For any of us corporate workers, Equifax runs a service called "The Work Number" that has, for a big group of people, every single cent you ever made, who payed it, and when

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

There is no way they can get actual paystub data from employer or tax return data from irs.

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

> There is no way they can get actual paystub data from employer

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.

Sounds like collusion to keep wages below market value to me.

It's gross but I honestly don't see how you can come to this conclusion? How can you keep wages below market value by sharing actual wages in the actual market?

Because the employers are the ones with access to the data, not the general public.

I guess it can be viewed as a way of establishing trust between parties involved.

Collusion on the part of the employers.

JFC. No words to describe this

it gets better. if you ever leave somewhere and HR dont update employment status and dates accurately with theworknumber, future employers background checks may fail, and cause hiring problems for you (it may look like you are working two jobs or lied about your history)

This is the best part about those systems - having to guess how it’s reporting wrong so you can “answer” the questions right.

Note that for the purposes of the Free Credit Reporting Act (FRCA), this is just another consumer report and you still have all the same rights you normally would, including the rights to recieve a copy of information in your file, dispute innaccuracies, and sue for damages.

Wow. They have super detailed data for the last few years. The report also tells you who has requested the data.

Kind of funny that you aren't supposed to share your salary but your employer does.

Who says you aren't supposed to share your salary? Your employer? It's legal to share your salary, and illegal for your employer to stop you or retaliate against you in the US (unless you are in management).

My parents and in laws. It’s a really, really big thing for their generation. You never share it, or ask.

It’s less of an issue with younger generation, but still important to be careful.

I still think it’s good etiquette not sharing it. Either you humiliate yourself or you come off as bragging

It really depends on the intention you have for sharing your salary. I have friends who want to get into software engineering and they ask me my salary history. Compared to industry standard, my salary is average at best, so it's a pitiful thing to brag about (not that money is ever not a pitiful thing to brag about)

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

It’s important to be careful. But I’ve asked many people to tell me their how much they make, and how they got there.

If you’re polite about it, it not a huge issue.

Does this work in practice? There are surely lots of subtle ways an employer could retaliate against you that would be really hard to prove as retaliatory actions.

I would have assumed US law has some kind of hostile work environment protection, but according to wikipedia this only applies if the employee has been "treated in a hostile manner because of their membership in a protected class".

I worked in two different countries in European Union, and in both as far as I can tell (ianal) it’s perfectly legal to share salary information. Labor code states what the limits of what you can do are, and also that the contract can not be more restrictive than the labor code is.

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.

>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).

How did you request a report for yourself? Did you create a personal account in order to access your data (via https://employees.theworknumber.com) or did you have a business account with them?

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?

You can also freeze access to it: https://employees.theworknumber.com/employee-data-freeze

So... Equifax wants me to email a form with my SSN on it. Sigh.

Thank you! This seems like a huge pain in the ass.

Or you could submit deletion request if you live in California.

How is this legal? Where do they get these numbers? You employer(I dont think so) or your employer's payment role processors?

Information as a two-way street; your employer provides it so that they can, in turn, get salary reports that they can use.

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.

Your employer in many cases. See https://www.fastcompany.com/40485634/equifax-salary-data-and...

You yourself provide this info voluntarily to a bank when applying for a loan. The same bank verifies it by asking your paystubs before giving you a loan.

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

> You yourself provide this info voluntarily to a bank when apply for a loan. The same bank verifies it by asking your paystubs before giving you a loan.

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.

I was not trying to blame the individual, sorry if it appeared that way.

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.

Do you know where I can buy this information? It might be interesting to know how much to expect from various companies. Or do they only sell to employers?

Replying to myself, there's a front page story about it now: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29834753

Many employers send their entire workforce's annual salary as a standard data integration field for benefit/workforce system vendors. Equifax/TWN is one of those vendors many employers use.

TWN, in turn, grants these employers aggregate salary range data across companies (helping the company negotiate better deals).

I've began to answer, at least to myself, the question of "how is this legal?" with: it makes rich people a lot of money.

> You employer(I dont think so)

Yes, the employer. They give data and they get access to data.

Some of the companies selling this data are the ones who actually process the payroll for employers, and their contract with your employer specifically allows it.

NYC already prohibits employers from using salary information in setting compensation, unless the candidate voluntarily and without prompting offers that information (e.g. when the candidate thinks it will give them a higher offer). NY has a similar law at the state level as well (both apply simultaneously in NYC).

