Also, I discovered recently that companies cannot talk to one another about salaries, but they can all participate in a "survey" where the surveyor aggregates all this information, in a very detailed way. So, every company knows exactly what the other company is paying, even in a different industry. I guess that is another way of fixing price.
I mean, hell, asking the question is one thing. I can live with that. But turning that into some kind of litmus test where declining to share private information completely 100% immediately disqualifies you, that's insane.
Anyway, never experienced it. Question for you all, are there any negatives to bluffing?
i.e. say you said your previous salary was $110k while it was really $90k, will HR say 'you're overqualified' or something to that extent if they were hoping to pay you say $90k and had a max of $100k in mind?
As in, can you recover from that and say 'oh but $100k is fine, too', or would that also send a signal of weakness where they won't hire you because you seem desperate (taking a $10k cut from their perspective, when you actually get a $10k raise)? Ugh the mindgames! haha. Would love to hear your experiences on this issue.
That is actually not true. This kind of employee low balling is condoned behavior.
I applied for a position at Automattic and had Matt Mullenweg (CEO) pull this on me.
Everything seemed to have gone perfectly well - everyone involved in the process seemed impressed with my abilities but when it came to this point and I declined I was told "I seem to be senstive about being Indian" out of nowhere. I don't know where that came from.
First, I'm sorry that at some point in your hiring process you got that impression, it is not in line with our philosophy or our actions. We now employ 320 people in 36 countries and with at least that many distinct racial or ethnic backgrounds, including Indian. We aim to hire another 120 in the next year so disqualifying potential candidates based on something they are born with is not just morally odious, it's logically flawed and not something I would tolerate in our organization. (We even help host events like http://accelerate.lgbt/ .)
This is also why we have a distributed model -- we wanted to create a company that where someone chooses to live is not a barrier to them doing great work at Automattic.
The words you put in quotes don't look like something I'd say, and also unusual for my interactions with potential candidates in our hiring process (which is described here - https://hbr.org/2014/04/the-ceo-of-automattic-on-holding-aud... ), if you're willing to share the date when we chatted or any other info I'd love to review my transcripts and understand the context if that was an actual quote, or if it's not I'd like to see what I said that gave you that impression it was a mistake on my part and I want to avoid giving that impression again in the future.
To summarize: Automattic wants to employ people of all backgrounds and regardless of their geography, and I personally believe there is no connection between a person's background, Indian or otherwise, and their ability to be an amazing Automattician.
Our culture is really built on two-way trust: since we're distributed and seldom see each other you don't know how someone is going about their work, and most of our HR policies come down to the honor system. The company places an incredibly amount of trust in employees, and vice versa people place a great amount of trust in the company, including that we'll do our best to treat them fairly. It's a responsibility the folks on the operations side of Automattic, including myself, take very seriously.
If knowledge of a candidate's previous salary doesn't influence your offer, why do you ask for it and what do you do with it?
Jesus. It's amazing to think someone who's worked so long in the tech industry can think like this. If anything, we're the ones who should know best how little race means when you have the skills to get the job done.
a) I am Indian, and until now had largely thought that we were largely a privileged class within tech, if not outside it -- and consequently weren't affected by race issues within it.
b) All of the articles about how oh-so-wonderfully Automattic does their remote work had always led me to believe they were a forward-thinking, "good" company. If they are bringing up race in an interview it completely destroys this perception.
In a climate where most companies are afraid to disclose quite reasonable reasons for not making a hire, it's remarkable that someone would think this kind of comment is appropriate.
We base compensation on market data, value to the company, and what other people in a similar role make, we also ask what people made in the past and where they hope to be in the future. This does not determine their salary, it's market data for us, and the future part also makes sure that Automattic is a place that can meet their long-term goals and expectations, or if not that's discussed up front.
