HR question

[bethie_73]

I thought there were some HR or ex HR people out there, is there anyone who could answer a salary question for me?

[StantonHyde]

Depends on what it is.

[bethie_73]

Depends on what it is.

Haha true. I had a headhunter call me today, and they want me to interview for a job.

The salary I currently make is good for the area I used to live in (I tele-commute) but is much lower than what I would make here.
The job I am interviewing for is a step up and based in DC so a much higher salary.

She said that the employer was willing to pay up to X amount but that I would need to take a lower salary because of my current salary, that having too much of a raise is a red flag.

Has anyone heard that before? I am qualified so that is what should matter when it comes to what I make, right?

[StantonHyde]

Baloney. The pay scale is based on what the new company pays, not your former company. E.g. if you moved from a non-profit to a profit, you could see an incredible raise. When I moved here I took a 10-20% pay cut because that is what this market pays. So the salary should be based on the DC market. If I moved back east, I would expect to make a lot more because the cost of living is higher. They would pay salary X to anyone they hired--regardless of what that person made previously (higher or lower). So no go on that reason. It would be interesting to hear if someone has another perspective.

[MamaKath]

Is it federal or with a federal contractor? If so that sounds correct.

[StantonHyde]

ahhh, yes. I know nothing about working for the feds.

[bethie_73]

No with a hospital. But I hadn't heard this before either. I thought maybe the headhunter got a bonus if I get paid less. :hysterical:

It just seemed odd to me and I am going to call her tomorrow to get her to clarify. I think she may have said that I would work for X so I'm not sure I can even go back and challenge it, but if they really don't have any qualified candidates.

[MamaKath]

Then no, it shouldn't be based on your current salary.

[bt0510]

When I moved from NH to NY, the standard pay rates were extremely different for my line of work, IT. I was making decent money in NH but expected to make substantially more in NY. I was using a few headhunters and went on a bunch of interviews. I was told similar to what you are hearing. Nobody was willing to make such a huge pay change for me based on what I was making.

Another line of thinking. If the headhunter isn't pushing for you to make more money, then the headhunter is probably being paid a placement fee, not a percentage of the first year. I know there used to be 2 different ways to pay headhunters but don't know if that's still true. Or, the job the HH is trying to place you in is really a little below your experience level so he/she can't get you more money so is trying to sell you the position any way possible.

[Twin Mom]

I agree. What you make at your new job should have nothing to do with your current salary. IMO when companies pay you based on your current salary, you are being underpaid. Your salary should be based on the market rate for the new job.


Baloney. The pay scale is based on what the new company pays, not your former company. E.g. if you moved from a non-profit to a profit, you could see an incredible raise. When I moved here I took a 10-20% pay cut because that is what this market pays. So the salary should be based on the DC market. If I moved back east, I would expect to make a lot more because the cost of living is higher. They would pay salary X to anyone they hired--regardless of what that person made previously (higher or lower). So no go on that reason. It would be interesting to hear if someone has another perspective.

[gatorsmom]

Or, the job the HH is trying to place you in is really a little below your experience level so he/she can't get you more money so is trying to sell you the position any way possible.


This is my guess. HH will try this sometimes, though I'm not sure why since their agency usually has a grace period where if the candidate doesn't work out they'll find a replacement for the job. But I"ve seen HHs do this before.

But, yeah, you guessed it right. It doesn't make sense to pay you based on what you made before. In fact, how did the HH even know what you are currently earning? Usually the correct way to find out if you are in the new companies wage range is to ask, "What are your salary requirements?" And this is something you set yourself, really, based on the market rate, your experience, current salary, etc. I'm tired and maybe leaving something out here, but basically this is a weird situation and I"d be really asking some probing questions of that HH before I took any sort of action.

If you can, please let us know what happens. Hope it turns out to be a good opportunity for you.

