4 ms·

How the “what’s your current salary?” question hurts the gender pay gap

14 points by yla92 10y ago

deleted 10y ago
[deleted]
patio11 10y ago
At Google, recruiters typically ask about salary as a data point, but neither they nor hiring managers make decisions about pay. I would encourage everyone to: a) Consider what the likelihood is that Google, which exists to organize the world's information, solicits information from a candidate which it entirely does not care about b) Consider quoting to Google "It is my understanding that your salaries are set by your People Operations team. As such, my prior salary apparently doesn't get included in your calculation. Awesome -- no need to discuss it then." as one of your dodges for the salary question, which you should practically never answer.
- blazespin 10y ago
  the recruiter needs it because he needs to know if you're bother going to say yes to an offer. His/Her job is to help broker the gap between you and the organization. They do need to know. I'm sure google finds out about salary levels by simply making offers and recording rejections. It also probably means they are more open to negotiation than other organizations because they have fewer data points. The post actually seems very very authentic to me, as cynical as I am about the process. My guess is they put their money where their mouth is on this one.
  - Chris2048 10y ago
    It's common for a company to pay less/more depending on the candidate, ie DOE It's not common for a candidate to accept less/more depending on the job. As such, it seems more reasonable for the recruiter to state a range "$X-$Y" that they'd pay. No one can assume they'd pay $Y, because there no stated criteria for which level of experience they'd pay that much for. On the other hand, a candidate that specifies "$X-$Y" will likely get an offer of $X, because they've stated they'd be willing to go that low. Another way of stating this is - a candidate only has one product to sell. There's no expectation of getting more for paying more.
  - deleted 10y ago
    [deleted]
  - Chris2048 10y ago
    > the recruiter needs it because he needs to know if you're bother going to say yes to an offer Recruiters usually have roles to fill, rather than candidates they are trying to find roles for. They can give a range to a candidate, and ask if they'd be interested. They don't need to be given a number.
- sokoloff 10y ago
  One thing it would prevent is exactly the article you just commented on. I don't mind sharing my compensation information with prospective employers. It helps ensure that everyone is on roughly the same page. (If you are offering me substantially less than I make now, knowing that I'm happy in my current position, you might as well save both of our time and we can stop right here.)
  - bdavisx 10y ago
    But they don't need to know your current compensation, they only need to know what you require if you take a new job.
- dlor 10y ago
  I don't think he's saying Google doesn't care about the data, he's saying we don't use that data point when determining the compensation for that candidate. Disclosure: I'm a hiring manager at Google and I've never seen the current salary information for candidates.
supercanuck 10y ago
Why not find someone to replace Alexander and pay fhem $50,000?
jbmorgado 10y ago
Are there any data that actually confirms there is a real pay gap for people with the same aptitude in any given professional area? In the 1st world at least? Is that the closest study we have in this regard (http://www.economist.com/blogs/graphicdetail/2016/05/gender-pay-gap-0 http://www.economist.com/blogs/graphicdetail/2016/05/gender-... for instance) shows the real pay gap to be only 1.6% and that is not accounting for any other factors than formation and work time. That very small 1.6% can easily be explained by the higher amount of work leave time woman have for taking more sick days and for maternity (I'm not saying it's fair that woman are very slightly put back at work for maternity leave, it's clearly not, I'm just saying that the difference in the salary is very small in any case).
- loumf 10y ago
  The 3rd paragraph of the linked to article says: Indeed, in a recent paper, Cornell professors Francine Blau and Lawrence Kahn found that women were paid 79 cents for each dollar a man was paid. Even after adjusting for type of job, industry, experience, location and education, the gap remained 92 cents for each dollar. With a link to: http://ftp.iza.org/dp9656.pdf http://ftp.iza.org/dp9656.pdf
deleted 10y ago
[deleted]
pillowkusis 10y ago
As far as I know, there is no evidence to suggest that a gender gap exists for the same skill level in the same region performing the same job. Does anyone have evidence for this? And if not, the "gender pay gap" seems like a total non-issue. It is perfectly OK that women choose to go into jobs with lower salaries (as long as a man in that position would make the same).

