I ask candidates their salary expectations and don’t feel bad about it

by Alison Green on February 19, 2020

A reader writes:

You regularly talk about how inappropriate it is for employers to ask candidates about their salary expectations without giving any salary information out themselves.

Well, I am a medical professional, and, along with my partners, employ two staff in our small office. I became a small business owner/employer having received no training in that aspect of things, but learned early on when I am hiring to ALWAYS ask the candidate their salary expectations before giving any information out about the range I am willing to offer. Why?

Firstly, the money comes directly from our pockets and frankly if we can get away with paying $20/hour instead of $22/hour, why wouldn’t we? It also gives us room for raises, bonuses, etc. without taking too much of a financial hit. You always advocate that employees look out for their own interests. Why should that be so different for me as an employer? Maybe we tend to think of employers as BIG CORPORATION, but at least in our case it’s just hard-working individuals hoping to keep expenses in check.

The second big reason I want that information first is that if I were to give my range — say $20-22/hour — a candidate expecting $24/hour might well say, “Ya, sure, that’s fine” while planning to take the job and keep looking for something else. Frankly, I want to know if they’re likely to be unhappy with that salary! Hearing that they expect $24/hour is very valuable information for us to have! And if I can get it, I will.

So there you have it from a brazenly unapologetic employer who plans to continue asking the question. (For what it’s worth, we are excellent employers whose current two staff have been with us for about 15 years and eight years and both seem very happy).

Well, I’ll happily tell you why you should stop.

First, your current practice is likely to lead you to break the law. The Equal Pay Act of 1963 makes it illegal for you to pay a man and woman differently for doing the same work. So if you have a man who negotiated a higher salary than a woman did, and they’re doing substantially equal work, you are violating federal law. The law is clear that it doesn’t matter whether or not they negotiated differently and it doesn’t matter whether or not you intended to engage in wage discrimination; the fact that you’re paying them differently is itself illegal. (There’s an exception if you can prove the difference in pay is due to a seniority system or a merit system.) This is true if the genders are reversed, too — you can’t pay men and women differently, period.

So if you want to look out for your own interests, ensuring you don’t break the law — with the significant fines and penalties that go with that — is a pretty good baseline to start with.

Second, there’s tons of data showing that setting pay the way you’re doing disproportionately harms women and people of color, who are less likely to negotiate. I’m sure you don’t want to be perpetuating a system that keeps women and people of color’s wages depressed.

Third, if you’re worried about losing candidates once they hear your range, then either your range is too low for the market and the candidates you want to attract or those candidates aren’t well matched for the role you’re filling. As the employer, you need to figure out the value of the work to you and to the market, come up with a range that reflects that, and be able to explain to people where they fit into it and why.

Fourth, you’re far better equipped than your candidates are to know what the job should pay. You’re intimately familiar with the role’s responsibilities, pressures, and challenges in a way an outside candidate never can be. You’re asking candidates to name a number first when they’re not the one with the deep understanding of those factors — which can result in new hires who discover the salary doesn’t match up with the job after they start, which can mean they don’t stick around or don’t go above and beyond in the way they might if they felt fairly compensated.

And last, the world is increasingly scoffing at employers that operate the way you do. There’s increasing awareness that it harms workers generally and women and people of color in particular, and more and more employers are jettisoning the practice. When you refuse to disclose your budgeted salary range and insist on the candidate naming theirs, you’re sending a signal about your culture that will increasingly turn off your best candidates.

I think the reason you’re “brazenly unapologetic” about a practice that hurts people (and you really are — the subject line of your email to me was “I ask candidates their salary expectations, so there”) is because it’s what you’ve done in the past and you don’t want to change something that you’ve grown comfortable with. But it’s a crappy and harmful way to operate and at some point will have you violating the law if you haven’t already.

The times are changing. Change with them — and don’t gloat about doing something that hurts people.

Read an update to this letter here.

You may also like:
{ 1,481 comments }

{ 1,481 comments… read them below }

    1. The Bill Murray Disagreement*

      Exactly. It’s times like this when I wish emoji reactions were enabled on this site!

        1. Ben*

          Joke’s on them – I guarantee this approach is warning off a lot of good candidates. LW says they only have two staff but writes as though they have interviews regularly. If their turnover for the positions is high, they don’t seem to have made the connection between approach and results.

    5. Princess Consuela Banana Hammock*

      I’m staggered by the original letter. I knew people thought this way, but I’ve never seen someone revel in it.

      1. AnonEMoose*

        I’ll admit, I read the original letter and thought “I’ll bet this person is a -real peach – to work for.”

  3. Stephanie*

    If a $2/hr difference is going to make or break payroll, there may be bigger issues with how you run your business.

    The upside too, is if you can’t go above $22/hr and someone has requirements for $30/hr, this also lets people bow out and saves you the hassle of interviewing someone only for them to decline you because of a too-low offer.

    2. Snarkus Aurelius*

      Yes but employers like this are counting on getting a $30/hour candidate so emotionally invested that when the lower offer is given, the candidate will be more likely to overlook the lower pay and say yes. We see that all the time on AAM!

      A candidate who would be duped by this strategy is not one you want working for you.

      Oh the irony!

      1. CW*

        “A candidate who would be duped by this strategy is not one you want working for you.”

        I agree completely! I was duped in the past and I became a disgruntled employee. Ending up, I stopped caring about my work and went into the office pissed off as hell every day. I haven’t fallen for it since.

      2. Ego Chamber*

        Is that the pro strat going on? The letter kind of makes it sound like LW is inexplicably super-invested in being the one to reject any candidate who’s not willing to do the work for the seekrit pay range rather than let anyone see the job ad and not waste their time applying for a job they wouldn’t take. It’s a power move to intentionally obfuscate relevant job information and punish candidates for making a mistake based on not having that information. I don’t understand the overall point, if there even is one.

        Kinda reminds me of the dudes on dating sites who would send me messages that said we’d matched but they’d never go out with me since I’m not their type or whatever and then something about how I probably wouldn’t even respond to their message. Dude. You messaged me to say you’re not interested. If I was interested before, I wouldn’t be now. What is your end game here?

        1. minuteye*

          And they’re punishing those who guess too high based on the assumption that they’re somehow super tied to the amount and would be disgruntled… but would lie and say the lower range was fine?

          It’s weirdly paranoid to think that a candidate who is really tied to $24 is going to see a $22 range, and then take the job and keep looking, rather than self-selecting out of the process. And what about the candidates who say $24, but actually *are* okay with $22? Because you’re unnecessarily getting rid of those people.

          It just has this weird feel to it that the candidates applying are trying to get one over on you, and you have to use dirty tricks to weasel around their inevitable tendency to lie. It doesn’t have to be so adversarial.

          1. Clisby*

            Yeah, what if you want $24 and the job is in the $22 range – but the employer pays the full cost of the health insurance premiums? Or provides generous vacation/sick leave? Or actually pays for some parental leave? Or, or, or … Salary important, but it’s not EVERYTHING.

          2. Ryan*

            I think the issue is how this guy describes himself. Medical professional, and given the pomposity here I’m going with everyone’s worst idea of a physician. He didn’t have business training, but he’s had some extensive math and he’s been trained to have disproportionate confidence in his choices. So bro is over here trying to A Beautiful Mind game theory the thing without having any actual clue about the real system he’s working with, which requires knowledge of business, people, economics, law, to know the right way to handle the situation. Guy is strutting like an MBA but he’s acting like he got a C in micro-econ, then dropped out to be an “entrepreneur”.

      1. Trachea Aurelia Belaroth*

        This is what strikes me. Several of LW’s points could be served just as well or better by BOTH sides knowing each other’s ranges. Particularly, saying that LW wants to know if the candidate will be unhappy with the salary range… the best way is to state the salary range, and hear what they expect in return. It’s not like you DON’T get the candidate’s expected range if you tell them yours. You can still ask, but it’s a mutual exchange.

        All the other justifications are so based in trickery, that hiding behind the mantle of “good, hard-working people” is just dishonest. You budget an amount for the position. You’ll pay a bit more for a more experienced person, and a bit less for a less experienced one. If you want to work with someone for 15 years, starting that off by getting one over on them and paying them less than you were willing, if only they had guessed the right number, honestly sounds like you’re planning to be enemies instead of colleagues.

        1. OldButInexperienced*

          “If you want to work with someone for 15 years, starting that off by getting one over on them and paying them less than you were willing, if only they had guessed the right number, honestly sounds like you’re planning to be enemies instead of colleagues.”

          Honestly, this. This.
          I wanna print this out and put it in a folder with my resume, so that any time I’m going for interviews, I’ll be reminded of this absolute sheer genius truth.

          Thanks so much for putting it so clearly!

        2. TootsNYC*

          If you want to work with someone for 15 years, starting that off by getting one over on them and paying them less than you were willing, if only they had guessed the right number, honestly sounds like you’re planning to be enemies instead of colleagues.

          I was once given a range of what I could pay a new employee ($X–$Y).
          When I made the offer to the woman I wanted to hire, I said, “I’m offering you $Y. It’s the top of the range they gave me, so there isn’t anything more I could negotiate up to. I’m giving you this top range because you are a highly skilled candidate, and I want you to be enthusiastic about coming to work with us. And I want you to know that I’ll go to bat for you.”

          I don’t know if that was a stupid move or not–it did mean that I couldn’t give her a raise later when she asked for one (because she wanted to earn more, but not because she had a change in responsibilities); she was already at the top of the range for the position. And, the argument for the raise wasn’t one the corporation would have accepted. So I probably wouldn’t have been able to give her a raise even if I -had- offered her $X.

          1. Nesprin*

            An old boss did that for me once. It was a great working environment- I knew that I was valued as a top performer, and that my boss would be a shield so that I could focus on my work. Importantly, I made sure he got his moneys worth.

        3. Parenthetically*

          YES, that last paragraph, YES.

          “I want to somehow start a long and collegial working relationship with someone… by hoodwinking them into accepting less than I would have paid otherwise, muahahaha”?

        4. Librarian of SHIELD*

          I mean, OP kind of said the quiet part out loud.

          A lot of people’s assumption about this practice is that employers do it hoping prospective employees will lowball themselves and the employer can get away with paying the employee less than they’re worth. And this letter writer straight up says that’s why they do this. This is not a good look, OP, and it’s not something that’s going to make a potential employee excited about working for you.

          1. Mookie*

            I have to say, I’m pretty grateful to all the small business owners who write in to AAM bragging about unreasonably high expectations of “loyalty” held for employees lowballed beyond belief. It reinforces the need for more regulation; Small Business Heroes won’t always do it themselves, as they happily attest to what they can get away with under the guise of freedom [for some].

            1. Gazebo Slayer*

              Not just regulations, but adequately funded enforcement and harsh penalties! The shadier sort of Job Creators generally don’t care whether something is illegal. A lot of fines are less than the money the company saves doing whatever illegal thing they’re doing, so they just keep doing it. Why wouldn’t they?

              1. Mookie*

                Absolutely. And one way or the other, have ALL employers of any size meet these regulations, with grants/subsidies/some kind of tax write-off for the slimmest operations to afford the costliest accommodations and regulations. Robust labor rights and protections are not a punishment for employers, we should not treat them as such or apologize for them, and they benefit everyone, including employers, in the long-run. This business of owners treating employees as though their wages and benefits are literally taking food from the lips of the owners’ children needs to end.

                1. Ego Chamber*

                  Yeah but if all employees have to be paid a living wage than there’s less of a chance that the company owner could accumulate more money than god and we just can’t have that. /s

        5. Not Rebee*

          My last employer was a total nightmare of a place and I will never want to work there or anything like it ever again – but I can say with all honesty that the ONE thing they did right was pay me more than I asked for because I had no idea what to ask for. It made me so impressed and made me want to take their offer specifically because they were not looking to skimp on paying me what they knew they should. It’s a level of moral integrity that is really attractive to employees, and I think every employer should have this. (This was the first position of it’s kind this company was hiring for, and my experience was for a similar role but in a different industry, so I didn’t know what to ask for. My then current employer had been lowballing me but I was young and didn’t know, so when this company asked me I legitimately just guessed, raised my annual salary by 5k, and used that as the base of an honest to goodness 10k salary range as my expectation. (What was I thinking??) They didn’t have a range or weren’t willing to give it to me at the time. In the end, what they offered me was higher than my top number by about 3k.)

        6. Librarian1*

          Yeah, this is what I don’t get. If an employer tells me their salary range upfront and it’s too low for me, I’ll say, thanks, but no thanks and we all move on with our lives. No one invested any time beyond the employer looking at my resume and a short phone convo.

          If OP wants to avoid even that amount of effort, then they should put the salary range IN THE JOB DESCRIPTION and people who think it’s too low just won’t apply.

          1. Trachea Aurelia Belaroth*

            You can even put something like “pays $X and up based on experience,” if you don’t want people to know the most you’re willing to pay.

        7. Emily S*

          Agree with all of this. OP is getting plenty of feedback so I won’t pile on except to say that “looking out for your own interests” is the middle-ground between “being a doormat” and “being ruthless.”

          Yes, you should look out for your own interests, but if the way you look after your interest is by deliberately taking advantage of someone else, that’s going beyond “looking out for your own interest” into being the kind of person people don’t want to work with/for because you can’t be trusted not to take advantage of people.

          Yes, every $1 you pay your employee is $1 less in your pocket. And the reverse is also true: Every $1 less you pay your employee is $1 less in their pocket. But they aren’t dollars “out of your pocket” because the dollars don’t really come from you as an individual – they come from the value you and your employees produce together as a company. You’re not doing them a favor by paying them, you’re compensating them for value they produced. “Looking out for your own interests” doesn’t mean “trying to put as few of the dollars produced by everyone into employee pockets as possible in order to put as many of the dollars produced as possible into the employer pocket.” It means “don’t keep underperforming employees on the payroll just because you feel bad for them,” or “don’t tell the board you’ll take a pay cut from your market-appropriate salary so they can apply the savings to the junior employees’ salaries.” It means that it’s reasonable to advocate for yourself and not put yourself in a financially insecure position. It’s not license to be deceptive or duplicitous because doing so would make more money.

        8. bluephone*

          Honestly, this sounds like Tomato Can Jack’s argument that shoplifting a $1.99 can of tomatoes is striking a blow for human rights. Are we sure Jack didn’t decide to open a medical office in the last 20 years?

    4. Classic Rando*

      And not listing a salary range in the ad means many good applicants simply won’t apply. During my last job search I skipped over postings that didn’t provide any info on salary. Why waste my time applying for a company that’s probably going to offer minimum wage when I could focus on ones that were upfront about what they could offer?

      2. MonteCristo85*

        I think this is a big deal. My company doesn’t post salaries, and basically refuses to discuss it until the offer state. I firmly believe this is hampering us in getting good candidates. We pay well (extremely well) for our area, and we could likely pull in a lot of well qualified people who might not be really looking otherwise. I wouldn’t have applied here if I didn’t have a family member who was already here and told me about the salaries. It literally doubled my salary when I came here. Yet when we try and hire, we refuse to discuss it. Some of the old school types believe that salary shouldn’t be a decision making point in picking a job (yeah, I know). Sure, we might get a bunch of unqualified people applying that we have to weed through, but guess what? We already did, and not only that, barely got any actually qualified candidates. I don’t have the authority to change the way we handle things, but I am constantly speaking up for the need to be more candid about salary across the board.

        1. LadyL*

          “Some of the old school types believe that salary shouldn’t be a decision making point in picking a job”
          Oh, so those people would be happy to volunteer their time then? Good to know.

          1. ampersand*

            This boggles my mind. We’re not all working out of the kindness of our hearts—how do employers not understand this?!?

            1. Chicken Situation*

              I literally had a C suite exec tell everyone in a townhall meeting that we shouldn’t be in it for the money when he was making a salary more than 10 times larger than mine. I loathe people like that.

              1. ampersand*

                Oh man. That would not sit well with me.

                Also: he can say that because he doesn’t have to worry about money.

              2. Sharbe*

                Right? How does he think that mortgages, car loans, food etc. are paid for? Sure, we all want to love our jobs, but it’s hard to love anything if you’re living in your car and showering at the Y.

              3. tink*

                This is right up there with the “congrats team we had record profits this year… but we’re on a hiring and raise freeze unless you’re part of the C suite!”

                1. veggiewolf*

                  I had no idea I had a colleague on here!

                  Record profits, and I’m doing the job of 2 1/2 people.

              4. Tip Tap*

                Reminds me of the letter of the new executive who showed a slide show of his horses and vineyard to his employees and than quizzed them on it, in an effort to get the employees to know him better.

                This tactic of the OP seems like a way to “get more for less”. I’ve worked jobs where everyone was paid differently and we were “forbidden” to discuss our salaries with our co-workers (it’s was a firable offense)

                This OP justifies this by saying his company is small and how happy his two employees are. It’s all a smoke screen for OP’s bad behavior.

                1. Violet Rose*

                  Isn’t it illegal to prevent workers from sharing their salaries?! I do not know if this is federal or state law, or whether this applies to hourly or salaried workers or both, but I am confident that it’s at least broadly illegal.

                2. Coder von Frankenstein*

                  To Violet Rose – Yes. It is illegal under federal law. Hourly, salaried, doesn’t matter. You are not allowed to forbid workers to discuss their wages.

                3. Kisses*

                  Ooh I hated that. Working retail, I found that to be the case more often than not. Talk about how much you make, fired. Talk about someone who was fired, fired.
                  I found out eventually that even though I was a supervisor, I made 8.50, there were 2 men who worked there that I managed who made 9.00.
                  I decided to leave.

                1. Tip Tap*

                  This was back in the early 80’s and it was a small family owned business. The owner was all about “saving money” and telling employees how lucky they were to even have a job…

              6. Parenthetically*

                “I fckin warned you guys about this, I tried to tell you, bro, come on” — Karl Marx from beyond the grave right now, probably

                2. Wrking Hypothesis*

                  The really horrible side effect of the collapse of communist Eastern Europe is that a certain class of American businesspeople decided that there was no longer any reason to fear American workers rebelling and creating a communist country — so they could treat their workers as badly as they felt like, with no worries and no scruples.

                3. Urn*

                  I’m always in these comments waiting for someone, anyone, to recognize that the problem with so many AAM quandaries is capitalism writ large, and it soothes me whenever I find one. Thank you.

              7. DarnTheMan*

                I work for a non-profit and one of our directors just pulled the “think of how much more you could donate back to our programmes if you just skipped your daily Starbucks run” line at a recent meeting. I haaaaate that line.

                1. Kisses*

                  I get tired of that too. So I might buy myself a treat every now and then to prevent the overwhelming encroachment of depression and hopelessness. Doesn’t mean you pay me enough to pay all my bills. And I don’t even really HAVE bills. Rent, car, insurance. No phone right now, and I leech my internet from our apartment clubhouse. (Shh!)

                2. SeluciaMD*

                  AAAARRRGGGGG.

                  “Sure boss! And on that note, think of how much more we could donate back to our programmes (which, sidebar: WTF) if you guys paid for our daily Starbucks run? Or, call me crazy, paid us what we’re worth??”

                  I do not understand this corporate mindset that somehow employees (particularly those in nonprofits/human services) should only want to do these jobs for the karma points and not to, you know, pay for the things you need to live. Like food. Or a roof. Or even a little Starbucks or Dunkin from time to time (as if wanting to have Starbucks is a moral failing!)

              8. Blushingflower*

                There are plenty of jobs where I want someone there because they care more about the work than the money (education, the arts, medicine, politics) but those people still need to be paid a fair wage in order for them to be able to continue doing the work.
                For most other jobs, we do them because the system requires that we sell our labor in order to afford things like food and shelter. I’ve had many jobs that I liked, but I would have quit any one of them if I’d won the lottery and didn’t need to work to pay my bills.

                1. ArtsNerd*

                  So many people working multiple jobs and still don’t make a living wage — and doing worse at all of their jobs because of it.

        2. Veronica Mars*

          I am genuinely shocked to hear that they competitive salaries aren’t using that as a selling feature.

          I generally assume that if the company isn’t willing to tell me their salary upfront, its because its not high enough and they are trying to emotionally bate me into a crappy deal. I haven’t been proven wrong yet.

          1. MonteCristo85*

            I know, right? I think that’s why we aren’t getting the applications I’d expect. But it’s not like that, it’s just some weird idea that I can’t seem to unstick yet. When I interviewed they asked me my salary requirements, and then offered me nearly 35% more than what I asked for, so not trying to undercut (at least in my personal experience). They really do seem to want to sell the job on it’s own merits, but in general, people want money!

            1. Alexander Graham Yell*

              If I saw a job ad that listed out a job that seemed really interesting but no salary range, I’d be sad but I’d pass it by. If I saw the same job ad that listed a very generous salary range, I’d be send the most custom, thoughtful, posting-oriented resume of my life.

              I really hope you’re able to get through to whoever needs this particular light bulb turned on in their brain because a number like that makes me think they’d be able to have their pick of employees if they wanted it.

          2. Falling Diphthong*

            It’s like selling things for a secret price. Well before the seller reveals the price, I assume it’s too much and walk away.

        3. Red5*

          “Some of the old school types believe that salary shouldn’t be a decision making point in picking a job…”

          Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha.

        4. Math and Taxes*

          I’m in a position where I won’t bother putting together an application packet for a job that doesn’t list a salary range. I figure that if they’re not willing to tell me whether it’s worth my time, it’s not.

          I shouldn’t have to be coy about pay. It’s why I work. I don’t work for PTO, although I do factor that into my is this job worth it?” calculations, along with insurance and other benefits, but I work for money. This is not unique.

          It’s not a privilege to work for you. I am good at what I do, plus, I spent a lot of time and money to earn the degrees that help qualify me for what I do.

          I deliberately avoid applying to places who are coy about what they expect to pay.
          You want a bargain? Cool, hire someone without my experience and education, proven work ethic and reliability. You want a long term employee who will make sure her work gets done on deadline whenever possible, communicates about challenges and seeks and implements efficiency? Pay me.

          1. OP*

            How do I know if I disclose my range first, that someone expecting more won’t take the job for now, and leave when they have a better offer? It’s in my best interest to know.
            You may think that this way of doing things would lead to a hostile environment, but it doesn’t really jive with having such long term employees.

            3. NW Mossy*

              Here’s the thing: people leave jobs all the time, for reasons that may or may not be foreseeable. Trying to control for all the various future scenarios that might cause someone to leave is an exercise in crazy-making on your part, and your energy would be better directed towards having clear systems in place for how to deal with a departure. It will happen, so prepare!

              The other bit is that you’ll be a lot more likely to keep someone if you offer them market-competitive pay at the outset. If you demonstrate through your actions that you’re not trying to underpay and to get a good employee on discount, you’ll be more likely to attract the kind of capable, professional employees who consider their options carefully and don’t commit unless they’re willing to stick around.

              1. Veronica Mars*

                By filtering only for people who don’t have a better option… you’re filtering for people who don’t have a better option. Sometimes its worth $2 more an hour for a more desirable candidate.

            4. Diahann Carroll*

              How do you know that if you continue on the way you do (asking for salary expectations upfront) that someone won’t just accept the job and keep job searching anyway? You don’t – that’s the risk everyone takes. But don’t start off your hiring process assuming every applicant is out to screw you – that’s a very negative way to begin a business relationship.

              1. Works in IT*

                Or that they’ll be initially happy until they realize everyone else negotiated $22 when they lowballed themself. Then they’ll DEFINITELY want to move on.

                1. Grapey*

                  Not necessarily, sometimes other benefits/working environment/commute is worth more than a few bucks an hour.

            5. Dust Bunny*

              You don’t. That’s part of the inherent risk in employing people.

              The thing is, even if you pay more than they’re asking, you don’t know that they won’t leave. People leave for reasons other than pay–family needs, changing careers, lots of stuff. Don’t take it so personally.

                2. Jen S. 2.0*

                  Coming to say this. If you are not trying to screw them out of extra money, and if you are paying them very fairly, then they are less likely to leave you because the salary is a problem.

                  $2 an hour is not usually what makes people leave a job. Employers who are trying to get one over on the employees is what makes people leave a job.

                  Also, as others have stated, you can’t make somebody stay in a job for decades over a couple bucks an hour. People will leave for a variety of reasons, and it’s not a betrayal or huge problem. Then, sometimes people stay with you even when things aren’t ideal. But nickel and diming is not the way to keep your employees.

            6. Triplestep*

              You NEVER know that someone won’t leave for something better. Why don’t you just commit to being the the best choice you can be by being forthright and respectful from the start?

              You call yourself an excellent employer, but I tend to doubt it. Perhaps your 8 and 15 year veterans are just used to you and don’t realize other workplaces have better cultures. But someone who explains away his hiring practices (yes, I assume you’re a guy hiring women in admin roles) the way you do is definitely playing other games and keeping score. Yech. I escaped a manager like you and I’m shuddering thinking about it.

                1. Lu*

                  Wild to call someone pointing out common patterns of misogyny as “blatant disgusting sexism,” and then go on to dehumanize human beings as “supplies.”

                2. Triplestep*

                  Yes, I figured out later that the OP is a woman. Are you actually calling me disgusting sexist for pointing out that more men are hiring managers and more women are in administrative roles? Is Alison a disgusting sexist for telling the OP in her response that the practice of not disclosing salary range tends to hurt women as a whole? Is she racist for pointing out that it hurts people of color at a higher rate?

                  Thanks for posting as much as you did, though. I’ll consider the rest of your content when deciding how much gravity to give your opinion. (hint: none)

                3. LowerLevelLawyer*

                  I get it, at some point it’s a black and white business decision that’s about the numbers. But that’s what you use to set the range. And to set the range, you need to know market rate for the services. If you know that the market cost of Office Supplies is $300 per month, you’re not going to budget $200 or $500. The cost of those supplies doesn’t change DRASTICALLY month to month, so you can forecast the cost and budget accordingly.

                  The same is true for people. You want someone to fulfill X tasks with Y experience. Odds are a little research can tell you what the going rate for that kind of person is. You budget accordingly, so you have a range, and then you tell the person in the interview process, “Hey, this is our range”. Another thing to consider is that if they were willing to work for a lot less than market rate, there’s *likely* something wrong with the employee. A $300 box of staplers may be the same as a $500 box of staplers, but at the end of the day you don’t have to wonder why the salesman was able to take such a price cut to sell them to you. The fact of the matter is, it’s terrible business on his part and he’s probably not going to be around next year when you need more staplers. That’s the problem with taking the employee willing to work for the trickery rat

                  Tldr; it’s ok to think of employees as supplies when you’re looking at the dollars and cents and bottom line, but your hiring practices and your approach to interviewing should reflect that employees are people, not staplers, so you may need to do a little more work when you’re calculating related costs and then searching for new ones.

            7. SomeoneSomewhere*

              People can always leave for a better offer regardless of whether you disclose or not. I’m not sure why the risk would be minimized by asking an applicant’s salary range.

              1. Artemesia*

                When I bargain badly and end up paid less than peers and I find that out which I will then I will be offended, furious and feel stupid — and be looking for a better job forthwith as I will feel betrayed by the hiring manager who put me in that position. Lowballing new hires doesn’t make them grateful or loyal, it makes them feel abused.

            8. Allonge*

              The only way to know that is to pay more than anyone else, in any other business. In other words, impossible – so you don’t.

              Why is people should not leave because of a higher salary (so I lie) your business model?

            9. Anastasia Beaverhousen*

              You don’t know. That’s not something you can reasonably expect to know. Your argument is essentially that your potential hires should absorb all of the potential issues. What you are telling us is if I do X then it could POSSIBLY create a situation I don’t like for me so it’s reasonable for me to do something that creates issues for my potential employees in order to compensate for that possible situation. There are costs of owning a business that you don’t want to shoulder yourself so you’re pushing those off on others. What this tells us about you as an employer is that you’re ok with doing the wrong thing if it’s easier for you.

              You also don’t seem to take into account that you’re creating the same issues you’re worried about. When an employer forces someone to tell them a salary range, most people are going to give a higher figure than they would actually take because they’re afraid you’ll lowball them if they don’t.

              And who knows, maybe your employees really are all happy and content, but this site is full of executives who think their company is a “family” and everything is great but are always super surprised and offended to find out that people will put up with a lot of mistreatment from their employer because they have bills to pay. It’s ridiculous to believe that your employees will be completely honest with you especially when you’ve demonstrated that they are not your first priority.

              1. TootsNYC*

                When an employer forces someone to tell them a salary range, most people are going to give a higher figure than they would actually take because they’re afraid you’ll lowball them if they don’t.

                Or, they’ll give an artificially low figure because they’re afraid they’re going to price themselves out of even having a chance at it. And if that’s the case, then they ARE going to leave earlier when they realize they can’t swing it on that salary, or that they could earn more elsewhere.

                2. Anastasia Beaverhousen*

                  Exactly Toots. That’s the line you walk when a job prospect asks for a salary expectation. How do I give a number high enough that they don’t lowball but low enough that I don’t end their consideration of me?

                3. Sparrow*

                  And perhaps they originally are fine with the lower rate they give, but life circumstances could change six months later and suddenly the $20 an hour isn’t sustainable. OP seems to think they’ve found a loophole that will keep employees there long-term at a price that’s cheaper for the OP, but that’s simply not the case.

            10. Anonnnnn*

              Pay people what they’re worth and don’t cheat them. Hard stop. The rest doesn’t matter. Long-term employees don’t indicate lack of toxicity in an environment.

            11. ADHSquirrelWhat*

              what worked five years ago might not WORK as well now. times do change, and so do conventions.

              Also, how do you know someone isn’t effectively planning to temp for six months and then go back to college? or gave you their absolute minimum with the idea that it would get them /something/ while they kept looking? you never know.

              If you say the range is $20-22 an hour, and I’m thinking $24 as my minimum – why would I apply anyway? That keeps me from taking up your time and resources when I was already out of range! If you pre-post, your applicants pre-select themselves OUT.

            12. LunaLena*

              How do you know they won’t, even if you are offering a fantastic salary and benefits? There is always a better-paying job out there, or one that is more appealing for all sorts of reasons. You don’t know why they’re applying to work at your office, or what would or would not motivate them to move on. There will always be external factors outside of your control, and if the perfect combination of them come along at the right time, they would tempt even the most loyal and devoted employee into leaving.

              As for “but my employees are clearly happy here,” again, you don’t know why. Maybe it’s just easier and more convenient to stay than to find a new job, maybe the commute is easy, maybe you offer enough flexibility in their schedules that it’s worth it, maybe they simply like the patients and enjoy working in the environment or think they won’t find anything better. I’ve worked in places like that – I was woefully underpaid and had minimal benefits, but I stayed for years because I was getting great experience, was given a lot of flexibility and opportunities for professional development by my employers, and, because of my husband (he was military at the time), I was living in a place that had very few options short of a two-hour commute one way, so I was grateful to find any employment in my chosen and also very competitive field that was a mere hour away.

              Maybe your employees are genuinely happy with your arrangements and the way you do things, and good for them and for you if they are, but that’s no reason to not try to be better. Besides, by your own words, you haven’t hired anyone in at least eight years, so why are you so certain that your way is still the way to go now? Things change a lot in eight years, after all.

              1. Mimi*

                I’m currently working in a somewhat toxic job because it’s close to my house and offers great insurance, plus that “Devil You Know” factor. I’ve been here 8 years! Longevity definitely doesn’t equal satisfaction.

                1. Properlike*

                  Working a job that’s close to my house. I love my colleagues and students, and I’m very good at what I do, but I’m woefully underpaid compared to other colleges and with an administration that looks for ways to bring you down. Six years. It’s convenient, but my internal dialogue is very much, “If you don’t like how I do this, then fire me.”

                2. Third or Nothing!*

                  MMmmhm! My workplace has ISSUES but dang those 5 weeks of PTO/vacation, free insurance (that’s actually good!), 401k matching, flex time, decent salary, and short commute make it really hard to leave. And in 2 more years I get another week of PTO.

            13. Worker Bee*

              Your comment has lots of red flags, you seem hostile that employees will leave you for better offers, so you trick them into lower salaries as a preemptive strike to punish them for something that might not happen.

              All this promises is that you won’t get the candidates you need, but a stream of candidates who don’t meet your criteria, but will work for peanuts because, YAY job.

              Just remember, “you get what you pay for.”

              1. Jen S. 2.0*

                Yeah, it sounds like the “better” offers have less to do with $2 / hour in salary, and more to do with the integrity of the other employers.

              2. Happily Self Employed*

                If an employer has decided that they want to hire only candidates willing to take a job that pays less than the top of the range for that area, they are probably driving off people whose skills and experience are worth more than that extra $16/day that OP wouldn’t want to pay. Imagine if they could get all your patients’ insurance preauthorizations on the first call instead of going back and forth–which you are paying them to do. Or if they can avoid having to resubmit bills to insurance. If they can process all those random forms patients need signed more quickly, that’s saving employee time and improving customer service. That 10% pay increase could get you more than 10% more productivity.

            14. Princesa Zelda*

              If it’s in the ad, the people who expect more don’t even apply and you don’t have to wade through them. When I was job searching recently, I didn’t apply to anything that paid less than $15/hr (nearly double min. wage in my state) because I knew I was worth at least that much. Since those companies disclosed up front, I was able to weed myself out, saving the hiring managers time and effort.

            15. Carlie*

              If that person expects a lot more, then either they are already a mismatch for what you’re looking for (they have more/different experience than what you’re willing to pay for) or they don’t know enough about that kind of job. Either one is bad on its own and will suss itself out no matter how you did the salary negotiations to start with.
              Someone who named the “right” amount could also be a mismatch, by either overvaluing themselves based on what they really know, or not understanding the job salary norms elsewhere, or undervaluing themselves… there’s no reason to think your way has any less capacity for error. Plus, don’t forget you have an incredibly small sample size of the number of people you have hired. You don’t have enough data to support your assumptions.

            16. DeeEm*

              I understand your POV, actually. My parents were small business owners, and YES, a buck or two on wages can make a difference. Small businesses often run near the margin. That being said, just state your range. It actually does make hiring a LOT easier. People self-screen out if the range is too low, so you aren’t wasting time reviewing applications/resumes and having phone calls with candidates who aren’t going to be interested once they hear the number. And, if you get a candidate that would have actually accepted a dollar or two less, but they are qualified and experienced enough that you hire them — they are likely to STAY longer because the pay is comfortable for them. You can still pay what you need to to stay afloat. Just decide what you’re paying and tell people up front in the ad. It makes the process easier all around and it’s less work for everyone. Try it once, and see how it works.

            17. Warm Weighty Wrists*

              Look, you can either pay someone at a rate where they’re unlikely to get a better offer, or you can pay them less and accept the risk that they will leave you when they get a better offer. Those are your two options, but it’s not realistic to expect to have both. Employees are allowed to look to their own best interests.

            18. Kalamet*

              Your bringing up this specific example multiple times makes it sound like this happened once and you’re making blanket policies to avoid it happening again. But here’s the thing: there are a lot of reasons someone might take a job and then leave it, and you can’t possibly control for all of them. So to make a choice that has all the downsides Alison listed just to avoid that one situation doesn’t seem like a good tradeoff. If you ask for their expectations, a candidate may lowball themselves to get the job and still leave for more money later, and there’s nothing you can do to stop that.

            19. TootsNYC*

              they would do this anyway.
              In fact, I’d think they’d be MORE likely to do that.
              They’ll give you a range that’s low enough that they think you’ll offer them the job, and they’ll keep looking.

              It won’t be different because you say $22/hour.
              AND…you can always advertise $22/hour, then decide that this great candidate might be great to retain, and you can either offer $25/hr, or you can give them $25/hr at the six-month mark to keep them.

            20. DANGER: Gumption Ahead*

              Folks can leave for any reason, including a better salary, no matter if you let someone know your range. Someone might take the job then hear from a friend at another medical practice that their place pays $25 and leave. Or the practice next door might poach. If you are paying market rate, then your range will be competitive and you will be less likely to have people jump ship for pay (although they can bolt for other reasons). Not being open about your salary range will filter people out, but publishing it will not filter anyone out. Don’t you want the biggest and best possible pool of candidates?

              1. TootsNYC*

                Don’t you want the biggest and best possible pool of candidates?

                I wouldn’t necessarily want the biggest pool–but I’d sure want the BEST pool. Especially if I was worried people would leave me because the salary was lower than they wanted, that IS when I’d want to disclose right away.

                1. DANGER: Gumption Ahead*

                  Oh yeah I phrased that poorly. “Biggest pool of the best applicants possible” is more what I was going for

            21. Librarian of SHIELD*

              If the salary range is listed in the job posting as $20-$22 per hour and I’m really looking for $26, I won’t apply. You’re saving yourself a lot of time at the outset by making it clear to potential employees what they can expect. The ones you think are so likely to take the job and leave when they get something that pays better will opt out from the beginning and leave you with the ones who are willing to do the work you need at the price point you’re offering.

            22. Close Bracket*

              That is a risk you run regardless of what you disclose your range. You *always* run the risk of someone leaving for a better offer. That’s the nature of doing business.

              You are telling yourself stories in your head about what people will do (“They will take a low offer and leave later!”) that are not necessarily reflective of how many people think in the real world (Maybe they will and maybe they won’t. Maybe they will stay for other reasons. Maybe they will decline to interview in favor of better paying positions. Maybe they will try to negotiate up. Maybe they will take the low offer bc they think it is fair and later leave anyway.).

              1. Happily Self Employed*

                Where I live, one of the big factors would be the commute. Even if you’re commuting between relatively close cities, there are traffic bottlenecks in specific places that you might not know until you tried to drive that exact route at the exact working hours. If I accepted an OK pay rate and then found out it would be an hour in bumper to bumper traffic just to to 10 miles away from home, I would start looking for a job closer to me or in the counter-commute direction. (After all, doctor’s offices aren’t always in the big commercial developments or downtown areas.)

                If I were getting paid a more-than-OK pay rate, I might stay or at least stay longer. After all, that $16/day would pay for a nice lunch once a week and the rest to help pay down my debts or buy an electric car so I’m not burning an hour’s worth of gas each way.

            23. Silly Goose*

              OP, you sound insecure about what you have to offer potential employees. If you offer market rates and a decent work culture, your employees aren’t going to flee at the drop of a hat. But if the issue here is that you don’t offer those things, and that’s why you want to play coy about pay, then not stating your salary range up front isn’t going to protect you from the thing you fear.

              If the job is worth $24/hour, but I undercut myself playing your game, and accepted the role for $20/hour, it won’t take long for me to realize I can get $24 somewhere else. You need to fix the root issue, not the symptoms you’re afraid of.

              Also, do you not care about perpetuating pay inequity? Because that’s what you’re doing. You’re hurting women and people of color.

            24. Well, there's this*

              It’s in your best interests to make the better offer. Saves you on time interviewing, hiring, and training, if you pay so poorly they leave quickly. Though if you’re afraid people will leave so soon after starting, you should look at other factors that contribute.

            25. Valprehension*

              Literally anyone will take another job if a better paying one comes along; their starting expectations are irrelevant. If you’re paying below market, people will know and they will look to get out as soon as they can, that’s just how it works.

            26. Mia 52*

              Im confused though because if you posted the range in the ad, you would literally only have candidates who are OK with it apply. So why not just put it in the ad and not even have to bother asking?

            27. blaise zamboni*

              You don’t know that. But the flip side of this is the much more common and double-edged dilemma where your applicant says “how do I know if I disclose my range first, this employer won’t pass me over for someone cheaper, or pay me less than they have budgeted for this role?”

              Which is exactly what you admit to doing. Which sucks. You’re the ultimate arbiter of what salary you offer and who you’ll choose for a role. Just say that shit up front. It’s like if the grocery store made you guess how much their produce cost and refused to sell you food if you guessed wrong—it’s ridiculous and unbalanced.

            28. Blushingflower*

              You can’t ever know that. Someone might take the job intending to stay for 20 years and then something better falls into their lap. Someone might think at first that the salary is fine and then their expenses change. Whenever you hire someone there is a risk that they will leave (or that you will have to fire them).
              But it’s in your best interest to list the salary range in advance, so that people who are good candidates won’t pass your listing by because it’s not worth their time to apply for a job that might not meet their salary requirements. And so that you don’t waste your time interviewing people who would be a great fit but whose salary expectations you can’t meet.

            29. Alexander Graham Yell*

              Do you also not hire people that may become pregnant and decide to stay home?

              I get wanting people that will work there long term. From an employee perspective, I want that too! I want to be able to have that kind of stability, it would be awesome. But you don’t know what life will bring and you don’t know how you’ll actually work together until you, you know…work together. And you’re ignoring the idea that an employee could find out that you operate like this, dislike it, and leave. Or literally anything else about how you do business/your management style. Hiring somebody isn’t a promise that they’ll be there forever, but you lessen the odds of getting somebody who won’t want to be there by being straightforward and letting people opt out if they want to.

            31. Not So NewReader*

              Part of being a good manager is having a replacement plan for everyone. Just assume anyone can leave at any time and know how you will handle that.

              Do you want prisoners or do you want employees? You can only have one, you have to pick. Right now you have prisoners.

              The attitude you show here in your letter is THE VERY reason people leave. They aren’t leaving because of what you pay them. They are leaving because of the way you view employees and your tone with them.

            33. bluephone*

              You could hire the best employee ever, for literal peanuts…and they might hit the lottery next week. Or their spouse is transferred to another job across the country. Or they realize they want to go back to school. Or they need to stop working because of a medical issue, or to care for a loved one with a medical issue, etc. Or they’re hit by a bus tomorrow. Or who knows what might happen. People are allowed to leave for whatever reason and it’s very weird that you’re taking *that* SO very personally.
              It’s actually not that weird that you’re so hung up on “if I tell them my budget for this salary, they’ll immediately leave for something better” because that tells me that you KNOW your salary ranges are actual [redacted] and that a tiny part of you knows that’s not okay. (If no part of you had any qualms about it, then you wouldn’t be so invested in hiding the salary range from candidates and going through these very unnecessary games–you’d put the salary right up front, refer to it frequently in the phone screen and interviews, etc).
              If you hadn’t specified that this is a 2-person office I would have assumed you were my PCP’s office. Most of their physicians are very nice. Most of their office staff are very nice. Most, if not all, of their office staff are also VERY incompetent and turnover among the frontline staff is nearly 100 percent. Making appointments, checking in for appointments, checking out after appointments, collecting copays, leaving messages for the doctors, requesting referrals, requesting Rx refills, etc etc etc are ALL a headache with this particular family practice. They were previously part of the local Big Hospital system but then became independent a few years ago. All that means is that when you get a mammogram, X-ray, blood test, etc at one of Big Hospital’s labs (or need to see a specialist at Big Hospital’s affiliated hospitals), it is very likely that your prescription or referral will be missing. And Big Hospital’s lab staff or mammogram technicians won’t be able to do anything about it (including complain to higher ups) because Incompetent Family Practice is no longer under their umbrella.
              But EVERYONE knows that as nice as IFP’s staff are, they just don’t know their elbows from a hole in the ground. And I have to think that a large part of it is because of salary. Medical office work is definitely a case of “overworked and underpaid” but my PCP’s office HAS to be underpaying their staff by a large margin because I can’t think of anything else that could explain both the very high turnover AND the stunning repeat pattern of incompetence. Maybe the physicians are monsters to the staff so only desperate employees take jobs there and/or stay. Maybe the office is a on a Hellmouth and they’re cursed to suffer bad help. But absent any evidence supporting those theories, I think they’re just not paying their medical assistants enough to get top-tier staff–anyone with options would and does exercise them so they’re left with the bottom of the barrel and/or desperate people who are choosing between working for peanuts or being on the street.
              If that’s how you want to run your practice, it’s a free country and no one will stop you. But you are absolutely sacrificing patient care, satisfaction, relationships with other medical practices in your network (professional and insurance-wise), etc. And the kicker is, you’re not even really doing it to save money! You say you are but again, your whole “I HAVE to hide the salary or candidates will screw me over!!” shtick means that you’re really just getting off on the power play. The balance of power for your job candidates is already disproportionately weighed towards you because YOU are the hiring manager. You adding all these weird salary puzzles to it has nothing to do with tightening one’s belt or economizing–it’s your kink. And that’s fine, no one’s here to kink-shame. But FFS, at least be honest about why you’re SO insistent that THIS is the ONE AND ONLY TRUE way you can get job candidates. Deep down, you know you’re being a jackass or else you’d plaster the salary info all over the job ad and during interviews.
              When your practice fails, you’ll only have yourself to blame and the malpractice suits initiated by your patients (and discrimination suits from your employees) will certainly put all the blame on you too.

            34. What is UX anyway?*

              I have found that the best way to do so is to offer a competitive range for your area, field, and responsibilities. That’s on you, as an employer to know and offer. People leave jobs all the time, they work for money, after all.

              I think that when (because it WILL happen) employees talk about their wages, you have opened yourself up to legal issues that could potentially sink your business.

          2. What is UX anyway?*

            Exactly. I know what I and my time are worth. It’s not my responsibility to suss out if an employer does.

        5. Sun Tzu*

          Some of the old school types believe that salary shouldn’t be a decision making point in picking a job

          Sure, salary isn’t the only factor. There are other factors which I consider important: the kind of job I will be doing, the work environment, possibilities for growth, opportunities for learning, commute time, work hours, possibility of working from home, and level of stress that comes with the job position.

          However, at least where I live, many employers are stingy and willing to concede as little as they can; so when I hear that a prospective employer is offering only the minimum salary, it’s a big red flag and I know that I shouldn’t expect much about the other factors.

        6. Tongue Cluckin' Grammarian*

          My company has the same issue. They refuse to post salary in job ads and cling tightly to that old fallacy of “Money shouldn’t matter. The best candidates will be loyal regardless.” and I. Just. Can’t. Get. Them. To. Listen.
          Then we have to go through tons of unqualified resumes because the only people applying are the ones that hope they can stretch to meet needs, and/or are desperate for a job. Any job.

          They know we pay below market, and I think they’re trying to reel people in emotionally before talking compensation.

        7. BasicWitch*

          My last job wouldn’t disclose, AND my boss told me it would be “highly inappropriate” do discuss pay with coworkers (something workers have the legal right to do, btw), but in the exit questionnaire they had the audacity to ask what my salary at my new job would be… I told them I would abide by their policy of not discussing pay. ;)

      3. Wintermute*

        Exactly, in my experience my field is competitive enough AND wide enough that

        A) there’s a huge range of wages in what people call a Sr. network operations analyst, some are glorified helpdesk and get paid 18 dollars. Some are basically network engineers and get paid 30. I’m much closer to the 30 end of that side than the 18, so knowing how you are paying helps me decide if this role really is a step I want to take in my career.

        B) If you’re not posting it, it’s pathetic, I am almost certain. There is a reason you’re concealing the most basic attribute of the job from my perspective. I don’t work because I get bored, I work to get money to buy things like food, how much I’m being paid is the #1 consideration I have to evaluate when deciding if a job is even feasible for me. If you’re not posting it, I’m assuming it won’t even pay my rent and I’m not applying.

        1. Clewgarnet*

          I’m in a similar field and salaries for network engineers range from £20k to £120k. Job ads are rarely helpful in letting me know how senior (or otherwise) a job is, tending towards the, “Must have experience with BGP, OSPF, EIGRP” when this could mean anything from, “our ISP says the router they provide uses those things,” to, “You’ll be responsible for maintaining the routing on our international network.” A salary range lets me know whether applying would be a waste of time, whether that’s because there’s no way I’d take the job or because there’s no way the employer would take me.

      4. Diahann Carroll*

        During my last job search I skipped over postings that didn’t provide any info on salary.

        I wish I could do this, but my field doesn’t list salaries in job ads in general (there are some outliers), so I would have nowhere to apply to, lol. Luckily, more employers are becoming proactive about telling the salary range during the initial HR phone screen – if I don’t like the range, I can pass on the position and only have wasted a half hour for the call and maybe an hour or two for the application process.

        1. Wintermute*

          You should look at supporting local petitions, and politicians if you feel comfortable, that support mandatory salary range disclosure, among other pro-labor positions. If your field won’t get with the times, maybe the government can make them treat you better.

          1. Diahann Carroll*

            Oh, I do support those local petitions, but sadly, the jobs I apply for are all over the country, so even if my city and state got with the times, the next state over may still be far behind.