[randomkid]

No with a hospital. But I hadn't heard this before either. I thought maybe the headhunter got a bonus if I get paid less. :hysterical:

That may be likely, sort of. It may actually be that you get paid less so the head hunter gets her commission. It's been a long time since this happened to me, but when I graduated, I had a head hunter call me. She offered to set up interviews for me and I told her no, I didn't need her help (jobs in my field were plentiful at that time). However, in my inexperience, I told her I already had an interview scheduled with one of the clinics she mentioned. In my interview, the owner of the clinic was acting a little put off by me. At the end, he asked why I used a HH and I told him I hadn't. Turns out this woman called the clinic and somehow made it seem that she had set up my interview when she had nothing to do with it. The owner told me that if I had used her, he would have to lower my salary in order to pay her.


HHs do get paid, and usually by the hiring company. That could lower your salary. My experience with HHs in the healthcare industry has not been pleasant. I think many of them lie in order to get their money. We've actually had them call our office at work and try to recruit therapists right out of our office!

[bethie_73]

When I moved from NH to NY, the standard pay rates were extremely different for my line of work, IT. I was making decent money in NH but expected to make substantially more in NY. I was using a few headhunters and went on a bunch of interviews. I was told similar to what you are hearing. Nobody was willing to make such a huge pay change for me based on what I was making.

This is exactly my issue. I am in IT, but my specialty is Healthcare, I've worked in hospital IT for 10 years. (and now at 35 I don't know what I want to be when I grow up.) At the low end of the pay scale is a 40% raise from what I'm making now, and at the upper end is almost double what I make. This technically is a step up in jobs.

The girl seemed very nice and straightforward, (I'm USUALLY a good judge of character) she explained that others were putting people in for this job and she really wanted to place it. I did tell her what I currently make, I mean they can find this out, and I haven't looked for a job in 7 years so I may be a little out of the loop, and need to learn from my mistake.

[StantonHyde]

What is the middle range? That's what you want to see. There is usually a formula of your education, plus years of experience, plus any certificates etc. that is used to determine salary. So assess yourself against the job description (it is highly likely that the job is posted on the hospital's web site). If you come in low, then you are looking at a 40% raise. In the middle, it will be more.

I work in healthcare and we are constantly making market adjustments for people. IT is field that pays well--in healthcare too.

[dcmom2b3]

She said that the employer was willing to pay up to X amount but that I would need to take a lower salary because of my current salary, that having too much of a raise is a red flag.

A red flag for who? The company that's hiring? Other offerees for similar positions? I'm not an HR professional, but IMO, this is fishy. I wouldn't be working with this HH again.

If someone is concerned about setting a precedent of giving X% over prior salaries they shouldn't be cutting back your salary offer. Rather, they should be considering that your current salary is based on COLA for another, far less expensive, geographic region. That's the way that they justify paying you market rates that just happen to be a large percentage more than your prior salary.

Anything else is just trying to take advantage.

[bethie_73]

Thanks everyone. I haven't heard anything yet, which is not surprising, I mean I just got a call yesterday.

The salary I want is exactly mid range, per what the HH told me and the research I did. If I get an interview and and get an offer that is what I will ask for. I mean I need to be comfortable with the decision. I decided that I will talk to this HH, but if the hiring manager likes me (hey what's not to like) then I will still negotiate to what I think is a fair pay for the position. I am not out to "scam anyone" (as my SIL put it) as long as my expectation is fair and my reasoning is fair, then I don't think it matters what the HH says.


I mean I"m getting called about every day now, so I figure I should be able to find something I love, that comensates me fairly. And we haven't even heard about lay offs, so maybe I won't be affected....

[gatorsmom]

You have a right to be paid fairly. I hope you find a job that fits you well and pays you well. Let us know how it goes!

[kim_d]

I worked for a head hunter for a few months when I was in graduate school. They always wanted us to make sure that we knew the candidates current salary and desired salary but not to give the company's salary range.

We would cold call candidates and give information about the job and the candidate would normally ask "what does it pay?" However, we had to redirect and ask "what would you like to get or what is your current salary". We were not to give out the salary in hopes that we could find a qualified candidate that was on the low end of the pay scale. I will say it often was a difficult sell.

The reason was to keep the companies that we worked with happy and continued to get their business. They wouldn't want to pay an employee 100K/year when he/she would have been satisfied with 75K.