Why Is The Private Sector So Secretive in Their Recruiting/Job Advertisements?

TwentyTwoCarats on 11/06/2021 - 12:48

In my time, I've found that in the private sector, everything is so… secretive and not transparent.

When you apply in private sector, firstly a recruiter gives you a call and you have a general 15 min non-technical discussion just about yourself and the basics of the role advertised. No talks about salary/remuneration, about the details of the job, etc. Then if successful, you are scheduled an interview with a technical manager (who's probably going to be your manager), usually one other professional in that team, and maybe a HR officer again. After that interview, you'll know more about the job but still no talks about salary and packages and benefits. Then if they really like you, you'll be sent an offer with all of the details FINALLY.

Sometimes in private sector, there are also recruiters that advertise jobs where they can't even reveal the company that they are hiring for, just which industry the job is in. I find that quite ridiculous. Then the same process follows as above, this time with an external hiring manager in play too.

In the public sector (from what I've seen from others), there's simply a gazette of job advertisements. They all clearly have the level, the pay, the exact descriptions, and it seems like a very streamlined process. Much easier to be honest. I kind of wish the private sector had something like this, but I guess the nature of private causes it to be more of a random process.

I still find that you can earn much much more in the private sector though, and jump in salary fairly quick, as opposed to the public sector where there are very clear hierarchies everywhere. Not that private sector doesn't have hierarchy, but it's a bit more flexible/non-rigid.

Anyway, what are your thoughts on this? Do you know why the private sector is like this?

Education & Work

Comments

  • holdenmg on 11/06/2021 - 12:50
    +9

    I'm thinking the word "Private" is a clue.

    • TwentyTwoCarats on 11/06/2021 - 12:50

      I'm aware lol. Just wanted some perspectives here :)

  • Hybroid on 11/06/2021 - 12:59
    +5

    For first point, the multi-step process is because hiring is outsourced to 'talent acquisition partners' in-house or third party companies. Actual managers/directors don't have time to go through dozens of candidates so they let all the filtering be done by others then just do the final 2-3 selected interviews.

    Sometimes in private sector, there are also recruiters that advertise jobs where they can't even reveal the company that they are hiring for, just which industry the job is in.

    That's a tactic to make sure you don't go apply direct to the company and they get their referral cut. For Senior positions where 'company prestige' is a thing, they will advise you of this if you insist and some may ask you to sign agreements with them to do so.

    In the public sector (from what I've seen from others), there's simply a gazette of job advertisements. They all clearly have the level, the pay, the exact descriptions, and it seems like a very streamlined process.

    Largely because that salary & job description data is already well defined and publicly available as it's tied to tax-payers funding. A "Band 1B" is the same across all TfNSW departments but not the same in private sector. A Senior Environmental Engineer doesn't earn anywhere near as much as Senior Mechanical Engineer. Also, private companies will have salary bands for each role e.g $150-180k and will tune that to pay you as little as possible by identifying areas you don't meet the top end (e.g. years of experience or lacking professional accreditations or needing to pay for your visa/relocation arrangements etc.) That's why you never accept the first offer and always negotiate.

  • bobbified on 11/06/2021 - 13:00
    +11

    Sometimes in private sector, there are also recruiters that advertise jobs where they can't even reveal the company that they are hiring for, just which industry the job is in. I find that quite ridiculous. Then the same process follows as above, this time with an external hiring manager in play too.

    Recruiters are sales agents. They only get commission if the successful applicant is "introduced" to the company through them. If they reveal the company to you straightaway and you tell your mates and your mates apply directly and get the job, the company is not obliged to pay the recruiter any commissions. Or even if they tell you the name of the company and you don't decide to apply straightaway but you decide to apply to the company directly later, the recruiter still gets nothing. Once you understand how the whole recruiter/employer relationship works, you'll understand why they act and do things the way they do - it's all to protect their commissions.

    • TwentyTwoCarats on 11/06/2021 - 13:05
      +1

      Yeah I figured. Thanks for the insight, that makes a lot of sense.

      • bobbified on 11/06/2021 - 13:15
        +1

        There's one thing to be really careful with recruiters. Usually, when you first meet, they'll ask you if you're working with any other recruiters and if they have put you forward to any companies or if you've applied to any companies directly yourself. At this point, whichever company you name will go on their "exclusion list". They will never put your details forward for any roles in the companies on that exclusion list - even if there's a job they think you're 100% suited to. This is because the companies on that list "already know you" and if they refer you there, they will not get a commission.

