The Bare Minimum as a 'Benefit': When Legal Requirements Become Marketing Spin
I’ve been scrolling through job listings lately (not by choice, mind you - thanks redundancy), and something’s been grinding my gears. Why are recruiters and HR departments treating basic legal requirements like they’re generous gifts from the employment gods?
You know what I’m talking about. Those job ads that breathlessly announce “We offer 4 weeks annual leave!” and “We contribute to your superannuation!” like they’re revolutionising workplace benefits. Mate, that’s not a perk - that’s literally what the law says you have to do. It’s like advertising “We pay you money for your work!” or “Our building has functioning fire exits!”
The whole thing feels a bit insulting, to be honest. It’s like going to a restaurant and having them proudly announce that their kitchen meets basic food safety standards. Great, but that’s the absolute minimum I’d expect, not something you should be bragging about.
What really gets me is the psychology behind it. Someone pointed out that this tactic is deliberately targeting people who might not know their workplace rights - international applicants, younger workers, or anyone unfamiliar with Australian employment law. It’s a form of gaslighting that makes companies look generous when they’re actually just following the law. Pretty cynical stuff.
The whole recruitment industry has become this bizarre theatre where everyone pretends the emperor is wearing clothes. I’ve seen job ads listing “laptop and phone provided” as a benefit for office jobs. What exactly was I supposed to do the work on - stone tablets and carrier pigeons? Or my personal favourite: “free parking” at industrial estates where there’s literally nowhere else to park anyway.
Don’t get me started on the classic “competitive award wage” line. That’s recruitment speak for “we’re paying the absolute legal minimum and hoping you don’t notice.” It’s right up there with “we’re like a family here” as a red flag that should send any sensible person running.
The super thing particularly annoys me because of how deliberately misleading it can be. I’ve seen ads boasting about “18% superannuation” that turn out to include employee contributions. That’s like me offering to double your money if you give me fifty bucks and I’ll give you back a hundred - technically true, but completely dishonest about who’s actually paying what.
The IT industry has its own special flavour of this nonsense. With the current job market being what it is, companies are getting away with offering less while somehow making it sound like more. They’ll throw around terms like “flexible working arrangements” when they mean “sometimes we might let you work from home if we’re feeling generous.” Meanwhile, they’re often looking to import cheaper labour while existing Australian tech workers struggle to find decent roles.
What frustrates me most is that this whole charade wastes everyone’s time. Job seekers have to wade through marketing fluff to figure out what they’re actually being offered, and employers miss out on attracting candidates who value genuine benefits because they’re too busy highlighting their legal compliance.
Look, I get that HR departments need to standardise their job ad templates, and maybe listing these things does help set expectations. But there’s got to be a better way than presenting legal minimums as generous perks. How about just being upfront about what you’re offering above and beyond what’s required by law?
Maybe we need some truth in advertising for job listings. Separate sections for legal requirements versus actual benefits. Or better yet, just assume that people know their basic workplace rights and focus on what makes your workplace genuinely attractive.
Until that happens, I suppose we’re stuck with this weird dance where everyone pretends that doing the bare minimum is somehow praiseworthy. But at least now when I see those ads, I know exactly what I’m dealing with - and I can adjust my expectations accordingly.