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.