      5. Amber T*

        This is super important – whether or not it’s true on the employer’s end, by not offering a range up front, it makes the employer seem shady. It perpetuates that thought of “how low can we pay someone and get away with it?” Which… is exactly what the OP is saying they’re doing.

        And of course, not everyone has the luxury of doing of skipping over jobs that don’t offer salary up front. And if you’re purposely taking advantage of people’s desperation by paying them the lowest that they’ll accept instead of a healthy market rate, you’re a crap employer.

        So there.

        1. Anita Brayke*

          Amber T yes, the employer IS being shady, and IS a crap employer. If I found out my boss thought like that, I’d be gone. I can’t believe someone actually wrote this and sent it to Alison! It’s like they’re proud of embodying the worst employers out there. Yeesh.

      6. RUKiddingMe*

        Even when I was young (back in the dark ages) I always asked about pay/hours.

        I was mostly to naive to know that it “wasn’t done,” but looking back…I regret nothing.

      7. ursula*

        YEP. I’m a high performer with a modest but overwhelmingly positive reputation in my field and I don’t mess with jobs that don’t outline a salary range up front. Even for what is otherwise a dream job, I would hesitate. At this point employers should know better, and if they don’t, I’m happy to assume they either aren’t paying attention to good employment practices (because on some level they just don’t care) or they actively want to lowball candidates.

      8. Marzipan*

        I would not be remotely interested in applying for a job without knowing what it paid. It comes across as shady; I assume the worst and move on without ever applying.

        1. Kat in VA*

          I can confirm that every.single.position where the HR rep or recruiter was shifty about disclosing salary was because it was paying anywhere from $20k to $30k below market for my position.

          Some of them would even take the aghast / shocked route that I dared to ask for “so much money”. One recruiter baldly said, “What makes you think you’re worth that much?” (My response: Because I’m very good at what I do and that’s what the market pays.)

          Funny, I ended up getting a job where I am making well within the range I asked for so no, I wasn’t being audaciously greedy, they were being unconscionably cheap!

      10. Emily S*

        I stress this constantly. The inertia is strong with my current position because I’m good at what I do, I’m well-compensated, and I like the people I work with. That doesn’t mean I couldn’t be lured away, and I subscribe to various job alerts in my field just so I’m always aware of my options. But given that I like my current job it would need to be the equivalent of a big promotion with a big raise to get me to leave, so I try to find an estimated salary before I even decide to apply.

        Though to be honest, this isn’t going to affect OP because they wouldn’t be able to afford people like me anyway. The employers who lose applicants this way are the ones who pay at or above market rate but don’t advertise it. Like someone said above about “saying the quiet part loud” – most job seekers know that the reason employers don’t want to name a number first is because they want to get someone below market rate…which means that as more employers start becoming more transparent about this, more and more job seekers are equating “employer that won’t give salary range” with “employer that pays crap.” If you really are that employer, meh. That’s not really a big deal. But if you don’t pay crap, you’re honestly better off making sure people know it.

      11. Ace in the Hole*

        Same. I’ve worked in government long enough to know how nice it is to not mess with mysterious vague salary negotiations. I love knowing that at most, a negotiation is going to be whether I start at step 1 or step 2 of a clearly defined, publicly available pay table. If a job ad doesn’t state a range, I’m not even going to apply… it’s not worth the hassle.

    5. Antilles*

      Based on the OP’s own words, it doesn’t seem like it’s a make-or-break payroll issue that an extra $2/hour (~$4,000 annually), it’s just trying to minimize salary expenses as much as possible since “the money comes directly from our pockets” and “why shouldn’t we look out for own interests”.

      1. Jellyfish*

        The way I see it, it’s in a business’ best interest to attract qualified candidates at the level they need and then pay those people what they’re worth.
        It’s possible to be pragmatic and ethical at the same time.

            1. Thornus*

              It sounds like you have a small staff – specifically two long term employees. Why are you hiring and asking for pay expectation ranges then? Or do you keep hiring other people who only last for a short time?

            3. Aquawoman*

              No, you may appreciate them, but you don’t value them. If you valued them, you’d pay them what they deserve.

              Are you going to show them this letter and let them know it was from you? Do you think they’d feel valued?

            4. so many questions*

              You’re lucky, not skilled.

              Honestly, this seems kind of like you’re trolling. You had to know people’s responses to the over-the top things you said in your letter.

              1. yala*

                I’m wondering that myself. OP needs a snidely whiplash mustache to twirl. Or better yet, a power tie and some hair gel, because this reads like an 80s movie villain.

              2. Employee of the Bearimy*

                My current boss is like this. He lucked into several good employees using a really poor recruitment system, and so he’s reluctant to change to a more professional and consistent way of doing things, which makes it much harder to find good people on a regular basis.

            7. lyonite*

              Are the 8- and 15-year employees your only staff? Or have you had significant turnover in other positions, and you’re using them as proof that it’s not your management or pay that’s at fault? Because I’m not sure that’s necessarily a good assumption–people stay in jobs for a lot of reasons, not the least of which is inertia.

        2. Threeve*

          Yep–and I’ll answer honest crappiness with honest crappiness. I might take this job if I desperately needed it. But while I am capable of being a stellar, rockstar, loyal employee, that is not the employee they would be getting.

          You treat me like I’m nothing more than burden on your finances? I’m going to treat you like you’re nothing more than a burden on my time and effort, and lowball you as much as I can.

          1. pope suburban*

            Agreed. I overdelivered for someone like this LW, and not only did it not improve my lot within the company, but it nearly put me in the hospital. The amount of effort I expended trying to better my lot there (while trying to leave, for the reasons many people have outlined in this thread) was ridiculous, and not something I ever intend to do again. I much prefer performing at a higher level, simply because I find that more engaging, but now I know I need to meter my effort for people who will only take without giving. There’s more to life than work, and I will never again give premium work/effort for someone who resents every meager cent I’m paid, and thinks of me as a drain.

      2. Just wondering*

        If you are the owner of a business and you have staff, guess who is working to help put money in said pockets? In an ideal world, planning/hiring/ paying well means more money in your pockets at the end of the day.

        Viewing employees as *only* a drain on the budget is so wrongheaded.

        1. Aquawoman*

          This is such a great point. OP is basically saying that the help they need is WORTH $X per hour but they’re totally cool with cheating someone out of that value.

        2. Ice and Indigo*

          Yeah, ‘directly from our pockets’ makes it sound like the employees are mooching off you by, er, working to make your business exist. For Pete’s sake, get a better attitude.

          2. yala*

            I’m kinda wondering where they think the money that BIG CORPORATIONS (under)pay their employees with comes from.

            Like. Yep. Employee wages come from the money that you take in as a company. That is…that is how it do.

          3. Dust Bunny*

            Right? I mean, you’re welcome to do my work yourself if you don’t want to pay me, but I’m going to assume that the reason I was hired is that you need me to be here.

          4. Not So NewReader*

            Well you could run a smaller practice, live more modestly and then you would not need employees and your problem would be solved. You wouldn’t have to worry about employees draining you because you would not need them.

            I just wonder how many patients you see that have various difficulties because they work for an employer who views them as a drain also.

      3. MV*

        I find that attitude infuriating, she wants to pay as little as she can get away with. She claims she is a good employer but that attitude says otherwise. To echo a prior commentator, I dont apply for jobs without any mention of salary, its a waste of time.

    6. anonbenon*

      And honestly, as someone who’s worked in administrative support roles for 10+ years, I think I can safely say this person isn’t paying their front-facing administrative support $20 p/hr considering the tone of their e-mail. People can and will always try to underpay administrative support staff whenever they can. The whole point of this person’s e-mail was a projection of their guilt at underpaying their staff and then trying to use this platform to justify it. You’re paying your front-desk support staff $20 p/hr? LOL. *show me the receipts Whitney Houston gif*

      1. Important Moi*

        I certainly don’t want to diminish your experience.

        I will just add the tone of LW ‘se-mail suggests they treat EVERYONE like that, administrative employee or not.

      2. OP*

        Front facing staff. One of whom does certainly get $20/hr.
        To answer Alison’s comment about the illegality of paying different people different amounts, the 2 roles are NOT equivalent. one is clearly more senior. So yes, they get paid differently but not for doing the same job

        1. Marny*

          The point isn’t for your two current staff members to be paid equally. The point is that if you have to replace one of your staff members, it isn’t ok to pay the replacement less for doing the same work as the old person just because he/she doesn’t give you as high of a salary expectation.

          1. TootsNYC*

            it’s not even that.

            It’s that when the employer puts the burden on applicants to negotiate or name the salary, the employer is very likely to hire male and female (or caucasian and POC) workers at different salaries, and THAT is illegal (there might be reasons one earns more, like more experience, or a slight difference in duties, but that risk is real).

            Our OP hires very few people, so the pattern is unlikely to show up. But that’s where the problem lies.

            1. Specialist*

              This is an overreach. This is a medical office. Those two employees have different positions. The OP has said that, and anyone familiar with the industry would agree. There is nothing in this letter or in the follow up comments that says this. This particular letter writer is actually less likely to hire a male and female at different rates for the same work because they don’t have two positions of the same thing!

              1. Ethyl*

                It’s not an overreach, it’s explaining (again) why this practice is crappy, for everyone, which is what the OP asked.

        2. Wait and see*

          This could cause issues down the line though. I have a friend who accepted a job and then found out later that the person who had the position before her had been making way more than her for the same experience/work. She was right out of school (just like the previous employee) and didn’t really understand what the appropriate amount of money to ask for was and was uncomfortable with this question. When she found out how much the previous employee had been making she realized she had way undersold herself and ended up leaving that job after a few months for one that paid her the market rate.

          So yes this could be counterproductive to keeping long term employees.

          1. TootsNYC*

            YES!

            This is the point I’ve tried to make. Sometimes employees low-ball themselves because they think they need to be desperate for the job. Or that the employer doesn’t want to pay (and not listing the salary/wage IS an indicator that the employer wants to “win” at this negotiation).

            And then they WILL leave.

            1. Anita Brayke*

              TootsNYC-yes! And defending oneself by asking why should (s)he pay $22/hour if (S)HE CAN “GET AWAY WITH paying $20 also is an indicator that the employer only cares about “winning” the negotiation. “Get away with?” Seriously. What a lovely practice they must be to work for (Not!)

          2. Kes*

            Yes – if you hire employees for lower than your range actually is, you are increasing the risk they later realize this and then leave for better pay elsewhere.

        3. Salsa Your Face*

          But Alison’s comment wasn’t about paying people differently for two different jobs, it was about paying people differently for doing the SAME job. The scenario is about hiring two front desk people with equivalent job descriptions and requirements. If you hired two candidates with the same qualifications and asked them each to tell you what salary they wanted, the two employees would find themselves paid differently for the same role.

        4. Princesa Zelda*

          The problem looks more like this:
          Charming and Tiana are all looking for a job as Llama Groomers. They’re otherwise identically qualified. Charming is significantly more likely to make more money than Tiana because of his being a white male. This is not any of their fault! It’s a combination of factors, many of which are out of their control. So if you ask each of them what their salary expectations are, and Charming says $24 and Tiana says $16, it’s not because that’s their actual market value, since they’re equivalent. If you then hire Tiana at $16, and she finds out the budget for that position was $24, she’s going to be upset and probably leave for another job. If she never knows but finds out NeverLand Inc is hiring for $20/hr, she will apply there and still not be paid what she’s worth, because you didn’t pay her what she was worth to begin with. Hope this helps illustrate the point.

        6. What is UX anyway?*

          It’s really starting to seem that you don’t care what the rest of us think and you don’t want to do any sort of reflection or inspection of your process. What are you planning to get from this interaction?

    8. TreeSilver*

      “Getting away with” paying a lower hourly wage is not doing you any favors in your budget. It’s not like vacancy savings. Budget the higher/full amount for your operating expenses, then in the case of staff turnover you’re not in a tough situation when you have to pay more to hire good, qualified candidates.

    9. some dude*

      This is especially true given how much variation there can be in salaries between companies. I’m willing to go 10-15% my current salary for an awesome new role. I would not be willing to go 30-50% below what I am making, and that is a real range that exists. Also, there have been times when a job pays so much I don’t apply because it signals that I don’t have the experience for it. A teapot manager at $200k is probably a much different role than a teapot manager at $90k.

      1. Kiwiii*

        Yes this! There are advanced roles in a similar agency with very very similar descriptions to mine (though — a few key phrases peppered in that signal to someone in the know that it’s Different than the job I do.) that pay a little more than twice as much as my current role. It’s not that we do the same work or that I could do or should apply for the 200% job, even if I could maybe spin in an interview to an inexperienced interviewer that I could — and the range helps tell me that.

    10. Kaaaaaren*

      Absolutely! Disclosing the salary range upfront saves everyone a ton of time, including the employer.

    11. Anon for this*

      I literally just bowed out of a second round interview because of a salary expectation mis-match. The job post didn’t give a range, but the app required that I input my expectation.
      My best guess as to their salary range, based on location + research, was acceptable to me. But, this ended up being way higher than the hiring range. They called back after setting up the second round interview to talk about salary b/c they went back to my app and saw the disconnect.
      Very frustrating. We all could have saved time and some emotional upheaval had the hiring range been listed. >:(

      1. ArtsNerd*

        I phone-interviewed for a job I’d really like, under a manager I would REALLY like to work for, but on our first call she disclosed the salary cap and it was way below what I could accept so we ended the process there.

        She’s a senior manager now at a different employer, and is hiring another job I would be interested in and qualified for, but posted the salary for that position with the listing, which was still too low for me. This saved BOTH of us even more time than the phone screen disclosure. No processing applications that were going nowhere!

  4. Crivens!*

    If you can’t afford to pay people what they’re worth, you can’t afford to be in business. No exceptions, I don’t care that you’re a “small business”, I don’t care that you have your own struggles. You don’t get to own a business at the expense of fair labor practices.

    2. MuchNope*

      I have a cousin who owns a driving school in a rural area and bitterly complains about having to pay fair wages, let alone any kind of normal leave/insurance. It’s like she expects employees to be extensions of herself or some kind of indentured servants. It’s really gross.

      2. Hey Karma, Over Here*

        “Maybe we tend to think of employers as BIG CORPORATION, but at least in our case it’s just hard-working individuals hoping to keep expenses in check.”
        So she, like OP, sees employees as adversaries who are trying to take money away from the poor, down-trodden, hard-working business owner, not as team members who are working to make the business succeed, thrive and grow.
        Healthy.

        1. DerJungerLudendorff*

          And employees are obviously not hard-working individuals hoping to cover their own expenses. They just want the money to make a big money-pile and sleep on it.

          1. Quill*

            If you employ exclusively dragons to work in a hospital or a driving school you are REALLY missing out on an opportunity to fully use their skill set.

              2. Red5*

                “Oh crap, Florence. I exhaled too hard and blew up another oxygen tank.”

                “Damnit, Jake. That’s the second hospital this week!”

                12/10 would watch this.

                1. One of the Spreadsheet Horde*

                  “Corbyn, you set off the smoke alarms again this week. What did the patient do this time to make you that angry?”

            3. Elsewhere1010*

              And this is why so many of us have sworn never to work in small businesses again, big-fish/small-pond owners with a manipulative streak. Not universally true of small-business owners, of course, but always something to think about.

              1. MuchNope*

                It’s also a reason why I have tried to manage my own businesses without employees. I know I would feel obligated to pay them decent wages & benefits and until I can absolutely do that without hurting other aspects of my business, I’m not going to jerk someone around.

              2. AmericanGothHick*

                I’m in one of those right now. A seven-person nonprofit with an ED who means well, but is VERY controlling and averse to giving responsibilities to her staff. Waiting until she retires in the next year or so…

      3. Beatings Will Continue Until Morale Improves*

        I worked for a guy who would moan about having the pay EMPLOYMENT TAXES on our paychecks and hard earned bonuses and would do anything to save a nickel at our expense. We regularly worked 50-70 hours a week, salaried exempt and our hourly wage was pathetic. I can’t say I felt bad he had to pay the taxes on my once yearly bonus when he expected us to be available for the business 24/7.

        1. Trachea Aurelia Belaroth*

          My friend’s boss is currently trying to finagle paying his employees to not get health insurance through his company, since he considers having to provide health insurance a grievous insult.

          1. Sara*

            My father in law has been complaining about paying for his employees’ health insurance for years. Recently he surprised the heck out of me by telling me he was in favor of universal health care. Apparently, he did the math and decided it would be better for his bottom line to pay taxes than insurance. …Good, I guess?

            1. Cat Boss*

              I had employer who decided, that paying our taxes/health insurance, etc was too much and announced at a town hall meeting that all employees were going to be transitioned into new contracts listing us as “independent contractors”. So we would have to pay our own taxes/health insurance out of our own pockets.

              His small business only last 6 months after the announcement and many employees quit without another job lined up. All because the owner wanted to “save money”

              1. Trachea Aurelia Belaroth*

                I bet that was illegal, as well, if he didn’t change anyone’s job duties or working conditions.

            2. Trachea Aurelia Belaroth*

              Truthfully, those are not competing notions. The fact that we in the US get health insurance through our companies (a fluke of history) is one of the main things that has held us back from universal healthcare.

              But yes, if he cares about people’s health needs being met he should be more gracious about fulfilling his responsibilities as an employer.

              1. Dust Bunny*

                I suspect it’s also held us back from raising wages since insurance gets lumped in with “compensation” so employers can pretend they pay us more than they do.

            3. TootsNYC*

              I read an op-ed by a Canadian CEO who said he was amazed that American businesspeople were not clamoring for universal health care. That his business saved money even when it had to pay its share of taxes for it.
              And because his company could keep its FOCUS on the business, and didn’t have to divert time, energy, and payroll to negotiating health insurance plans.

              1. Quill*

                Historically I think a lot of people who are also against things like unions and safety standards are aware that health care access is part of what keeps underpaid and exploited workers in terrible jobs, and terrible employers afloat.

              2. kab0b*

                Well in Canada we still have health insurance plans through employers, It covers stuff like dental, prescriptions, extended medical benefits (crutches, physio, RMT, Chiro), ambulances, travel insurance, and things like employee assistance plans that offer counselling, crisis support, addictions etc, short term disability, among other things.

                These plans are usually covered at least 50% by the employer (and often the case with Top tier employers 100%) and can run around 100-150 per employee per month.

            4. MCMonkeyBean*

              I have never understood why all the big companies aren’t in favor of universal healthcare. I feel like the amount they are current paying for employee insurance must be higher than what they would pay in a tax increase to cover healthcare right? I don’t have any hard numbers obviously so maybe I’m wrong but that has always seemed so weird to me that more rich people aren’t on board with this issue.

    3. Book Badger, Attorney-at-Claw*

      Imagine this for any other issue.

      “It’s too expensive to build this house with nails and wood. Why shouldn’t I just staple cardboard together in a house-like shape?”

      “If I advertise that I have $50k in unpaid and overdue loans, I won’t be able to borrow any more money (or I will but at a higher interest rate). I’ll just refrain from disclosing that to the banks to get better deals.”

      “It’s too expensive to hire actual doctors for our practice. Let’s just hire actors in costumes to pretend to be doctors because it’s cheaper!”

      1. Proofin' Amy*

        When I was 19, I worked a summer job for a dentist who was too cheap to hire a real hygienist, so he trained his secretary to handle some of the work. When she got sick, he got me in as a quick replacement while he looked for someone more permanent. I could handle answering the phones, mixing the dentist’s Crystal Lite (his preferred drink), and adding the instruments to the autoclave to get sterilized. But I used to spill the mercury when mixing the amalgam for fillings (this was 1990, so they still used metal fillings), and I learned (and I guess the dentist found out later) that if you don’t leave the developing X-rays in the fixative long enough, they dry blank (they were still wet when he showed them to the patient, which is why he didn’t find out right away; also, no digital X-rays yet). When he hired someone, he didn’t bother to tell me until I asked him directly (because I heard him make the offer; it was a small office); he told me tomorrow was my last day. Then the person backed out right before I left the next day; I did not stay on, however.

        (I had no interest in dentistry; I just needed some money to fund my train ticket into the city so I could also pursue a part-time unpaid internship in publishing. The dentist was a friend of my cousin (who used me as a better-paid untrained legal secretary the previous summer, which is also maybe not great, considering how much training legal secretaries need, too (I ended up picking up a bunch of that several years later.).)

        2. ampersand*

          Welp, all of that sounds like a dumpster fire and I hope you’ve moved on to better, less shady things!

          Also, spilling mercury: nooooooooo!

          1. Proofin' Amy*

            It’s 30 years and many jobs in the past; don’t seem to show any of the symptoms of mercury poisoning, so it’s all good.

      2. OP*

        great analogy with building a house. Why get bids for a job? Maybe because….you are hoping NOT to pay more than you have to???? Oooooh . Evil.

            1. DANGER: Gumption Ahead*

              My thoughts exactly. I’m thinking in a medical practice there might be a whole bunch of ways to supplement a below market salary, so lowest bidder might be the shadiest.

              2. Clewgarnet*

                I recently got a bunch of quotes for building a horsebox. I ended up going with the most expensive, for a number of reasons. Yes, it’s lower than I’d have been willing to pay, but a) it’s enough for the manufacturer to cover their costs and make a profit, and b) the manufacturer has an excellent reputation for charging fairly, rather than what they think they can get away with.

              3. Anita Brayke*

                If you don’t care about learning from the discussion you started, then don’t read the replies! Go about your business however you want to, squirrel away all the money you can, and here’s hoping you get caught!

            3. Sinister Serina*

              Jeez, no kidding. Best value for the money, yes. Lowest bid? Not necessarily and not when it comes to a house. Or people!

          2. Dust Bunny*

            I have it from at least one retired construction worker that lower bid = fewer nails holding your house together.

          2. HotSauce*

            I wish more people understood this. Maybe you can get a pair of shoes for under $100, but I bet they don’t last as long or are as kind to your back to the more expensive pair. You don’t have to break the bank, but if you think you’re going to get something decent for nothing you’re dead wrong.

        4. MV*

          Who takes the lowest possible bid regardless of quality? Basically what you are saying with your “question”.

        5. Hey Karma, Over Here*

          Let’s follow this seriously for a minute. You are renovating your kitchen. You reach out to contractors and ask for bids with the goal of only accepting the lowest offer.
          “Hi, I want new kitchen cabinets, how much will that cost?”
          “Well, we have A, B and C lines, so the difference is $X, $X+1 and $X+3”
          “I’ll take A for $X.”
          “OK, but B offers these additional things, 1, 2, 3.”
          “Not interested. Just want A.”
          But maybe if you investigated $X+1, you would have gotten a lot more for a little less.

          1. TootsNYC*

            Or, this:

            I want to reno my kitchen. I only have $10,000 in the bank. I -could- come up with another $4k, but only if it will get me something really important.

            I call a contractor to get bids; he asks what my range is. I say, “you tell me what it will cost first.”

            He comes out and gives me a bid that’s way high–or way low. And I don’t have the info I need about what I can get for my $10,000.

            But if I’d said, “I have $10,000,” he can come and tell me what I can get for that money. (I can also call other contractors who will give me THEIR bids, so I have something to choose from.)

            It’s just so inefficient!

            1. Hey Karma, Over Here*

              I was trying to work through that, but kept assuming that OP would work from the attitude that the contractor would act in bad faith.
              “I have a $10,000 budget.”
              Contractor rubs hands together like silent film villain, and offers as little as he thinks is possible for $10,000 to see what he can squeeze out of a “hard-working individuals hoping to keep expenses in check.”
              Which must be fun at parties.

              2. TootsNYC*

                and of course, that’s why you get three bids. So they know they have competition, and that they may not get the job if they promise too little

        6. Wait and see*

          If you have a certain amount you want to pay, tell the candidate that and if they have different expectations they won’t take the job. If you don’t want to pay more than you have to, just give them the amount that you feel you have to and leave it at that. Better yet, put it in the job posting and people who won’t take it won’t even apply and it will save both of you time.

          Ultimately you’re in charge of how much you pay. If you don’t want to pay more, don’t. But be upfront about that and don’t try to trick employees into a lower salary in order to keep your expenses in check. You should be able to do that on your own.

        7. Detective Amy Santiago*

          I know that when I’m accepting bids for who is going to build my home, I definitely look for the person who is going to do it as cheaply as possible because why would I possibly want good quality work with good quality materials? Obviously it’s going to benefit me in the long run if they cut corners with cheaper materials. So what if the roof falls in on my family.

          2. Marzipan*

            And I’m in no way concerned if all the reviews I can find of their work are basically incoherent screaming telling me to run far, far away. I’m saving money, after all, so I’m definitely coming out ahead!

        8. Lyn*

          You know, there’s no one stopping you from staring into a mirror admiring your own reflection in the privacy of your own home. Why come here with this p*ss poor penny wise pound foolish attitude, try and fight Alison on her management principles, then bicker with us in the comments? Is it fun for you to be told all the ways in which you are wrong..? Ah well, none so blind as those that won’t see!

        9. yala*

          I mean, building a house is one-and-done. You’re not hoping to keep your contractors/builders on indefinitely, just for a single project.

          The difference of $2/hr bilks your employees out of something like $4k a year. That they EARNED. They just didn’t know the magic words to ask. If you *could* go up on their salaries later if they ask for a raise, then you could just…pay them what they’re worth now.

          Pay

          People

          What

          They’re

          Worth

          1. MCMonkeyBean*

            Yeah, choosing to underpay them now so that you can give them a raise in the future is a weird argument to me.

        10. MuchNope*

          Wow OP. You are not a very nice person, are you?

          I got bids on a major roofing project and ended up going with the highest one. Not because they duped me into it, but because I needed craftspeople who understood how to work on a 100 year old cabin without turning it into garbage.
          The cheaper bids were from bigger companies who lowballed bids then upsold for ‘extras’ like a warranty or matching flashing.

          You get what you pay for.

        12. Salty Caramel*

          If you don’t want to pay more than you ‘have to,’ then you’re better off paying more for a contractor with good ratings who uses quality material and a good worth ethic so you aren’t falling into a money pit of essential repairs later.

          Do you understand that actions have consequences? I can’t quite tell.

        13. Anastasia Beaverhousen*

          Yeah. OP is clearly not interested in hearing another perspective. Even though he/she. you know, reached out to a writer who, you know, gives her opinion on your situation. OP is obviously still convinced he/she is right and ALLLLLLLL the rest of us are wrong.

        14. No name in particular*

          Professionalism and attitude aside, I feel like the OP is actually making a reasonable comparison here that’s important to address if she can’t see the flaw in the analogy. Because yes, it IS ok when you’re hiring someone to renovate your bathroom, for example, to get a bunch of quotes from people telling you how much they want to get paid, and no one expects you to state up front what you’re preferred range is. So what’s the difference? It’s like Alison has stated in this post and others – in the case of a bathroom renovation, the WORKER is the one with the majority of the information. They know what to charge because they know how much time it will take, how much supplies cost, and they’ve done this before. As the owner of the bathroom, I have no clue. In an employer/employee relationship, the person posting the job is the one with all the information; thus, they should be the one providing the range.

          1. Classic Rando*

            If you called up a contractor and just said “how much for a bathroom reno?”, they wouldn’t be able to give you a number, because there are too many potential variables that they don’t have the details of. What dimensions? Half or full? Tile, vinyl, or wood floors? Etc. Etc.

            So in this example, the contractor would be in the same predicament as OP’s applicants, asked for a price without enough information to know what the best answer is. But if you instead say “I’ve got an 8×6 full bath and $10k, can I get x, y, z features for that budget?” they’ll be able to give you a much better and more complete answer. Disclosing the budget (or salary range) means everyone is on the same page in the requirements book.

        16. Not So NewReader*

          OP, you are in the people caring business.

          Please explain to me why I would want to be a patient in your office. I am not seeing it ATM.

        17. Sleve McDichael*

          My best friend just built a house. She got a lot of quotes from builders who eyeballed her block and said that’s flat so there will be no cost to level it. One builder came in and measured up the block and told her it was a 3 degree slope which would cost X to level. Yes it was a more expensive quote but she took it and has had a fantastic experience with this builder. You don’t take the lowball quote if you good quality and integrity.

      3. Specialist*

        “It’s too expensive to hire actual doctors for our practice. Let’s just hire actors in costumes to pretend to be doctors because it’s cheaper!”
        –you are aware that this is currently happening?

    4. Hills to Die on*

      “You regularly talk about how inappropriate it is for employers to ask candidates about their salary expectations without giving any salary information out themselves.”
      So you have been reading the blog and know why you should be a good employer but you just don’t care because there are more gains to you than not asking? Or you read that you should not ask people their salary expectations but you didn’t read why?
      It seems as though you have missed a step.

        2. Sparrow*

          Same. They clearly take pride in this attitude, so what did they think writing Alison would accomplish…?

          1. Trachea Aurelia Belaroth*

            They probably felt attacked, but didn’t want to change their behavior, and thought they could feel better if only they justified themselves to Alison. But, as many people who call in to the Dave Ramsey show come to realize, their circumstances are not special. Advice stands.

        3. OP*

          I wrote because I hear non-stop how wrong it is for employers to ask about salary, and I want to explain my side of things.

          1. Ice and Indigo*

            The reason people think you’re wrong is not that it’s never occurred to them you might think, ‘Hey, paying my employees the absolute least I can get away with means more money left over for the business, ie me.’

            Everyone knows what your side of things is. They just think it’s a lousy side.

            2. Wait and see*

              Yes this exactly! The problem here is the attitude of “I want to pay people the least amount possible and this is the way I can do it.” That’s not a good side to be on.

            3. Dust Bunny*

              The thing is, with possibly a very few exceptions, we have all been on the underpaid receiving end of your side of things, which is how we know that you’re wrong.

          2. so many questions*

            Greed and paying your employees the minimum possible are not admirable or good business practices. As I said elsewhere, you seem to have been lucky in your employees, because you are definitely not skilled at this.

          4. Lance*

            If you’re comfortable using the words ‘getting away with’ in regards to what you’re doing, I’m confident in saying your methods are far from ideal.

          6. BRR*

            I think most people know your side of things, they just don’t agree with it for the reason Alison has spelled out.

          8. anonymouslee*

            All you’ve achieved is to confirm that the reasons employers don’t give a salary range are as self-centered and counterproductive as expected.

          9. Trout 'Waver*

            Surely you’re not explaining the things you wrote because you thought people didn’t know them?

            Most people are aware you can probably get away with taking $20 from the offering plate as it goes by. They’re choosing not to do so because they are decent people.

          10. NotAnotherManager!*

            No one was in the dark about your side of things. You basically want to pay people as little as possible to do the job, even if it’s putting you at risk of pay disparity or other issues, because you get to keep an extra $2/hour/week/year in your pocket.

            I work for a medium-sized organization, not a megacorp, and it is a partnership where many of the people who work here have an ownership stake in the company and paying people a fair wage rather than the minimum we can get away with DOES take money out of their pockets, as does providing health benefits and the other things that employees receive. (And, yeah, there is the occasional partner who gripes that we should all be working for gruel and a shilling – and, by the way, it’s always the low-performing partners who are hung up on this, because they’re not bringing in the business so margin matters more.) But it also lowers their risk of employment discrimination claims, attracts and retains better-quality employees, and has created a workplace where people generally feel they’re being treated fairly and are appreciated. We’ll never be top of the pay bracket, but we also don’t have to play used-car dealership games to save a few bucks.

            It’s not that people don’t SEE your position, it’s that they don’t AGREE with it.

          11. Spreadsheets and Books*

            Your “side of things” isn’t something job-seekers haven’t heard 87,000 times before.

            It’s just a slightly longer and more dramatic way of saying “profits over people 4eva.”

          13. Salty Caramel*

            I wrote because I hear non-stop how wrong it is for employers to ask about salary, and I want to explain my side of things

            You made your side quite clear (and you could use some help in professional writing). The important thing here is do you now understand why you’re wrong?

          15. Observer*

            A task which you have failed to accomplish, spectacularly so.

            And just doubling down with what sounds like willful blindness is not making much of a dent, either.

          16. yala*

            Sincere question: Now that Allison has thoroughly explained WHY it is wrong for employers to ask about salary, did…absolutely any of that make any difference to you? Do you *understand* why it’s a practice that contributes to systemic problems? Even if it does save you (and cost your employee) a few thousand dollars?

          17. Not So NewReader*

            Key words, “my side”. There’s a reason why you are alone on your side of the question, OP.

            You know. Our quality of life depends on our ability to seek advice of others and consider other perspectives.
            I am concerned here that you transfer this same type of thinking over to how you treat patients. If you get it in your head that X is good for Y health issue, are you able to change your mind if strong evidence says you should?

          18. MCMonkeyBean*

            Everyone knows your side of things. Saying that many employers would prefer to pay less money instead of more money is not some special secret we have all been too silly to think of.

    5. AnotherAlison*

      Never mind that employees who are worth more are worth more!

      Perhaps a higher quality candidate would bring value that the OP is not aware of and could save them money overall, but hey, they know everything already, so why bother?

    6. Wintermute*

      I call it the Uber problem but it’s really endemic in silicon valley in general. If your revolutionary idea for revolutionizing the snacks industry (Guacr– just open the app, select a local Guacr agent, and they drive to your house and make guacamole for you) requires labor costs to be under 5 dollars per man-hour, then your revolutionary great idea is not revolutionary, or great, it’s a crappy idea that can’t survive in the real world.

      The fact some businesses manage to abuse I9 status, use gamification to make employees work harder, and use confusopoly pay tactics so people can’t figure out how bad they’re being screwed, does not make this a viable long-term strategy.

      It’s like saying “I have a revolutionary idea for a great cheese business, but it only works if milk is fifty cents a gallon. Well it’s not, so you don’t have jack, with or without pepper.

      2. Double A*

        Yeah, I looked into Task Rabbit for a second because I thought it might be nice to make a few extra bucks. They suggest charging $15-20 for your labor if you’re new. And that you have to drive/get to the place, bring all your own supplies, pay taxes on your pay…. Uh, yeah, no. You don’t get paid for your time when you’re not working (i.e. moving between jobs). To be fair I live in a somewhat remote area, so driving for an hour or two of work isn’t worth it and maybe it makes more sense in a city, but also probably not because of higher cost of living.

        I also know that it’s completely impossible to get anyone to come out and do any sort of work in my area for less than $30-$40/hour, and that is frankly probably fair considering the expenses.

        1. Trachea Aurelia Belaroth*

          All of these crowd-source companies launch with the concept that it is truly crowd-sourced, that people do it in their own time for a few extra bucks or out of the goodness of their hearts (think of the term “ride-sharing,” implying a kind of quasi-carpooling, when really it is a freelance taxi service), when the true business plan is actually to have a legion of underpaid contractors doing the work as their primary or second job, on which they depend for income. Sadly many of them do fill a gap that needs to be filled, but they are not a true solution, just someone exploiting the need to make a huge profit and then sell off the company.

    9. Elbe*

      Yes! Running a small business is challenging. But those challenges don’t entitle owners to a different moral code than everyone else.

      The people who are bearing the weight of the struggles should be the people who stand to profit when the struggles pay off. In 10 years, the LW is going to have a business. Her employees will simply have 10 years of being underpaid for their work.

    10. OP*

      Everyone is assuming that we don’t pay fairly.
      It doesn’t really fit then, that we would have 2 excellent long term staff that seem very happy in their jobs

      1. Thornus*

        What’s your turnover rate for the other positions that you keep hiring for and ask the candidates for their pay expectations without disclosing yours?

      2. Ice and Indigo*

        Two whole staff members? Wow. That’s, like, *everyone*. Oh, wait…

        Look, OP, think about a few things:

        1. Many people don’t rate themselves at full market value. You can take advantage of that without them noticing, sure. They might be happy. They almost certainly wouldn’t be if they had the full facts and an appropriate valuation of their own skills.

        2. People have personal circumstances that sometimes mean a lower rate of pay works for them – say, the location is convenient, or the hours work for them. They’ll accept being underpaid because it seems like a tolerable trade-off. Doesn’t mean you’re not taking advantage.

        3. You talk about employees like it’s a huge favor that you pay them at all. That’s not the kind of employer people let in on it if they’re NOT happy. You clearly don’t care about their wellbeing, at least as far as fair pay goes, so why would they assume you care about it in other ways? People can put on a professional face when they have to.

        4. Frankly, your insight into other people’s feelings does not come across as stellar. They might not be as happy as you think.

      3. so many questions*

        I suspect you live somewhere they can’t get other jobs, because you don’t sound like an employer anyone would stay with otherwise.

      4. Confused*

        You really felt the need to write this over two freakin people, get a grip. Even fairly early in my career I’d hired more than two people and managed not to be a complete asshole.

        You are hardly confirming that this works just because you’ve managed to keep two people. I’ve had a lot of jobs working for jerks for too little money that I stayed in because I didn’t have much choice. The fact that you’ve hired two people means absolutely nothing. I hope you can see how dumb you look acting like hiring two people is some sort of accomplishment.

      5. ADHSquirrelWhat*

        could you go up to either of your long-term staff, show them this letter, and tell them “actually if you’d asked, we would have started you at $.50 more an hour. Are you okay with that” and still have them stay happy in their jobs?

      6. A Teacher*

        Then why not post a narrow range of what you’re willing to pay? All I see is a bunch of posts defending what Allison told you isn’t a great practice. Be transparent and you’ll get some excellent applications.

      7. BRR*

        This isn’t unique to you and your staff, if they weren’t unhappy they likely wouldn’t say anything.

      8. DANGER: Gumption Ahead*

        2 long term staff out of how many? If your office has 5 or 10 staff, then a 40% or 20% retention rate is nothing to brag about

      9. TootsNYC*

        but if you pay fairly, then why wouldn’t you want to advertise that?
        You want good employees who consider your office to be a good place to work.
        Why wouldn’t you advertise the benefits it offers?
        When someone wants to sell a blender, they tout that it has 10 speeds, and comes with an extra jar.

        You want someone who considers your $20/hour to be a wage they’d really like to have. Put it out there.

        You don’t have to pay more just because you told the amount of money first!

      10. MuchNope*

        I’m a bit slow.
        I realize now you must not want to post salaries because your faithful servants will realize how hard you’ve screwed them over the years.

      11. LP*

        Two long term staff…that *seem* happy in their jobs. I needed a good laugh today!

        In all seriousness, any small business could point to 1-2 people who have stuck it out for a variety of reasons (dual income, waiting til retirement, etc.) That’s not impressive at all and not indicative of you as a good employer. These comments you’re leaving now, they’re *super* enlightening about the kind of person you are!

      12. Queer Earthling*

        Yes, and I’m sure they’d tell you if they weren’t happy, given what a reasonable person you seem to be, and with such excellent listening skills.

        1. pope suburban*

          I’m trying to imagine how the feedback process would go there, honestly. We’ve seen the response to a professional management consultant with a huge following and great record, as well as numerous working professionals in the comments, and it was basically “Um, think again sweaty, we’re the best ever and actually doing these people a favor, maybe try outright self-deception to see how great we are, huh? ;)” This does not fill me with confidence that an employee asking for a raise to market rate, or a decent amount of PTO, or manageable schedule flexibility would get a warm reception. I shudder to think of how any pushback against shady or illegal practices would go; perhaps an aggressively saccharine “pep talk” with undertones of “you can be fired, so be grateful and pipe down?” After this debacle in the comments, I worry for all current and future employees, and wish them speedy and fair job hunting. This is not an environment that considers workers’ needs or values constructive criticism.

      13. Not So NewReader*

        OP, employees laugh at their employers behind the employers back on a daily basis. It’s kind of naive not to believe that does not happen. Just because they stay does not mean they are happy. And the reverse is true also, just because an employee is happy does not mean they will stay.

    12. emmelemm*

      This. If you can’t afford to pay your employees fairly and/or well, you do not have a successful business.

    13. CastIrony*

      This reminds me of ToxicHotDogJob, where I used to sometimes have to wait an extra business day to get paid money that the owner had me count out in front of him. And that was the least of my issues.

    14. Alison for President*

      This comment is really important, OP. I’m the child of 2 entrepreneurs/small business owners, and I recognize your mindset. You’re expecting many things, one of which is sympathy for your self-imposed “burdens.” And yet at the same time, you show literally no willingness to accept feedback or advice in order to change/improve anything. Ownership of a small business is not a God-given right, and you shouldn’t be running one if you’re not open to new ideas…or capable of basic perspective-taking. Also, taking time out of your day to write this is bizarre, quite frankly, because it seems like your goal was to lecture an accomplished, insightful, generous person about something that was completely unsolicited. What gives you the right, out of all other owners and managers? How did you not cringe when you wrote the subject line to your email (I did)? As someone who has seen your brand of self-aggrandizement and cluelessness in their own family: dig deep for some humility and compassion and CHANGE (asking open-ended questions that invite others to share their experience and opinions is a good start), or reconsider your fitness to run a business.

      1. WheezyWeasel*

        Allison4President makes a good point about feedback and advice as a business owner. I spent the last year working as a software consultant for small businesses (3-5Million/yr in sales). There were two distinct camps: the owners who fought me on every single issue because ‘I know my business and you’re just a guy setting up software the way I want it’ and those who were keenly interested in how we could adjust their business to use the software to it’s maximum effectiveness. Looking at a financial balance sheet both types of owners appeared successful, but I bet if I went back in 2-3 years, the ones who were open to new perspectives and especially those who passed their cost savings from the software back to their employees would be way ahead.

        One of my colleagues said “You are dealing with a lot of people who simply cannot tolerate working for someone else and that’s why they start a business.” In this thread, when I see you patting yourself on the back and trying to discount other people’s evaluations of your comment because it’s not your own experience, I see a lot of that attitude.

  5. bloop*

    the tone of this letter is extremely not the tone of a business professional. i feel would have written an angry screed like this on my livejournal when i was a teen lol

    2. Diahann Carroll*

      Right? The tone of this letter is ugly as hell – I can’t imagine what he’s like to work for.

      On another note, OP – just because your two employees haven’t quit yet doesn’t mean it’s because you’re a good employer. Employees stick around in toxic jobs every day because they need a paycheck, they need insurance, they can’t find anything else in their chosen field in their geographic region, etc.

      1. Mimi Me*

        YES!!! So much yes to the second part of your comment!!! Desperation makes reasonable people do things they don’t want to do. My husband still has nightmares about a job he had a decade ago – a job he kept for far too because our son had health issues and the insurance was good.

      2. Not Today Satan*

        There’s also a ton of people who just aren’t comfortable job hunting at all–from the resume to the cover letter to interviewing–so they stick around in a job they hate.

      3. AKchic*

        Exactly. Some people never learned how to interview well. Some people have such terrible anxieties about interviewing that they bomb nearly every interview they ever go on. Some people are career retail and either can’t or won’t leave it, for various reasons. Some people still get terrible advice from their parents and still try to please the unpleasable. Some people still buy into the whole corporate is your friend idea.
        Some people stick with bad small businesses because they feel that leaving is a disservice to the clients.

      4. Angelinha*

        Also…if there are only two staff and they’ve been there 15 and 8 years, you haven’t hired in 8 years. So it’s a little silly to say you “always” ask about salary expectations when you haven’t hired in almost a decade.

        1. OP*

          Um, there has been a fair bit of hiring over the 20+ years. But very happily, none for a while.
          And in terms of how HORRIBLE we are to work for, the office is actually a friendly happy one. Lots of joking around. We have dealt with accomodating long sick leaves when needed, always try to help our employees when we can in different ways, regularly give raises and bonuses.
          Awful place really. Quite justifying all the vitriol

          1. Ice and Indigo*

            OP, you wrote a letter in a confrontational tone, declaring yourself in opposition to what this site considers ethical practice. You are getting a completely predictable response, which is people telling you they think you’re in the wrong.

            Calling it ‘vitriol’ is self-martyring to avoid having to consider the points made, but even that aside, did you think people would actually go, ‘Wow, it never occurred to me that employee pay comes out of the business’s funds!’ and change their minds? You must have known what the likely response would be. What on earth are you hoping to achieve here?

            1. Allypopx*

              Some people get off on being the victim. The same logic “incels” use when they pick fights on Twitter.

              1. Ice and Indigo*

                Since the OP seems to be thread-sitting, though, I am curious to see whether she has an actual answer to that.

                1. Fieldpoppy*

                  I’m curious if she has an actual medical practice, given the amount of time she seems to have to be on this site.

          2. Anonnnnn*

            I have had several co-workers in past jobs who were MISERABLE with their employer, but that didn’t stop them from joking around. In fact, it was the only way they could keep hold of their sanity!

            2. Hills to Die on*

              Yep. We had a total mess of a boss/owner at a place I worked at once. She would make everyone miserable and crazy with her tantrums and then announce ‘We are a fun company! Have fun!’ and then look around expectantly at people to start laughing and joking around. She would occasionally go out of her way for someone once every few months but made everyone live in fear of their jobs and/or sanity all day, every day. She didn’t understand why there was a problem. We supported each other and joked around because WE bonded over the experience (and also were trying to keep her happy and not delve into a tantrum for who-knows-what). We all hated her behavior but she was too self-absorbed to see that.

            3. Classic Rando*

              Yeah, when I worked terrible retail jobs in my 20’s, there was lots of joking around… because we were all dirt-poor working crap hours for low pay and no/few benefits and that’s how we’re coped with it. Doesn’t mean we liked the job or company or upper management, we were just doing what we needed to get through the day.

            4. CastIrony*

              THIS. The other day, “Rich Girl” by Hall and Oates was playing at my job, and when the line, “It’s a [beach], girl” I jokingly told the cook (my immediate boss), “Hey, they’re telling the truth about this place!” He chuckled and agreed.

              The cook has been miserable for five years and trying to fight the good fight, and I see enough to understand what he means.

          3. Salsa Your Face*

            You admit that you haven’t done a lot of hiring. Alison and many of the other people advising you HAVE done a lot of hiring. Don’t you think you should defer to their expertise?

            If I’m going in for heart surgery, I’m going to listen to what the cardiologist tells me over what the neurologist tells me, even though the neurologist did once do a cardio rotation however many years ago.

            Your hiring practice is not ideal. Listen to the people who know better.

          4. EmKay*

            Your attitude is what’s getting you the vitriol. You wrote in begging for a fight, and now that you have one, you play the victim.

            Gods, how insufferable. I promise you that your employees are not as happy as you think they are.

          6. bmj*

            if anyone here is justifying their actions… it’s the person saying “I have power, why shouldn’t i lean on people.” all the supposedly good things you do are just window dressing if your mindset is to constantly remind you’re employees who is really in charge and who is at your mercy. My father is a partner in a small professional business like yours. i get it. you want “credit” for the “good” things you do and you don’t want to take responsibility for selfish, crappy things.

          7. NotAnotherManager!*

            I find this self-righteousness at the “vitriol” to be hilarious considering the “so there” tag onto your email subject to Alison and your tone in general.

            You wrote in about something that has been discussed ad nauseum here. You provided no new information about why you don’t provide range in the add or before the candidate does – it is essentially to let employees “bid” for your job and to take the lowest offer from a candidate you are willing to work with, which is not new information for anyone and certainly none that has not already been addressed exactly as Alison has above, both in her columns and in the comments. It is specifically to keep dollars in your own pocket, which is exactly the reason most people assume employers chose to do this, so thanks for confirming something we already knew?

            If you’re happy with how this is working out for you, great! Maybe this is the only way in which you use your power over candidates and employees for your own financial gain, but it’s hard to give you the benefit of the doubt on that with the na-na-na-na-boo-boo tone you’ve elected to take both in your original email and in the comments.

          8. hbc*

            So why do you give all these nice things to the employees but are sticking to “getting what you can” at the beginning? Seems kind of like you want them thinking of you as benefactors when you can get credit, but you’re happy to take from them when they don’t know it’s happening.

            I recently took over a place where management would have been saying all the same things you are. The sick leaves and (pitiful, irregular) raises were what kept the long-term people comfortable enough to keep going with the jokes and pretend like they believed the “we’re a family” thing. Getting to know these people, I can assure you that most of them were performing for your expectations.

          9. Observer*

            Is joking around your indicator of what a good employment situation is? In that case you REALLY need some management training STAT. Joking around happens in the most toxic workplaces as much as in more healthy places.

