Ask Slashdot: Should You Tell Future Employers Your Salary History?

An anonymous reader writes: During the interview process for a technology job, I was asked to fill out an application which included questions about my compensation history. When I asked why, I was told that it was part of the background check and wouldn't be used to determine the size of the offer... What is the risk for the employer of not knowing that info? Is this standard procedure or part of a trend at technology companies?
The original submission asks if this is ever a legitimate question -- or more to the point, "Is it anything more than an attempt to gain negotiating leverage?" So leave your best answers in the comments. When you're interviewing for a new IT job, should you tell future employers your salary history?

Comments

Never give a number

[Anonymous Coward]

You should never ever ever give your salary history. It will NEVER help you and will only ever fuck you over. Anyone that claims it's for a background check is lying their ass off and no employer will ever confirm a number. Just put $1 or $0 and when they ask you can simply tell them that's not important and/or it's none of their business.

Re:Never give a number

[Anonymous Coward]

That's a good idea if you never want to get hired.

In theory, your previous salary is irrelevant. In actual practice, companies want that information because they view it as an indicator of how much you want to be paid. Unless you are interviewing for a job as CEO or other high level position, 99.9% of all companies want to pay you as little as possible.

If you were paid $100k in your previous job but they are really hoping to pay someone $50k, telling them your previous salary will almost certainly result in you not getting the job. Withholding salary information will also result in not getting the job.

Leverage is a fantasy. You have no leverage. THEY control who gets hired. Companies will hire whoever will work for the lowest wages with no regard to skill or qualifications. That's pretty much the entire basis of the H-1B program.

Re:Never give a number

[guruevi]

You could inflate the numbers a bit so you get a better offer. Another reason would be to justify the H1B's they're planning on hiring. But if you work for a company that only wants to give you the lowest number possible, do you really want to work for them? There are plenty of job openings for skilled people and plenty of numbnuts that are desperate enough that you don't have to grovel for a company like that.

Re:Never give a number

[Anonymous Coward]

The way I usually respond to "what was your previous salary" question is "Yes Sir, I know how to keep a secret. Next question please." It's like asking a salesmen the same question, if they are any good, they wouldn't respond or they'd game you. I prefer the honest approach just to see how stupid the headhunter is.

The only thing that matters is the value and opportunity I represent to your company right now. If I come along with a packed Portfolio, letters of recommendation from executives with dollar amounts in them, and so forth, the discussion needs to be how much or the offer to try the job out for a month, paid of course, and see how things go.

The only kind of employer that hires a head hunter to fish around for cheap labor (if you ever get a number on a phone call or an e-mail, or a very narrow salary range, it's fishing), or wants to know your existing salary upfront, is one that thinks of their employee's like any fixed piece of equipment and treats them as such.
If you get into the habitation of treating all people like fixed equipment, and treating all equipment the same, pretty soon the really great ones move on and all you are left with is a string of bad people. As a result, many of those businesses are an absolute nightmare to work for. They have an insatiable appetite to find ways to cajole, prod, and otherwise manipulate their labor into doing often immoral and unethical work; insecure people tend to need others around them to feel insecure as well.

Ignore them, let them die, go work for the competition.

Re:Never give a number

[Anonymous Brave Guy]

Leverage is a fantasy. You have no leverage. THEY control who gets hired. Companies will hire whoever will work for the lowest wages with no regard to skill or qualifications.

But conveniently, declining to provide your salary history will often prevent you from accidentally accepting a job with such a poor employer.

There is only one reason a prospective new employer would ever need to know your previous compensation details, and we all know what it is. Asking what level of compensation you're looking for in a new job is a perfectly legitimate question, but there's no reason any honest and reasonable employer can't just ask it directly. If they don't, and if they won't let your refusal to give history go, you might as well take advantage of the insight you've been given at an early stage and walk away before you waste any more of your time on them.

Re: Never give a number

[Anonymous Coward]

I listened to this podcast recently, and can confirm that his ideas are valid and do work, as I have put them to work during interviews:

Actual interview question
HR: Could you tell me what salary you're asking
Me: I'm not comfortable answering that question
HR: Ok, I need a number, what's the lowest you would go for
Me: Well, what's the range you have in mind for this job (Note: I had been given scant detail on what was actually being recruited for)
HR: Oh, I cannot tell you the range, that all depends on how you do in the next phase

I still got through, and still did not told them what salary range I was looking for.

I've done this a few times now (since hearing the podcast, I have been 'in the market') and it's not hurt my chances of getting the job at all, in fact it's helped because I haven't under or over priced myself (both indicators of inexperience or desperation).

Re:Never give a number

[nerdonamotorcycle]

Exactly. Salary negotiation is a game and the first person to name a number loses. Asking someone their complete salary history is like saying to someone, "Let's play poker, only, i get to see all of your cards and you don't get to see any of mine." You wouldn't play poker with someone like that, would you? Similarly, don't go in to a job interview with someone like that. And furthermore, it's a red flag for how the company treats their employees. Run far, run fast.

Re:Never give a number

[the_Bionic_lemming]

No.

If asked to name a number, state a number you want them to pay with a few grand more added.

It's an excellent way to leave a position you don't like and is under paying you and scoring a better paycheck.

Re:Never give a number

[Zontar The Mindless]

My standard reply in such cases is, "What did my current and/or previous employers tell you?"

Re:Never give a number

[AuMatar]

Stupid companies think like that. Smart companies realize the value of high quality employees, and realize that right now there's a lack of qualified seniors on the market. Which is fine- if a company wants to hire that way I'd rather work elsewhere. I'll have a new job within 2 weeks.

Re:Never give a number

[uncqual]

As a hiring manager, I want to know your last salary and perhaps some salary history for a couple reasons.

First, if I have a req for an engineer with a range of $160K-$190K, if you are making $220K I know it's unlikely that you will accept this job. If I'm really excited by you in an initial interview, I might find another position and talk with you about considering that one instead. If' I'm not really excited by you, I'll not pursue it as there's no reason to waste the team's time interviewing someone who is unlikely to take the position and/or will start out with low morale and will likely leave before your on-boarding costs have even been recovered.

Second, the person who knows you best as an employee is likely your last employer. If they were paying you an unusually low (or high salary) taking into account the company as some are known to pay high while others pay high, they likely don't think you are very valuable (or think you are very valuable). This is an interesting hint to me.

In all cases, if there's a reason that the applicant knows their last salary (and perhaps salary history) is problematic, they are free to explain early on (as in, "You may notice that my salary was very low at my last position. This is because I was working for my brother-in-law and trying to help keep his business afloat as a family favor.").

As a hiring manager, I try to bring people in as high as I can without creating disparities among the group between engineers of similar skill and productivity. This is simply logical -- when raise time comes around, I get x% to spread around and I don't want to consume it bringing people "up to grade", I'd rather spend it rewarding people. It's usually much easier to get another $15K for a new hire (esp. when the position has been open for a while and the boss really wants it filled) than it is to get another $15K a year later to give the new hire a "grade adjustment" raise.

I don't worry too much about overpaying under-performers though -- I tend to get rid of them fairly quickly (usually with them resigning, but occasionally via more painful routes). But, even if I am overpaying an under-performer, I still get a percentage of their inflated salary to hand out to other members of the team (and give the overpaid employee little if anything -- which also helps getting them to decide to move on elsewhere!). The logistics of this are a little trickier than described here, but that's the general scheme.

Re:Never give a number

[hambone142]

Salary history is available to employers via The Work Place service (credit reporting agency spinoff).

Re:Never give a number

[Anonymous Coward]

if I have a req for an engineer with a range of $160K-$190K, if you are making $220K I know it's unlikely that you will accept this job.

Then be upfront yourself. Tell the potential recruits you're willing to pay up to $190K and let THEM decide if they want to apply.
Of course, everyone wants to withhold information to enhance their bargaining position.

Re:Never give a number

[ChrisMaple]

As a hiring manager, I try to bring people in as high as I can...

OK, you've just established yourself as a liar and nothing else you say should be believed.

Re:Never give a number

[ChrisMaple]

Most places, tax returns are not public. If a company discovers your income from your tax returns, they're breaking the law in a criminal fashion..

Re:Never give a number

[ChrisMaple]

Generally, any company that gives specific information beyond "He worked for us from 2003 to 2009" is opening itself up for a lawsuit.

Re:Never give a number

[buss_error]

You use the phrase "as a hiring manager" frequently, so I will borrow it but only once.

As a hiring manager, I know very well there is very little justice or logic in payscales. PHB's and HR (if that isn't redundant) set the rate. I've seen it for more than two decades without ever seeing a single counter example. YMMV. I don't have a problem personally if someone declines to tell me what they made. It does, however, cause HR to refuse to schedule an interview if they even bother to pass the resume up to me.

Re:Never give a number

[lgw]

I'm paid well, so I always provide my salary in the first call with the recruiter. No point in wasting my time in they're not in the ballpark.

When young and underpaid, I would respond with "my salary is a joke, and the punchline is $X". Any large employer is going to pay you at least market rate if you're a software developer, and that certainly worked well for me, getting a 40% raise when I left my first and third jobs.

So, in my experience, if you're below market, you might as well say so and make it clear that's not going to be OK. If you're at market, there's no point in hiding it, since that's what they'll assume anyway. If you're well paid, then you really want to tell them upfront. All the cases point to telling the recruiter your current comp package.

History before that is none of their business, though.

Re:Never give a number

[lgw]

Nonsense. You don't know how large companies work. The cost to the hiring manager is exactly "1 req". Salary doesn't come into it. Large companies can afford you, as long as you're not way out of line with the market. The hiring manage is usually desperate to find anyone qualified, and will delight in the cases where market rate is a large boost over the candidate's current salary. We as a left-coast company love to interview people from elsewhere just for this reason - the "shock and awe" of the salary disparity between the left coast and most other places is enough to overcome any trepidations about relocation.

Re:Never give a number

[lgw]

This isn't true for software developers. Hiring managers know devs suck at salary negotiation, but they also know they're competing with other hiring managers. Heck, I had one job make one offer then raise it by $10k and throw in a $40k hiring bonus after I had already accepted just to make sure. Of course, that was as a senior dev. Some companies are really quite desperate for senior talent.

Re:Never give a number

[uncqual]

The problem is, and this is from years of experience, applicants will still waste your time as a "backup" (or even "backup backup backup") option.

Also, many applicants assume that the range is "negotiable" and think that they can somehow, in the last throes of negotiation, get an offer over the top of the range. (They are wrong -- as a matter of principle I don't do that. If the headhunter kicks in $10K of their commission to beef up the "sign-on bonus", I'll do that -- and that's surprisingly common when closure is looking tenuous).

Most people, esp. those seeking high salaries, think they are better than they are (this is a common human trait - ask 100 developers if they think they are above or below the median skill level and I'll bet about 80% will assert that they are above the median). It's a waste of my time and the team's time. I've got code to write (well, usually designs to review but...) and they have code to write -- interviewing, unlike developing software, is not something we do because we enjoy it.

Re:Never give a number

[Anonymous Coward]

As a hiring manager, I want to know your last salary and perhaps some salary history for a couple reasons.

First, if I have a req for an engineer with a range of $160K-$190K, if you are making $220K I know it's unlikely that you will accept this job.

if you really think this, then asking the prospective employee what salary they are seeking accomplishes the same goal. then, the only difference between how you want to handle this and how an employment-seeker should handle this is who gains the upper hand in salary negotiations. obviously you prefer your method because it gives you the upper hand. you either don't realize this, or are being disingenuous in your reasoning.

Second, the person who knows you best as an employee is likely your last employer. If they were paying you an unusually low (or high salary) taking into account the company as some are known to pay high while others pay high, they likely don't think you are very valuable (or think you are very valuable). This is an interesting hint to me.

you're assuming that their last employer's salaries have kept pace with the job market. i have often found this not to be the case, particularly in a strong job market. you're also assuming that their last employer pays employees according to how valuable they are. i rarely seen this to be the case, especially for long-time employees.

being good at their job and being good at salary negotiation are often two independent skills, and withholding current salary information is a good tip for people who aren't good at salary negotiation. if you don't believe in leverage, tell us about how you include a salary offer in all of your job postings, and make salary information for everyone in your company available to all of your employees.

Re:Never give a number

[AmiMoJo]

First, if I have a req for an engineer with a range of $160K-$190K, if you are making $220K I know it's unlikely that you will accept this job.

Just ask for a ballpark salary expectation up front. No need to know history.

Second, the person who knows you best as an employee is likely your last employer. If they were paying you an unusually low (or high salary) taking into account the company as some are known to pay high while others pay high, they likely don't think you are very valuable (or think you are very valuable). This is an interesting hint to me.

In other words, you punish loyalty.

Sticking with a company, even when they are financially unable to offer good raises, or just not switching jobs every few years tends to result in a lower salary. It's better for the company though, as they get a talented employee with deep knowledge of their products rather than a someone who sees them as a mere stepping stone to something better.

This is why I don't discuss previous salaries. It's never really a discussion, they only want to know so that they can make faulty assumptions and make a low offer. You pay what I'm worth or you go with the second best candidate.

Re:Never give a number

[Gussington]

As a hiring manager, I want to know your last salary and perhaps some salary history for a couple reasons.

None of which are legitimate. If you asked me that I'd withdraw, which means you'll only ever get dead wood or desperate candidates. Hardly a good strategy for attracting quality talent.

Re:Never give a number

[Anonymous Coward]

Second, the person who knows you best as an employee is likely your last employer. If they were paying you an unusually low (or high salary) taking into account the company as some are known to pay high while others pay high, they likely don't think you are very valuable (or think you are very valuable). This is an interesting hint to me.

 
What about those employees who have artificially low salaries due to outside influences not involving their skill level? The pay gap between sexes is one glaring example, but hardly the only source of prejudice. Even if one employer values a particular employee, if that employer knows no other employer will value that employee, that employee is screwed - the employer is obliged to not pay that employee more, because the market is depressed for that employee.

Re:Never give a number

[hmckee]

Exactly. This post I saw on Lifehacker http://lifehacker.com/how-a-st... shows that making an absurdly high joke will help earn you a higher salary.

Re:Never give a number

[Phaid]

Working at a smaller company has its downsides, but it's posts like this that remind me how much worse large companies are. So, thanks for that.

Re:Never give a number

[ray-auch]

In the UK most employees don't file tax returns, your new employer gets (part of) the P45 form from your old employer, in order to work out your tax coding for the rest of the tax year - the information on there is enough to work out your previous salary.

Now, you don't _have_ to do this way (can use P46 I think instead) - but then your tax will be wrong, which can get expensive.

Re: Never give a number

[Cederic]

Strange. In the UK most jobs are advertised with a salary range. Saves everybody a lot of bother.

But then few people bother to apply for a job without knowing what it is.

Re:Never give a number

[bmimatt]

" I will entertain offers between $x and $y." x is most likely to be considrered what you are going to sign on the dotted line for, in the eyes of the employer.