        • [Deactivated] on 11/06/2021 - 16:15

          Any consequences to just telling the recruiter "no" to all of the above?

          • bobbified on 11/06/2021 - 18:15
            +1

            @[Deactivated]: There's no immediate consequences for yourself.

            If they put you forward to an employer, you get the job and they don't get a commission because you're "already known", you will have a pretty shitty recruiter. I haven't looked at the figures recently, but a few years ago, the final commission started from 15% of your starting annual salary. The higher the position, the higher the percentage. So if you imagine, it's a decent amount of money they're missing out on.

            Often, the recruiters are industry-based so there's a good chance they might be advertising a position you might be interested in later on. Or they might have friends in other recruiting roles in the same industry. Some also end up working in the industry they were recruiting for. It's a pretty small world, so think about the possible consequences of seriously pissing someone off! haha! :p

        • OzFrugie on 12/06/2021 - 11:36

          So, are you saying if lets say I applied for company A months ago, didnt get feedback, then months later a recruiter calls me about a position in company A, which I am suited for, if I tell the recruiter that months or years ago I applied for this company, the recruiter will not be willing to represent me for the role??

          Is this industry based or company specific policy usually?

          • bobbified on 12/06/2021 - 15:11

            @OzFrugie: The agreement between recruiters and employers typically lasted 6 months or so. This can, of course, vary depending on their agreements. So if a recruiter intro'd you to a company and nothing has happened over that period of time, then it's a free-for-all. It's really there to stop an employer taking the candidate and then trying to avoid paying the commission by cutting out the middleman (the recuiter).

    • netjock on 11/06/2021 - 13:14

      Usually recruiters would ask salary you are looking for. No point going to interviews for jobs paying 20% less.

    • b0rnwithabeard on 12/06/2021 - 09:31

      former recruiter here. This is 100% the reason why

    • dabhbl on 12/06/2021 - 11:39

      This is the primary reason, though sometimes companies will request that it's name is excluded from advertising because they are advertising for a role where they haven't told the person they're replacing that they're fired yet

  • Drakesy on 11/06/2021 - 13:06
    +2

    Welcome to private where talking about your wage is secret.

    That's just how it is, if the recruiter can save the company money then it's in the company's best interest. Recruiters are only interested in getting commission from finding you the job.
    However i do know in government the more the recruiter pushes for the greater their commission, maybe not so much with Private.
    Government isn't as profit oriented, hence the lack of bargaining required.

  • CrowReally on 11/06/2021 - 13:08
    +2

    When you sell to the public, you need to keep your costs private to maintain your competitive advantage.

    Also: Imagine how your shopping habits would change if Woolworths or Coles had to list the costs they paid for things on the shelf next to what they're selling them to you for. Of course, their markups will need to include their rent, wages, ongoing costs as well, and some items will be marked up more than others (loss leaders get people in the door, and so on), but even acknowledging that extra layer of complexity there'll still be "AUSSIE BATTLERS FORCED TO PAY 90% MARKUP ON BUTTER" style outrage thinking.

  • MrHyde on 11/06/2021 - 13:09
    +2

    I think the key is that the private sector salaries are more negotiable and really does depend on how good of a fit you are. We've had roles where we really liked a respondent and they were more skilled than what the role actually required - but we paid more and got him. In other cases, we liked a person; but they were not up to scratch; so knew there would be more training costs involved to get them up to scratch - so paid less.

    It is not clearcut where there is a strict band budget and you can't hire above or below that band.

    • rambutann on 11/06/2021 - 13:26
      +1

      This..

      Public sector is much less flexible, they see people more as a number rather than an asset.

      • OzFrugie on 12/06/2021 - 11:40

        Most companies just look at headcount numbers. People are replaceable even senior people. Unless you bring them money with your network I guess

        • Bren20 on 13/06/2021 - 12:33

          I dunno, I think if it's skilled employees then companies definitely understand it's easier to keep good people then take a gamble on hiring someone new

          Edit - this doesn't mean they'll pay you right, they'll undervalue you right up until the point you leave then they'll counteroffer.

    • mrvaluepack on 13/06/2021 - 09:39
      -1

      Not true, all negotiation of salaries have to be within the set salary range. They all have a strict salary range that the recruiter and manager must adhere to. Its just that its not advertised. This range (on the lower end) is usually larger vs public. For example:

      Private $80-120k
      Public $100-120k

      You can kind of figure it out when using seek.com.au's salary range filters.