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.

Wow, I wonder does this report equity grants? If not then at least you can still hide your total comp…

Depends on the employer, but in many cases yes. I have friends that work at Amazon that can confirm their RSU numbers showed up in their report.

> that has, for a big group of people, every single cent you ever made, who payed it, and when

Even capital gains?

> for a big group of people

No.

I visited the web site. When I click on My Personal Data, it gives a 403.

Which is freaking hilarious.

Hello GDPR yes, I know Equifax is in the US and the GDPR does not apply there, but this sort of abuse is why the GDPR exists. Equifax shouldn't even have that data, let alone be allowed to resell it.

I have literally told a HR person "I'm not answering this question" and when told to do or cancel, I cancelled that application with zero regrets.

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".

If they're pushy I ask if they want to know so that they can A) lowball me B) because they don't trust their own assessment of my value C) something else (this is a trap: there is no C).

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.

The reason for asking the question is knowing a candidate's salary history reduces the risk of hiring him.

Just like when you buy a house, knowing the house's sale history helps you avoid a big mistake.

On what basis? Knowing the candidates job history may do so, but what signal does the salary itself give?

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?"

> what signal does the salary itself give?

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.

You're looking at this consistently through the lens of someone coming in with an existing high salary who can exploit that during negotiations. But someone coming in from that perspective is likely already in a strong enough economic position to negate some of the leverage that the company starts with.

> 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.

> that signal is effectively meaningless

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!

The problem is, it's not just a signal of your economic value to companies.

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.

If you have poor negotiating skills, hiding your salary history isn't going to help any. What is going to help is making an effort to learn how to do it. A relatively small effort can yield lifetime benefits.

> If you have poor negotiating skills, hiding your salary history isn't going to help any

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.

> This is false.

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.

> 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.

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).

Yes, but you're saying that even if someone improves, a rational actor will use the signal of the history of poor negotiation to collude with others to pay that person less.

And you can demonstrate that you are worth a higher salary and not accept less.

Surely you understand the entire argument, including parts you glossed over:

> 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 literally a way to suppress folks from the lower class. They can't afford to jump to FANG or some other great job right out of college in a lot of cases, they need to start making money.

All the person has to do is stand firm on the salary he feels he deserves.

Standing firm is a useful negotiation tactic at times, yet no guarantee for success. If companies you want to work for collectively take the stance that you don't deserve the salary you're asking for, possibly influenced by their knowledge of your salary history, then you standing firm means you don't get the job.

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.

Nobody said negotiation offered guarantees.

It's not negotiating that gets you a guaranteed worst case result.

"All the person has to do" reads to me as if you're implying it's a guaranteed road to success, or that it comes at minimal cost. If this wasn't intended, I apologise.

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.

That’s it, do or die and if you’re a better worker than bullshitter, then too bad for you?

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.

If it's so massive, why aren't all workers at minimum wages?

Because, as shocking as it may seem, the world is not black and white. There are intermediates between “dirt poor” and “billionaire”, as well as “lying, exploitative scumbag employer” and “perfect employer”, and also blind luck.

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.

Half the people will always be better in any metric than the other half.

> 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.

This is troll level of misunderstanding how the world works.

Believing one has no agency is a self-fulfilling prophecy.

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?

I think you're confusing me with someone who hasn't achieved things. I'm doing great in life, but I still have empathy and don't assume others are where they are due to their inherent faults.

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.

I reckon, among other things: ambition, determination, strong character

I do agree that a person should "hunt" a higher reward (money + package) when they can and it's worth the hassle but...

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.

> Sometimes they have no choice but compromise to pay their bills.

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.

I did express my self poorly there. By "Sometimes they have no choice but compromise to pay their bills" I mean:

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.

Sounds like someone wants to justify their position in the social order XD

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.

There's also a choice to form a union and push back.

That would seem to put your company squarely under the heading of checks notes A) "doesnt put enough faith in own ability to assess talent without it".

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.

No if you do a Phd at CERN or similar tier 1 institutions the pay there is often very low I found that for starting work at a world leading RnD organisation.

My manager told me that when they interview a candidate, they already know how much they currently earn because companies voluntarily share salary data with each other in my country (in Europe). The recruiters still ask candidates for a salary expectation, but they only use that to know how much of a jump the candidate is expecting, or how much extra they expect to get to actually consider a switch... and because positions are nearly never advertised with a salary range, this makes employers have a huge advantage "negotiating" salaries as they have all the information, the candidate has none (it's tabu to ask other people for their salaries, so I, as most people, am almost completely in the dark regarding whether I am being fairly compensated or not).