Re:Never give a number

[Cederic]

Not in the UK. My company tells them my salary, it's immediately a lie: they'll have to double it to cover the damages.

Re:Never give a number

[Anonymous Brave Guy]

First, if I have a req for an engineer with a range of $160K-$190K, if you are making $220K I know it's unlikely that you will accept this job.

That seems a dubious assumption, unless the job you are offering has no attractive properties apart from the salary.

If you're concerned about wasting time on applicants who won't be happy with the top end of your potential range, you might do better to just publish the range honestly and save everyone a lot of hassle. If you're just putting some vague statement of compensation like "negotiable" or "depending on experience" on your job ads, you're probably already losing out on some good applicants anyway.

Second, the person who knows you best as an employee is likely your last employer.

And the employee is leaving that employer, which usually means the relationship isn't mutually satisfactory any more. One obvious way that could happen is that the employee hasn't been given the recognition and compensation they deserve in their current position. This doesn't seem a good basis for judging anything about the employee, unless your primary interest is in how easy it will be to take advantage of them while not compensating them fairly.

From the rest of your post, it looks like you are constrained by a relatively rigid system and this is causing other problems for you. There's probably nothing any of us can do to help you with that, but more flexible employers will naturally be able to attract and retain better hires than you can under these conditions. A lot of good developers will come down on the not disclosing side of this question, and unfortunately you're giving an excellent demonstration of why that is.

Re:Never give a number

[sunking2]

Just because you have reason doesn't make it any of your business.

Re:Never give a number

[Anonymous Coward]

// the "shock and awe" of the salary disparity between the left coast and most other places is enough to overcome any trepidations about relocation.

This "shock and awe" is nice until the candidate gets the "shock and awe-shit" of housing prices on the left coast...

Re:Never give a number

[Anonymous Coward]

And you only interview one candidate? Seriously, this is ridiculous bullshit. Job applicants have to have dozens of applications out there in most cases as hiring managers these days lack the professionalism to even notify the applicant when the position has been filled. Not even an automated form letter.

You're not seriously suggesting that applicants should wait around until it's 6 months later and they still don't have the job before moving onto another one, are you?

Re: Never give a number

[HornWumpus]

End the conversation with: 'If you need a number for the form. I want ALL of the money, but It's negotiable. I understand the CEO needs a paycheck too.'

Re:Never give a number

[Above]

First, if I have a req for an engineer with a range of $160K-$190K, if you are making $220K I know it's unlikely that you will accept this job.

This is broken thinking, and is an example of the problem here.

I know plenty of folks who've left a $220k job with minimal or crappy benefits, for a $190k job with great benefits. I know others who made $220k by busting their hump at an 100 hour a week place and happy took $190k at a stable large company who was content with 40 hours a week after their baby was born. Salary may be a big motivator, but it's not the only motivator.

Everywhere I've worked the salary range for my "grade" has come out at one time or another. You're not keeping it a secret long term. Tell them the grade range is $160-$190, and ask them if it is worth their time to pursue knowing that. Most people won't waste your time if they really aren't willing to take that pay.

Re: Never give a number

[alcmena]

I don't give my current. I give what I expect for what I'm applying for. My current doesn't matter. If I was fully happy with my situation, I wouldn't be looking. My situation is a bigger picture than just my salary. I've taken several jobs at a lower-than-current pay because the other factors meant more to me at the time.

Re:Never give a number

[Anonymous Coward]

What's the other side of this equation, though? You feel your time is being wasted by people looking for a backup. Does that mean, in all fairness, that you only interview the single strongest candidate for a job? Otherwise, by your metric, your wasting every other applicant's time. The bottom line is, you need the skills your looking for in an applicant, otherwise you wouldn't be hiring. It would be pretty arrogant to see rational human planning on their part as an inconvenience to you, as you're seeking expertise you lack, unless you acknowledge the same can be said about your actions. If you are in a management position as part of a software development team, treating interviewees as an inconvenience might mean you are actually the one in the wrong position.

Re:Never give a number

[uncqual]

It sounds like you may want to reconsider where you work if there is little justice or logic in payscales where you've been working over the past 20+ years.

If you don't get to see a resume until HR has vetted salary, you're almost certainly losing good candidates for no reason. It's only after I'm interested in a resume that I care about salary (and, usually, after the phone screen or at the end of the phone screen if it went well -- it depends on the circumstances). When "resumes" (often just a LinkedIN link) come in through friends and acquaintances of a candidate, of course salary information is not available -- but if you wait to get salary information to do the first review of qualifications/match, the best candidates may have already been given an offer elsewhere.

Re:Never give a number

[uncqual]

Yes, it may mean nothing -- but often it is quite meaningful. If the salary is out of line with what one would expect the candidate to be making (either high or low), it's something I want to explore. Titles of course mean nothing -- but salary is often a pretty good indication of the value a company who knows the employee places on that employee.

If the candidate came in through a trusted (to me) personal reference with a good track record in the past, I don't care about the candidate's salary for purposes of screening as I trust known references more than most other sources of information.

Re:Never give a number

[uncqual]

Most of my jobs have been at smaller (usually startups or what were startups when I joined) companies.

Re:Never give a number

[uncqual]

In reality, the range at that level often a bit wider. However, for very experienced engineers with excellent skills at strong companies, that range is reasonable in the area I'm most familiar with. A competent, but not special, engineer with 20 years applicable experience would probably be at a lower grade (where the top of the range might be $170K for example).

Re:Never give a number

[Anonymous Coward]

The problem is, and this is from years of experience, applicants will still waste your time as a "backup" (or even "backup backup backup") option.

Right, I'm sure you never concurrently work with more than one candidate at a time.

Re:Never give a number

[uncqual]

I actually almost never work with more candidates in the tail end of the pipeline than I have openings.

Only a tiny fraction of those in the earliest stages of the pipeline make it to the end so of course I have to work with multiple candidates concurrently at the earliest stages -- just as I expect that I'm not the only person looking at a candidate's resume that just appeared in my inbox. On the rare occasions where I've had two candidates who I wanted to hire and who ended up at the end of the pipeline but only had one opening, I've been able to wrangle a new req (sometimes an existing open req assigned to another area or sometimes a brand new req) to make both offers - smart companies don't let a great candidate walk just because they didn't have an "opening". The vast majority of the offers I make are accepted (often after some negotiations) so that colors my technique a bit.

Re:Never give a number

[uncqual]

I will share the salary range for the "grade" if asked after I've made an offer. That is relevant information to the candidate -- I think they should know if they are at the top, or bottom, of the grade range if they care (if they are at the top, they can reasonably expect smaller annual wage increases than if they are at the bottom for the same performance level).

I don't share other employee's salary information with anyone outside the "need to know" (HR, my management chain, payroll etc). If I worked at a company that had "open salary" information (such as Buffer), then I would share at least some form of that information with candidates who made it to the offer level if policy allowed it.

Re:Never give a number

[Frobnicator]

While you are right about some aspects, you are dead wrong about others.

First, if I have a req for an engineer with a range of $160K-$190K, if you are making $220K I know it's unlikely that you will accept this job. If I'm really excited by you in an initial interview, I might find another position and talk with you about considering that one instead.

It is true that the person is unlikely to accept the job. But the rest of your reasoning is unsound. If you are so eager to hire within that price range, YOU should be making the price range public.

But you don't do that, because you know deep down that your job as a hiring manager is to negotiate the lowest wage you can. You can possibly offer a different job instead, but you didn't publish those wage ranges either, for exactly the same reason. If you mention the number first, you will lose your bidding war. People will just pick your highest number as the lowest you're willing to go.

If' I'm not really excited by you, I'll not pursue it as there's no reason to waste the team's time interviewing someone who is unlikely to take the position and/or will start out with low morale and will likely leave before your on-boarding costs have even been recovered.

That is exactly the reason YOU should reveal your salary range to the potential hire, not the other way around. No point applying to the job if you aren't going to pay well.

Personally I will usually get several job offers before accepting one. I have absolutely no problem telling the people they need to wait a few weeks for all the offers, and I'll negotiate while I wait. If I as an applicant am not really excited by you or your offer, I will have no problem wasting YOUR time. I will find various ways to explain why it is too early to state a wage.

One reason I give most often is "It depends on the entire package. A good benefits package can offset a lower wage, other times if there are risks or travel time that we discuss during the interview I will need a higher wage. It is too soon to discuss the details, and we must discuss the entire package and not just one number."

Second, the person who knows you best as an employee is likely your last employer. If they were paying you an unusually low (or high salary) taking into account the company as some are known to pay high while others pay high, they likely don't think you are very valuable (or think you are very valuable). This is an interesting hint to me.

Translation: If your last company was able to screw you over, you should let me know in advance so I can screw you over, too.

In all cases, if there's a reason that the applicant knows their last salary (and perhaps salary history) is problematic, they are free to explain early on (as in, "You may notice that my salary was very low at my last position. This is because I was working for my brother-in-law and trying to help keep his business afloat as a family favor.").

Not in all cases, no. Many people don't know what the best wages are because they are kept as secret as possible. The person may be completely ignorant that they were the lowest paid worker in their group.

As a hiring manager, I try to bring people in as high as I can without creating disparities among the group between engineers of similar skill and productivity. This is simply logical -- when raise time comes around, I get x% to spread around and I don't want to consume it bringing people "up to grade", I'd rather spend it rewarding people. It's usually much easier to get another $15K for a new hire (esp. when the position has been open for a while and the boss really wants it filled) than it is to get another $15K a year later to give the new hire a "grade adjustment" raise.

Then you work for a company that doesn't really value its workers.

What do you tell them? "I'm sorry Joe, you did an amazing job this

Re:Never give a number

[uncqual]

I don't underpay. I don't know where you got that idea. I also don't overpay. There are rarely significant material negotiations around financial issues and most of my offers are accepted.

And, you're talking about contracting -- I rarely hire contractors. I have little idea what an employee will be doing six months later or what the duration of that project will be so I am looking for more abstract skills. On the rare occasions where I've hired contractors, I do sometimes try to cut costs (they are being hired for a specific task that requires little training and I can validate the quality of their work and if they are not meeting requirements the contract is terminated and everyone goes their own way) in part because I'm not as interested in establishing a long term successful relationship.

And, if your primary goal is "to get as much out of me" as you can, you're probably not someone I want to hire. I want people who are interested in the job, mesh well into the team, have a passion for the work and/or product/project, etc and place value on such things. If I've offered you a generous $180K and your primary reason for taking another job is that they offered you $190K, I'm very happy that you took the other job as obviously you don't perceive my job as being sufficiently interesting and likely we will both be happier with your decision.

Unlike you, I don't approach the hiring and negotiating process from either side of the table like I do when buying a new car -- there I'm looking for the absolute lowest cost for the exact car I want and I don't care how the salesperson feels about it and I'll play any ethical card I can to get a lower price.

Re:Never give a number

[evilviper]

People like you are EXACTLY why I refuse to disclose my salary.

Just because you're paying $10k more than my current position, you think I'll jump at the chance, even though it's twice as much work, in a much higher-rent area, etc, etc. So much so, that many companies won't be bothered even spending five minutes explaining the job better than the vague listing.

Or because you're paying $10k less, you think there's no way I'll take the job, and not bother explaining how nice a work environment it is, how many perks there are, opportunities for personal and professional growth, etc.

There's no reason I should have to explain my last salary to you. It has no affect on how valuable I will be to your company. You're a fool to believe it gives you useful information in the first place. If I was less honest, I'd just lie about it, since you can't reliably verify it (and I've never seen anybody even try). That's what many companies are doing, ensuring you only ever hire liars for all positions. Fuck you and the horse you rode in on.

Even worse are the companies who cap annual raises at 3%. That ensures even the best performers only break-even vs inflation, while everyone else is getting annual pay cuts... A great way to send turnover through the roof, and your company into a sinking ship.

Re:Never give a number

[uncqual]

No, I don't think that you would jump at a $10K increase over your current position -- reread my note. If you would do so, I don't want you. I will explain the job to you as well as I can and my interview discussion will give you some additional guidance. However, I can't accurately predict what you will be doing in six months in the future -- that depends on your initiative and skill and what needs to get done. Sure, I want people who work hard -- as I do. But I want them to do it because they enjoy the work, not because they feel they "need" to or just because I gave them a higher salary.

"Perks", in the conventional usage, are part of compensation to some extent -- they all increase the cost of opening a new position (or retaining an existing position). I, personally, prefer fewer perks and higher salary but I also recognize that others differ on this (companies like perks as they pay wholesale for them and, if times are tight, they can cut them -- if they start cutting salaries, employees will start quitting en-mass).

I've NEVER worked for a company that capped individual annual raises at any particular value -- I'd leave such a company the moment I knew they were doing that. However, it's a reality that the raise pool and the promotion pool is set at any company of any significant size - management has to have some idea what expenses will be in the upcoming year and match it to revenue in some rational way -- if every manager could just give out whatever raises they want, planning is not possible. In normal cases if the combined pool isn't substantially more than inflation, I'd also leave. However, most "real" (inflation adjusted) raises effectively come from promotions - strong performers move quickly up the ranks early in their career. They move into more responsible positions where they are not yet proven -- coming out of the top fifty (or higher) percentile of their prior position and ending up in the lower perhaps thirty percentile of their new grade. When they perform well, they get good raises (combination of their performance and their salary percentile is within the new grade). At some point it becomes obvious a promotion is appropriate.

It's true that I don't place a lot of value on past salary -- it's just part of a much more complex investigation.

However, I think we can agree on one thing -- I probably wouldn't want you on my team and you probably wouldn't want to be on my team. I try to avoid hiring prima donnas who insult others just because they don't agree with them because they damage team morale and I have to go through the hassle of firing them if they don't take the hint (because I vett carefully, I think I've only had to let a couple people go over the decades because of such problems). I prefer to be on/leading teams where people get along and behave like adults.

Re:Never give a number

[Gussington]

but you are likely limiting your horizons by refusing to accept common industry practices.

Asking for a salary history is not a common business practice.

the last thing an engineering organization wants is someone who stands on some false principle...

Lots of crazy assumptions in your response, but I and most others I know prefer an employee who stands up for real principles such as privacy. Hiring weak minded fools that gladly roll over at the first threat isn't a recipe for success.

Re:Never give a number

[Aqualung812]

First, if I have a req for an engineer with a range of $160K-$190K, if you are making $220K I know it's unlikely that you will accept this job.

That's an easy problem to solve. Just say "My range is $160k to $190k, and those are firm. Are you interested in continuing?"

If you don't want to trust the candidate with those numbers, why should they trust you with theirs?

Re:Never give a number

[al0ha]

This response by this person is part of the problem - it's so damned simple, if every employee refused, the issue would drop.

However the pay-to-play society we've built makes saying no a problem as most people are leveraged over their head, starting with their consumerist education leading to a huge student debt to be paid, as well as blatant bling bling consumerism. All this leads to the viewpoint expressed in the parent post.

