-5

Suppose Bob is worth about 100k based on skill level/resume, but they are laid off (or are just starting their career) and have to search for a job.

In many cases this is the start of a (very unpleasant) grind, which will (hopefully) net them a job after a few hundred resumes. (I believe making friends in the given profession, which is called "networking", is usually a better strategy and has other benefits. But Bob may not like said strategy).

But why do the employees always have to reach out to the company? What if DevOpsInc reversed the process by reaching out to people like Bob for interviews. They plan on low-balling Bob for a short period of time. Such as 50k with promise a raise to 100k after 8 months.

From Bobs perspective, such an offer would immediately generate cash-flow and in time pay him what he is worth. If Bob is not very good at applying for jobs (which usually involve very different skills than those used on the job) its probably better to choose one bird in the hand over than two in the bush.

From DevOpsInc's perspective, it would save money. Also, the promise of a raise would minimize the chances of Bob leaving or "quiet quitting".

Is DevOpsInc's strategy commonplace? If not, could it still be a workable strategy?

6
  • 1
    If you say to me "We think you're worth 100k but we're going to pay you 50k", I'll spend 50% of my time looking for a job which does pay me 100k today. Apr 3 at 20:36
  • @PhilipKendall: Getting a job varies in difficulty by orders of magnitude. Bob may have sent over a thousand resumes without any callbacks. In such a situation continuing the job search would be wasting his time. It's less stressful just to wait for the raise. Apr 3 at 20:50
  • How does the company know Bob has been laid off? If Bob uploads his resume to a job portal, it might turn up in the company’s searches and Bob might be contacted. But explicitly saying that you’re going to massively underpay someone is a really poor way to start a relationship and will create turnover Apr 3 at 21:09
  • @JustinCave: You don't word it that way, of course, and in effect Bob is paying for the convenience of not having to job search. It is a bit idealistic to think that people can just hit the road and make what they are "worth". I have seen highly skilled people out of a job for years. They made ends meet with retail and Uber. A 50k job in their field with a promised 100k would be a dream come true. Apr 3 at 21:18
  • VTC - this is not really a workplace question. Sadly, this is a common business practice - but usually only with positions that are expected to be filled by young, naive, desperate people. Someone who is worth 100K a year will most likely have the bargaining power to tell the customer no, or at the very least - get it in writing. Apr 3 at 21:54

3 Answers 3

1

But why do the employees always have to reach out to the company?

They don't. Companies reach out all the time.

What if DevOpsInc reversed the process by reaching out to people like Bob for interviews.

Again, that's fairly common especially for high value or rare skills candidates. I want to hire good people and it turns out most good people are already employed and not actively looking.

They plan on low-balling Bob for a short period of time. Such as 50k with promise a raise to 100k after 8 months.

Why would I do that? If I want Bob and I think they are a good long term fit, I will make a competitive and sustainable offer. If I don't feel strongly about Bob, I wont make an offer at all.

From Bobs perspective, such an offer would immediately generate cash-flow and in time pay him what he is worth.

Probably not. What stops the company from firing Bob after the lowball period is over and hire the next guy at half price? I wouldn't trust a lowball employer.

If Bob is not very good at applying for jobs

Then this is something they should learn. It's honestly not all that hard. If all fails they can pay a recruiter for coaching and help with the application.

From DevOpsInc's perspective, it would save money.

Not enough to matter. Hiring good people is a hard work and costs a lot of time and money. Trying to lowball a good candidate is penny wise but pound foolish.

0

DevOpsInc saves 33k, which is really nothing for a company that looks to hire a long term employee and don't matter at all compared to the other costs of hiring and onboarding. At the same time they still need to be thorough in the interview process, otherwise they would be likely to attract developers who are not even worth the 50k. Most people who are worth their money would only use the 50k offer to bridge the time they need to find the actual job.

This is a horrible idea for DevOpsInc

0

Onboarding an employee is a big effort and takes lots of resources. Onboarding the wrong employee - and subsequent corrective actions - takes way more resources. Similarly, starting a new job takes a ton of your own time and effort, and hating the job or company you start at can be really bad for your mental and physical health. On both sides of the equation, hiring without due process is a terrible and costly idea. And no, the promise of a raise won't minimize Bob's chances of leaving because if he leaves, it will to be to go somewhere else that pays him as much or better than the promised raise.

Your other point was "why does Bob always have to reach out?" and to that I say... recruiters? Headhunters? Cold calling? There's tons of systems that exist where the company reaches out first.

1
  • Sending out a thousand resumes is also really hard for mental health. Many of these people gave up altogether. But using systems were Bob does not reach out is a good idea. This makes me wonder why anyone sends out more than ~100 resumes? Why fail to find a job when you can fail to find a job and make friends and learn skills and have a decent time doing it and maybe even eventually get a job? Apr 3 at 22:29

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .