Yes, one might think so, but this was the CEO in question[1]. Edit, and so far as bluffing, could an employer legally ask for W2's to verify?
[1] http://www.nytimes.com/2001/04/05/business/stinging-office-m...
[1] http://www.nytimes.com/2001/04/05/business/stinging-office-m...
There are ways around it but it seems most people go with "my base was XX.... and that's one of the reasons I'm out there looking to change jobs."
Do you mean in Japan or the US? Because you certainly don't have to do that in the US.
> From there it's trivial to calculate your previous salary.
And even if you did do it in the US it would be impossible to calculate your salary from it because it depends on how many exemptions you claimed in your W4 (which you can change at any time - it doesn't have to be how many children you have, it's basically a number to fine tune how much tax you pay so you don't overpay and need a refund).
Are you referring to Japan?
I've worked in two states in the USA and never been required to produce such documentation.
You can give them sufficient detail without handing over your P45 or income data. I have never given a P45 to a new employer and it has never been a problem.
It's possible that your tax code will reveal some information, if you're still in the same financial year, but this is an unreliable way of calculating salary.
That said, this is a bad idea because it would scare off plenty of people who aren't bluffing about their salary (like me). And there are already employers who will terminate you immediately if they discover you lied in your job application.
I guess it depends on your definition of "very few things" but this list[1] of Unlawful vs. Lawful questions seems pretty long/wide ranging. And I know that the small business I worked for violated it on a regular basis. I actually had it sent out to each person who does interviewing (since the company didn't have a formal policy on training someone for interviews) so they knew what was/wasn't acceptable.
My understanding is that it is illegal to use any of those things to discriminate against someone for purposes of hiring. It's not technically illegal to ask the question, but if you do, and you don't hire the person, have fun in court trying to prove that you didn't hire them for some other, valid, reason. So don't ask them, because there's no upside in it for you.
I did a small bluff to try it out, just 5k above what I was making. The recruiter was surprisingly skeptical! I know I've done an good job of bumping up my salary in a short amount of time, but it was kind of off-putting to have him question it.
Or he was screwing with you to try to drag down your ask. Happens pretty frequently, because their incentives don't align with yours (it's the realtor problem all over again).
My experience with recruiters is they want to know how little it will take for you to accept the job, but this is because they need to know which jobs they should do the legwork on.
If I'm looking for a job I call up several recruiters I trust and I tell them the specifics I'd what I'm looking for and the price I'm willing to accept. I then continue working my network and looking on my own, but now I have 4 times as many jobs and a better chance if finding the perfect fit.
No, this isn't true, and this misconception is explicitly why I invoked the realtor problem. If the recruiter gets paid, say, 15%, the difference to the recruiter between $100K and $110K is $1500. To get $16,500 instead of $15,000, the recruiter risks extra days of negotiation in which the applicant may find another job, or one or both sides passing on each other because of lack of salary fit. In most cases, then, it is in the recruiter's best interest to pressure you to take the job at $100K. Most recruiters are out of the business in a couple years, only a few are in it for the long hall--since he's not going to work with you again, it's in his best interest to get the payout now. Over any length of time, they will make so much more money by you saying yes than you pushing for more money that it's stupid of them not to get you to take the first offer that comes down the pike.
A few recruiters, among them the best ones I've worked with, are in it for the long haul, and cultivate real relationships, but they are uncommon. I remain on good terms with them whenever I can--I've been on job interviews before where I was clearly sent to the wrong job and told the interviewer "look, you don't want me for this job and the recruiter just wasted your time and mine--go talk to this guy, he'll feed you candidates you can actually use." It's worth it, because what goes around comes around, but most are in-and-out and they act like it.
The recruiter wants the largest commission possible and I want the highest salary possible. Notice I said these "more closely align". You are right, it is not a perfect alignment. The recruiter would rather get some commission rather than none. If they are afraid you may take an offer on your own or from another recruiter they may try to get you to accept a lower offer. This is why I work with recruiters I trust and I establish clear non negotiable guidelines up front. "I am looking only for promotional level opportunities. My current salary is X; do not trouble me with positions unless the salary is paying a minimum of X + (X * .3)".
With this type of relationship we must establish clear guidelines. If we fail to stick to those guidelines then it is on us.
In my own interviews going out of collage, I was told by peers about the offers they were making. I got asked what I was expecting to get by employers and told them around $80K because thats what my peers were getting and I consider myself to be on pretty equal ground with them and most companies scoffed at it. But then I got an offer of $95K and then they had to raise their own offers up to match. Its a ridiculous process to go through.
A key insight is how many salaries do you negotiate in your life - 10? A professional recruiter does this 10 times per day.
Negotiate.
Well, I am a lawyer, and this is also not legal advice.
To lie and accept a job offer whose salary is predicated on the lie would constitute fraud. Lying about your former compensation history is no different than lying about a prior criminal record, if the counterparty relies on the false assertion.
There are a bunch of jobs with ethical requirements so lying is probably going to cause problems.
Disclaimer: Not a lawyer, not your lawyer, but fairly confident based on past experience with this over ~15 years.
... unless, like patio11, you decide to blog about your salary history at some point.
The problem with lies is that you need to remember what they were so that you don't contradict yourself later.
patio11 is unusually (yet refreshingly) open with his financial information.
If you're going to blog about your intimate financial details, you should of course "have your ducks in a row".
Don't be -- I don't think there's any correlation between the quality of a comment and whether I respond to it. ;-)
If you're going to blog about your intimate financial details, you should of course "have your ducks in a row".
Right, but once you've lied about something it's impossible to put that particular duck back where it belongs.
So Bob and Anna are equally qualified and currently paid 50k. They both apply for same job and Bob says he has a (fake) PhD and is paid 50k and anna does not lie about qualifications but says her base is 100k
Most of us would say Bob has committed an illegal act because the link between qualifications and hiring decision seems so clear. But there is a very weak link between previous salary and hiring decision, so how far must the company prove that it uses prior salary in hiring decisions? Just the fact that it asks? The fact it only offers prior plus 5%? That prior salary is used to rank CVs?
I am not so interested in previous salary. Rather, I always directly ask "what is your salary requirement". I think it is good business sense to not underpay what people think they require, though sometimes this means we must pass on what could otherwise be good employees, so requesting moonshot salaries is definitely a filter for us.
Furthermore, when I ask applicants their requirement, if they just deliver a number to me using logic that does not include salary levels at previous jobs to justify, then I evaluate how close it is to my budget target for the position, and if feasible, I make an offer at that requested level.
However, if the applicant uses a previous salary to justify their current salary requirement, and it's a lot higher than I expected or had targeted for the position, I have on a few occasions offered jobs with compensation to match previous salaries, so long as applicant proves to my HR they are not lying about the salary.
So far, all offers I’ve made predicated on proving their salary claims, my HR has proven the applicants were lying to significant degree, except for one person. Those that were caught lying had job offers rescinded. The one person that wasn't lying only lasted 90 days because he clearly couldn’t add value to justify.
From my point of view, the best strategy for negotiating a higher salary is to get in front of a person that cares if you can help them make them more money than it costs to pay you, regardless of your previous salary (an HR manager is usually not the person that cares about this). Then present a clear vision to them for how you will deliver that added value.
Just pay what the position is worth to you. The only reason to negotiate is to pay less than the position is worth if possible.
The reason is that sales people make most of their money on commissions in most places, and checking how much they made in commissions in previous years is the simplest way to figure out how effective they have been in past positions.
There is an altogether separate discussion about whether commission heavy compensation works better or not though.