            1. Arts Akimbo*

              David Brent, anyone? I mean, even moreso than Michael Scott, there was an Office wherein the people were miserable but the boss perceived it as everyone joking around and having a laugh.

          10. Not So NewReader*

            Yet when it comes to the bottom line, you like to see what you can “get away with” and you feel their pay is coming out of “your” pocket. OP, you have really personalized this whole thing. It’s called running a business and payroll is a business expense. You sound like you feel personally ripped off by employees. The upset here is the irony that you are in a people business yet you feel free to speak of PEOPLE in this manner.

            I hope your employees do not catch on that this is YOU on AAM. But I am betting someone will point it out to them.
            “Yeah, I value you as an employee but I could get away with paying you $2 less per hour all these years so I did it.”
            How will you explain that? “Not my fault you didn’t know how to negotiate a better deal for yourself.” Or “You could have left a long time ago, if you were that dissatisfied with the pay.”

            What if a boss said to you, “I could get away with paying you $X,000 per year, so I did’, what would your response be to that?

          11. Stormy Weather*

            You seem to like slipping in information only when it suits you. Maybe it would help if you tell us the following:

            –How many total employees at your practice?
            –What deviation from the median of market rate are you paying each of them in order to only pay what you have to?
            –What benefits do you provide as standard?
            –Do your raises keep up with the Consumer Price Index?
            –What is the dollar difference between the bonus your lowest-paid employee gets and the bonus your highest-paid employee gets?

            You inspired the vitriol by presenting yourself as someone who will nickel-and-dime a person to death, and as someone who uses price as the only decision-making factor.

          12. CheapCheap*

            Soooo….you sound like one of the worst bosses I ever worked for. Professional, owned a million dollar home (in a small town), took MULTIPLE glamorous vacations every year, had housekeepers, designer pets, trophy wives, private school kids. Talked about all that in front of his employees while underpaying us by (I later found out) a good $10/hr (nevermind the complete lack of benefits), dodging annual reviews so he never had to discuss raises, and WHINING ABOUT NOT HAVING THE MONEY when one of us HAD to bring up a raise because THE COST OF LIVING HAD RISEN BEYOND OUR ABILITY TO SURVIVE on his cheap salaries. Heck, you openly BRAG about what a great businessperson you are and what a great office culture you have, like him.

            Newsflash? His employees HATED him. We despised him. Him and his entire family. He absolutely did what others said – sought out and exploited the naive, the unconfident, and the desperate – and made sure they all stayed that way by keeping us too tired and to broke to afford decent living conditions or to put out the huge amount of energy needed for any job hunt – even going so far as to isolate us from the staff of other professionals’ offices in lest we realize how bad it was. The experienced ones who he accidentally got in the door saw quickly how shit it was and disappeared quickly. The rest of us? Well, we were nice to his face and laughed at his stupid jokes and grovelled over every stale crumb he threw us BECAUSE HE WAS THE BOSS AND SURPRISE, NOBODY ACTS SURLY AROUND THEIR BOSS. And it was worse than that – we didnt see better on our horizon even if we COULD score an interview elsewhere AND land a job. We had all worked in the same jobs for the same people before, changing jobs again just meant same shit different boss. Those types of jobs had changed us, warped our thinking – just like many posts here have pointed out can and will happen when we’ve discussed awful work cultures.

            This turned into a bit of a rant, so let’s end with: bless you for existing, Alison, because you taught me HOW bad it was and how to focus on getting out, and thank you comments section for having stories of normal workplaces I can think of when all my family members hear how bad it was (didnt even get into the multiple flagrant ongoing labor law violations) and murmur “well you know, every job’s going to have some bad parts” which, previous to finding here, gaslit me into thinking I deserved to work for someone who hired me as a stepping stone to their own golden parachute and resented my asking for enough to afford heat AND food.

          13. What is UX anyway?*

            But you aren’t paying them what they are worth and you very well may be breaking the law. I joked around a LOT at horrible jobs because I *needed* them.

            And even if we’re talking about best business practice, instead of the legal ramifications of what you’ve been doing, it’s poor practice to get the very best employees. I don’t understand what is so difficult about being transparent about salary.

            What would you do if someone said: “I’m sure that you understand the market value and will pay accordingly for my skills and position”? Would you simply not hire them?

      5. Morning reader*

        The LW says:

        “I became a small business owner/employer having received no training in that aspect of things, but learned early on when I am hiring to ALWAYS ask the candidate their salary expectations before giving any information out about the range I am willing to offer.”

        This makes me wonder, OP, what happened that made you learn that lesson? Is it possible that you took the wrong lesson from that experience?

        Sounds like someone led you on, took a job with you and then left it quickly for a higher salary. And, for some reason, you assumed it was because that person took the job you offered at a lower wage than the person wanted or was worth on the job market. So what would have been different? If you had negotiated and they had taken the lower wage offered, wouldn’t they still have left your employ it/when they saw a similar or better job with better compensation?

        Assuming further that this person left your employ suddenly and after only a short time, could it be that your office and this employee were a bad fit for some other reason?

        The lesson is that you were bad at hiring when you were new to it. The thing you did wrong was not in disclosing your salary range but somewhere else. (maybe you did nothing wrong, sometimes things just don’t work out.)

        This letter reflects so much that is wrong with the American medical system. It’s ridiculous that doctors have to also know how to operate a small business and are given zero training in how to do that. (and this one seems to think that’s a good thing, which is so stereotypically “I’m a doctor therefore I’m smart therefore I know more about everything than anyone else” that I can’t even.) Doctors should be good at being doctors. That they should also have to learn to manage employees and everything else that comes with business is absurd.

        1. TootsNYC*

          If you had negotiated and they had taken the lower wage offered, wouldn’t they still have left your employ it/when they saw a similar or better job with better compensation?

          The OP doesn’t even have to negotiate–Alison isn’t really saying that.

          They should disclose.

          But if they want to pay $20/hour, then don’t have to negotiate to a higher salary. In fact, they can flat-out say, “Well, I understand you think you’re worth more, but you knew when you applied that the salary was $20.”

          The only reason to make the candidate name the range is the hope that they’ll say $18, and you get to save $4,000 a year. In your pocket instead of in the pocket of the dupe who wasn’t smart enough to realize they could ask for more.

          Not a fun attitude to work for. Not patriotic either, in my opinion.

      1. Jdc*

        Calling someone a teen is now insulting? Okie dokie. Add that to the list of things that people find to be offended by.

        You act like a stubborn child you get called a stubborn child.

      2. Yorick*

        This isn’t an insult of the person based on their opinion. It’s a take on how their tone makes them come across.

      3. stem bem*

        I mean, I don’t think they insulted the person? They talked directly about how their tone was unprofessional. That’s not an insult, just a reading on “I want to depress employee wages proactively and I won’t stop, so I’m bragging about it to a management advice columnist.”

      4. MissBliss*

        Saying someone comes across not as a professional but as a teenager isn’t an insult, though*. It’s an assessment of how they are presenting themselves, and a professional should be able to take that evaluation and respond to it as they see fit.

        *I would argue that it’s kind of a dig at teenagers, which may or may not be deserved.

      5. Eillah*

        I don’t think it’s insulting to make a valid point about the tone of the letter, and how it’s a reflection of larger business practices.

      6. Roscoe*

        Its more than a difference of opinion. Its more that they are actively trying to not pay people what they are worth.

          1. BRR*

            Exactly. If the tone of the letter was different, I could sympathize more with the LW. I fully get that owning a small business is hard. But when the tone is, “I’m extremely proud of how I’m screwing over others” I’m struggling to find compassion for this jerk’s life.

            1. OP*

              Is looking after our own interests (the way Alison ALWAYS advises) really “screwing others”?
              My tone I guess was a reflection of the frustration i have often felt (and certainly do here) about how horrible it is to ask about salary expectations first. That was the reason for the”so there”.
              We care about our employees, we pay them fairly, treat them with decency and kindness. I just don’t see why it is so HORRIBLE of us to look after our own interests in the hiring process!

              1. Allypopx*

                It’s not. So pick a wage you can afford, and post that. That’s looking after your own interest. What you’re doing is deceitful and manipulative.

              2. Ice and Indigo*

                Looking after your own interests at the expense of other people’s, rather than working out a fair and mutually beneficial arrangement, is, in fact, screwing others. Pretty much definitionally.

              3. Well okay*

                You’re approach to this and explanation just don’t make sense. If you are looking out for your interests and that means not paying more than a specific amount then just set the salary to that amount! You’re trying to trick people into taking a lower salary.

              4. EmKay*

                “we pay them fairly”

                Do you, though? With the attitude you demonstrated in your letter, I doubt it.

                1. Smoosh*

                  I would be extremely dubious of what OP considers ‘fair’ for her employees versus what’s ‘fair’ for herself.

              5. Ophelia*

                The issue everyone is circling around here is that you seem to be conflating YOUR interests with those of the business. And it is in the interest of a business to pay workers fairly, be transparent in negotiations, and adhere to fair labor practices–what you’re talking about here doesn’t *necessarily* mean that you have cheated your staff out of fair payment, but it certainly shows that you haven’t put in place practices and policies that ensure fair treatment for anyone who applies.

                1. Ice and Indigo*

                  Yeah, the ‘directly from our pockets’ phrase doesn’t sound like OP distinguishes very well between ‘our business take, out of which we budget expenses’ and ‘my personal money which is mine and why shouldn’t it be mine rather than yours because I want it and it’s mine.’

                  It doesn’t come directly from your pocket, OP. It comes from your business, which pays into your pocket after you’ve paid your expenses. That ain’t what ‘direct’ means.

              7. Crivens!*

                By fairly I am sure you mean “the very least we can get away with and still have employees”, right?

              8. Parenthetically*

                Looking out for your own interests at the expense of your employees and contrary to ethical, open hiring practices, when you hold all the power in the employer-employee relationship is, yes, definitely screwing other people over. For sure. “I’ll get mine, whatever it costs you” is pretty much the definition of screwing other people over.

              9. AnotherAlison*

                The bigger issue is that you’re not willing to consider that your way isn’t the best way, or that perhaps you are could even hire a higher quality employee at a higher salary who would provide more value to your business. What if you have someone that you pay $2/hr more (a whole $4k per year), and they can upsell patients on some optional procedure? (Like my dentist now has his hygienists offering everyone get a $50 out-of-pocket laser treatment with their regular cleanings.) Sales isn’t a skill everyone applying in a med office has, but finding someone who does can be valuable. Of course I don’t know what roles you’re filling specifically, but I think that trying to find the lowest cost employee is not always the right approach. (Or, another approach would be to push any work down to the lowest level…maybe you can hire a $12 P/T person for some work and a $30/hr P/T person for the higher level tasks). You just seemed unnecessarily locked into what you’re doing now.

              10. Elbe*

                It’s unethical to pay less for work that you know is worth more. You’re taking advantage of someone’s lack of knowledge about the job or market in order to pocket money at their expense.

                If $X is the market rate for what you’re asking, it’s ethical to pay $X even if someone is willing to take $Y. Figure out how much the job is really worth and post that range. Stop trying to find people who are desperate enough or uninformed enough to take less.

              11. TootsNYC*

                but if you pay them fairly, why are you not telling them that as a sales pitch when you advertise for a new worker?

                With a number.

                Which is more appealing? “Low price! Put it in your shopping cart to see the price”? or “30% off; now $199”?

              13. Close Bracket*

                My tone I guess was a reflection of the frustration i have often felt (and certainly do here) about how horrible it is to ask about salary expectations first.

                The reaction you are getting is not due to asking about salary expectations first. The reactions you are getting are to your stated goal of paying bottom dollar.

                1. Not So NewReader*

                  Adding it’s kind of concerning that you, OP, would write an advice columnist who has millions of readers and then wonder why so many people jumped on here to say they disagree.
                  You kicked a hornet’s nest here, OP and now the hornets are doing what hornets do. It’s basic cause and effect.

              14. MCMonkeyBean*

                You may be kind to your employees to their faces but your own words make it clear that you objectively do not pay them fairly and have no desire to try to, and that certainly is not treating them with decency.

              15. Scarlet*

                You sound really happy, OP. Because happy people spout nonsense then get upset when people call their BS and certainly, happy, confident people are the ones who then try to defend their BS tooth and nail. /s

                Maybe re-evaluate why you’re so “happy”? Just a thought.

      7. Jedi Squirrel*

        It’s not an insult. It’s saying they behaved like we would expect a young, inexperienced person to behave, rather than a seasoned business professional.

        OP’s opinion is a bad business practice, and their tone is rude, insulting, and entitled. They should be called out on it.

      8. Jadelyn*

        Not all opinions are worthy of respect. “Having a different opinion” is not some sacred state of being that protects a person from being called out for the quality of that opinion.

        1. Jedi Squirrel*

          “Having a different opinion” is not some sacred state of being that protects a person from being called out for the quality of that opinion.

          Oh, lordy, I need this on a t-shirt!

      9. so many questions*

        It’s not an opinion, it’s a terrible business practice and calling it such is not an insult.

    4. Jdc*

      Wish we knew the name of his business so we could warm everyone. I’d never want to work for someone with that mentality as it surely would bleed over into other areas.

      1. Wintermute*

        Exactly, this is the kind of business that would break the law rather than pay for very reasonable ADA accommodations. This is the kind of business that will stiff freelancers and independent contractors just because they can due to the difference in power dynamics. This is the kind of business that will say things like “if they don’t have the money for a lawyer there’s no reason not to break a contract, they can never enforce it.”

      2. SW*

        Exactly! I’d wonder what else the OP is being penny wise pound foolish about, which is super concerning as this is a *medical professional.*
        Also I read the reviews of doctors before I go to them to see how their front desk is run, and I stop going to doctors whose staff is unprofessional or unorganized. It’s a risk to your bottom line to hire the public facing people for as cheaply as you can when they can have such a huge effect on patient retention.

        1. Jdc*

          I had a doctors nurse tell me my baby no longer had a heartbeat, in the waiting room in front of dozens of people! Needless to say my ex walked into his office and lost his mind on him. Sad. Great doctor and he was livid that happened but lost my business. I ran into the doctor at the airport and he gain apologized. Glad to know he’s a nice person. Frankly it wasn’t my first negative experience with his staff but clearly the worst.

    6. pope suburban*

      Agreed. I worked, for three hellish years, for someone who absolutely would have done something like this. The tone here sets off all my warning bells; I wouldn’t get near a job at this company for any money. That said, the tone is something that can be changed, if the LW listens to Alison’s feedback and makes appropriate changes. I don’t know what kind of person this LW is, in their heart or soul or head or whatever, I just know that this letter is not a great showing and that it has a lot of offputting elements.

      1. OP*

        Once again, happy long term employees.
        Maybe the (admittedly snarky) tone of the letter is not a reasonable way to judge every aspect of our office, and of us as employers!!

        1. Allypopx*

          We’re mostly judging you as employers based on the content of your letter, the tone just pushes it over the edge.

        2. Starbuck*

          Of course people are going to judge you based on the words you’ve written, what else do we have to go on?

        3. so many questions*

          I’m judging you by your ongoing responses, which are quite honestly over the top snarky and self-satisfied at how much you have managed to save by treating your employees badly. It’s gross.

        4. Princesa Zelda*

          I mean, what else are people supposed to judge you on? That’s how you chose to present yourself, and from the tone of your comments, how you continue to choose to present yourself. Based on what you’ve written in both the letter and throughout the comments section, you sound like an unpleasant person. If that doesn’t square with the way you see yourself, it’s probably time to reflect on why that might be.

        5. (insert name here)*

          How do you know they are happy? You don’t. You know they are long term, but that doesn’t mean they are happy. It takes a lot of trust to get employees to be willing to tell about problems, and you don’t build that trust by playing games with their wages.

          1. pope suburban*

            This is a great point. I think that many employees, even those working in healthy, functional organizations, can feel hesitant about bringing up grievances or concerns. I think there are also identity/background factors that can contribute to this; Alison mentioned women and PoC often feel less empowered to negotiate (and may receive different responses to negotiation than, say, a white man), and another commenter mentioned that graduating into a recession strongly motivated them to undervalue theirself (I feel this in the atoms of my being, class of 2007). It can be difficult to communicate about happiness even at the best of times, and I think employers and managers need to be aware of the power difference and the way it might influence or inhibit employees’ communication. That’s not to say that employees can never give honest feedback, just that it’s not an easy, simple proposition, and that ensuring good communication takes a lot of time and work- the specifics of which can be learned on this blog, if one cares to do so.

        6. pope suburban*

          Well, there are certain standards for professional behavior, and a great many of them are being violated here in the letter and the comments (Again, just like the employer I mention). The odds of that behavior being exclusively confined to the letter are not good, especially given the volume of unprofessional, rude, arrogant, and dismissive responses people are getting. One might benefit from considering that the world does not necessarily fall into two bins: people who 100% agree with me, and people who are intractably wrong/stupid/ridiculous. There’s no shame in a mistake, after all, but what’s considered good practice is doing better once you know better; doubling down on bad policy is never a good use of time and energy.

        7. TootsNYC*

          Maybe the (admittedly snarky) tone of the letter is not a reasonable way to judge every aspect of our office, and of us as employers!!

          Hye, you’re the one who put it out there.

        8. Well, there's this*

          ‘Snarky’ implies a degree of cleverness. If that was your intent, in my opinion you utterly failed. Because of your tone, you come across as defiant, as knowing you’re being unethical, and downright gleeful at the idea of saving $2/hour.

          If you read for content, you’ll see that there can be many reasons why employees stay at a job where they aren’t happy. You may see joking around, but that doesn’t necessarily mean anything. They may like their co-workers.

          Being a good employer isn’t something you should be calling yourself, if you ask me. It’s a description you earn and it’s given to you by your employees.

        9. CastIrony*

          With all due respect, I can work hard and stay for a long time with a happy attitude, but it doesn’t mean I’m happy at a job. It’s just good customer service.

        11. Agatha_31*

          The absurd amount of wilful, privileged ignorance on display here is dripping from every word of your letter *and* every response you’ve made. Maybe a reasonable way to judge whether you’re as good an employer as you think you are is to openly tell people who are NOT reliant on you for a bad living in a bad economy your employment practices and see how many people still laugh and joke and are HAPPYYYY!!! vs. how many people tell you some views of you you’ve clearly never heard before?

          Maybe you should invest in another shovel, as the one you’re currently using has worn down to a nub.

    7. Not a dr*

      It’s also very scary that someone who is a medical professional is not factoring in race and gender into their thinking. It makes me worry about other actions they may take.

      1. Well...*

        Medical practitioners can have an awful blend of ego and blindspots that make it really hard for them to fix their problematic attitudes

        1. Trachea Aurelia Belaroth*

          A lot of professionals who start their own firms can have this attitude, especially. Doctors, engineers, architects, etc. often know their content area very well, and don’t know as much about running a business. Many rise to the occasion with good judgment and fairness. Others try to brush off their duty as business owners, considering it not as important to treat their employees fairly and do business above-board as it is to accomplish their professional duties. Both are important.

      2. Well Then*

        Unconscious bias is a huge, documented problem in medicine and it leads to women and people of color (and particularly, women of color) receiving substandard care. Lack of pain medication, missed diagnoses, and more. I would not trust this LW as a doctor for a hot second, based on this arrogant attitude.

        1. Allypopx*

          Seriously. Women and POC deal with these issues in their medical care as well as their employment. I would take this knowledge as a huge red flag – if it’s popping up in one area chances are…

        2. EmKay*

          Yep, just look at the mortality rate of WOC mothers during/shortly after giving birth. It’s terrifying.

          1. Parenthetically*

            Exactly my thought. A person in a medical field who is THIS blind to how their hiring practices actively perpetuate bias against women and BIPOC, holy hell, how are they to be trusted to care properly for their women/BIPOC patients?!

    8. Yvonne*

      I greatly question your claims of being a “great employer” when you are so happy about “getting away with” paying someone something that you know is less than they deserve simply because you were able to outmaneuver them. One wonders what other ways you shortchange your employees in order to save a buck, even when you know it’s unfair. And frankly if I knew any medical professional I dealt with treated their employees this way, I’d find a new one immediately.

      1. Diahann Carroll*

        Yup – no way in hell would I have a doctor who loves to cut corners and brags about doing the bare ass minimum. That’s a quick way to die, lol.

        2. DANGER: Gumption Ahead*

          Not for medical office staff. I have a bunch of friends who own their own practices or are members of a group, and the range is pretty narrow for given roles (e.g. front desk reception, billing clerk/claims wrangler, office manager) . Now the range between front desk and billing clerk or front desk and office manager are very wide, but from front desk reception to front desk reception it really isn’t.

          Have you ever asked around other practitioners in your area what their different staff are paid? It might help you get an idea if you are below market rate. If you are at or above, publishing the salary can only help you attract applicants.

        3. PollyQ*

          And therefore what? Still doesn’t stop you from stating a wider range of salaries up front, and saying that it depends on experience or extra skills.

        4. NotAnotherManager!*

          Oh, look – another argument for posting/disclosing your pay rate so people can not waste their time applying for a job that doesn’t fit with their salary requirements.

      3. Not So NewReader*

        Not just medical. If I caught a business person talking that way about the employees I would definitely take my dollars else where.

    9. blackcat*

      I mean, it takes a certain level of chutzpah to write into an advice columnist/business professional to tell them that everything they’ve ever written about a particular subject is wrong.

      1. NotAnotherManager!*

        Based on hiring two people, most recently nearly a decade ago, and without any sort of hiring training or, I’m assuming HR guidance.

        But they’re saving dollars an hour that go into their pocket!

    10. nom de plume*

      Absolutely. Alison is too nice when she states:” I’m sure you don’t want to be perpetuating a system that keeps women and people of color’s wages depressed.” OP sounds perfectly content to be the person who dies on that hill.
      Vile.

      1. Aquawoman*

        I laughed at that because she frequently suggests this kind of phrasing when a person needs to say something about someone’s outrageous behavior. So, “stop sleeping with the interns, you scumbag” becomes “I am concerned for the legal exposure to the company of you sleeping with the interns.”

        1. motherofdragons*

          Yes!! I noticed that too. The “We’re all reasonable people here” approach. Like, “I’m sure you don’t want to expose the company to legal issues by continuing to organize a sex club in the office after hours.” #quack

  6. The Original K.*

    Alison: “Well, I’ll happily tell you why you should stop.” Me: “This is about to be good.” And it was.

    Also, “so there?” The OP sounds … unpleasant.

    1. Cheese_Toast*

      OP definitely sounds unpleasant. On top of what Alison said about getting comfortable with outdated practices, it also seems like OP doesn’t have a lot of hiring experience. It’s great that their employees have stayed a long time but that means they haven’t hired that many people.

      1. Anonomoose*

        File under “businesses that, given the option, I would rather beat myself to death with my own 1.5 page CV than work for”

        Does two dollars an hour honestly stack up against retraining someone who asked their co-worker what they made, decided they were being short changed, and went for a different job?

    4. Anonnnnn*

      “So there” is such a childish statement. I immediately had this mental image of LW sticking their tongue out and pouting. Not a good look for a “professional.”

    5. AppleStan*

      When Alison started with “Well, I’ll happily tell you why you should stop.”, I *LITERALLY* paused reading, got up, reheated my coffee, came back, closed my office door, sat down, and slowly sipped this heavenly goodness while I continued reading.

      Worth it.

    6. Elbe*

      “Well, I’ll happily tell you why you should stop.”

      I actually considered stopping to get popcorn before I read on.

  7. ThisColumnMakesMeGratefulForMyBoss*

    Your letter is the reason people are hesitant to provide you with salary expectations. You are hiring, and it is your job to provide people with a range to see if you’re both in the same ballpark.

  8. Sunflower Sea Star*

    One key phrase in your letter:
    “if we can get away with”
    You’re not trying to play fair, you’re trying to get away with being unfair. And you know it.
    We have always known why employers do this. WE KNOW you’re trying to take advantage of applicants to see how close you can keep them to the poverty line. So this letter feels like mansplaining periods to a woman. We know employers do this to “get away with” something that isn’t fair and kind to employees.
    But at least you’re “brazenly unapologetic” about it?

    1. Crivens!*

      And you know he’d (I will bet you cash money this is a he) flip his lid about anything he thought his employees were trying to “get away with”, like leaving on time or taking a full lunch break.

    4. Scarlet2*

      Yes, this LW is basically saying “I’m doing this to screw employees over”.

      I guess at least they’re… honest about it? /s

      1. OP*

        Not screw anyone over. Is it really so terrible to hire someone for less than we might otherwise have been willing to pay if we had to?
        So NO-ONE here has ever paid less for a service or product. No one has ever looked for a bargain and squealed with delight that they paid very little for something they found at a garage sale that the owner didn’t know the value of????
        What? You have?
        And of course no one will connect the dots that they paid less so…someone got less??? Of course you don’t think you screwed anyone over right?

        1. Allypopx*

          “Is it really so terrible to hire someone for less than we might otherwise have been willing to pay if we had to?”

          Yes. This isn’t a service or a product, this is an ongoing business agreement. You need to stop looking at your employees as commodities, they are performing essential business functions for you.

        2. Carlie*

          So then why not just advertise the job with the lowest rate that you would like to offer to start with? You will get applications from people who are already happy with that salary, and you won’t have to do the dance of the salary question. Or, you will get qualified applicants who will ask if there is any room to negotiate the salary up. If you don’t get any qualified applicants, that’s your answer that your rate is to low, and you re-advertise with it listed as little higher. Still not sure how it has to be on the applicant to do this rather than you.

        3. Well okay*

          Do you honestly not see the issue with comparing employees to a garage sale bargain? That’s just gross.

        4. Anonnnnn*

          I am a human, not a clearance item. I am not “used goods.” Your mentality that “of course no one will connect the dots” is asinine, toxic, abusive, and is really going to kick you in the butt one day.

          At least clearance items are marked with the price that needs to be paid. Furthermore, every garage sale owner knows the value of something–they are selling it based on the value that the item has to THEM. You want a contractor who offers cheap service? It probably shows in the quality of their work.

          1. Third or Nothing!*

            That’s like, basic Marketing 101. Goods and services are worth the value people assign to them.

        5. Parenthetically*

          You know what? If I found a Klimt painting in a garage sale for fifty bucks, went and got it appraised, and realized it was worth $500,000, you bet your ass I would be a shitty person for not going back and offering several thousands of dollars to the person who sold it to me for fifty bucks.

          Also, people are not garage sale trash. They are humans. The value of the job is X, and it should be a matter of integrity to you to pay that amount, not hope that someone with no knowledge of *correct* pay for the role, or someone insecure, naive, socially disadvantaged, or desperate enough will come along and take the role for as much less than X as possible, so YOU can save a few bucks. You’re not entitled to anyone’s labor, and you certainly aren’t entitled to it at the cheapest possible rate when you’re doing your damnedest to keep people in the dark about what their work is worth.

        6. CaliCali*

          People aren’t commodities. If I find a THING that is a bargain, that’s great. That thing isn’t trying to eat or house itself. The thing doesn’t have feelings or goals. The thing isn’t going to realize I’m not paying its market value, and roll over to a house where it is purchased for market rate.

          This is a bizarre and inaccurate comparison that does, however, reveal a lot.

        7. DANGER: Gumption Ahead*

          Not when hiring a person for a job. If they were willing to work for significantly less than market rate, I would worry about what kind of worker they were, if their references were real, etc.. Someone who low balls their pay is a risk

        8. yala*

          “Is it really so terrible to hire someone for less than we might otherwise have been willing to pay if we had to?”

          I mean. You’re the one who phrased it as “getting away with”–that implies that you’re doing something you know they would be upset by. If I found out I could’ve been making $4k more a year if I’d just said the secret word, I’d be pretty pissed off.

          Yeah. Hiring employees for the long-term and paying them less than you feel they’re worth is a pretty lousy thing to do.

        9. anonymouslee*

          You’re delighted to pay people (whom you claim to care about) less than they’re worth because they don’t know their own value? You don’t see why people think that’s scumbag behavior?

        10. TootsNYC*

          It’s because the person paying the money has the power.

          And it’s important for the person with the power to use it responsibly.

          This argument is over whether it is ethical. And perhaps whether it’s a wise business practice.

        11. Just a frog sitting on a log sipping tea*

          Just some friendly advice. You can’t let every negative experience influence how you run your business.

          Being a small business owner is rough, stressful, and comes with a host of problems. But one thing I learned about opening my own small business was taking time out to take care of my own health (mentally, physically, and spiritually).

          At one point my negativity was getting in the way of my business and how I treated my employees. It wasn’t until a good friend sat me down and told me I needed help to deal with all the stress and issues.

          I got a therapist, who helped me separate my personal vs professional feelings, and ways to deal with setbacks. It helped me become a better boss. (Just my opinion and experience)

          It never hurts to reach out to others for advice or resources that may help or your business.

          Just my two cents

        13. These Old Wings*

          But you also have to consider the implications on the employee. When you start off a job at a lower salary, you will make less money over the course of your employment. It’s not a one-time bargain price you are paying for an object. Plus, as a small business owner, you also “get away with” not needing to offer things like FMLA or retirement accounts.

        16. Citizen of Metropolis*

          Yes, it is different. You are equating a “thing” found for a good price with something people *require* to live on. What you pay determines where someone lives, what kind of food they eat, how they educate their children – and not just immediately, but for the future as well, as in whether or not they can save for retirement. A vast difference.

          1. Tipping Point*

            I’ve had my share of working for small business owners. Yep, working 80 hr shifts so my boss and his family could live in an affluent neighborhood, send his kids to expensive private schools, so his wife could be a stay at home mom, and the wonderful vacations all over the world that he would bragged about.

            While we, his employees were severely underpaid, little to no benefits, no bonuses, laughable raised (got a whole nickel raise once) and most of us were on government assistance. But to hear my old boss talk, you’d think he and his family lived in a shack, while we, the employees were robbing him blind……

        17. Not So NewReader*

          So… you pick up employees at garage sales?
          And you squeal with delight when a potential candidate when they say a number lower than yours?

          OP, this is really, really, awful.

        18. TrashPanda*

          You are comparing human beings to an inanimate object found on sale or at flea market.

          You need to step away and think about that.

        19. Melody Pond*

          Is it really so terrible to hire someone for less than we might otherwise have been willing to pay if we had to?
          So NO-ONE here has ever paid less for a service or product. No one has ever looked for a bargain and squealed with delight that they paid very little for something they found at a garage sale that the owner didn’t know the value of????
          What? You have?
          And of course no one will connect the dots that they paid less so…someone got less??? Of course you don’t think you screwed anyone over right?

          You’re approaching this in your thinking like an individual consumer. But you’re not a consumer in this context – you’re running a business. Look, I agree with everything everyone else has said about this being an unethical practice, perpetuating a problem that hurts mainly women and people of color. But based on your responses I’ve seen so far, that doesn’t seem to be a concern for you, so let’s instead look at this from YOUR perspective.

          You need work done to support your business. You will need to hire staff to do that work. To maximize the effectiveness and/or efficiency (i.e., profit) of your business, you want to attract and retain employees that perform well in the work and are a great fit. To be able to do this, Alison is telling you that first you need to identify an accurate market range for the work (which is adjustable within your range depending on the experience and exact qualifications of your candidates). Having done this, if you want to get the largest possible pool of the best candidates, Alison and many others are trying to tell you that you should stop making candidates state their salary requirements, and instead just post the salary range in the job description. By refusing to do this and insisting on your current practices, you are HARMING YOUR BUSINESS by missing out on the best candidates and PUTTING YOUR BUSINESS AT RISK of losing good employees that you may already have, for reasons that could have been easily avoided*.

          You’re not just hurting other people. You’re also shooting yourself in the foot.

          But if you don’t care about hurting other people, and if you’re perfectly happy with the quality of the business that you’re already running (even if it’s running more poorly and, I would venture a guess, producing less profit than similar, better-run practices in your profession) – by all means, carry on what you’re doing.

          *People leave jobs for tons of reasons that are unavoidable. Your fear of employees leaving your business is extremely odd, for a business and medical professional.

        20. Salty Caramel*

          Did you really just compare a person to consumable goods? That says a lot about you as a person.

      2. Annony*

        And if they do want to “get away with” only paying $20/hour, why not list that? The applicants she gets will be the ones who are happy with that salary which seems to be the goal.

        1. Rusty Shackelford*

          Because if they advertise $20, people who would have taken the job for $19 will “get away with” an extra $1!

                1. Sigh*

                  She’s been given some very clear, very solid advice, and just does. not. see. it.

                  Doesn’t want to see it. Her arrogance will be her downfall.

              2. Adalind*

                +1
                People leave jobs all the time for a variety of reasons. Chances are if the salary is posted they know what to expect and they’ll most likely stick around until one of those reasons comes up. You can’t keep all the people forever… it’s close minded to think so.

            2. Salsa Your Face*

              Or someone might take the job for $20 then realize after the fact that other companies are willing to pay $23 for the same job and leave regardless.

            3. Aurion*

              Even if you don’t advertise the salary range, what’s stopping this qualified candidate wanting $23/hour to take the job and leave six months later? If they don’t find out the pay at the interview, they’ll find out once they take the job.

              I’m not understanding how being coy about the range is keeping the employee there. If your pay rate won’t meet their needs, they will leave irrespective of when they find out.

            4. EmKay*

              Maybe the people leaving after 6 months left because of you and your shifty underhanded ways, not your lowball salary. Just a thought.

            5. (insert name here)*

              Someone really wanting $23/hour will probably not apply. which saves you both time and money.

            6. Parenthetically*

              Or they won’t apply in the first place.

              Or they’ll take the job, realize the working environment is great, and stay.

              Or they’ll take the job, and get hit by a bus two weeks later.

              Or they’ll take the job, quietly earn the same degree you have for a few years, and start their own business just like yours, but where they don’t play bullshit games with their employees’ salaries. Ideally.

            7. Antilles*

              Or, more likely, they’d self-select out of the interview before it even happens, thereby saving you time. Per your posts, you are a medical professional and a small business owner. Most small business owners I’ve known (including the owner of my company) tend to be wildly busy. Wasting an hour on an interview just to end with a “wait, you want $23/hour? sorry, but the best we can do is $21, welp, guess this is going nowhere” seems like an inefficient way to use your highly valuable time.
              Also, just as a question: Is this “leave six months later” that you’ve now mentioned several times an actual occurrence you’ve experienced? If so, I’d love more details if you can provide them, because it seems to me like you may be over-correcting based on a single failed hire. Which is very normal, but definitely something that can be a huge problem long-term since (a) it means you’re missing the holistic view of the problem and (b) potentially using medicine that’s way stronger than is justified.

            8. TootsNYC*

              Or, they might lie when you ask, and say they’d take $19/hour, either because they really need a job, or they’re hoping that they can get you to raise the amount after an interview. And if they were desperate, they’d take the job. And then they’d leave because someone down the street is offering $23.

              The secret to not having people leave is to offer the market rate. Then there’s no incentive for someone to jump employers over money, because the money is roughly the same.

              1. Pommette!*

                Offer the market rate, or make up for it by offering other things that make up for the lower salary. Small medical offices often have paltry benefits; some people will happily put up with a lower salary if they get decent paid time off and sick leave (that they can actually use guilt-free) in exchange.

                The trick is to be completely upfront from the start.

                1. TootsNYC*

                  Once the pay is roughly equal, you can keep employees with the atmosphere of your office, your flexibility as a boss, the niceness of your office space, the amount of vacation you offer…

                  (I had a boss who said that for most office jobs, giving vacation was pretty much free for the boss, especially if you didn’t have to hire a temp to cover. People work hard before, they work hard after, and they cover for one another)

            9. Quinalla*

              Has this happened to you? Or to someone you know? You seem REALLY stuck on this point. Are there people that will take a lower paying job while continuing to look for a higher paying job or a higher paying job falls in their lap, sure, but generally this is not a huge problem for anyone. Have you not considered that someone will lowball a little thinking they might scare you off and then still be unhappy when it would have been fine if you just gave them your range or even just your starting salary for little to no experience? It is EXTREMELY difficult for employees to judge from the outside what wage a position should be making, they just don’t know nearly as much as you do.

              As another commenter said, the more likely thing is people will self-select out and not interview or will interview and then ask for a higher wage.

            10. Sunflower Sea Star*

              If you want to keep employees long term, you pay market rates, not as little as you can “get away with”
              But you’re clear you are here to exploit people who don’t know their value or what market rates are. So that’s the consequence of being the kind of employer who wants to screw people over for as much as they can get away with. And is brazenly unapologetic about it.
              Simple cause and effect.

            11. Midwest Writer*

              I am super curious — you’ve mentioned this several times as your biggest concern — that people wanting a higher salary will just up and leave in six months. How often has this happened to you? Also, if you’re hearing multiple people say “I’m leaving for $1 more an hour” after six months, I wouldn’t be shocked that they’re giving that reason because it seems impersonal, whereas “I hate working here and would rather bail now” is very personal.
              For what it’s worth, I’ve been in my industry for 20 years. I’ve never left a job because of salary, although my salary has generally increased with each job I took (except for one, but that was going from a super high cost-of-living area to a MUCH lower one, so my standard of living was relatively steady). I leave jobs when they suck (this is 100 percent always a management issue) or when I get an offer to do something I like in a cooler place or with new responsibilities.

            12. petpluto*

              My question is – do you think having the person offer the salary they are willing to take, and low balling themselves, somehow binds them to their employment with you forever? “Oh, if only I’d known I could have been making $23 an hour, and I only offered $19! I shall make $19 an hour forever here, and be shamed for asking for so little for myself!”

              If I underbid my own worth, and found out 6 months’ later I could be making $23 an hour elsewhere, the fact that I was the one who offered the initial range wouldn’t keep me at my current job. I’d just think my current employer was either also woefully misinformed about how much I should be making (incompetent but not a jerk), or someone who went into this deal looking to pay me less than I was worth (jerk), and go off and apply for the job where I could be making $23 dollars an hour.

            13. Rusty Shackelford*

              and someone really wanting $23/hour might take the job and leave six months later.

              I don’t understand what you think you’re accomplishing. Do you think the people you hire for $20 don’t really want $23? Someone who finds out, after you hired them, that they could make more elsewhere, is very likely to leave. What makes you think you’re preventing that by paying them less?

            14. Stormy Weather*

              Every time you hire someone it’s a risk they’re going to leave. Your job as a manager is to mitigate that risk by providing work your employees want to do, leadership with integrity, benefits and that includes a competitive salary.

              Your practice of withholding salary info is really shooting yourself in the foot. Put what you’re willing to pay in your ads. People who want more won’t bother with you.

            15. Observer*

              And someone who SAYS $20 because they are afraid to say more might take the job and leave in six month as well.

              It happens all the time.

            16. JustKnope*

              You are so weirdly focused on that ONE scenario, and ignoring every other scenario people posit here. Maybe set aside your fears over people leaving in a short time and actually listen to others’ perspectives?

            17. Not So NewReader*

              Why are you so afraid of people leaving? This is weird. People leave, there is nothing abnormal about that. Honestly, you mention this so much, OP, I don’t think business ownership is for you. You seem to be focused on this fear of people leaving and fear of people ripping you off.

              I am MORE concerned about them STAYING at this point. These preoccupations of yours can’t be healthy.

              1. Melody Pond*

                Honestly, you mention this so much, OP, I don’t think business ownership is for you.

                +1000

                I’m having a really hard time seeing this OP as an effective business owner.

            18. I'm a medical consumer*

              I find it really, really weird that you think someone is LESS likely to leave for $23/hr if you pay them $19/hr than if you pay them $22.

              I mean, people hate change but most of us would risk it for $4/hr.

            19. common sense sometimes makes sense*

              You really seem to think this is happening all the time. It happens once in a while, but only if a really outstanding opportunity presents. After all, jumping around a lot from position to position looks bad on a resume. You can probably get a better idea of their dependability based on their resume and work history.

      1. Anonnnnn*

        I read that as an example. Like a metaphor. Not that the OP was accusing LW of mansplaining. It’s basically just someone who assumes that the recipient of the explanation doesn’t know anything, even though the recipient of the explanation is actually an expert on the subject.

      2. anonymouslee*

        It’s an analogy. It could as easily be said that you were quick to jump to implied defensiveness.

      1. Sparrow*

        Yeah, I feel fairly confident that the employees aren’t as thrilled with him as he thinks they are. I found him insufferable just in writing, and even if this tone/attitude isn’t his norm, I highly doubt he’s able to keep it in check all the time.

      2. Queer Earthling*

        You mean you wouldn’t love working for someone who compares you, a whole human, to an excellent garage sale find?

  10. CaliCali*

    If you have two staff who have been there 8+ years, you haven’t even had to hire anyone since ~2011. You were last hiring in an economy that was crawling out of a recession. Good candidates won’t put up with this in a stronger economy. You’re bragging about the benefits of a system that only works when employees don’t really have options.

    1. Diahann Carroll*

      Such a good point – the recession made people desperate. And if these employees are older (and I’m guessing they are based on their tenures), they may also still be there due to hiring discrimination or the fear of.

      1. OP*

        It doesn’t really explain why these (presumably) underpaid employees are still sticking around though does it?

        1. so many questions*

          I bet you’re in an area where it’s difficult to find jobs. You sound just so relentlessly smug about how you’re thrilled to be underpaying people to save a little money. How do you not see that’s kind of disgusting?

          1. Imadeanametodothis*

            “Relentlessly smug” is perhaps the best description of this kind of person that I will ever hear. Kudos!

          2. Alison for President*

            Yes to this. OP needs to keep in mind that there are lots of people who don’t have the ability to move out of an area with minimal employment options; they take what’s available, and things can be even more limited depending on their level of education, experience, and qualifications. Family, limited financial resources, and plenty of other factors could make your employees stay due to necessity, not because they’re happy. Not everyone has the luxury of being able to change jobs to suit their interests whenever they want– that’s the hard truth.

            OP, your thought process is nauseating. Grow up.

        3. ADHSquirrelWhat*

          Yes, actually, it does.

          The act of job-hunting is quite a bit of work. LOTS of people will stay where it’s /good enough/ over going through the effort of job-hunting, even if they’re not happy with it. The hidden costs of job hunting are high. Plus, they’d have to search around enough to know whether or not they’re compensated fairly for the market, and if they don’t KNOW you deliberately underbid, they wouldn’t necessarily know they could get more. Not until they started looking.

          And we’re presuming they’re underpaid – because you’ve made it clear you’d be fine WITH underpaying them. Maybe these two staffers are paid fair market rate. Then again, maybe they’re not. We don’t know. We DO know that if they were being paid under-market, you’d be okay with that. That’s the problem. You would be okay cheating people you know, that you’ve worked with for close to a decade, out of money to line your own pocket.

          1. Sal*

            THIS. Job hunting sucks. Perhaps you’ve heard the expression “a bird in the hand is worth two in the bush,” which suggests at least one exchange rate.

          2. Glitsy Gus*

            Absolutely this. At this point the number on their check isn’t the problem, it’s the way you talk about these human beings who work very hard for you. If they knew that you were talking about them this way, how do you thing they would feel? Would you actually NOT start looking for a new job if you weren’t already? Be honest with yourself for a minute and really think about it.

        5. Elbe*

          If you pay your employees the market rate, then why wouldn’t you advertise that?

          I’m not sure what your argument is here. If you’re paying a fair market wage, then what are you “getting away with” by not just posting wage? If you ARE paying your employees less than they would have gotten elsewhere, then their apparent lack of awareness about the issue doesn’t absolve you.

          One time I found out that I was being paid 30% less than my male coworkers. My company was taking advantage of the fact I was young and, at the time, had no way of checking to see if I was being treated fairly. The fact that they were friendly and nice to my face doesn’t make what they did any less wrong, or illegal.

        6. Bazinga*

          People get comfy at places. I’ve worked in doctor offices where people weren’t treated well. But they liked the patients/hours/coworkers/familiarity.
          I mean maybe you’re nicer than you came across but reading your neener neener letter makes me want to run screaming in the opposite direction.

          1. Elbe*

            Right. People also stay because they need the health insurance, or because they are having family issues and can’t afford any economic instability, or because their area is economically depressed, etc.

            Someone remaining in a job and being pleasant day-to-day is absolutely not an indication that they are either happy or well paid.

        7. yala*

          Presumably? Didn’t you straight up say you were underpaying them? That you considered their work was worth more than you wound up paying them because they didn’t ask for more?

          Or maybe they’re not anymore because they asked for that raise and got the money they should’ve been getting all along.

          At any rate, you know people calculate things in more than just money, right? Time, effort, commute, etc.

        8. Jh*

          Oh lol… Dead weight tends to stick around and stifle innovation. Bet if you took a deep dive you’d discover all kinds of inefficiencies.

        9. animaniactoo*

          For some people, things like commute and job stability are factors they really need to consider before looking for something else.

          Right now, the valuation on their end that one or more of those factors may be important enough not to fuss over being slightly (or more) underpaid. It does not mean, however, that what you’re doing isn’t still unfair to them. It would just be a trade-off they’ve accepted.

        10. LP*

          There are a ton of reasons you are intentionally ignoring, actually! I’ve been job searching to leave my underpaying job for a while because I’m in a really niche field with a lot of competition. Doesn’t mean I’m happy and it doesn’t make this ok!

        11. WellRed*

          I’ve stuck around at my job too long, slightly underpaid, because I’m lazy, there aren’t a ton of oppos in my line of work and they otherwise treat us well. I can’t imagine if you start off a relationships on such an adversarial note that there aren’t other workplace issues as well, but I will give you the benefit of the doubt.

        12. Brett*

          My last job was horribly underpaid. They froze _all_ raises (merit, step, or cola) in 2008 and still are in a freeze.
          One of my friends in the industry runs one of the largest salary surveys in our industry, and at one point he contacted me personally to let me know that I was the lowest paid person in the country for my role and experience.

          Despite this, I stayed 8 years. And when I left, I had the _shortest_ tenure of any of the employees in the two units I worked in. There were employees who had been there over 40 years, despite the fact they were badly under market and not receiving raise.
          Why did they stay? Why did I stay?

          One, loyalty (and identity). Even if the employer is not showing loyalty with pay, long-term employees often have built up an identity and loyalty to their employer. Their long term job is such a component of their personal identity, that it makes it difficult to imagine making a change that takes away that identity. _This_ was by far the biggest reason people stayed.
          Two, effort. Job hunting is exhausting, even more so when you already have a stable situation even if the pay is poor.
          Three, time. When you are working a full time job, it is difficult to find the time to job hunt.
          Four, fear. Will job hunting get you fired? Could you lose your insurance and stability? Will you find out that you are not worth more after all? Will you get discriminated against because of your age?
          Five, uncertainty. Even if you have the time and energy to search, and you are safely able to find a new role, what happens if it doesn’t work out? What happens if you switch jobs for higher pay, and you cannot do the job or you end up in a toxic environment? Now you are suddenly job hunting a second time in a short period, impacting your job history, your stability, and exposing you to all of the things that came up with fear.
          Six, career inertia. When I did start looking for new roles, I know for certain there were cases where I was passed over because my current salary was so far below their pay range (so they assumed I was badly under-qualified). And because I had been at my current role too long, causing them to think I was unable to develop my skills and advance to a new role. Combined with all of the other issues, this made it that much more difficult to move on.

          1. Glitsy Gus*

            Yes to ALL of this. I am kinda sorta looking right now and my biggest hold ups are pretty much everything you say here (that and not really finding anything that is a good step forward yet, which I’m holding out for at this point.) Your employees may be happy with you, or they may just prefer the Devil they know for the moment.

            If you are fine with being The Devil You Know then just keep on with your attitude, just know you’re still a devil, not an opportunity.

        13. nom de plume*

          People stick around for lots of reasons that have nothing to do with satisfaction. Inertia is a force of physics, you know.
          Here are just a few, though: 1) no time to job search; 2) living at subsistence wage level (this is a fascinating Marxist concept that still applies); 3) not having the tools to successfully job search; 4) rigid economic or family circumstances that don’t favour moving (for now); 5) I could go on.

          OP, your answers here are deeply defensive, but they’re also misguided: you’re basing your “reasoning” on incorrect metrics. Your analysis is flawed.

