Hacker News Reader

Comment by danielweber | Hacker News Reader

Taking a lower-paid job can reduce your salary once you get back to your primary field. Workers have legitimate reasons to treat wages as sticky.

View on HN

Not to mention the boredom factor. But I have known people to take a job just cos they need the money, and also been refused a job because they were over-qualified and the employer knew they would just leave once they got a better job. It's a two way thing.

How can that happen? It's not like your new employer will know what you were making at the last job, and even so why should that matter?

They ask. Are you just supposed to lie or refuse to answer?

Refuse to answer. It's none of their business, and nobody can compel you to answer a question.

"I don't have to answer that." They can't compel you to answer, but good luck landing that job.

I have a hard time believing that if the employer is in desperate need, and a potential employee has the skills, they cannot come to an agreement, especially if you make it in for an interview. This does not make sense. Someone is not motivated enough.

Who specified that either one of those conditions was true? If it's an example, let's be honest: If the employer is not desperate they may not respond well to being told that their question didn't pass muster. Real people who are struggling to find work are asked these questions, and real people are being discriminated against by not answering.

You say, "I don't feel comfortable sharing that information" instead of the more hostile, "I don't have to answer that"

One needs to consider it as offensive as, "Are you planning to have a child soon" or "How old are you" or, "You look real purty"

Also if a company is going to invite you all the way to their office and use up their current employees' time, it would be a very stupid thing to not want an applicant just because they don't want to discuss their current salary.

You're right, and that strategy works great for those of us who are in-demand.

Someone in the article, or someone who took an interim lower-wage job out of desperation may rightly not feel quite so empowered.

Look them straight in the eye and say "prison"

Refuse to answer. I do it all the time. I generally answer when asked "Let's see if we are a good fit for each other. If we are, make me an offer based on how much value you believe I'll bring to the table." If they keep pushing to know how much I make, that gives me a good data point on the type of company they are. I'll use that to decide whether I want to work there or not.

You could tell your former position and add that you have done some gap filing in between four a few month, without telling the details.

"I'm currently considering a number of positions with competitive salaries [or 'with salaries around $X']. So, I think that focusing on what I can do for you and establishing a fair wage based on that will be more representative of what we can offer each other."

That tends to be the route I go down anyway. At least when their position is good enough that I don't just walk out of the interview for someone being that rude, (i.e. I want to work with them for some other significant reason.)

Valid dodging answers include:

  - I took a sabbatical
  - I did private/contract work for a while
  - I took a working holiday
  - I spent some time renovating my house
  - I took some time off to look after a sick relative

Take the Jesuit line that if there is a kernel of truth in the statement (eg you fixed your gutters one time while unemployed) then you're not actually lying.

Really, this HR obsession with "zomg a gap in employment history" is pointlessly stupid and deserves to be gamed.

Absolutely. It doesn't matter much what your reason for the gap is, as long as you make it sound like something you were in control of. Something that you chose, based on your own life priorities. Don't sound like a victim.

Actually I was asking about what you do when they ask how much you were PAID at your last/current job, not what to say when they ask why there's a GAP in your history. What do you say to that?

Ah, yes that's a tougher question. It's a red flag to me, but sometimes beggars can't be choosers.

Here are some tested dodges:

  - "I don't think it's appropriate to discuss that" (be firm)
  - "I signed a non-disclosure agreement and I'm legally obliged 
    to keep my renumeration details confidential" (needs confidence to work)

I've caved once to this question when I really wanted the position. Luckily I told the truth because they demanded to see a payslip before I started.

But if they play hardball like that in the interview, you can expect the same treatment throughout the company - don't kid yourself that things will change once you're employed.

They will certainly know what your title was. If you've been management for 10 years and then accept a job as a peon to "fill the gap", your new company might see that as a negative and/or use it as an excuse to offer you less.

Titles are meaningless. I'm my own boss now. I could call myself CEO or Extra-Senior Architect or something. I just call myself Programmer.

Come on, we're obviously not talking about contractors or people who are their own boss. When you're actually applying for jobs with real companies, titles are certainly not meaningless. If you're screening applications for a programming manager and one person has this work history (earlier first):

    Programmer (Firm 1)
    Programmer II (Firm 1)
    Senior Developer (Firm 2)
    Manager, Programming (Firm 2)
    Programmer II (Firm 3)

you're probably going to wonder why they went from management back to line employee. It could be because Firm 2 closed and that was the only thing in their area left. It could be because they're terrible at managing people.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com