I've had this conversation about 400 times at this point, while people can sometimes be sensitive around compensation, it's like discussing a health issue with your doctor -- I've seen and heard it all and it's part of a normal days work for me. It's sometimes the source of a nice surprise, as we've had people who've doubled or trebled their salary when joining Automattic which always brightens my day. We've also had people take a small or substantial cut when joining, which isn't ideal, but we determine salaries as I said above, not based on what they say they previously made, and it's good information for the company to have because hopefully one day as our business or their contribution to it grows it'd be great to have them at or above what the market said they could make someplace else. I can only think of only once someone has not joined because of compensation, an engineer at Yahoo who had compensation 3-4x beyond what seemed fair in the market commensurate with his skills or experience.
The OP advice of not saying salary might be appropriate at other companies, I'm not privy to their compensation practices, but it is not correct at Automattic. A few folks in this thread suggested lying, which I would disagree with in any circumstance, much better not to answer -- lying in response to a factual question demonstrates low integrity and most employers, including us, would not want to work with that person.
Automattic is one of too few companies that tries to treat people who live in different countries the same, which is an important distinction from treating people who are from different countries and now live and work in the US the same, which of course every company is legally required to do (though there are still some serious issues around pay equality and even gender, to start). Many companies explicitly try to have offices and hire people in countries where the cost of living and wages are lower to save money; our thought is that the internet makes that obsolete and over time enlightened companies will pay people what they're worth regardless of where they live.
There have been about 5 times someone hasn't wanted to share, every time because they think making a low amount in the past (at a non-profit, in a country where wages are low) will lower their offer, which it doesn't and I try to re-assure. One case comes to mind in 2012 of someone who had attended Stanford but moved back to India because didn't have a visa, and was worried their geography would mean they were paid less, in which case I would have said to not worry about the fact that you're in India because that doesn't matter to Automattic -- if I gave the impression that it mattered whether you were Indian (or any other background) I apologize. We did end up hiring this person and at a similar salary to someone in the Bay Area doing a similar role, though there were some complications with them wanting to be paid to a US bank account, in USD (we try to pay people in the currency of where they live so they're sheltered from forex shifts), and travel to work in the US, which our attorneys advised us would create issues in absence of a work visa, which the person didn't have. They ended up only being with the company 9 months, the last few on a performance plan, but that was based on work after they had joined, not anything to do with the interview or compensation process, just sometimes there isn't a mutual fit. (Over the past 10 years we've had about 60 people be let go or leave, it's definitely not personal.)
Not sure if that was the same person as nodelessness, but if so I feel very bad you thought any of that had to do with you being Indian, and I'm happy to chat or discuss more to clear it up. I also hope the information and context above helps any one who is considering working at Automattic know that we'll do our darndest to create a comfortable and fair environment for everyone.
1. As a hiring manager, knowing your previous salary will not impact my decision on your value. 2. As a hiring manager, I insist on knowing your previous salary. If you do not want to discuss it, you must not trust us.
[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."
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.
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).
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
There are a bunch of jobs with ethical requirements so lying is probably going to cause problems.
Negotiate.
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.
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.
I've talked to a number of folks with inside knowledge for a couple different regions and it's quite possible that they're simply not budgeted to pay for that role and they just can't politically negotiate that while meeting certain fiscal commitments. If I started a company right now and bootstrapped, I can't pay someone market rate at all and expect to be in business a year without taking outside funding, so that's just reality.
Well now there's the rub innit?
I get the impression that a lot of companies out there either don't have that mentality (thinking cheap is enough) or don't know how to actually do good hiring.
The good thing about this kind of reaction is that it helps you filter out that kind of company you wouldn't want to work for.
(It just occurred to me that if there was "an app for that" in this case, no parent would ever be able to trust their child's report card again.)
Make it look more or less like the original. As long as nobody sees the original next to the mock-up, who's ever going to notice that one or two digits changed?
Regarding gossip, "Would you trust a company who checks up on someone's previous paycheck?" seems to quell that pretty quickly.
