, there might be some “wiggle room” for negotiation, but–with much greater access to industry data than you have– you would think a potential employer already knows what they are going to pay when they created the position.   There are several reasons why employers ask this question–and ALL of them create potential downsides to the candidate.

  • They are hoping to get the candidates to bid against each other so they can hire the person who will work the cheapest.  Persons who are desperate for a job may be tempted to underbid.  Unfortunately, even if you are hired, this new low-ball salary now becomes part of your career history, which makes it harder to get paid more later.  Alternatively, the low-ball answer can backfire, and the employer will question why you are lowering your standards.
  • Even if you throw out a range that is appropriate based on your research, the employer may be looking to eliminate candidates (particularly if there are many applicants) by arbitrarily cutting off those who are “too expensive.”   The fact that you have done your research itself may be threatening, because you are viewed as someone who knows the “market” for your skills and will assert your own worth.

The salary question can take the form of either “what is your current salary” or “what are your expectations.”  Many job seekers know that they should avoid or deflect the expectations question, but may think that the current salary question is more innocuous.  As a practical matter, the job seeker has probably already (per the job application) given the employer permission to check employment references, and so the employer can easily get this information from elsewhere.  But the salary issue may come up before you even get to the interview.  For example, what do you do about online application processes that require you to fill in salary information to even apply through their system?

In my own case, I tend to just pass over these systems.  I ran my own business for over ten years, and not only did my income fluctuate, I would have to consult (now unavailable) tax records to know for sure how much income was attributed to the business versus how much I paid myself.  Since any form of misinformation during the process is cause for disqualification, I would rather not attempt to “guess.”  Indeed, at least one headhunter  advises job seekers to either find a way to work around the forms or walk away  from these deals, because they are obviously looking to low-ball candidates.

On August 1st of this year (2016), Massachusetts passed a law requiring employers to state a compensation figure upfront and making it illegal to require a candidate’s salary history (although it can be disclosed voluntarily).  The rationale behind this legislation is that basing salary offers on past history is serving to perpetuate the gender pay gap. With this new law, Massachusetts joins 12 other states that make it illegal for employers to prohibit salary discussions among employees. The down side is that this law does not become effective until July of 2018.

The gender pay equity advocates who supported this law say it will benefit all workers, not just women, and it is easy to see why.  The next question becomes “why not” in more states, or even at the federal level?  Among other things, the federal Paycheck Fairness Act would prohibit employer-mandated secrecy with respect to salaries.  Advocates have been pushing for a Paycheck Fairness Act since the late 1990s, which has been repeatedly blocked by congressional Republicans, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and other business groups.  This suggests that any change might first have to come from the individual states before there is enough momentum to get it through Congress.

Job searches are becoming more and more like endurance marathons.  First, one’s application must make it through byzantine sorting algorithms and overwhelmed HR screeners.  Then there is a series of interviews, usually beginning with a phone interview, followed possibly by a video interview.  If one makes it past these initial screenings to an in-person interview, this may involve substantial travel costs–and sometimes there are multiple interviews at multiple locations.  In addition to interviews, some employers may require online or written tests which must be passed to advance to the next stage.  In essence, job seekers spend a lot of time, effort and resources on a mere possibility of a job, but how are they to determine if the effort is justified if they don’t know how much the job will pay?  Even economists believe that readily available accurate information is necessary in order for free markets to work as intended.  The only conclusion is that employers benefit from this system of perversion and secrecy at the expense of all the rest of us.  Until we get legislation passed like the law in Massachusetts that applies to everyone, most of us are going to continue to be working harder for less.

Your Dream Job as a Pooper Scooper

Published on by Brynne VanHettinga Category: Job Market, Job Quality, Job Search, Underemployment

dog-on-toilet Because I am perennially seeking paid work (to supplement my unpaid creative and critical work), I frequently receive emails with job listings. Most of these jobs are corporate, which I tend to ignore except for research purposes. That is, these announcements provide information about workplace trends, not only with respect to the jobs themselves but about how they are “marketed.”