  • Seraphin7 on 11/06/2021 - 13:11

    The vast majority of cases of "secrecy" you're describing come from the recruiters, not the employers.

    The recruiters want you to commit to having them represent you on the job opportunity, before revealing any other details. This is done to protect their fee.

    They're concerned about the candidate effectively either finding the job ad themselves and applying directly, or having them go off to another recruiter (who the job may also be placed with), either way missing out on their fee.

    From an employer's perspective, I have no interest in keeping who I am a secret.

    • OzFrugie on 12/06/2021 - 11:45

      I was once approached by a recruiter A for a role which I didn't end up proceeding to go ahead.

      Weeks later, recruiter B approached me for the same role.
      This time I thought I gave it a go but then I told him that weeks earlier, recruiter A approached me for the same role but told him I didn't proceed.

      Recruiter B then pretty much counted me out from this role because he said there was a likelihood that recruiter A might have put me forward even though I didnt proceed, which meant recruiter B might not get his commissions(?)

      In this case, retrospectively, should I better not to tell recruiter B about recruiter A??

  • GG57 on 11/06/2021 - 13:49

    There is no harm in asking, during any one of those stages, at an appropriate point in the discussions, what the likely salary range would be.
    Just don't make it your first and only question.

  • [Deactivated] on 11/06/2021 - 13:52

    Not knowing salary means they have room to negotiate and if you say less for salary expectations than their budget they will pay that. There are many examples of staff in the same position earning up to 50% more because they negotiated a better salary or pay rises. As others have said government jobs have levels of pay scaling that all levels receive the same band, so there is no incentive to keep it secret. Recruiters keeping the company secret is just a tactic so you don't apply directly and they don't lose thousands in commissions.

  • brad1-8tsi on 11/06/2021 - 13:55
    +1

    Public Sector (where I work) the pay is advertised as you usually come under an EBA or similar.
    Basically it means they have graded the position and you are locked into a fairly narrow range of pay (a band) which usually has 4-5 increments.
    During the hiring process you are expected to enter your band at the lowest grading and work your way upwards via the performance review process. Sometimes there is some discretion available to the hiring manager to bring you in on a higher grade if you can prove that you can carry out the tasks expected of that grade.
    If you hit the top of your band you are stuck there until another position is available and you have to go through the selection process all over again. It's very rare that a direct appointment is made. I've had plenty of colleagues that have left because there is no room left to progress and they can't be given a pay rise despite consistent "exceeds requirements of position" performance reviews.

    I haven't worked in PE for many years but when I did they expected you to "name your price" and then negotiate from there. You were also expected to keep your package secret. I know my current partner was earning $30k more than her supervisor for quite a few years.

    As a side note, women generally under-cut themselves when setting their price.

  • GourmetFoodie on 11/06/2021 - 13:56

    Because you should know what you are worth and what the roles you are applying for go for remuneration wise?

    • [Deactivated] on 11/06/2021 - 14:35

      In private sector interviews it is recommended you don't declare your salary expectations when you ask. If you ask for too little, they will pay you less or think you underestimated the seniority of the job and deny you. If you say too much, you won't get the job and get laughed at and they will tell you the real salary is all they can offer. If you say whatever the company is willing to offer you might be surprised they will offer you higher than you expected and at least you won't lose the job for expecting too much.

      • bobbified on 11/06/2021 - 14:43

        … If you say whatever the company is willing to offer you might be surprised they will offer you higher..

        So how does one know what the company is willing to offer?

        • [Deactivated] on 11/06/2021 - 14:48
          +1

          You can also respond to “What are your salary expectations?” by simply asking what the company is looking to pay. “You could say something like, ‘That's a great question—it would be helpful if you could share what the range is for this role,’’’ Fink says.

          Once the interviewer answers your question, they’ll expect you to say if the salary works for you. So you still need to do your research, but now you’ll be able to tailor your response to the budget the company has. If the interviewer gives you a number or range in line with what you expected or higher, great! You can talk about how that sounds perfect for you. But if the response is lower than you’re happy with, you have to come up with a plan to respond.

          For example, if the interviewer says a job pays $55,000, and that’s a bit below where you were hoping to make, you might say something like:

          “I was hoping for something more in the $60-to-$65K range, but I’m definitely open to negotiating based on the entire compensation package.”