Smart people know debt is slavery and avoid it, money is power for certain.

Re:Never give a number

[datavirtue]

I just answer with the amount slightly less than what I decide they need to pay me. Works perfectly. Treat it like the salary requirements question.

Re:Never give a number

[coinreturn]

Exactly. Salary negotiation is a game and the first person to name a number loses. Asking someone their complete salary history is like saying to someone, "Let's play poker, only, i get to see all of your cards and you don't get to see any of mine." You wouldn't play poker with someone like that, would you? Similarly, don't go in to a job interview with someone like that. And furthermore, it's a red flag for how the company treats their employees. Run far, run fast.

Actually, many job listings include a salary range, so they've already shown you their cards.

Re:Never give a number

[uncqual]

I actually don't care if employees share salary information - those that want to share are, as far as I'm concerned, free to do so. Generally, I think the best compensated employees will be the least likely to share because they realize less productive employees may be jealous of them. Generally the least skilled workers seem to think they are much better than they are.

I certainly would have no interest in participating in "collective bargaining" for my job. Nor do I think hardly any of my coworkers that I've respected would be interested in doing so. However, I have no problem with others participating in collective bargaining. If a group of employees got together and wanted to bargain collectively and I made policy, I would urge them to try to unionize. But if they didn't want to, or couldn't get enough of their coworkers to vote to unionize, I think I would generally be happy to evaluate each employee in the group, determine what raise I thought each deserved, then distribute that raise pool equally (as a percentage) among the group. I would share with any employee that requested what their contribution to the common raise pool was (obviously I could not give that information to other employees though). Of course, no employees have ever requested collective bargaining in my organizations or in any around me so I've never had to actually face this question.

If you conducted a anonymous survey among all the employees in your statistically significantly sized group (perhaps Department, perhaps below) and asked "Do you believe, among employees in this group who perform similar jobs, that you perform ABOVE or BELOW or RIGHT AT the median?", do you think the number of people who respond "BELOW" would be statistically the same as those who respond "ABOVE"? I strongly suspect that more will select ABOVE than BELOW.

Generally in the US work environment, I've found that low performers are much more likely to overestimate their skills and contributions while high performers are more likely to underestimate or accurately estimate theirs.

Interestingly, some studies have suggested that

the least competent performers inflate their abilities the most; that the reason for the overinflation seems to be ignorance, not arrogance; and that chronic self-beliefs, however inaccurate, underlie both people's over and underestimations of how well they're doing.

An example of this I recall outside my direct field was an acquaintance who was a lab tech who seriously believed that she did the same work as the engineers but wasn't paid as much. This was completely ignorance on her part -- she had no idea what the engineers did outside the lab because she didn't delve into what engineers were doing the other 95% of the time when they weren't in the lab.

As far as the risk I will never get a quality employee who feels like they have been pushing themselves too hard etc... I don't see why requesting salary information would affect that significantly. I would want an explanation of why they were interested in taking a pay cut to work in my organization. Reasons like "more interesting work", or "bored with doing the same old work" might be very legitimate if they were clearly overpaid in their past job (which sometimes happens because someone has become the critical expert or has a critical skill that the employer is so terrified of losing that they effectively "bribe" the person to stay but the person isn't happy and, likely, isn't even doing their best work due to poor morale).

However, in most groups I've managed I probably would not accept the "pushing myself too hard" unless the person was also dropping to a job with less critical responsibility. Outside of a couple employees I've had that were techs rather than engineers, everyone in my group has been on salary so working "less for less salary" is too difficult to manage. As well, most organizations I've been in/manag

Re:Never give a number

[uncqual]

Since I'm hiring for engineering positions, I evaluate candidates based on their engineering skills and ability to work on a team, not their BS or sales skills.

Therefore I would not "dock a grade" for someone telling me their salary when requested because it's a reasonable request.

If they got angry at the request, the interview is probably effectively over and any following interviews are probably cancelled. If that simple request yields an angry response, I shudder to think of what would happen in a code review where a reviewer pointed out that their code was inefficient, hard to maintain, or behaved unexpectedly in some corner case which the design failed to mention explicitly ("Nowhere did the spec say that if a web user entered a general Unicode character into the input box that the server could not crash so my code is fine and you should shut the fuck up and if you question my code again we're going to resolve the issue in the parking lot after work.")

If they politely declined to reveal salary information and didn't play games in that refusal, the interview process won't be terminated for that reason, but it would be noted in my brain as an issue to be resolved. Though if they refuse to offer that information eventually and don't have a good explanation (like, "I owned the company and sometimes I lost money, sometimes I made money so I don't have any meaningful salary history"), probably an offer won't be made. I think teams work best when people don't play games and are as transparent as feasible and being intentionally opaque (or not trusting me to not abuse the information) about this simple matter is likely to portend problems in the future.

BTW, I've don't think I've ever had someone refuse to answer that question before an offer was extended -- although sometimes the answer, which is acceptable, includes an explanation such as "There was a serious illness in my family for three years and I requested flexibility in exchange for pay raises for three years. That situation no longer exists and, as you will note, my salary three years ago was competitive so I expect a new competitive salary" (if I can, I might try to verify the story though).

Re:Never give a number

[uncqual]

I don't understand why people assume that salary information is the only, or even a very significant part, of a hiring or salary decision. There are many factors and salary history is just one small piece of the equation. If you don't trust a company to not abuse that information, why are you bothering to interview with them -- why would you assume they wouldn't abuse you in other ways after hiring you?

Of course I understand that some companies are "cheap" (or just small and granting options instead of high salaries). Where did you get the impression I didn't understand that?

I've never failed to extend an offer based primarily on salary history. However, on some occasions salary history has lead me to look closer at some areas and discover that I didn't want to extend an offer. Perhaps, for example, I know someone who worked with the person in the past and wouldn't have reached out to them if not for the odd low pay at a company that generally paid well and, in that process, discovered that the candidate was technically skilled on the surface (as they may have demonstrated in the interview process) but couldn't actually complete projects because they over optimized or over generalized.

Re:Never give a number

[uncqual]

Sure, that's why members of my groups have been well paid historically. Tech is hard -- and too many people who think they possess the necessary skills, don't. you have to pay to attract and retain the good ones (and, frankly, get rid of any hiring mistakes as quickly as possible).

It is a reality that most tech training except on proprietary systems is going to be self directed -- most good techies are curious and intrigued by technology. The days of expecting to work for one or two companies for your entire career are long gone - five years is a fairly long time now. With that change (which, overall, has been good in my opinion -- much more cross pollination and skill differentiation), companies have much less motivation to invest in training. As well, honestly, much formal training is a waste of time -- if you want to learn a new area or skill, once you're a seasoned professional, it's usually more efficient to do it on your own rather than listening to, watching, or reading structured course material that covers stuff you've already figured out while glossing over that which you are curious about.

Re:Never give a number

[cthulhu11]

Here's another dynamic: One's employer pays fairly well, with better bonus / benefits than many companies today still offer. Said employer shuts down one's entire division a few months after saying it would be growing. Local jobs don't pay well at all, and companies with HQ's in other places cling to the idea that one can drop everything and relocate so you can sit in a room with other people and still do all work / collaboration online. Say I make $100k/year now. What's better for me, to take a job @ 95k and get buy, or not get a job at all? This is why I don't like to lead with what I'm making now.

Re:Never give a number

[cthulhu11]

Loyalty used to mean something, these days perversely it's a decided handicap. "Why after N years at SomeCo do you want to leave now?" What do I say, the truth that my "libertarian" boss stabbed me in the back? "The hiring manager is concerned that you wouldn't be able to adapt to the change". Grr. I worked for >15 years though two acquisitions. I got the above over and over and over again until I broke that up on my resume into 2-3 separate entries.

Re:Never give a number

[uncqual]

If a potential employer doesn't understand situations like that, you don't want to work for them anyway. Usually the only reason to offer one's last/current/recent salary is if asked - rarely would it make sense to "lead" with that information.

No.

[Anonymous Coward]

You only stand to lose leverage. Figure out what you need, or want, and go from there. Note this only works if you're willing (or able) to walk away from the negotiating table.

If you want to put something there, put "negotiable". If they ask/pressure you to provide something, tell them you'd be happy to discuss it after receiving an official offer in writing.

Re:No.

[Anonymous Brave Guy]

I just told them some made up BS number that was more than I actually made.

Be careful. If you ever lie on a job application, that could come back to haunt you, at any time for as long as you work for that employer, or potentially even later.

For example, depending on where you are and what rights you would normally have as an employee, you might find that an employer who somehow found out about your deception could instantly terminate your employment, but without either the employer or the government being required to offer any of the protections or payments you would normally have enjoyed.

If you're having a really bad day, you might then find that someone who knew about your deception from that employer has moved and is now reviewing your next application somewhere else, with a predictable effect on the result.

It's tempting to just make something up for an obviously loaded question like this, but you're almost always going to be better off giving an uninformative but not incorrect or misleading answer if you can't avoid or redirect the original question.

Re:No.

[sumdumass]

Or tell them you believe it is part of the Non Disclosure Agreement so you cannot tell them about it.

Re:No.

[ATMAvatar]

How?

It limits your options. The company will take your most recent salary and use it to determine the upper and lower bounds to the offers they think you might take.

If they were going to offer much more than your prior salary, you just screwed yourself out of money. If they were going to offer much less, they''ll show you the door without bothering to find out if you would have accepted anyways (due to other factors like benefits, perks, etc.).

Re:No.

[AuMatar]

They know better- discussing salary is legal in the US by federal law. It can't be part of an NDA.

Re: No.

[Anonymous Brave Guy]

You're kidding, right?

In some countries, when you leave a job you get a statement of income to date for the tax year, which you then give to your next employer so they can set up the right deductions on your salary payments. Unless you happen to change jobs around the end of the tax year, you're going to have some tricky questions to answer when your YTD payments only add up to 75% of what they would be with your claimed former salary. (If you're thinking you'll just say you got a raise earlier in the year, remember that the next question is going to be what they did that was so awful that you left so soon after getting such a huge raise.)

Even if your country doesn't have that sort of system, all it takes is one relevant person at the new employer knowing one relevant person who works/worked at the old employer who could give a general idea of the salary range for your previous position, or even one person who recently made the same move as you but gave a very different number for their old salary.

Re: No.

[Zontar The Mindless]

That's still greater than zero.

Re:No.

[thsths]

Yes, it is dishonest, but they started it by saying "this is not relevant, but we ask for it anyway". Well, if it is not relevant, surely lying is ok?

And lying is a natural part of filling in web forms, because all too often the correct answer is refused with "invalid entry".

Re: No.

[lgw]

OK, but those countries are not the US. Here, no employer will say anything about you other than dates of employment for fear of lawsuits. I think there are better tactics than lying, myself, but salary history doesn't come into it.

Re: No.

[Anonymous Brave Guy]

Well, OK, but most of the world is not the US. :-)

I didn't see anything referring to any specific location so far in this thread or in the original question, so it seems fair to point out that the person I was replying to before would be way off-base in some places.

Re: No.

[alcmena]

I have done that, but not as "history". Instead, "this is what I'm willing to leave for."

Re: No.

[dolmen.fr]

In some countries, when you leave a job you get a statement of income to date for the tax year, which you then give to your next employer so they can set up the right deductions on your salary payments.

And so? How will they prove that they made you an offer based on a false oral statement from you? Because they recorded the interview? I don't think that would be legal.
In any case that would be little ground for a ligitation. If this subject comes in a court, you probably have a much bigger problem in your relationship with that employer.

Re: No.

[Anonymous Brave Guy]

It won't necessarily be an oral statement, and even if it is, there's a good chance that it was written down in the interview and that at least two of their people were there at the time.

In any case, they will know that you lied if evidence of that turns up later, and so will you. Whether either of you has enough motivation to take formal legal action over it is something else, but it will inevitably sour the employment relationship for as long as it lasts, which is almost always a bad thing for everyone involved.

If they do just fire you on the spot on the basis that you lied on your application and they then refuse to pay any compensation you would normally be entitled to if you were let go by their choice, it is most likely going to be down to you to argue that their actions were unreasonable or unfair in law, and that probably isn't going to end well in any of the situations we've been discussing.

Just inflate history

[SuperKendall]

Give them the history that demonstrates the salary you want, then if they reject you you are better off.

Re:Just inflate history

[phantomfive]

tbh it's usually better to not lie in this situation. If they ask you, tell them "I am looking for a salary in the $170k range." Say a bit higher than you actually want.

The key is to getting a good salary is to know what your work is worth, what people are paying for your skills. If you don't know that, then you are going to mess up the salary negotiation no matter how well you lie to them.

Re:Just inflate history

[JaredOfEuropa]

I'd never lie on an application. Leave it blank or fill in the right info.
Some of that depends on the kind of company you're joining. In case of a small company or when you are applying for a unique position, your past salary may be a large part of what determines your future pay. But in a large firm, they will probably have a salary bandwidth for your position. Ask about that.

If this question would come up, I would fill it out but if it doesn't come up in a subsequent interview I would be sure to ask them 1) what is the salary range for this position, and 2) what are you prepared to offer me. If that amount doesn't meet your expectations, be very clear about that. Simple, for all involved.

Re:Just inflate history

[mysidia]

The key is to getting a good salary is to know what your work is worth, what people are paying for your skills.

This is Hard to find out. Also, to persuade people in a negotiation you need to be able to get some kind of source to be able to prove your claims.

It also varies between local markets, and near as I can tell, there aren't even companies I can buy this information from....

Re:Just inflate history

[hbackert]

If you lie on a sheet of paper and at the end it says "I confirm that all I wrote above is best to my best knowledge", and I bet it has that on it, then anything wrong there which might be done on purpose, which is a lie by all definitions (except one currently popular one), HR will find out and simply reject you, even if you pass every future interview. Do not mess with this. Leave it empty.

Re:Just inflate history

[phantomfive]

Nah, I'll give you some methods. There are plenty of companies doing surveys on the topic of salaries, you can pick them up (I snagged one from a manager at a previous company). Glassdoor will give you a ballbark idea. Here's another article, that gives you some good starting points. It's a little old, so salaries have moved up since then.

Another technique that works is: when a recruiter calls you, ask for $30k more than you really want. If the recruiter seems happy, then you asked too low (which means you should ask for $50k more next time). If the recruiter sounds a bit terrified, then you asked for the right amount. The last time I got hired, I scared away a lot of recruiters this way, but not all of them. The ones who weren't scared away were the ones I wanted to work with (and I got within $2.5k of my asking price).

to persuade people in a negotiation you need to be able to get some kind of source to be able to prove your claims.

No, there are plenty of techniques you can use. I strongly suggest reading this book, because you are going about it the wrong way. In fact, if you go up to your boss and say, "My salary is below average, here is proof," he'll probably look at your proof for a while, then say, "You are right, my boy. Let's talk about this during your next performance review and see what we can do for you." At the next performance review, you'll get a 2%-3% payraise, if you are lucky. To some degree, facts don't matter during negotiation.

