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".
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.
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.
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).
> 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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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...
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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".
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.