This is a very dangerous question to ask because it locks in previous pay discrimination based on protected categories.
I only learned about it recently. When I requested a report on my SSN, I saw every bi-weekly payment ever made to me
https://theworknumber.com/solutions/industries/pre-employmen...
> Talent Report™ Income and Employment Provides verification of employment plus verification of a candidate’s income
As a rule of thunb - anything you provide to a bank for credit will be reported to credit bureau and they will sell all your personal info to the highest bidder. Or get it stolen by hackers in yet another data breach
This is really harmful phrasing - blaming the individual.
> when apply for a loan
This seems like general population data, nothing specific to people who’ve taken loans.
Mostly it is the unique messed up american system of credit information exchange where consumers have no control over how their data gets collected/used/sold.
I have never signed up an agreement with Equifax to store my personal data only to get it stolen occasionally. I wish US adopted more european centric models for personal data.
Yes, the employer. They give data and they get access to data.
TWN, in turn, grants these employers aggregate salary range data across companies (helping the company negotiate better deals).
I worked in this industry briefly; it's likely your HR department is providing tons of information to these services and then using the resulting statistics.
Most likely they use field Annual Income that you voluntarily provide to banks/cc companies when applying for a loan and that number is reported to Equifax. That number is verified by a lender by inspecting your W-2/paystubs when underwriting car/mortgage/other loan.
So you should never voluntarily provide income info to lenders, because every bit of that info will be sold to other companies and can be used against yiu in the future
Depends on your employer. Per https://www.fastcompany.com/40485634/equifax-salary-data-and...
> Surprisingly, Facebook is among friends. Every payroll period, Amazon, Microsoft, and Oracle also provide an electronic feed of their employees’ hourly work and wage information to Equifax. So do Wal-Mart, Twitter, AT&T, Harvard Law School, and the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. Even Edward Snowden’s former employer, the sometimes secretive N.S.A. contractor Booz Allen Hamilton, sends salary and other personal data about its employees to Equifax Workplace Solutions.
If you created an personal account in order to get your data, what kind of profile data did you have to give them before you could get to what they have?
Even capital gains?
Kind of funny that you aren't supposed to share your salary but your employer does.
It’s less of an issue with younger generation, but still important to be careful.
If you’re polite about it, it not a huge issue.
If you're at a party and no one is asking, certainly don't share it. Nothing is worse than being at a party with a guy who constantly says "By the way, I make $500k at Facebook"
If for some reason salary is important to the conversation (for example talking about crypto or investing or just money in general) then sharing it can be appropriate.
But the most important thing imo is that you read the room: if it's likely the people you're talking with make less than you, then probably don't share it, and certainly never complain about money or the price of things. If it's likely they are well off as well, then sure, complain about your mid-six-figure salary
However, this myth of illegality of sharing your salary information has been perpetuated by the employers to maintain an upper hand in negotiations. And it’s what keeps down the TCs in Europe, in my opinion.
I don't think that's what keeps down the TC in Europe, because what you are describing is exactly the case in the US as well.
It is 100% legal to share your comp with anyone, and it is illegal for an employer to prohibit that or fire you for it or retaliate in any other way. And yet, a giant chunk of the population lives under a myth that they can get in trouble for sharing their comp info, even when the employer doesn't insinuate so or imply that at all.
I know some small employers might (illegally) try to imply that it isn't allowed (despite it being illegal, but those bosses are either ignorant or threading a fine line with the law), but I've even met some people working at FAANG-tier companies believing that sharing comp numbers is prohibited (despite FAANG-tier companies never even subtly implying that it isn't allowed).
Which is freaking hilarious.
They still can use a service like The Work Number to verify candidate-provided numbers as part of a post-hiring background check, with proper consent from the candidate.
Remember: Whenever someone in HR tells you "this is a standard question", immediately assume that means "we can get away with asking this, and it's strictly to our advantage, so we always do".
1. We value work life balance
2. We value diversity
3. We care about our people
4. We pay fairly and reward efforts
Are one of the biggest lies I have heard from corporate HRs and recruiters
"I've never heard of a job interviewer needing my tax records..."
"I heard on the news that job applicants have been victims of identify theft lately, sorry I can't share my personal information like that..."
I'm in a position now where I could afford to do this. I've also been in positions in the past where I needed a job and did (and would advise others in similar positions) to just play the game and provide the damn pay stubs.
I've also had to pee in cups before that. These sorts of degrading requirements should be banned collectively. It's very hard for an individual who needs a paycheck right quick to personally move the needle on this stuff.
In general I don't think drug testing for certain jobs is a bad thing. What jobs get tested, how often, and what drugs get tested for is something reasonable people can disagree about.