In many countries the employer does the employees tax, and they will be able to see how much you earned in that calendar year. Being hired under false pretenses is fraud and means you could be legally fired at will at any later date.
People in the USA might be used to this (since this is very common), but in many places with actual employment law, this is a bad deal for the employee.
Of course, that's only if you lie to them. If you just don't tell them the salary, then they only find out after you are hired and hopefully have a nice proper salary.
It's bullshit, especially for those who began their careers during a time of salary deflation.
However, the right employer will NOT base your future salary solely on your current. It should simply be one data point in the process - your value as an employee should be based on a multitude of factors. This isn't pie in the sky; many of my clients do have a compensation system for employees and end up paying fairly.
Discussion on reddit: https://www.reddit.com/r/programming/comments/34q8cl/do_not_...
Hahahhaa, I like that you even all-capsed "lying". Give me a break.
Funny enough I ended up getting an offer way above my current salary, and a bit more than what I said I wanted.
Is anyone here a recruiter and can shed some light as to why the hell these people are so adamant about getting my salary??? I'm wondering if part of the deal for them is if they don't give my current salary to HR they won't get paid. That seems really stupid but they were acting like they would let me walk if I didn't tell them my salary.
It's just one data point in determining whether you're a qualified candidate
1) Why would I waste the candidate or the client/employer's time if there's too large a gap between candidate's salary & their highest potential for this role? The company has a budget, candidate have a minimum; let's get this out of the way - it would be terrible if the interview process went swimmingly only to find that the candidate wouldn't budge under $125K and client wouldn't exceed $100K.
2. Finally: it's not a huge deal if candidate prefers NOT to provide salary; sure, it makes you feel a little uncomfortable. If that's the case: no worries, but then I do ask that the candidate gives me a 10% range for their current salary & expectations. Again, employer just wants to know that we're potentially on the same page before wasting time.
3. Literally 95% of my software engineering candidates have no qualms about sharing their salary. The other 4% will at least give me a small range. These candidates that challenge this minor issue end up being more trouble than they're worth in other ways too; it's a red flag. (next stop: "no, I'm not taking a coding test").
Again, there are ways around REQUIRING the salary #. It should not result in a candidate or employer walking. Oof!
Someone's current salary is none of your business, it's that simple and as a block of reasonably intelligent professionals we could simply all agree to never supply that information to the company hiring.
Note that almost all of the risk at the time of a job change is already born by the employee, the employer using a recruiter is actively looking to dislodge employees elsewhere and has a few tools at his/her disposal to effect this.
Since recruiters are paid by the future employer they should be considered an extension of that employer and in no way are they to be taken to be independents or objective, their job is simply to dislodge you for the minimum amount required.
If you want to know that your employer and the candidate are on the same page then why don't you, the person initiating the contact disclose the range of salary offered plus or minus 10% so the prospective employee can decide whether or not you're on the same page? That's because you'd like to snag them for a little bit over what they are currently making, and you'd be happier if you could deliver a 'gem' well under the budget your employer has set aside. You might even get a bonus for that.
If 95% of your software engineering candidates have no qualms about sharing their salary then that is what should change if you continue to game the process by asking such questions. What a software engineer makes is their private information, and asking for it is just another means of price-fixing between employers.
And those candidates that challenge that requirement are not more trouble then they're worth, they are the only ones that apparently understand your game enough to not be easy marks and that is why you feel they are more trouble than they are worth because it isn't easy money.
You did forget that there are 2 types of recruiters: agency (outside) and corporate (inside).
I, the agency recruiter, do not want to "dislodge" the candidate for the minimum amount required. Not because my fee will be higher with a greater salary, but because I'm actually incentivized to do what is best for both the employer & employee. This is called sales. When you do good by all parties to the transaction, it pays dividends long-term.
So, no, we're not trying to "snag" them. I appreciate your paranoia, as you're not alone; many people dealing with bad recruiters probably need to vent.
But for the most part, your perception of the recruiting industry is different from the reality.