Re:Just inflate history

[ranton]

Give them the history that demonstrates the salary you want, then if they reject you you are better off.

I just lost a good candidate I was hoping would join my team because the recruiter lied about previous salary during negotiations, and it pissed off our CTO. I still don't feel we should have lost the candidate just because the recruiter was slime, but I didn't get to make the final decision (and maybe there was reason to believe the candidate was in on it).

All I know is that lying about these things will really rub people the wrong way.

Re:Just inflate history

[gravewax]

never ever lie on an application. You run into the possibility it could be used against you later. refuse to answer, or put in a vague range if you prefer. starting on a new job with a lie is just puts your cods on the chopping block and asking them to take a whack at them.

Re:Just inflate history

[markdavis]

>"All I know is that lying about these things will really rub people the wrong way."

Agreed. Either tell the truth, or leave it blank. We ask candidates for history because we want to know if we can afford the person. We throw out LOTS of candidates because they don't say what they are looking for and list previous salaries that are too high.

Re:Just inflate history

[michael.karl.coleman]

That's pretty goofy. So if they answer the questions you ask them, you just shitcan their app rather than bidding and negotiating?

Re:Just inflate history

[AuMatar]

Glassdoor is actually pretty horrible. It says senior software engineer is 115 in NYC. It says lead is 108- lead less than senior? Ignoring that, I just finished a job search in NYC. I was given salary ranges by companies of 140-180, and eventually signed for 200. THat's 80% more.

Re:Just inflate history

[MBGMorden]

It's a perfectly valid thing - understand that nobody wants their time wasted. We're hiring for a Network Admin right now. Realistically about the max that H&R is going to approve is $75k-80k. Yes, that's underpaid, but that's what we have to work with. We've had quite a few applications come in from people who are CURRENTLY making $100k-125k, but it's not worth contacting them or offering an interview. It would literally be wasting their time and ours, so we wait until someone who comes along that we can afford. They're probably not as talented or experienced as some of the others, but it's what we can pay.

Re:Just inflate history

[hambone142]

It's bad to lie. It will get you terminated should they ever find out what your previous salary was. In addition, it's just wrong to mislead an employer.

For me, I would reveal my salary if I'm looking to jettison my current job and would be content with making the same amount for another company.

If I wanted more, I would not indicate my previous salary but indicate what salary I would be looking for in order to be hired by the new company.

Re:Just inflate history

[hambone142]

I've found that Glassdoor has pretty accurate company-specific salary information. For generic position information across companies, it may be as you say. I know this because of looking at specific position salary information for my company.

Re:Just inflate history

[lgw]

"Senior" is a victim of title inflation. At a company that takes title seriously (only a few large companies), you are a lead for years before you're a senior dev. Senior dev should mean that you're in a manager-equivalent paygrade (and not a newbie manager), and you generally have to do work at the next level for a while before getting the matching promotion. If it's easier t become a senior dev than a dev manager, the title isn't honest.

Re:Just inflate history

[AuMatar]

Its exactly the opposite everywhere I've ever worked. It goes jr, normal, senior, lead. I've never heard of senior being above lead. Principal maybe, but that's pretty much a dead title these days.

Re:Just inflate history

[AuMatar]

Most of my jobs are startups so its hard for me to compare like that- but looking at the last big company I work for, its saying 115 for a senior. I know I was paid 180. I doubt anyone at that level was paid less than 140.

Re:Just inflate history

[lgw]

Yeah, title inflation is normal. It's cheaper to give a title than a raise, But it's different at the Big 5, and at "real" engineering companies, where senior generally happens at 8-10 years experience for the smarter engineers, and you're expected to start leading projects by 3-5 years experience if you're sharp.

My job history shows a continuous deflation in job title, though my pay always went up. From "senior principal" to "senior" 5 jobs later.

Principal is quite rare at big software companies, typically less than 1%, where it should be around 3% (as at "real" engineering companies). But that's a pay grade equivalent to directors, and is generally for people with 20+ years experience and top-notch skills and leadership ability.

Re:Just inflate history

[AuMatar]

Yeah, you're using a scale of titles that isn't used at any software company. They just aren't equivalent. Here's what they more tend to be:

Junior: 0-3 years experience
engineer: 2-6 years experience
senior: 5+ years, no cap
lead: actually leading a team of 5-15 people (not managing, technical leadership). You aren't a lead if you aren't leading a team. Lead is above senior and may have seniors on his team. 6+ years
principal; rarely used. When it is, 8+ years

(Overlap is because some people move faster, due to luck, politics, or skill)

Comparing this scale to the scale you're talking about makes no sense, its like complaining about inflation of the rank captain between the navy and army. It isn't inflation its totally different terminology. And really there's no reason they should be the same. Nor would the percentages be the same- software engineering tends to be younger skewed, with heavy drop off in early years. It will be far more bottom heavy. Fewer people percentage-wise leave other engineering disciplines as early or enter it as late in life.

Re:Just inflate history

[serviscope_minor]

All I know is that lying about these things will really rub people the wrong way.

The fault isn't with the recruiter for lying in this instance it's in your CTO for asking the previous salary. That question (as evidenced by this entire thread) is more or less guaranteed to rub people up the wrong way. Once you piss off someone you're trying to attract to your company, well, yeah...

Re:Just inflate history

[Cederic]

You're conflating recruiters with the hiring manager. Trust me, hiring managers don't get a cut, and don't get to skim anything.

Shit, headhunters tend to try and get as high a salary as possible. That's what their commission is based on, so the higher the hiring salary the more money they make.

Maybe you're talking about the contract market. Even there the hiring manager doesn't skim or get a cut. The money doesn't go anywhere near them.

You're strange.

Re:Just inflate history

[markdavis]

If they don't answer the question in the application, or cover letter, or resume then we call and ask. If they still don't answer, the application is tossed.

And yes, if we can pay 40 and they list 60, there is no acceptable negotiation. Rarely am I allowed to increase the amount, it is fixed. And if they would accept much less than what they asked, something is wrong and they would not be happy and would not stay. It would just waste everyone's time.

Re:Just inflate history

[lgw]

Never seen that at the 8 companies (10 with acquisitions) I've worked at. Never seen "Lead" as a title, except at Microsoft where "Lead" is just what they call first-line managers. Leading a team is a project-by-project thing, though as a senior engineer you should always be leading a project. And I've never seen "junior engineer" as an actual title. It's just numbered SDE titles until mid-career.

The title structure I'm talking about is what is common at non-software engineering companies, and some of the bigger software companies that push back against title inflation. You have several numbered grades of SDE or MTS, and some people will finish their career there. You have managers and senior engineers. You have directors and principle engineers. And you have VPs and Fellows.

I've certainly also worked at places where "senior" was a mid-career title, not equivalent to a manager (or only to a very junior manager). That's certainly common.

Are you working at places where most of the workforce is in their 20s? Where no consideration has been given to what your career looks like in your second twenty years as an engineer? If the kind of company you work for sees heavy drop-off in the early years (as opposed to exponential expansion of the field), then, wow, sounds like an unpleasant place to work.

Re:Just inflate history

[AuMatar]

I've worked at Amazon, HP, and Facebook along with several startups. So its fairly common. Sometimes they use numbers instead of words (1,2,3 or 3,4,5), but the numbers don't match up between companies (for example FB starts at 3). You might also see a higher level for if they hire a famous person- a Torvalds or Stroustrup or similar name.

I think one thing you're missing is that software engineers don't really give much of a shit about titles. The work a mid level and a senior does isn't significantly different- its just expected to be done better/faster. A lead does a different role, but that's because they're expected to show leadership on technical matters, mentor juniors, and take responsibility for the overall technical health of the project. Its kind of like half engineer, half manager, half PM (yes, that's 3 halves on purpose, it can be a busy job).

Your system has what 5 levels? Pointless. There wouldn't be any significant difference in abilities between the average level 3, 4, or 5. I actually couldn't tell you what levels anyone other than the leads or juniors were anywhere I worked- and I only know the juniors because they're fresh out of school. Titles just didn't matter, you did the work that needed to be done.

Programming is very different. Really most employees change employers every 2-6 years. If I see more than 6 years at one place on a resume its unusual. If I see more than 10 its impressive, its a bit of a red flag (they may be too stuck in their ways).

Re:Just inflate history

[HornWumpus]

Absolutely. HR is useless, but you they are a gauntlet that has to be run before you even meet with the people that can tell a engineer from a PHB. Yet another reason to network, you go right by HR and in the side door.

But HR has 'orders', one of them is 'get the _chumps_ to reveal their current and past compensation'. If their orders include 'don't pass them up to us unless they are salary negotiating chumps.' you didn't want to work their anyhow.

Leaving it blank helps save you time interviewing places you didn't want to work, while not blowing your pecker off in salary negotiations.

Re:Just inflate history

[HornWumpus]

You could save everybody even more time and just list your peanuts on the job offer. But then you'd get only people with 'drive thru' experience.

Which is why this is such a disingenuous practice. The first person to mention a number loses. Your employer only hires losers (think about that for a second).

Re:Just inflate history

[HornWumpus]

Your saying hiring managers aren't rewarded for keeping offers down while filling slots? Bullshit. They don't get a skim, but those numbers matter.

Smart places don't reward hiring managers until the employees are out of probation (counting heads), but shitty ones just count asses and total salary.

Re:Just inflate history

[Desler]

So then why don't you simply list the salary range upfront? All you're saying is that you think you deserve the upper hand.

Re:Just inflate history

[markdavis]

I didn't make the policy about not listing what we are willing to pay. I just have to work within the framework given to me. I understand why we don't, but I don't always agree with it. There is a delicate balance, one that seems to pretty rare.

As for only hiring losers, that generally doesn't happen. Actually, we have a team of good people who not only succeed, but end up staying.

Re:Just inflate history

[HornWumpus]

Balance? I am glad your employer will not waste my time, but don't kid yourself. You _are_ bottom feeding. The best you're going to do is get the best of the 'bottom of the barrel'.

It will appear to work, until it doesn't.

Re:Just inflate history

[markdavis]

I have been doing this for 28 years. I am not just making up stuff to post on Slashdot. Yes, we have had a few failures, but in the vast majority, it has worked for us. But like I said, searching to fill a position is a LOT of work (far more than it should be).

Re:Just inflate history

[lgw]

Friend of mine is a dev manager at Amazon. Amazon doesn't have a "Senior SDE" title in the first place. SDE-3 is the equivalent though, and it's not a paygrade you'll find many people with fewer than 10 years experience in. Amazon technically has Principal Engineers, but from what I hear they're vanishingly rare and there's no clear career advancement path to there.

I have first-hand knowledge of Microsoft, where again you didn't see many people in the "senior" title (which is actually 2 pay grades) with fewer than 10 years experience. Principals weren't that rare, but there were still 5 principal-level managers for every principal engineer.

HP is an odd duck. It used to be an old-school engineering company with old-school titles (much like Compaq and DEC). For a while HP software was the drain for all the companies and people who couldn't quite make it. Now it's where the drain flows.

The work a mid level and a senior does isn't significantly different- its just expected to be done better/faster.

Sounds like you're talking about someone with less than 10 years experience. No one hires me to be faster than a young college hire full of energy, much less faster than the 3 of them you could hire instead of me. My job, as with senior engineers throughout history, is to ensure the team avoids costly mistakes, and to solve the problems no one else can solve. (I occasionally solve problems no one else can see, but not regularly enough to be a principal engineer, I guess.)

Your system has what 5 levels? Pointless

Most companies on the left coast (and most old-school engineering companies I know about) have 6 paygrades below principal (or just 5-6 grades, for mid-sized companies). Titles are all over the place, but you have:
* 2 for junior engineers (the bottom one just for people you're taking a risk on, so you can minimize the risk - no one stays there for more than a year).
* 2 paygrades for mid-career engineers, mostly so you can give someone a promotion at around 5 years into their career, just so they can see that promotions are a real thing, but no real difference in responsibility.
* 2 for manager-equivalent engineers - "senior" by the old titles.

You start leading project teams somewhere mid-career, but it's not like it's always the same crew. You're given a project, help work out/negotiate scope/schedule/funding, then deal with all the inevitable panics and hit your date. But half your time is design reviews for other teams, best practices work, that sort of thing - you're generally expected to show that your influence was larger than just your team, come review time. Very different from "a mid-career guy, except I type faster".

Programming is very different. Really most employees change employers every 2-6 years

Sure, but how is that related?

Re:Just inflate history

[HornWumpus]

Bottom feeding is a workable strategy. I didn't say it wasn't. But with it's cost savings comes risks.

Have you been staff raided yet? Only takes one person who knows the two or three key 'workers' and you are fucked up beyond all repair (FUBAR).

Re:Just inflate history

[AuMatar]

Well I can say that your manager friend at Amazon's experience is VERY different from mine. Maybe things have changed in 10 years (its been that long since I worked there).

As for "manager equivalent"- that may be where you come from. In my world, a manager is equal to a normal engineer- they aren't above us. Its simply a different skill set. The only reason they aren't equivalent to a junior is that they must have already worked as an engineer for a few years.

That may be another huge difference- a focus on hierarchy. It seems to be very important to your view of engineering. It isn't to the majority of workplaces. I don't consider it a good thing- I'd rather slit my wrists than deal with the political bullshits that comes with it.

Sounds like you're talking about someone with less than 10 years experience. No one hires me to be faster than a young college hire full of energy, much less faster than the 3 of them you could hire instead of me.

You missed the better part. Besides which- I will absolutely solve any non-trivial problem faster than the 2-3 engineers you can replace me with when you include the time of maintenance and big fixing. Probably by a factor of at least 2. Actually I'll probably do it without including maintenance time, as I'll know how to avoid the problems before running into them (because I probably did so last decade). Of course I'll also be solving problems that they're incapable of at this point in their careers.

You start leading project teams somewhere mid-career, but it's not like it's always the same crew. You're given a project, help work out/negotiate scope/schedule/funding, then deal with all the inevitable panics and hit your date. But half your time is design reviews for other teams, best practices work, that sort of thing - you're generally expected to show that your influence was larger than just your team, come review time. Very different from "a mid-career guy, except I type faster".

Yeah, very different. Dealing with budget, scope, schedule- that's a PMs job. An engineer will have input, but he's not leading that. Especially budget- I've never had to deal with that in my career, and never want to. (I can see why this would be different for other engineering fields where physical components are a major cost. But the most I've ever needed to do was requisition a few hundred dollars worth of software).

Programming is very different. Really most employees change employers every 2-6 years

Sure, but how is that related?

You asked how people were looked at 20 years in. My point is nobody worries about that when you don't hold an employee for more than 4. In fact having more levels would make things harder for a company to hire in experienced workers- if i gets out the new guy Bob got hired in at a higher level, it makes everyone else angry and demoralized. If he's hired in at the same level, no harm done. Especially in smaller companies this is important.

