Seems overqualified for the pay
-
@Dashrender Why is that a bad gig?
Besides the requirements it's a reasonable expectation of the duties, clearly lined out.
The pay is way under what would be the average for someone of these qualifications, but if you clearly state it at the interview they'd likely move up.
-
@DustinB3403 said:
@Dashrender Why is that a bad gig?
Besides the requirements it's a reasonable expectation of the duties, clearly lined out.
The pay is way under what would be the average for someone of these qualifications, but if you clearly state it at the interview they'd likely move up.
It's probably worth interviewing - but with the requested skills, and stating that the job pays $40K, they are basically telling anyone who wants $60K to not even bother applying. Are they willing to bump? Maybe - but now you have to ask yourself... do they think you are overpaid?
-
I'd think of it as they simply are trying to get someone for a steal, and only qualified employees who know what they are worth should throw their hat in the ring, just to call them crazy offering what they are offering for the requested qualifications.
-
@DustinB3403 said:
@Dashrender Why is that a bad gig?
Besides the requirements it's a reasonable expectation of the duties, clearly lined out.
The pay is way under what would be the average for someone of these qualifications, but if you clearly state it at the interview they'd likely move up.
Pay more if you have exactly what they say they want at the set price? That would not make sense. All of those things they want at $40K.
-
@scottalanmiller my point is that they are clearly trying to low-ball people on purpose while demanding an employee of top quality.
Obviously 1 or the other is going to give, no one with these qualifications would consider the position.
-
@DustinB3403 said:
@scottalanmiller my point is that they are clearly trying to low-ball people on purpose while demanding an employee of top quality.
Obviously 1 or the other is going to give, no one with these qualifications would consider the position.
Which would suggest they are using the listing as a way to depress the wages of someone who would actually apply. You are correct, no one "qualified" would even respond so... what could be their motive?
Obviously not to try to get someone good, this rules out anyone decent at all. But rather to get someone worse, point to how little a top person should make and use this to actually only pay $25K and make the person feel like a continuous failure while working for peanuts.
-
Exactly - they have a list of demands and have already told you they plan to pay you $40K for it. Why would you think they would pay you more? and again, if they did, why wouldn't you think they are upset about having to pay more and will always hold it over you.
Assuming they would be willing to pay 80K for example, they should list it as $40-80K depending on experience. Then you can walk in knowing you can probably get more than that min $40K.
-
@Dashrender said:
Exactly - they have a list of demands and have already told you they plan to pay you $40K for it. Why would you think they would pay you more? and again, if they did, why wouldn't you think they are upset about having to pay more and will always hold it over you.
Assuming they would be willing to pay 80K for example, they should list it as $40-80K depending on experience. Then you can walk in knowing you can probably get more than that min $40K.
Salary talk, to me, is part of the interview process. If you tell me that you want to start me at 40k, I'd ask for 60k. If they won't come up at all, then I'd tell them no thanks. They tell you what they want, you tell them what you expect. If management isn't willing to work with you, then that is a sign right off that you don't want that job anyway.
For somebody who feels they are definitely qualified, the initial phone interview, or potentially second phone interview would cover this, I think.
-
@dafyre said:
For somebody who feels they are definitely qualified, the initial phone interview, or potentially second phone interview would cover this, I think.
Except that they already stated what the "range" is for "qualified." Salary IS negotiable, but it also tells you that you are going into a bad situation.
-
I have a feeling I know someone who works for this MSP. I wouldn't touch them with a 10 foot pole, or a remote connection. They expect you to have no life and never sleep. For what my advice is worth, don't bother. Not even wroth it for practicing interviewing skills.
-
@travisdh1 said:
I have a feeling I know someone who works for this MSP. I wouldn't touch them with a 10 foot pole, or a remote connection. They expect you to have no life and never sleep. For what my advice is worth, don't bother. Not even wroth it for practicing interviewing skills.
Ha I hadn't planned on it. My Windows Server skills are lacking so I wouldn't even think about it. I just couldn't believe the requirements for the pay, essentially 5 years as a director for $40,000. And the mention of an ACSA for apparently no reason.
-
@johnhooks said:
@travisdh1 said:
I have a feeling I know someone who works for this MSP. I wouldn't touch them with a 10 foot pole, or a remote connection. They expect you to have no life and never sleep. For what my advice is worth, don't bother. Not even wroth it for practicing interviewing skills.
Ha I hadn't planned on it. My Windows Server skills are lacking so I wouldn't even think about it. I just couldn't believe the requirements for the pay, essentially 5 years as a director for $40,000. And the mention of an ACSA for apparently no reason.
Not as a director, they mention nothing of having staff. Five years as a normal lower to mid-level generalist. Which is still ridiculous, but nothing like director. A director with tech skills would command a fortune.
-
@scottalanmiller said:
@johnhooks said:
@travisdh1 said:
I have a feeling I know someone who works for this MSP. I wouldn't touch them with a 10 foot pole, or a remote connection. They expect you to have no life and never sleep. For what my advice is worth, don't bother. Not even wroth it for practicing interviewing skills.
Ha I hadn't planned on it. My Windows Server skills are lacking so I wouldn't even think about it. I just couldn't believe the requirements for the pay, essentially 5 years as a director for $40,000. And the mention of an ACSA for apparently no reason.
Not as a director, they mention nothing of having staff. Five years as a normal lower to mid-level generalist. Which is still ridiculous, but nothing like director. A director with tech skills would command a fortune.
Wouldn't staff include all aspects?
-
@johnhooks said:
@scottalanmiller said:
@johnhooks said:
@travisdh1 said:
I have a feeling I know someone who works for this MSP. I wouldn't touch them with a 10 foot pole, or a remote connection. They expect you to have no life and never sleep. For what my advice is worth, don't bother. Not even wroth it for practicing interviewing skills.
Ha I hadn't planned on it. My Windows Server skills are lacking so I wouldn't even think about it. I just couldn't believe the requirements for the pay, essentially 5 years as a director for $40,000. And the mention of an ACSA for apparently no reason.
Not as a director, they mention nothing of having staff. Five years as a normal lower to mid-level generalist. Which is still ridiculous, but nothing like director. A director with tech skills would command a fortune.
Wouldn't staff include all aspects?
All aspects of IT, it suggests no where that it was more than one person in IT. Most people in the SMB IT world manage zero people, yet run all of the IT.
-
@scottalanmiller said:
@dafyre said:
For somebody who feels they are definitely qualified, the initial phone interview, or potentially second phone interview would cover this, I think.
Except that they already stated what the "range" is for "qualified." Salary IS negotiable, but it also tells you that you are going into a bad situation.
I'd definitely agree with that.
