Hacker News Reader

Comment by xtracto | Hacker News Reader

"They Insisted to know my current salary"

"They refused to talk about compensation"

Working outside of the USA, these two are kind of weird. When I am hiring someone, I want to know their current salary to know that I won't offer them a low salary + benefits package.

I have ranges depending on positions, and if after evaluating someone she falls into the "mid level" category, I want to make sure that their expectations are in line with the level... otherwise I just cannot hire them.

So, people want to talk about compensation but they don't want to have a conversation (which is 2 ways). Or how does it work in the USA?

View on HN

Because it's irrelevant what the person currently makes. It only matters what the company is willing to pay for the work they are hiring for. Requiring the applicant to tell their current salary is only useful as a means of salary deflation.

Here is how this always goes for me:

1. Initial convo, things seem interesting, no salary details from recruiter, lots of questions about how much I make

2. They ask me to sign an NDA, a bunch of other paperwork, and spend a bunch of time in meetings doing dumb whiteboard questions

3. "You're amazing! Can we hire you for 50k below market? It's totally worth it, we have a $200 xbox that you can stare at while you work 60 hour weeks trying to fix our abortion of a product!"

So, unfortunately, my rules have become:

+ Salary range upfront. If you can't give me a number, I can't give you the time of day.

+ No NDAs or other BS unless you give me the $600 for my lawyer to go over it. Protip, my lawyer is going to reject it.

+ You get one day of whiteboarding/whatever. I don't do follow up visits. I don't do "projects" or "homework". I'm not implementing the twitter api for you. Sorry, spent too many days doing projects for free.

  Or how does it work in the USA?

Apply a simple model of economically rational actors, ignoring everything like working conditions and benefits and how inspiring a project is and what is fair and what your corporate pay policies are and so on. We're both happy to work together. i.e. consider a pure salary negotiation.

Situation A: If I currently make $70,000 and you are looking to pay $40,000-$50,000 we're both wasting our time by keeping quiet.

Situation B: If I currently make $70,000 and you are looking to pay $70,000-$100,000 and I reveal my salary first, you can offer $70,000 and I might have left $30,000 on the table.

Situation C: If I currently make $70,000, you are looking to pay $70,000-$100,000, you reveal your range first and I say my requirements are $100,000, you have left $30,000 on the table.

And why would I feel I was leaving money on the table? Maybe I've seen posts on HN saying "many" mid-career Google employees earn $450,000.

The traditional HN advice to refuse to name a salary first comes from people who prioritise avoiding Situation B, even if it means increasing the risk of Situation A.

That's the excuse they provide every time. Their actual intention is to low-ball as much as they can.

Because that gives the employer a lot of leverage if the candidates last salary was lower than your expectation.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com