But it doesn't change my original point. You look at it as title inflation. It isn't- its an entirely different way of organizing the workforce. One that focuses less on hierarchy and more on just getting shit done. And a far better one IMO.

Re:Just inflate history

[lgw]

As for "manager equivalent"- that may be where you come from. In my world, a manager is equal to a normal engineer-

How strange your planet is. I've never worked anywhere where a manager didn't get paid significantly more than a "normal engineer" (excepting very junior managers, e.g., and engineer who had just switched over).

Yeah, very different. Dealing with budget, scope, schedule- that's a PMs job.

By PM do you mean "project manager"? I didn't know those still existed. If you mean "product manager" that seems quite strange - they prioritize requests and are certainly present when building t roadmap, but none of the engineers work for them so they can hardly commit to a schedule.

Especially budget- I've never had to deal with that in my career

I didn't say budget. I said funding - as in, this project is funded at 4 engineers for 6 months. Sure, abstractly related, but the (not-really) fungible resources with which you fund projects are engineers. From the overall group of 30-50 people, who's doing what this year, who will work on which projects against which deadlines. And on up the chain, of course, as each group at each level has to justify the number of people who will be in the group against what it plans to deliver. Fortunately, I'm only ever involved at the "leaf" of that - we have 6 months, we need for people, we're only going to get 3, so what do we jettison from the scope? That sort of thing.

You asked how people were looked at 20 years in. My point is nobody worries about that when you don't hold an employee for more than 4

Who cares how long anyone has worked at that company? That's nearly irrelevant, past the early months. Industry experience in important, though. Of course, experienced doesn't always mean good, but working at a given level generally does require enough years working at the level below it for even the sharpest guy. Some lessons you only learn the hard way.

The question is, what do you image the people with 20+ years experience are going to be doing, on average? What does that role look like? Too many companies have no answer, but in time that's 1/3rd of your workforce.

It's not hierarchy for the sake of hierarchy, it's the recognition that there must be an engineering career path that doesn't involve being a manager.

Re:Just inflate history

[markdavis]

Not yet.

Re:Just inflate history

[mcmonkey]

The key is to getting a good salary is to know what your work is worth, what people are paying for your skills.

This is Hard to find out. Also, to persuade people in a negotiation you need to be able to get some kind of source to be able to prove your claims.

It also varies between local markets, and near as I can tell, there aren't even companies I can buy this information from....

I agree early in a career this information can be hard to find. But by mid-career (5 to 10 years in), in addition to the resources mentioned in other responses, you should know the market for your industry and profession. If everything else fails, at the very least you have been discussing pay with your peers, right? RIGHT?

McDonalds knows what Burger King charges for a hamburger. (Heck, they also know what they pay their employees.) You should know what the guy or gal in the next office or cube is charging for their hamburgers. As for difference between markets, that's why you're comparing notes with the folks around you. The idea that employees shouldn't share salary is a myth started by EMPLOYERS who don;t want you to have that information.

As for sources or proof...I'm the source. "I'll accept this position for the benefits as outlined and salary of $Z per year." The proof is if they offer less than $Z, I don't take the job.

Re:Just inflate history

[cthulhu11]

My family will be better off with me employed than not.

If they ask your salary history

[Anonymous Coward]

If they ask your salary history, then ask the salary history of people who have held the position and the salaries of everyone at the table.

Re:If they ask your salary history

[ayesnymous]

If they ask your salary history, then ask the salary history of people who have held the position and the salaries of everyone at the table.

I was interviewed by an anonymous panel of which one guy wanted to introduce himself until he remembered the interviewers were to remain anonymous. I asked if I could remain anonymous also. I didn't get the job.

Well yeah, they wanted to give you the job, but they couldn't since you were anonymous.

Re:If they ask your salary history

[Bite The Pillow]

That's fair. If you don't get the job, you didn't want to work there anyway. Be prepared with a humorous response, but follow up with, "seriously though, we want questions answered, we won't get them all" or your variation.

Show you don't need the job. Also, don't actually need the job.

The answer I used last was:

[outofoptions]

What I worked for at my last position has no bearing on what I'm willing to take this position for.

Re:The answer I used last was:

[AJWM]

Or, "that's between me and the IRS".

Re:The answer I used last was:

[cetialphav]

That is the position that I have always taken. This all comes down to Negotiation 101. The party with the most information has the advantage. The company knows the maximum that they are willing to pay. You know the minimum that you are willing to accept. The company definitely won't tell you their max so you shouldn't provide your minimum. Providing a salary history gives them a history of your minimums, so you don't want to provide that.

I think most people are afraid that they might be forced to walk away from a good job by not disclosing past salaries, but I have never seen that to be an issue. It is standard practice for the company to ask for this information, but it is also pretty standard for candidates to refuse to provide it. HR is generally not in a position to block the hiring of talented people because of this kind of issue. In fact, most engineers vastly underestimate the power that they have in job negotiations and leave a lot on the table.

So I always just leave it blank on any form I fill out and politely tell them it is none of their business if asked directly.

Re:The answer I used last was:

[ChrisMaple]

"My salary is covered by a non-disclosure agreement."

Only if in your best interest

[ranton]

Earlier in my career I never gave my current salary, because I was looking for 20%+ raises each time and giving the information would probably only hurt me. But now that I am in my mid-30's and making far more than most of my counterparts with similar job titles, giving my salary helps ensure I don't waste time with any company which cannot provide similar compensation. Most companies don't realize top IT talent often get Senior manager / Director level salaries even without many if any managerial duties, so I need to weed them out quickly. Either that or they immediately start treating me as a consultant, because many companies are more comfortable with $150/hr full time consultants than $200k "permanent" IT staff members (even for long term gigs).

Re:Only if in your best interest

[chicago_scott]

Giving them the salary you want, as opposed to your salary history can achieve the same result.

Re:Only if in your best interest

[ranton]

Wow, don't throw out your back fellating yourself. I'd be curious to see what you really make vs what you brag about.

The salary figures mentioned in my post are not that high in the IT field. I certainly don't consider $200k total compensation to be something to brag about in my field. It gives a comfortable upper middle class lifestyle, but there are plenty of $700k and $1M+ neighborhoods in my area that I'm far from able to afford. Maybe in another decade ...

Re: Only if in your best interest

[ffejie]

I completely agree with this. I was recently in the job market, and had this question asked everywhere. After not providing it for a bit, I realized it wouldn't hurt. It would frequently help. I specifically wanted a new job that was a good opportunity which also paid me about as much as my last jobs, which were great jobs. I didn't want to take a pay cut. I made it clear I wouldn't be accepting a pay cut. Using previous salary helped me weed out at least two companies that would have paid greater than 20% less than previous jobs.

Once, this totally backfired. I was interviewing for a job I was, arguably, underqualified for. It turns out they were looking for someone more senior, and wanted to pay 100% more than I had been paid at my previous job. When they found out how little I had been paid, they finally realized I was a bit too junior for the role.

Re:Only if in your best interest

[ranton]

Giving them the salary you want, as opposed to your salary history can achieve the same result.

Giving your current salary is just another signal you can use to give more confidence to an employer that you are worth the salary you are asking for. A high salary and promotions from within a company (instead of during a job hop) are both decent indicators that your previous employers were very happy with your performance. These are probably better indicators than some arbitrary programming assignments or generic interview questions.

Re:Only if in your best interest

[Darinbob]

I gave a figure once to a recruiter saying that I could not afford to relocate to Silicon Valley without at least that much. He balked at it, saying it was unheard of. But like many recruiters he was just a contractor, and clueless. So when he passed it on the company agreed and he was completely surprised. Seriously, he was considering giving me an offer lower than what an entry level employee gets just because it felt like too much of a raise to him. (after working there awhile, it really was clear that the recruiter was clueless)

Re:Only if in your best interest

[AuMatar]

It can. But it doesn't always. If I tell them my last 2 jobs were 160 and part ownership (6%) and 180 plus stock, and that I expect a competing offer in the next few days (all of which were true), I set up a situation where they feel the need to come in with a strong offer and not fuck around- I likely have enough money to not be desperate, and obviously past employers values me highly. If I had just come out and asked for 180 I would have gotten it, but no more. If I asked for 200 I may have gotten it, but they wouldn't have been happy. Instead they opened at 200+stock and feel like they got a deal, and I got the high end of what I felt the market was without onerous negotiations.

Re:Only if in your best interest

[ChrisMaple]

Who is willing to pay that much for a person who doesn't know that the past tense of "pay" is "paid," not "payed?"

Re:Only if in your best interest

[ruir]

I would not ever sign such piece of crap.

Re:Only if in your best interest

[ranton]

Who is willing to pay that much for a person who doesn't know that the past tense of "pay" is "paid," not "payed?"

An employer who realizes some of the world's best employees don't speak English as a first language, for one. Also ones who understand the difference between an edited professional document and an internet forum post.

Re:Only if in your best interest

[ranton]

Show me one IT position that pays $200/hour that is like 400k per year. There is not one IT position that pays that, even for a rockstar developer. Sorry but you clearly have never worked in this industry have you?

First off, I don't know any independent contractors making $200/hour, which is why I used the figure $150/hour. I do know a couple of architect level contractors who have charged a rate in that ballpark for long term full time contracts (I personally have never been offered more than $130/hour, for full disclosure). And it is common to pay $225-250/hour for many IT contracting companies for senior resources, but most of those senior contractors likely only make $125-175k.

This is all in the Chicago suburbs, and salaries in the Bay Area are much higher.

Re: Only if in your best interest

[Cederic]

It only backfired for you if you were willing to rip them off charging twice the salary for a job you couldn't do. But I guess that's integrity speaking.

Didn't backfire for them at all.

Re: Only if in your best interest

[ffejie]

Just because I haven't done that job in the past doesn't mean I couldn't do it in the future. It doesn't mean I don't have the skills, or the knowledge to do it. It simply means that I was significantly less experienced than many other candidates - and arguably what they were looking for.

Re:Only if in your best interest

[houghi]

I always told that what I earned now or previously did not matter as I was not going for that job. I was going for the job they offered.

Sometimes that would mean they where not interested. Sometimes that would mean I was not interested. As I am looking for a job where BOTH are happy, I see that still as a win-win.

Re:Only if in your best interest

[omnichad]

Well it's a highly specialized title, so they must be an H1B since no US employees are capable of filling it.

Re:Only if in your best interest

[billybiro]

If I asked for 200 I may have gotten it, but they wouldn't have been happy.

On the assumption that you ask for and get the $200k, why wouldn't they be happy?

I mean, if they've determined you're skilled and experienced enough for the position in order to make you an offer, and they've further decided that they're willing to offer you $200k, why wouldn't they be happy about that?

Seems to me that if they were "unhappy" about any part of it, they wouldn't be extending you that offer in the first place, no?

No if so add 20-45k

[bongey]

Best story I heard was in the late 90s some guy added 50k to his last salary. He went from 40k to 110k overnight.

Re:No if so add 20-45k

[Tony Isaac]

Lie on a job application to get more money? No thanks, I'm not into fraud. The truth has a way of coming out at the least convenient time.

Re:No if so add 20-45k

[AuMatar]

Not legally fraud. As for the truth coming out, its unlikely. It also doesn't matter- either they're happy with your work, in which case it would be ignored. Or they aren't, in which case it gives them an excuse to fire you. Worst case is it just happens a bit sooner.

Re:No if so add 20-45k

[Tony Isaac]

You certainly seem to place a low value on honesty. Besides the legal risks, which are real, there is the "small" matter of a person's character. I'm not perfect, but I do at least TRY to be honest.

Re:No if so add 20-45k

[kuzb]

There isn't any possible way for them to know how much you made on your last job unless you tell them. That's why they're asking you in the first place.

Re:No if so add 20-45k

[AuMatar]

Did you even read that link? None of its applicable, except for the risk of being fired. Which as I said- if you're doing well they won't care. As for honesty- I won't lie about my skills, abilities, or accomplishments because I'll be caught. Not worth it. But I lie all the time in salary negotiations. So do they. They come in with a range, and say that's all they can pay. I come in with an ask over that and say I won't take less. We both end up in the middle. We were both lying- they'd pay more, and I'd take less. I'm not going to constrain myself to the truth on the first step of negotiations (which is all that info is- setting expectations). I'll lie, tell the truth, or not answer depending on what track I think works best.

Re:No if so add 20-45k

[bongey]

shit happens. now I realize it was even more. Crazy times in the late 90s, people were jumping constantly.

Re:No if so add 20-45k

[Tony Isaac]

That doesn't make it honest. Honesty is still important to some Americans. Sure, the company may be out of bounds when they ask, but at least they aren't being dishonest! If you lie on your resume, but you expect the company to be honest and up-front with you, you're being a hypocrite. If you're willing to lie on your resume, you're probably willing to lie about other things. You'll get away with it sometimes, but eventually it does come back to bite you.

Why say anything at all? Leaving the fields blank is just as effective, as a negotiating tactic. Those "extra" fields are usually stupid anyway, nobody actually cares whether you put a number in the box or not.

Re:No if so add 20-45k

[Tony Isaac]

How sad!

Re:No if so add 20-45k

[HornWumpus]

Bluffing at poker would be dishonest. Don't do that.

Lying in a salary negotiation is like bluffing in poker, it's part of the game. I you don't do it, it's just sad.

Leave the line on the app blank. But lie all you want, if you think it helps, during the negotiation. The other side is; 'salary budget' is a lie by definition. It's a plan, plans change all the time, remember your last project?

Re:No if so add 20-45k

[HornWumpus]

An app is a legal document, as you say leave it blank.

But a resume is a 'marketing document' you are expected to spin, exaggerate and bullshit.

NEVER give a number early in the process, anywhere. It will help save you time interviewing at 'bottom feeders'.

If 'It's too early in the process for me to fairly evaluate your _initial_ offer' isn't good enough, fuck 'em, you didn't want to work for them anyhow, at any price.

I've never been asked a salary history

[Snotnose]

Been at this since '81 or so, several jobs (scary to think of the percentage of companies I worked for that no longer exist). I've never once been asked for a salary history. They usually ask for the desired salary, which I leave blank. Let them throw out a number and start negotiating.

Works for me, every job I've ever gotten had a higher salary that the one I left.

Most interesting? I was interviewing at a company when rumors started to fly my company was going to have a layoff. I went to the manager in charge of my job (not my supervisor), asked to be laid off if the rumors were true. Got hired by the company across the street (not kidding, I walked to both of them, they were 1 mile away). Held off on turning in my 2 week notice and, sure as snot, got laid off a week later. Got all the benefits of being laid off, plus after a 1 week vacation I started my new job.

Re:I've never been asked a salary history

[justcauseisjustthat]

I've been asked in the first interview during the last 5 jobs I've interviewed for over the last year.