There is a site that most job seekers are familiar with called Glass Door. While this site (like so many others) also tends to be corporate, it provides a valuable service by aggregating employee-provided inside information about companies. Glass Door provides much needed transparency about pay scales and diversity, but also more intangible things like corporate culture and opportunity, which are often effectively hidden from job seekers. Today, Glass Door sent an email alleging they had a list of “dream jobs.” These were not mere work-for-a-living jobs, but purportedly jobs that you could look forward to doing “with passion” every day. I followed the link to the list, and the jobs described were basically underwhelming. But the job described below got my attention:

Pet Caretaker, Thompsons Station, TN.  Turn your love of animals into a full-time job. Mars—the maker of candy bars and pet food including Pedigree, Whiskas and Iams— is looking for a caretaker to provide daily care for the pets within the MARS Petcare Feeding Facility including cleaning of the facilities and implementation of the environmental enrichment programs. Opened in 2014, The Pet Feeding Center houses 180 dogs, living in pairs in circular kennels and spend time playing together in the outdoor access areas. Up to 120 cats also live together inside the area, which features conservatory viewing areas and play areas. And yes, there are plenty of free Twix, Snickers and Skittles on site.

One of my pre-credential, young adult “survival” jobs was as an animal caretaker at a medical research laboratory. Job duties consisted of feeding the animals and cleaning their cages; i.e., you were a pooper scooper in a lab coat. I only lasted there two days. This was not so much because I was unwilling to handle shit, but when a group of rabbits (or, what was left of them) came back from an experiment, I could not handle that. The Doctor in charge of the lab was surprisingly sympathetic, stating “Not many people last here very long.”

I am generally not shocked at how language is used to deceive. It is the essence of all marketing messages. In the United States, some $6.7 billion a year is spent on marketing research. The goal of this research is to change behavior—that is, to get people to spend money on something they might not otherwise want or need—rather than improving products, processes and institutions to make our lives better. However, I WAS surprised that Glass Door—a paragon of transparency (as the name implies)—would describe pooper scooping as a “dream job.” Admittedly, the animals in the advertisement are used in pet food and not medical research, so the jobholder is not likely to encounter butchered bunnies.  But a “dream job”???  Was it because of the all-you-care-to-eat junk food? Work this job for too long and you will end up looking like the Good Year blimp and smelling like a barnyard. But…if you clap your hands loud and long enough and TRULY BELIEVE, it can be your dream job!

Psychologists (and now neuroscientists) have long recognized a process they term “rationalization.”  Rationalization happens when we are (in some way) forced to do something that conflicts with our core beliefs or inner values. Psychologists say we do this in order to avoid cognitive dissonance, or the mental conflict that occurs when our decisions or behavior is inconsistent with who we are and what we truly believe.

Rationalization is understandable at the level of the individual job-holder. Imagine that you have work skills and experience, as well as academic or professional credentials. If you (like many people) have difficulty finding appropriate work and money is running out, you take a job that neither pays for nor uses your highest skill level. Even if the job is doing little more than providing some social contact and keeping a roof over your head, you feel like you “should” be grateful for it. You also do not want to feel like a loser, because in today’s society, even being perceived as a loser is a certain career-killer. So…you rationalize how “good” the job is, maybe even exaggerating its benefits and complexities…even if only to yourself. At some point (according to psycho-science), you actually begin to believe your own rationalizations.

While this rationalization process—as perverted as it is—is understandable at the individual level, it becomes even more problematical at the societal level. Over the course of time, all of us begin to forget what a good job even looks like and what work should really be about. How we describe who we are and what we do becomes more about hype, spin, and the creation of image rather than substance. Taken to extremes, we collectively disconnect from reality. In the words of George Orwell, “War is peace. Freedom is slavery.  Ignorance is strength.”

As a perennial job-seeker, I am familiar with data supporting the improbability of being selected through mass advertised job openings and applicant tracking algorithms. In a world where there are many more job seekers than jobs (including those who already have jobs they are not happy about), the “system” is set up to operate as a screening and a sorting device to eliminate candidates. Indeed, some job-search gurus advise serious job seekers to avoid applying through these systems altogether. So, when you see some jobs being over-hyped and touted as “dream jobs,” your first reaction should be one of suspicion. If you (like me) are proficient in the art of critical thinking, most of the time you will be able to read between the lines to find the truth. If not, then simply remember the old adage, “If it sounds too good to be true, it probably is.”