        14. Not So NewReader*

          Do you make all your ethics decisions in the same manner with the same criteria of “getting away with something”?
          Are normal things that everyone in society faces a personal affront to you, the same as employees pay coming out of your personal wallet?

    6. Jedi Squirrel*

      I would strongly suggest those two employees start job-searching. There are likely greener pastures out there.

      1. EmKay*

        Seriously. I hope beyond hope that they read this letter and realize it’s from their crappy boss, gleefully announcing to the world that she can screw over her employees by even one dollar, by golly she will, so there!

        Ugh.

    7. DerJungerLudendorff*

      Good point!

      And that also means they’re bragging about something they haven’t actually done in almost a decade. It’s like the employer version of outdated advice from your parents. Except not even with good intentions.

      1. OP*

        Actually – a clarification
        One employee did actually leave about 3 years ago (for health, family reasons) and we hired someone else. Who only stayed for about a year, and then left. But happily, old employee was then able and keen to return!
        Which doesn’t really fit with the image here of us as arrogant heartless ogres……

        1. Anonnnnn*

          Doesn’t matter. You’re still taking advantage of people. The employee isn’t aware of your manipulation, and that’s sad, but it doesn’t prove anything.

        2. Kiwiii*

          Sounds like you’re a little jaded by the employee who left after a year, poor you :( Using an example of an ex-employee who’s gone through a crisis and willing to come back at whatever you deign to pay them isn’t the shining star you seem to think it is.

          1. Diahann Carroll*

            Exactly – she probably came back if it was the only place she could work and needed a check (medical bills are not cheap).

            1. Kiwiii*

              I know I’ve gone back to Terrible jobs, because I was in a place where I 1) needed the job right that second and 2) figured it was easier to deal with problems I already knew about than figure out a whole new company

        3. yala*

          Hey, question:

          how thrilled would your Awesome And Happy employees be if they found out that you had been willing to pay them $4k a year more, but just decided not to?

        4. MuchNope*

          It’s the image you have presented here. Maybe you should be having this ‘conversation’ with someone who can help you. I don’t think painting a target on yourself and crying about the hit points is going to solve your problem with hostility toward normal business expenses and living wages.

        5. PollyQ*

          As a medical doctor, what would you think of a study that had only 4 participants over 15 years? Would that seem like a valid sample size to draw any reasonable conclusions from? No? Then why in the world do you think your conclusions about your hiring experiences should carry any more validity?

          1. Cassandra*

            LOL. This doesn’t seem to me like a doctor who actually practices evidence-based medicine, because they’re not really referring to evidence when supporting their hiring practices.

        6. Tallulah in the Sky*

          I love how you “forgot” to mention you’ve had recently an employee who decided to leave only after a year, but used repeatedly your two long term employees as proof that you’re not so bad… The fact that you didn’t even mention why they left makes me very suspicious, since your post and comments have shown us you like to use details to your advantage. Could it be that the reason that other employee left was because of your unethical practices ?

        9. DerJungerLudendorff*

          So you did it once in a decade, and that employee left in a year.
          That is not a track record I would build my business philosophy around, or feel satisfied about myself.

    8. Betty*

      I know, I was really confused by this! The LW “always” hides salary information but hires about once a decade? Huh?

      I won’t apply to anywhere that’s cagey about salary if I have any choice about it. It’s a waste of everyone’s time and I am just totally fed up of it. It reminds me of when that book The Rules seemed like actual dating advice.

      1. so many questions*

        Right- this woman is confident enough to say she has a total comprehension of hiring practices, based on three employees in 15 years. The hubris is overwhelming.

    9. BRR*

      I noticed this as well and was going to leave a comment if nobody beat me to it (it’s so hard to catch something new and important here :( ). The LW’s approach is awful but also inapplicable in my opinion. It’s like someone giving job search advice from someone who hasn’t job hunted or hired in the past twenty years.

      “and both seem very happy.” Frankly, given the LW’s views on pay I have to wonder how happy these employees are? And would they still be happy reading this letter?

      “The money comes directly from our pockets.” No, the money comes from the business’ pocket. You’re no personally paying them. I know it’s easier said than done and to think of the business separately (and it’s also complicated because you can’t always think of the business separately like employees at a larger employer), but I’m rarely left with a good taste in my mouth from people who see their business and them self as essentially the same entity. Yes you’re the owner and that inherently makes it different, but your staff things of the business as just a business. There is risk and reward with ownership.

      1. Sparrow*

        But even if it was coming from their personal pocket, why are they more deserving of having it in their pocket than the (I’d imagine much lower-paid) employee, who presumably does work – work OP probably lacks the time or perhaps expertise for – necessary to keep the business functioning? If OP needs them to keep the place running, OP should pay them accordingly. Without them, OP would have no money coming into their pocket, either.

    10. snoopythedog*

      I was waiting for someone to point this out!

      Dude (98% sure this is a dude based on tone alone) hasn’t hired since a recession but think they can preach their outdated hiring practices and shitty employer attitude.

    11. Double A*

      Sadly their workers have probably lost tens of thousands of dollars in compensation due to this. They were probably hired for fair recession pay (i.e. after a desperate job search they took what they could get because A job was better than no job), and then have stuck around partly because they are still somewhat traumatized from the recession and are in the mindset that job hunts are terrifying and desperate, and their wages have grown from that depressed base, if they have grown much at all.

      I hope this employer’s employees start looking and realizing they can probably get a big pay bump if they move on.

    12. General von Klinkerhoffen*

      Unleeeeeeeeessss…

      LW currently has two employees, with long tenure, and is continually hiring for the other two empty spots, which she often fills, but only for a short time before the new hire leaves for greener pastures. LW has not joined the dots.

      1. OP*

        Huh? what 2 empty spots?
        And there are a lot of (at times rabid) assumptions. Like that we haven’t regularly given raises (we have) and that our employees are traumatized . Jeez.

        1. Ethyl*

          It really concerns me that you are a medical professional, because your reading comprehension is extremely lacking.

        2. General von Klinkerhoffen*

          we hired someone else. Who only stayed for about a year, and then left.

          You posted the above after I posted mine. I don’t consider it a rebuttal.

    13. Willis*

      Even discounting changing economic conditions, two hires in 15 years is a really small sample size to be drawing conclusions enough to email them out to as fact. Maybe the ranges these two hires stated was within market rate for the job and something OP was willing to pay (and hopefully not arbitrarily paying one more than the other). But that’s two people. It hardly extrapolates to every hiring instance to even make it worth stating (other than, I guess, to see some weird reasons employers use to rationalize not telling people salary).

    14. iglwif*

      Yeah, this is an important point. Anyone who did their last round of hiring between 2008 and 2012 almost certainly has some stuff to learn about hiring in 2020…

    15. Malarkey01*

      THIS! It’s like my neighbor who remodeled his deck and now thinks he’s so experienced that he can provide advise on my $100 million dollar commercial construction projects. Yes Jerry I understand your deck came in on time and under budget but I do not have time to go to Home Depot and personally supply all the nails for my skyscraper during a Black Friday sale.

      It’s a little outrageously funny that someone who has hired 3 people in 10 years thinks they have valuable hiring advise to share. Bless their hearts.

    16. LookingAgain*

      Right?! “The last time I went to see a Broadway play was when Obama was first elected …. let me tell you ALL about how to get great Hamilton seats!”

  11. ChemistryChick*

    I wish I could issue responses like this as well as Alison does. Respectful and on-point, but with that unmistakable edge of a rebuke.

    1. ChemistryChick*

      I also wonder if this employer tries to forbid their employees from discussing salaries and benefits with each other. In my experience, the salary question and this behavior go hand in hand.

      1. MayLou*

        One of my favourite parts of my job is when I have to write forceful, factual and slightly acerbic letters explaining that someone has done something unacceptable which damages my clients’ interests, and what they should do to put things right. I definitely have honed my writing skills by reading this site!

    3. CoveredInBees*

      Yes! One of the reasons that I read her stuff is balancing rebuke with thoughtful response. Sometimes deeply compassionate to people who I wouldn’t be as kind to. Lots for me to learn from.

  12. Count Boochie Flagrante*

    You ask –

    if we can get away with paying $20/hour instead of $22/hour, why wouldn’t we?

    And then in your same letter, you mention a candidate agreeing to $22 per hour but continuing to job hunt because they wanted $24 per hour.

    I feel like you answered your own question. The reason you shouldn’t pay people the absolute minimum you can “get away” with is retention. If you pay less than they’re worth, they will leave — and you’re not going to fool people into thinking they’re worth less because you play stupid games with what your position can pay.

    2. fposte*

      Expand that to other skills, too–if you’re paying $20, what candidates are taking your job if $22 is available elsewhere? Not the most knowledgeable or capable ones.

    3. Don't Send Your Kids to Hudson University*

      This is an excellent reply. You are absolutely right that the key to retaining good employees, is to pay them what they are worth. The best measure of an employee’s worth is what others will pay them to do the same work.

    4. Oh No She Di'int*

      Agreed. This is why you actually want to pay as close to the top of your range as you sustainably can get away with, not the bottom.

      1. TootsNYC*

        actually, advertise for $20/hour, and hire someone good for $22. And then they won’t leave right away.

        1. TootsNYC*

          or advertise for $20/hour, hire for $20/hour, and offer a shot at a raise to $21 or $22 at six months.

          Pay market rate, and disclose first.

    5. Kate R*

      Exactly. That line stuck out to me too, and besides just, “You should respect your employees and pay them what they are worth”, why would the OP think convincing people to accept lower pay means they are going to stick around? Giving people less information to work with just delays their ability to make a decision about what works for them. Allowing someone to self-select out early in the process requires less investment from the OP than actually having someone start the position, go through training, and then realize they can be making more money for the same job elsewhere.

      I also wasn’t sure what her point was regarding candidates wanting $24/hr but accepting $22/hour unless she meant if a candidate says $24/hr upfront, the OP can then be the one to tell them it isn’t going to work rather than allowing that candidate to bail later in the process. That’s a great way to lose good candidates. People factor in a lot more than just salary when deciding to take a position, location, experience, flexibility, etc. So good candidates may actually be perfectly happy with a lower salary if the other compensation is beneficial to them.

      1. Clisby*

        Yes – which is why those other factors should be mentioned in job postings also. It doesn’t have to be exhaustive. Something like 401k, employer-provided health insurance, X number of holidays and Y amount of PTO, and Z amount of sick leave. Flextime, possibility of remote work, parental leave, etc. All of those matter, and even if the candidates don’t know exactly how much they’re worth, they could figure into whether they want to proceed with applying.

    6. MonteCristo85*

      These kinds of statements raise serious concerns about the person’s character. The question boils down to, “doesn’t every do whatever they can get away with?” Do you want your employees to only put in the smallest amount of effort they have to not to get fired? Getting away with things shouldn’t be the goal.

      1. Diahann Carroll*

        THIS. It’s like the people who do something shitty, but try to justify it by saying, “Well, it’s not illegal, so…”

        Completely misses the point. Character matters.

    7. Triumphant Fox*

      Yes. My father owns a small business. The money he pays his employees also, in theory, comes “directly from his pocket” yet he pays way over market rate for every position. Why? He hates training, loves his people and cares a lot about his company’s reputation. They have all been there 20 or 15 years and he gets them the absolute best he can manage, especially great health care. His office is crazy beautiful in a blue collar industry where most places are dens of sadness and fluorescent lights. He doesn’t see his employees as family – he knows they aren’t – but he does see them as really essential to his business’ success. My dad is the personality and the salesman, but they are all the ones who make sure the trains run on time and every customer who calls gets a lovely, competent person on the other end willing to solve their problem.

      This LW’s attitude baffles me. People don’t stay in bad jobs, or at least they don’t stay happy. I don’t want to go to your office and be greeted by a beleaguered front desk person. I want them to be happy to help me because they are satisfied with their job.

      1. Salsa Your Face*

        Yep. I think people often forget what “human resources” means. The humans who work for a company are RESOURCES. Just like supplies, just like equipment. Business owners who know not to skimp on machinery that will easily break or ingredients that will taste bad often don’t consider that skimping on their employees leads to employees who don’t care about their jobs.

    8. Extroverted Bean Counter*

      Really, the question OP is asking there is “why should I give myself a $4k paycut when a prospective employee is seemingly happy without that money?”

      And the answer here is: diminishing returns, and a sense of ethics. Truly.

      I speak from a place of personal experience here because my husband and I own a business, we pay employees, and the net income from that business supports our family. At the end of the day, making an additional $4k (less, after income tax) in a year is not material to us, given that our business gave us a net income of over $200k last year, not to mention my own personal salary at my corporate job. We don’t need that money. It is worth SO much more to the people we employ.

      Of course we have our own financial goals (children’s eventual college, retirement, buying a “forever home” in a decade maybe, expanding the business and needing liquid cash to do that etc…) but for us there is a cap of what makes sense for us to take home. The rest can go to higher employee salaries, being able to provide healthcare, giving back to the community. Being a successful business owner to us comes with a moral imperative to take care of the people involved in that business, be they the employees who help make the business successful or the community who patronize the business and keep it going.

    4. Not So NewReader*

      Everyone is going to be checking to see if they actually know this person or do business with this person.

  15. Don't Send Your Kids to Hudson University*

    Alison, you are a real treasure.

    LW, your ideas about out-gaming your potential employees here really makes me question your claim about being such a great employer. I’m sure you have plenty of experiencing managing your budget, so why not let that drive your starting point for a salary negotiation, and then engage in good faith? You can look for a good deal when you order post-its and syringes, but there are no 15% off coupons in hiring.

    1. Mama Bear*

      This letter also makes me wonder what else they are cutting corners on. Do the only offer high deductible junk healthcare? Do they get away with 2 weeks’ PTO a year? Do people get raises? (Which is problematic in itself if they were lowballed upfront.)

      One of the reasons I applied for my current job was I knew they had a history of fair pay and good benefits. People stay where they are valued.

      1. Don't Send Your Kids to Hudson University*

        Others have pointed out that the LW hasn’t actually hired anyone in 8 years, so I think we’re seeing a holdover attitude from a time when employees were desperate because the job market was saturated and employers held all the cards. I think in the current job market, this attitude is likely to turn away more candidates than it attracts and lead to serious employee retention issues.

          1. ADHSquirrelWhat*

            again, easier to reach out to previous employer to go back to what worked than go into a full search.

            You said yourself they left for family reasons – not another job. Entirely different dynamic.

            1. Diahann Carroll*

              Also, when I worked at Evil Law Firm many years ago, I had a coworker leave and we all celebrated because she had been there four years as a temp (no joke) and that place was a hellhole – she came back a month later. Why? The new firm she went to work for had much higher metrics for quality than our firm did, and my coworker was known for her speed, but not for her accuracy or quality, and she couldn’t keep up at her new employer. Had she stayed with them, she would have been fired after her probationary period, so she cut her losses early and crawled back to Evil Law Firm.

            2. Anonnnnn*

              For all OP knows, that employee came back with the intention of using it as an interim job while they continue to search for new jobs.

                1. Anonnnnn*

                  It’s taken me longer than that to find a replacement for a job. You aren’t convincing anyone here.

      2. blackcat*

        Or…. is their medical equipment adequately up to date? Do they pay for record systems that make it easy for patients to access their information? Do they overbill in hopes of making more money?

        This attitude gets a lot scarier when you realize it’s in health care….

    2. nom de plume*

      “There are no 15% off coupons in hiring.” Everything you say is so, so right.
      This reply is outstanding!

    3. Triplestep*

      I don’t wonder about these things, but I DO wonder if this OP is one of those employers who behaves as though the employees should be thanking their lucky stars that they get to work there, all while keeping score around things like arrival times, leave times, break and lunch lengths, etc. All while telling the 8 and 15 year employees “We’re a family!”

      1. Don't Send Your Kids to Hudson University*

        Oh yeah, I imagine LW believes she is the only one who is allowed to cheat in this game. The idea that employees might “steal” from her by taking a 5-minute-too-long lunch break has surely come up.

      2. OP*

        Nope. No “family” nonsense. But we care about them, have dealt with significant sick leaves over the years, regularly give raises and bonuses.

        1. SarahTheEntwife*

          Providing sick leave (including extended leave) and raises is kind of a minimal bar there. I realize a lot of businesses still don’t clear it, but this isn’t the glowing endorsement you seem to think it is.

        4. Triplestep*

          You care about them but you knowingly undercut them on their starting salary. The reason starting salary is so important is because every raise is based on it. That’s why people are advised to negotiate because you can never really make up for starting low unless you change jobs Your employer is not going to give you a 20% bump, for example, but a NEW employer might. For someone who is worried about losing employees, I would think this would have occurred to you.

          It’s odd to me that your letter is written as though you have read this blog and know Alison’s position on stating salary ranges, but you don’t seem to be well-versed in the kinds of things that are discussed here. You seem like my sister-in-law – before marrying my brother (a doctor) she held retail jobs. After marrying him she had kids and stayed home with them, and then after two decades she became his practice manager. She never in her life interviewed for an office or salaried job and has this very skewed view of “what a boss is”. She, too, would say she is self taught, but she’s missing a critical piece of life experience.

          If this describes you – someone who was thrust into this role by virtue of your relationship with the doctor, but have never been in the shoes of the people you interview and hire – I would suggest reading this blog while trying to place yourself in the position of the staff – not managers. Consider it part of your education.

        5. Not So NewReader*

          You care about them.
          Except when it comes to paying them.
          Except when it comes to respecting them. (they are ripping you off and comparable to garage sale bargains)
          Except when it comes to talking about them on the internet in a space that is read by millions of people WORLDWIDE. So now the whole world knows you think they came down with yesterday’s rain.

  16. Youngin*

    Yikes. Me thinks the letter writer wont change, and he/she seem…unpleasant. Their attitude is exactly why the shift is happening. Her letter just reads like “If I can cheat them out of money they are worth, why wouldnt I?! Im not BIG BUSINESS I’m little business so it’s ok.”

    1. Don't Send Your Kids to Hudson University*

      right! This whole things reads, like “I am better at the game, so why would I consider anything else (like the law, fairness, market salary, general ethical business practices…)

    2. West Coast Reader*

      If you operate like this when you’re small, chances are that you’ll operate the same way if you’re a big corporation. You’d probably be better at cheating money from your employees actually. Money only makes you more of who you are.

      1. Youngin*

        Agree with both of you. Also after rereading it (for Alisons amazing response) this stood out

        “I became a small business owner/employer having received no training in that aspect of things”

        …we can tell OP, we can tell.

        1. Rebecca*

          Yep. And not only did she not bother to acquire that training in any kind of formal sense, she’s contacted someone who gives away reliable authoritative advice for free to gloat about how she’s ignoring that advice because she thinks she knows better. The arrogance is breathtaking.

        2. Campfire Raccoon*

          “I became a small business owner/employer having received no training in that aspect of things”

          You don’t say?

          1. Fieldpoppy*

            Um, any number of programs that teach leadership and small business management, including, in my province, the College of Physicians and Surgeons?

      2. Not So NewReader*

        A hard agree WCR, how we handle the small stuff is a predictor of how we will handle the big stuff.
        A person either strives to be ethical in everything or they fail to be ethical in everything. One or the other.

  17. Snarkus Aurelius*

    Your biggest mistake here was announcing you are “getting away” with something.

    You literally admit you know what you’re doing is wrong, but you’re doing it anyway because you can.

    You are not an honest, ethical employer.

    1. Amber T*

      Right. This line makes my skin crawl.

      If market rate is $22, and you can truly only afford to pay $20, you’re gonna miss out on some higher level candidates but there are still going to be people who need the job. But if you *can* pay the $22, but hey let’s pad our pockets with the extra $2 because Sheila only asked for $20… that’s highly unethical, in bad taste, and (to repeat what I already said above), plain ol’ crap.

    2. Triplestep*

      She is an EXCELLENT employer – she says so herself! Hasn’t had to hire anyone in 8 years, but is a self-taught expert and can’t wait to tell you all about it!

    4. Alison for President*

      Really makes you wonder how this mentality can coexist with one that allows them to be a successful “medical professional.” Yikes.

  18. Roscoe*

    Man, I’ll be honest, even if some of your points are valid, you sound pretty insufferable as a boss.

    ‘If I can pay them less than they are worth, why shouldn’t I’ is a pretty awful way to look at the people you employ.

    You also seem like the type to say “We here at the practice of Smith and Jones are a family”. Then at the same time not give raises, but get mad when you find out someone is looking for a new job. You seem look at this as you are providing them the honor of working for you, and not as a business transaction where you are trying to keep good people.

    But based on your tone and the subject line, maybe you are just the type of person to not care about anyone but yourself.

    1. Triplestep*

      Goodness, I said nearly the same thing upthread using different words. (I like yours better). And once it was disclosed further up that OP is a woman, I’m now getting “family business” vibes (As in OP is not the medical professional but she is related to him and manages the practice.)

      1. Elsajeni*

        The OP says in her letter that she is a medical professional. It is bizarre and sexist to decide that, now that you know she’s a woman, she must actually be the medical professional’s wife.

        1. Triplestep*

          I calls them as I sees them. Have you ever met a woman who never interviewed for an office job herself but now runs her husband’s office and becomes”self taught” about something with which she has little (or no) lived experience? I am related to one such woman and know a few others.

          Yes, I did think OP was a man because more hiring managers are men, and more administrative staff members are women. But I should have paid closer attention because the term “medical professional” was the tell. Doctors come right out and say they are doctors. And before you accuse me of generalizing once again, do a ‘net search on the study that showed doctors expect special treatment even AT HOME and a rather high percentage get up and walk away from the family dinner table without so much as clearing their own dish. An OP gloating about undercutting her employee’s salaries would most certainly have stated so if she was a doctor.

      3. dani*

        OMG . You are getting the vibes that she is not the medical professional? Why? Simply because you don’t like her business sense?

        Up-thread, she was so terrible she MUST have been a terrible MAN, now that you have been corrected it’s “Oh it is a woman? She couldn’t possibly be anyone of importance.

        Please stop it. This conversation has nothing to do with whether op is man, woman, or leper, and your constant comments regarding the gender of the op is gross.

        1. Triplestep*

          Yes, first I thought she was a man taking advantage of women, and then I thought she was a woman taking advantage of other women, and further, that she may not have that much experience being an office employee herself. And that makes me … what did you call me that got deleted? Disgusting Sexist. For wanting women not to be undercut in their salaries. Really?

          For what it’s worth, I believe that the OP is a “medical professional”. A practice manager IS a “medical professional.” They don’t see patients, though. I worked in Health Care but you just have to be an adult in our culture to know that doctors and nurses call themselves “doctor” and “nurse”. I am guessing OP is not the reason patients come to the office. It’s actually pretty common in family-owned practices for for a relative to head up the admin staff, and since administrative managers are disproportionately women … just do the math.

          I don’t know what is so terrible about pointing out the likelihood of this being the scenario based on the info provided. Sometimes things are exactly what they seem, even if they seem like an unfair stereotype; not everything deserves all the hand-wringing. And the only reason any of this matters is because it would explain the knowledge gap about good hiring practices. If the OP recognizes herself in what I’ve written as someone who hasn’t lived the experience of the people she’s hiring, then that’s a good thing ultimately, right?

          1. LunaLena*

            You can be sexist in one way without being sexist in a myriad of other ways, just like people can be racist to black people and Hispanic people while holding up Asians as model minorities. Your insistence that this letter must conform to specific gender roles is what makes your comment sexist. 93% of head chefs in the US are male, but that doesn’t mean ALL chefs are male, after all. I wouldn’t say your comment is a particularly egregious example and I probably would have passed it by if you hadn’t doubled down, but it’s still sexist.

            Dunno why you’re so insistent on arguing about the role the OP occupies in the office anyways. Regardless of whether she is a man, woman, doctor, office manager, or lucky relative who was given a cushy job, what she is describing is very unethical, and that is the point of this whole discussion.

  19. TechWoman*

    My tech company was concerned there might be pay discrepancies as it grew from a handful of employees to a few hundred. They commissioned an outside audit to come in and look at everyone’s salaries. Yep, they discovered, men were making more than women on average. (And this is a very fair and ethical company). They took immediate action in not allowing recruiters to ask salary history. They then established a pay band for each position and brought everyone to 75% of their pay band. They also don’t negotiate at the offer stage–either you accept or you don’t.

    All of these are reasons I plan on staying a long time and encourage other people to apply.

    1. Roscoe*

      I think a lot of that is good. But I’m not a fan of not negotiating at the offer stage. If they aren’t willing to even entertain ANY negotiations, that seems like being a bit too rigid to me. Like, its one thing to say “we can’t go higher than this on salary”. Its another to say “we won’t listen to any counter offers to show your added value to our company”

      1. TechWoman*

        It’s because studies have shown white males are more willing and more successful at negotiating. A lot of women don’t do it or are unfairly maligned when they do.

        They are confident their offer is fair. They communicate the range at the first screening. When I did my interview, they weren’t sure if their offer would come in at senior or intermediate level. I told them I wouldn’t accept less than senior. So I’m that way I negotiated but the final offer was firm.

        1. Roscoe*

          So maybe I wasn’t clear in my response. I don’t mind not negotiating on salary. If you tell someone your range is 60-70k, and you offer them 70k, I can understand not going above that. However, negotiations don’t necessarily stop there. After you learn more about the job, I think its fair to ask for other benefits. Whether that is more vacation, work from home privileges, signing bonuses, etc. So annual salary isn’t the ONLY thing that can be negotiated. But I think not being willing to negotiate ANYTHIGN is a bit much

          1. Diahann Carroll*

            Agreed. I would at least want more vacation time if they couldn’t budge anymore on salary.

          2. TechWoman*

            True, but I have very generous PTO, complete work from home, insurance premiums 100% covered, stock options, bonuses and many other things. They are quite serious in making the best offer and making sure all their employees have the same benefits. There really is no negotiating on the big stuff.

            All of this is laid out in the screening so there’s no surprises at offer stage.

        2. mrs__peel*

          There was a recent study showing that women *do* ask for (e.g.) raises at similar rates to men, they just get denied them more often. The problem is not women’s willingness to negotiate, it’s devaluation of women’s abilities and work in general.

      2. Tuppence*

        To me, negotiating at offer stage when an organisation has been upfront about salary from the start, is kind of acting in bad faith? Like, if we say from the beginning the salary for this role is $60-65k, and you go through the recruitment process then say you want 75k because of your ‘added value’ – well, if we had advertised at 75K we would have had a different candidate pool from the start, right? You were competing against $65k candidates, and now you want us to flex for you because you came out at the top of that pool. That annoys me.

        Mind you, I’m in the UK nonprofit sector, so YMMV.

        2. TechWoman*

          Yes, for me the “negotiating” was at the initial screening. They clearly gave the range and they asked if that would work for me. They also laid out all the benefits so I had a clear idea of what I would and wouldn’t accept and if I should move forward.

        3. MonteCristo85*

          I would agree with you on this point, unless the candidate mentioned their additional level of experience at the time of the salary discussion and made it clear they would need more to continue. But I think bringing it up only at the last minute is acting in bad faith.

        4. Trout 'Waver*

          The difference is that you know the job and the candidate doesn’t at the onset. There are jobs where I would be happy working for $10k less than others that look the same on paper. If the candidate thinks $65k would be fair if everything else was perfect, but then learns some details during the process that makes them think they would need $75k, would you rather they speak up and say so or just slink away quietly?

          1. MonteCristo85*

            I would want them to speak up before the offer, as in during the interview when they were coming to this conclusion.

            1. Trout 'Waver*

              There is a huge information disparity in play. It’s perfectly sensible for the candidates to get as much information as possible before possibly ending negotiations.

              1. MonteCristo85*

                I guess I’m seeing a space in time between the last interview and the offer. In my own personal experience that has been at least a week (one time it was 3 months). So I would have thought you’d have the time to get all the information to digest and determine if the stated salary works for you or not, before waiting until the letter actually arrives. During that time a lot of other candidates may slip away. But that’s my preference, I don’t think this is a character issue or anything, nor would I permanently hold it against the applicant.

          2. Tuppence*

            In my experience, when this has happened it’s not “now that I know more about the job, I believe the market rate is more like $X”, it’s been more like “oh yeah by the way I’m currently on $X so I’d need at least that to accept”. So they’ve known from the outset the salary they’re willing to accept.

      3. Jules the 3rd*

        My employer (large fortune 500 tech) does not negotiate when you are first hired by the company. Everyone who is first hired at a certain level (band) gets the same initial rate.

        If you are worth more, then you can apply for higher band positions.

        Internal is different, more room to negotiate, but it’s good to have everyone doing similarly-skilled jobs starting at the same pay level.

      4. Washi*

        I’ve always assumed that negotiation of an offer is not based on you suddenly giving the employer new information of what your value is (which presumably they already know from the interview?) but on the premise that the employer IS going to lowball you and you have to negotiate up. If there’s truly no lowballing involved then I’m not sure what the need for negotiation would be.

    2. Kage*

      The not negotiating at the offer seems strange. I mean, if they have a band/range, that clearly isn’t a set single figure. If we’re in preliminary discussions and you say the range is $60-65k, I’m going to be looking at that overall range for if it would work for me (including potentially the idea of getting up towards the top of it). But the realities of it working will always depend heavily on the benefit package/costs as well (which usually aren’t fully shared until the offer stage). I don’t think it’s bad-faith to say that the preliminary range works for me but then try to negotiate from your offer of $62k up towards the $65k cap (and/or once I get all the details)? For example, if I made $58k and paid $3k annually for my insurance (i.e. net $55k), I might not be happy/interested to jump to a place with an offer of $62k with paying $5k annually for insurance (i.e. net $57k) whereas I might be happy with the base being $65k then (i.e. net $60k).

      I feel like there has to be a mid-point/compromise where there’s a clearly communicated range/cap but then each candidate can potentially negotiate within the range based on their own value to the company…

      1. TechWoman*

        But that’s where the biases comes into play. You’re paying more based on a candidates willingness to negotiate versus their actual market value. Many studies have shown some demographics aren’t as successful at negotiating. Women are seen as overly aggressive versus men as knowing their value.

    3. miss_chevious*

      My company does an external audit every year to pin salaries to local market rates and to ensure gender and racial equity. It’s a great feeling to know that you’re getting paid fairly and so are all of your coworkers.

  20. Sadie D*

    Based on what you said, you haven’t actually hired anyone in several years.

    You are going to get a well-deserved nasty shock the next time you try.

    1. SunnySideUp*

      What I was thinking. Are you currently hiring, OP, or did you last get away with undercutting someone 8 years ago?

    2. OP*

      Clarified above. One employee did leave a few years ago, so hiring required, but then new employee left, and old one returned.

      2. ADHSquirrelWhat*

        and was there negotiation of the job, or simply a return at the same salary as before?

        Are their raises even keeping up with inflation?

      3. Sleve McDichael*

        Right, so you’re telling us that aside from the poor two people you employed during the recession and Stockholm Syndomed into staying with you, the only person you’ve employed with these tactics since the recession decided you weren’t paying them enough to stay (after all we all have a price) and then left? Ok mate.

      4. Des*

        But wait… according to your principle, they couldn’t leave for a better offer because they told you the payrate at the interview. Isn’t them leaving exactly what you were trying to prevent with your “method”? Looks like it’s not fool proof!

  21. Clare*

    This isn’t preaching, at least from my UK perspective. The writer appears to have been boasting and challenging a more balanced viewpoint that he at least is aware exists. Alison is doing him a favour explaining exactly why and how he’s likely to get bitten. Would it be better to allow his sense of entitlement to go unchallenged and get him into serious trouble, that will ironically cost him far more than getting it right in the first place?

    1. Preach it*

      I’m not 100% sure what you are trying to respond to given you’ve failed to nest your comment, but if it was the initial PREACH comment, you’ve clearly misunderstood the meaning. It’s a cheer not a rebuke!

    2. Marthooh*

      It’s just a bit of US slang: shouting “Preach!” is equivalent to “Bravo!” Or in this case “Brava!”

      1. (insert name here)*

        Or even, bravo, plus more. It means agreement, plus a bit of a “don’t stop, keep going”, like shouting “Encore!” at the end of a concert.

    5. sequined histories*

      The U. S. has a tradition in which the congregants loudly shout out their encouragement and agreement with the pastor as he preaches the sermon. This doesn’t happen in every denomination or every church, but it is a widespread tradition, familiar to many. To find a subgenre of jokes based on this practice, google “You done quit preachin’ and gone to meddlin’ now.”

  22. on the 3s*

    When I was being recruited, one of the companies asked for my CURRENT salary. I has just finished a professional degree, in order to make much more than I was currently making. I left it blank and submitted it. The recruiter called me back and said “just one little thing, we need your current salary.” She got an earful I’m not sure she expected, I covered that my current pay had nothing to do with the fair market salary for the job I was being considered for, that this policy is harmful to people who are already underpaid (POC and women) and perpetuates all the negative things certain populations have to deal with. I said I wasn’t even interested in working for a company with such a backwards culture, as it predicted other wildly inappropriate HR and policy issues. I withdrew my interest in the position and landed a job where my salary negotiations were handled in a systematic way, with a clear path to progression in salary and role.
    Keep saying no to these dinosaurs, they’ll die off faster that way.

      1. on the 3s*

        She said her hands were tied, this was the company policy, etc. I said you will only find subpar and/or desperate candidates with this policy, so I would petition HR to consider WHY this is being asked, and the ramifications. I didn’t even know the equal pay act angle or I would have hit her with that.
        As an aside, she tried to play up the great company culture of them all getting drinks together, which is my idea of VERY BAD company culture.
        I purposely got an advanced degree in an in demand field, so I don’t know what they’re playing at with that silliness.

        2. mrs__peel*

          What a sales pitch.

          “Well, the pay is terrible, BUT you’ll get to spend every day in a drunken frat house!!”

    2. Stormy Weather*

      Good for you. When I moved from a southern state to the northeast people kept trying to pay me based on the salary in a state with a much lower cost of living. I got very tired of explaining they should be paying me the market rate for where I was currently living.

      I ended up with a great job with a considerable increase.

      1. Miss May*

        I’m so scared of this! I’m looking at rent in the area I want to move to and its DOUBLE what I’m currently paying (admittedly, I live in a very low COL area). Its super fun to see that there might be employers out there trying to scam me out of my rightful pay.

        1. Ella bee bee*

          I moved from a rural area in the Midwest with an extremely low cost of living, to a big city where my one bedroom apartment costs twice as much as my three bedroom duplex in previous state. When I was asked salary expectations I knew there would be an increase in living costs and asked for a number that I thought reflected that. Turns outs I did my research wrong and the number I gave was $20,000 less than what the position paid! Thank goodness I work for honest people and they immediately told me that the position paid way more. Once I moved I realized that the amount I initially asked for wouldn’t have worked at all.

      2. LCH*

        in the event of this, would it be fair or shady to use a COL change calculator to come up with the number, assuming it is an online form that won’t let you submit without? or use that number with the caveat that it has been adjusted for the new location COL?

        1. DerJungerLudendorff*

          If it’s about tricking online forms like that to get to talk to an actual human, then I wouldn’t mind a white lie every now and then.
          They shouldn’t be asking for this in the first place, and the new locations COL is a better reflection of your actual salary requirements.

    3. twig*

      Someone on a search committee that I coordinated actually said: “If we don’t know their current salary, how do we know how much to pay them?”

      I wasn’t able to pick my jaw up off the floor quickly enough to explain to them before the conversation moved forward. (also — this person had no say in what the new hire would be paid, fortunately)

  23. Detective Amy Santiago*

    Alison – you amaze me every day when you don’t reply to letters like this with incoherent screaming.

    I’d be willing to bet a significant sum of money that the LW is a doctor with a god complex.

    1. Well, there's this*

      A long time ago I worked help desk for a company that sold medical claims processing software. It was not uncommon for doctors with god complexes to call us in a screaming (literally) panic because their biller had ‘just quit and walked out with no notice’ and they had no idea what to do. It was hard to feel any compassion for the doctors. Sixty seconds on the phone with them and you knew why their biller left.

    2. Destroyer of Worlds, Empress of Awesome*

      You know the difference between God and a doctor?

      God doesn’t think he’s a doctor.

  25. Candid Candidate*

    Tl;dr: “I’m a cheapskate who doesn’t want to pay my employees what they’re worth, so there”

    I wonder how your employees would feel if they knew you wrote this letter to AAM, OP. If you’re this stubbornly committed to hiring practices that harm candidates, I really wonder whether your employees love you as much as you think they do.

  27. annewithanE*

    i’m in a field that makes it necessary for me to know the salaries of others, and what alison said is true to my experience across three different companies. women and people of color are often paid less than men.

    as a woman in my twenties, this is why it’s so difficult for me to name the salary first. i’ve been in situations where men in similar positions, with similar education, similar experience, and similar performance reviews (also need to look at these for my job) to mine make a good deal more than i do.

    i just want to be paid what’s fair, not $2 less if you can “get away with it”.

  28. (insert name here)*

    The longevity of your staff is not a good way to determine if you are a good employer.

    One of the most toxic companies I’ve worked for had a significant portion of their staff that generally stayed 20+ years in the same role. They offered good benefits and many of those long term employees had been hired straight out of high school or college. They mostly didn’t job hunt because they didn’t know how. Everyone was miserable, but no one left.

    It was stagnant. Everyone was stagnant.

    1. Count Boochie Flagrante*

      Hah, right? At OldJob, I worked in a department that had been largely unchanged for the last 9 years, and counted three team members who had been with that department (with very little career progression) for over 25 years.

      It was not something to boast about. Trying to make any changes or keep up with the times in even the most minor of ways was like pulling teeth.

      1. (insert name here)*

        Yes. And leaving that job after 9.5 years, I was so out of touch with professional norms that it was staggering. Long tenures can be yellow flags.

        1. Count Boochie Flagrante*

          Yep. In hindsight, I count myself lucky that I was laid off after 4 years in that role. It was long enough that I’d gotten some process improvement achievements under my belt despite the massive inertia of the team, and not long enough for me to fall into that institutional rut.

          1. (insert name here)*

            Literally no one that I knew when I worked there has sense left that company. It’s not a good company.

      2. iglwif*

        Yep. Sometimes people stay for a long time because they’re happy, but sometimes they stay for a long time for reasons having nothing to do with whether they’re happy (inertia, fear of losing decent health insurance, convenient/accessible location, instability of spouse’s income, on-site daycare, etc.), and sometimes they stay because they’re not happy–because coping with their job literally drains all their energy and they’re too miserable and exhausted for the additional work of finding a new one.

    2. Diahann Carroll*

      At my last toxic workplace (which I left many years ago), the people who had been there 10 + years were usually not the good employees – the good ones, like myself, were able to get jobs elsewhere and never looked back.

    3. CaliCali*

      This is like people who think the longevity of a marriage is a good indicator of its health. No, you can stay married and be in a toxic and miserable relationship! There are multiple factors that keep employees in one place — schedules, commutes, opportunity, personal fit for the work — that actually have nothing to do with how “great” of an employer you are.

    4. pope suburban*

      My toxic old job was that way too. It was another small business that leaned way too heavily on the excuses present in this letter, and as a result wickedly underpaid every single employee (save the boss and his favorite employee, argh). It was a lot of people’s first job out of school, which badly warped their perspective on what is normal and inevitable in a workplace. There were also employees who couldn’t get hired on anywhere else in their specialty (Construction) because they did not have the necessary skills. The whole place was an absolute mess and frankly, I don’t know how some of these people lasted 15-20 years because the place was full of bees…that were hybridized with velociraptors, and also on fire. No one actually likes it there, but I’m the only one who successfully made it out. I sincerely hope I never encounter any of them every again, in any context, but if I did and I asked? I’d bet nothing’s changed, simply because nothing ever had.

    5. Elizabeth West*

      This was OldExjob. One person in particular put up with the worst treatment imaginable because he was afraid he couldn’t find another job. It was so bad that I got secondhand anxiety from listening to his boss abuse him all day without being able to say or do a thing.

      Exjob had very long-tenured employees also, but the difference was like night and day. Individual managers could be an asset or a detriment; however, employees there were treated very well generally.

      This is why the “What happened to the person who used to have this job?” question is such a good one to ask in interviews. You can tell a lot about the company by the way they answer it.

      1. Scarlet*

        One time I asked that question in a job interview for an admin role and they got ALL OFFENDED like it was some massive faux pas to ask. Wouldn’t answer it, wouldn’t even entertain it. It was a “confidential personnel issue” and how dare I inquire. I was 17 and noted it in my mind “OK do not EVER ask that again”

        And then I started reading AAM and now I know (15 years later) that it’s OK to ask that question and the problem was with that one lady, never with me or my question lol

    6. Ashley*

      Yep I worked at a company like that. First job out of college. I stayed for 3 years when I should’ve left after the first year. A lot of the staff was miserable but felt that it would be too hard (or was too scared) to leave. Thank God I finally did.

    7. Wintermute*

      you know what else keeps things in place a long time? A grease trap.

      Companies can become like grease traps, you hire a crop of people, have a little turnover as the competent people with options leave, concentrating the dysfunction in the company/department. You hire a few more to replace the few that leave, and the best of those leave, and you get only the worst left.

      A few cycles of that combined with poor hiring (you know, like hiring at below market rates, basically ASKING for only the desperate or the incompetent that know a better-managed company would fire them one day) and you have nothing but people that either just plain suck, or ran face-first into the Peter Principle HARD and stagnated at a level where they’re marginally competent but can no longer advance.

      LW, is that the business you want? Populated only by people that are too incompetent to get a job elsewhere and too desperate to leave without one lined up?

    8. another scientist*

      That’s what I was thinking when I read this letter. OP, you aren’t getting away with it, you are getting by. There is an opportunity cost to this that you cannot see. Now, you didn’t mention whether your staff are both total gems, or barely do their job. But the quality of staff (both medical and clerical) so crucially affects the quality of treatment for patients in a small practice! You don’t know how many more patients you could reach, how many hours of headaches you could save with billing, how much happier/angrier patients could come out of your practice because they were expertly squeezed into the packed schedule or how the person taking their blood pressure was rude. Recommendations are gold. You have no idea how your business could take off (or how much easier your job could be) if you did some things differently.

      1. OP*

        GEMS both! And they know we think so. (the bonuses and raises help make that clear).
        There’s a lot of fantasizing going on here….
        I guess the tone of the letter was pretty snarky!

        1. another scientist*

          Thanks for responding, OP! Well, maybe it’s all good, and your pay is within market, and everything is just splendid. The tone of your letter was indeed implying a very different kind of work environment.

        2. Sigh*

          Look. This isn’t how you treat your employees once their on board. This isn’t about you trying to feel better about yourself because you offer the normal, expected benefits.

          This is about your willingness to manipulate people and treat them like OBJECTS. Be honest about salary, it doesn’t matter what the amount is. Decide what the position is going to pay, and respect people enough to decide if that’s enough for them. If you’re worried about someone leaving for a higher pay… well, that’s probably going to happen even if you DID raise it to $22/hr, because that’s a normal thing that occurs in business. Keep in mind that people also don’t mind taking pay CUTS to change their career or get away from an egotistical boss.

        3. AnotherAlison*

          I can see this. My mother recently retired from a 30+ year position because she liked a lot of things about it. She could have had more money and professional growth somewhere else, but she was happy.

          The problem I see for your office is that you don’t do much hiring or have a lot of turnover. You might have a blindspot to what you’re missing out on. I work in a very different field, but one example is that my former department heads insisted you needed all our engineers to be very experienced. My current department head has shown that we can utilize level 1 engineers for some of our work. It’s a broader discussion than just trying to cut the experienced people down a few bucks an hour.

          1. Willis*

            Yeah, honestly, discussing OP’s experience in hiring is pointless because it’s remarkably limited. One time 15-8 years ago she hired a couple people and asked them what salary they’d like. They gave a rate or range she agreed with and has since given them raises. Great. But, guess what, research has shown that on a macro-level, that way of doing things can screw people, particularly people of color and women. The OP can leave a million comments here saying how much these people love their jobs, how they are rewarded with great pay, etc. etc. It doesn’t make this a good practice on a larger level.

        4. Seacalliope*

          Hey, so OP, I get the sense from the tone of your comments that you have decided to laugh at all the comments that you perceive as pearl clutching and fantasizing. It’s entirely possible that your mean spirited and unethical low balling strategy for offering initial pay has actually netted out to mean very little in the long run — you compensated with raises, etc. But you still low balled them initially, potentially preventing your employees for building financial security, even if they didn’t realize it. It’s still an unethical practice that contributes overall to unequal pay throughout the country. And it’s actually really not funny that a large number of people are appalled by your practices, or that you have zero respect for the advice given to you today.

        5. Not So NewReader*

          OP, I think you are disconnected from the fact that you come across as having outdated thinking and you sound unwilling to even realize that people read you as being unethical.

          I think the fantasy started when you thought you could write a snarky letter and then nothing would happen. The fantasy continued when some of your replies are worse then your letter and you expected nothing would happen.

          Is this how your work place is? You say something snarky and nothing happens? I know plenty of places where people laugh on demand and otherwise tiptoe around the bosses because they need their checks.

          You felt free to be snarky with an extremely well-respected adviser, Alison. And you continued being snarky with commenters, saying things designed to provoke people.

          I am sorry, OP. I have to say this. You are the one with the fantasy. You think your employees will never see what you wrote here.

          Businesses that are set in their ways, set in their thinking end up going out of business. The businesses that survive are the ones that can flex with the times and adapt to current thinking. Period. And that is reality.

        6. Tedious Cat*

          The only fantasizing I see going on here is the OP talking about how she’s a great boss who values her employees.

    9. OP*

      Nope, not out of high school. Both experienced.
      One did have to leave for health/family reasons but then actually RETURNED

    10. Jh*

      Yep… I worked somewhere like that once. I was there for just over 3 years and it was insufferable.

      The people who had been there 10+ years were all miserable. Didn’t work efficiently. Complained about injustice a lot and got jealous if they didn’t get promoted or picked for projects. They held everything up and came in 2 hours late or were late for meetings.

      So glad I am out of there!

    11. 404UsernameNotFound*

      This. A friend of mine has been in the same company for over twenty years. Sounds great, right? Must be a fantastic company!
      Except, when I was in a role that was a particularly poor fit (read: I decided to quit when I had a breakdown at my desk), I was discussing next steps (i.e. leaving) with my mentor. I said, lightly paraphrased, “if I wanted the kind of experience this job is giving me, I’d go to [Friend’s Company].” Low turnover might mean you have a fantastic company that no-one wants to leave… or it could mean that there’s no room for career development, there’s personal circumstances that stop your employees from leaving, or the atmosphere of the company has them trapped via a sense of misplaced loyalty or survivor’s guilt.
      TL;DR – as mentioned above, low turnover doesn’t always equal high quality.

  29. archangelsgirl*

    If you go shopping for a pair of pants, does the store ask you, “Well, how much do you want to pay for the pants?” No. There is a price tag on the pants, based on the fabric, the design and the quality. It would be ridiculous otherwise. Now, you know the range of what you will have to pay, based on whether you are shopping at Target or Ann Taylor. But there’s a price tag on the pants.

    Salary is based on the elements of job you want done. The work that you want done has a value, and you assign that value to the work. So when someone comes in, and you say, “I pay $20-24 an hour for this work,” they know what the value of the work is. Sure, there’s a range, based on experience, or how well and quickly the person doing that job will be able to do it when they start. But it’s the job that has the value, not the needs of the person doing it.

    We are going through this in my school district, and it is making me crazy. People who live in large metropolitan areas want to make more than people who live in small rural areas. The job is: stand in front of 30 kids with zillions of needs, and teach. The job is the same, wherever you are. The job has to be compensated for what the job is, not for how much it costs you to get a mortgage.

    2. Gigi*

      I just had a job interview where they showed me a map and pay scale – if the business is located in this city, things are more expensive and therefore you get this pay. But that was in Scandinavia with lots of unions who negotiate on your behalf. I will say, though, that this was the first time I had experienced it. Also the first time I had applied not at a private business.