14 points by yla92 10y ago

deleted 10y ago

[deleted]

At Google, recruiters typically ask about salary as a data point, but neither they nor hiring managers make decisions about pay. I would encourage everyone to: a) Consider what the likelihood is that Google, which exists to organize the world's information, solicits information from a candidate which it entirely does not care about b) Consider quoting to Google "It is my understanding that your salaries are set by your People Operations team. As such, my prior salary apparently doesn't get included in your calculation. Awesome -- no need to discuss it then." as one of your dodges for the salary question, which you should practically never answer.

blazespin 10y ago
the recruiter needs it because he needs to know if you're bother going to say yes to an offer. His/Her job is to help broker the gap between you and the organization. They do need to know. I'm sure google finds out about salary levels by simply making offers and recording rejections. It also probably means they are more open to negotiation than other organizations because they have fewer data points. The post actually seems very very authentic to me, as cynical as I am about the process. My guess is they put their money where their mouth is on this one.
- Chris2048 10y ago
  It's common for a company to pay less/more depending on the candidate, ie DOE It's not common for a candidate to accept less/more depending on the job. As such, it seems more reasonable for the recruiter to state a range "$X-$Y" that they'd pay. No one can assume they'd pay $Y, because there no stated criteria for which level of experience they'd pay that much for. On the other hand, a candidate that specifies "$X-$Y" will likely get an offer of $X, because they've stated they'd be willing to go that low. Another way of stating this is - a candidate only has one product to sell. There's no expectation of getting more for paying more.
- deleted 10y ago
  [deleted]
- Chris2048 10y ago
  > the recruiter needs it because he needs to know if you're bother going to say yes to an offer Recruiters usually have roles to fill, rather than candidates they are trying to find roles for. They can give a range to a candidate, and ask if they'd be interested. They don't need to be given a number.
sokoloff 10y ago
One thing it would prevent is exactly the article you just commented on. I don't mind sharing my compensation information with prospective employers. It helps ensure that everyone is on roughly the same page. (If you are offering me substantially less than I make now, knowing that I'm happy in my current position, you might as well save both of our time and we can stop right here.)
- bdavisx 10y ago
  But they don't need to know your current compensation, they only need to know what you require if you take a new job.
dlor 10y ago
I don't think he's saying Google doesn't care about the data, he's saying we don't use that data point when determining the compensation for that candidate. Disclosure: I'm a hiring manager at Google and I've never seen the current salary information for candidates.

supercanuck 10y ago

Why not find someone to replace Alexander and pay fhem $50,000?

jbmorgado 10y ago

Are there any data that actually confirms there is a real pay gap for people with the same aptitude in any given professional area? In the 1st world at least? Is that the closest study we have in this regard (http://www.economist.com/blogs/graphicdetail/2016/05/gender-pay-gap-0 http://www.economist.com/blogs/graphicdetail/2016/05/gender-... for instance) shows the real pay gap to be only 1.6% and that is not accounting for any other factors than formation and work time. That very small 1.6% can easily be explained by the higher amount of work leave time woman have for taking more sick days and for maternity (I'm not saying it's fair that woman are very slightly put back at work for maternity leave, it's clearly not, I'm just saying that the difference in the salary is very small in any case).

loumf 10y ago
The 3rd paragraph of the linked to article says: Indeed, in a recent paper, Cornell professors Francine Blau and Lawrence Kahn found that women were paid 79 cents for each dollar a man was paid. Even after adjusting for type of job, industry, experience, location and education, the gap remained 92 cents for each dollar. With a link to: http://ftp.iza.org/dp9656.pdf http://ftp.iza.org/dp9656.pdf

deleted 10y ago

[deleted]

pillowkusis 10y ago

As far as I know, there is no evidence to suggest that a gender gap exists for the same skill level in the same region performing the same job. Does anyone have evidence for this? And if not, the "gender pay gap" seems like a total non-issue. It is perfectly OK that women choose to go into jobs with lower salaries (as long as a man in that position would make the same).