Previous/Expected Salary

Originally Posted by Unregistered

If i were HR i would just look at the qualifications. Not putting works for some people, if u are so scared then just put a range.

He will look at qualification regardless u put or no put. Why run the risk of not putting?

[celery]

If the job listing states clearly to put, and if an applicant never put, it means an applicant does not even know how to follow simple instructions or is a maverick and a potential problematic person.

From HR perspective, it is to screen out applicants with expected salary beyond its budget and not waste both applicant's and interviewers' time. They are assuming that an applicant would not be willing to reconsider a figure lower than expected even if everything is right. Companies won't want to waste time interviewing someone they cannot afford.

Job applicants may complain stating salary lowers their bargaining power, it's true. Maybe a company is willing to pay even higher than one's expected salary if left unknown. However, the fact that one is applying for a job (and not being headhunted to fill a position), already means that the advantage is tilted to the hiring company/employer who is at the sole discretion to make a hiring decision. Put it bluntly, it is an applicant seeking a favour, a job or opportunity, and not the other way round.

Originally Posted by Unregistered

He will look at qualification regardless u put or no put. Why run the risk of not putting?

Hi, I went to interview in a local bank. I told the vp interviewing me "i want 8k and nothing less". She said, this is in our budget and we can meet this number. later HR told me, the budget is lowered and now it is 7k. takit or leavit.

what can I do? should I call the vp and tell her that hr is creating trouble?

Originally Posted by Jennifer

Hi, I went to interview in a local bank. I told the vp interviewing me "i want 8k and nothing less". She said, this is in our budget and we can meet this number. later HR told me, the budget is lowered and now it is 7k. takit or leavit.

what can I do? should I call the vp and tell her that hr is creating trouble?

more like the vp anyhow blank cheque when he dun even have the budget. a lot of hirers adopt the whack first talk later mentality cauz they dun want to give up any candidate early in the process even if they know not enough budget. they figure if u reject then they just go for 2nd best but at least they kept options open.

Originally Posted by Unregistered

more like the vp anyhow blank cheque when he dun even have the budget. a lot of hirers adopt the whack first talk later mentality cauz they dun want to give up any candidate early in the process even if they know not enough budget. they figure if u reject then they just go for 2nd best but at least they kept options open.

I kena this a twice with MNC before. Hiring manager say salary not a problem at all after I confirm again during interview, then when offer come HR say cannot match and seems surprise I din't know that.

After that out of courtesy I went to talk to the interviewer again, he just push everything to HR and say they inflexible and its all their fault and how if up to him he will pay etc etc. But honestly as a job seeker I really couldn't care less whose fault, all I know is internally these people cannot coordinate properly and end up wasting my time coming down for multiple interviews.

Originally Posted by Unregistered

I kena this a twice with MNC before. Hiring manager say salary not a problem at all after I confirm again during interview, then when offer come HR say cannot match and seems surprise I din't know that.

After that out of courtesy I went to talk to the interviewer again, he just push everything to HR and say they inflexible and its all their fault and how if up to him he will pay etc etc. But honestly as a job seeker I really couldn't care less whose fault, all I know is internally these people cannot coordinate properly and end up wasting my time coming down for multiple interviews.

Most of the time is the interviewer fault. Interviewer want more manpower in his own dept. But ultimately it is HR/planning that will determine the position and salary range for any new incoming. Sometimes though, these dept heads think they are up there and don't want to take orders from HR. Usually HR will already give black-and-white, what is the salary range for each position and how many the dept can hire. But the dept head will suka suka try and chut pattern to get what they want. Its a problem with big organisations. All the depts work as if they are the most important.

Originally Posted by Unregistered

Most of the time is the interviewer fault. Interviewer want more manpower in his own dept. But ultimately it is HR/planning that will determine the position and salary range for any new incoming. Sometimes though, these dept heads think they are up there and don't want to take orders from HR. Usually HR will already give black-and-white, what is the salary range for each position and how many the dept can hire. But the dept head will suka suka try and chut pattern to get what they want. Its a problem with big organisations. All the depts work as if they are the most important.

I have been talking to this bank. The hiring manager says that he has full powers to determine salary. But HR told me that the hiring manager has no powers until they issue the appointment letter. Business can suffer until HR can have there say. funny - business earn the salary for HR and HR derail the business process.

Originally Posted by Unregistered

I have been talking to this bank. The hiring manager says that he has full powers to determine salary. But HR told me that the hiring manager has no powers until they issue the appointment letter. Business can suffer until HR can have there say. funny - business earn the salary for HR and HR derail the business process.

Most likely the hiring manager big cannon trying to act satki in front of you. Banking industry is a very compliance driven and everything is about policies and rules. Don't say a small fry like your hiring manager, even a senior MD will have to go through many rounds of approval if he wants to give something outside boundary.

As for junior fries like SVP/ED & below, haha my toes are laughing if any of them come to claim the have "full powers to determine salary". When I was a SVP with Citi, I was not even authorized to appeal for an offer exception outside salary range unless my boss sign off to give his support, then the whole exception form need my big boss MD from by line and MD from HR side to approve before HR can go back to offer something outside policy.

for anyone who work in bigger co will know there is no such thing as a mgr having full power to decide whatever he feel like paying. there will always be a budget & approvals needed. unless its a small co where the towkay do his own hiring... my advice is question regarding job scope, culture, kpi etc ask the hiring mgr, other things like pay, bonus, car, benefit etc. always get confirmation from hr first, dun just assume base on a hiring mgr empty promise.

Originally Posted by Unregistered

for anyone who work in bigger co will know there is no such thing as a mgr having full power to decide whatever he feel like paying. there will always be a budget & approvals needed. unless its a small co where the towkay do his own hiring... my advice is question regarding job scope, culture, kpi etc ask the hiring mgr, other things like pay, bonus, car, benefit etc. always get confirmation from hr first, dun just assume base on a hiring mgr empty promise.

agree, managers don't always have full power to determine salary. but if the budget is approved for 7k and the candidate is good, the manger should be able to settle for 7k or maybe 6.8 k. what value add do hr bring by haggling down the salary by a few hundred dollars? some good candidates simply go away if hr says "6k, take it or leave it". a good candidate may be able to find similar role for 6.5k elseewhere.