Recruiting 101 says not to put salary ranges on job posts.  -- LinkedIn discussion

When only one party in a negotiation has intelligence on the other party, the other party will lose. This is counterproductive. When the losing employee realizes what has happened, he will lose motivation and become less productive, jump ship, or (in extreme cases) undermine the employer.

I'd like to clarify another concept: Suppose a company hires somebody who earns $10/hour and pays him $14/hour. The company should not view that as "giving" the worker a 40% "raise." It may be a 40% increase of income to the worker, but from the company's perspective, it's dividing by zero. Literally.

 

Raise % = (New - N/A) / N/A x 100%

 

You can only give a raise to somebody you already employ. Substituting a new hire's history for N/A is dishonest.

 

Moreover, the situation is like sunk costs. Sunk costs only have emotional value in decisions. Good managers base objective decisions on the value and cost going forward.

Take an extreme example: Suppose I fill time between jobs making $8/hour as a WalMart greeter while finishing my PhD. If I apply for a position that pays $88/hour at your company, are you really going to negotiate my new salary down to $10/hour with the argument that $88/hour would "give" me a "raise" that's too big? Or if you hire me for $88/hour, are you going to boast that you "gave" me a "raise" of 1,000%?

Employers and recruiters may think they have all the power. So do the sphincters in the alimentary canal; but what happens to the system when they abuse their power? Job applicants have power, too. Unethical applicants can become dissatisfied losers in the negotiations and undermine the company; the best applicants can walk away and find competitors that will reward them for moving their companies forward.

If companies and recruiters demand transparency from applicants, then "integrity" means they have to practice transparency, too.