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.

whats holding anyone from lying with inflated salary? gotta play the game

I wouldn't lie with a specific number, but I would answer it with either one of these two options:

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.

> Both answers put the onus on the employer

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.

One of my former coworkers (whom I'll call Doug) had his boss at a previous job more or less do this on his behalf. Doug had been working for a small company that was acquired. The new owner asked the boss of the smaller company what Doug had been making. The old boss reported a number much higher than Doug's actual salary. The new ownership just said "sounds reasonable" and Doug immediately got a massive raise. Doug said he was a little uncomfortable that a lie had been involved, but he didn't feel he could contradict his boss, so he went with it.

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.

This is the boss saying “Doug was worth more than I could pay him, here’s what he should be getting” which is actually a very nice thing to do for the new ownership because losing Doug soon after could have been devastating. Likely the small company had felt it couldn’t match the actual salary (and likely tried to make it up in other ways).

Here is a heart warming story about the same thing:

https://www.theguardian.com/football/2020/jul/05/keith-gille...

You don't have to play the game. There are plenty of employers out there who do _not_ ask salary history, or will accept "my expected amount is $x" (which is not based on what you're making right now)

Agree, this is the ideal way. But if my life dependent on one company interview and they ask current salary instead of desired - they will get my desired number as if it was my current

in a hypothetical world where your life depends on one company why would you lie about something that they can easily verify?

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.

Doesn't lying increase your odds of not getting job if you get caught?

Doesn't lying increase your odds of getting job if you not caught?

You can be caught about lying in an interview at any time after the fact. If I interviewed someone and found out they flat out lied in response to a question (side note: I don't ask about salary), it would be an instant no/suggestion to end a probationary period from me.

But I said "if you not caught"

why not just lie about your experience and level if you're not going to get caught?

Because being stuck doing a job that's over your head every single day isn't fun, even if you're getting paid for it. When they say interviewing is a two-way street, they're right.

It’s not a good idea to lie in the interview process. If you get caught, you jeopardize your chance of landing the job.

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.

Agree in general with you that lying is big No in interview process.

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

Never lie, just don't answer it.

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.

I can't imagine any company doing this over that question. It cost them a lot of money to hire and start training you. And it isn't even a capability related question like if you lied about your education.

I've seen it happen. A peer team had found an excellent match and extended the offer, which was accepted. Then during the background check there was some discrepancy in details (not salary, but even more trivial stuff) and HR canceled the offer. Management fought it hard but HR stood firm, offer dropped.

Go one step further and respond with "One million dollars...mmmm"

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.

Some people hate lying. Myself included. Makes it awkward at times.

You should you know that the other side has no problem lying to you just to get what they want from you:

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

5. Unlimited PTO

They may ask for pay stubs.

Act confused when they do that and ask if this is some sort of scam (because it is).

"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..."

You can choose to do this or to not provide a (false) salary history in the first place, but just understand that typically what you're actually doing is choosing to not accept a particular position.

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.

I had to take a drug test once for a development job. This wasn't recently but it was after marijuana had been legalized in several states (but not the one I was in at the time). I reached out to the recruiter who basically said "we have employees who are contracted out to the state. It's a state law that we need to drug test our employees. The law does not require that we report the results or even read them."

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’ve had to do it for low tier stuff when I was younger, like telemarketing. It’s an unnecessary invasion of privacy. If I showed up too stoned to speak coherently fire me for being incoherent. I had to do it when working with some heavy equipment too. The argument doesn’t even work there though. I’d not be hired if I smoked pot two weeks ago, but if I took shots with breakfast that would be fine?

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 law does not require that we report the results or even read them.

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?

Well, I think it's unlikely I passed the test, and I worked there long enough to get promoted twice. I believe that they didn't care about the results and just had to go through the motions.

I've always heard this, but I've had a dozen jobs in the last decade (not a joke), and no one has ever asked me for previous paystubs. They have asked for previous proof of employment, but that came down to "a letter from my company that confirms I work there", no salary information listed.

It happened to me before. I was kind of shocked. I got a "take it or leave it" response when I complained about it.