          But if you’re looking for a lot more than $55,000, you might have discovered an impasse:

          “Unfortunately with my experience and current salary, I don’t know if I can accept anything for less than $80,000 a year. Do you know if there is any flexibility in the budget for this role?”

        • [Deactivated] on 11/06/2021 - 14:50

          The three strategies
          1. Give a Salary Range
          2. Flip the Question
          3. Delay Answering
          I prefer 2 as it gets the best result. 1 can still go wrong if your don't hit it in the range. 3 They will try and press an answer out of you or ask what is your current salary?

          • bobbified on 12/06/2021 - 08:52

            @[Deactivated]:

            They will try and press an answer out of you or ask what is your current salary?

            I always tell them my "current" salary. And my "current" salary usually just happens to be a little under what I would like my next salary to be. 😁

            • OzFrugie on 12/06/2021 - 11:51

              @bobbified: Ok, what's the best way of answering "What is your current salary " question?

              I find that while I dont want to reveal it, but I cannot find a way to talk my way out so end up revealing it..

              • bobbified on 12/06/2021 - 14:58

                @OzFrugie:

                ..what's the best way of answering "What is your current salary " question?

                I don't tell them my actual salary. I tell them the minimum amount I would take for the job and call that my "current salary".

                Example, if I was on $100K and I wanted at least $130K for my next job, I'd tell them I'm on $125K or $130K. I've never had someone offer me less than my "current" salary. Obviously, the figures have to be within reason.

            • kiitos on 12/06/2021 - 12:51

              @bobbified: But how do you determine what's reasonable for your next salary? You can think you're worth an extra 20K, but how do you validate that against reality?

              • bobbified on 12/06/2021 - 15:05

                @kiitos: I've been in the same industry for quite a few years and I've got a pretty good idea what the salaries are and which companies pay more or less. If I'm not sure, I'll ask someone that's already in the company where that role sits. They often have a grade attached to the role. The salary range for the job grades are usually common knowledge in a company.

  • SydStrand on 11/06/2021 - 15:04
    -1

    This has nothing to do with private vs public sector. Most are openly advertised with clear salaries and transparent hiring. You're specifically referring to recruitment agencies who are deliberately vague because they don't want you to undercut them by contacting the employer directly.

  • rbrb on 11/06/2021 - 21:11
    +1

    The first thing I ask is what the salary range is. I’m not going to waste my time doing interviews if the salary is less than I am getting at the moment. If they can’t reveal that then you move on.

  • freefall101 on 11/06/2021 - 22:39
    +3

    There's multiple types of recruiter you'll deal with. This is my jam, by the way, senior finance guy at a big recruitment firm, business manager at a more boutique recruitment firm, working onsite with the recruitment team of one of the largest employers in Australia… I know a bit.

    Agency there's two, agencies where they've been engaged to hire for a role and agencies where they haven't been engaged. The former, they have a brief and are trying to generate a shortlist to send to the client. The latter, they're basically just scraping data, they don't always have a job but are trying to find "unicorn" candidates that companies won't say no to if they feed it to a manager. They're secretive because these are the ones on commission, they don't even want people within their own companies finding out who their candidates are and what's going on.

    Some companies outsource their entire recruitment process. Which means while they're not on commission, they're a step in the process without direct decision making. Their contract may be to deliver a shortlist, or just screen candidates, or handhold to the end but they may not have internal business details on what's going on with the hiring.

    Some companies have internal recruitment teams, they'll be pretty open with you about everything. Often if the outsourced recruitment team is good they will be to. Last job I had I was the business manager for an outsourced team, first phone screen involved salary talks (along with a salary question in the application).

    Sometimes internal HR does the recruitment, often at smaller companies where they're big enough to have a HR team but not a recruitment team. While I get it, they don't want to pay $25k commissions and think throwing an ad on seek and reading a bunch of resumes is easy, they often don't have a clue what they're doing. You'll get extremely random results based on the biases of those people. Some think telling you the salary range is a terrible idea, some are completely open, some write their own questions, some have standardised questions they found on the internet for everyone regardless of wage. It's a mixbag.

    You're not always actually applying for a job. Sometimes they want to "test the market" to see who else is out there against the candidate they already prefer. Sometimes it's terrible internal communication so no one asks you about salary because they think someone else in the chain will do it. We used to have our job ads stolen and reposted on other sites to find candidates to then "offer" us, despite that we were never, ever going to take them. They don't even know what the salary is.