Re:I've never been asked a salary history

[Snotnose]

I've been asked in the first interview during the last 5 jobs I've interviewed for over the last year.

Why? Seems to me HR sets your salary, so unless your first interview is with HR they really don't matter. Just say some variation of "it's none of your fucking business" and move on.

Re:I've never been asked a salary history

[AuMatar]

TO make sure you're in the same range. If the company wants to pay 120-140 and you want 150, you're in negotiating range. If the company wants to pay 120-140 and you want 180, its not worth continuing.

And HR doesn't set the salary. They may do the negotiation, but at any sane company its a combo of HR, finance, and the team you're hired for, usually represented by the hiring manager. Larger companies probably have bands they try to pay in, but they also have exception systems in place for strong hires.

Re:I've never been asked a salary history

[HornWumpus]

'It's too early in the process to fairly evaluate your _initial_ offer' puts the ball squarely on their side and sets the expectation that they will be the first to name a number.

Work 'your _initial_ offer' into the discussion as often as possible early.

Re:I've never been asked a salary history

[HornWumpus]

If that were true, they would include ranges on the job listing. They usually don't, because they know that the side to give a number first loses.

That is the better way

[SuperKendall]

Rather than my flippant answer, I agree that instead it's far better to just tell them the salary you are looking for and let them decide if they can manage it.

Even if they never look it up, it's not a hood idea to fill out anything wrong in a form - just leave it blank.

Re:That is the better way

[phantomfive]

Yeah, in the worst case, if they force you to tell them your salary (and for some reason you still want to work there), you can always follow up by saying, "I was underpaid. I do good work, work quickly and am worth a lot more."

Re:That is the better way

[bill_mcgonigle]

if they force you to tell them your salary

They cannot. If they won't offer you a job without that information, and you think that information is not appropriate to share, then you've just determined that this employer and you are not a good fit. Count your blessings and move on.

Federal Gov't Employees

[chill]

Unless, of course, you work for the Federal Government. Then they can just go look up your entire salary history, plus bonuses.

https://www.federalpay.org/employees

It is always fun when someone new joins the Agencies I've worked for. They have the typical "I don't discuss salary" attitude of private sector employees. Then tell them their salary down to the penny and their eyes go wide like it is some terrible secret that has been told.

Re:Federal Gov't Employees

[NoSalt]

That site wont tell you anything if the person you are researching works for one of the three-letter agencies.

Re:Donald Trump - RacistPresident Constitutional F

[Anonymous Coward]

hillary lost.. deal with it. take your socjus misrepresentations elsewhere.. just because someone disagrees with your politics doesn't make them racist.

Depends ...

[CaptainDork]

... on whether you want to pass the background check or not.

.. I was told that it was part of the background check ...

Not that complicated

[Oceanplexian]

Salary negotiation isn't really that complicated. Know what you're worth, what value you provide, what the industry is willing to pay for that value, and then ask for it without reservation. If, at that point, the potential employer or client is willing to negotiate within those parameters, take it under consideration and figure out what concessions or modifications to the contract you're willing to make to close the deal. It's no different than negotiating for a car, or a house, or anything else.

NDA

[Anonymous Coward]

Just put those magic three letters down: NDA

Works both way...

[xlsior]

If your history showed that you made significantly more than the job you are applying for, the employer may be hesitant to make an offer because they will expect you to keep looking and leave again shortly.

Re:Works both way...

[markdavis]

>"If your history showed that you made significantly more than the job you are applying for, the employer may be hesitant to make an offer because they will expect you to keep looking and leave again shortly."

Yep, this is 100% true. When I am hiring, if I see a previous salary too high but they are willing to accept less, then this signals they are not going to stay. They are probably just settling until they can find someplace else. We don't have the time to deal with that, turnover absolutely kills small companies. Worse, it could mean they were fired, not "laid off" (most people lie and say they are "laid off" or "resigned" when they were actually fired).

Re:Works both way...

[TheGratefulNet]

what you fail to understand is that, in a bad econ (ie, this one!) that people may be in dire need of a job and are quite willing to downgrade the pay just to stay working.

of course, you, mr. asswipe, are in the lap of luxury and you don't need to feel sympathy for those who really want to work, even at a pay cut.

(asshole!)

and even good people get fired. hope you learn that lesson someday; you could learn a bit from that experience and something tells me you are in need of some humility.

Re:Works both way...

[markdavis]

Wow, you are a piece of work. You know almost nothing about me, our company, our situation, and yet can label me as not understanding, then an "asswipe", then an "asshole" then someone that needs humility.

This isn't kumbaya or church. It is a business trying to hire someone that best fits the job and will stay a reasonable amount of time (1-2 years depending on the position) to recoup the training and adjustment time. We don't "owe" applicants anything nor have a responsibility to employ the world (nor is the "econ" that bad here).

Apparently you have never managed people, much less a department or a facility, or you would understand what turnover does to small business/ departments with highly skilled jobs. Especially true when the department is understaffed, underappreciated, underpaid, and it can take months to find the right person. So get off your high horse.

Re:Works both way...

[pla]

people may be in dire need of a job and are quite willing to downgrade the pay just to stay working.

Right - And as soon as things get better, they'll be out the door. That's pretty much the GP's point.

in a bad econ (ie, this one!)

We currently have the most employee-friendly economy and job market so far this millennium. Yes, the current low unemployment rate might drive up pay a bit over the next few years, but overall, it doesn't get much better than this.

even good people get fired

Good people get laid off. Even complete wastes of flesh are usually forced to quit rather than outright fired. Actually being terminated for cause isn't just "bad luck", it means you screwed up royally - You got busted stealing, or nailing the boss' daughter on his desk, or are so incompetent that you didn't just contribute nothing, you outright cost the company many times your salary due to gross negligence.

Absolutely not.

[JustNiz]

No. Your salary history is private to yourself and should have no bearing on whether the interviewing company is prepared to pay you what you are asking for or not. It should be your skillas and their need that are the only determining factors.

There should be a law against this

[justcauseisjustthat]

A company should pay you based on your education, experience , personality and work history. Not how much you made, it's their attempt to low ball offers and it creates wage stagnation. There should be a law against this practice and a law supporting employees rights to discuss openly salary and benefits.

NDA

[Anonymous Coward]

Most companies require a NDA. I tell the employer that I signed an NDA, and would they be comfortable with their ex employees breaking the terms of their agreements.

I made that mistake once

[yorgasor]

I had been laid off and ended up quickly taking a new job for $15k less than I was making before, but offered me a chance to build some additional skills I wanted. After about a year, I found a job I was a perfect match for, and while talking to the recruiter, she asked how much I was currently making. I gave her the answer, which was probably $40-50k less than what the job was likely to pay. She laughed and hung up on me. I was not amused.

Look at it this way.

[tietokone-olmi]

>I was told that it was part of the background check and wouldn't be used to determine the size of the offer...

If it were used to determine offer size nonetheless, how would you know?

Dupe from workplace.stackexchange

[hwolfe]

http://workplace.stackexchange...

Re: Donald Trump - RacistPresident Constitutional

[naubol]

For the love of god, can we please collapse/grey out/auto collapse whole threads that start like this?

I will attempt a more positive spin...

[aaarrrgggh]

Personally, when I am interviewing people, it is helpful to better understand how previous employers valued the candidate. It isn't a baseline for what we will offer, but we want to be comfortable with a few things: were you overpaid at your current employer, and are we going to need to explain why we only offer a lateral move; or, were you underpaid, and we need to dig into the potential gap in expectations.

Lying gets you blackballed. Dodging is ok, until you are asked by the person who will be making the offer.

Re:I will attempt a more positive spin...

[xlsior]

Personally, when I am interviewing people, it is helpful to better understand how previous employers valued the candidate.

True -- and in that case even the exact amounts aren't as important as whether your previous employer gave you any raises during your stay there.

History revealing but maybe not helpful

[Anonymous Coward]

I've been seriously looking for a half-assed job that pays about a third as much as my old big-assed job. But I'm starting to realise that the big-assed job was actually a piece of piss the like of which I'll never fall into again. And a half-assed job would involve work and humiliation. Lately I've been thinking that a bit of jail time on the CV would be more useful.

Why ask why?

[Tony Isaac]

Your salary history (with the possible exception of your current salary) is none of the employer's business. Don't ask about it, just leave the fields blank, make them come back to you and ask for it if they really want it. This puts YOU in the driver's seat.

In school, there was always that student that would ask the teacher if there was any homework, as the class was ending. Don't be that guy!

If you don't want to talk about your salary, just tell them what you're looking for. Make sure that amount is in keeping with the normal ranges for your years of experience, and the area where you live. The business is doing their homework, they know what you SHOULD be making.

Re:Donald Trump - RacistPresident Constitutional F

[Anonymous Coward]

>A Federal Court has already blocked Donald Trump's unconstitutional, bigoted power grab.

It only affects those already in the US and that were in transit to the county at the time the EO was signed. By court order they can't be deported, but neither can they enter the US. So, in effect, they're going to be stuck at the airports until the legal issue is sorted.

Re: Donald Trump - RacistPresident Constitutional

[Anonymous Cow Ward]

That would be a super useful feature. Which means /. will implement it in about ten years.

Re:Also Tax Forms (W-2s)

[ClickOnThis]

In addition to salary history, Employers in the United States often ask for tax forms or permission to obtain tax transcripts. Sometimes this is to prove who you worked for without contacting them. But other times this is used to see your salary history, and/or prove it is what you said it was.

They can confirm your employment history by contacting previous employers. Asking for W2s or tax returns for that reason is bullshit. Walk away. Better still, report them.

The short US answer seems to be employers can require, and you can voluntarily give. But this information cannot be used to try and determine anything discriminatory (married status, if you have children, etc.) under Federal law.

In addition to Federal law, check the public policy of your State. There are protections for job-seekers in State law as well.

Lies can be found and you fired

[s.petry]

One of the only questions a new employer can ask an old employer is how much you got paid. I believe it is still required as a confirmation, such as "did Joe make 50K/yr salary?" and can't be an open question.

A lie during your hiring process may result in immediate termination.

As said above, it's best to know what you are worth and what to ask for. You can always negotiate down, but not the other direction. Always best to start a bit higher so you have some room. Too high, and you will not get a call back though..

Re:Lies can be found and you fired

[AuMatar]

They can ask anything they want. Most employers won't volunteer more than that, for fear of lawsuits (mostly pointless fear, but large corps are run by lawyers). But a new employer can ask anything they want, and a former employer can say anything they want as long as its true.

Re:Lies can be found and you fired

[s.petry]

Your generalization lacks legal merit. Asking "why did Joe leave the company?" or "was Joe a good worker?" may result in legal action if not presented correctly. As a basic rule you can ask about dates of employment and salary. Anything else needs to be carefully vetted for the State you are in lest you end up on the other end of a lawsuit.

I give a range but don't disclose history

[vilain]

Recruiters should be dealing with this from the start so you both don't waste each other's time. I recall interviewing for a sysadmin position back in the 80s and it was clear I could do what they needed. When I quoted a range slightly higher than what I was making, the interviewer went white. Apparently, they hadn't done their homework. I got a call a couple days later from HR asking to reschedule another interview but I wasn't interested. They were a really cheap company. For years when filling out the actual HR employment application, I've left salary blank. By that time, they're taking information for a background check. I don't disclose that info. Period. A background check company wanted back tax forms to cover 10 years of self-employment as a sole proprietor. I gave them redacted forms with all the numbers removed, which wasn't good enough for an extended-background check required for the banking industry or telecom. Now I warn recruiters for those types of jobs ahead of time. And that I fucking HATE Wells Fargo. That's worked so far.

Re:Donald Trump - RacistPresident Constitutional F

[Zontar The Mindless]

Google and Facebook both seem to think that it matters.

Nondisclosure agreement

[apparently]

Uh, just say "Sorry, I can't disclose that as per the terms of an NDA with my current employer"?

Re:Nondisclosure agreement

[mark-t]

And any employer who hears that is going to know that what you are saying is either so much bullshit, or else you don't actually have a clue what your employer is legally allowed to do. So they are going to assume that either you have no ethical issues with being dishonest with them, or they can pull the same kind of wool over your eyes about what your obligations are to them. Either way, you will get screwed. The most honest thing you can say to them if you do not want to discuss it is that you are not comfortable divulging that information to them at this time. While that doesn't necessarily give them the information they were asking, it does tell them something about your own ethical code of conduct, and the prospective employer may very well be quite respectful of that.

Re:Nondisclosure agreement

[PPH]

you don't actually have a clue what your employer is legally allowed to do

Contractually allowed to do.

I'm about to enter into a contract with a new employer/customer. So they might appreciate the fact that I will respect the terms of previous contractual relationships and will probably afford them the same consideration.

Re:Nondisclosure agreement

[mark-t]

An employer cannot prohibit you from discussing your salary with anyone you want to any more than they can prohibit you from doing anything else they might not want you to do when you are not at work, but is otherwise entirely legal. The most they might be able to do is fire you (where at-will employment is applicable), but that's it. They may as well try to "contractually obligate" you to never wear jewelry even when you are not at work, for example.

Re:Nondisclosure agreement

[PPH]

An employer cannot prohibit you from discussing your salary with anyone you want

Yes they can if your employment contract says you can't.

The most they might be able to do is fire you

Think about this the same way you would an NDA. They can do a hell of a lot more than fire you if you leave and discuss anything covered by that agreement. Or NDAs would be useless in preventing employees from leaving and discussing proprietary information with outsiders. In addition to suing for the information taken and disbursed, the party in breech of the contract can be made to pay punitive damages by courts. If the specifics of your compensation are a part of an NDA, you could be a lot worse off than just fired.

Re:Nondisclosure agreement

[mark-t]

Yes they can if your employment contract says you can't.

No, they cannot. Your salary is just as much your own business as it is your employer's, and all putting it into contract does is mean that it is probably just grounds for termination. Your employer categorically has no legal right to forbid you to discuss your salary or conditions of your job with anyone that you wish.

Think about this the same way you would an NDA. They can do a hell of a lot more than fire you if you leave and discuss anything covered by that agreement.

Obviously, but your salary is categorically not allowed to be covered by NDA, and any attempts by your employer to do so would not be enforceable.

Re:Nondisclosure agreement

[PPH]

Obviously, but your salary is categorically not allowed to be covered by NDA

Citation needed.

Because mine has been on several occasions.

Re:Nondisclosure agreement

[mark-t]

In the USA, the National Labor Relations Act, enacted in 1935. The law exists primarily to protect employees from employers who might otherwise seek to break labor laws. If the employer knows that they cannot legally require (either verbally or in written form) their employees to not disclose aspects of their employment such as salary or job conditions to anyone that they choose, they have significant incentive to obey the law in those regards in the first place unless they can somehow make the employees complicit in such matters as well (and therefore accessories to the behavior). Otherwise, an employer could capitalize on someone who was ignorant of labor laws in the region (perhaps someone new the area, or otherwise inexperienced), and by explicitly telling employees that they can't tell anyone, continue to get away with it for longer than they could if they could not prohibit the employee from speaking about it to whomever they wished. Simply asking an employee to not discuss their pay with others is not legal in some jurisdictions (state law applies), and at the very least can be deemed as a point worthy of suspicion.