I’ve had companies ask me to fill out a paper application. After they received my CV, cover letter and telephone interview. They also gave me the take it or leave it. Thinking to myself if this is how it’s going to be at the interview stage I can’t imagine wasting 40-50 hours/week over the next year for even more bullshit. I left and called my recruiter and told her don’t ever do that again.

I have never seen this happen to myself or anyone else. Nor are you required to give them any pay stubs, as they contain your social security number and personal financial information. That's not something you give to a recruiter. Please be very wary of anyone who asks for a pay stub.

You're not required to give anything to anyone. There are just consequences if you don't. In this instance, that consequence is not getting a job.

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 have photoshop installed, no big deal

> I have literally told a HR person "I'm not answering this question" and when told to do or cancel, I cancelled that application with zero regrets.

Was this in a location where asking is prohibited? They shouldn't be able to demand and answer "or cancel".

The legal status is unclear to me (this was in Switzerland).

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".

> I have literally told a HR person "I'm not answering this question"

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.

What? "Answer this question or I'm not hiring you." (as long as the question is not one of a lawfully prohibited class of questions) is not coercion it's negotiation. By your reasoning if I went into an interview and flat refused to answer any question they would, what, be forced to hire me? This whole conceptualization is broken.

Anytime the other party says "or else" it's just a negotiating tactic to see if you're gonna fold.

> 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.

Yes, and that's why your previous comment made no sense...

> you are compelled to answer any question an employer asks

Nobody is "compelling" anyone in this situation.

>Don't ever give a salary history if asked.

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."

>a salary about $20k - $30k

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.

Individual departments (cost centers) often have salary budgets - this motivates some managers to be penny-pinchers - save $10k here, $20k there, in no time you have enough budget for another warm body!

You missed the second half of the quote. It is clear he was talking about a salary 20-30k above what he was already making. Now, you may point out that's still not a lot of money, but it's not a salary in the 20-30k range.

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.

No, I didn’t miss it and it doesn’t change my point - asking for a $20k raise is peanuts.

It doesn't change your point, but the way you cut quote was misleading.

No, it's not, because companies hire more than 1 person.

It's the entire STATE. The interviewer would've been in huge trouble if you report them.

I didn't realize it was the entire state that banned the practice. Good to know.

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.

Employers generally fuck us every way they can, then go innovate some more. When it comes to negotiating compensation, use every tactic available, including lies, doctoring old payslips, leveraging offers against each other. I truly do not believe it is possible to act unethically when attempting to extract fair pay from employers.

Read this before you start negotiating: https://www.kalzumeus.com/2012/01/23/salary-negotiation/

It covers salary history and much more, all of it useful.

Indeed - illegal in NY since 2020 under Labor Law Section 194.

https://www.nysenate.gov/legislation/laws/LAB/194-A

Locks in previous pay discrimination including but not limited to protected categories.

When asked for a salary history, do you research and give them a list at what salary you should've gotten. A rude question doesn't deserve a honest answer.

I just tell them no. If they don't like it then they can move on to the next candidate. Pay me what you think I'm worth or skip me.

I don't want to get paid what they think I'm worth, I want to get paid what the market thinks I'm worth. This way forwards my goal.

Is it dangerous? If a candidate volunteers their pay history, it's likely because it is high. If they don't, it's likely because it is low.

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.

> Not having a clue about what a candidate formerly earned means risk for the employer

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.

I'm aware of many people who were hired who brought negative value. A salary history of low wages is a red flag for such.

> 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.

> I'm aware of many people who were hired who brought negative value. A salary history of low wages is a red flag for such.

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.

When you work for a company, do you never see a correlation between what people are paid and what they contribute? Really?

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.)

That would be a CEO without a golden parachute to bail them out when they run things into the ground... so I wouldn't be surprised if it works out better than average.

Everyone involved knows the applicant was probably paid less in their previous job. What the present conpany doesn't know is how much less.

California is one of those states, yet as a state employee, my compensation history is a public record. Anyone who wants my info can find it with a simple search online. I can understand the good in disclosing this info for public figures, but for everyone? It seems a little hypocritical.

I was asked by a recruiter one time. I answered with what my salary requirements were. This caused him to grow quite angry, explain that it didn't matter what my requirements were, and hang up on me. Mostly, I was amused. This was before that question was illegal in California.

And anyone that has an atypical route into that profession.

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.

I've made it a habit to talk in terms of what other options I have on the table, and the salary bands for those instead.