    3. londonedit*

      But if you need teachers in the large metropolitan areas, you need to pay them a wage that means they’ll have the same standard of living as the teachers in the rural areas who are paying vastly less in rent/mortgage/etc. I take your point, but in real terms you can’t pay everyone £30,000 a year and expect them to have the same standard of living, when a basic flat in the city might cost £1000 a month and one out in the sticks might be £500. Teaching jobs in inner London have a ‘London weighting’ on the salary offered, because the cost of living is so disproportionate to the rest of the UK.

      1. Ariana Grande's Ponytail*

        Seriously! I live in a major city in the U.S., and here teachers are *required* to be residents of the city itself in order to teach in city schools. Just coming from barely outside the city to inside the city changes rent, taxes, food expenses, etc, and it’s not cheap to live here at all! Not to mention, the city is so large that it would be very challenging to live outside the city and make it to work if you were allowed to do so and worked in a school towards the center of town. So if I was being offered the same rate to work in a suburb with lower COL or in the city with higher COL (and frankly, a more chaotic school system), if I was a teacher that would be a no-brainer.

    5. Roja*

      Uh… yes, jobs do and should take COL into account when they set compensation. Are you really arguing that San Francisco schools should pay the same as Kansas City schools? That’s a pretty great way to ensure that there are no teachers in big cities!

    6. Morning Glory*

      It’s really normal for salaries to reflect geographic cost of living variations. Market value = the going rate of the work in a given location.

    7. Elizabeth West*

      I realize you’re talking about a school system and not a private company, but the fact remains that if you want quality workers, you have to make it worth their while to work for you.

    8. Ferret*

      Just to be clear , you’d be completely happy getting the same pay as someone doing the same job as you in rural Afghanistan?

      I live in London. I make more money than I would if I worked in Belfast. This is not “crazy”

    9. Dragoning*

      Ah, but if the job requires you to live where you work (as does teaching), then the job requires more of people living in higher-cost-of-living areas. Thus you have to compensate them more.

    10. blackcat*

      “The job is the same, wherever you are.”
      Yeah, but the *value of the labor* and even the *value of a dollar* is different in different places.

      I live in a high cost of living area. It costs me more for a plumber to come to my house and do a job than it would if I was in a low cost of living area, because the plumber charges more for their labor. Teaching is the same–though, having been a teacher, I can tell you that the job *does* often vary a lot geographically. Teaching is different when kids have different challenges in their lives. Teaching 30 upper income kids is really different from 30 urban-dwelling poor kids which is really different from rural poor kids (even if they share other demographic factors, such as race).

      The real thing that is bonkers about teaching is that often just that are easier–teaching those upper income kids–pay substantially more than the jobs that are harder, even controlling for cost of living.

      You need to pay teachers adequately to get good ones, like any profession.

    11. Le Sigh*

      “People who live in large metropolitan areas want to make more than people who live in small rural areas.”

      This is very common and very logical. I live in a major metro area and making $45,000 doesn’t go very far here — it’s what mid-level professionals make in my hometown, but here, it’s what entry level employees make (and even then, it’s hard to pay rent, let alone a mortgage lololol). Part of attracting strong candidates is realizing that and creating a compensation package that takes those realities into account. You’re not going to get great candidates otherwise.

      Also, teaching isn’t the same everywhere — it is to a point but the needs and realities are very different depending on where you are.

      1. blackcat*

        I get the sense that they’re in a metropolitan area and want to pay teachers the same as other districts in the state.

    13. iglwif*

      Except, you do in fact have to consider COL in setting salaries, because COL is a huge factor in people’s decisions about (non-remote) jobs. If I live in Vancouver and I don’t like how much it costs to live in Vancouver, I can start looking for a job in Prince George … but I can’t expect the job in Prince George to pay as much as the one I currently have in Vancouver! And if I’m living in Prince George and I take a new job in Vancouver for the big salary, I can’t then be outraged at how much more it costs me to pay rent, buy food, and get car insurance when I move to Vancouver.

      (As a person who lives in a large city, I also think it’s disingenuous to suggest that small rural schools and large urban schools will always present the teacher with the same set of 30 kids [30 kids? YIKES] with the same set of needs. Really, your region has the same percentage of newly arrived immigrant and refugee kids who don’t speak the dominant language in large cities and in small towns? The same proportions of kids living in poverty in all settings? The same level of parental involvement? Because that sure isn’t where it works where I live.)

    14. Marny*

      Nooo. You can’t expect quality teachers to come to your area if they can’t afford to live there. I get that logic dictates that the same work has to pay the same, but unless the same apartment in metro city costs the same as apartment in rural area, you’re ruining your chances of getting good teachers who aren’t independently wealthy.

    15. Beth Jacobs*

      I mean, by this logic, a teacher’s salary should be the same everywhere: from a tiny village in Uganda to NYC. But there’s a concept of purchase power, because you don’t actually want to lie on your salary in single dollar bills: you want to purchase goods and services.
      I work so that I can have a place to live, things to eat and comforts to enjoy. For practical reasons, people aren’t actually paid in goods and services, but that’s ultimately what they want out of the transaction. And those goods and services cost different amounts in different places. That’s why we don’t have a worldwide minimum wage.

    16. Des*

      A worker in San Fransisco makes more money than a worker doing exactly the same job in Tennessee. It’s just how it is. The houses in TN cost $100k vs $1000k in SF. It’s odd that this perfectly logical thing makes you crazy.

  30. Mim*

    So they haven’t done any hiring for 8 years and seem confident their staff are in it for the long haul but still felt the need to defend this practice? I am so confused about their intentions here.

    1. Observer*

      I suspect that either they are in need of a new person and are having a hard time or someone had the audacity to leave.

    2. OP*

      I just get frustrated with the endless preaching about how it’s so awful for employers to ask about salary and I wanted to explain the other side.
      Especially, frankly about how I would like to know if an employee is looking for a higher salary and how I might well not know that if i didn’t ask first.

      1. (insert name here)*

        So you explained your side and everyone still disagreed with you. No one is saying “OP has a point”. Instead they are actively poking holes in your arguments.

        Does that make you re-examine your position at all?

      2. SarahTheEntwife*

        If you post the salary, people looking for a higher salary won’t bother applying. If you’re willing to pay more for a higher-skilled employee, then post the higher salary and job requirements. I still don’t understand how making the employee name their salary first is avoiding salary mismatches.

      3. Parenthetically*

        You know how you know if they’re looking for a higher salary if you post your range? They don’t apply for the job and waste your time and their time prepping for an interview that turns out to be going nowhere.

        1. (insert name here)*

          At least 9 people have answered this exact question for the OP in this exact why. It’s not getting through. It’s like screaming into the wind.

          It’s perfectly logical to not waste one’s time apply for a position that pays less than what I am willing to take.

          I can only speculate that OP wants those people to apply. Maybe OP is hoping they do apply and that OP can somehow convince them they are worth less than they think they are worth and trick them into working for her anyway.

          That doesn’t provide the stability that OP is hoping.

          Someone *tricked* into taking a lower salary is just as likely to leave as someone who *knowingly* takes a lower salary.

          1. Parenthetically*

            “Someone *tricked* into taking a lower salary is just as likely to leave as someone who *knowingly* takes a lower salary.”

            This is just one of many, many things OP is not getting. She hasn’t even touched the discrimination/depressed wages element.

      4. ThatGirl*

        Most awful: Asking what their prior salary was
        Middle awful: Asking what salary they expect
        Best: Telling them what your range is and asking if that works

      5. anonymous 5*

        There…there isn’t actually another side. Well, there is; it’s just incorrect. It is awful for employers to ask about salary. You have a choice to do better. You have chosen instead to double down. The “frustration” you’re feeling is a direct consequence of actions you’ve chosen to take. Start treating your role as an employer, and your responsibility to disclose salaries rather than to ask for them, more seriously and you won’t be preached at.

      6. Elbe*

        It’s much more likely that someone will take the job, realize once they start that they’re underpaid for the tasks they perform, and leave. It’s baffling that you think that your ‘strategy’ would improve retention. Being upfront about the potential pay range is much more likely to result in a hire who is comfortable with that pay.

      7. Krabby*

        Except no one said it was awful for employers to ask about salary, they said it was awful for employers to ask about salary /first/. You can put your salary range in the job posting and then when you first contact them say, “X-Y is our range. Is that within your expectations?”
        My company doesn’t post ranges in our job ads (for reasons I disagree with), but we do state our range in our first contact with the candidate and find out from there what their expectations are.
        You also seem to be purposely ignoring the fact that the practice you are benefiting from disproportionately hurts women and poc. What’s your take on that piece?

        1. Gazebo Slayer*

          My experience is that people with views like this generally are hostile to the very idea of racial and gender equity. It’s “politically correct BS” or something.

      8. Jessie the First (or second)*

        1) You have hardly done any hiring at all! You have no basis for any meaningful personal experience here – your reasoning is based on speculation, not actual expertise and experience.
        2) Your tone and words have been extraordinarily snarky and defensive, so it appears that you haven’t actually been able to pause and calmly think things through.

        You think if you state your range up front that someone who wants more will not only apply to your job *knowing* the pay is too low, but will then proceed all the way through interview and offer stage and accept your job. But- by stating your range as the employer up front, people who actually need to make more will self-select out. The whole point is it saves you time, and encourages applications from people who are on the same page with salary requirements. And the reason you divulge salary range first is because *you* know the job! Applicants know only what you’ve written in a brief blurb on the job posting, which is rarely enough to understand what salary might be merited.

      9. ADHSquirrelWhat*

        but would you show your employees the letter you sent in? including where it says you’d pay them less if they’d asked a lower number?

        Because if you think it’s fair, why not show them?

        Because .. it’s not in your best interests? Because it LOOKS like you’ve been cheating them even if you haven’t? Because it creates bad blood?

        gosh. imagine that.

      10. Sunflower Sea Star*

        You didn’t “explain another side”
        You brazenly and unapologetically declared that you will continue to use a manipulative approach to pay people as little as you can get away with.
        And those are YOUR words. I’m not overstating what you said.
        Don’t even try to pretend you were just nicely trying to help people see a different perspective.

      11. Mizzle*

        Why don’t you simply ask, even after putting it in the ad? “As you know, the stated range is 20 to 22. Does that work for you?”

        Your candidates are likely to take it as an invitation to negotiate, and won’t be very happy when you tell them they’re out of the running, but you’ll have the information you so desperately want.

      12. Observer*

        Well, as has been mentioned multiple times, you could post the salary range.

        There is an alternative if you REALLY cannot bring yourself to so that.

        You can actually ask the prospective employee if they find this satisfactory. If you think they are going to lie to you, then why are you even considering hiring them?

      13. Not So NewReader*

        You keep saying the same things over and over so people are getting a sense that you are not reading what they have written.

        In answer to your question, you can state the salary range and ask them if they would be okay in that range some where. It’s so simple and I do not understand why you are making it so hard.

        “I just get frustrated with the endless preaching about how it’s so awful for employers to ask about salary and I wanted to explain the other side.”
        No one wants to listen to anyone (not just you) justify STEALING from other people’s pockets.

      14. Salty Caramel*

        I would like to know if an employee is looking for a higher salary and how I might well not know that if i didn’t ask first

        It’s very easy. You disclose what you are willing to pay. People who aren’t willing to work for your posted salary will not apply.

        What astounds me here is that the practice you defend so vigorously costs you unnecessary time and effort when a line in the job listing would filter out people you don’t want to talk to anyway.

        It is awful to ask without disclosing any information. We have read your arguments and found you wanting.

  32. Lilo*

    I really wonder what motivates someone to write a letter like this. Why is someone like this even reading Alison anyway?

    2. Threeve*

      There was a character on 30 Rock who introduced herself with: “I don’t care what anyone says, I keep the 3D glasses.” Some people are just really proud of their suck-it-I-do-what-I-want behaviors.

    3. Campfire Raccoon*

      Because something Alison said, somewhere along the line, hit a little too close to home. Rather than doing any sort of introspective soul-searching and/or examining her past behaviors with a critical eye with the intent of making changes to her clutched-purse ideas — the OP took that little hurt and molded it into an angry single-fingered keyboard-mashing letter where she double-down on her outdated ideas with self-righteous fury.

      Kudos if you made it through that run-on sentence. Apologies.

      4. mrs__peel*

        YEP. I don’t think she’d be tripling down like this and seeking reassurance about her POV if she didn’t know, deep down, that she’s doing something morally questionable.

        She wants validation that this practice is Actually Okay so she can continue to consider herself a good person.

    4. OP*

      I’ve learned tons from Alison, and continue to.
      I just really don’t get the disconnect between how employees should reasonably look out for their own interests, but it is so horribly wrong for me as an employer to do the same

      1. (insert name here)*

        Your looking out for your own interests doesn’t have to be *at the expense* of someone else. That is the disconnect. You don’t need to push someone else down to increase your bottom line. That may work, but it’s not the only way to increase your bottom line. There are other ways that are more ethical.

        1. MsSolo*

          Exactly! When Alison advises employees to look out for their own interests she isn’t telling them to steal the stationary, take four hour long breaks, and exaggerate their expenses. She’s never advising them to hurt the business, and if a business is hurt because it can’t afford to accommodate employees valuing their work appropriately, then it’s a badly run business.

      2. CaliCali*

        It’s not looking out for your interests to UNDERPAY YOUR EMPLOYEES. The argument is that if you’re paying your employees a fair market value, you’ll have more satisfied workers and reduce risk of attrition. You might actually BE paying your employees a fair wage, for all we know, but if someone comes in saying “I want $10/hr” and the work is valued at $20/hr, it is not good to take them up on that offer! It is penny wise and pound foolish. You will lose that person once they actually look into their market value.

      3. Parenthetically*

        But you’re not just “looking out for your own interests.” You’re trying to devalue the work of others at their expense, over a matter of a few bucks an hour. If the job for a person with X experience and training is worth $22/hr it’s worth $22/hr, even if Marcia was only hoping for $20/hr. Just like you don’t give Bob a raise because his wife has a kid, because the job is worth $22/hour regardless of his financial obligations. Anything else is a swindle.

      4. animaniactoo*

        You can look out for your own interests. It is the way that you are going about that here – from the power dynamic – that makes what you are doing unsupportable.

      5. PSB*

        Because. You. Aren’t. For goodness sake, how is this so hard to understand? You *aren’t* looking out for your own interest. People who are genuinely looking out for their own best interest are open to new ideas because they recognize that those ideas might be better than continuing to do things the same way they always have. You’ve completely discounted all the feedback you’ve gotten from Alison and the other commenters because you’re so invested in framing the issue in this one narrow way and taking anything other than complete agreement as an insult. You’re not looking out for your interest. You’re looking out for your ego.

      6. Sunflower Sea Star*

        When employees look out for their own interest, it’s in the interest of getting a fair market wage.
        Your letter described using a manipulatory practice that leads to illegal discrimination in pay to keep wages under fair market price and increase your own profit. I bet you try to tell your employees they can’t discuss salary among themselves, either. (Also illegal.)
        VERY different.
        You simply won’t see the difference because it’s hard to admit you’re not the nice person you like to think you are.

      7. Not So NewReader*

        If a parent puts their needs first ahead of a child, society will rain down on them.

        You are in a position of power and you are abusing your power. Making it worse, you come on here saying that you want to explain that you can get away with it. You can get away with using your position of power to deprive people of fair pay.

        Yeah, words are going to rain down on you. I have read hundreds of comments and you are still saying that you are totally correct in being unethical with your employees.

      8. WeepingAngel*

        If you want to look out for your own interests without being unethical, why don’t you state the salary ranges on your job listings, after carefully and honestly working out what you can afford? That way candidates can self – select out if your offered salary is too low for them and you’ll only have to interview those who could afford to work for you.

        Of course, if you don’t get any applicants after doing this, that’s a huge signal that the range you’re offering is below market rates and you should rethink your calculations.

        Frankly, I think all employers should do this anyway.

  33. Karo*

    Honestly all I can think about right now is how the OP’s stomach probably dropped when they got the “I will be publishing your letter” email from Alison. I mean, it takes a ridiculous amount of self-righteousness to write this letter so maybe they thought Alison’s answer would be “oh my, I didn’t consider that, thank you!” but I think I would’ve started vomiting immediately.

    1. Diahann Carroll*

      I’m going to go out on a limb here and say the woman who wrote this isn’t remotely bothered by Alison’s response and will, most likely, carry on as-is because she doesn’t believe she’s wrong. Arrogance is a helluva drug.

    3. Not So NewReader*

      OP will be standing before the Judge in court for legal charges or a bankruptcy case and still be saying, “But I could get away with paying the employees less. You know it’s like a garage sale, Judge….”

    4. Tomalak*

      To be fair I don’t think the letter was personally rude or anything like it. She expressed contrary views in a strident way, sure, but I don’t think the letter writer should be treated as if she wrote hate mail whose publication will embarrass her or something.

  34. MatKnifeNinja*

    The reason I’m leaving my current GP is he has 4 under paid lifers running his front office and billing. It’s a hot mess express, because those 45 year old + women are stuck making $13/hr. (I asked once) Their skills are stale. The office is running ancient Windows machine, voice mail issues, calling in script issues. The women would make more, get abused less and have insurance working at the car wash 3 doors down.

    The doctor is a gross, his on the cheap office is gross, and his over worked, under trained staff is heart breaking.

    I’d pay more money if my GP would actually pay for a real medical assistant that doesn’t ignore universal precautions.

    Anyway, have fun scrounging for nickels off the backs of your workers, while making your fortune. Karma does not forget.

    1. Lilo*

      My dad is a physician. A good office manager is worth their weight in gold. So is a good scribe. Huge difference in practice experience.

      1. feministbookworm*

        My dad was also a physician in private practice, and one of his most valued employees was an office manager who worked for the practice for 40 years. In an example of changing with the times, my dad was very embarrassed and apologetic (including apologizing to the office manager) in later years about some of the questions he’d asked her in her original interview (which must have been in the late 60s), related to how many children she had, whether she was planning on having more, and whether she was on birth control.

    2. Health Care Adjacent*

      Unfortunately, this is a pitfall of private practice. Providers get so hung up on being ‘small business owners’ that they forget to be clinicians.

  35. AvonLady Barksdale*

    Dude. DUDE. It is so simple. If you would prefer to pay $20/hour, offer that. It’s ok. You may lose out on some talent, but you’ll save all that green with much less hassle.

    1. Don't Send Your Kids to Hudson University*

      THIS! Be honest, the market will sort out the rest.

      The problem is that LW wants a candidate who is worth more than $20/hour, but at a discount.

        1. Parenthetically*

          Seriously, I say this all the time. Like, you want the harsh realities of capitalism? Then let the market decide FOR YOU TOO. But they don’t want capitalism, they want plutocracy.

  36. Fabulous*

    I will also add, as a millennial who entered the job market in the midst of the 2008 recession, I deeply have undervalued myself throughout the years. I’m 35 years old and JUST NOW reaching $50k a year. And I had to fight (hard) to get there this past year!

    About 5 years ago in my last job search, I was just wanting to reach $40k. I would have been happy seeing any 4 in my salary – because I never had before! Why would I be worth any more if no one’s ever paid me that much? Then I found out a family member 10 years my junior was making $20k MORE than I was looking for, and for similar work – wtf?! It had never even occurred to me to ask for more prior to that. That was a serious kick in the pants.

    You’re seriously undervaluing the people you interview by asking them what they’re looking for. They may not know! People don’t often share their salaries to gauge what they’re worth compared to similarly skilled people.

    1. Pretzelgirl*

      Right there with ya. I am 35, and haven’t crossed the 40k threshold yet. My husband just got a new job at 65k and we feel like we are rich (we are not).

      1. Kiwiii*

        This!! Boyfriend and I will break 100k on taxes this year (and we’re super excited!!), but with our jobs — had we graduated at a better time (even just 2 years or so later) or worked for fairer people in our first few years, we’d have been there a long time ago.

    2. Observer*

      You’re seriously undervaluing the people you interview by asking them what they’re looking for. They may not know!

      That seems to be what the OP is looking for.

    3. Leisel*

      This!!! I’m 32 and entered the job market in 2009 with a degree that immediately because useless because no one could afford to hire. My industry took a HUGE hit with the recession. I’m finally making over $50K as well.

      What adds a strange twist on my current situation is that I now make more money than my parents combined. I live in a city with high COL, but I came from a small town with very low COL, so obviously it’s never going to be apples to apples. It’s just a strange perspective to be thinking about how much I make compared to them, but I still can’t afford to own a home… I say this to point out that your perspective can be very skewed sometimes based on what you know and what you don’t know you don’t know…

    4. Quill*

      Millennial, but I didn’t hit the job market until 2014. The rise of the gig economy and permatemping / contract “to hire” has also kept people undervalued.

      1. Fabulous*

        Oh absolutely this too!! I can’t tell you how many contract jobs I worked from 2008-2016. I would tell the temp agency “nothing under $20/hr” and of course they’d send me out for a $13/hr job, which of course I had to take because I needed a paycheck.

      2. Anonymouse*

        Yup–will be 36 in a few days-I hit the job market 2009ish–my FAGI is hovering just under 50k (pre-Tax it is near 55k)

        1. Anonymouse*

          And I live in an area where COL is rising much faster than wages in just about all sectors. Chronic housing shortage.

      3. ItalianBunny*

        ^A.Freaking.men.
        Permatemping and CTH is like the recipe to keep people undervalued.
        It’s still A Thing here in Italy and, oh boy, it’s a HUGE problem.

    5. call centre bee*

      Oof. This 34-year-old suddenly feels very rubbish about struggling to find a job that pays more than £21k…

      1. Fabulous*

        It all depends on industry too. I was looking for nonprofit work before and struggled to find anything in the range I was targeting too. I think I had 3 or 4 (unsuccessful) interviews that met my salary criteria. Ultimately I ended up in a temp role at a large corporation (see the contract/temp-to-hire post below) where I got hired on permanently and that is literally the only reason I have the salary I do.

      2. Toiletcricket*

        Please don’t feel bad. I’m turning 33 and only this year breaking 40k/year, before tax, in local definitely-not-USD currency.

        We’ll both find better.

      3. ItalianBunny*

        I’m 36 and i struggle to make more than 22/23k so right there with you in this boat.
        All of my sympathy.
        We’ll find better and we’ll be better, someday.
        hugs.

        1. call centre bee*

          Thanks guys. Just got another rejected application for a job paying even less than my current one so I guess I’m just sensitive to the idea that I should be making some money in my thirties.

        2. Therese*

          Same I feel like going to college was a waste of time b/c I can’t even get a living wage job to help pay off my college loans :(

          I don’t even know what to ask for salary anymore. Last time I wanted $15/hour they gave me $13/hour…I was making $11/hour as a bookkeeper. They want to talk raises again idk what to ask.

          1. call centre bee*

            I feel this! I have my degree gathering dust and I feel like everything I’ve done since has been a waste of time. I see my peers making £50k a year, driving cars, owning their own homes and I’m still doing the sort of jobs they started in a decade ago and struggling to pay rent.

            And when you look for something else employers act like if you were worth more you’d already be earning it.

    6. AnotherAlison*

      I also think some people come from jobs with terrible COL raises and poor promotion opportunities, so since their salary hasn’t gone up, they don’t evaluate what they should be making properly. [My husband hasn’t raised his rates in 5 years!?!?]

      The cumulative rate of inflation from 2000 (when I graduated college) until now is about 50%. To make $100,000 like my managers were making then (my baseline of good money from my formative years), I have to make $150,000. Yet, that sounds like a big number to me now. It’s hard to really frame what your market value is.

    7. Alex*

      I also entered the workforce about that time but am slightly older than you, and just got over the 50k hump last year, in a very HCOL area.

  37. Marny*

    This employer seems to look at hiring as a battle. Perhaps if you stopped looking at your employees as an enemy who wants to take advantage of you (and who you want to take advantage of), you’d see the value in paying people an amount that will keep them happy and willing to work hard for you and your team.

    2. Wintermute*

      People like him are why unions exist. When management really IS out to screw you out of everything they can, you need to band together and fight back.

      An entire system of people like him is a dangerous thing– leave enough people with nothing left to lose but their chains, and enough people feeling there’s no hope they’ll ever advance within the system and the only way they feel they’ll ever survive let alone thrive is to burn the system down and start over.

  38. SomethingCreative*

    THANK YOU ALLISON! And thank you, letter writer, for adding something to the “why you shouldn’t ever work for small businesses” column that exists in my head. There are many, many reasons, top of which is an unwillingness to change and a feeling that my salary is “coming out of your own pocket.” Why would anyone want that? Your employees who have been there long term probably just don’t know any better – I see it happen all the time, especially if you get them to buy your “we’re all a family!” bullshit.

    Sincerely, #beentheredonethatneveragain

  41. Liz T*

    Wait so if someone tells you their expectation is $24/hour, and you only want to pay $22, you’ll just cut them loose? Or you’ll pay an extra $2 if asked, but wouldn’t ever want your employees to feel you’re paying them particularly well?

    1. Carlie*

      I think yes to the first part, and their concern is that if they advertise at $22, the person who wants $24 will be REALLY SNEAKY and carry out a CUNNING PLAN in which they take the $22 job even though they don’t want it and then leave later once they find a $24 job. Rather than, you know, not applying to the $22 job in the first place.

    2. OP*

      If we felt they had experience and qualifications that justified it we might. We have in the past. But having that information is valuable.

      1. Explaining*

        Wouldn’t you get the same information if you gave a range, and the candidate said, “Well, I’m actually looking for something closer to X?”

  42. feminzagul*

    I am always so amazed at how defensive business owners are. I know American capitalism tells you you’re the hardest working of the hardest working and somehow always unfairly maligned, but guess what: once you start a business, you’re The Man and you’re in the position of exploiter. If you can’t afford to pay and compensate people fairly, you can’t afford the cost of doing business and that makes you a failure despite what our culture and the banks will tell you.

    This letter might as well scream “I don’t value anyone for their humanity, just the raw labor I can extract from them.” in all caps

    1. Mel_05*

      This employer does seem unpleasant, but I don’t see how hiring someone automatically means you’re exploiting them. It just means you’re in the position to exploit them and have to be careful that you do not.

        1. Mel_05*

          Eh, your phrasing sounds like you think anyone who has employees IS an exploiter. When all it means is that they COULD be.

          1. Youngin*

            No, the wording was pretty clear.

            “but guess what: once you start a business, you’re The Man and you’re in the position of exploiter”

            2. Jules the 3rd*

              hunh – I read that sentence and come up with the same interpretation as Mel_05, that you are an exploiter. I think it’s fair to read it either way, until you hit feminazgul’s clarification

      2. Wintermute*

        They are, literally though, they are exploiting the labor of others for their own benefit. Now, despite my political inclinations I will concede there is unfair exploitation and there is such a thing as “fair exploitation” where you share some of the benefits of their labor with them. But the fact of the matter is the fruits of their labor belong to you, not them, you are exploiting their labor.

    2. Youngin*

      THIS!!! +100000

      The second you become a business owner , whether its Amazon or the local mom and pop shop, you hold power over your employees. You dont get to pay employees poorly because you feel like you can get away with it.

    3. Pretzelgirl*

      I have worked for many small businesses from little retail shops, even to a small non-profit. All of the small businesses were nightmares, with people dripping with attitude. The tone of this letter doesn’t surprise me at all. I have said it before, and I will repeat it. I will never work for another small business again.

      ** I know not all small businesses are like this, but I am just speaking from my experience**

      1. Wintermute*

        amen! I’ve never met a more ruthless bunch of people that absolutely epitomize “penny wise and pound foolish”, especially restaurateurs. I get it, it’s a tough business with razor-thin profit margins and a lot of your labor especially back-of-house has… colorful habits and work histories, but still, there’s a point at which you’re only hurting yourself. Give them a way to save 10 cents and screw someone, or ruin a thousand dollars in goodwill and they’d go for it every last time. And if you do business with them, I’d say get it in writing but not even written contracts will keep many of them remotely honest.

      2. Jh*

        I’ve stopped applying for jobs that require my salary history or expectations.

        Obviously you’re only looking for a way to reduce me as an employee and rip me off.

        I know my exact value and I’m not afraid to say the amount when it comes close to offer negotiation time. The last two jobs I had I got what I wanted. My current job listed the salary publicly so I didn’t have to worry.

    4. Parenthetically*

      “If you can’t afford to pay and compensate people fairly, you can’t afford the cost of doing business”

      BIG YUP

    1. Just Another Manic Millie*

      I worked at a real estate firm for nine years and nine months. The office manager who hired me left the company five years later. The new office manager hired secretaries, bookkeepers, building maintenance employees, etc. who were so bad at their jobs that I couldn’t believe that they were the best candidates she could find. I was forced to conclude that she asked all job applicants how much money they were looking for, and she hired the applicants who asked for the least amount of money.

      The secretaries were so incompetent that the office manager told me that it was my job to proofread every letter, document, etc. before it left the office. And the office manager had to be given a copy of every piece of outgoing correspondence. Any time something went out that wasn’t letter-perfect, there was An Investigation instituted by the office manager, and I would say, depending on the circumstances, “I wasn’t here that day” or “This is the first time I’m seeing this letter. No one showed it to me before it went out” or “I told Sansa that the letter was full of mistakes and pointed them out to her, but she just got sulky and pouty and nasty. I figured that she would show it to me again after she fixed it, but she didn’t. Instead, she sent it out the way it was. I spoke to Fergus about it, and he said that he had asked Sansa if she had shown me the letter, and she said yes. I told Fergus that he asked her the wrong question, because he should have asked her if she had made the changes that I had told her to make.”

      And that’s not including the time that Cersei proudly showed me a letter that she had typed, saying that Wakeen had told her that it was perfect, but I found a huge error in it and pointed it out. She refused to do anything about it, so I had no choice but to ask Wakeen why he had said that the letter was perfect, and if he was willing to admit that it wasn’t perfect. He told Cersei to do the letter over, and she carried on and made a huge fuss. And that’s not including the time that Minerva showed me a letter that she had typed, and I pointed out all the errors, and she got very irritated and angry, and I asked her, “When you asked me if your letter had any errors, did you mean that you wanted me to point out any errors I saw? Or did you want me to tell you that your letter was perfect, no matter how many errors it had?”

      I had no choice but to cover my a$$ and point out all the errors I found, or else the office manager would have blamed me. Obviously, the supervisors were incapable of detecting spelling and grammatical errors. My supervisor was the worst. I would laugh myself sick when I came back from vacation and saw the letters that had gone out under his name while I was away. It was such a relief when I left that company. I was so tired of being the correspondence police.

  45. Mel_05*

    So, I worked for an employer who thought like this.

    I don’t know if they asked me my salary expectations up front, but the whole attitude of “Let’s save wherever we can and make sure we look out for ourselves and not our employees” was definitely there.

    They were nice people. Easily the most pleasant boss/ceo I’ve ever had.
    But, they were always looking for ways that they could come out ahead of their employees.

    I gently called them out on it after a while, thinking they didn’t realize what they were doing – they were pleasantly unapologetic about it and clearly knew exactly what they were doing.

    They broke the law, a lot. They would stop if I sent them information explaining that it was illegal, but then they would find some work-around to try and get the same end result (more work for less pay). Some of those work-arounds were also illegal – there just wasn’t anyone at the company who knew it (I found out later).

    And for over a decade they would have said things like, “We are excellent employers whose current two staff have been with us for about 15 years and eight years and both seem very happy.”

    Then, all at once, everyone had had enough.

    It wears on people to work in that environment. Even if they’re not upset about the pay, the mentality of the LW is so draining. And then they leave for something better.

    1. voyager1*

      +1
      I worked at place like this. It had 300+ employees. So not exactly a small employer. And everything you wrote was true about why people left them too.

    2. boop the first*

      The first paid job I ever had, the owner was a beast (probably due to stress, in hindsight) and he was CONSTANTLY nickel and diming everything. He’d ask me to lie to clients on the phone about our stock (eg: someone would request roses when all we had were mums) and every time I would make a mistake on a tiny paper form, he would lecture me about wasting five cents of paper.
      I was quietly phased out, got a new job, and when I wandered by a year later the business was gone.

      A decade later, I took on a different job. The new boss started complaining to us about wasting five cents of paper. Then he started firing anyone who dared take a week of vacation. Then he started losing his biggest clients one by one. He’d convinced my coworker that he’s going to move us into a brand new facility with brand new machines and no mouse infestation, but I knew better. If bosses start complaining about five cents, it’s over.

      1. Dragoning*

        Had a boss once tell my I couldn’t have a band-aid from the work first aid kit to protect a scab rubbing open but “could if it started bleeding at work.”

        The penny pinching and power trip!

          1. Dragoning*

            Huh? This wasn’t in food service or something that required that level of safety, and I was allowed the band-aid if it I tore the scab open and bled…just not as a preventative measure.

      2. Mel_05*

        What a nightmare! But you’re totally right, anyone who is that worried about five cents is not going to last.

      3. Gazebo Slayer*

        Why would he want you to lie to clients about stock?! Like… if they order roses and you don’t have any, does he think you can just send them mums and somehow the clients won’t notice they aren’t roses?

    3. Tiny Soprano*

      There’s a huge legal pushback going on in Australia currently against bosses who underpay staff. Even small businesses have been made examples of, with large fines and mandated backpay for underpaying teenage staff who they presumed didn’t know the law and wouldn’t question their conditions.

      I’m not suggesting what the LW is doing is illegal, but all too often underpayment is the logical conclusion of that mindset.

  46. I am not a llama*

    OOOH!, OOOH!

    Pleeeeeeeeeeease hire me! I want to work for a manager that is going to be constantly try to do whatever they “…can get away with …”. I want crappy pay, and benefits.

    I want a manager that can’t be trusted.

  47. voyager1*

    I am curious to know what makes this place an excellent employer as well? Low turnover doesn’t really mean much.

    1. OP*

      It’s a happy, friendly office.
      We are very generous with paid sick leave.
      We have dealt with a leave of absence for 3 months during which we managed to hold things together till the employee could return.
      We regularly give raises and bonuses (admittedly made easier when starting pay is not at the top of the range)

      1. SarahTheEntwife*

        Why is it laudable to give raises because you lowballed them on salary instead of just paying them higher to start with? If I’d known my “raises” were just raising me up to what my employer could have been paying me rather than cost-of-living adjustments or merit increases, I’d be pretty pissed.

      2. Sunflower Sea Star*

        I’m guessing these raises are as little as you can get away with? But hey THEY GET RAISES.

      3. LapisLazuli*

        OP, I don’t know if you’re in the US or not but for US taxes, bonuses up to 1 million dollars are taxed at 22%. Unless your employees are in the 22% income tax bracket or higher, those bonuses are being taxed at a higher rate than if you just paid them what they are worth in the first place. I would also be very interested to know YOUR take-home in comparison to your employees’. Your lifestyle too, for that matter. Do you live in a nice house in a nice neighborhood and drive a nice car? If you have kids, do they go to a nice private school? Or do you live in an area where your taxes go to top-notch public schools? Do you get to take vacations every year? Does the office close during that time and, if so, are your employees paid while you go on vacation? Or do they miss a paycheck while you’re off?

        I ask because the money “saved” by short-changing your employees goes to you. $4k per year might be a decent little vacation for you but the difference between making rent or buying enough groceries for your employees. If you think you’re paying the difference in bonuses but they get taxed at a higher rate than regular income, then you’re probably not paying the difference.

        1. Arielle*

          Yes! I used to work for a boss like this. He wouldn’t raise my (laughably below market) salary on the ground that he “didn’t know how the year was going to go” but he’d give me a “generous” end of year bonus that then got taxed all to hell. I never could make him understand that dividing that bonus by 24 and giving it to me over the course of the year in the form of a higher salary would be better for both of us.

          1. LapisLazuli*

            At a previous job the work we did was structured so that if your productivity hit a certain marker or above, you got a bonus on that paycheck. There was also incentive to stay late and produce more work for ~$2 per item. Both went into your check as a separate line similar to a bonus. We were salaried employees in /maybe/ the 22% bracket but likely one bracket lower for the majority of new employees. Because of turnover, lots of people were new.

      5. mrs__peel*

        This is the bare minimum for any halfway decent employer, really. It doesn’t make your workplace “excellent”.

        And “fun” is not an adequate substitute for “fair market pay”.

        1. LapisLazuli*

          I wonder if by “fun” OP means the type of “dress-up for Halloween, play pranks in the office, we-hold-potlucks” type of “fun” that some people might like but plenty of people find cringe-worthy.

      6. Ella bee bee*

        My job does all this and also didn’t low ball me when I started out. This is pretty standard stuff that doesn’t make up for trying to get away with underpaying people when they start.

        1. pope suburban*

          This is the bare goddamn minimum. This is stuff I would expect out of literally any professional job, and stuff I want to see instituted for part-time and service-industry jobs (and any manual labor jobs not guaranteed this or more by unions; I don’t know a lot about those fields and so can’t speak to them specifically). This feels to me like saying “I’m a great person because I drive recklessly, but haven’t *injured* anyone yet!” Like…there is no gold star for the basics. There is no reward for doing the smallest possible amount to function in a society or specific environment. I wonder about and sometimes am concerned by people who want lavish praise for things that the rest of us take for granted.

      7. Salty Caramel*

        We have dealt with a leave of absence for 3 months during which we managed to hold things together till the employee could return.

        Adding this to the collection of red flags. With this length of time, I’m guessing it was FMLA, which is federal law last I checked. ‘Hold things together’ sounds like you were too cheap to hire a temp for three months.

        1. feministbookworm*

          Well, I’m guessing FMLA doesn’t actually apply since it’s a business with less than 50 employees. But still, file this under basic decency/standard business practices

      8. Anonyplatymous*

        I would be greatly interested in hearing from OP’s “happy” employees. No, OP, please don’t force them to write a reply with you hanging over their shoulders. What I mean is that I would love to know their unprompted opinions about how happy and fulfilled they REALLY are, and what they think about your letter and subsequent responses. “You guys are happy right? I’m the bestest employer ever because one person came back one time right? You love your work and me right?” Well what do you expect them to say? Given the size of your business and based on other comments, it sounds as if you’re in a location with few job options. What are they going to say? Of COURSE they’re happy and fulfilled and would love and totally support your philosophy, especially after knowing you like to pay them less if they don’t know their value, or are so desperate for a job that they’re willing to take a low-ball offer to at least put food on their tables.

      9. Not So NewReader*

        Well, OP you are consistent as you have said this several times in this thread. It actually has very little to do with how you negotiate pay rates for new hires.

  48. CatPerson*

    As a Compensation professional, I want to give a big round of applause to Alison for this perfectly on-point answer. From the legality of the practice to the doing-what’s-right continuum, Alison was right about all of it. The part about equal pay was especially beautiful.

  49. Lady Ariel Ponyweather*

    You don’t listen and are ‘brazenly unapologetic’ about treating others badly? Yep, you’re a medical professional all right!

    (I fully acknowledge this letter could have been written to hit all our outrage buttons, but this prima donna attitude is so typical in the medical field that I believe it’s genuine #notalldoctors.)

      1. Lady Ariel Ponyweather*

        I really do try not to judge people and go into new interactions assuming the best intentions of the other party. But my experience, and that of other patients I know, with doctors is universally awful. This letter really exemplifies how bad the medical system is: arrogance, condescenion, refusal to listen, laziness, lack of respect for other people, not even seeing other people as people, any excuse not to do their job. All of it is in this letter. And I wish it wasn’t.

        I’m still not fully convinced it isn’t just bait, but if it is, the writer did their homework.

        1. Not So NewReader*

          OMG yes.
          I read the letter and thought this is example #3792 of what is wrong with our medical system.
          OP, I agree with Lady Ariel. I am trying so hard to find good medical people and I stumble across this type of behavior all the time. “I underpay people and I am good with that.”
          This probably explains some of the things that have happened to me under the guise of medical care.

          1. Lady Ariel Ponyweather*

            I’m so sorry you’ve been treated so badly by doctors. If you’re not already a member of a patient support group, try joining one (or more than one). They often have a lot of medical information for patients. At the very least, you will get support and can talk to people who believe you.

            I agree completely that this letter explains so much. Too many doctors are only in it for the money and power it gives them over others. There *are* doctors who care but they are absolutely in the minority. For example, the doctors who got arrested at the US border for trying to get to refugees and give them medical care. They are heroes and sadly not representative of most doctors. I’ve heard too many stories of women dying of cancer because their symptoms weren’t believed (Gilda Radner, a well-known actress, was murdered by her doctors who ignored obvious signs of cancer). Too many people who live in pain and agony for years, losing their jobs, friends, family and homes, all because doctors refused to do their jobs and believe their patients and help them.

            Most doctors are in their profession for the money and status. I know a lot of patients who have simply decided to give up and not go to a doctor again, including me. Some kind people here in this community suggested that I reach out to doulas and midwives for doctor recommendations, and that’s been promising. I’m still very reluctant to trust a doctor again.

            Good luck with your search and hope you can find a decent doctor soon! I am hearing from patients that they have more luck with younger doctors, so maybe the next generation will be better.

            1. Not So NewReader*

              Thank you for sharing this. I very much agree with you. This is how I have gotten into alternative stuff and actually found things that give me real results. Plus I don’t have to deal with the rudeness.

              1. Lady Ariel Ponyweather*

                Oh God, the rudeness. The hippie at the health food store might recommend some weird stuff, but at least they believe me and have sympathy. Doctors don’t even have basic manners. They wouldn’t last an instant in a real job, like retail or janitorial work. They’d be unemployed in five minutes if they spoke to customers the way they speak to patients.

                I’m so glad you’ve found treatments that work! There are many things labelled alternative that are based in science and actually work. It’s wonderful that you’re making headway and have found support. Sending you so much goodness and healing energy!

                (P.S. I can’t remember if I said this before, but you responded to one of my comments a couple of years ago that I’ve kept saved because it moved me so much. Thank you for that. Your words absolutely have an impact and mean a lot!)

  50. Degen from Upcountry*

    “I’m getting away with it, and I like getting away with it, and as a small business owner I should get away with it. It’s not my fault these people decided to become admins and not medical professionals like I did! Hopefully a very naive but great candidate will come along and name their price at $16 an hour, at which point I should deservedly be praised as being a canny businesswoman.”

    I’m also quite sure no health insurance is being offered to these two employees, so it’s even worse to see them being nickel and dimed on salary.

  51. Susie Q*

    Honestly, if I found out my doctor was doing business practices such as this, I would find a new doctor. This reflects not only on someone’s professional life but their personal life. I would assume they are a greedy and selfish person. I wouldn’t want that person as my doctor.

    2. Jedi Squirrel*

      Exactly. They have no problem posting something like this anonymously. Would they write the same letter to the editor and put their name on it? Would they print this letter out and post in their reception area? Would they put it on their web site?

      I think not.

      1. Gazebo Slayer*

        I don’t know, I’ve seen some doctors express some pretty heartless sentiments in public with their names attached….

    4. One of the Spreadsheet Horde*

      Also, what corners are they cutting concerning my care? And can I trust their billing practices if they’re trying to get away with stuff?

      1. SW*

        Yeah, this is definitely a doctor who I would ask of an itemized list for everything I had to pay for out of pocket. And see that the band aid cost $25.00, etc.

  52. Stella*

    This answer made me pump my fist and wish I could put the ‘fire’ emoji in the comments.

    Well done, Alison.

  53. Claire*

    Your goal as an employer really shouldn’t be “pay people as little as possible” for your own sake—if you’re underpaying your employees, purposely, you’re most likely not getting the best candidates and not retaining good employees when you do hire them. Hiring shouldn’t be a battle between opponents, and treating it that way isn’t going to make for a satisfied workforce, which is bad in itself and will not be good for you either.

  54. designbot*

    Also you have better access to market information.
    Think of how many candidates you’ve asked that question of over the years. How many you’ve made offers to, gone into negotiations with. For even a small business it can easily come to the dozens very quickly. Meanwhile for the candidate, we often only know salary information about jobs we were hired or attempted to be hired for, maybe half a dozen or a dozen at most, often spread across different industries, levels, etc, which your information is more concentrated and tailored to your position.
    When you do this, you’re literally taking advantage of your superior position and banking on the ignorance of the candidates.

    2. Not So NewReader*

      And the reason is you want your wallet full.
      Well, yes, OP, it’s a well-known stereotype that medical people (lawyers, accountants, landscapers, builders, computer techs etc.) want their wallets full of money. We already have heard of this stereotype so this is not news.

      Perhaps you thought you had an opportunity to teach the ignorant masses. Alison is our guru here, OP. We will just go with what she says. She has worked with hundreds and hundreds of people. You have worked with 3? 4?
      Yeah, I think Alison is the wise bet here.

      I hope you do keep reading here, OP, because you need to understand how harmful and how damaging your hiring practice is.
      My other suggestion is that if your financial setting for your biz is so precarious that paying people a fair rate would hurt the business or hurt your wallet, then you have bigger problems than your hiring practices.

  56. Llellayena*

    I’m slightly in disagreement on this. I think if done well, asking salary expectations can screen for the things the OP is trying to avoid. The caveat is that it only works in fields where researching salaries is reasonably accurate and the role expectations are generally understood ahead of time. For the roles the OP is hiring for, that might be the case. However, how you use the salary expectations is critical. You don’t use them to “get away with” paying someone less. If your expectations are to pay someone $24/hr and their expectations are $22/hr, still pay them $24! This reduces the chance of pay disparity if a candidate lowballs themselves. The candidate providing expectations should always be immediately followed (or preceded) by the company’s salary expectations for the role so both sides are clear on how their expectations match and the role can be discussed with both ranges in mind. I do agree that this particular OP should not be asking for salary expectations because of how they state they use them. The specific attitude of using expectations to the clear detriment of the candidate is what makes this problematic. And it is more quietly harmful to the company since they may be getting less impressive candidates and may not be learning from the candidates if they need to adjust the company’s expectations to match the market.

    1. Punk Ass Book Jockey*

      I see where you’re coming from, to a point. I think the problem is we can’t trust most employers to do what you described and pay someone $24/hour when they stated a lower number. I help boards hire executive directors, and in my experience two things happen when they ask for salary expectations: people get weeded out because they state too high a number (which I think is the whole point, and a fair reason, of asking for salary expectations to begin with), or they see a low number, below what the board originally had in mind to pay, and think, “Oh, if we give them 1k more than what they asked for, they’ll think they got a great deal, and we’ll save money.” I always push to include a salary range in the job posting to avoid this.

    2. MayLou*

      This is why the employer should advertise a salary range, with a clearly considered rationale to support the range and the points within it. It’s so common in the UK that I was astounded to hear that adverts in the USA don’t include salary information.

    3. Oh No She Di'int*

      The problem is that if the employer plans to act honorably in the way you describe, then they gain nothing by not stating a salary range at the outset. If the pay is $24/hr no matter what the candidate’s “expectations” are, then the candidate’s expectations are irrelevant. There’s no benefit then to NOT stating the salary up front.

        1. Valprehension*

          Thats’s… way more than a cost of living raise in most places though? At least, my union-negotiated COL raises (which are based directly on the COL index) are around 1.5-2% per year – going from $22-24 is something like a 9% percent raise over a couple of years, that’s well over COL.

      3. Llellayena*

        My comment stands even if the candidate’s expectations are $20/hr. You should still give them the $22 rather than rejoicing that you can pay them less. For excellent candidates, you can still raise it above that, but the problems come if you take advantage of someone lowballing themselves below your original range.

  57. NW Mossy*

    Sadly, I see this type of approach to employee relations staggeringly often in small-practice settings of doctors, lawyers, and the like. It makes it abundantly clear that while the partners in the practice may be very intelligent and skilled at their chosen profession, they don’t necessarily appreciate that owning and managing a business well is a distinct and valuable skill set on its own.

    When managing the business is treated as distinctly second-tier work, that seeps into every aspect of the organization. It’s understandable that trained professionals don’t want the hassle of managing, but when that’s the case, you’ll get better results by hiring someone to deal with those things effectively than assuming that the tepid and inconsistent effort of a smart person is sufficient to build a thriving practice.

    2. Zap R.*

      “Hi, Allison. Long time reader, first time writing in. My clerk, Bob, wants Christmas off to spend with his chronically ill son. I think that’s a poor excuse for picking a man’s pocket every December the 25th. Curious to see what your readers think?”

      2. Oranges*

        But other businesses are closed! We’d make no money!

