I actually disagree with this on the premise that all aspects of hiring are a two-way street. I've worked at quite a few different companies in different roles, and now I'm in a senior management position. I feel that these types of rules tend to place companies in a negative light - like their primary goal is to focus on company profits and screw over anyone that might be getting in their way. In my experience, this just isn't how it works. When I prepare an offer, I take into consideration a lot of factors that center around how much worth someone brings to the table (expertise, self-learning ability, attitude, flexibility to juggle diverse tasks, etc.). I then work out a range I'm comfortable offering. I then typically offer closer to the lower end of the range because I'm open to a counter offer (so long as it doesn't exceed the max rate I calculated).
I then fully expect that person to counter, because I feel that it's on them to do the market research to determine how much they're worth. That's what I've done through my career and I've been happy with the result.
I see applying/hiring as a game where the company is trying to find a way to afford as much talent as possible AND ensuring they can continue to pay that rate when times get tough and projects are cancelled/postponed. I also factor in annual bonuses for other employees, R&D budgets, etc. At the same time, applicants should be prepared knowing what they're worth. That takes some research, but it's not overly difficult. As they determine what they're worth, they also gain an understanding of a skillset they can work toward to reach the next rung of the ladder.
At the end of the day, I really believe that the only person someone should compete against is himself. If comparing rates is THE issue, then I think the focus is misaligned. If rates are a concern, then start a dialog with your manager. Most managers are willing to go to bat to help out an employee if they really feel they deserve a higher wage. Just be prepared to make your case if you do that, explain WHY you deserve a higher rate - and it should be more than "well so and so is paid more than me." If in the end you're still unhappy with your rate/benefits, then consider a move, but be prepared to grow in your skillset if that's what's needed to reach your financial goals.
Handle it professionally and communicate... Those are my thoughts.
I then fully expect that person to counter, because I feel that it's on them to do the market research to determine how much they're worth. That's what I've done through my career and I've been happy with the result.
I see applying/hiring as a game where the company is trying to find a way to afford as much talent as possible AND ensuring they can continue to pay that rate when times get tough and projects are cancelled/postponed. I also factor in annual bonuses for other employees, R&D budgets, etc. At the same time, applicants should be prepared knowing what they're worth. That takes some research, but it's not overly difficult. As they determine what they're worth, they also gain an understanding of a skillset they can work toward to reach the next rung of the ladder.
At the end of the day, I really believe that the only person someone should compete against is himself. If comparing rates is THE issue, then I think the focus is misaligned. If rates are a concern, then start a dialog with your manager. Most managers are willing to go to bat to help out an employee if they really feel they deserve a higher wage. Just be prepared to make your case if you do that, explain WHY you deserve a higher rate - and it should be more than "well so and so is paid more than me." If in the end you're still unhappy with your rate/benefits, then consider a move, but be prepared to grow in your skillset if that's what's needed to reach your financial goals.
Handle it professionally and communicate... Those are my thoughts.