Arthur Kaye wrote (in part):

>> When I posted the position, I put in the phrase that has >> inspired this discussion because I don't want to waste >> anybody's time, not mine, not the candidate's and not >> the company's.

When I saw the original posting, it immediately jumped out at me that Mr. Kaye was exceptionally specific and forthright about stating this employer's position. You just don't see that very often. (Well, I don't, but maybe I just don't look very often.)

Agree with it or not, if this is the employer's firm policy and practice, then it is indeed beneficial for everyone to know that up-front. In that way, self-selection can take place ..... the folks who are comfortable with this employer's policy will step forward (if otherwise interested in the position) to learn more and find out if there might indeed be significant mutual interest, and potential employees who don't like the policy, or for whom it raises red flag questions about the company's compensation & reward practices in general, will vote with their feet to continue looking elsewhere.

Does this work for the employer? They apparently feel it does. If they had a whole lot of people who felt they were being underpaid, or lots of folks who were under-qualified for the work at hand, it's unlikely their turnover rate would be lower than average. Turnover rates relative to peers is a pretty sensitive indicator of work-force morale.

Does it work for you as a potential future employee? That depends on you, your current situation, and the situation in which you'd like to be in the future.

the std $0.02. (How many euros is that?)

Douglas Dame Gainesville FL USA -------------------------------------- "It's easy to be philosophical when you're in a good situation." The Big Picture Book of Things Harpo Marx Wishes He Had Said.