        (Which always puzzled me, aren’t they a direct to consumer business? Also I only know this via Muppet Christmas Carol…)

        1. Zap R.*

          You know? It just occurred to me after all this time that I have no idea what Mr. Scrooge’s job is.

          1. Oranges*

            Money lender. Possibly a predatory one, hard to tell since I haven’t read the book and don’t know the cultural zeitgeist vis-a-vis money lending at the time.

    1. Wintermute*

      I prefer the “Michael Jackson munching on popcorn” from the opening scene of the Thriller video. That’s a qualify .gif

  60. Jeannie*

    “Why are doctors stereotyped* as being arrogant?” Because of attitudes like yours, OP.

    *sorry all, don’t mean to offend–I’m aware it’s not a stereotype, but fact.

    1. SaffyTaffy*

      don’t forget, “medical professional” means “i’m not a doctor but i’d love it if people think i am.”

    2. RVA Cat*

      Not just doctors, but small business owners also have the stereotype of being little tin gods. If this was a family business, he’d hit the trifecta!

        1. RVA Cat*

          One of the big circles is “we’re like faaaaaamily…..”
          (I mean, so was the Manson murder cult.)

  61. Punk Ass Book Jockey*

    ” if we can get away with paying $20/hour instead of $22/hour, why wouldn’t we?”

    Oooh I’m seeing red. My understanding, and please, PLEASE correct me if I am wrong, is that the owners keep whatever profits are left at the end of the year. So, basically what this LW is saying is “why pay my employees what they’re worth when it means less money in my personal bank account?” I’m in the nonprofit sphere so obviously I’m living in a different reality than the for-profit world, but this just seems so, so icky to me.

    1. Atalanta0jess*

      Yep, as the OP notes, “the money comes directly from our pockets.” Goodness forbid you share profits with those people who help make you profitable…

      1. Punk Ass Book Jockey*

        I’m in nonprofits, so stingyness doesn’t necessarily financially benefit everyone, but I know we can pay our folks more than we do (I’ve seen the budget, our reserves, and our rollover), and I always want to ask our board if they’d do our jobs for our current pay. I suspect the answer would be no.

    2. Pommette!*

      It seems so, so icky, because it is. Having power allows you to get away with all kinds of bad things, including underpaying (or harassing, or abusing, etc.) employees… but it doesn’t give you the moral license to do them.

      The answer to the OP’s question is the same as to lots of other “why shouldn’t we” questions: because it’s wrong!

  62. surprisecanuk*

    The LW hiring practices seem predatory. What happens if someone is desperate for a job and throw out a low number like $15 an hour. Most people are afraid of mentioning too high a number, especially if your unemployed. I would be really impressed by an employer who doesn’t ask this question or offers me $24 when I say i’m looking for $20.

  63. hbc*

    “Firstly, the money comes directly from our pockets and frankly if we can get away with paying $20/hour instead of $22/hour, why wouldn’t we?”

    Well, for me, it comes down to feeling that it’s immoral to not pay people what they’re worth. The extra $20 per day split among several partners isn’t worth taking advantage of someone’s natural loyalty, trust, or ignorance of how much they could actually be making.

    That’s before you get to all the enlightened self-interest stuff about the likelihood of them leaving, the quality of people who tend to stick around for this arrangement, and how much easier it is dealing with an accusation of discrimination when your salary rationale is clear.

    1. TheAmy*

      “Well, for me, it comes down to feeling that it’s immoral to not pay people what they’re worth.”

      This. +1

    2. Wintermute*

      “Enlightened self-interest” has to be tempered with the universality test. “if everyone behaved as I [wish to] do, what world would I live in?” is a powerful question to ask yourself.

      And frankly, it’s only in your self-interest, as you point out, if you VERY narrowly construe the term. Two more dollars each hour, 80 dollars a week, in your pocket, or an employee that’s motivated to make process improvements and watch out for your best interest to the degree that they earn you far more than you’d save hiring someone less skilled and less motivated?

  64. Trying To Do The Right Thing!*

    Is it okay to pay 2 employees with similar titles different salaries, if their experience coming into the role is different? Ultimately the work would be the same at some point, but for a while the less-experienced employee would probably need more assistance from management. This is based on a real-life example, where the less-experienced employee was a woman.

    1. Mediamaven*

      I asked a similar question. I’m not aware of any law that states that everyone must be paid exactly the same. But I may not be clear on how it works. I believe someone with 5 years of experience as opposed to 3, even if they have the same title, don’t need to be paid the same.

    2. Another worker bee*

      I would think if the difference in supervision requirements was substantial, then that should be reflected in the title. Teapot Engineer vs Senior Teapot Engineer, etc.

      Also, re: years of experience – obviously 0-1 vs 2-3 is different than higher ranges, but I get annoyed by this assumption. I have a fairly senior title 5 years into my career (principal/team lead) and I’d like to think that the reason I have the same title as people with 10 years of experience is that I was good at my job. I worked alongside a guy for two years who had the same title as me and while his technical skills were on par, the dude took NO INITIATIVE ever and had to have his hand held about every small thing. Our resumes may look the same but we are not the same, and thankfully our bosses saw that, which is why I outrank him now.

    3. Observer*

      Allison explicitly addresses this, as it happens.

      Yes, you can pay people differently if you can show that it’s related to experience or or qualifications.

        1. Observer*

          Well, you do need to be able to articulate it. And it should be part of your record keeping. That’s not necessarily legally required, but it’s a way to make sure you’re actually taking the right things into account.

          1. Desk Luncher*

            Yes, precisely. There should be applied consistently throughout the hiring process like if you were paying a premium for a particular certification or experience in a very specific software etc. I think where companies usually run into pay disparity trouble is hiring aggressively for a ‘go getter’ or ‘great potential’ since it subjective and difficult to illustrate.

        2. hbc*

          Yeah, you need some thought process behind it and written down, even if it’s an email to HR at the time that says, “Given our pay range of $20-24/hr and Jane having five years experience, we should put her at $23.” That’ll go a heck of a long way if Fergus who was hired straight out of school files a claim because he’s only making $20 and doing the same job.

          But the more people you have, the more you want a real structure, because it doesn’t make sense to keep paying Fergus $20 after five years, especially if you’d still hire an outside person with five years experience at $23.

  65. anonanners*

    I am in Higher Ed. My HR asks for prior pay for all positions at the time of application. They also ask for the candidate’s expected salary range at the time of an initial phone screen.

    I was asked to be on a task force evaluating our efforts to recruit more staff of color, and I asked why they operate this way and whether they would consider removing those questions (posting the pay range in the job ad or giving it in the initial phone screen), seeing as women and people of color are disproportionately negatively affected by both of these practices.

    Their response was that, because salaries are lower in Higher Ed than they are for similar positions in industry, they think that candidates from the corporate world will be turned off by the salary range for the positions. However, they feel that those same candidates are often OK with the pay range once HR has a chance to explain the excellent benefits given by the university (which…I would not classify exactly as excellent, unless you or a family member wants a degree, then they’re great). They ask for previous pay in the job application so they know whether they’re going to have to hard sell the benefits in the phone screen.

    This explanation does not really address why they can’t just give the salary range in the phone screen, which is when they also explain the benefits package, but I can kind of see their reasoning for not putting it in the job posting. That said, the nearby state universities are all required to post salary ranges and ours are usually better, so I think it would be to their benefit to disclose this information. Does anyone have any other reasoning/evidence I can use to make a case for why it would be good to just give the salary range?

    (Although I generally like our HR, there are some leaders within the university who have a not-dissimilar attitude to this LW regarding staff pay in particular, so I’m not sure how far I’ll get)

    1. Frankie*

      I feel like that’s also kind of a cop-out for HR/the recruiter. So you know people will try to negotiate the top of the range…so? If you have justification for why your offer might be lower, that’s a discussion you’re allowed to have. It’s part of your job.

    2. Llellayena*

      If you’re in the US you can point out that several states are making it illegal to ask for past salaries as that is a huge factor in discriminatory underpayment. Aside from that, if they don’t lower their range when a candidate states expectations below the range, I don’t think they’re doing too badly. I don’t think there’s a good reason for withholding the range if asked or if discussing benefits, especially if you pay more than similar jobs nearby.

    3. another scientist*

      hmm, their logic is ‘when we have a candidate who is highly paid, we give them a hard sell and make sure to lay out all our excellent benefits to attract that candidate. When we have a candidate who is less highly paid (likely to be a woman or POC), we try… less hard’?
      This is where they end up attracting mainly white men. The benefits information and other info about the job, provided in the phone screen, should be even among candidates. ALSO, relevant information about parental leave and childcare options should always be provided to candidates of any gender, and voluntarily, not by request.
      If you can make them see that their spiel should be standardized, then the next logical step would be that they no longer need the salary information.
      I think your point is also excellent, if you have better salary bands than nearby institutions, but you are the only ones not disclosing, you miss out on a chance to attract applicants. Maybe you can make an experiment. Two jobs with the same salary range and similar description. Post one with salary information and the other without. See what the applicant pools look like.

    4. Liz T*

      If they think the benefits are so good why not just emphasize them to everyone? “Oh this person doesn’t make much right now, so they don’t need to hear about our awesome benefits” does not actually make much sense.

    5. nnn*

      You could also include in the job posting a brief description of the benefits (emphasizing aspects that make you stand out from other employers), with a link to a full description of the benefits. If you word it in a way that makes it clear that there are more benefits than candidates might initially expect, you could attract the attention of people who would see better benefits as a fair trade-off for less salary.

      Another possible compromise: if you use standard salary bands, you could say on the job posting “Salary band C”, with a link to a site that will provide information about the salary bands AND the benefits. So anyone who cares enough to click through to find out the salary will also have information about the benefits.

    6. MsSolo*

      There’s something similar in that thought process to the OP’s (taking them at their word in the comments they are an excellent employer in spite of the behaviour outlined in the letter) – knowing you’re a good choice, even a better choice than the competition, but making the deliberate decision to masquerade as a bad employer because… of reasons… If your university pays better than other local options, they should want to trumpet that from the rooftops. Competitive salary for the area! Great benefits! Transparent hiring process!

  66. learnedthehardway*

    When I’m recruiting and can’t disclose a salary range, it’s normally because we’re finding that candidates will expect the top of the salary range, if we disclose it – whether or not they are actually qualified and appropriate at that salary level. The salary game doesn’t happen just on one side.

    That said, when we’re recruiting, we’re not trying to get the least expensive candidate we can get – we’re trying to get the best candidate, at a salary that works for them and for us, and that reflects the new hire’s worth to the company.

    The letter-writer’s attitude is horrid, and doesn’t bode well for them to attract great candidates, or to retain employees in anything but a recession.

    1. Antilles*

      Could you then just modify the way you describe ranges? If you’re finding that candidates normally expect the high end of your range but that’s actually *not* what you normally pay, why not just lower the high end of your range to describe your realistic maximum?
      Let’s say you’re planning to pay somewhere around $50k, with a realistic max of $52k, but flexibility to do $55k but only if it’s a truly elite stellar candidate.
      If listing $45k-$55k gets you every candidate expecting $55k, then maybe list the salary as $45k-$52k, with additional salary available for truly exceptional candidates….then if a unicorn candidate walks in the door, nothing stops you from upping the listed rate.

      1. Jackalope*

        I once applied for a job that gave very specific info on salaries, along the lines of $X for 2 yrs of experience or a BA; $Y for 4 yrs or MA; or $Z for 6 yrs or PhD (or something along those lines). Very clear reasons for each salary band and I knew exactly why I got the offer I did.

    2. nnn*

      It’s always surprised me that employers see “candidates will expect the top of the salary range” as a problem.

      Offer the candidate what you’re willing to pay them based on what they bring to the job. If they want more, they’ll say no thank you and you can go with another candidate.

      If you find yourself thinking “But they’re a good candidate and I don’t want to lose them!” then that’s a good reason to pay them more.

      2. Just a thought*

        This is my response as well. If you say every candidate has unrealistic expectations for their place in the salary range listed, you have a couple options:

        1) Acknowledge that your range does not cover the role, so even mediocre candidates are at the top-end of it
        2) Stay firm on the offer and decline a candidate that refuses to go for less than what you’re willing to pay
        3) Make applicants in the right range happy and confident that they understand what the job will be asking of them

        If you see people expecting the top of the salary range always, it might also simply be that employees are trained to ask for more than they expect to get simply BECAUSE they know they’re going to get argued down from it. “Ask for more than you’re willing to settle on – best case, you get it; worst case, you get no job with an employer who was willing to drop you without discussion over a number.”

        1. we're basically gods*

          All the advice I’ve seen for negotiation has included a bit about needing to add several thousand dollars on top of what you actually want, so you can get negotiated down and seem like you’re being reasonable and acquiescing.

      3. Semprini!*

        It’s like it isn’t enough to pay the candidates less, they want the candidates to ask to be paid less.

    3. Alice*

      As Frankie says above — if the company can’t explain to a candidate why they’re slotting in in the bottom or middle of the salary range instead of the top, how is the company going to communicate about expectations and performance later on in the employment relationship? Raises, promotions, annual reviews.

  67. Cyndy*

    I know Washington State recently passed a law stating that employees must have an established range before posting any job and that range must be legally made available to any candidate who requests it. Is that true anywhere else?

    1. Allypopx*

      That’s awesome! Washington State tends to be ahead of the curve on these kind of things and I haven’t heard of it anywhere else, but I hope that becomes a trend.

    3. irene adler*

      Sort of. In California, the hiring salary range must be revealed if requested- but only after the first interview. Note: phone **screenings** don’t count as a first interview.

      So recruiters are now asking candidates to reveal what their expected salary is for the position. They caution that they are NOT asking for salary history. Just an idea of what the candidate is looking for in salary.

  68. Allypopx*

    How much energy goes into these mind games? How do you extrapolate a staffing budget based on what someone may or may not ask to be paid? How many good employees do you lose – deservedly, I might add – over this kind of thing?

    Just thinking about it exhausts me. Just decide what you’re going to pay people and put it in your damn ad.

  70. CatCat*

    If your relationship with your employees is “what can I get away with” then that’s what you’ll end up getting in return (followed by attrition).

  71. Zap R.*

    “Firstly, the money comes directly from our pockets and frankly if we can get away with paying $20/hour instead of $22/hour, why wouldn’t we?”

    My dude.

    MY DUDE.

    What are you even doing

    1. AndersonDarling*

      And I REALLY doubt the OP was squabbling over $2/hour. I bet the reality is more like,”if we can get away with paying $12/hour instead of $24/hour, why wouldn’t we?”

  72. Mediamaven*

    How does it work if you have two employees at the same title, but you pay one more because he/she has more years of experience and brought more to the table (maybe contacts, or more relevant experience). That doesn’t seem like it should be illegal.

    1. Rockin Takin*

      Allison explained it in her response. That isn’t illegal if the skills/experience difference is obvious and explains the disparity in pay.
      The problem is if you’re hiring people all at the same level, with the same experience/skills, but paying them differently.

    2. Adereterial*

      Alison’s reply specifically says paying two people different amounts based on seniority or merit is still acceptable. So it would appear not to be illegal.

    4. Just a thought*

      My experience with the gender disparity pay unfairness concept is that unless you’re working for a large company with many people in the same exact role, it’s completely irrelevant. Working at a company with 50 people and 2-3 other people in your title means, well, every little difference is magnified and could be great cause for the disparity! This person had 1 more year of direct experience to your 3 years of indirect; she’s been in this exact same role at another company and you were in the same titled role at one slightly outside the industry, etc.

      Basically meaningless unless it’s grossly overt. Having escaped a RIDICULOUSLY sexist industry (video games), I feel pretty confident that it’s only very recently, and only in the largest companies, that anything is happening with this. (See: Riot Games)

    5. Health Insurance Nerd*

      That isn’t illegal. If you have two employees and one has more experience, you’re justified in in paying them in accordance with their experience. As long as there is legitimate justification in the salary disparity between the two people, there is no issue.

  73. Frankie*

    Hi LW,

    I worked at a place that directly admitted they “lagged the market” and did everything they could to pay their employees the least amount possible.

    I started with them as a temp and despite my excellent work, they waited until much longer than my temp agency needed to hire me on. They paid me lower than everyone else, despite my objectively higher productivity, because they “could,” because I came in as a temp with little bargaining power. When I started taking on much more work than my title indicated and outperforming the person the next level up (they were incompetent due to addiction and I essentially had to do it), they refused to up my salary even a little bit (this person made double what I did and they wouldn’t even give me a few thousand dollars more).

    They finally let the incompetent person go, and still wouldn’t change my title to reflect the new work I was asked to do or give me more than a COLA (but naturally wanted me to keep doing the work). So I finally left, got a big raise and a title in line with what I did, and I heard through the grapevine later that the director was complaining in staff meetings about how hard it was to replace me (probably also because they were still lowballing candidates, probably). They eventually had to hire two people and pay them each 1.5x what I had been making.

    So they actually could have saved money and time spent recruiting and training if they had just tried to pay a fair wage for the work in the first place. But because the head of the division was obsessed with lowballing and getting “bargain” employees, he drove out a lot of top performers and created enormous equity issues.

    That experience really drove home for me that at the end of the day, the place that pays you decently and fairly is the place that truly values you. And it’s also the place that attracts better workers, so everyone wins, and the company does better.

  74. Quill*

    Turned up 100% for the tea, because OP…. OP you are reaching very far to justify what you know is playing dirty pool.

  76. Jo*

    OP, your system should work for both your benefit AND that of your employees. It’s not just about saving money but paying a salary that’s reasonable for you and also fairly rewards your staff. That will enable you to attract and retain talent and be more successful in the long run much more than saving a few dollars an hour will. I also wonder, if this is how you approach salary negotiation, does this also carry over into other areas, for example, when looking at raises and bonuses, travel expenses, holiday allowance, allowing employees to take discretionary time off, and so on. The employer – employee relationship is meant to work both ways – you pay a fair salary, the employee provides their labour in exchange. If you’re screwing employees out of the best possible salary, or those other things I mentioned, you might find you’re also screwing yourself out of getting and retaining the best talent for your company.

  77. I May Be a Little More Than Perturbed*

    Any employer who has to state they are an excellent employer is likely not an excellent employer. Having two employees who haven’t left your company doesn’t mean you’re a good employer. Saying your employees “seem happy” doesn’t mean you’re a good employer. It means you have two people who don’t complain TO YOU and haven’t found an opportunity that they’re willing to risk their current situation for. And I’m just going to add, that if you feel the need to proactively justify and validate your own business practices to an expert in professional human relations, you’re also not a good employer. You’re just a stereotypical boss who thinks your **** don’t stink. But, it does.

  78. Essess*

    Agreed! I originally did my current job (same type of duties, different company) in a small rural midwest town. I later moved to a major tech-centric high-population city. My salary is currently over 3 times what I made in the small town and my salary is within the normal market range in this location. The first place I interviewed with in this big city (several years ago) pulled that same thing…. they asked for my current salary and offered me about 1K higher than what I was making in the rural city. I didn’t know the market rates in the big city at that time so I took it. Turns out that I was making about $30K lower than entry level coworkers coming from previous jobs within the city. That was partly my fault for not knowing that employers could be so unscrupulous since all my previous positions had been for decent employers. I left within 3 months for a job a few blocks away that paid double what they were paying me.

  79. AndersonDarling*

    The really key point in Alison’s response is that only the employer knows the job. If you advertise for an Office Manager, that can mean so many different things! Someone could think that they will just answer phones and make appointment and ask for $16/hr, but then they find out that they will be a software administrator and IT tech for all the equipment. They will need to negotiate contracts with contractors. And they need to put up with bullying customers all day because the doctor is a jerk. Oh yeah, and they are the only person in the office so they can only take off one day at a time. And don’t forget dealing with health insurance companies!
    Some of this may be mentioned in the job ad, but the candidate doesn’t really know how much each qualification play into every day activities. Only the hiring manager knows the demands and skills. So if you hire a $16/hr person to do a $25/hr job, then they will leave in a month, or even worse, they will stay and make a mess of everything as they struggle to succeed.

  80. littlelizard*

    How do we feel about employers who post jobs with a range but ask for salary expectations with applications? What do people do in that situation (when the range is outlined but you’re expected to provide your own upfront)?

    1. Faith*

      I think if they’re providing the range up front, it’s not terrible to ask for salary *expectations* because it’s essentially negotiating salary at that point, and saving everyone the trouble of an interview if the range and expectations aren’t in the same ballpark.
      Asking for previous salary history/related info wouldn’t be cool, though.

    2. Just a thought*

      We’re largely working off “no range provided” so it’s a different coin to flip. In my opinion, being given a range and then asked to specify my place within that range would seem odd — it’s a range, so it depends a lot on the specific requirements of the role and my relative applicability which is something that typically only becomes clear during an interview — but more tolerable.

    3. we're basically gods*

      I’d feel much better knowing what the range was! Then I’d already know that my needs and expectations were aligned with the company, and I’d know what the appropriate numbers were.

  81. Elbe*

    The tone of the letter makes it seem like the LW thinks she’s very clever indeed for finding ways to “get away with” paying her employees less.

    There’s nothing smart or clever about this approach. Taking advantage of power dynamics and knowledge imbalances in order to shortchange someone is absolutely common as dirt. There’s nothing new or fresh about employers doing everything they can to pay their employees the bare minimum. Being selfish is very easy.

    What is actually hard is building a business that can be both successful and ethical. Do THAT and I’ll think you’re clever.

    2. Wintermute*

      Bingo. This is not some clever life hack, it was already old when the wages were being paid in salt, grain and a few Roman Dinarii.

  82. Former Medical Assistant*

    Yikes, I worked at a place run by people like this and it was awful. This attitude does not make for a great leader. I quit after I did some math on the average number of surgeries per week at the medicare reimbursement rate (not including office visits or accounting for the higher rates reimbursed by most PPOs), vs why they “couldn’t” pay me more than the barely living wage rate at the time, or cover the cost of professional development in any form, or offer health insurance.

  83. Anonymous for this, colleagues read here*

    Here’s a problem we have at my state university with respect to stating a salary range.

    We state the range. We interview candidates. We make an offer to a candidate, who negotiates for a higher salary (and more power to her, I say). If the salary is high enough, WE CANNOT HIRE THE CANDIDATE for that job opening. No, we must ADVERTISE A NEW POSITION WITH THE HIGHER SALARY — the amount negotiated by the candidate — for a short period of time (generally one business week). At the end of that time, we can then offer the “new” job to the candidate.

    Reasoning that I have been told: because people may not have applied for the lesser amount and they need to be given an opportunity to apply.

    In practice: Nobody actually looks at the applications that come in for the “new” position. We have been instructed to “give these applicants a fair chance”, but it’s well-known that NOBODY does so.

    This has happened for internal positions as well.

    Now, my problem with this is that it’s unethical and really shitty — people are putting time and effort and *hope* into applying for this job with a nice salary when NONE OF THEM have the tiniest chance at all of even being looked at.

    So we are in the incredibly crappy position of having to say “salary commensurate with experience” rather than giving a range. It’s either be crappy, or be unethical.

    1. Anonymous for this, colleagues read here*

      And of course, no one is going back to all the people who previously applied and alerting them to this “opportunity”.

      Arrrrghghghghghgh

    2. Anonymous for this, colleagues read here*

      Also, the candidate we want to hire does not have to actually submit another application for the “new” position.

      Arrrghghghghghghghghgh!!!!!!!!!!!

      1. Senor Montoya*

        Word. There are a lot of other good reasons to work in academia and at my particular institution, but hiring practices are banana-crackers. I’m involved in a fair number of our department’s searches — lately my boss says, So, Senor Montoya, I have a giant favor to ask you, and please think of what I can take off your plate if you agree to do it.

    4. MCMonkeyBean*

      Honestly I can see the logic in that, but I can also see how it’s the sort of thing that makes more sense in theory than in practice.

  84. Stormy Weather*

    if we can get away with paying $20/hour instead of $22/hour, why wouldn’t we?

    Because
    –$22 might actually be in line with market rate, which isn’t that hard to research
    –You should be paying fair wages to all of your employees.
    –You want to attract people worth $22/hour and keep them

    LW, by saying ‘get away with’ indicates you know you are doing something wrong. Stop acting like a defiant child. A small business isn’t more justified in paying low wages than a big corporation is.

    1. SheLooksFamiliar*

      That’s my take, too. ‘Getting away with’ something as the employer is very telling, isn’t it?

  85. yllis*

    Nothing better than working for a boss that right from the start thinks “what can I get away with” at the expense of the employees.

  86. CW*

    No offense, but the tone of this letter sounds extremely childish. Kudos to Allison for staying cool while answering this.

    These salary questions do not do favors for either side. I know because I have personal experience. When I was on the market while working for a low-paying temp job, I got an offer on the spot for an accounting firm. It was a permanent position. Then the salary question came. The end result? I was only offered $15/hr and there was no room for negotiation. This was for a junior accountant role where the market rate was AT LEAST $47,000/yr in my geographical area. My heart sank. Because I was desperate for full time work, I naively accepted it. Needless to say, I was less than thrilled and I didn’t even last 6 months there. In fact, I continued to stay on the market rather than stay loyal.

    Now a few years later, I am employed elsewhere and my current employer didn’t even bring up salary. I am getting paid the market rate based on my experience and I am very happy here.

    Now, this article asks about salary expectations, not salary history. It is no secret that asking salary history is now illegal in some parts of the United States, but asking for salary expectations is just as uncomfortable even though it is still legal.

  87. Radical Edward*

    Oh, this is THE red flag. If it’s the only one you see, it’s enough. Employers who double down on this in the face of every argument and fact presented here are really sending just one crystal-clear message: They’re looking for doormats. And they’re looking for desperation and low self-esteem/less awareness in candidates precisely because they are not going to consider the needs of others, nor will they take the trouble to adhere to best practices in any other situation. If someone is *this* concerned about saving a few bucks per hour, nothing else will ever get better and things will get progressively worse for the business and the employees. I wish I didn’t speak from long years of experience, but I do.

    It’s incredibly hard to deal with this now that I’m job hunting, but I am so glad to finally have internalized Alison’s rebuttals. Thank you, AAM, for giving me the tools to hopefully avoid this trap in the future.

  88. ceiswyn*

    Though it is heartening to see a business actually admit that the reason they don’t give their expectations is that they want to underpay their employees. We all knew it; now it is confirmed.

    1. Elbe*

      But she runs a SMALL BUSINESS, so it’s okay. Everyone knows that only large companies are obligated to pay their employees fairly.

      1. Essess*

        And an individual employee of a small business don’t actually eat as much compared to an employee of a large business, and doesn’t have rent/utility bills. They just live in cardboard boxes and live off the air they breathe. Only employees of big businesses have living expenses. (sarcasm, in case it isn’t obvious) :-D

  89. Ferret*

    Just to be clear , you’d be completely happy getting the same pay as someone doing the same job as you in rural Afghanistan?

  90. C*

    Once I got to the point in my career where I had many good options, I stopped applying to places that do not list their salary or where I cannot quickly get the salary range off of someone. I encourage other people with options to do the same. If a job lists, DOE I assume they mean to pay me as little as they can possibly get away with and will be scrooges of employers. Maybe not all of them are but I’d rather start out on a straightforward foot.

  91. animaniactoo*

    LW, Alison’s answer probably won’t change your mind much. But just for reference, this is a summary of how I see your letter:

    “I have a bunch of spurious based-in-debunked theories about employees and salary expectations/needs, and I will use them to get away with paying as little as I can, regardless of what they are actually worth. I will ignore the fact that all the reasons I gave are the same reasons why I may get less-qualified candidates, and why the qualified ones I do get may be more prone to leaving when they figure out that they are underpaid. Because in the meantime, I can save money! Money! Instead of appropriately valuing and paying the people who work here.”

    For reference? It comes out of “your pocket”? Let me tell you something about your pocket: It doesn’t get the money in without their work, right? Even if a 3rd grader could do the work, you still need SOMEBODY to do it, or you don’t have a business, right? Well then you damn well better make it worth their while to keep doing it. And not just by their “oh god please let this not be too much money to take me out of the running for this job” valuation. Because that’s just preying on the desperate. You better make it worth their while by how necessary it is to your business.

    Your small office and 2 long-term staffers are anecdata for how well it works/how satisfied they are, not a proven process. Btw, how on earth do you know how satisfied they are vs being scared for their job stability? Because you are not a person they can be honest with if they value their jobs. Thinking that you know this kind of info for sure based on “appearance” is pure arrogance.

    2. Rusty Shackelford*

      Of course the money comes out of your pocket. Because it all goes into your pocket. That’s how owning a business works.

  92. M. Epp*

    “Firstly, the money comes directly from our pockets…”

    And it goes into your employees’ pockets. They’re also people with needs, just like you. The employer-employee relationship is supposed to mutually beneficial.

    Yes, you have a right to look after your own interests. But doing it in such a willfully obtuse way may not be the best way to do that. What are the problems and missed opportunities, etc., that you’re choosing not to see by operating like this? Listen and learn, for your own sake.

    1. londonedit*

      Yeah, I think the OP needs to stop seeing the business as their own personal bank account. That’s not how it works.

    2. Elbe*

      Yeah, it’s pretty surprising to see the OP fairly clearly lay out that she’s proud and unapologetic about taking money out of their employee’s pocket so that they can put it in their own.

  93. incompetemp's colleague*

    I don’t know if it’s because I live in Canada or because I use different resources to look for jobs, but I’ve never once in my life seen a job posting WITHOUT the salary clearly listed on it. Not once. Not even for fast food jobs. It absolutely boggles my mind why an employer wouldn’t list their salary on the job application. It boggles my mind why someone would apply to a job without knowing the salary.

    For me, it’s the equivalent of going to a store without prices, having to invest all that time finding what I want and bringing it to the cash register, only to THEN see whether this is a grossly over-priced store or a place for good deals. If you don’t list the price, I’m just going to walk out of your store and go to another one.

    But I get the sense from a lot of these letters that not having the numbers listed is the norm, so I’m not saying anything against employees. If no one lists their salaries, obviously you still need a job and you gotta apply with or without. But I don’t get the culture. It baffles me.

    1. Just a thought*

      I’d say that’s Canada.

      American employment culture is still very antagonistic, and it does not seem like we will be returning to the times of employee surplus anytime soon. That means the employers are the ones with power in nearly ALL facets of American life, so of course they’re going to hold their cards close and use their ability to squeeze every penny of profit out of their working base whenever they can.

      Why list what you’re willing to offer if the dumb rubes will underprice themselves?

    2. iglwif*

      I’m also in Canada, and I see lots of job postings that don’t list salary–although also lots that do. I wonder if it just varies a lot by industry? Or by region? Or both?

      I agree that listing salary up front is 100% the best way to proceed, for both employer and candidates. I worked for a long time for a not-for-profit company that refused to do so, with about the results you’d expect :P

    3. blueberry muffins*

      Oh, that’s totally your field. I’m also in Canada in engineering, and salaries are never posted – you absolutely have no idea what the range is.

  94. A Simple Narwhal*

    This reminds me of the person who wrote the “I reject applicants who don’t send thank you notes” article.

    I don’t mean to pile onto this person, (though I will admit that Alison’s response was so delightfully delicious that I had to lean back in my chair and contemplate all the wonders life has to offer) but the “if we can get away with the cheaper salary, why wouldn’t we” is really a penny-wise-pound-foolish approach. Sure, you save a couple bucks today, but you’ll lose out on all the benefits of a hard-working, loyal employee tomorrow, and that can make or break you in a small office that is fronted by your employees. Who’s going to give better service? An employee who feels like a valued member of your team or someone who knows that the company/owner got them for the cheapest price possible and would pay them even less if they could?

    Plus it’s really gross/selfish to try and make more money for yourself by taking money from an employee. You say the money for their salary comes directly out of your pockets – ok, so why should they should take money out of theirs to line yours? If you want to make more money then find it elsewhere, don’t skin your employees.

    Again, apologies for the pile-on, but this letter felt tone-deaf and very one-sided. Perhaps your employees are perfectly happily and feel well-compensated and valued, but I’d be interested to hear from their point of view.

    1. Senor Montoya*

      Plus the costs (in money or in resources such as time, other work not getting done, etc) of hiring and training.

  95. bluephone*

    “So there you have it from a brazenly unapologetic employer who plans to continue asking the question.”
    Good job, sport, now get your blankie and pacifier because it’s bedtime. Mommy and Daddy are going to watch their grown up shows.

  96. zimmertaco*

    The employer’s letter seems defensive about a practice that … seems entirely hypothetical. LW employs two staff members who have been there for 8 and 15 years. When, exactly, did the LW last interview a candidate.

    If LW hasn’t experienced any ill effects from this practice, it’s probably because it’s been 8 years since LW has last employed it. I should think that any employer who *regularly* hires employees will readily agree with Alison’s response.

  97. Rusty Shackelford*

    It also gives us room for raises, bonuses, etc. without taking too much of a financial hit.

    So, you like to pay as little as possible, because it allows you to give raises and bonuses without spending too much money? Um. Okay.

    1. fposte*

      It’s kind of like when my allowance was a nickel and I felt like a millionaire when my parents threw in a couple of extra pennies.

  98. ACDC*

    OP, I’m not going to pile on, because I think it is very clear that nearly everyone coming to this site does not agree with you. However, let me provide a scenario for you to think about… Let’s say you are in a position where you aren’t running your own practice anymore and you need to find a position elsewhere. Let’s say you get a call about a job that is interested in hiring you, but they don’t tell you their salary range and they want you to state what you want. Let’s say you’ve never read AAM before or gotten professional advice on how to do this – so you state a number that’s comfortable to you. Maybe that employer thinks to themselves “SCORE! She will take $20k less than we were willing to pay, this is great!” You’ll likely never find out that they would have paid you more, but what if you did? How would you feel? I know I would feel pretty small and disheartened if I learned that I was being treated like an object instead of like a person. If you would feel this way too, then I suggest you reread Allison’s advice and apply it to your business. Treating your employees like people will get you a lot further in the long run then treating them like objects.

    1. Whew Boy*

      Not being able to (or care about) viewing this issue from the perspective of a job seeker is a big red flag for OP as an employer.

      1. Not So NewReader*

        This perspective does not bode well for their patients/customers.
        “Jane has cancer. Let’s see how much money I can get in my wallet on this one.”

  99. Senor Montoya*

    The difference between $22/hour and $24/hour is $4,160 (52 weeks of 40 hours/week).

    For two employees, that’s $8,320.

    If that’s going to break your medical practice financially, you have serious financial problems.

    OP, you point to your two loyal employees whom you’ve apparently been underpaying for 8 and 15 years. It’s sad that they are loyal to you, but you do not return the favor. No doubt there are other reasons they like working in your office — are they aware that you’re underpaying them $4K a year? That they could have earned $3200 and $60K more if they worked somewhere else and that you are ok with that?

  100. Rockin Takin*

    If you have a small business you still have to pay people a fair wage. If you have a pay range then why play cat and mouse with the interviewee? It just wastes time in the interview process.

    My uncle owns a small company that has maybe 50-100 employees. He struggles sometimes but he doesn’t treat people unfairly or pay people less because it’s hard to maintain a small company. Instead, he focuses on reducing costs elsewhere and improving sales. If the answer to the business woes is garnish salaries, then something is wrong with the business model.

  101. stitchinthyme*

    “Firstly, the money comes directly from our pockets and frankly if we can get away with paying $20/hour instead of $22/hour, why wouldn’t we?”

    Because it’s a total morale killer and can cost you good employees if they find out that they’re being paid less than market value because they didn’t know they should be asking for more.

    This happened to me in my first job out of college. I didn’t have any idea of how much I should be asking for so I pretty much just picked a number I could live on. Months later I accidentally found out that a coworker who’d been hired after me, also just out of college (so it’s not like she had any more experience than I did), was making $7K more a year, because that’s what she had asked for. I realized that I’d been lowballed because I hadn’t known how much I should be asking for, but it made me immediately start looking for a job.

    1. Harley*

      *I became a small business owner/employer having received no training in that aspect of things*
      It kind of shows. You’re getting away with it and while it has worked for you in the past, it won’t sustain in a long run.

    2. Emily*

      I’ve been there as well. It really soured me on the employer. It’s not like there’s one number that’s going to make me happy long-term – the number I’m happy with is a function of the job I’m doing and my market value. No one likes feeling taken advantage of.

  102. Leela*

    “Firstly, the money comes directly from our pockets and frankly if we can get away with paying $20/hour instead of $22/hour, why wouldn’t we?”

    People who think like you are why we now have contract work to avoid paying healthcare and sick days and why the economy is tanking and younger generations are screwed. You’re bad for the world. Knock it off.

  103. Beverly C*

    There’s a flaw in your reasoning: you say that if an employee seeks $24/hr and you’re paying $20-22/hr, you want to weed them out so they won’t keep searching after you hire them. Have you considered that they’re offering a high estimate, expecting negotiation? You want to find out if they’re willing to work for less, and they want to find out if you’re willing to pay more. You’re both negotiating.

      2. Close Bracket*

        Bc by your own admission, you are *not* doing this. Your stated reasons *are* horribly immoral.

      4. Sunflower Sea Star*

        Oh for the love. The amount of willful pretending that no one is explaining stuff to you is ridiculous. If you would have a *smidge* of humility, drop your defensiveness, and read the replies trying to understand, you would already know.
        But you’re still brazenly unapologetic and asking “why is it so bad?”
        You don’t understand because you willfully WON’T understand.

      7. jamberoo*

        OP, I think your true problem is that due to your ‘self-taught’ beginnings you do not have a strong nor deep understanding of how to interview, to say nothing of how to negotiate. Honestly, I think you are simply afraid of or uncomfortable with confrontation and negotiation, so you try to get around it by holding all the cards yourself and taking power and knowledge away from your interviewees.

        That’s a big flaw.

      8. Not So NewReader*

        OP go back and read Alison’s response.
        Then read every response here again until you get it.
        Everyone is telling you what is wrong.
        And the comments are not “suggesting” it is wrong, they are telling you “IT IS WRONG.”

        All the way through these threads it feels like you have not read a word that is written here. Your responses are very deaf.

      9. Des*

        Are you trolling OP?

        Because, as Alison has said in her excellent answer, women and minorities will likely ask for less than men, because of social norms and conditioning. Are you okay with paying someone less based on their gender or race and thus breaking the law?

        Sheesh!

  104. LadyCop*

    Also like to point out that if someone asks for $24/he and you’re only willing to pay $22/he, that’s not a large enough discrepancy to assume they’ll be unhappy and look elsewhere…

    I realize people who are ignorant to business practices think of employers as nameless, faceless, pits of money…but that doesn’t mean you get to throw integrity out the window. Nor is your money more sacred just because you’re smaller.

  108. Yvette*

    Sadly this “First, your current practice is likely to lead you to break the law. The Equal Pay Act of 1963 makes it illegal for you to pay a man and woman differently for doing the same work. So if you have a man who negotiated a higher salary than a woman did, and they’re doing substantially equal work, you are violating federal law.” will probably never come into play. Just about every Dr. office I have ever been in tends to have only women working there.

    But genuinely curious, Alison, does the Equal Pay Act take into account experience? Someone who has worked somewhere longer and is better at their should be making more than someone just out of school. And don’t some employers reward loyalty with raises? Or am I missing something?

    1. Diahann Carroll*

      It does take experience into account – Alison has noted that several times when discussing this topic.

    2. Important Moi*

      “Someone who has worked somewhere longer and is better at their should be making more than someone just out of school.” – Yeah, they should. No one said they shouldn’t. Experience and Skill should be rewarded. The issue is that consistently women and people of color don’ get rewarded as people who are not women and people of color.

      “And don’t some employers reward loyalty with raises?” – I guess it would be up to that employer.

      “ Or am I missing something?” – I don’t work in HR. Maybe someone who does can respond to you and provide nuance.

      The Equal Pay Act is not a farce to ensure that unqualified people are overpaid. It exists for just the opposite, qualified people should be paid fairly. The tone of your question make me uncomfortable.

  110. Sedna*

    And this letter right here is why I don’t respond to job ads that don’t have, at minimum, a salary range.

  111. AngryAngryAlice*

    “For what it’s worth, we are excellent employers…”

    Haha nope! If you were excellent employers, you would care about your staff enough to pay them all high wages that properly compensate them for the work they do, regardless of the number they give you. If the money is coming from your own pockets and you feel it’s unsustainable or bad for business to pay good living wages, then maybe you shouldn’t own a business.

    Listen to Alison, repent excessively, and do better moving forward (or sell your business to someone who will). This letter is gross. You are behaving very badly, and you should not be proud that you are doing this to fellow human beings.

      2. Senor Montoya*

        Wondering if the raises have gotten them up to market value, or if even with the raises they are still underpaid compared to market — for people with 8 years and 15 years experience (or more, don’t know how much experience they brought to your office), are they being paid what the market pays people with that level of experienc. (Genuine question, not being snarky)

      3. SunnySideUp*

        So, a $22-an-hour employee is taking home maybe 32,900 after taxes but w/o deductions factored in (like health insurance, which I assume you’re providing).

        How much is a 2BR rental in your area, OP?

      4. Salty Caramel*

        What’s your definition of ‘well’? here. If it’s not decently above the midpoint of the market rate, it’s not ‘well.’

      6. Sunflower Sea Star*

        YOU SAY YOU DON’T PAY THEM WELL.
        YOU say you pay them as little as you can “get away with”
        When you said it, we took you at your word.

      7. Rusty Shackelford*

        If you do pay well, why don’t you want to advertise that fact? Wouldn’t advertising a well-paid job bring in the best applicants?

      8. Not So NewReader*

        YOU say you don’t pay them well. You say you make them guess their pay rate at their job and you see what you can get away with. It’s money out of your wallet you are saying.

        No one wants to wait years to get a fair rate of pay. No one.

      9. Salty Caramel*

        You described a raise in another comment as going from $22 to $24 over a couple of years. That’s not generous, that’s not paying well. What do you do, dole it out at fifty cents an hour over time?

  113. BlondeSpiders*

    I think Alison’s advice is spot-on, but having spent a majority of my working life in the <$22/hr world, I think her advice will fall on deaf ears. The "quality candidate" argument really only works when you're paying people more, and with larger companies.
    This employer, a small business with 2 employees, will not give 2 sh*ts about what bigger and better companies do. They're concerned with that extra $2/hr ($80 per week!) that they don't have to pay an employee.

  114. Observer*

    You say that you are an excellent employer, but you actually don’t present a single plausible reason for anyone to actually believe you. The fact that you have two employees who “seem” happy (how would you even know?) and who don’t believe they have other options doesn’t mean anything.

    It could be that they are happy because they are barely functional and they do know that they couldn’t get a decent job anywhere else, in which case you’re throwing money in the garbage. It could be that they’ve accepted the low pay because their experience during the recession scarred them, but they are not engaged, in which case you’re getting a lot less work than you could. Or it could be that they are actively unhappy, in which case, it’s almost certainly affecting the quality of their work that does negatively affect your bottom line although that can be hard to quantify.

    Which is to say that if ethics don’t move you, your own self interest should.

  115. jiminy_cricket*

    Hey – I hope you’ll be open to learning as you encouraged the letter writer to be! Statements like, “This is true if the genders are reversed, too — you can’t pay men and women differently, period” reinforce the gender binary. We know that there are more than two genders, and I’m positive that you have non-binary readers who would love to see you modeling inclusive language in this respect. You’re super good at this, generally. A possible rephrase would be, “This is true regardless of one’s gender, you can’t pay genders differently for the same work, period.”

    Thank you for all you do.

  118. It's a New Day!*

    Hey Alison: You’ve left workers with disabilities, particularly visible ones, off the list. They are often coming to the table knowing that as soon as the interviewer sets eyes on them they will have a million biases in their minds about the applicant’s abilities, the veracity of their resume and references, and how uncomfortable everyone will be when the annual team-building rock-climbing comes around, that the applicant is obligated to try to quell. The applicant, particularly if they are new to disability, may have insecurities that cause them to think that anyone taking them on is doing them a favour. The “brazen” approach of this employer tells me that the applicant with a disability need not apply – they will be hounded out of the job if in fact they were hired (And g-d forbid the person come with any employment grant. They will be offered the least necessary to trigger the grant and then turfed at the end.). It is a nasty world out there for workers with disabilities, and employers like these don’t help.

    1. It's a New Day!*

      *Visible ones, and ones that require accommodation for the interview process, so disclosed in advance.

      1. It's a New Day!*

        Oh, and just to soften the last sentence a little, we can say “It can be” nasty. Of course lots of people have dream experiences, too.

  119. Aphrodite*

    Wow. I agree with Alison that it’s a crappy thing to do. More than that, though, it’s a crappy attitude you have. You reek in your bitter joyfulness at your attitude rather than explaining it.

  120. Close Bracket*

    Firstly, the money comes directly from our pockets and frankly if we can get away with paying $20/hour instead of $22/hour, why wouldn’t we?

    Bc when I find out that I am underpaid, and I will find out, I will leave your sorry practice and go somewhere where they demonstrate my value.

  121. Kittymommy*

    You know what a really easy way to tell if someone will be happy with your salary? Tell them what the f•••••• salary is!!! If they are not happy with it they won’t apply to your job. Easy-peas.

  122. LGC*

    …I missed WTF Wednesdays. (To be fair, for a while it morphed into WTF Tuesdays.)

    That’s it. I’ve got nothing to say that hasn’t already been said.

    …okay, I do have something to say. The sentence about paying $20 an hour if you could get away with it is telling – to me, it reads like you view your employees as transactions. And while I get it, I would not like to work for an employer that made it that explicit, myself.

  124. Leela*

    My last comment was for us, this one’s for you, OP. Let’s talk about soft costs.

    If you save 3K by switching to a new payroll software, but have to hire a second person at say, 30K a year because the new software is so user intensive that the old amount of staff won’t cut it, you have not saved money. But on paper, depending how it gets reported, you might have. If you lose a solid employee because the new payroll software is so bad they don’t want to use it, and you have to lose a bunch of hours trying to fill the role, you have not saved money. (These are dummy numbers but a literal example from my workplace).

    If you have low morale, you have not saved money. “Employees seem happy” is a very, VERY poor way to tell how your employees are doing, especially if you’re in charge. They have extreme pressure to appear to be fine. I’ve “seemed happy” at many jobs that I was actively job searching during because they weren’t very good employers. They always seemed shocked beyond words that I left because I “seemed so happy”. Employees with low morale aren’t as efficient, they can burn out faster and can be harder to manage if you’re trying to get good work out of them.

    If you underpay your staff but the following happens, you have not saved money:
    You lose knowledge when new people cycle out

    You get lower quality candidates because people who can make more by leaving, will

    You retain “comfy” employees. People who are happy because they think that higher wage means higher work and they’re comfy where they are. These people might be dependable but aren’t always the ones who will help propel your business forward

    Candidates self select out because you have a reputation for underpaying if you can get away with it. If anyone in your area ties this AAM to you and talks about it, there go all your good candidates.

    You face legal action by women and minorities who are the ones who typically bear the burden when an employer opts to pay as low as they can get away with

    Patients choose another facility if they can because they don’t have a good experience or they get word that you’re not a very good employer and they wonder if that means they’ll start having a bad experience

  125. SMH*

    Why write in to Alison bragging about a near illegal practice anyway? Did anyone see a question in the OP’s post?

  127. tinybutfierce*

    Man, the letter writer sure used a whole lot of extra words to say “We will happily underpay people what they’re actually worth so long as we can get away with it, boo hoo”.

    1. LizB*

      “I want to do this bad thing, stop telling me it’s a bad thing to do!” -> shorter letter, same meaning

  128. It's a New Day!*

    Oh, and just to soften the last sentence a little, we can say “It can be” nasty. Of course lots of people have dream experiences, too.