The best move then would be, of course, be to consume a large amount of marijuana the night before you take the test. If they end up not hiring you because of it, well, do you really want to work for someone who will just straight up lie to your face?
I don’t even do drugs and I rarely drink. I just think your performance on the job should be all that matters. If you drink, sleep poorly, etc, and it affects your performance, that should be observable and reacted to accordingly.
I would not have objected to vision tests and reflex tests, that sort of thing, to be licensed to use potentially dangerous equipment.
It's never happened to me but I do know exactly one person who was required to provide pay stubs exactly one time. She complained about it too and they actually told her that it was their policy not to pay more than 10% above what someone was making at their last position. I wouldn't do it, but some people will. That's why it happens.
I'm not exactly sure why the circumstances didn't involve the new employer from actually checking his previous salary, but based on my interaction with Doug I'm sure the story is true.
https://www.theguardian.com/football/2020/jul/05/keith-gille...
Asking someone what they made at a previous employer seems like a cheap way to try and pay someone as little as possible. A fun snarky response feels justified.
Best case, they laugh and offer you a fair salary. Other best case, you move on to interview at a better company.
But you do have ways of presenting a good number for negotiations. For example, you can respond with your total compensation (health insurance subsidies, retirement plan matches, stock-based compensation, transit/parking subsidies, educational stipends, etc).
If you’re changing jobs, and the new employer lacks stock or other forms of compensation, it’s totally reasonable to negotiate from a point of what you’d be loosing by switching jobs.
However, asking salary is a very delicate question that they are not supposed to ask. Making such question a mandatory to get offer is a very shady and questionable practice. I have no problem in telling employer my Desired Salary number (that I know they can pay) as my Current Salary is just another negotiation trick. The ultimate goal is to get both parties to agree and make a deal. By volunteering your true salary you are just giving up your negotiation edge
in the real world your life is unlikely to depend on the answer to this question. you can always say " i require X" in response to the question and if they probe more decide whether or not your situation requires you to divulge the extra information. i interview people regularly (and i don't ask about salary) but if i found out that someone flat out lied to me in an interview that would be a straight up pass/recommendation to fail a probationary period from me. i don't want or need those relationships on my team.
If you lie and they verify it later after an offer (which they probably will during background check), you'll be fired for the lie.
1. You're probably more aware of the market conditions than I am and I trust you to make me a competitive offer should we both agree this is a good match
2. I have an embarrassingly high compensation in my current role, and I am not comfortable in divulging it, because very few employers are able to match it and I'm not expecting them to
Both answers put the onus on the employer to put out their best offer possible, and any push back is basically a huge red flag.
One might also be a lie, which I think is problematic. If, however, your second reply *isn't* a lie you might as well tell them to signal your worth. However that's a privilege few emploees enjoy.
Your first reply is a good option for msot of us.
Was this in a location where asking is prohibited? They shouldn't be able to demand and answer "or cancel".
The tone of the HR person simply suggested "this is a field I have to fill in in this spreadsheet or I can't press the Continue With Application button".
One time an HR drone told me it was policy to ask and he didnt know why. I quizzically asked him why as an HR rep he didnt understand the HR policies of the company he worked for. I even asked him if it was policy for HR to not understand HR policy.
I kind of wished I'd told him that I'd recorded this phone call for training purposes :/
It's amazing how sweet and polite you can be with this line of questioning and how humiliating their answers will be (because there is no good answer).
It's a massive red flag so I doubt ive lost any good jobs this way.
Just like when you buy a house, knowing the house's sale history helps you avoid a big mistake.
Two days ago I met an Afghan who escaped from Afghanistan safely last summer with his family. They lost everything but their lives. He barely speaks English, but he's already up and running with his own business, and drives a new car.
What's he got that you don't have?
Turns out I grew up in a shitty family, I escaped, but that doesn't mean I've lost empathy for those who couldn't.
You seem to think that the world is fair (which is ironic because I bet you've told folks "life isn't fair"). It's not, and no amount of pretending can change that. Folks can do their damnedest and still end up on the streets. I'm not saying we shouldn't try, I'm saying we need to be empathetic and stop doing things that work against them.
In a perfect world without discrimination, prejudice, and built-in social inequalities, you might be right. In the real world, there is a massive power imbalance between the HR people and the applicants, and often circumstances make people get a job with a suboptimal salary for a whole lot of reasons.
The simple fact that a significant part of the population is systematically paid less than the other for the same work should tell you that you are overly optimistic.
> The simple fact
Saying it's a fact doesn't make it one. I've run several businesses. In no case did the secret cabal of businessmen contact me with the rundown on how to systematically pay half the people less.