1. tell the employee what salary range the employer is willing offer, or 2. ask the applicant for their desired salary level.
The current salary is NOT your business. If the applicant earns 1x salary now and wants 2x salary and decide to look for a new job that offers that, how does it help the applicant to tell the recruiter that he earns 1x in his current job? You basically ask the employee to play a cards game but have them all in the open for you.
"This is called sales". Yeah, involving an engineer lacking any business skills and two weasels.
That's my personal opinion based on personal experience. Feel free to attribute it to others but the echo chamber does not factor in there unless you wish to consider my office part of the echo chamber.
> Yeah, lots of bad apples out there,
Present company, as always, excluded.
> but ask any reasonable professional: a good recruiter is extremely valuable.
A good recruiter is a good recruiter for their paymaster. I've yet to see 'reverse headhunting' where you submit your resume to a recruiter and they then go out to find the best possible position for you. So for now recruiters are exclusively working for companies looking to employ people.
> You did forget that there are 2 types of recruiters: agency (outside) and corporate (inside).
I've dealt with both, neither group to date has me particularly impressed. And I've dealt with them both as an employer and as someone who somehow made it onto the list of recruiters. Clueless wouldn't begin to describe them, they used to have a joke saying that 'those who can do, and those who can't teach', you could probably amend that with 'and those that can't teach recruit' and it wouldn't be too far off the mark.
> I, the agency recruiter, do not want to "dislodge" the candidate for the minimum amount required. Not because my fee will be higher with a greater salary, but because I'm actually incentivized to do what is best for both the employer & employee.
And what is that?
> This is called sales.
I don't particularly care about what you call it, to me it felt more like interacting with a class of buzz-word wielding vultures trying to make money from placing people based on an extremely limited understanding of what makes the tech world tick.
There are multiple ways to make money in any industry: you either dig for gold, you sell shovels to the miners or, in the case of the recruiters, you sell the miners to the mining company.
> When you do good by all parties to the transaction, it pays dividends long-term.
Yes, I'm sure it does. In the long term your loyalty has to lie with your repeat customer, the corporation that hires you. Since you are not going to get any repeat business from the individuals that you've placed (unless you're willing to risk that long term relationship, but there are plenty of other recruiters that will be more than happy to play the game again).
> So, no, we're not trying to "snag" them.
Said the fox to the chicken.
> I appreciate your paranoia, as you're not alone; many people dealing with bad recruiters probably need to vent.
So, many people dealing with bad recruiters on the one hand..
> But for the most part, your perception of the recruiting industry is different from the reality.
And yet my perception is different from reality. That's an interesting concept but I can't fit both of those into my head without significant cognitive dissonance.
Either my experiences match those of others and the venting has - as you apparently confirm - a basis in fact or my perception (and by extension that of all the others complaining about their experiences with recruiters) is wrong. You can't have it both ways.
And you conveniently forgot to address the main point I made and instead latched on to my 'perception issues'.
--I've yet to see 'reverse headhunting' where you submit your resume to a recruiter and they then go out to find the best possible position for you.
Yeah, this exists - they're "agents" for software engineers (for example). But it's rare and not sustainable.
---In the long term your loyalty has to lie with your repeat customer, the corporation that hires you. Since you are not going to get any repeat business from the individuals that you've placed (unless you're willing to risk that long term relationship, but there are plenty of other recruiters that will be more than happy to play the game again).
You forgot one thing: reputation. If you do best by your client AND candidate, then your candidate sends your referrals, eventually comes to you when he/she becomes a hiring manager, etc.
---I don't particularly care about what you call it, to me it felt more like interacting with a class of buzz-word wielding vultures trying to make money from placing people based on an extremely limited understanding of what makes the tech world tick.
I've heard this before, usually from less level-headed software engineers. Like I said, sales is a different business - we do different things than you guys. I have repeatedly watched as techies have tried and failed to transition into recruiting. There is an extremely low correlation between tech savvy & recruiting success. Recruiting is a people business.
