Jobs that don't mention a salary

[yellowkitchenl]

I'm assisting someone in finding a job in the rail industry.
I've seen countless of jobs with no salary mentioned. As the person is a parent with kids, the salary is important to know.
Is there a better way it finding out the salary or is it a case of asking on this helpful forum every time?

 

[2192]

I'm assisting someone in finding a job in the rail industry.
I've seen countless of jobs with no salary mentioned. As the person is a parent with kids, the salary is important to know.
Is there a better way it finding out the salary or is it a case of asking on this helpful forum every time?

Unwise of the advertiser not to mention a salary. HR managers find you get more replies if you do.
If you say what the job title is and with which company, someone on the forum will probably be able to help.

 

[RJ]

Unwise of the advertiser not to mention a salary. HR managers find you get more replies if you do.
If you say what the job title is and with which company, someone on the forum will probably be able to help.

The people who are put off from applying might be doing themselves out of an opportunity and making the competition pool smaller for those who are familiar with the world of salary negotiation.

If the salary is fixed then I wonder if HR have to contend with a whole load of people who only see the salary and apply without having any interest in reading the job advert. Maybe they don't mind people contacting them to ask the salary.

 

[Taunton]

A number of jobs, particularly those salaried as opposed to hourly paid, are by regulation required to be "advertised". However, they have commonly already identified their preferred candidate from current internal staff. To avoid legal issues they are advertised like this, and to avoid further issues each resulting application has reasons for rejection put against it at the time and put in the file, in case the applicant subsequently complains.

A further reason is where those already in place in comparable positions are on a lower salary; don't want to advertise what might be payable.

 

[yellowkitchenl]

Thank you for your replies. Lots of different views and reasons. I will go ahead and encourage to apply regardless.

 

[Horizon22]

The railway is by far not the only industry that does this. See also "competitive". I personally am very against it, and statistics show it leads to fewer stronger candidates, but there we are.

As some stated above, if you have an ideal of what the role, where and what TOC, I'm sure several on here can give you a decent estimate.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 27 Aug 2022 ==

If the salary is fixed then I wonder if HR have to contend with a whole load of people who only see the salary and apply without having any interest in reading the job advert. Maybe they don't mind people contacting them to ask the salary.

It need not be fixed - a range can be fine too.

 

[C J Snarzell]

There is a site called Glassdoor where job salaries and company reviews are sometimes posted by current employees, ex-employees or simply those that have a attended an interview or assessment day with a prospective employer.

Cross Country have a habit of not disclosing salaries on a lot of their job vacancies. I once looked up a XC job I'd applied for on Glassdoor and hey-ho I found the job title and how much the salary was. Sadly, on that occasion, I didn't get through the paper sift.

CJ

 

[Roger1973]

A number of jobs, particularly those salaried as opposed to hourly paid, are by regulation required to be "advertised".

I am fairly sure this is an urban myth - I've seen it quoted a few times, and nobody has managed to find the regulation when anyone has asked.

It is arguably good practice to advertise externally rather than internal / word of mouth, and some organisations (including many in the public sector) have a policy that they will advertise all jobs externally. Although when there are redundancies happening, they will often do a first round for existing staff whose current jobs are 'at risk', and only if that does not produce suitable candidate/s they will advertise externally.

A further reason is where those already in place in comparable positions are on a lower salary; don't want to advertise what might be payable.

or alternatively, they want to see how little they can get away with paying a new person (depends on the particular 'market' for that job at that time.)

personally, i'm old fashioned enough to think it's better all round to have a 'going rate' (or a range of rates and a fairly transparent scheme for establishing how people get to be on the different points on that range) for the job...

with some transport jobs, it can be hard to tell (my background is more buses than trains) - a basic rate can hide allowances (e.g. payments for unsocial hours - where such payments still exist) and an 'average earnings' or 'up to' figure can hide that there's a culture of doing a lot of overtime / rest day work.

 

[kevconnor]

I am fairly sure this is an urban myth - I've seen it quoted a few times, and nobody has managed to find the regulation when anyone has asked.

There is no explicit legal requirement to advertise a role.

The good practice element comes from the inability of an employer to defend actions against claims of unfair treatment or discrimination were it not to have an open and transparent recruitment and selection process in place.

There are circumstances, such as in a redundancy avoidance measure, when a vacancy never makes it to being advertised even internally. But this should normally be for a justifiable reason.

This does not mean that posts do not go straight to appointment, that definitely happens in organisations of all sizes but when it does it's going to be hard for the employer to defend the action if challenged.

in regards to failing to disclose salaries, there is also evidence this leads to furthering of the gender pay gap. please see this series of tweets for an explainer.

https://twitter.com/PostThePay/status/1509897645011185670?s=20&t=4uzcw52NwpSakJsUit5tEA

Job adverts that don’t post the salary, instead using opaque and unhelpful jargon like “competitive pay” or “dependent on experience”, are not just a frustration, they’re entrenching the gender and ethnicity pay gap, and wasting the time of the applicant.

One way workplaces could reduce these often stark inequalities would be to be transparent about salaries – starting with job postings.

After all, a job’s salary should reflect the nature and seniority of the role, and the candidate’s ability to perform that role, not their ability to negotiate a salary in an often hostile setting. In short, the current system rewards confidence and entitlement over talent.

 

[ComUtoR]

.This does not mean that posts do not go straight to appointment, that definitely happens in organisations of all sizes but when it does it's going to be hard for the employer to defend the action if challenged.

We have a clause that specifically states that any role can be directly appointed without advertisement, if you had been previously interviewed in the last 6 months.

 

[yorkie]

I am fairly sure this is an urban myth - I've seen it quoted a few times, and nobody has managed to find the regulation when anyone has asked.

Indeed it is a myth; the vast majority of the jobs I've ever done have never been advertised. This included the first job I ever did (for the NHS) and also my most recent appointment. I've also had to turn down approaches on numerous occasions.