A jobseeker’s account of being offered 27.5 per cent pay cut for a senior management position has ignited a debate online, with many professionals questioning whether some hiring practices are designed to undervalue candidates rather than assess them fairly.
A jobseeker’s account of being offered 27.5 per cent pay cut for a senior management position has sparked a debate online, with many professionals questioning whether some hiring practices are designed to undervalue candidates rather than assess them fairly.
The candidate shared his experience on Reddit’s r/IndianWorkplace forum in a post titled, “Got offered a 27.5% pay cut for a senior role. Here’s how the company justified it.”
The professional, who has spent a decade building a career in digital marketing, revealed that he recently interviewed for a Digital Marketing Manager role at a company managing an annual marketing budget of Rs 8 crore. While salary negotiations were expected, he said the rationale behind the final offer left him stunned.
According to the Redditor, the company’s first concern centred on his freelancing experience. Having worked remotely with international clients, he believed the period demonstrated valuable industry expertise. However, the company allegedly dismissed that experience as a career gap rather than recognising it as legitimate employment.
That interpretation, he claimed, triggered a chain reaction. Since the freelancing period was reportedly classified as a gap, the company refused to consider his freelance earnings while determining compensation. Simultaneously, recruiters chose not to use his previous salary as a benchmark either, effectively leaving him with what he described as “no salary reference point” during negotiations.
The candidate further explained that he spent eight years working in Bengaluru before relocating to Kolkata in 2024. He noted that his previous remote position had already involved a 50 per cent salary reduction compared to his Bengaluru earnings. Despite that, the new offer came in another 27.5 per cent below that reduced compensation level.
The candidate claimed he was seeking a package only around 8.7 per cent higher than his last drawn salary and had even proposed a six-month performance review clause. Nevertheless, recruiters allegedly informed him that his profile did not justify the compensation he was requesting.
According to the post, he was told that he was asking for “Bangalore money in Kolkata.” The candidate countered that his expectations were based on what he believed to be prevailing local market standards and had been transparently communicated before every stage of the hiring process.
Reflecting on the experience, he wrote, “The part that stings the most isn’t the money. It’s that every policy they used was designed to find a reason to pay less, not to fairly evaluate someone’s contribution.”
In a later update, the candidate revealed that the company’s HR head allegedly contacted him with a revised proposal. However, he claimed the updated package was still Rs 5,000 lower than his previous salary, and they persuaded him to accept the offer.
He further stated that the role was eventually presented on a retainer basis, reinforcing his belief that many compensation structures in the city tend to favour employers over candidates.
The post quickly gained traction, drawing strong reactions from professionals who weighed in on salary negotiations, hiring standards and workplace culture.
Several users argued that telling a candidate their profile is not worth a particular salary is an unprofessional negotiation tactic that can damage trust from the outset.
Others suggested that compensation discussions should revolve around the value of a candidate’s skills, expertise and market demand rather than being anchored to past earnings. Some also advised the Redditor to reject the offer altogether, arguing that a company’s approach during negotiations can often reveal deeper cultural and organisational issues long before an employee joins.