> No need to waste time with 7 rounds of interviewing only to find out the salary is 50% of what I currently make.
You can just ask at the end of the first interview. I've never had a problem doing so.
You can just ask at the end of the first interview. I've never had a problem doing so.
Whenever I've been looking for work I'll google, search linkedin, etc, and pick the top three/four companies that seem interesting. I exclude any that don't include a salary range, and any which have "common knowledge" shared locally about them being bad companies.
For the past few years that's been sufficient, sometimes I get an offer and accept, sometimes I have to choose between two offers. I've not even always taken the higher offers, because money is important, but it's not the only thing that matters when picking a job.
Personally I feel it is such a waste of time to discover if the salary doesn't meet your expectations after 3-5 rounds of song & dance.
By definition, a shortage of labor sellers means labor sellers have an advantage in negotiations. From what I understand about Japan, even in the tech sector, the quality of life for labor sellers is pretty bad with long hours and not much room for high pay.
I imagine if Japanese tech workers has the option of working for employers with compensation offerings like Google and Apple and other US companies, then they would not accept the quality of life that they are. And even with the terrible quality of life they have now, the Japanese world keeps spinning, so any shortage is clearly not short enough to be a showstopper (in the short term).
So it boils down to the working culture, no? The one I referenced initially..
My wife is interviewing for Oracle HR right now (mostly done deal). She is due for the final interview tomorrow. The offer has still not mentioned her compensation yet - although from hearsay she knows a ballpark. It seems even American companies play by Japanese ways when in Japan.
Culture would take a backseat and the Japanese execs would start talking compensation real fast.
Clearly whoever is in charge of hiring at Oracle for your wife’s position is betting that your wife will not mind waiting to discuss compensation and/or they can find someone else if your wife does bring it up. Simultaneously, your wife is betting that she cannot find another position if she brings up compensation at a point that she thinks could cost her the offer.
If your wife was indispensable to Oracle HR, and she wanted to bet on that, there is no reason she cannot start talking compensation whenever she wants. Or if she has alternatives that are willing to talk compensation, then she can skip Oracle HR and move on to better options.
This is untrue. 1) Employers have more information about the current situation than applicants, and 2) employers collude, applicants don't.
Hence the importance of price transparency, and laws requiring a minimum pay figure are a start.
The meagre salaries tell a different story.
Its like how you're aware of a price of an item across different stores or markets. Same - but the item is a tech employee.
Salarymen do have long working hours & have to go along with those office drinking parties etc. But at the same time, they are treated more personally than an American enterprise employee would. Parents sick in old age? Many companies would give cash incentives to support. Buying a house? CEO might extend you a personal credit line or speak to his banker buddy to give you extremely favorable terms. Got married or had a child? Employers (not coworkers) would give you off-days & some cash/gifts to newborn. Did extremely well a financial quarter? You get a bonus "red letter" (typically a cheque or cash of good amount) or a paid short vacation. If you have passed your probation, Japanese companies will bend over their back to retain you (retrain, reassign under different manager etc.) rather than outright fire you (although thats slowly changing with the economy shrink)
Traditional Japanese companies treat their employees as half families. Managers tend to be more hands-on as a patriarch for the good or the bad. So while we concentrate mostly on the bad parts, we often overlook the good parts too.
I am in no way advocating their culture. Many things desperately need change. But if salaryman situation was so miserable, it would have changed a lot of things long time ago. No matter where we're born - freedom & comfort are valuable for everyone.
Managers becoming patriarchs (or even companies) can change the culture to then make individuals dependent on them. No patriarch, severely restricted options. That's a huge issue in Japan, and it's a huge issue outside Japan as well.
Giving people the stink eye for just mentioning leaving a company makes it easier for malicious companies (black companies in particular) to sink their teeth into naïve individuals. We see this problem in the West as well. We all know employees leave for pretty obvious reasons (and the reason they apply is obvious), but saying anything bad is the #1 sin of any job interview for very, very superficial reasons.
And neither of these are required to keep most of the solely good things.
>[...] these are required to keep most of the solely good things.
Which things?
Since changing jobs is seen as a huge risk and the culture among individuals is to remain loyal, it allows black companies to take advantage of naïve, mostly young individuals. You see similar things outside Japan, but less stigma on changing jobs makes it easier to get away from these situations.
>Which things?
E.g.: you don't need to be extremely judgmental of individuals ditching a job to still have the benefits of loyal employees being rewarded and having a family feeling within the company. Which would solve most of the problems with bad/malicious companies taking advantage of the situation.
I'm generally in favor of posting salary ranges. I like to know how the company values the positions they are hiring for, and I don't really want to talk to a recruiter at all if it's not going to be a salary match, so I like the idea of being able to screen better as a candidate.
But now that I've been on the hiring side, there's some flexibility I think we lose if we post those ranges: what do you do if you like a candidate, but not for the role they applied for? Perhaps their skills and background are not quite what you're looking for in this role, but you know another team has an open rec and this candidate is perfect. Or, maybe you've posted for a particular seniority range and you like the candidate but they are more/less senior than the posting, and you want to scale the position up or down to meet them. Neither of these scenarios (which seem to happen with regularity) preclude putting the range in the job description, but then the redirect or rescope feels bait-and-switchy when it's really not.
So, if your expectations are below what they are willing to pay, they'll just offer your less?
You can argue that it shouldn't, but people are people.
The ones who get offended usually pay less and have had issues with employees quiting over low salaries and/or have heard negative candidate feedback around pay
On the other hand, giving a range and getting offered the bottom (which we already agreed is sufficient, otherwise why is it your bottom?) gives you the opportunity to negotiate non salary terms like health care, holiday, work from home, etc.