You can certainly, if you so choose, respect your employer's wishes to not disclose your salary to others, but that is at your own discretion, not your employer's.

Re:Nondisclosure agreement

[mcmonkey]

Obviously, but your salary is categorically not allowed to be covered by NDA

Citation needed.

Because mine has been on several occasions.

Where are you that an NDA covers your salary? In the USA, where many folks involve a third party in preparing tax documents, not sharing your salary is impossible.

Re:Nondisclosure agreement

[PPH]

I work as a contractor, not an employee. The NLRA doesn't apply. And its not just my customer trying to hide details of my compensation. I don't want to pass those details on to outsiide parties either.

NEVER!

[Anonymous Coward]

Never give your salary history. It's bad news for you and power for your prospective employer. It cannot help you so why would you do this?

You are applying for a new job, not your old job. By asking for your salary history, the new employer is chaining your negotiation for a new position to the past. Your new position needs to be about the future, not the past.

Don't be a dick about turning down this request. You need to be polite but professional about this, firm and yet approachable. If the prospective employer persists after this, just keep saying that you don't understand why they need this information when that information is about the past. Stand your ground and don't start negotiating the position away for something else. This is a no go zone and you need to make that clear.

There are some naïve people in this thread who are saying "yes, but then you won't get that job!" So, first of all, a new employer won't respect you if you don't set any boundaries. They have boundaries and so should you. Would you ask your new boss what he makes? Would you ask your old boss? No.

Second, if this really disqualifies you from that tasty new job, then you don't want the job. That is a poor employer and they are setting tone right from the beginning that you are the supplicant, not the applicant. They don't respect you now and that situation isn't going to get any better in the future.

I can appreciate that turning down a job might seem like a self-destructive strategy. It's just a number, right? Give them the number and make the issue go away...

The problem with that is, if the prospective employer cannot respect you now, they certainly aren't going to respect you when you've got their new job. Set the right tone. Your old salary is part of the past and you want a new relationship with a new employer.

Re:NEVER!

[Anonymous Coward]

By the way, there are skillful ways to redirect the inappropriate question (that's what this is, BTW).

1). Reply with, "My salary expectations are in the 5/6 figure range." You can talk about future salary expectations, but even then, make it the most general range you can get away with. Never, NEVER quote a specific number! At least, not as your opening comment.
2). Reply with, "We can discuss salary expectations when an offer is on the table." This is my favourite tactic. First of all, it lowers the priority of the issue of salary way down, which sends a subtle message that "I'm a straight-shooting candidate who is not motivated by money." Second, it suggests that salary negotiations are appropriate, but only at the right time. And it does so gently enough that the offering employer isn't going to feel insulted.

Look at it like an old-fashioned car sale. Does either side start out with their closing (final) offer? No way! And neither should you when it comes to your employment.

Re:NEVER!

[HornWumpus]

'It is too early to discuss salary. I don't have enough information to evaluate your _initial_ offer.'

It that makes them trash your resume you _didn't_ want to work for them. It saves time, as well as improves your negotiating position.

Re: NEVER!

[alcmena]

Plus, it's true. What's your health issuance package look like? What's your vacation policy? Sick days? Are there other benefits you offer? I've taken jobs at lower salary because the rest of the package was much better (simple example, dropped $3k to go to a job that had an extra week of vacation as 10 paid sick days, vs 0 previously, and provides a fully funded pension). Salary is only one part of the compensation package.

Re:Also Tax Forms (W-2s)

[AuMatar]

In 16 years I've never been asked for any form of W2 or tax forms.

Re:They will find out

[hambone142]

I actually got my salary history from a credit reporting agency. I did it just for grins. I was rather surprised how accurate it was.
I would suspect prospective employers could obtain similar information.

leave it blank

[superwiz]

It's not part of your background. If you don't get a job because of this, it's a very good indication that you'll be nickel and dimed by the company after you start working there. The "salary history" is remnant from the time when we had a robust inflation. During the times of 0% interest rate, salaries don't go up all the time. They go up and down depending on the type of work you do at your job, how "close to the money" you are on the job and how many hours you actually work. The up and down jumps can be as high as 50% for people in tech fields. And if you are going for a job which requires higher qualifications than your previous job, then your previous salary has nothing to do with the compensation you should be requesting. If they are looking to instill some sort of inferiority complex in you from the start, it's a good indication that they will try to overwork you and underpay you in the future. Leave it blank. If they don't like it, you will be lucky because you'll avoid taking a job you would regret taking otherwise.

It's available online

[hambone142]

The Work Number has salary information. I've gotten my information from the service and it's available to prospective employers.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

Re: Donald Trump - RacistPresident Constitutional

[ChrisMaple]

Fine. We'll balance the budget by ending theft programs: welfare, medicare, foreign aid, food stamps, et infinite cetera.

Re: Donald Trump - RacistPresident Constitutional

[buss_error]

Obama spent us over 50 trillion into debt.

The President does not have the authority to set taxes or spending.. That's the job of Congress... which has been in republican hands for the past six of the last eight years. So which party has the white house isn't really going to make that much difference, since the white house isn't setting that policy. reducing taxes on Billionairs, though - that lands on Congress. Just one thing about POTUS Trump - you and I pay more taxes than he did. I don't have billions. I guess I don't have "a very good brain" like Mr. Trump. I sure didn't pick the right daddy to leave me money, anyway.

Also, I believe the debt is closer to 20 trillion than 50, and also the majority was spent in the administration prior to Mr. Obama's, but wasn't accounted for until after the G. W. Bush administration left office. That's what happens when you go fight two unnecessary wars on the nations credit card - the bill comes due eventually.

Current Debt

Nooooooooo

[MrKaos]

Never

Re:It's used for a couple of reasons

[ruir]

Read my lips: It is none of their fucking business.

No, it is not legit

[LeftCoastThinker]

When asked over the years, I have always told potential employers that my value is based on my skillset and interpersonal skills. I ask that they make an offer based on the value that I will bring to their business, and that my past compensation is private and confidential. They typically don't like it in HR, but you get respect from the good managers. I have found that you get much higher offers than if you put down your past salary, where you get a ~5-10% higher offer than your past salary, rather than the true market rate for your skillset, which is typically higher.

Re:Also Tax Forms (W-2s)

[lgw]

In addition to salary history, Employers in the United States often ask for tax forms or permission to obtain tax transcripts. Sometimes this is to prove who you worked for without contacting them. But other times this is used to see your salary history, and/or prove it is what you said it was.

I've been in the business through a quarter-century and 8 employers (and many more interviews). I've never heard of such a thing, and would tell any such company to fuck right off.

Re: Donald Trump - RacistPresident Constitutional

[Anonymous Coward]

The economy is doing pretty well, save that people on the lower end aren't feeling it

Fine. We'll balance the budget by ending theft programs: welfare, medicare, foreign aid, food stamps, et infinite cetera.

While I am pretty sure the people on the lower end will feel something if your 'interesting' proposals are implemented, but it won't be something good.

No

[Rexel99]

Due to previous confidentiality agreements I am unable to release this info.

Re:Donald Trump - RacistPresident Constitutional F

[thegarbz]

Why is Slashdot silent while Donald Trump establishes a national religion based on his own bigotry???

Because we're unable to boot our computers due to systemd so have other problems right now.

No

[HeadOffice]

You should not.

depends

[buddyglass]

If you think you can get away with not telling them then don't tell them. The caveat is that if you refuse to play along then it may end the interview process right then and there. In that case, if you would have been willing to entertain an offer of "whatever you were getting paid at your last job plus a small delta" then you your decision not to play along was in error.

Unless you were drastically underpaid at your last job relative to the one you're interviewing for, the new job's offer will be whatever you were getting paid at your last job plus some amount that's 1. big enough to not be trivial, but 2. not much bigger than that. So maybe $5k/yr. That will be the starting point of any post-offer negotiations. Your leverage is low, though, because you already told them what you were making before.

Another tactic is to answer the question, but ask them for similar information in exchange. For instance, "What's the average compensation for someone with my experience in this position that I'm applying for?" If they won't answer, the you can credibly say, "I'm not sure I'm comfortable divulging my compensation history if you're not willing to do the same. Does that seem fair?"

Re:No

[buddyglass]

They may call bullshit on that. I probably would.

Re: Donald Trump - RacistPresident Constitutional

[Nidi62]

So the Iraqi that got detained at JFK on Friday that had a valid visa was doing a bad thing when he worked as a translator for US forces in Iraq? And let's not forget that family of Syrian Orthodox Christian extremists that got turned back in Philly. Nothing but terrorists they are.

I've found Liz Ryan's thoughts on this informative

[karlnyberg]

https://www.linkedin.com/pulse...

https://www.linkedin.com/pulse...

I think I've also read someplace that some states make it illegal to ask for that BEFORE making an offer, but I can't find a reference at the moment.

It is a standard question, here is why. If you don

[alphad0g]

This came about in response to the huge IT growth around 2000 before the bubble burst on the dot com world. People were getting offers for huge salary increases because there was a skills shortage. HR groups added this as a way to stop the madness. They use your salary history to validate career progression to some extent, but they also use it as a way to guage a reasonable offer - say a 10% increase over your current may be considered the company rule.

Most large companies do this. If they offer you a job, they may even ask for W2 to compare to what you put on application.

Recipricate.

[AnotherBlackHat]

Will they tell you what everyone in the company makes currently?

Will they tell you what anyone in the company makes currently?

The employer holds all the cards

[RogueWarrior65]

It's pretty simple. The employer holds all the cards here. If they ask and you say that it's none of their business, they have less motivation to hire you because you come off as hiding something and what else are you going to hide if they hire you. Plus, there are people out there who will tell them. If they ask and you lie about it, they can find out and then you either won't get hired or you will be a marked person who started out their time at the company as a known liar. Human resources doesn't work for you. They work for your boss.
At best, you can say, "Respectfully, I'm not going to negotiate against myself. You have a salary range in mind for this position. Make me an offer and hopefully we can come to an agreement." A good employer should respect that.

Re:No

[mark-t]

If you answer the question about what was your last salary by answering a different question and telling them how much you make, then that communicates to the employer that you were dissatisfied with your last salary and since you likely did the same thing with *that* employer telling them how much you wanted, you were actually lying to them.

But if you were getting paid fairly, telling them how much you were making at worst. it only tells the employer that you are too costly for him to hire, which is a lot better than quoting a number at the employer that says you think you are worth more than you may actually be. More likely, he will think that is fair and offer about the same amount.

And if you weren't getting paid what you think is fair, then if this employer is one that will be worth staying at, he will see that your previous salary was not commensurate with your talents after you have only been there a short time. If you do not get a raise within your first year, be prepared to quit.

It is absolutely your right to not disclose salary to anyone other than agencies or representatives of such agencies which have a legitimate right to those lines of inquiry, but an employer cannot actually prohibit you from discussing your salary with anyone else any more than they could prohibit you from any other kind of legal activity when you are not at work.

I think it depends...

[gosand]

I think it all depends on where you are in the hiring process. If it is because you are at the offer stage, then tell them. You can give general numbers. I don't think they can actually verify that information though. In general, most companies will only verify that you worked for them from this date to that. Depending on the job, they may do background checks, and they could be extensive. So... they may be able to verify your story. I honestly only vaguely remember how much I was making at some of my last jobs. So as long as you are close it shouldn't be an issue. Lie, and they find out, and you will be dropped immediately.

I have hired many people over the years, and I know exactly where you are coming from.
However, most of my experience has been with companies that have a hiring process. Therefore, I don't get to ask those questions. The recruiter may, i don't know what they do as part of their vetting process. I also know that the position pay range is between X and Z, with Y being the mid-point. HR wants you to hire at the mid-point (unless you are hiring internally, then it is 'as low as possible'). Not my rules, but the reality I have seen.

There are obviously downsides to this situation, in that I don't always get all of the information I may need. Also, it doesn't always work out for the candidate. I know, because I have been on that side as well. I was at one job where I was paid well, I got about a 12% increase when I joined it. It was higher-up the food chain too. But my boss was a nightmare, from day 1. I hated every single day I worked there. I tried to make it work... but after a year I started looking.

Recruiters wouldn't ask my salary history, but would ask my current salary. When i told them, they usually would start backpedaling. I would then explain what I was willing to take. There was one promising job, two rounds of interviews went great, it was a great work environment and I really wanted it. I told the recruiter what I was making but what I was willing to take. Unfortunately, he only told the employer what I was making. So I didn't get the job.

How do I know all of this? Because they hired me. A month or so later I got a call from that recruiter, wanting to know if I was still interested. I was! He said salary was an issue, and they couldn't meet my current pay. I reiterated to him what I was willing to take, and after a little negotiating I got the job. As it turned out, the recruiter was a dumbass and didn't tell the hiring manager (my new boss) about my willingness to take less than my current salary. The person they had chosen over me didn't work out, and I am really glad that they came back to me because I am still there and it has been great. I have since learned more about our corporate recruiters, and how terrible they are. I keep that in mind as I have started hiring more people. Remember this - their job is to get people hired, not necessarily to hire the right people. I know that sounds crazy, but it's true. And the strange thing is, they aren't very good at it.

Re:I think it depends...

[mcmonkey]

The lesson is to answer the _real_ question. When a hiring manager, or especially an independent recruiter, asks about your current salary or salary history, what they really want to know is, what are you looking for in _this_ position. And that's how I've always answered.

My most recent job search was coming from a employer known to pay below-market. But rather than complicate things with a response like, "I'm getting $X now but in my next position I'd like $Y," I'd just say "I'm looking for $Y."

But that also presumes I've properly assessed my position and am actually worth $Y on the market.

Re:I think it depends...

[gosand]

I know what you're saying... but its tricky! Now, I took that new job at lower pay, but there was a chance that my salary wasn't too high. If I go in and say I want X and they say "you're hired!" I may have just screwed myself.

If I say "I am making X but I would be willing to take less" it tells them that I would be willing to take a pay cut (which shows I want the job, I am not just looking for $), and it also gives them the chance to match my current salary. What you don't want to do is lowball thinking that once you get in you will prove yourself and get good raises/bonuses. I have learned the painful way that when you are in a company, it is hard to make good advances. I have been there myself, as an employee and as a manager. I have had employees that I inherited that were paid well below the minimum for their job. And they were good. I know.... it's unfair, it sucks. HR doesn't care. You can't dig them out of that hole. The only thing they can do is switch jobs. If you are in a big company and try to move internally, they always try to do the 'lateral move' maneuver. i.e. no pay increase. Guess what? Then you get to wait a whole year until you sync up with the review cycle until you are even up for a raise.