The underlying theme here, again, is that you're lumping every recruiter into your personal bad experiences - like I already said, some are good. That's not a valid approach in this situation.
It's trivial to solve this problem for a recruiter by simply stating the company budget range upfront. The problem is that recruiters want the client to give up their information without revealing any of their. That is where the asymmetry of information come into play and engineers end up getting the short end of the negotiation.
Speaking of red flags: organizations that think people who have basic negotiation skill are too much trouble to work with.
And this company was a very small and fast growing firm that would require a lot of hustle and assertiveness. My entire in person interview process was based on a case study that took 12 hours where I spent a large part of that arguing with my results/reasoning. So I don't think that holds.
This is a fallacy. The recruiter would rather fill the role as quickly as possible and move on to the next mark.
The recruiter's choice is: wait for you to negotiate and maybe lose the role; or act as an agent for someone else.
So... They are interested in providing candidates that are, in as many parameter's as possible, within the employer's range -- and towards the favorable end.
As to the ur-child-level idea that "good CEO's" will "clamp down" or whatever the term was on this practice...
"Good CEO's" generally have NO interest in tackling the details of HR policy except when they are quite visibly causing problems and/or a big, bold initiative sweeps them into its fold ("Mind the Gap", or whatever the flavor du jour is).
HR is a... well, in many ways and all the more bureaucratically so in larger firms, a nasty, detailed business. Endless quantities of compliance. "Fair" as a tool of constraint as often if not more so than enablement. Secrecy and emotions and politics, all needing to be whitewashed.
The kind of details CEO's don't want to micromanage, and that the smarter ones know to stay away from -- or at least, at arm's length.
There are individual exceptions -- some brave. But looking across the landscape of business, I don't think is there is any great movement to buck HR and attendant policy. It is a bureaucracy now well rooted in and growing from a depth and maze of regulation and law. Not all of which is bad -- worker safety and y and z and... have been much needed.
But, don't expect your average CEO to "go there".
Atleast that is the case in Australia. When we contract we bill the recruiter whop bills the client.
You can also note that while this may not be the answer the interviewer is looking for, it does represent the kind of discretion that the company is likely to appreciate in the event that you do take a job with them, then eventually go elsewhere.
If pressed, you can say your current pay is "unsatisfactory", and let them know that's what they can list on their form. You can add that you know the company has a range, that they're in the market for the skills you have, and that you're unhappy enough with your present number and long-term prospects to hear their offer.
All this should send a pretty strong signal that, pay aside, you're not in any immediate hurry to leave your current position, so trying to chisel you down to something close to your current number is just a waste of everybody's time. It also signals that lowballing you now means you'll probably move on sooner rather than later, which is something most HR departments prefer to avoid.
If pressed further - after all that - see the question for the red flag it is. This is probably not a company that has much interest in supporting your growth or professional development. Unless you're desperate (i.e., going nowhere is a better alternative than crashing hard) keep looking.
You can end the conversation on a positive note by saying you do understand policy, that you wouldn't be there if you didn't think the company had a lot going for it, and that they know where to reach you. If they can just find a way to keep you from having to compromise the privacy of your existing employer, you'd consider jumping ship.
If this doesn't produce a callback and you happen have friends who are already there and who want to see you hired, you can share the details of this exchange with them, and let them know why you ended the conversation with HR. Chances are, they'll be pissed. If they want you badly enough, and have the clout to pull rank, they can be sure that HR finds a way to accept your silence regarding your current pay.
Infighting 101.
I really like this advice! Thanks for the tip. I'm stuck being [possibly...] underpaid at the moment and struggling with how to address my current salary without tanking future offers.
Assuming your deflection doesn't end the conversation, the fact that you can hold your ground calmly and polity, yet firmly and clearly will probably cause the rep. to opt for the high end.
If the company is willing to pay €80k, and you were on €50k, then they can offer you €60k and tell you how great it is that you got a €10k raise!
