This is stemming from another thread I started Company has low-ball job offer, refuse to negotiate, is this a common hardball negotiation tactic? Where a discussion in the comments was sparked about companies paying significantly below market value..
Lets say you are applying for a job at Company A and Company B. The job at both places is essentially the same thing (same job title, same type of work, similar hours, same prerequisite skills etc...) and you receive a job offer from both A and B.
Both job offers have the basically the same benefits package, vacation-time, retirement and 401K matching etc... and both companies would be a similar commute. BUT Company A offers approximately 30% below range of X-Y which is the standard salary range and will not negotiate any higher (fixed salary). Also, annual raises are around the standard 2-4% so there is not a 6 month perforamnce review/probation period where you make significantly less until you haven proven yourself and get a pay increase. Company B offers within the typically salary range for somebody of your level of experience and for that job description in that area, with the similar standard for pay increases of 2-4% (obviously excluding big promotions etc).
Both companies have a lot of employees (say 5000+) spread across a few countries and are well established (15+ years). So no start-ups or small companies that are unable to compensate appropriately.
What are some reasons that Company A can offer significantly less and still expect people to accept their job offers? What would differentiate them from the other companies significantly enough to expect people to take a 30% pay cut from what they could be making? (Potentially even a pay cut from their current salary)
How are they able to keep a competitive workforce?
Note: Asking because a friend of mine is in a similar situation to this during their job search and I want to know what sort of reasoning that companies have for these types of decisions, and how they can still employ people competitively.