  129. Sarah K*

    I understand where OP is coming from so the following is a suggestion as to how to make things work as a small business owner (BTW – I happen to be a small business owner):
    – Identify the scope of the position that you are hiring (and whether you think that will change over time and whether there is room to increase responsibilities and pay)
    – Identify the range of pay for that position in your geographic area (this one I find challenging sometimes because the ranges can be large and there might not be an equivalent position in my area… but that this same job can earn a lot more in a large metropolitan area where cost of living is higher)
    AND the key to making it work:
    Identify your budget. Identify your budget. Identify your budget. Project your costs and earnings for the year and figure out what you have to spend on a new employee. Figure out if that amount is close to what the range of pay would be for that position (and don’t forget to consider the costs of benefits and taxes that you will have to pay). If you don’t meet it, then be honest when you post the position. If you can meet it, great! If you have additional room in your budget, consider whether there are additional benefits you can provide all your employees to make your company competitive with the big companies (this one requires you to think past the quick buck in your own pocket, but since you have been in business for a good amount of time and have kept your current staff happy and free from turnover, I assume you are good at making sure your employees feel appreciated).

  130. WorkerBee173*

    Dunno if someone has already mentioned this, but here’s one more:

    If you hire a new employee too low, that turns out to be a superstar and someone you really want to keep, then you need to use a large portion of your next, or even next few payroll budgets to bring that person up to par.
    This will piss your other employees of – honestly, there’s no faster way to loose a good, long term employee than denying them pay-raises, or giving them one below the market rate. Furthermore, your new superstar will become pissed later when their pay-curve evens out, or even stagnates to help bring the next new superstar up to speed.

    I’ve seen this happen too often – and it brings trouble and discontent for everyone. If you’re lucky, your long term employees will find themselves a new job. If not … well, many will put in what they feel you are paying them for. Not to mention what a ray of sunshine some people can be when they don’t feel that they’re being treated fairly.

    1. Leela*

      Oh my gosh yes.
      At OldJob, we had a huge problem with this. We had a pool of underpaid IT support people that had worked there for 2-10 years. We couldn’t bring in anyone new at the salary they were making. Cut to management deciding that we’d bump the salary for new people, far above what one of the original staff that had been there for 5 years was currently making. They tried to make up for it by adding new requirements but honestly even someone that met those new requirements wasn’t worth nearly as much as someone who had already done that exact job for 5 years. Serious dissent was sewn, everyone who could leave did, and they had to pay the higher new salary to a ton of other people because almost everyone had to be replaced, it was nonsense that everyone could see coming a mile away but the staff “seemed happy” so management didn’t think it would be a problem

      1. WorkerBee173*

        Heh, yeah, management is sometimes blithely oblivious to how important wages are to the ‘regular’ worker: For some reason they tend to think more in Incentive Payments.

        In my experience though, no incentive payment will ever make up for people feeling that they’re being undervalued on daily basis, or cheated out of what they perceive to be a fair raise.

  131. voluptuousfire*

    Ooh, I worked for a doctor like this for a few weeks ages ago. It ended up being a horror show–they filled out my W-4 for me (not even sure how they did that), I didn’t know my pay rate until I got my first paycheck, I had no set hours, my manager was massively conflict-avoidant, etc. The doctor running it was a massive jerk and the majority of the staff there were lifers whom I think stayed more out of loyalty to each other than anything else. They ended up getting into massive trouble a few years later when someone blew the whistle on their practices and a local news station did an undercover investigation. They had medical assistants doing Xrays, receptionists doing patient check-ins (taking vitals when they’re not trained for it. Maybe it’s a HIPPA violation?)–a lot of things that were illegal or just not done.

    1. AnonyNurse*

      Not a HIPAA violation. Only a violation if the receptionist shared the results in an identifiable way with people who did not have a need to know them. (Saying to a friend “We had a patient whose pulse was 150” is legal. “Dave Smith has a pulse of 150” is not).

      Taking vitals doesn’t require significant training, especially with electronic BP machines. Interpreting them does.

  132. Holysmoke*

    “When you refuse to disclose your budgeted salary range and insist on the candidate naming theirs, you’re sending a signal about your culture that will increasingly turn off your best candidates.”

    Yeah, what you’re saying is, “I am selfish because being selfish works for ME! I don’t care about anyone but ME!”

    Don’t expect anyone to stick around if that’s how you run things.

  133. Happy Pineapple*

    I am so, so thankful that I have an employer who pays me what my position is worth rather than what I asked them for initially. When I applied I was absolutely miserable at my old job and was willing to take just about any opportunity to leave. I was also so underpaid that I wasn’t aware of the market rate in my area. I was making $36,000, and thought I was asking for the moon when I said my expected salary range was $40-50k. My interviewer half laughed and said they could do better, and wrote me an offer for $68,000. To reiterate: they offered me $28 THOUSAND, or 70% more, than what I was willing to take! That’s a company with integrity, not one that’s trying boost profits at the cost of employees.

    2. Just a thought*

      Oh hey, this is pretty close to my favorite story, too!

      I left a job making $44k and applied for one that seemed to be a lateral-to-slight improvement with no salary listed. When it came time to specify expectations, I flinched a little and said $55k — and they came back and said, “Actually, because of your specific experience, we were thinking of paying $65k for this role, will that work?” And then I negotiated for a $3k “signing bonus” for relocation, and all was great.

      I also got a 20% raise a year into that job as a recognition for performance.

      All future jobs have tragically failed to replicate the respect for contribution that one showed.

    3. Not So NewReader*

      OP will never have to worry about getting a happy, thankful, good employee like you Happy Pineapple. She will never have to worry about good productivity, accuracy, promptness and all those other silly things.

      Congrats, HP. Good for you!

      1. Happy Pineapple*

        Thank you, Not So NewReader! It’s shocking that more companies don’t realize that treating employees well will create a culture of loyalty and productivity. I’m happy to come to work, I’m proud of my company and what we do, and I want to give my best every day rather than the bare minimum. I was even able to buy my first home, which means I now plan on staying in the area, and hopefully with my job, for the long term! It’s absolutely an investment for the company.

    4. MB*

      When I interviewed for my current job, I was making $61,000. Thus job was closer to home, and it seemed like a lateral move, so I only asked for $65,000-70,000. My jaw about hit the floor when they offered $85,000. It gave me a very positive first impression of this company.

  135. Rusty Shackelford*

    I’m curious as to what the LW means when she says “For what it’s worth, we are excellent employers.” Do you mean you provide benefits and training, and you treat your employees with respect? Or do you mean “we’re like a family?”

    1. Observer*

      No, they mean that they have held on to two employees who are almost certainly scarred by the last recession, and who have never sounded off to them.

      1. OP*

        Um no. One employee actually had to leave for health/family reasons, but then RETURNED!! Because in fact she was not a helpless traumatized puppy, but a happy employee who was paid fairly and very much valued.

        1. Lu*

          OP it might be time to step away from the computer, because I promise that by continuing this attitude of condescension and defensiveness, you’re only going to get more antagonism from the commentariat. Ya know the whole saying of “If you think everyone’s an asshole, maybe it’s actually you who’s the asshole”?

        2. Senor Montoya*

          I’m curious about this, OP. If you are paying your employees fairly, why did you send in a letter stating that you will pay less if you can get away with it?

          Is this something you have done in the past?
          Is this something you think you should be able to do, even if you haven’t actually done so?
          Are you playing devil’s advocate?

        4. Rusty Shackelford*

          In that case, I’d love to know what makes you an excellent employer. A lot of people here think you might not be. Prove them wrong! Can you give us some examples of how people are paid fairly, and how you show that they’re valued? (Honestly, I’m very curious about the “paid fairly” part, because if you know you’d be willing to pay $23, and you’re paying $20 because they didn’t know you’re willing to pay $23, that seems unfair. But I’d really like some insight on the “valued” part too, if you don’t mind sharing!)

        5. Not So NewReader*

          So eventually you pay them fairly but to start you make sure you underpay them? You have made this comment several times so I am curious.

          You wrote Alison to make a point about something but that kind of dilutes your own point, don’t you think?

      2. jamberoo*

        Are they empty nest housewives who have spouses holding down solid jobs, so the recession wouldn’t bother them as badly?

      1. How about no*

        Last time I worked for a family business they treated me like the foster kid they took in just to get the stipend.

  137. Me*

    Human beings are not a commodity. I guarantee you aren’t as great as an employer as you think. Your attitude is very telling.

    How can I take advantage of my employees and justify it as their own fault pretty much sums up your logic.

  138. London Lass*

    Just to back up Alison’s final point, I certainly took notice when I was job-hunting recently about which potential employers were transparent about salary and which asked me for my requirements. It coloured my perceptions of them from the start, and I am now very happily employed at one that gave a clear salary range in the original ad.

    Whether I am one of the ‘best’ candidates is open to debate I suppose, but I was hired after just one interview (partly thanks to Alison’s good advice!) and am already being put forward for a promotion six months in. So yeah, you are probably going to miss out on some great people if that’s your attitude and they have other options.

  139. Pucci*

    A physician who is treating her staff this way is also probably treating her patients this way. “What can I get away with not doing for the patient but still charging them/their insurance for?”

      1. LizB*

        I think it’s going too far to say OP is probably doing that, but if you applied her logic in hiring to the patient billing arena, it would be the logical way to operate. Every procedure she can bill for puts money in her pocket, so why wouldn’t she do as many billable procedures as she can get away with? Why not avoid providing treatments that don’t pay as well or err on the side of the more expensive treatment if there’s a choice between two? She’s just looking out for her own best interests, after all.

        OP, if that sounds unethical to you, please realize that what you are currently doing in hiring is showing the same lack of ethics, even if it has not currently had super detrimental results to your current staff as far as you know. And if it doesn’t sound unethical… y i k e s.

  140. The Other Katie*

    Pay for employees of a business is not coming out of the owner’s pocket. It’s coming out of the expenses for the operation of the business, in exchange for the services and time offered to the business. Owners of a business get what’s left over. If you need to economise that’s fine, but underpaying your staff just because you can is rather unfair.

  141. Manana*

    Worked in healthcare for 20 years and none of this surprises me. Many clinics I worked at depended on underpaid labor from desperate women who lacked college degrees and had mouths to feed. That his employees have been there so long says less about what a “great” employer he is and more about their lack of options. If you’ve been underpaying staff for years and they go apply somewhere else, their chances of making any significantly more is diminished by their shitty salary history.

    1. yllis*

      This has been my experience in doctor’s office jobs too.

      I dont know. Maybe once theyre past all their med school, intern, residency, etc and finally get to have their own practice they’re thinking “NOW all that work will pay off the big bucks” and so it’s harder to part with any of it.

    2. Zap R.*

      “Many clinics I worked at depended on underpaid labor from desperate women who lacked college degrees and had mouths to feed.”

      Where I live, this is overwhelmingly immigrant women who can’t yet afford to get their nursing licence re-certified in their new country. They’re *actual* medical professionals but are trapped in a cycle of long hours and low pay that, paradoxically, prevents them from being able to do the decently-paying job they’re trained for. Exploiting women’s labour seems to be baked into the medical system.

    3. Ice and Indigo*

      And if they’re actually ‘happy’ in those circumstances, then they’re amazing positive people who frankly deserve a salary bump on the basis of their attitude alone.

  142. SufjanFan*

    !!!!!!!!!!!! I loved reading every word of this response. Took everything in me not to scream yAAAAAAAAAaaaaaaAas at my desk in the office.

  143. Cass*

    “The second big reason I want that information first is that if I were to give my range — say $20-22/hour — a candidate expecting $24/hour might well say, “Ya, sure, that’s fine” while planning to take the job and keep looking for something else.”

    They could (and) do this anyway. People leave jobs all the time for all sorts of reasons, including taking a job in the short-term until they can find one that pays more.

    “For what it’s worth, we are excellent employers…”

    I doubt this very much. How can this possibly be an objective statement? Also you’ve openly stated that your goal is to get away with paying candidates less than the market and/or their work might be worth to save money.

    You clearly understand the power dynamic between employer and job applicant and use this to your advantage rather than treating the hiring process as a conversation between potential business partners. I have more thoughts but I don’t want my comment to be deleted so I’ll just stop here.

    1. Ice and Indigo*

      If those ‘thoughts’ are on where OP should stick her attitude and her job offers, I’m sure many valuable potential employees will have them as well.

    2. Not So NewReader*

      I kind of wonder why the heavy concern that someone might leave.
      OP what happens if someone leaves that is so concerning to you?

  144. tempmanager*

    “You always advocate that employees look out for their own interests. Why should that be so different for me as an employer? ”

    Yeah but isn’t getting the right person to do the job you need the thing that’s “in your interest” as an employer? Why put up a barrier to that interest by playing games with people. I don’t get it!

    1. Ice and Indigo*

      Because the employer has the power in the situation, darling.

      An employee looking out for their interests has two basic choices: negotiate openly, or break the law and embezzle or steal paperclips. Alison only advises the former.

      An employer looking out for their interests has alllll sorts of options that aren’t technically illegal but are morally shoddy. Alison doesn’t advise those either.

      1. Ice and Indigo*

        (For clarity, my ‘Because’ was addressed to OP, not tempmanager, who unlike OP is talking sense.)

    2. Champagne Cocktail*

      It seems a lot of employers don’t get that if managers look out for employees’ interests it’s better for everyone.

      The LW doesn’t seem to me to think long term.

  145. MCL*

    I wonder if they’re looking to “save money” by finding applicants that are asking for lower salaries where else they might be cheaping out. Is OP’s company offering excellent benefits, so-so benefits, or any benefits at all? If I were the person looking for a job at $24/hour and got an offer for $22/hour, I might not automatically disregard the offer, especially if the benefits were good, it was in a field I wanted to work in, office location… all kinds of factors that might allow me to accept even though the dollar amount might be a little lower. If I said $24 and the OP wasn’t willing to pay that… would I just not be offered the job because of that information? There’s all kinds of reasons I might be willing to negotiate and accept a lower dollar amount, especially for a relatively small different in pay. If I knew the range up front and still applied, I would KNOW that I likely wouldn’t get the hourly pay I’d prefer but there might be other reasons I’d accept such as those I mentioned earlier.

    OP, you know what you’re willing to pay; just offer that information up front and stop playing games that are heavily weighted in your favor and benefit you alone.

  146. Cass*

    One more comment from me actually.

    You have two staff that have been there several years. It doesn’t sound like you’re in the throws of hiring right now, so why ask the question? Is this an academic exercise for you to try and prove a point? If so, it’s more likely that you haven’t hired in so long that your practices out of sync with business norms today. I’m really confused about why you wrote in to begin with…

  147. Falling Diphthong*

    The money comes directly from our pockets.

    I love the implied “unlike in all other businesses everywhere on the planet, plus Mars.”

    1. Lu*

      It also doesn’t even come directly from their pocket — it comes from the surplus value created by their employees’ labor.

      1. Jedi Squirrel*

        Yep. Like most capitalists, they see only the value their own labor provides, and not the value their workers’ labor provides. They view employees as liabilities, rather than assets.

        2. Lu*

          Yuuup, which is why, despite the fact that many small business owners do labor along side their employees, they will always be of the capitalist class and fight for capitalist interests over the well being of workers. As shown so incredibly succinctly by this letter.

      2. I Wrote This in the Bathroom*

        Exactly. I didn’t see it in the letter where they said they run a charity and have randomly chosen two people to give money every two week to for no reason. The money is given in exchange for these people’s work. It’s like saying “if I can get away with shoplifting from a store instead of paying at checkout, why wouldn’t I?”

  148. Captain S*

    You know, I always thought that employers who did this were thoughtless and inconsiderate. It’s good to know that it’s possible they’re straight up malicious in their intent too.

    1. Jayess*

      And you think only people in capitalist systems do this? Please do some more study about other systems and human nature in general.

  151. I'm a medical consumer*

    I don’t run a medical office, but I can tell you, OP, that even if you are the best doctor on Earth, my willingness to keep coming to your office lives and dies by your office staff.

    Looking for a new doctor is boring and time consuming, but I will absolutely do it if the people you hire don’t do a great job.

    Wanting to exploit someone by paying them $2 less an hour than they deserve is a really silly reason to lose my business.

    1. yllis*

      I deal more with the staff than the doctor actually.

      Ive dropped a dentist for a bad front office. Liked him but couldnt take the staff. Almost dropped an eye doctor but seems like someone clued him into the online reviews and he made changes to the staff.

  152. Mb13*

    Sounds like you are just another poorly run barely functioning explorative family run business. And honestly I don’t feel bad saying that

  153. AntiSocialite*

    Oh my god, what a TERRIBLE employer. And of course, she’s proud of and bragging about screwing over her employees while insisting how happy those (2!) employees are.

    Lady, you need some serious managerial training, not to mention some life lessons on how to be a better person.

    As always, A’s reply and advice is great, but given the OP’s practically gleeful admission of mistreating her employees, pretty sure it’s falling on deaf, and willfully ignorant, ears.

  154. Ama*

    I have to say, it is actually really interesting to hear from the employers side why they wouldn’t disclose pay range until further into the process. I’ve never really understood that.

    Tbh, I think the explanation really only confirms Allison’s stance that it’s a bad way to operate, and nothing the OP has said here makes me think I’d want to work for them. So I’ll continue to do my best to avoid employers like this.

    But nonetheless, it was an interesting insight, and I’m greatful that he shared!

    1. ACDC*

      Once I was moving from Rural Town in Mountain West region to Big City in Mountain West Region, and a recruiter insisted I tell them how much I was making in the rural area. I effectively said I’m not telling you that because the COL is worlds apart. They kept insisting and I said, you have a budget for this position right – what is it? That’s when they finally broke down and told me, with the caveat that knowing a candidate’s current salary “really helps.” Really helps to keep people underpaid, nah dawg.

  155. DeeEm*

    I understand your POV, actually. My parents were small business owners, and YES, a buck or two on wages can make a difference. Small businesses often run near the margin. That being said, just state your range. It actually does make hiring a LOT easier. People self-screen out if the range is too low, so you aren’t wasting time reviewing applications/resumes and having phone calls with candidates who aren’t going to be interested once they hear the number. And, if you get a candidate that would have actually accepted a dollar or two less, but they are qualified and experienced enough that you hire them — they are likely to STAY longer because the pay is comfortable for them. You can still pay what you need to to stay afloat. Just decide what you’re paying and tell people up front in the ad. It makes the process easier all around and it’s less work for everyone. Try it once, and see how it works. Of course, if you’re concerned about advertising the rate because you believe your current employees will see the ad and the range and feel slighted by their salaries, then that’s a whole different issue – but it’s a big reason some employers do not advertise their ranges.

    1. Alice*

      It’s good to hear your perspective. But on the last point — avoiding current employees finding out what you’re willing to pay new employees because you fear it will create embarrassment or drama — if you were underpaying people in the past, you should fix it asap, whether or not the employees are going to figure it out.

      1. Allypopx*

        Right if your hat is being hung on whether or not employees figure out what other employees are getting paid, that’s not a viable plan. They’re legally allowed to just…tell each other.

  156. Lora*

    “I became a small business owner/employer having received no training in that aspect of things”

    THIS RIGHT HERE. You had no training and no education in how to run a business, manage cash flows or create a business model that would have clearly shown you with numbers how to run things, but you reckoned that you could make it up as you went along and everything would be totally cool?

    How do you reckon that would work in your actual field? Like, to heck with medical school, just do whatever seems reasonable, call yourself a doctor, and as long as it keeps putting money in your bank account it’s all good?

    The good news is, there IS training available on how to create business models and plans, and how to reckon cash flows in a way that will both teach you how to make money and give you ways to consider different options for making money, and also teach you how to not be crummy to employees. You don’t even have to go to business school, there are resources like SCORE and various taxpayer-funded small business support programs that can help, and they have weekend/evening seminars for cheap or free.

    One of my dear friends is a veterinarian with similar issues: how to run a small business when all her training is in bioscience/clinical care, getting paid per procedure, and figure out how to pay people and still make a living wage for herself. So, I showed her how to build a business model and work out what revenues they must achieve and how to staff and how to pay your staff, what their real costs are with taxes and equipment depreciation and everything, how much square footage is needed for a clinic to offer certain services and how to make it pay off. It showed her some unexpected things like the minimum staff sizes for each staffing category, she will need a partner to do enough procedures to turn a good profit, how much to spend on marketing to get new patients, etc. She honestly didn’t realize that she personally could not do enough procedures on her own to stay in the black and still pay herself unless she worked 80+ hours/week.

    OP, I strongly encourage you to contact whatever small business education type groups are available in your state and have them go through this process and explain business models to you. It is going to help you to not only see why you should pay more for better quality work and more efficient work and give you a metric for which of your staff are underpaid / what you should reasonably expect from your staff, but also give you a much more useful way to think about cash flows and revenue streams and whether your current business model is even sustainable or should you add more services or merge with a bigger practice or what.

    1. Allypopx*

      I also just don’t understand why you would be so ADAMANT that your practice is correct when people who are actually educated on the matter are repeatedly, with justification, with authority, telling you why this is not how to do it.

      1. Lora*

        Exactly! OP worries above that how will she know if staff will up and leave for $2/hour more unless she asks?

        If you have a metric of how much they are worth (very literally in terms of revenue they would bring in), and you know whether or not they are likely to *get* $2/hour or $4/hour or $10/hour more by experience and awesomeness and revenue generation skills, and you know what market rate for the job is by having done your homework, then you will absolutely know both whether they are likely to get more money easily, whether they are worth what you’re paying them already (regardless of market rate, if additional positions aren’t adding revenue then you don’t hire for them, period) and whether you should be sad to see them go or smilingly wishing them best of luck in their future endeavors.

        If I hire Admin Amy and Support Staff Sue at $20/hr and $30/hr respectively, and I make a list of all the procedures I do in a month + the revenue they bring in, like so:
        Ingrown hair, $200
        Elbow feels funny, $150
        Uncontrollable barfing, $400
        Not Coronavirus, $200
        etc.
        And Admin Amy spends 20 hours scheduling each and every procedure but Support Staff Sue enables 50 procedures / minute with her work, then Admin Amy is the bottleneck and hiring someone more efficient/experienced to replace her *even if that person costs more* is definitely worth it, because it enables you to do so many more procedures. And if you hire another Support Staff Sue, depending on how much time you have in your own schedule, you would be able to do even more procedures and get more money. So the calculation is the ratio of Doctor Dianes : Support Staff Sues : Admin Amys there need to be in any given office, with their respective salary ranges as a weighted average, vs the revenue they are able to bring in with a typical month’s distribution of procedures. Maybe you post an ad for Admin Andrea, and state in the ad, “must be able to schedule 1 procedure every 5 hours” and pay the market average + 1 standard deviation at $25/hour because you know it’s worth it to your revenue stream.

        1. Allypopx*

          Brava. This is a very simple exercise you will probably do multiple times in any sort of managerial accounting class, OP. I’d think about taking one.

  157. Schnookums Von Fancypants, Naughty Basic Horse*

    So it boils down to “If I can get away with it to my benefit, why shouldn’t I?” So does the knife cut both ways? If the employees realize they can steal unlimited amounts of copy paper or take hour and a half lunches because the boss never checks, should they? I mean, if the rule is “Get away with whatever I can” LW, will you at least have the decency to not act surprised if your employees do the same to you?

  158. Fikly*

    Many people do things that are wrong and don’t feel bad about it. It’s not something to brag about.

    Nor is acting against your own self-interest.

  159. Elm*

    YES. If you aren’t willing to release your range, you should likely be ashamed of the numbers. I interviewed for positions requiring a master’s degree and five or more years of education-related experience, and they acted shocked when I wouldn’t take less than half the pay I had gotten as a teacher, like I was being unreasonable in my expectations.

    One, which had falsified the job description (“training and development”) and turned out to be insurance sales, even accused me of lying when I said I wouldn’t sell to my family and friends because some of them are raising two kids on one income just above minimum wage. “That’s not real. That’s not possible for people to do. And if that’s what they ARE doing, don’t they need this insurance even more than other people?!” It took every bit of strength I had to not tell him to go to hell.

    I feel like the higher up the person making the salary decisions are, the less in touch with the real world they prove to be.

      1. Schnookums Von Fancypants, Naughty Basic Horse*

        Well, good thing they wrote into “Ask a Manager”!
        .
        .
        .
        .
        Well, good thing for us anyways. We could always use a laugh.

  161. Tinker*

    Certainly a lot to unpack there, but just to address this one point of people accepting the job and then later leaving to be paid more elsewhere:

    You might somewhat filter for people who for whatever reason don’t aggressively pursue higher pay, but the actual cause of people leaving to be paid more elsewhere is that elsewhere IS paying more and is probably telling people that they pay more. You don’t have control over that.

    It’s also not as if playing this guessing game is going to find you people who are actively not fans of making more money — “no, I’ve considered being paid $24/hour for the same type of work, but I’d really rather be paid $22”? No. This is silly. They might find out about the offer somewhat slower than someone who is more aggressive, but you can’t conceal from them forever how much you are going to pay them and you can’t bank on them not finding out what other people pay. As long as those don’t line up, the risk of folk bailing for that reason is always present.

    1. Emily*

      Yup. Paying a competitive wage and offering a good work environment is what you can do to retain people. If you’re doing that, you don’t need to play games with disclosing how much it pays. And if you don’t….they’re going to figure that out.

  162. yala*

    “Firstly, the money comes directly from our pockets and frankly if we can get away with paying $20/hour instead of $22/hour, why wouldn’t we?”

    Imagine thinking this is a good look.

    1. CleverGirl*

      Imagine working for a boss who thinks that the money he is paying you is coming directly from his pocket, like he’s giving you HIS money, as opposed to the money coming from the business as an expense of keeping the business running.

    2. Not So NewReader*

      Imagine thinking this is a good look coming from a person in the medical field whose focus is PEOPLE.

  163. Jedi Squirrel*

    This letter

    +

    The employer in college who paid me minimum wage and said he wouldn’t even pay me that if he thought he could get away with it

    =

    Why I am a Socialist

  164. yllis*

    It’s interesting.

    There are some people who read about people who have ripped others off, engaged in dodgy practices, etc and think “that’s horrible. Throw the book at them” and there are some who think “wow! How do I get in on that?”

    2. Not So NewReader*

      It’s not a coincidence that OP is ripping off her new hires and she herself is concerned about being ripped off.

      I’d bet good money that if OP started paying fairly from the get-go that nagging feeling of being ripped off would diminish. Just a hunch.

  165. Hedgehug*

    So….you are going to underpay people, and then when you eventually bring them up to the market rate, the pay that they deserve for their work, you’re going to frame it as a “raise”?
    This reminds me of the call centre I used to work for, and the client I was representing was over charging customers’ accounts, and if the customer complained, we would put them back to the actual rate and lie to them that we were giving a “discount”. They would happily gouge the people who didn’t notice (we didn’t know this is what was happening because they were being extremely shady about it until I started asking questions, then the client was getting mad at me for asking questions)
    Proudly declaring you want to get away with paying people less, I hope you can appreciate how that makes you sound and help you understand the outrage in the comments.

    1. Consulting Consultant*

      Was that call center related to an internet or cable service provider, because every damn one I’ve ever had did this. I always noticed, I always fought with them about it, and it made me angry every time. As soon as I had a better option (because ISPs are somehow allowed to operation monopolies in local markets), I always jumped ship.

      Also, this is way off topic, but there’s a children’s book called “Hedgehugs” that’s a favorite in my house, so I love your username.

      1. Hedgehug*

        Unfortunately no, and I am sad that other companies apparently do this… *sigh*
        I have never heard of that book, but hedgehogs are my favourite animal and I will look up that book!

  166. Violet*

    OP, if you’re so sure it’s a great idea to underpay people so you can give them raises and bonuses later on, why don’t you tell them so? Just say, “we’ll pay you less than you’re worth and then give you a raise after ever-how-long. After the raise, you’ll be making what you should have made as a new hire.” And let us know how that works out for you.

  167. Alexis*

    This reminds me so much of what happened at a previous employer – in my interviews they asked what salary I was looking for. I had no real idea about my market value (and coming out of school with about 2 years of full time work experience in my field) and low balled myself by about at least 15k (meaning the bare, bare minimum). At the one year mark, I didn’t receive a raise, and I ended up finding a really great opportunity that was nearly 20k over what I currently made. When I told my boss I was ready to leave, they offered me an extra 25k. To say I was pissed is an overstatement. I was one of their top performing employees, and getting paid like the bottom one.

    1. CW*

      @Alexis – So they willfully underpaid you and when you gave notice, they were willing to bring you up to the market rate? I am completely shocked. I would have been just as pissed as you are. I hope you are way happier at your new job.

      To be clear, I was in a similar position a few years ago, underpaid by roughly $15,000-$20,000/yr. But before I could give notice, I was fired for “underperformance”. Let’s just say I stopped caring and only lasted a little over 5 months at that job. That’s on me, but getting paid only $15/hr when I was supposed to get paid close to $50,000/yr made it hard to stay motivated.

  168. Lalaith*

    So… you have two staff. Who have been there for multiple years. Meaning… you’ve hired two people? Total? Maybe, say, 5 at the most? And your ability to find two people who you’re happy with entitles you to dole out hiring advice (or refute Alison’s)?

    Mmmmmmmmmmkay.

    1. Senor Montoya*

      People speak from their own experience all the time on this blog. OP is not giving advice, OP is stating their position and explaining their reasons.
      No need to be insulting.

  169. Special K*

    Urgh, I worked for a medical billing place that operated just like this. I later found out that they were paying me WAY less than my male counterpart who did literally the same work I did and when I asked for an adjustment, they wouldn’t do it. They were literally banking on the fact I couldn’t afford to sue them or quit without something else lined up.

    My folks run a small business, so I have a lot of sympathy for small business owners, but if you can’t afford to pay someone market rates for their work or are busy prioritizing how little you can “get away” with paying them, then you can’t afford that employee and it’s up to you to figure out how to manage your business until you can afford to pay staff what they’re worth.

    My folks have worked insane hours to get their business where it is but not once did they pay someone less than market for their work and that level of integrity has served them a hell of a lot better over the last 30 years than saving a few buck’s off their employee’s salaries ever could.

  170. Mina, The Company Prom Queen*

    In my first job in my current field, I was underpaid. When I was ready to look for another job and went on interviews, they always asked me my current salary and I told them. And whenever I got an offer it was for my current salary or a couple thousand above that. Amazing, huh? Guess they thought they’d get me cheap. I didn’t accept those offers.

    It was only when I politely declined to tell my salary that I got an offer that paid the actual market rate for the job. They didn’t hold my not telling against me. We just discussed the range I was looking for. My offer was around $23k more than I was making at my underpaid job and I’ve been moving upward ever since.

    It was a great experience and I was a valuable employee. More employers should be like this. Employers that play games and try to get away with paying as little as possible won’t keep their good employees for long.

  171. 867-5309*

    The timing of this is interesting because I sent this email to Alison yesterday:

    Thanks to your blog, I’ve stopped being coy about providing salary upfront when speaking to candidates. Because we’re a small organization, as the hiring manager I currently do the recruiting (vs. having an HR function).

    Before scheduling an interview with candidates whose experience or current/recent employers generally equate to higher salaries, I tell them our range via email and ask if it makes sense to talk. For others, I address it at the end of our initial 20-30 minute screen to double check my assumption about their salary range.

    So far the small number of folks I’ve emailed seem more annoyed than appreciative, but I think that’s because they don’t realize the salaries they earn are unrealistic when moving from a global corporate entity to a small startup – and further that they applied for a job that requires less experience than what they have and therefore, the salary is calibrated to that level.

    I still get strangely nervous when sending that email or bringing up salary in conversation, but am emboldened by the advice from Ask A Manager.

    1. 867-5309*

      And OP, we’re a small company that manages cost closely but we also want to provide a fair wage for the work being done. If we’re doing that, then there should be no hesitation in being upfront about salary.

      2. Senor Montoya*

        I interviewed with an institution a year or so ago that could not pay my current salary. The job would have been a title and responsibility promotion for me. I was glad they called and told me their upper salary limit — good info — and also, I still interviewed for that job because it looked like exactly the kind of opportunity I wanted (kinds of work I would and, more importantly, would NOT be doing, kind of institution, work environment, etc). As it turned out, they needed someone with a lot of experience in an area I had little experience (job needs had changed between the posting and the interviewing). So we mutually agreed we weren’t a match.

        I say many nice things about that institution, especially to people in my network who are considering applying to work there. Because they were upfront and transparent at every step of the process. Including salary.

    2. Semprini!*

      Although you wouldn’t have to send that email or bring up salary in conversation if salary were included in the job posting

    3. Starbuck*

      Why not just post the number in the job ad? That way no one gets annoyed and you get the candidates your organization can afford. They’re probably annoyed because you clearly know the number/range, and are apparently ok with sharing it, but they wasted their time applying when you for some reason didn’t put it in the job posting.

  172. My Two Cents*

    It sounds to me that the OP is happy that they are “Getting a deal” when it comes to their employees, which is something they are proud of. Personally, I would want to work somewhere where they actively look for the best of the best, and not someone who want so pay “a discount salary.”

    But if they are proud of the “deal” they get on their employees, I guess that is their right.

  173. OP*

    OP here again
    I apologize for the overly snarky tone. I guess it was just my frustration about always hearing about how employers shouldn’t ask about salary range.
    Some points I would like to clarify.
    Starting at a lower-than-necessary salary has been very useful especially in order to give raises. We get a new employee (like our fabulous senior one now), realize she is fabulous, and are able to convey that (quite early on) with a raise. Which, if we started at the top of our range, we couldn’t.
    Hiring is a negotiation, and each side is hoping to do whatever is in their best interest. And, snarky tone aside, I still don’t think that there is anything inherently evil in that. Our staff is in fact paid a competitive wage, and as i have mentioned we convey our appreciation of them in many ways, both tangible and intangible.
    The fact that they have been with us so long (and one even returned after a 1 year hiatus) could mean that they are too scarred and traumatized as many of you have suggested. Or it could mean that they are, in fact, happy, valued and appreciated.
    so there ;-)

    1. J!*

      Hiring is a negotiation, and each side is hoping to do whatever is in their best interest.

      I really don’t understand how you can’t see (or at minimum refuse to acknowledge) that this negotiation is an unequal playing field where the employer has much more power than the potential employee, which is the underlying issue that everyone who disagrees with you has been trying to highlight.

    2. Crivens!*

      You haven’t learned a thing from this, have you?

      Also, define “competitive wage”. With specifics.

    3. LOL*

      300+ comments telling you that this is wrong (and WHY it is NOT in your own self-interest), and you still can’t take a hint. Still childish and unprofessional with your “so there” attitude.

      I don’t have high hopes for your business. It will probably remain small and low budget.

      Why did you even bother writing in?

        1. LOL*

          Taken within the context of the rest of your post, compounded with all of your comments here, no it did not. Still doesn’t. It just sounds out of touch.

        2. Allypopx*

          No one’s laughing because we’re not friends who are in on a joke with you, not because the intent didn’t come through.

        4. Tallulah in the Sky*

          There’s a post and 30+ comments of you being more then just snarky (condescending, defensive, hostile). So although I can see that you’ve tried to take a step back on the tone in this last one, it doesn’t navigate the hostility and defensiveness in all your previous interactions.

          Your answers were also quite “petty”, for lack of a better word. Why not answer more substantial questions ? For example, one problem with your way of doing things is that two similar candidates (same job, same experience) could end up with different starting salaries because of their gender, their cultural or socio-economic background. Are you ok with that ? Is that something you find acceptable ? You really don’t see how that is unethical ?

          Your whole attitude and the things you’ve chosen to share made you seem like an insufferable person, and we have nothing else to go on, so yes, we imagine working for you must not be as fun as you might think. But we might be wrong. So I would do some self-reflection if I were you because if you do let your frustrations get the better of you in the workplace like it did here, I wouldn’t like being your employee, at least some of the time.

    4. Elbe*

      It’s incredibly telling that in all of these comments you’ve never addressed a single one of Alison’s points. You clearly don’t have any interest in learning about why this practice is damaging as a whole.

      Your main complaint seems to be that you’d like to keep doing something unethical, but that you’re sick of people telling you that it’s unethical.

      Giving someone a “raise” to compensate for the fact that you started out underpaying them is not a kindness. It does not indicate that they are valued. If you’re actually offering a competitive wage, it’s in your best interest to attract applicants by advertising that.

    5. anonymouslee*

      The apology for your tone is completely undercut by your many rude comments throughout the thread and doubling down in this very comment.

      “Starting at a lower salary first makes giving raises (and a false appearance of generosity) easier” is a poor excuse.

      Negotiations are fine. That’s not what you’re doing and it’s not what anyone has a problem with. That’s been made clear to you multiple times.

      You’re also exaggerating quite a bit about what commenters are saying. “How is that so EVIL?? Maybe they are TRAUMATIZED LITTLE PUPPIES!” Get a grip.

      You seem hung up on justifying actions that the vast, vast majority of people are telling you are unjustifiable. The thing is, whatever others think about it from the outside, you shouldn’t be this intent on convincing us if it’s truly working for you. If you honestly believe your employees are paid fairly and the system works for you, why do you care what anyone here has to say about it? Because you obviously really, really care about how others are characterizing your behavior.

      1. yala*

        Honestly, I’m wondering if someone, an employee or otherwise, in their personal life made a comment about how lousy this practice is or something, and OP just doesn’t know about AITA.

    6. CaliCali*

      “Starting at a lower-than-necessary salary has been very useful especially in order to give raises.”

      OK, so…raises are a retention tool. I’d rather have the money now and go w/o a future raise than to have my employer lowball me so they can “incentivize” me through a raise. If this is the only way you can afford raises, your business model sucks.

      1. Elbe*

        The OP really seems to lack self awareness about what she’s doing here.

        She wants the social and professional benefits of appearing generous to her employees, but she doesn’t want the cost of actually paying them a generous wage. So, she starts with a low wage and then just ups it to market rate. This way, she gets the benefit of paying them below market for several months or years, but still gets the warm glow of being a kind boss who “cares” about her employees.

      2. yala*

        This reminds me of a friend of mine who does VERY complicated and specialized work. She meets her quota, but just barely (she’s award-winning in her field, tho, so it’s kind of one of those Pick Two: Cheap, Good, Fast things), and they have the option of taking on extra projects to make extra money.

        Her employer straight up asked her if she would be on board with them paying her less so she would have to work on extra projects to make her usual salary.

    8. Ann*

      My state, and many other states, have now made it illegal for employers to refuse to give the salary range for a job posting to candidates. Hope this comes back to bite you in the butt.

      BTW, I’m not totally convinced you’re actually a business owner and not just an edgy teenager.

    10. bmj*

      “Starting at a lower-than-necessary salary has been very useful especially in order to give raises. ” – this is not a good reason. just more evidence of undervaluing people, and doing it long-term. if you started with what people are worth, and can’t afford that as a business owner, then you are bad at business! if you want to be evil, go for it. but own it. what you want is to have your cake and eat it too. you want to assert that everyone would take advantage of you if you didn’t do it first, and that therefore there’s nothing wrong with it. that’s not the way morals work. there is a medium where you aren’t taking advantage of your employees, and they aren’t taking advantage of you. you are CHOOSING to presume bad faith on their part, which says more about you than about your current or prospective employees.

      so there!

      1. Environmental Compliance*

        It feels very, very troll-y to me.

        But perhaps that is misplaced optimism that someone would not take the time to write in to an advice column that specifically discusses why OP’s Opinion/Actions are bad ideas, and where’s why, just to disagree, then actually respond back by doubling down in the comments. I really do not understand the purpose of OP’s writing in if not just to get a response when there is such a blatant attitude.

        1. Lady Ariel Ponyweather*

          I know what you mean; it does feel that way because the letter and responses in the comments hit all the outrage points.

          There are people like this, though, who are convinced they are Hard Done By and must Make A Statement to all the lowly people out there who just don’t get their hard work and sacrifice, etc. I think the purpose of the letter is that OP just wants an audience to lecture about how they know best. It seems like they’re having fun, although they probably don’t realise all the attention just help Alison’s site, lol.

          1. Environmental Compliance*

            Yup – 100% just poking trying to get a reaction.

            Apparently their time is better spent trying to be Righteous Rebellion on the Internetz rather than paying their people appropriately.

            1. Lady Ariel Ponyweather*

              lol right? Totally the best use of a doctor’s time. Why use it to instead treat patients or be kind to to their employees?

              I can’t help thinking that had this been genuine and from a different place, the response might have been different, e.g., ‘I want to pay people more but I just can’t and am frustrated.’ It would have been far more useful as well. While I’ve enjoyed getting outraged with everyone, it would have been nice to have a productive conversation and maybe even help find solutions.

    12. Clawfoot*

      Yes, your go-to defense seems to be that you have a couple of long-term employees who seem quite happy. It’s impossible for anyone here (including you) to tell if that’s true or not, but it’s also a moot point.

      Allison has clearly outlined exactly why lowballing employees as much as you can is problematic both legally and ethically. Women and people of colour are pretty strongly culturally conditioned to undervalue their work, which will create inequities in your pay model. You haven’t addressed that issue at all.

      So here’s my main question: what are you specifically doing in your business to ensure that you’re complying with the Equal Pay Act? How are you controlling for unequal pay if one employee is looking for $20/hr (and gets it) and another says $15/hr (and gets it)?

    13. Don't Send Your Kids to Hudson University*

      Other’s have adequately provided feedback on the idea that your current approach allows you more flexibility and generosity toward your employees–so I’m not going there.

      You have yet to explain why your desire to start an employee at the low end of your budgeted range followed by the potential for a merit-based raise requires that you hide the ball in salary negotiations. You can simply provide information about the starting salary to prospective employees and let them respond. If they indicate they are looking for more, you can consider that, or not. You can also let prospective employees know that you start new employees at the low end of a specified range, and re-evaluate after a 6 month probationary period (or whatever makes sense) with the option of a merit increase at that time. All of that would be valuable to for a prospective employee to know and you lose nothing by being upfront and transparent about it.

      By requiring the prospective employee to start this conversation, when you have all of the information, is simply unfair and unproductive. You hold all the cards here, and the main point we are all making is that there is really no need for you to approach these negotiations as you do in order to get the outcomes that are working for your business, but you seem to remain oblivious to the cost of doing so anyway.

    14. Sunflower Sea Star*

      “so there” ?!?!?!?
      You will NEVER learn. Even in a so-called “apology” for your tone you show your true colors.
      And no, emoticons can’t undo everything you’ve doubled down on.
      (Pretend I hurled an insult here) ;-)

    15. AntiSocialite*

      That’s just a shell game, those aren’t actual raises.

      You’re just giving the person, who has already worked very hard for you over time and passed your bizarre “didn’t leave” loyalty test, the money they would have received at the outset, had they given you the right magic number from the start.

      And, you shouldn’t be taking from the hiring salary pool to pay the bonuses and cost of living adjustments. Those should be separate budgetary items, which anyone with actual managerial experience would know and do.

      It speaks volumes that hundreds of people have very thoughtfully and thoroughly explained why so much of what you’re doing is wrong on multiple levels. But instead of listening and re-evaluating (or learning!), you have spent hours bitchily defending your actions. And this is all most likely during your work hours and not personal time.

      This goes way beyond salary range disclosure, or even your managerial skills. This is about you as a person. You have a lot to work on.

      So there, indeed.

    16. Tinker*

      You’re asserting with your words that you are offering a competitive wage, but your actions are saying that you need to screen people for low expectations before you describe the offer. If you want to continue to do that, obviously that is your choice — running your business in this way does seem to give you satisfaction. However, nothing in what you have said here has convinced me that Alison is wrong in saying that the recommended practice is otherwise.

    17. ugh*

      You are terrible at reading comprehension and it really makes me doubt your skills as a clinician. Obviously you’re also a terrible boss. Enjoy being literal Scrooge, I guess.

    18. MD*

      “Starting at a lower-than-necessary salary has been very useful especially in order to give raises.”

      But what about the math? Raises are calculated on base salary. A lower base salary means you are always playing catch-up to the market rate. Suppose these things:
      Market rate 1-5 yrs = $40,000
      Market rate 6-10 yrs = $45,000
      Market rate 11-15 yrs = $50,000

      You employ two people for 15 years. Employee A is paid market rate for the entire 15 years, with their pay subsequently increasing every 5 years. Employee B is paid at a starting salary of $36,000, with a raise of 5% every 3 years. After 15 years, Employee A has been paid a total of $675,000. After 15 years, Employee B has never caught up to being paid market rate (still underpaid $6,241.77/year) and has been paid $596,768.18 in total, a difference of $78,231.82 compared to Employee A.

      Of course things are not as simple as this example; but I am trying to demonstrate that Employee B still looses, even when they are given consistent raises.

    19. Valprehension*

      ….you don’t see the problem with cheating your employees out of a couple thousand dollars in their first year just so you can give them a raise later? Unless you make the raise retroactive, you can stuff it. Pay them what they’re worth from the get-go, otherwise you’re cheating them out of money.

    20. Cass*

      You state in your letter than you have no formal training in starting a small business, I assume this includes hiring and establishing salary ranges for the jobs you need done. You admit to paying “lower-than-necessary” salaries, which I’m assuming means less than market value. Unless the raises you’re giving are exceptional it’s likely your still lagging the market.

      How did you decide on setting your rates of pay for these jobs? How are you deciding what kinds of raises to give? Are you keeping pace with inflation or cost of living in your area? It’s possible (likely) your employees have less buying power with their salaries now than you first hired them, or these “raises” are keeping their pay stagnate since it was set lower at the start.

      My hunch is also that none of the comments (mine included) will sink in because you were never really looking for advice. Your half-hearted “Why?” in your letter is clearly rhetorical. You wrote in so you could boast about I don’t know what? Low-balling people? Mission accomplished, I guess. But this isn’t a community where that kind of tactic is embraced.

    21. Parenthetically*

      Literally no one has said “scarred and traumatized.” That’s you, creating a strawman of people’s legitimate objections to your shitty salary practices.

      So there.

    22. yala*

      I…I keep thinking this is a joke. It has to be. Because you keep presenting really horrible stuff as if it puts you in a better light.

      You’re “frustrated” by hearing about how employers shouldn’t do something that frequently contributes to systemic inequality and hurts workers? Sorry, I guess.

      “Starting at a lower-than-necessary salary has been very useful especially in order to give raises. We get a new employee (like our fabulous senior one now), realize she is fabulous, and are able to convey that (quite early on) with a raise. Which, if we started at the top of our range, we couldn’t.”

      THIS ISN’T BETTER.

      WHY WOULD YOU THINK THIS IS BETTER.

      It’s basically “Artificial Scarcity: Now In Paycheck Form.”

      “Hiring is a negotiation, and each side is hoping to do whatever is in their best interest. And, snarky tone aside, I still don’t think that there is anything inherently evil in that.”

      Things can be lousy without directly being “evil.” Taking advantage of people isn’t cool, even if it nets you a little more money each year.

      Lord, this is gross. This is so gross.

      1. Elbe*

        +1,000

        There’s a real undercurrent of “Telling me how I’ve hurt other people really hurts MY feelings!”

        The OP is asking us to ignore evidence about how this practice hurts us individually and as a society so that she doesn’t have to do the difficult work of realizing that some of her behavior is unkind and unfair.

        She wrote in when she hasn’t hired in years and hasn’t engaged at all with the factual explanation she received from Alison, so it seems this isn’t so much a practical question so much as a defensive stance. As someone who wants to both a) underpay employees and b) feel like a good person, she’s upset by the notion that intentionally withholding information so that you can underpay employees is something that reflects poorly on you.

    23. Ethyl*

      “Starting at a lower-than-necessary salary has been very useful especially in order to give raises…”

      But the raises are based on the artificially depressed wages to begin with!!!!! Your employees can NEVER CATCH UP!

      Manipulating people into accepting a lower salary to line your own pockets* is disgusting on its face! Adding this aspect like it helps just makes you look even worse! And you don’t seem to be able to understand that!

      * (NB: others have covered why employee wages don’t actually come out of your pocket, but it’s worth mentioning again that that’s not how it works.)

      Seriously, your reading comprehension, understanding of human beings, empathy, and general grasp of professionalism are all seriously lacking. There are professionals and classes who can help you with all of this.

    24. ADHSquirrelWhat*

      Fine.

      Show them your letter. Tell them you did undervalue them. See how they react.

      If that sounds remotely like a bad idea, then what you’re doing? NOT GOOD.

      If you’re not willing to show this to your employees, and tell them this is your hiring practice, then it’s a bad idea.

      If you ARE willing to show it to them, you’re very likely to need new employees.

