35 ms·

Massachusetts Bans Employers from Asking Applicants About Previous Pay

1195 points by OhHeyItsE 10y ago

dudul 10y ago
Excellent measure. I remember interviewing at a very large corpo (think one of the main phone carriers), their application process online required applicants to reveal their salaries for the past 10 years. And before making an offer, they were asking for a W2 to make sure you were currently making what you claimed. Needless to say, I laughed at their face and walked. I assume this law won't apply to questions like "how much are you expecting to make?".
- wavefunction 10y ago
  There is a lot of salary data available for people through services offered by the credit bureaus. If they want to find out, they will.
  - dudul 10y ago
    I'm not saying otherwise. I just find it incredibly insulting to claim access to my taxes information even before making me an offer.
  - Spivak 10y ago
    Well duh, this law isn't trying to keep companies from knowing what the salary range for an industry is, they're trying to keep companies from taking advantage of (usually young) professionals who don't have the power to negotiate fair compensation.
    - wavefunction 10y ago
      I mean they know what your individual salaries have been at previous work-places. http://www.nbcnews.com/technology/exclusive-your-employer-may-share-your-salary-equifax-might-sell-1B8173066 http://www.nbcnews.com/technology/exclusive-your-employer-ma...
  - Cherian_Abraham 10y ago
    There isn't a service offered by a credit bureau that I know, which allows an employer or a lender to find out about a prospect's salary. Salary info is used for credit risk strategies, and only where applicable or allowed.
    - wavefunction 10y ago
      I just posted one offered by Experian in a reply to one of your sibling comments.
      - wavefunction 10y ago
        Sorry Equifax
      - HillaryBriss 10y ago
        I don't know how credible this is, but "The Work Number" (owned by Equifax) put this on an FAQ about this nefarious service: Can just anyone get my income information from The Work Number? No. You have to give someone authorization to get your income information from the service. There are numerous ways in which you can give someone authorization to access your income information. A few examples - by signing a borrower's authorization form when applying for a loan or by creating a salary key on our service, a one-time electronic signature. More at: http://www.theworknumber.com/Employees/Help/faq.asp?category=general http://www.theworknumber.com/Employees/Help/faq.asp?category...
  - deleted 10y ago
    [deleted]
  - aianus 10y ago
    > There is a lot of salary data available for people through services offered by the credit bureaus. This is based on self-reported data to creditors. I've never had a creditor verify my stated income in any way, they always waive in because my score is good enough.
    - wavefunction 10y ago
      I posted a link in one of the siblings to your comments, but this data results from employers giving/selling the data to Equifax for their The Work Number service. I have to say I'm surprised at the number of HN readers who are unaware about the availability of this data.
- tn13 10y ago
  Excellent measure only if the world worked by laws passed. Clearly the job market in Mass is very competitive and current salary is something that is helping employers make a better decision. Outlawing it only means top employers will have to rely on proxies where as low-end employers will violate the law nevertheless. On the ground it only makes things worse for both employees and employers.
  - bitJericho 10y ago
    I love it when companies violate the law during the interview process so I know what companies to avoid.
fdsaaf 10y ago
LOL. Massachusetts lawmakers passed this stupid, empty gesture but didn't ban noncompetes. Enjoy your technology non-industry, Massachusetts.
- swalsh 10y ago
  You seem like a nice guy
  - akshatpradhan 10y ago
    It feels like we may need a site-wide HN reminder about avoiding gratuitous negativity. Especially in our current heated climate. https://blog.ycombinator.com/new-hacker-news-guideline https://blog.ycombinator.com/new-hacker-news-guideline
- dudul 10y ago
  You got downvoted probably mostly for the form of your comment, but you're not wrong IMO. I wish MA would look into banning over-the-top non competes, and revisit the default IP regulation.
  - mackal 10y ago
    They are also wrong since MA still has one of the tech centers in the US... I do agree that banning non-competes would be good.
    - jbooth 10y ago
      There's probably something to the fact that it's biotech first, government contractor tech second and software startups third, though. Those employer-friendly and IP-friendly laws work a lot better for biotech's long product cycles and government contractors.. whatever it is about them.
      - ghaff 10y ago
        Although EMC is the company name that comes up repeatedly in its support for non-competes.
marme 10y ago