Funny thing is, HR does NOT want you to know the pay grades for your job, or other jobs. Where I have worked, that is highly guarded information.

Under no circumstance

[Murdoch5]

I would never tell a future employer how much I made in the past, they don't need to know for any reason.

Start by Stating Your Expectations with your Resum

[CAOgdin]

Sure, in my earliest years, I was accumulating experience (I remember having the title "Junior Programmer"), but once I was valuable, I named my own price. My last decades were as a consultant, and I peaked out at $2,000/day, because I had letters of recommendation from major executives (with phone numbers, so prospective clients could call them; the never did, but that was often a convincer.

The 1%-ers win because there's always some jerk who will accept their offer, no matter how demeaning it is. Turn the tables: Spend all you time performing, and learning how to perform even better, and ask superiors (the highest-level you dare approach; preferably "CxO") for letters of recommendation that describe how much money the company made and continue to makes, because of your work. The best time to ask is right when the project is about to become that "all hands" push near the end...they NEED you then, and if you promise not to leave for some time, they'll give you the kind of recommendation you can use a year later, when the project's been long done.

Some tricks from a well-paid consultant, now happily retired.

No

[PPH]

Because the details of my previous contracts are proprietary.

Salary Expectation != Salary History

[overlook77]

It's 100% OK for an employer to ask what your expectations are. I think the best thing would be for employers to post a desired salary range, which unfortunately doesn't happen that often anymore. It's pretty annoying to have to apply and interview for a job where you have absolutely no idea if the offer will even be worth your time. However, as a hiring manager, my time is also important. I have to organize an interview by exchanging a few emails, coordinate several other people's schedules internally, follow up with HR that I want to do a background check, then HR has to call and actually make the offer (which usually has a relatively narrow salary range we can work with). While this is all happening, someone else may be on hold for a couple weeks that would actually take the job and may become unavailable. Without having any idea what ballpark salary people expect, this is obviously a huge waste of time. So salary history, no....salary expectations OR post the salary range in the job description, yes.

My experiences

[singularity]

I have started declining to tell my current salary. I explain that my offer should be related to the value I bring to the company, not based on previous work at another company.

I went through a screening process a couple of years ago with an enterprise level company. A recruiter reached out to me about a position that looked appealing to me. One of my first questions to the recruiter was the salary range for the position. It was right in line with what I was expecting, and I replied that the range was satisfactory.

During the phone screen (done by the recruiter, not the hiring manager), I passed all of her questions. Towards the end she had some background questions, including my current salary. I explained that I was unwilling to divulge that information, but that I found the agreed salary range to be acceptable.

The recruiter explained that she could not continue the screen without that information. When I explained that I declined again, she hung up on me.

Since then I have spoken to other people that work for the company, and they have nothing good to say about working for the company. So I guess my policy paid off.

California law may change this year

[hwstar]

Regarding salary history, AB168 (Susan Talamantes Eggman, D-Stockton) may make it illegal for employers to ask for salary history by 2018. Governor Brown vetoed a similar bill, AB1017 in 2015. AB1676 was signed into law in 2016 which partially addresses salary history when gender comes up.

Re:Donald Trump - RacistPresident Constitutional F

[CaptainDork]

The pussy grabber in chief is swinging a bat.

Facebook and Google "think," but thoughts are useless as tits on a boar and don't actually matter.

Can help you, definitely can not help you

[wavedalton]

I work in HR for a very large company (60k+ employees overall) in Massachusetts. I am in Compensation and my team handles employment verifications as well. We consider it a breach of confidentiality to provide or confirm salary without a signed release from our employee. While not every company will be so careful, I feel comfortable saying at least that this is what companies should be doing. That being said, other people have mentioned this above, but this can be a 2-way part of the vetting process. If you make $60k now, and want to make $70k, you don't want to waste your time with them if they think you're going to (or can only budget for you to) bite for $40k. It is *really vital* to understand what the realistic regional salary ranges are for the type of job you're looking for, too - particularly if you are pretty much at the top of the pay scale to begin with. We all want to get a big bump in pay when we move between companies, but even if you're the best around, it's going to be tough for anyone to justify paying 20% more to you than anyone else unless you are sure to demonstrate the value you add over someone who can do 90% of your work for 80% of the pay. I guess overall I think it would hurt you more to not provide any info. Bear in mind you can be generous in rounding if that is a concern...

True, if you have no skills

[raymorris]

You have no leverage, if you have no skills. When I most recently changed jobs, there was a bidding war for me. One company went up 25% from their initial offer.

Re:It is a standard question, here is why. If you

[jeffb (2.718)]

Hey, that's the most sensible thing I've heard all day! I should try that myself.

"Before I sign up, could you please tell me what this health insurance policy's premiums were last year? Yes, I understand that you'd like 25% more this year, but I think we should all agree it's more reasonable to expect an increase of 10% at most. Now, let's talk about my expectation for you to go the extra mile when there's additional medical work to be covered -- without additional pay, of course."

Apologies to those readers in first- and second-world countries where this "signing up for health insurance coverage" analogy is sensibly unintelligible.

Re: Donald Trump - RacistPresident Constitutional

[Anonymous Cow Ward]

Cool story bro.

Guidance given / Your decision

[Thu Anon Coward]

So, I read thru about 75% of the answers that were offered and I agree with pretty much all of them. The real question is, how much do YOU feel comfortable telling them?
This really boils down to your outlook on life and the reality of the present.

I personally do not give out salary history:
-it's none of their business, it has no bearing whatsoever on any work I may be hired for
: I may be looking for more of a reasonable worklife balance and willing to accept less :maybe I've recently come into a lot of money and willing to work less hard for less money :I actually work for a state agency right now where I am paid at LEAST 30-40% LESS than private sector (the average being 50%, $50k vs $75k), and believe me the benefits are not all that it is cracked up to be.
should I really have to hear that stupid question from a recruiter "What makes you think you are worth 50% more?" gee, I dunno, market forces? maybe you should ask your CEO who is making $5mil/yr and has a contract with guaranteed minimum 10% increases?"

regardless of the above, is it any of their damn business? NO

-do not lie about your salary history :yes, it can be grounds for dismissal. although you could make the argument that statement was made prior to hiring you so does not apply. still.... :tell them your prior company had an NDA or similar regarding salaries. many companies do have this :if you want to be an ass about it (they started it), ask them how much they make :leave the fields blank
this one is for you HR types, I know how you score applications and resumes. No answer, points off; mis-spelled answer, points off; answers put into the wrong field, points off; this is how many paper-pushers (SPHR) justify their jobs when in reality they don't know squat about combing through the resumes

(digression: I had to sort thru 30 state applications to fill a position, even if they were over-Qualified I still had to include them in my interview rounds. out of 5 interviews, I had:
- 1 (average-qual) no-show/no-callback
- 1 (highly-qual'd) who found out some more info and then politely called back to cancel the interview
- 1 (average-qual) who couldn't tell me about any of his experience except "I've got lots of experience! ho ho ho!"
- 1 (above-avg qual) tele-conference interview who took control of the interview reading off all the questions and his responses
- 1 (basically-qual'd) tech who actually showed up with a good attitude if a bit short on some of the experience we needed

Guess which one I hired? and his was the very last app submitted just under the deadline. and I have had no regrets hiring him in the last 3 years.)

-I've had companies ask for credit scores and consumer reviews :for what reason? my job has NOTHING to do with handling money or the financials system :if you don't supply it, we can't arrange an interview
really? please sign this document right here that says my personal data will be locked up tight (destroyed, if not hired) and that your company will be personally responsible for any data breach that results in my personal data being spread across the Internet because you certainly don't need it if I'm not hired. .... oh, you won't? and you expect me to work for YOUR company? .... you will now hand back all the paperwork I gave when applying for this position

FINAL THOUGHTS
You are the one who is going to have to decide how much data to share. Is it worth not getting that job? I mean, in the midst of an economic depression (ci

Re:Donald Trump - RacistPresident Constitutional F

[Zontar The Mindless]

Google and Facebook think with dollars. Billions of them.

You were saying...?

Re:Donald Trump - RacistPresident Constitutional F

[CaptainDork]

I was saying ...

The pussy grabber in chief is swinging a bat.

Facebook and Google "think," but thoughts are useless as tits on a boar and don't actually matter.

re: Glassdoor

[King_TJ]

My experience with Glassdoor is it's most valuable if you're already researching a specific company you want to work for. The comments people leave about the pros and cons of the companies are usually pretty accurate. (You'll often see the random one that paints an especially good or bad picture. But just like Yelp and other ratings sites, it's wise to discard that as "fringe" and read everything else to get a good average/overall sense of how things are there.)

I also agree that salaries posted from specific companies and job titles are pretty accurate. (I doubt many users are motivated to post false numbers there?) The problem is -- there aren't a huge number of users willing to leave that information at all. So for small or mid-sized companies, you might only see one or two salaries posted. Not that helpful if those were people doing entry level work and you're looking for a management or senior position there, etc.

Top I.T. talent isn't always needed, either ....

[King_TJ]

One thing I'm coming to grips with, having worked in I.T. my whole working career (and in my mid 40's now), is that a lot of companies simply don't want to pay for "top I.T. talent" anymore. The whole reason they're entertaining the idea of hiring a permanent I.T. person in the first place is the idea it'll be more convenient and save some money over the outside consultants they have to schedule to come in and pay by the hour (or project).

If you're really good and experienced, and believe your talents should be worth well into the 6 figure range? You might be absolutely right, but you're pricing yourself out of what many, many companies are actually budgeting for and interested in getting.

Competition is really heavy, these days, to just "cloud-ify" many of the things a business used to do internally. That means less need for on-site I.T. talent to care for those servers and applications. The need doesn't disappear to make sure the network is still working well, the company's Internet circuit(s) are up, and new hires receive training and the hardware they need to work. And there will always be the trouble tickets put in to get assistance when something's malfunctioning and they don't know if it's on "our end or the other end". But this is all stuff a person can do competently for them without being a "top tier" I.T. support engineer.

I might be biased due to my location (DC metro area, essentially).... but the #1 thing I've seen that justifies a bigger salary for I.T. around here is possessing an active "top secret clearance". A whole lot of govt. and military contractors need I.T. support for even mundane things, but need the person doing the work to be "top secret" cleared because of the information getting handled. That's a really costly and lengthy process to run someone through, so they'll gladly pay above market rate if you already have one. Also tends to mean ex-military get cherry-picked for great paying, easy to do work around here.

Re:No

[Rexel99]

They asked me not to discuss my previous pay rates with others. I dont understand why you believe I would go back on that promise.

contractually bound

[bigtreeman]

My last IT contract had a clause prohibiting me from disclosing my remuneration to anyone,
and I mean anyone.
Company confidential, and a future employer should respect abiding by a contract.

Absolutely Not.

[billybiro]

No, you should never disclose your salary history to any prospective future employer.

Employers will ask this question for one reason and one reason only, to find the lowest possible offer you'd be willing to accept if they decide they want to offer you a position. Many people in this thread that are representing the employers perspective have said that they need this information in order to determine if a candidate's expectations are in line with their budget. Well, that can easily be achieved by either the employer being up front with the salary range on offer, or by asking the candidate not for their actual previous salaries but for their expected salary. That's a whole different question and one which you as a candidate should be prepared to answer (although ideally, you'll avoid giving a direct answer to this question also - see below). Of course, if you do give an answer here, you should still respond with a range rather than a specific number to allow that all important wiggle room within negotiations if you get far enough into the application process.

Too many employers here seem to be expecting the candidate to do half of their job for them - i.e. to divulge information that is detrimental to the candidate and helps the employer make a hiring decision (especially in the negative direction - i.e. helping the employer to discount the candidate rather than offering reasons to hire).

Here's some very useful tips I've picked up over the years for answering the "What is your current salary?" question without actually divulging the salary information the employer so desperately seeks. Also, some great answers to the "What salary are you seeking?" question, too. For this, use the Noel Smith-Wenkle method which avoids giving a direct answer and naming a number - something that will instantly give the other party the upper hand in any salary negotiation.

So, when asked "What is your current salary?", answers are:
- "I'm seeking a salary in the range of $x to $y" (i.e. the Politician's answer - you answer a different question that what was asked).
- “My current employer does not allow me to discuss the terms of my employment”
- “This position is not exactly the same as my current job, so let’s discuss what my responsibilities would be here and then determine a fair salary for this job.”
or finally, for really pushy interviewers:
- “I’m happy to help you evaluate what I’d be worth to your business based upon my skills, experience and the value that I can add to your organisation, but my current salary is personal and confidential, just as the salaries of your own employees are.”

And the aforementioned Noel Smith-Wenkle method in a nutshell is that when asked "What salary are you seeking?" you give three answers for the number of times they repeat the question, or try to pin you down to mention a figure:

1st answer: "I am much more interested in doing (type of work) here at (name of company) than I am in the size of the initial offer."
2nd answer: "I will consider any reasonable offer."
3rd (and subsequent) answers: "You are in a much better position to know how much I'm worth to you than I am."

Re:They will find out

[Neuroelectronic]

I'm glad I don't have credit

Re:Fiction?

[__aaclcg7560]

I need to do that the next time I work in the private sector. Since I work in government IT, everyone outside of government thinks I'm being overpaid anyway.

Re:No

[__aaclcg7560]

Whenever recruiters from a particular agency calls me for an "interview," I told them to get lost. On the three occasions that I interviewed with them, they were more interested in the recruiters I've talked to before them and never offered the position that they had. If I'm doing an active job search where I'm talking to 30+ recruiters per day, I don't have time to spend half a day preparing to interview for a non-existent job position.

Re:It is a standard question, here is why. If you

[__aaclcg7560]

None of the Fortune 500 companies I've worked for in 20+ years has ever asked for my salary info or W2's from previous jobs. As an IT support contractor, I typically get a 40% salary increase when starting new contracts.

As a counter...

[thomn8r]

...ask them what they're paying their other employees.

Re:The work number

[thomn8r]

For shits and giggles, I looked up "The Work Number" and out of morbid curiosity, signed up. Holy shitsnacks they have a lot of information, and it was trivial for me to get it. A lot of the information they have is flat out wrong, but the most recent salary info they have for me is very current and correct.

Re:They will find out

[omnichad]

When you apply for a credit card, they usually ask for your current salary to help determine credit limits. Guess where that gets reported.

Re:The work number

[cwsumner]

So who did they "hack" to get it?? 8-{

Re: Donald Trump - RacistPresident Constitutional

[Coren22]

Funny, I seem to remember someone shutting down the government twice because he refused to sign the budget that was voted on and delivered to him. When the RNC tried to cut spending to some programs, all we heard about was the "terrorists" who were holding the government hostage, and refusals to do any negotiation.

Re:Donald Trump - RacistPresident Constitutional F

[Coren22]

Sure there are, every ThuRsday, FRiday, and SatuRday.