    25. Not So NewReader*

      OP you keep saying the same things over and over.
      You are either trolling or you are not capable of grasping the concepts here. No gray area on this one. I have no idea which one it is and I am not terribly concerned either way.

      You are not good at “funny snark”. Stop. Just stop. It does not come across in your letter/comments as funny and it is causing a growing feeling of disrespect toward you. I hope you do not treat your subordinates with the same snarky, stubborn attitude you show here, but I see little evidence that you are able to step away from the snark and the stubbornness.

      You wrote a letter to Alison where you had NO intention of taking her advice. Fortunately thousands of other people will take her advice and apply it with good results. Unfortunately for you, you have just wasted her time and our time on your behalf.

      If you want to end up with second string employees, if you want to set the course for ultimately sinking your biz, you have that prerogative. You are allowed to unravel your biz if you want. You are allowed to apply old-fashioned thinking to your business practices. The times are changing, values are changing and it is in your best interest to keep up.

      I definitely would never work for a person with your attitude. And if I found I was doing business with you I would take my business elsewhere. Matter of fact, I have in the past so I will continue to do so. I pray you are not involved in direct care of any sort.

      I sincerely hope none of your employees see what you have written here. I am sure I am not the only one who can say, “If I recognized you are my boss, I would quit on the spot, no notice.” I have no desire to be around people who are stuck or rigid in their thinking.

    27. AngryOwl*

      You’re still acting like your two people are some sort of gotcha. You realize that’s a very small sample size, right?

    28. Champagne Cocktail*

      Frustration isn’t fun. Learning that Allison doesn’t support your unethical practice is probably extra frustrating.

      Paying less so you can give them a raise later is a terrible reason for not paying them well up front. Trying to get away with (your words) paying someone as little as possible is an exercise in pettiness.

      I’m guess you were also hoping Allison and/or the majority of commenters would validate your behavior. If you need that external validation, maybe that’s your conscience bothering you.

  174. CleverGirl*

    Wow, OP, you are definitely sounding like one of those people who went into the medical field for the money. I would not want to work for you. If my boss wrote a letter like this and I found out about it I would immediately start looking for another job.

    1. J!*

      Honestly, if I found out my doctor was saying this about the nurses and support staff in their office, I’d find another doctor to go to.

      1. Crivens!*

        Same, this actually led me to go look up Glassdoor reviews of all my doctors offices to see what their support staff is saying about them. I’d have dropped them if I’d have found stuff like this.

        1. halfmanhalfshark*

          I just switched GPs yesterday for lots of reasons that are covered by other discussions about why doctors can be awful (plus their office staff is just mean), and your comment prompted me to look up the practice on GlassDoor. This practice is hiring for medical secretaries and receptionists. They are offering an hourly wage of $12-15 with NO benefits, Spanish speaking required. This practice is located in a very nice neighborhood in a major US city where someone earning $15/hour could not afford to live. And the city’s minimum wage is $13/hour (going up to $14/hour in July)!

          I’d wonder if OP was my former doctor, except that comparatively, she really is paying her employees generously by comparison.

  175. animaniactoo*

    OP, having read through a bunch of your comments here, the problem is that you are looking for certainty in places where it doesn’t exist. You’re looking for guarantees. In ways that have a RESULT of underpaying for the role, based on what you were willing to pay.

    If you want a certain amount of guarantee, this is what you can do to look after your own interests while being fair to your employees (whenever you end up hiring again):

    Offer them a contract. We don’t use contracts much here in the U.S. but a contract is what ensures that an employee sticks around long enough to have made the job hunt worth it. In a contract you can build in penalties for breaking the contract, cause for breaking the contract without penalty, spell out probationary periods, and so on.

    Yeah. It’s more work for you to do that, and it does bind you tighter. But if you want to bind them tighter while being fair to them from the standpoint of salary negotiation, etc., this is what will get you there.

    If you don’t want to offer a contract, you’re going to have to offer market rate and trust that somebody who applies for and/or accepts market rate has accepted it because that’s what they’re looking for – which is what most people do. You don’t protect yourself from the relatively few people who would do badly by you, by looking out for yourself in a way which does badly by the people you hire. Even if, in the end, they don’t feel that you are/have done badly by them because they have no idea what you were willing to do before you put them in the position of accepting less than you were willing to pay.

    But either way – you’re going to have to stop looking for ironclad guarantees that don’t exist, and simply do a better job of ensuring that you get what you want based on how you check your candidates out when that salary question is off the table. What other questions you ask them, how you evaluate their answers, how you check their references, etc.

  176. Val*

    OP, you haven’t hired anyone in 8 years, and the last time you hired someone before that was 15 years ago? How can you POSSIBLY know what good hiring practices are? You have almost zero experience at it.

    1. ...and...*

      Here’s the thing. If we can take your word for it, you’ve successfully hired three people (including the returnee) over the past fifteen years. You’re happy with their work, and they’re happy enough with their working conditions to stick around. So, yeah, you could say your way works. And if that’s how you want to keep handling things — and clearly you are not open to persuasion — fine. But next time you hire someone, why not give it a try the other way and see what happens? Post the job with the range you’re expecting to pay. Make the range the lowest you think anyone would possibly accept and the actual highest you can afford. See who applies. Maybe you’ll be pleasantly surprised at the difference in quality from previous applicant pools.

  177. AnonNurse*

    I’m going to not try to jump all over the OP but this letter really hit me in a not so nice way. Bragging that you can get away with paying people less than they are really worth is not a good look or a good policy. This just reminds me of a physician I interviewed with once that wanted to pay me $16/hr to work in her office – as an RN. In my area new LPNs right out of school can make more than that, much less for an RN. I was very polite when I expressed that I just couldn’t take that kind of pay cut and her response made it seem that she was almost offended that I would expect more. Left a very bitter taste in my mouth and certainly made it seem like she did not value the knowledge or education of her staff.

  178. Oaktree*

    I wish this person could disclose their place of business so I could never, ever work there, and could also warn others off applying or patronizing them.

    1. Just Another Manic Millie*

      What’s funny is that I was just telling myself that I’m glad that I’m retired, because if I were job-hunting, I certainly wouldn’t want to waste my time applying to work for the OP (after one of OP’s very happy employees should happen to quit, that is).

    2. Jedi Squirrel*

      Exactly! It’s curious that they inquire where they know they can remain anonymous. Why don’t they just post this all over their office?

  179. Remove Worker and Dog Lover*

    Yikes! I’m so glad to hear Allison shutting this practice down. OP, I read hope you read her response and take it to heart. You’re treating potential employees really poorly.

  182. E. Messily*

    I’m especially distressed by the fact that this is a medical professional, who presumably provides really important services where employee quality matters a lot.

    I am deaf. When I visit medical professionals, I need an ASL interpreter. The medical professional’s office is required to provide one (by the ADA as well as state laws). Small offices have almost never budgeted for this, and almost always treat it as an unfair and unwanted burden. A very common result is that they hire the cheapest interpreter they can find- which results in very underqualified interpreters making a mess of communication in a very important setting. Hiring interpreters who are willing to work for lower or below-market rates ALWAYS results in interpreters who are not qualified for the job, which ALWAYS results in frustrating and sometimes dangerous misunderstandings. Trying to save money by lowballing employees is unethical all the time, but it’s especially bad for a medical professional- your job is supposed to be to provide the highest quality service for your patients, not to make the highest profit possible.

    1. Lady Ariel Ponyweather*

      I’m so sorry these so-called professionals treat you that way. It’s absolutely wrong. I hope you can find a decent doctor soon.

  183. La Framboise*

    Our friend Dave paid his staff (exercise equipment sales and repair) extremely well, paid 100% of their healthcare (before the ACA), and has extremely loyal staff who have been with him 30 years. One of Dave’s staff came to our house to fix the equipment we had bought, and was telling us how long he had worked for Dave, how Dave had hired him out of the Army, and what I had to do to ensure the equipment was working properly so that he wouldn’t have to come out anytime soon. If a business owner doesn’t get that kind of loyalty, they are, in my opinion, doing it wrong. Dave should be an example for all of us.

    Also you have no idea whether or not your staff speak badly or well of you, or what they tell your patients about you. Savvy staff know.

  184. bookartist*

    If you have partners, you collectively own some type of entity that has its own assets. You owners wouldn’t be reaching into your pockets if something needed purchase or repair – you’d take it from the org’s account or credit card. The money for staff salary similarly comes out of the entity’s own cashflow, not your own pockets (and the money only comes into the company if you have staff in the first place).

  185. Good riddance*

    The fact that the OP read the response and not once in their follow-up comments has said, “hm, I’ll take all of this into consideration,” tells you everything you need to know about that person.

  186. foolofgrace*

    Once upon a time I thought I had a permanent job for a doctor’s office. After a week or so, I finished the “first” project I’d been given, only to be told the job was over. He gave me a check for $175 and had written on the back that any endorsement of the check indicated I agreed that it was payment in full. I was really up against the wall – I NEEDED that money, right then. What could I do? I cashed the check. What a horrible person that doctor was. I hope karma bit him hard in the ass.

  187. Coverage Associate*

    I am blown by a medical office with only 2 support staff for at least 3 professionals. That’s also an old school way of operating, outside of mental health.

    Here’s what I would say to OP and the dozens of doctors I know like her: It’s a trade off. Your system attracts a certain caliber of worker for a certain wage, probably a less experienced and career-oriented employee. (Think of the difference between a “job” and a “career.”) With only 2 employees, I imagine you have contractors or take professional time to do services that employees could do, such as billing, medical transcription, and patient intake. If you attracted a higher caliber employee, maybe you could give her some of that work you contract out or do yourself, for a savings of money or time, though probably not both.

    But you may also like your current set up. One thing that stands out to me is that there is limited advancement opportunity in such a small office. If you had a high performer and trained her to expand the job, that could easily switch her from a job mindset to a career mindset, and you could lose her that way. You can’t know if the savings in time or money from however long you get great work from a great employee would make up for the costs of having to replace her.

    For what it’s worth, the similar medical office I worked at loved to hire high school students. You didn’t have to pay them much, and they never said, “that’s not my job.”

  189. Anna Nutherthing*

    I was interested in the “I became a small business owner/employer having received no training in that aspect of things, but I learned early on” that I know better than professionals aspect of the OP’s letter. There are so many fields where laymen think they can intuit it through with no need to get training or hire a professional. One of those is human resources. It just takes being a good judge of character, right? All I need to do is treat salary negotiation like any other business deal, right? We don’t need no steenkin’ professionals!

  190. Roz*

    As someone who works in regulating medical/health professionals, the approach and tone of this letter is such a good example of the personalities we see among the people in these professions who go the independent practitioner/small business owner route. The first sentence made me lol, and then I buckled up for what I knew was coming.

    Hilarious and so out of touch and yet so defiant that they might actually need to reflect and learn something (especially from others “beneath them”)

    HAHAHAHAHA yeah.

  191. blink14*

    OP – I can kind of see where you are coming from this, hard to tell what the tone is from some of your wording. I think a lot of this depends on the industry and type of skill level you are looking for.

    My family runs a small business that has been around for about 40 years. It’s a factory, so most of the employees are low-skilled manual laborers, with a small group of higher skilled supervisors and a small group of office/HR/accounting staff. The company routinely hires from the pool of people that are either not qualified for a higher paying job and/or not wanted by other companies. This includes ex-cons, those with very limited education (there have been several people over the years with no more than an 8th grade education), people on probation, immigrants, and migrant workers (some of the jobs are cyclical). All of them are paid fairly for the industry, which isn’t high but it’s in line with other competitors, and is providing jobs to some people who literally have no other options. The supervisor level positions are held by long term employees – we’re talking 20+ years, a few have been there since the company started – and again provide a job to people who have great technical and managerial skills, but wouldn’t be hired into a similar level position somewhere else, for a variety of reasons. The office staff is paid fairly for the region and industry. Everyone receives private health insurance.

    The point being – this is a small business that hires from the “depths of society”. Those with high level skills and education are rewarded as such by the positions they hold (there are some specialty positions that require specific degrees or certifications). Everyone is treated with respect, and is expected to perform their jobs properly – safety is of utmost importance and could literally mean life or death in case of an accident.

    In the medical field, you’re relying on these people to work with sensitive, personal information that needs to be handled carefully or something catastrophic could happen. Pay them fairly. I suspect your long term employees are comfortable with where they are at, not only because of salary, but because of benefits – maybe that’s work hours, PTO, insurance, flex time, etc. Look at that, and figure out how to present a full package to a potential employee. I actually would prefer to go in to an interview knowing the salary range, but it needs to be real, not something like being paid an hourly wage for 6 months and then getting a raise to show that I’m liked. I’d rather have that higher salary going in, knowing that my skill and knowledge are being respected from the start.

  192. irene adler*

    Kinda makes me wonder if the employees ever ponder what they can “get away with” in that office.

    1. I Wrote This in the Bathroom*

      There was a saying in my home country, back when every place of employment was government-owned and paid a nominal salary, “They pretend to pay us, and we pretend to work.”

    2. Rusty Shackelford*

      Mmm, good point. If you’re paying the absolute minimum you can get away with, I wouldn’t be surprised if your employees are doing the absolute minimum they can get away with. And why should they do more? Good for the goose, good for the gander.

  193. tren*

    In your response to “I ask candidates their salary expectations and don’t feel bad about it” you bring up some very good points but missed an opportunity to influence the OP. It’s clear it’s a hot button topic for you but I think you went too far with the tone of your response. It comes across less informative with an eye to changing his mind then you jumping on your soap box and loosing a good opportunity to make real change. Shame.

    1. yllis*

      The OP does not want their mind changed.

      They read the column and are familiar with the posts about this topic. They wanted to climb up on their soapbox, yell and then watch what happens.

    2. The Francher Kid*

      Considering the tone of the letter, which was sneering and defiant, whatever makes you think the OP was open to real change? That OP needed a Clue By Four and Alison gave them one.

    3. anonymouslee*

      This is so condescending. Alison has been running this blog for years and years, she knows what she wants to achieve with her responses and how to do it. There’s no “shame” needed, especially not from someone who doesn’t see the hypocrisy of ~jumping on his soapbox~ on someone else’s extraordinarily successful blog. At least LW solicited advice; Alison didn’t.

  194. toodleoodlewhordleordle*

    OP is wrong in several ways, but one thing I’m noticing particularly in their responses in the comments is the Outcome Fallacy: because they have been able to retain a couple of good employees for a while, they MUST be doing things right. Right? The eventual outcome was fine, so the initial actions must have been fine too.
    That’s not how any of this works, of course. It’s the same logic as saying “it was a good choice to steal $500 from my wife’s purse and sneak off to the casino, because I won $5000 and got back before she woke up.” Just because something turned out ok this time doesn’t mean it was a good idea. It might seem like evidence based reasoning to OP, but it’s really just “I got mine this time, so who cares?”

    1. Don't Send Your Kids to Hudson University*

      Exactly. There’s nothing about the outcome LW wants, that requires she refrain from transparency about salary. Employees haven’t been content to stay BECAUSE she withheld information about pay until they threw out a number. There are multiple ways to create a structure where she can offer the salary that is within her budgeted range, allow employees who want more to self-select out, and retain the ability to provide merit-based increased in the future. The positive outcomes are happening here despite the gamesmanship and lack of transparency by LW, I suspect because she’s been truthful about the overall office culture and benefits to employees. Why not ensure the outcomes she wants (happy employees, who stay) by doing things in the hiring process that are actually designed to make those outcomes more likely, rather than simply lucky?

    2. Allypopx*

      Right. So many things could be going on here. The employees could be in a financial position where they don’t mind the low paying work. There could be a shortage of jobs in the area. What seems likeliest to me given the timeline is that they came into this job during an economically difficult time and got comfortable. Change is difficult!

      Whether it’s ANY of these factors or something completely and totally different, people still deserve to be paid what they’re worth. No exceptions.

    3. Ezera*

      I found it interesting that OP left out the part about how a more recent hire only stayed a year. Pretty relevant.

        1. thebobmaster*

          “at the end”

          Yeah, something tells me that Sears was in full “f- it” mode by that point. Who cares about bad publicity or word getting around if you aren’t going to be there next year?

        2. Lady Ariel Ponyweather*

          There’s more than one place that did this?! I was thinking of a recent news story from Canada. I shouldn’t be surprised. Honestly, at that point, Sears should have just given everything to their employees anyway.

    2. Who Plays Backgammon?*

      Ooh, like Appalachian mining towns in the 19th century! Reverse progress–the old days were the good days.

  196. Whew Boy*

    “Firstly, the money comes directly from our pockets and frankly if we can get away with paying $20/hour instead of $22/hour, why wouldn’t we?”

    Thank you, OP, for being an excellent example of exactly why employers are moving away from this kind of practice. It’s because so many people have figured out that when you do this to job seekers, it’s an indication of bigger red flags in your practices as an employer, namely your overall attitude.

    Your employees are part of the reason your business operates and makes money. They are integral to why you have those funds in the first place – if not, you could do it without them. It’s so… odd, and weird, frankly, that you believe all the money it takes to run the business belongs first to you, and that somehow these burdensome employees are just taking it from you out of your pocket. So you’re trying to “get away with” doing as little as you can for them. That’s kind of a gross way to think about it. What if your employees started “getting away with” giving you as little as possible?

    Also, many bosses of people who read this blog also think their employees “seem” happy. LOL.

    1. Damien*

      “…you believe all the money it takes to run the business belongs first to you, and that somehow these burdensome employees are just taking it from you out of your pocket.”

      Excellent way to put it!

    3. Who Plays Backgammon?*

      In writing our papers, we used to call “seem” the “weasel word” for when you didn’t have clear evidence of something so you pulled together what you did have that indicated a certain truth existed. Circumstantial evidence, in other words. That works in a literary paper, but when you’re talking about people’s livelihoods it really does let you weasel out of knowing the facts. Yeah, maybe they’re happy–and maybe they’re stuck in a job with a cheapskate boss who doesn’t compensate for the value they bring to the organization. I’ve stayed a long time on jobs where I wasn’t a bit happy, even with subpar pay, because a crummy paycheck was better than none and there was little else in the offing in that place/time.

  198. Jedi Squirrel*

    So OP is comfortable with the following:

    1) Potentially breaking the law.

    2) Discriminating against women and minorities.

    3) Underpaying employees for the value they bring to the business.

    4) Unfairly using their knowledge of the labor market to underpay their employees.

    There are several words that come to mind to describe you, OP, but the biggest one is IMMORAL.

    1. NotAnotherManager!*

      But you don’t understand. This is money out of OP’s pocket. Why should they be required to be mindful of the rights of others or legal compliance when they can make a few extra bucks?

  199. Jedi Squirrel*

    It’s also tough being an underpaid employee.

    Nobody here has discounted the reality of being a small business owner. But you own a BUSINESS, not the PEOPLE that you employ.

    Your attitude reeks of privilege. There is plenty of data out there, so why don’t YOU google it? Oh, that’s right—that’s something you’ll have your minions do.

    And frankly, most of your assertions are just racist. You sound like a sock puppet account. Time for you to scuttle off back to 4Chan.

    1. Jedi Squirrel*

      Okay, apparently the comment I was replying to got deleted. Feel free to delete my angry response.

  200. Boni*

    First of all:
    “I employ two staff in our small office”
    “Our current staff have been with us for 8 and 15 years”

    My dude … who are these people who you are ALWAYS asking salary from if you haven’t hired anyone in 8 years?

    1. Ezera*

      She shared in the comments that she actually had to hire someone more recently, after one of her original hires left due to family/medical reasons. New hire stayed a year and then left, and then old hire returned.

      Definitely relevant. Not everyone was as happy with the job as she initially said.

  201. Kitty*

    “You always advocate that employees look out for their own interests. Why should that be so different for me as an employer?”

    Because there is a huge power difference.

    “Maybe we tend to think of employers as BIG CORPORATION, but at least in our case it’s just hard-working individuals hoping to keep expenses in check.”

    So tired of ‘poor me, the business owner, I have it so tough’. If you can’t afford to pay people a fair wage that matches industry standards, then you can’t afford to have a business. People are not required to reduce their wage earning capacity to support your dream of owning a business.

  202. Damien*

    LORD. I was not nearly sober enough to be confronted by the tone of that letter. Love this response.

    LW better get their head out of their backside and start paying people right.

  203. Specialist*

    Sooooo, this has been one mess of a pile on. I am surprised that the OP is willing to come back here, yet glad that she does. There have been so many assumptions made and insults thrown. Perhaps this thread should be shut down.

    I have my own medical office. I’ve run it for years and am quite successful. I know the business better than most of my peers. The OP did a bad job explaining this from the get-go. Most physicians would. We tend to be very blunt people. However, just because she does this one thing that Allison and others don’t currently recommend DOES NOT mean that she is paying below market wages or that she is stiffing the employees every which way she can. That is an over-read.

    Employee costs are probably the biggest line item expense in a medical practice. This is certainly the case for the hospitals. ( I know this because I sit on various committees…..) The thing with most independent medical practices is that the business is a pass through. So whatever money is left at the end of the day is the physicians’ salary/compensation. When the OP says that paying a higher wage would come directly out of her pocket, she isn’t kidding. She just didn’t phrase it well. The other side of this is that when there is a cash flow problem, the physician is the one that doesn’t get paid. I have experienced this and can guarantee that it sucks. Small offices like this, with only 2 employees, will be using an outside billing service. If something goes wrong with the software, or the billing service loses a key professional coder, income can get screwed up for months. There is a thing called timely filing, so if the insurance company gets the claim late, usually past 90 days, they don’t have to pay. If you paid $7000 for the medication to treat that patient, and the bill goes in late, you eat that cost.

    There are offices that hire at a much lower salary. People work there to get experience and then look for a better paying job. There is more turnover just because of the salary. I don’t like turnover, so don’t use this model. However, there are offices close to mine who do use this model. If they don’t mind the turnover in exchange for the cheaper salary costs, that is up to them. If you think about it, keeping control of costs, including salary, is something that is discussed in all businesses all over. This shouldn’t be a surprise to anyone. “Fair wage” is a nebulous term and has a different definition depending on the side of the table where you happen to be seated. There are companies who will do salary research for your area. I’ve had this done. It helps me to determine where my staff salaries should be. My business model is to pay better than average. I also am a decent person to work for according to my staff, and regularly have people trying to come in from the local hospitals.

    There are any number of business courses for health care. Most of us take some during our career. Just because it isn’t in the med school curriculum doesn’t mean that we can’t access this information. We can also hire more or less of the management of the office from other companies. The physician’s time is best spent treating patients. The office staff don’t actually make the practice money in most cases.

    The business of medicine is an odd one. The same service goes for wildly different prices with different insurance companies. The business consultants who come through almost always recommend getting rid of medicare and medicaid patients. Those payors will usually pay 22% and 18% of charges, or somewhere around there. The payments are so low that they don’t cover costs. While we are seeing a provider shortage hitting those patient populations more than others, for the most part the patients can still find care eventually. So most physicians will still take this, even though it is a significant problem for reimbursement. That is because people need care and that is what we want to do.

    There is a huge push right now to replace physicians with people with less training.

    1. NotAnotherManager!*

      I guess what I’m failing to understand is how this is radically different from any other owner-operator business. My spouse and I were both raised by people who owned their own businesses, and they also got paid last and ate unexpected expenses. My in-laws were nearly put out of business by big-box stores, and part of their business can be badly affected by the weather. My FIL also used to farm and had all of that plus unpredictable unit pricing on buys.

      Office staff is almost pure overhead for a lot of businesses, but (as you get from your choice to pay for retention) they’re still needed and are more efficient/less risky if you’re not playing games with their pay. Plenty of people are losing their jobs to automation, remote workers, and outsourcing.

      So I don’t really see how the problem is that medical offices are some sort of unicorn that OP is just explaining badly. I admit my bias of working for years with lawyers, who thought the they were special and not touchable by the changing market, makes me wonder if doctors are a profession that suffer from same.

      1. Willis*

        They’re not. I own a business that is a pass through as well, and have a few employees whose salary is my largest expense. So, yeah, if payments are late or I do a shitty job at billing or budgeting, I still have to pay employees and there’s less (or delayed payments) for me. But, I still tell people up front what a job pays and do research to make sure it is (and stays) competitive with the market. It’s really not that hard.

        Also, HELLO your staff are a big part of the reason your business is able to function so as an owner they are actually putting money in your pocket not taking it out! The idea that spending on employees (at least to keep them on par with what other businesses pay) is just “money out of your pocket” is so ridiculous it’s maddening. If you don’t want to pay people fairly, become a one-person show or go get a job working for someone else.

    2. Little My*

      Yeah, small businesses routinely eat into the owners profits, ie; income. That’s pretty much the deal with owning your own business, the medical practice is far from anomalous in this regard. I worked for well over a decade as a server at a small local restaurant that managed to weather the first year (notoriously hard for independently owned restaurants to make it even that far) and every year after that continuing to grow or at least hold steady, but the owner never stopped waiting tables every Friday night himself just to make ends meet. He’s still doing it.

    3. iliketoknit*

      It’s completely fine if a small business owner decides that they can only pay $X for a given employee because of the costs of running a business and what their expenses are and what they expect to earn for themselves. But that’s not what the OP is doing; the OP is letting *what a job applicant states about their salary expectations determine what they get paid.*

      This is not the OP saying “I can’t afford to pay more than $X,” nor is it the commentariat saying “anything less than $X is an unfair wage!” This is the OP saying, “I can afford/am willing to pay up to $X, but I’m going to make the applicant tell me their expectations FIRST, because if they say $X-5, then I can get away with paying them only $X-5, and then I will only pay them $X-5.” When apparently, if the same applicant had the mind-reading skill to say “My expectation is $X,” they’d end up getting paid $X. THAT is what is wrong with this situation.

      It absolutely makes sense that personnel costs are a huge expense and eat into employers’ own earnings, and that different employers will make different decisions about how to deal with that. But that doesn’t justify what this OP is saying.

    4. Not So NewReader*

      And you can speak in a civil explanatory tone with zero reliance on snark. You show a willingness to learn and grow with the times. I see lots of examples in what you think of to say and you are very conversational.
      Yet you also are dealing with a good load of stress.
      OP can do the same yet chose not to.

  204. Narvo Flieboppen*

    Very late to the party, but could I get the OP’s mailing address? Due to Alison’s response, I feel the need to send them a case of burn cream.

  205. Lizzie*

    Forty years ago I worked in a small office, was the only admin person. My husband and I separated. I approached the bank about taking over our house mortgage myself. I earned just enough to do that, but not enough to also pay out my husband’s share of the equity. I decided to leave the job and go to university. I was in the office when an excellent applicant laughed in my boss’ face when he disclosed the rate of pay, and that is how I discovered I was being underpaid compared to the market rate. House prices boomed the following year; I have never been able to get into the housing market and am still renting in my sixties. Underpaying people, however you do it, has long term REAL LIFE consequences.

    1. Not So NewReader*

      Pay attention, OP this is what Alison is talking about.

      I hope the universe has put other things in your path that are good things, Lizzie.

    2. Lady Ariel Ponyweather*

      That’s awful. I’m so sorry. Seconding Not So NewReader’s comment and wishing so many good things for you!

  206. Liane*

    I don’t have any respect for this small business owner. Why?
    Because my dad owned his own small business (painting & carpentry) from the 1950s – 1980s. Around 1975, when the minimum wage was $2.10/hour, Dad paid his skilled employees, whom he valued and respected, $6.00-6.50/hour, a very good wage for our area. He also told me that “I’d never give a raise of less than $1/hour, because that would be disrespectful.”

    1. CW*

      That’s roughly $28-$31/hr in 2020 dollars – a very good wage indeed. It just shows that being a small business is no excuse to be cheap. Your dad is a perfect example of this.

  207. Sachiko Roxanne*

    Marvelous response, Alison! I’m glad times are changing and people are moving away from the practices OP is so smug about.

  208. Parenthesis Dude*

    The thing is if you ask me for my range first, I’m probably going to pad it some with the expectation that you’re going to tell me that you can’t meet what I’m asking for, but can come $10k lower (or whatever). And that I’m not sure how good your benefits are, so I should presume that they’re worse than what I currently have (because you’re not going to tell me how much my health insurance premiums will be until you offer the job). So, if you want to pay $20-$22 and I ask for $25, that doesn’t mean much necessarily.

    The problem with lowballing someone is that they may not leave for a bit extra, but once they start looking and get a new job, they’ll want you to match their new offer. If you pay market rate, that will help with retention. But given the longevity of your employees, it seems like you are indeed paying a reasonable amount. Otherwise, they would have left already.

    1. Diahann Carroll*

      Again, this is a fallacy for all of the reasons listed above – people stay in low paying jobs all the time for many reasons.

    2. Ezera*

      OP shared in the comments that one of the original hires left due to personal reasons. New hire stayed 1 year and left. Then old hire returned.

      Not the uninterrupted tenure/employee satisfaction she originally implied.

  209. thebobmaster*

    To paraphrase Ian Malcolm, this author thought so much about whether she could that she didn’t stop to think about whether she should.

    And that’s my generous reading.

  210. ValorMelly*

    If you cannot pay your employees a respectable wage for their work, you should not own your own business. That’s it. That’s all it comes down to. If you won’t pay them, do the work yourself.

  211. Anonyplatymous*

    Alison: I sometimes disagree with your advice but your response to the Employer who “asks for salaries so there” was absolutely sheer perfection. I want to go out and buy a hat just so that I can doff it to you. Brava!

    1. Ferengi Rules of Acquisition*

      Rules of Acquisition
      211: Employees are the rungs on the ladder of success. Don’t hesitate to step on them.

  213. Alyssa*

    OP,

    You are wrong. Not only you, many people do this, but you were the one that happened to write the letter so I will say in no uncertain terms how this has negatively impacted my life.

    My time is quite literally my life. I view wasting my time as wasting my life. It’s quite simple: We have 100 years on the planet at maximum until we vanish forever. Most have far less. I pour my soul into applications. When I am interested in a job it can take hours. This means the time I spend applying time I’m not spending resting after a long day of work. Spending precious time with my family. Volunteering. Running errands. Truly living.

    You are wasting my time, and therefore my life for many reasons:
    1) This job might be a cut in pay, but I wouldn’t know before I spent 5 hours applying.
    2) I might waste time in an interview with you because I give a very big range just so you view my application. I might need to hire a sitter or elder care replacement in order to meet with you even though I will not take the job. I might have to take time off work in order to make this interview. Work that allows me to support myself and my family. A workplace that, even if I am looking, I have made a commitment to and do not want to disrespect.
    3) I have to spend time frantically searching for the market value of this job by using glassdoor and sending frantic messages to my network (if I am well connected enough to have one that is familiar with a given area of employment). I then have to strategize about how to frame my answer. I have to consider if I’ll lowball if I really need the job. I have to consider how big of a range. I have to consider if a deflection is worth it. I have to consider what I’ll say in an interview or if I will be disqualified if I dodge/give too big of a range.

    Please OP, reconsider. I am fortunate enough to be comfortable in my job such that I have only needed to apply to things that list a salary. Most do not have that luxury. Do not waste away their lives.

  214. MissDisplaced*

    “ a candidate expecting $24/hour might well say, “Ya, sure, that’s fine” while planning to take the job and keep looking for something else.“

    And not like there is anything fundamentally WRONG with this. People are entitled to take a job and keep looking for more money. That is why it’s called At Will employment! This us something business lobbied for by the way.

    1. CW*

      Yes indeed. At Will works both ways. An employer can fire an employee at any time for any reason. Consequently, an employee can quit at any time for any reason – and they do NOT have to give two weeks’ notice nor is the employer entitled to one.

  215. #WearAllTheHats*

    “ It also gives us room for raises, bonuses, etc. without taking too much of a financial hit. ”

    Pro Tip: You determine the maximum burden your company can take over X years. Say $45,000. You post a range for a salary of $35-41K annually. You have negotiation wiggle room. You have raise wiggle room for a couple years.
    Voila. You post your range and anyone who wants more than that can not waste your time and vice versa. And anyone who loves the range is extra-motivated. You were already willing to spend minimum $35k, so nothing is lost. Transparency wins always.

  217. Employment Lawyer*

    It’s your business. The people saying you should spend more are spending your money (and moreover, they mostly seem to care not a whit about your interests.)

    Obviously you can do what you want… but you may well be making a mistake.

    There are practical issues with your strategy: You won’t get the best employees (who usually cost more). You won’t incentivize people to leave competing jobs to join you. You may keep people for less time, which makes your training less valuable. You may lose people to other jobs more often, which adds replacement costs and security/competition issues. You may find they don’t work as hard, which devalues the wages you pay. They may not be as happy or thoughtful; etc. (It also may be illegal, I suppose, though that would really depend on your state and the size of your business, among other things.)

    All of those things have a distinct cost/benefit analysis. And $2/hour isn’t a great savings, at least from most perspectives. Lower level employees are there to act as a MULTIPLIER for the high skilled employees. You may incorrectly think that a 10% drop in production for a $20/hour employee is going to cost you $2/hour, but in fact it will also drop your *highly paid* employee outputs by 5-10%, which is much more expensive.

    In other words, if you’re getting the bargain-reject hard-up employees, they might well be costing you more than you’re saving.

    Of course, there are also risks to the other approach. You may overpay for someone. You will have higher unemployment rates (and a higher risk) if it doesn’t work out. You’ll have less money to invest in training them. You won’t have any extra money for bonuses or raises, which are helpful psychological tools: A lot of people seem to operate better with $1000 in bonus rather than an extra $20/month. And it may well be that a minor pay increase puts you in the “messy middle”: Expensive enough to significantly raise costs and risks for you, but not so well-paid as to significantly increase employee dedication and longevity.

    Only you will know which one makes sense. Make sure it’s legal, whatever you decide.

  218. Jenn*

    OP, at $2 difference per hour and a 40-hour workweek, your cost differential, assuming 25% for payroll costs (employer contributions, etc.), your annual savings is about $5,200. If you are sued, your initial consultation with a lawyer will cost that. Also, consider that your own time is probably worth what, $200/hr? If you lose a staff member, you will probably spend at least 26 hours posting a job ad, interviewing candidates, onboarding, and of course training. Also, if these are client-facing positions, what’s each client worth to you over a lifetime? If a staff member that still needs training loses you two clients, what are your losses? Is that wage difference that you think is saving you really still worth it at this point?

  219. Glitter Spuds*

    After reading the letter, Allison’s excellent response, and the extensive comment string. (What a roller coaster!) I found OP’s responses and snarky comments to have an almost “Amy’s Baking Company” vibe. It’s the whole “We’re great! Everyone loves it here! Also, we as the owners, get to keep all of the tips that people leave for our waitstaff. Because WE are the ones working HARD.”

  220. Ezera*

    I’m curious as to why OP thinks the recent hire she mentions in the comments left after 1 year.

    It doesn’t seem to be as rosy of a workplace as she initially implied.

  222. Mar*

    OP, I have two questions:
    1. If your hiring range is $20-$22/hr and the applicant gives you a low number (for whatever reason — they’re young, they’re unaware of market rates), what do you pay? If they give $16/hr as their salary, will you pay them the extra $4/hr (about $8K/year) or will you pay the $16?
    2. When you talk about the range you’re willing to pay, that’s the range you’re willing to *hire* at, right? In other words, you’re willing to hire at $20-$22/hr, but the actual range is higher because it accounts for raises, yes? You wouldn’t hire at the top of your salary range because then you’ve redlined the employee and can’t give raises.

  223. Maya Elena*

    I do think it’s fairer to say what you want to pay.
    That said, the same people who blithely say, “well if you want to be a business owner [read: EVIL EXPLOITER], you should be ok with jumping through any hoops and pay any costs we say you should pay, it’s just the cost of doing business” also support regulatory environments that actually impose real costs on small businesses, and actually incentivizes this sort of behavior and reduces the ability to be good employers for people without the relatively endless money and compliance staff of government or a large corporation (where $1M is a rounding error).
    “Well, doctor, you shouldn’t be in business if you can only afford to pay $20 when Mayo Clinic pays $30!”

    And it’s particularly unfortunate because it will be the people without connections or financial cushions — i.e. women and minorities — whom this hits more. Small business owners might do well or they might not, but from a class sense, a small employer might be closer in class to a mid-range employee, based on how much he makes, than to a CEO or even a mid-level policy-maker who writes the regulations and sets the hoops that he has to jump through for the privilege to even be in business.

    1. Gazebo Slayer*

      If we’re going to look at the race and gender angle here, well…. a lot more women and people of color are employees of small businesses than are owners of them. Why do only the owners’ interests and needs count?

      And while there are certainly lots of small businesses owners who do right by their employees, there are also a lot who don’t, as anyone who’s spent any time on this site should know. How, other than by regulation, are we to protect the employees of the bad ones? The ones who offer zero sick leave, pay Lucinda $20k a year less than Fergus who has the same qualifications, or say “if I could pay you less than minimum wage I would?” If the ~free market~ will take care of it, wouldn’t it have done so already?

      1. KC without the sunshine band*

        The free market takes care of those who pay attention. There are a ton of people who aren’t paying enough attention. It’s not necessarily laziness, it’s just that checking the market for a better job is time consuming. Life is hectic and there are so many things competing for priority of time. Spouse, kids, house, family, friends, health issues… The list goes on and on. Many people don’t put the time/effort in until they are really unhappy or know they are about to be on the market anyway. But if a company has high turnover, you can bet the free market is indeed speaking, either about the amount being paid, or the quality of life.

        1. Gazebo Slayer*

          Unfortunately, a lot of workers really don’t have much bargaining power. They don’t have highly sought after skills or credentials, or they live in a region with few jobs, or they have significant barriers to employment and face discrimination because of that. These workers still don’t deserve to be abused, even if it will take a long time for them to find another job. The free market doesn’t do a damn thing for them.

          I notice a theme here in your comments where you put the blame on the person with the least power. It’s not a good look.

    2. Lady Ariel Ponyweather*

      The shout of laughter I let out at this blast from the past. That was amazing. I still can’t believe her buying cakes and pretending she’d made them. I remember the speculation that the ‘restaurant’ was a front for money laundering. It made so much sense and was surprised when nothing came of it.

  225. Who Plays Backgammon?*

    News flash–Part of being a successful business, especially a small organization like yours with minimal staff, is having an efficient, well-run office. It’s more than just typing address labels and making appointments (and those are very important tasks in an operation like yours). You need intelligent, skilled, experienced, motivated staff. They make sure that your invoicing is done, which puts money IN your pocket. They make sure the office doesn’t have any safety hazards that could get you sued, which also affects your bottom line. They make sure John Smith’s test results don’t end up in John Smyth’s file. They no doubt do scads of things that I don’t even know about for a medical office. Your office staff is not a necessarily-but-evil expense. They’re part of your organization’s worth. If you don’t see that and think you can get by with cut-rate salaries, you need to stop being a business owner and get a job with someone else. And think about how you’d like it if they pulled dirty head games on you to get the benefit of your skills, knowledge, education, and experience for your profession’s equivalent of starvation pay.

  226. jamberoo*

    OP, Alison literally told you that you are persisting with a practice that hurts people, yet I haven’t seen you respond to that outside of giving raises that keep rates within the hiring range you kept secret. In case you forgot: you’re hurting people.

  228. Fred*

    THANK YOU AAM! Wow it’s so rare for someone to frankly admit how crappy they are. Thank you for the takedown and it really is true that her system is abusive.

  229. Old Admin*

    *clap *clap* *clap*
    Preach.
    Thank you for setting this employer straight.
    I have been burned by these practices myself!

  230. ComputerD00D*

    From the general tone of this email, I would bet cold hard cash that his employees are underpaid and unhappy.

  231. Overagekid*

    I find the issue here is that the employer sees hiring as a battle that they can win or lose, rather than trying to bring in a valuable asset into the business and retain them for a long time. The short term ‘win’ of underpaying will not be as good as the long-term benefits of a good work atmosphere

  232. gawaine42*

    Things to think about that I don’t see coming up in conversation, that make me feel like there’s not a single good answer:
    1. When we set our best and final number, some people still negotiate. And some of them will turn us down when we don’t negotiate, whatever that number is (that is, they would take 2 dollars, but when we offer 2 dollars, they’re offended that we won’t be argued up to $2.25). Those people are largely from specific demographics – so while expecting people to negotiate cuts one demo out, not allowing negotiation cuts out another.
    2. When we’re hiring college hires, neither one of us have good information. The salary picture changes so quickly based on the moves being made by the big boys that they don’t know what to ask for, and we don’t know what to give them. There have been times where I made an offer in September for a future May grad, that wasn’t the right answer in January – in either direction. Meanwhile, schools are often telling their students what they should take. So when we don’t ask, we’re just shooting in the dark, since some of them have a number – when we do ask, they’re shooting in the dark, because some of them don’t know what to ask for.

    1. Don't Send Your Kids to Hudson University*

      No one is suggesting not allowing negotiation. We’ve been suggesting that putting the burden of setting the parameters for negotiation on a prospective employee is unfair and an unnecessary practice. Employers should start the salary negotiation conversation with transparency about their range or the salary they are likely to offer. From there, the negotiation is much much more fair and employers are free to reject a candidate who seeks a salary they are unwilling to pay, just as the candidate can turn down an offer that is not as high as they would like.

      For number 2, there’s something wrong on your end if you have no idea what the salary range should be. You need to be doing your research more effectively.

  233. Lalitah28*

    I just came here to say that this LW’s tone is one of the reasons Workers start hating the Bosses/Owners of the World. The proud-to-be-de-facto-exploiting attitude is really sickening. And the fact that they think that having “two staffers with about 15 years and eight years and both seem very happy,” is a factual statement. Maybe your staff need the schedule in order to care for family. Maybe they don’t have money to go to school to get a better job. Maybe they were raised to not want for more. Maybe their learning capacity wasn’t fully developed and they aren’t capable of more. They still don’t deserve to be underpaid!

    On another note: Don’t complain about being ripped off by insurance carriers if you’re proud of exploiting people in a more precarious socioeconomic status than yourself. And I don’t speak without book: my father was a physician in private practice for 19 years before his death. I know the cost of commercial rent, malpractice insurance, medical equipment, laboratory agents, and navigating the byzantine medical insurance practices of each insurer, so space me the “you don’t know what you’re talking about.”

    Alison: my apologies if this violates the commenting rules but the tone was just SO off-putting.

  234. Jack Balfour*

    Bad practices don’t magically become good when a (the sky opens, choirs of angels descend from the heavens) *~small business~* does them.

  235. huh?!?!??*

    I find this response a little extreme. I ask candidates their salary expectations because they should know what they want to earn and they should be familiar with their own market rate. But we also have a set range going in and if their range is below our range, we’ll pay them the higher amount. We would never lowball someone based on what they say because it just causes greater turnover costs down the line.
    I typically will not reveal our range ahead of hearing their expectation because if they want $13 an hour and our range is $12-$15, I don’t want them feeling like they’re on the ‘low end’ of our range. Where they fall in the range is determined by their experience, and the range is determined by (above) market rate of the role. I don’t include the salary range in job postings typically, because it’s not information that we want our current employees judging themselves by. For instance, sometimes we have to offer a little more to hire someone with a very particular skill set. This doesn’t need to be public knowledge among all staff with a more typical skill set.
    Asking people what they are paid NOW is wrong and illegal in some states. Asking people what they WANT to be paid, their salary expectations, is not wrong and as far as I am aware, not illegal in any state.

    1. yala*

      “if they want $13 an hour and our range is $12-$15, I don’t want them feeling like they’re on the ‘low end’ of our range”

      I mean, they are.

      Also, nah. I think transparency is always the way to go. If an employee kicks up a fuss, you can explain the need for that certain skill set.

    3. Salty Caramel*

      Are you paying the current employees less than that range? If not, there’s no reason for them not to see it. If you are, fix that.

      Job seekers want to see it up front. As has been posted time and again in the comments to Allison’s wise words. It saves you time and aggravation.

  236. JustMyOpinion*

    I’m disappointed in OP, I think they should post a range. However the benefits are all part of the package. If OP pays $24/hr with no PTO, no healthcare–then that is not as great of a package as $20/hr with PTO and health care. It’s really more then the salary range when you look at whether you are being overpaid/underpaid for your skills. Also the same person (John and Ben) may have the same degree, same experience, etc. but they are not the same employee. Many doctors have similar experiences and similar degrees—but we can agree that one GP may be very different from another GP. That not on paper difference can add significant value.

    I am surprised that Allison has not posted a comment (which we see on many times) asking commentators to basically calm down and remember the commenting rules. Perhaps we can’t change OP’s mind, but we certainly have no chance of swaying OP with the vitriol that has been posted by some commentators.

  237. Manager bear*

    “…if we can get away with paying $20/hour instead of $22/hour, why wouldn’t we?” – OP

    Because if and when your employee finds out they were lowballed in a petty way, you’re going to incentivize resentment from the staff. Come on, it’s 2020 – people have access to the internet and salary data.

    “Why should I work late / go the extra mile / help out with a special project if I’m being underpaid anyway?” – employee

    Using tour existing staff members who have been around for decades to justify the practice is cherry picking your examples to defend a bad practice. It’s your practice, of course, so do what you want, but why not take pride in selecting for better staff the right way rather than literally being proud of stiffing someone out of a few bucks?

  238. Scarlet*

    DAYUM. OP just got “the business”.

    I wish there was a tag on this website for “snappy replies” or something.

  240. KC without the sunshine band*

    “…women and people of color, who are less likely to negotiate.”

    Why don’t we focus on this part of the problem? No matter who starts the conversation, there will be a negotiation. Why don’t we focus on educating women and people of color how to negotiate confidently? Then they will know how to answer the salary question if asked by an employer like this one. And if someone of any race or gender doesn’t want to learn how to negotiate better on their own behalf then they reap the benefits. And yes, I’ve seen this happen. The attitude of “don’t tell me how to help myself, just tell me what you can do for me” is alive and well.

    I think we (America) consistently put the burden on the employer to “help out” the prospective employee, instead of putting the burden on the employee to educate themselves and be responsible for their side of the equation. Could it be because we (America) have a bias that says the employee is incapable of doing better on their own or they wouldn’t be applying for a job? I don’t know, maybe.

    Employees who are less proactive in their own well-being and depend on their employee to take care of them and “be nice” are typically less valuable to the business than employees who are continually improving themselves. Just my opinion.

    1. Parenthetically*

      No, it’s because decent people realize that putting the onus on the individuals with far less power to change instead of pressuring and requiring institutions that hold most of the power to change is problematic and largely ineffectual. This line of argument is exactly the same as the line of argument that says all women ought to get concealed-carry licenses and learn self-defense to prevent rape.

    2. The Man, Becky Lynch*

      They’re more likely to FAIL at negotiating. That’s why they don’t do it.

      It gives these people an “out” and an ability to be racist/sexist because they can say “oh no, they asked for too much!”

    3. Alison for President*

      Yeah, you’re right! Women and people of color deliberately put themselves in positions where they are undervalued and underpaid. On purpose!

      The narrative that women/POC/disabled people/other marginalized individuals are “playing the victim,” while ubiquitous and as old as time, is infuriating. It’s disappointing that someone would continue to perpetuate the “minorities refuse to help themselves and feel entitled to everything” trope in 2020. How privileged do you have to be to think that salary negotiation is welcomed/included in all hiring situations? There have been times where I was shot down before I could even express what I needed out of a job offer.

      Also, it’s very bold of you (and condescending!) to assume that women/POC are uneducated about negotiation. It’s even more condescending to assume that those of us in those categories aren’t confident. It’s not uncommon for people to mislabel confidence as arrogance in women and minorities. Sometimes we’re not taken seriously depending on our identity, and it feels pointless to try to convince/educate people who are ignorant about their own privilege. You should keep your “pull yourself up by the bootstraps” posturing out of this discussion. It’s not helpful.

  241. The Man, Becky Lynch*

    Ah the old mistake of “it comes directly from my pocket!” rant.

    It doesn’t. That’s not your pocket. That’s your business checking account. Learn to separate them.

    Also nobody ever says “We’re an awful employer, we suck to work for.” My eyes have never rolled so hard before.

  242. The Shawnster*

    Interesting LW. If they are so inclined, include their salary range in the job ad. No one who is expecting more will bother to apply. Save everyone some grief and you are setting the stage for that wage discussion.

Comments are closed.