Hacker News Reader

Comment by r0m4n0 | Hacker News Reader

I applied and soon after worked as an engineer for a large company that not only asked for my previous compensation but part of the application process involved my employer validating that I actually made what I told them. They worked with a third party to match my figures with W2 statements and/or pay stubs.

It was really intrusive. Pay should equate to value, not some silly ladder climb

View on HN

I'm sorry that you had to go through this. I agree that it's intrusive and really shouldn't be tolerated.

A while ago, I was in the middle of the job interview process for a company. Having read some rudimentary background on salary negotiation, I was somewhat prepared for how to deflect the "how much are you making?" question.

The next interview was a technical interview, so I wasn't too focused on this aspect of the interview process since I hadn't received a verbal offer. The technical interview went well, but suddenly the interviewer asked "what are you making right now?". Completely clueless, I started talking about the projects I was working on and various technical aspects. The interviewer nodded, and then replied "No, what I meant was what is your current salary?"

I was completely unprepared, fumbled and after some resistance gave up my salary after being told, "this process cannot continue until you tell us your salary". (They also subsequently asked for W2s as proof) I handled this extremely poorly and basically backed myself into that corner. Basically, they negotiated much better than I did, even if it meant resorting to heavy-handed tactics like that. Later on, HR explained this line of questioning to me by saying, "we ask for this information... not to draw a box around you, or anything like that, but so that we can give you an offer that matches everyone's needs".

Long story short, the offer came in at almost exactly $PREVIOUS_SALARY * 1.05. I politely declined.

While this process was painful, I learned a lot from it - always be ready to handle the salary question, even if the interview is supposedly a technical one. If you willingly give up your previous salary, in most cases, you're looking at an offer 5-10% higher at most. (Unless you're an outlier making several standard deviations above the mean) Don't let people box you in.

>"we ask for this information... not to draw a box around you, or anything like that, but so that we can give you an offer that matches everyone's needs".

Yuck. I'm always amazed at how willing they are to waste your time by playing "gotcha" over things they should have worked out before you ever came in. Very unprofessional to spring all that on you.

The correct answer to "how much are you making?" is I guess "how much are you willing to pay?"

Or "How much are you making? That's just as relevant..."

It's really interesting this discussion, I don't go past the first initial discussion with a potential employer without understanding the salary range.

If they refuse to comment on that I assume it's low and head on elsewhere.

That's painful but also kind of funny because we all have been there one way or another.

It looks like they learned something as well, since you declined after they invested time into your interview and offer process. Thanks for doing that, you made things better for everyone else here in aggregate.

The problem is that they must have too many qualified engineers applying, and they need an arbitrary way to filter people out.

I almost managed to write that with a straight face.

yahoo did this to me. Verifying employment is one thing (I guess...), but their background check thing wanted exact salaries too, and permission to ask HR at all my previous employers.

Is this common? I've worked for small companies so haven't run into anything like this elsewhere. Except for one asshole that wanted to do a reference check two weeks after I started work (!!!) (he offered me a job at the end of the interview with a 24 hour time limit and had me start 3 days later; I had already left the previous employer so it suited me well enough at the time), and was unhappy when I told him what he could do with himself.

I worked for Y and did the bg check and did not give salaries, I never do. Wasn't a problem.

> Verifying employment is one thing (I guess...)

Why are you reluctant about a company being able to verify that you worked where and when you said you did?

1 - if I can pass the interview having lied about where I worked, why did I have to do the interview? It just seems silly.

2 - they all insist on contacting the current employer, which I refuse to allow until I have a non-contingent job offer in hand from the new place. If X can't make me a firm offer, I'm not allowing X to contact (ie notify) the company currently paying me.

In California, I was asked by the recruiter what my previous salary was. I gave them a number. Later, the background check requested my W2s. I bristled and stalled, but they were being difficult. I ended up scanning them, whiting-out any numbers relative to salary, and giving them that.

They were satisfied. (That's just a datapoint, N=1)

Sounds really really weird. My previous employer flat out refused to tell my new employer my salary claiming it was confidential. In fact the job agreement always mentions that salary is confidential.

Yeesh. That's when you go along and let them pay for the audit before bailing.

Ugh. This type of behavior should be banned everywhere. It's incredibly invasive and it serves no function in evaluating candidate fit. It serves merely to increase already high information asymmetry against you and reduce your prospective offer from where it might have otherwise landed.

> Pay should equate to value, not some silly ladder climb

I agree with this statement, but that's a tough thing to get large companies to agree with

I think it's in the interest of the industry-at-large to not ask this question, because it incentivizes hopping jobs every 1-2 years.

But, that's all fine and good and everybody might agree with what I said, but individual companies still profit by 'defecting' (asking how much you made before and offering you that * 1.05).

>It was really intrusive

Imagine how painful it is to be an entrepreneur with a very weak signal about how much you can pay people to remain happy to work with you without going broke and still retaining good enough talent.

Startups typically pay less in exchange for equity. This is expected and transparent.

Large and medium size businesses have much more information available to them than their applicants do.

So the way to counteract information asymmetry (if we assume it exists) is to artificially enforce less information on the employers? That can't possibly be the right answer unless there's some systematic bias that leads to worse economic outcomes when employers happen to know a candidate's past income.

You wanted to work for them more than they wanted you.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com