It's all a way for them to pay you les.
Ther are jobs I'd take at half my current salary, and jobs I wouldn't take at 3 times my current salary. In an interview situation I'm happy to provide a ballpark figure as to not waste time, but I won't provide my last salary (my tax details are public!), and I won't negotiatiate salary until I have a good bargaining position.
Didn't work a few times, which I was fine with as I didn't want to jump ship. I really just wanted to get off their list. Then, a few contacted me again a month later saying how they found me the perfect fit.
Boy oh boy did they ever.
"My last salary was $300,000. Yes, seriously. Is that too high for you? We can discuss this further in negotiations, I'm flexible"
To figure out what number you should cite, look in a mirror. Keep saying bigger numbers. Don't stop until you've got a sheepish grin on your face.
i'm a startup co-founder, i hire all the time.
if i asked someone what their salary requirements are and they said 200k or 300k i'd immediately interview them to see if they're worth that much. i would take it as a personal challenge to see if i could stump them, and if i couldn't, i'd start negotiating their salary on the spot.
some people get paid MILLIONS OF DOLLARS! how the hell d'ya you think they got that much? they asked for it!
people who don't want to "reveal" their salary requirements like it's some big huge secret have probably never hired anyone in their life.
They hired me. I would have refused any offer less than I was asking for. Lesson learned: if they want you they will pay at least market rate.
I also "negotiated" (negotiated, hell. I just asked for it) a raise well above what they offered a year later at my first review.
when it comes to this kind of topic on HN, sometimes i feel like i'm taking crazy pills.
If you want $200k but are making $150, just say you are looking for a salary around $200k. If they ask again how much you make presently, you can say "I negotiated my present salary years ago, it's not relevant to the value I provide now, I'm sure you understand".
I'm not going to be pushed into lying and making things up out of expediency. YMMV.
i have not, and i would never in a million years ask someone what they currently make. why would i ever do that? what's the point? you might as well ask them about the size of their genitalia.
the range of bullshit answers you will receive, even from the lowest level of positions, just means you're only fooling yourself if you ask these kinds of questions. just ask for what they want. lying about that won't benefit them, it will only benefit me.
Most engineers want to "stay within the rules", which is why they get walked on.
(I'm not for one second saying you do that, personally)
pushing social boundaries is practiced by all sorts of different people.
Pushing social boundaries is typically not practiced by engineers.
here's another one: "how will you pay for yourself in 6 months?"
i'm no longer technically competent enough to stump an extremely talented engineer on a technical question. not really sure where you get the 'superiority' language, since i would be out of business if i didn't hire employees who were 'superior' to me.
again - sometimes i feel like i'm taking crazy pills around here.
There's a lot of context that made me assume you were talking about stumping them on technical questions. This is Hacker News and the topic of how to do technical interviews is a frequent focus.
Do people know enough about what you do and how you do it to give this answer at interview stage?
these are just nuts-and-bolts dollars-and-cents conversations people have when hiring non-engineering professionals or executives.
you can talk about all of the above without actually stating how much money you made. it's moot. it's irrelevant. what matters is what they accomplished, if they are enthusiastic about doing the same for our startup, and how much money/compensation they need to feel good about it. i am trying to make people feel good about working for me! the first step is to have an honest conversation about everyone's needs (maybe requirements is a better word).
When you hit "sheepish grin"...go up another two steps. Then practice saying it with a straight face. This is probably closer to your actual market value.
My personal experience tells me there are plenty of people desperate for a job, and that is likely why these HR drones can still do this. I have become so disillusioned even talking to these kinds of people because they refuse to consider talented people when its staring them in the face.
If you HR put you off, you're not the only one. Externally they will find it more difficult to hire, and internally the real talent will start to notice.
Therefore, you don't need to worry about it. There are other places you can work with good people.
HR: When are you available for a phone interview with me? FSK: I'm available on these days at these times.
Then I never hear back from them again, even after I follow up.