    Basically, recruitment is a (profanity) shitshow. Also the public sector still use recruitment agencies, outsourced recruitment and the like. But the salaries are public knowledge so there's little to hide on that front. But the same with any role with an EBA or award.

    • TwentyTwoCarats on 12/06/2021 - 00:05

      Nice insight mate, that was a good read. Interesting to read about all of the different styles of recruitment. I'm still the type of person that has a personal dislike for middle-person jobs and "taking a cut" like sales, recruitment, real estate agent, property manager, etc. But I get their purpose. I'm just the kind of person that, if I were to sell my house, I'd want to do it all myself just like I sell everything else. Do all the research and scope out the market and then sell.

      Also, wow it'd be annoying if you were applying for something and it wasn't really a job, just a "testing the market" ad.

  • jrvb42 on 12/06/2021 - 08:51
    -3

    Perhaps because pay in the public sector is standardised by level, so people are paid by their level, rather than their actual value to the organisation. Many are paid far more than they are worth.
    Private industry must first assess your worthiness, then your value, and only after that will they offer you slightly less than you're worth.
    On the rare occasion a public servant is worth their pay, they might move to private. And those in private will move when they feel sufficiently undervalued.

  • WPete on 12/06/2021 - 11:33
    +1

    Great to see the very helpful responses to the OP's questions. So often we get "smart-ass" what-a-dumb-fool-you-are-type comments, so it was refreshing to read the answers coming from people with genuine interest and obvious experience and knowledge. Well Done!

  • tabitha731 on 12/06/2021 - 14:07

    If recruiters call u for a "role" they have and can't elaborate on more specific details… They're trying to get u into their databases. They don't have any jobs relevant to u.. they will use ur CV to get into companies.

    As soon as a recruiter cold calls me, I either hang up on them or give them bad information.

    Most recruiters have zero idea of the industry they hire for. I have zero time for them.

    • TwentyTwoCarats on 12/06/2021 - 18:01
      +1

      So I did get a cold call like that, where the recruiter didn’t have a role in mind. They just saw my LinkedIn and asked me if I wanted to have a general chat. I was free so I said whatever, can’t hurt.

      Miraculously, a few months later, she was able to score me a contract role that I would have never even dreamed of. Low-key changed my life.

      So I guess some scenarios can end positively.

  • MarcusJones on 13/06/2021 - 08:32

    So a lot of the reasons have already been listed, just a couple of things to ad..

    Sometimes a company will be firing an employee and want to find a replacement first. Obviously putting the job on seek could get back to the person about to be fired, which wouldn’t end well.

    I had one of the big agencies call me (my details were put forward by a previous colleague) and figured it wouldn’t hurt to go in for an interview/chat. They didn’t have any jobs lined up but obviously wanted me on their books. I did the interview very well and they realised I was one of the unicorn candidates.

    I basically told them, I am happy where I am but if you can find a job with X, Y and Z requirements I’m interested. So every so often they would put forward opportunities which I could assess. Anyway a few weeks ago they found me the “PERFECT” job. They said it was paying my salary expectations etc.

    So went into the company and did the interview, obviously really impressed them as they were keen to offer the job. However it turns out the salary range they wanted to pay was pretty significantly less (20% less). I was pretty annoyed and spoke with the recruiter who said that the company has seen what talent they can get for a bump in pay, and sure enough the company decided to retitle the job specifically to suit me and came up with the extra money.

    So very dirty tactic by the recruiter, but to their credit I didn’t have to spend hours searching for a job each week, basically got altered to the perfect job and got the money I wanted.

    Finally, I’ve worked in both public and private sector and the whole “banding” thing means the public sector is generally full of useless people who are getting paid more than they are worth (hence they stick around forever) while all the really good people get frustrated and leave.

    I personally believe salary should be secret for any sort of senior role (I mean if you work at maccas flipping burgers the pay should be equal for everyone, but in any sort of decent position you can’t pay everyone the same just because of a job title). If you try to pay everyone equally you end up losing the really good people who know their worth and get the rubbish people sticking around forever.

  • kaleidoscope on 13/06/2021 - 11:56

    In my experience client do an evaluation of your skills, fit for the role and culture fit before they talk the numbers which is fair imo. Thats from the client’s perspective. But usually the recruiters ask about your expectations as if client pays pennies and you want lote more there is no point going ahead and I’m upfront about that with recruiter as well to save myself from the trouble of interviews. At least in my industry normally no one goes for a low paying job than what they are in (exceptions apply)

Login or Join to leave a comment
Login Join