> blind luck
It's necessary for you to set yourself up for luck to find you. Luck will not find someone playing video games in the basement.
Sometimes they have no choice but compromise to pay their bills.
As a side note: Some do get complacent and don't bother looking anymore, after a while. Stress, fear of rejection, repeated failure being some of the things that bring them down. One needs close to an Iron Will to push ahead.
This is America. There are choices. One of them is to choose to upgrade your job skills so you can get a better job. Or upgrade your negotiating skills. Or look at another of the 37,000,000 businesses in the US to choose from. Or start your own business.
The "no choice" thing is just an excuse.
Let me tell you, you can make a lot of money (I do), and still have empathy for the situations of others. Believe it or not, regardless of what your libertarian / conservative media tells you, folks are generally working hard and trying their best. Anything else is outrage porn.
Some people will take a low paid job or crazy hours to stall for time until they finish a course or to save money for one. I did that back in the day too. That is why, at least some, I can't blame.
You are right on the second part though. Some people don't want or can't be bothered to try... and some or just tired of it. Either of these categories I don't defend in any way.
Even if it's only some companies doing that, it influences the time it takes for you to find a job that pays what you feel you deserve, increasing the cost of your "stand firm" stance.
It's not negotiating that gets you a guaranteed worst case result.
Not negotiating means you get low offers, standing firm might mean you get none at all. I think the latter is the worst case result.
The company is highly unlikely to answer the question, "what did you pay the previous employee in this position?"; why should I answer "what did the company that previously employed me pay me?"
That someone else thought you were worth that much.
> why should I answer
You don't have to answer any question you don't want to. But if your previous salary was high, mentioning it will frame the negotiations in a higher salary bracket.
> That someone else thought you were worth that much.
No, it suggests that someone thought you were worth at least that much. It sets a floor, not a ceiling. If that floor is high, then it may be a valuable signal as long as others corroborate it. If it's low, however, that signal is effectively meaningless. And yet, employers start assuming that a low existing salary does imply a ceiling on - or even accurate measure of - worth, as you seem to be doing.
No, it isn't.
> or even accurate measure of
I didn't say it was accurate. I said it wasn't meaningless. Nobody is dumb enough to think that it's exact.
> employers start assuming
You're doing a lot of assuming.
But at least you kinda sorta agree now that it is a signal, so, progress!
It's also a signal of:
* Your past skill at negotiation
* Any past economic disadvantaged background or discrimination
It's also just dirty pool: employers seek to shame / threaten employees to not share compensation data (and, in circumstances where state laws do not prohibit this, terminate employees for discussing comp), and then want to have all the data themselves. It creates a very tilted negotiation field.
> It's also just dirty pool: employers seek to shame / threaten employees to not share compensation data (and, in circumstances where state laws do not prohibit this, terminate employees for discussing comp), and then want to have all the data themselves. It creates a very tilted negotiation field.
I have done quite well for myself. But I am concerned that this is one more way that the field is tilted against disadvantaged groups. Past history of being discriminated or of screwing up negotiation stays with you indefinitely, and that's not great. The data asymmetry is not great, either.
Peoples' personal financial information should not be aggregated and shared with employers without their consent.
This is false. If you have poor negotiating skills, and likely a low salary history to go with it - the prospective employer will low-ball your initial offer based on asymmetric knowledge. If they have no idea how much you earned, and are judging you on your skills and experience alone, the initial offer will most likely be a higher number much closer to market salaries. Even if there is zero negotiations and the candidate accepts the first offer, the outcomes are completely different.
That's rather presumptive. If the candidate did not disclose his salary history, the obvious assumption is that it is not a positive, and the candidate will get a lowball offer.
> are judging you on your skills and experience alone
It never works that way. They'll be judging you on what you chose not to reveal, too. Other examples:
1. if you say you have a degree, but are silent about from where, the assumption will be it is not Stanford. The assumption will be it's from a degree mill, or worse, you're lying about the degree.
2. if you didn't submit SAT scores to the admissions dept, the assumption will inevitably be that they are poor scores.
I disagree that this is the obvious assumption[1]. Even if I were true, it seems to me like your prior is all lowball offers are the same. They are not. If a candidate was underpaid, an uninformed "lowball" (from prospective employers PoV) would be much higher than if they knew the candidates previous salary was about half of their budget.
1. My salary is above average, but not an outlier,but I will not disclose my salary history before getting an offer. I will not disclose it after getting an offer, even if it's too low for my liking. The only number that matters is the one I am willing to accept. If you share your salary history, you may be lowballed an not even know it. "Anchoring" is a well-studied phenomenon - anchoring on your past salary may leave you underpaid relative to the rest of the market (or your colleagues).
