Hacker News Reader

Comment by josh33 | Hacker News Reader

I interview quite a bit (hire about 2 people per month to my department) and I always ask where their compensation is currently at (or if they are unemployed, where it was at). This is one of the more important questions I ask because it is usually obvious when someone is lying and it helps me understand how this person's previous employer valued them. As an employer, I want to know they were an asset.

Yes, someone could lie. People lie all of the time. One of my jobs is to feel that out. I screen for integrity. I look for any hint of lying, even if they are joking. You can always tell someone with integrity from someone without it. And we want to work with people of integrity.

View on HN

I've only been asked that question in an interview twice, and in both I asked why that would matter. I walked both times (away from a decent offer in one case).

What's being tested is not 'how did your previous employer value you?', it's 'how good at negotiating were you when you started your last job?'

Additionally, the value of less numerical benefits gets substantially ignored in such calculations - I worked for two years at a job that paid 40k, but the flexibility, atmosphere, and environment were worth the 30k drop to me. There's no normal way to explain that in an interview without it sounding like an excuse.

Next time somebody asks that question, I'm going to tell them '15k and a few thousand bananas'.

> What's being tested is not 'how did your previous employer value you?', it's 'how good at negotiating were you when you started your last job?'

and "how little can we get away with paying you?"

I worked for a medium sized private software company and managements goal was to hire people as cheaply as possible, no exceptions regardless of experience or education. They routinely offered developers 30k to start, many were highly offended and some just laughed at it, but they would always get a few developers who were down and out to accept. Yes turnover was high and most people didn't last longer than a year or two, but they viewed developers as disposable assets due to the local economic climate. This was in a medium sized US city with high unemployment and few tech opportunities, managements attitude was ruthlessly honest "we're the only ones hiring in the area, what other choice do they have?"

> [...] it helps me understand how this person's previous employer valued them.

Some people's skills/value increase at a rate greater than most employers are willing to match in compensation. These fast learners are the exact people you want to hire, aren't they? Yet the metric of previous salary is pushing you in the opposite direction, toward undervaluing them. Why even check the number if it gives you the wrong signal? Some other employer may not bother to ask, form a more accurate judgment of the person's value, and snatch them up at a rate you were unwilling to offer.

> I always ask where their compensation is currently at (or if they are unemployed, where it was at).

At every place that I've worked, compensation has been considered company confidential and I've signed an agreement not to release company confidential information without their express approval.

> And we want to work with people of integrity.

Do you hire folks who violate their previous employer's confidential information agreement?

What's the context of that?

Confidential in that they, the company, will not disclose it but to those they are required by law?

Or confidential as in you may not disclose it to anyone, but by law?

I can't imagine how a piece of information which belongs to you can be controlled by a company. I mean, you cannot possibly mean you are not allowed to inform the IRS how much you earned, right?

According to my employment contract:

Employee acknowledges that all Confidential Information, whether or not in writing and whether or not identified as confidential or proprietary, is and shall remain the exclusive property of the Company ... Confidential Information includes information relating to ... compensation structure (including equity grants), performance evaluations and termination arrangements

I stand corrected. That seems onerous. Not sure all parts of that would stand up in court, if that's a civil company (non-TLA gov't dept't).

Seriously, to my non-lawyer ears, that sounds more like CYA/intimidation than enforceable contract. (more or less like those signs at parking garages where they absolve themselves of liability with a sign saying so).

Reply on news.ycombinator.com