> What is your current salary?
> I make minimum wage, plus founder equity current valued at $X Million over the next few years.
I soon made it clear to the recruiter (who was very nice and understanding, btw) that previous compensation comprised of intentionally-minuscule salary and startup equity with funny-money valuations would not be a good proxy for my value-add. Worked out fine.
https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/should-i-reveal-my-compensati...
10 years.
So I provided it to them, and one of the companies (who was out of business) could not verify my salary (Pay stubs were not enough, they had to talk to someone).
After this they said they may have "adjust the offer accordingly" and it would most certainly be less because the offer was based on my stated salary at the time.
As most of you are probably guessing, I declined their offer and withdrew myself. Ever since then when they ask my current salary, I don't give it to them.
I would think that at this point they _are_ interested in bringing you on. Then you could go in different directions:
"I'll be glad to discuss my salary requirements at the appropriate time, would you please tell me first how badly do you need me? more about ... say work-life balance, employee rotation, non-monetary perks, whatever...
"Let me tell you about how much more value I bring to my work, many times over salary, which I am ready to do for you, because your great company really prizes the beneficial effect I'll bring to the bottom line."
So you're answering, things they want to hear, not exactly what they asked, but better, for you and for them.
I should listen to myself now. (Edited formatting, structure)
It doesn't happen often [at least for me] but it does happen. I have similar issues when I decline to put an "Education" section on my resume. Both are groups I'd prefer to avoid, personally, but you do need to recognize there is a certain percentage of people that won't work with due to their process.
Add it to the list of things in business that seem to me to be inappropriate/rude/immoral, I suppose.
They know they can say "tell us your previous salary, or else". What's worse is that they will ask your references to confirm, and they'll likely happily tell them. If you lied, it won't go down well.
As if there wasn't enough crap to fight against in your career.. ugh.
EDIT: I forgot about employment contracts that prohibit you from disclosing your previous salary. Yes, they exist.
Needless to say, I don't waste my time any longer when a recruiter asks. I just say "here's what I expect".
The 'data collector' asked me my current salary and I refused to state it. She became very hostile saying "How are we meant to negotiate for you if you won't disclose what salary you are on?". I told her to let me negotiate my own salary.
This worked until I reached the last phase of the interview, the salary discussion. The HR person simply refused to proceed further without the current salary information, as a matter of fact when I told them they should be paying what I'm worth, he said they can't proceed without it any cost. I wasn't interested in the Job so I didn't care, but they seem to count on the fact that given so many programmers out there they it wouldn't matter to them if they would lose a candidate even that late in the interview phase.
In short if there are many devs out there looking for a job, there will always be some one willing to work for a lesser pay.
1) It's about gaining intelligence - not in a nefarious way. If enough candidates at the right experience level are giving me a range of $90K - $100K and the client still won't budge beyond looking at candidates in the $60K - $80K range, I can eventually come back to them and say "Listen: of the last 10 candidates you liked, their salaries were..." A smart, reasonable client will make adjustments.
2) In rare cases: a "rockstar" candidate may be able to get 10% more than the budgeted amount, for example. So I would hate to send you that $80K tops message if there were potential for a perfect match. Then suddenly you're no longer interested and we missed a grand opportunity.
Again, I agree with you for the most part. But ultimately, the recruiter figures: 99% of candidates give their salary number or a tight range, upfront, without issue, so there's no harm in asking for reasons 1 and 2.
It's interesting ("gaining intelligence") to read an account of recruiter allegiances, though.
I've just learned to say that I want to find out what you guys think is a fair offer and left it there.
After a certain point salary moves little and stock moves a lot.
I had a phone screen with an HR drone once (Cerner Inc. to be exact \waves) part way thru she asked me my current salary. I declined to provide that information. She replied "we can't continue without that information". I replied, I'm sorry, but I won't discuss salary at this point. She said, "good bye" and that was all. I had a job so was not desperate at the time. I was still shocked at how abrupt it was.