If you place a preference on candidates who share the information, your lack of faith in your own ability to value talent is presumably also strong enough that you are willing to forgo the (better) candidates who do not feel compelled to share their salary history.
That's quite the declaration to make to a job applicant.
I agree entirely about the house buying thing. I find the metaphor apt. I like to know. I have never bought a house so, at that, I consider myself an amateur who needs all the help he can get.
What's remarkable is not what you told the person, but the notion that you are compelled to answer any question an employer asks.
At least in America, you are not compelled to answer anything you don't want to.
> be forced to hire me?
Forced? Of course not. They're not holding a gun on you, and you're not holding a gun on them.
> you are compelled to answer any question an employer asks
Nobody is "compelling" anyone in this situation.
The only information about salaries I know of is published by the Unions... which is sub-divided into profession, then ranges of years of experience. But because most software developers are not in Unions here, the data they have seems very skewed towards lower pay rates. It's really a nightmare as it seems that when I am looking for a job, all companies pay the same (which you only find out after several interviews to get an actual offer). IT really pisses me off that such an open country as this has this attitude towards salaries.
I wish every position had a salary range and an indication of how much you would expect to earn a certain experience. That surely would be beneficial to employees, who would know whether they could expect to get a better salary, but also to employers who actually want to find the best people and are willing to pay more, I think, as they wouldn't need to pay large amounts of money to join this "secret club" where they share salaries with each other, basically colluding to keep salaries low.
Very true.
I believe NYC banned companies from asking for salary history a few years back. I was interviewing at a bank in NYC. I attempted to negotiate a salary about $20k - $30k from what I was making at the time, and the response from the interviewer was positive. I was then blindsided by the interviewer (who would've been my boss) after he asked what my current salary is and I let it slip out because I didn't know that it was illegal in NYC at the time to ask salary history. Afterwards, he said "huh, that's a big clip up, I think $X would be a bit more reasonable."
I wonder, if a prospective employer were to ask you about salary history, what would be a good way to turn them down? I'm sure there are many employers that aren't aware that this has been outlawed.
At the same time, I'm wondering, if you could lie and inflate your salary should you be asked about salary history by a prospective employer, given that they wouldn't be able to legally verify what you told them.
When I have the opportunity, I talk about this kind of thing with young professionals. They think that sounds like a lot of money, because they don't understand that's a rounding error to a large company. It's really cruel the way as a society we take kids making minimum wage at whatever first job, they get a degree, and then they get thrust out into Corporate America with no idea of what things cost or their own value. Unless they have the right mentors to encourage them to ask for more, they get whatever the company gives them.
I was negotiating a contract recently on behalf of a client and they wondered how much they should ask for - I helped them get a meaningful credit because I knew it was an amount of money the other party would be willing to absorb rather than fight about.
He then said that he answered the question of what he made, was told a $20k bump was to much, and was offered a lower (X,000) bump instead because they assumed that's all they needed to do.
It covers salary history and much more, all of it useful.
I also don't see why, if an employer demands a pay history, the candidate is obliged to provide it.
(And also, in my experience, nearly all candidates inflate their salary history by about 10%. Employers know this, and discount the salary history by 10%. Back when I applied for jobs, I provided a pay stub along with the comment that I wasn't lying about my salary.)
Not having a clue about what a candidate formerly earned means risk for the employer, and risk always means that the offer will be lower to account for the risk.
It really doesn't. An employee brings their employer some amount of value. The exact amount of value is completely unrelated to that employee's salary at their previous jobs.
The _only_ "risk" here is that the employer might not be able to lowball the candidate as much as they possibly could.
> The exact amount of value is completely unrelated to that employee's salary at their previous jobs.
Just try hiring a minimum wage worker as CEO for your next company, and see how well that works out.
Is it really? If someone's bouncing between jobs, doing a terrible job at each of them, why would their salary history be likely to reflect it? A given company might fire them, but lowering someone's pay to indicate poor performance is not common.
> Just try hiring a minimum wage worker as CEO for your next company, and see how well that works out.
That has nothing to do with what they were paid and everything to do with their experience. No one's discussing not talking about experience.
As for me, I've gone to the boss and said my work XXX was valuable to the company, so I want a raise, and I'd get it. If I hadn't done XXX would I have gotten the raise? Of course not.
(Of course, government and union jobs are different, where your pay is based on seniority, your degree, and job category.)
I have also sacked an agency over this and they are on my personal "Call First" list so if I am recommending agencies they wont be getting a call.