this wont really help much because they will still ask how much do you expect to make and people who have low salaries currently will say a low number that is just slightly higher than their current salary. They need to make it illegal to ask any salary questions prior to the company making an initial offer. I cant even understand why they would not just make it mandatory to reveal the salary range of the position at the beginning of the interview process. No company can make a valid argument for why they cant reveal a salary range to prospective employees other than we can pay them less if they dont know the range.
- bsilvereagle 10y ago
  > I cant even understand why they would not just make it mandatory to reveal the salary range of the position at the beginning of the interview process. Something of this nature would lead to the 'bait and switch' by companies with shady interview practices. Interview a candidate for a position with a $150k posted salary, then make an offer for a different position that is $100k and the company has deemed a better fit for the skill set.
- mhurron 10y ago
  > this wont really help much because they will still ask how much do you expect to make and people who have low salaries currently will say a low number Yes the person still needs to do their research to figure out what the job should actually pay.
dnautics 10y ago
This may have the opposite effect as intended, as men are more likely to apply to a job that has a lower upfront compensation and try to negotiate the price upward.
inlined 10y ago
Candidates "may" offer this information upfront? I feel like I'm watching Office Space "Am I supposed to tell you my salary before even hearing your initial offer?" "Some employees choose to offer salary information, and we encourage that"
- dudul 10y ago
  "We want you to join us for the mission, not for the money. Be a team player and share your salary with us!"
  - IThoughtYouGNU 10y ago
    It makes me sad how accurate this is.
  - CapitalistCartr 10y ago
    "Yeah, and of course you'll share equity and strategic decision-making with me." Employers, executives, managers all love to move their problems onto the employees.
  - theorique 10y ago
    "We're into changing the world - we don't care about petty things like money" (CEO who owns 25% of the company)
  - azakai 10y ago
    That would be illegal according to this law, I think.
- fdsaaf 10y ago
  That's why the measure comes across as empty pandering. (Hint: you can tell it's pandering because all the rationale is gender gap bullshit instead of the job application process being shitty for everyone.) If Massachusetts really wanted to improve the strength of employees with respect to employers, the legislature would do things like ban non-competes, ban non-solicits, clarify IP assignment rules, and ban mandatory binding arbitration clauses. But what do we get instead? Identity politics pandering.
markonthewall 10y ago
I love the US and California, the tech scene is amazing and I was lucky to met such talented and friendly people in about every place I worked... from very large tech cos to "garage" startups. Which is why it pains me to see that so many engineers get stuck with such ridiculous salaries (relative to the value and wealth they provide and create). Problem is that some salaries are seemingly high compared to what the average worker does in the country but ridiculously to what they would look like if engineers were allowed to capture a greater (that is a >0.01%) percentage of the added value they CREATE. Most, from the freshly out-of-school to the senior engineer with glowing reviews are getting scammed because they get paid just enough to live a comfortable life but not nearly enough to what they are worth and what they would need to consolidate their place in the upper middle class. I had one company acquired by a large tech co. Probably going to start another one soon, I won't commit the same mistake twice... engineers need their fair share. They are the one creating things, they are the one on the front line and we should not get satiated by the crumbles we are left with.
- duaneb 10y ago
  Developers are just another means—we're not wizards. We are a commodity, and if you don't recognize that you're in for a hard midlife crisis. Do you really expect to make any money without taking the risk of deciding what to build? How it's constructed is a (admittedly time-consuming and distracting) detail—only a small aspect of the company's value. Risk and comfort are tradeoffs. If you want to live without risk, you'll have to be satisfied with whatever salary you can negotiate as a commodity.
  - dudul 10y ago
    But a good engineer will have a say in what to build, not only how to build it. Otherwise all dev work could just be outsourced. IMO, the role of a good engineer is to deeply understand the business/domain to provide good insight in regards to what to build.
    - duaneb 10y ago
      > Otherwise all dev work could just be outsourced. The value of American engineers is their ability to a) speak english well, b) show up at the office, and c) swallow large amounts of debt for college to ease hiring. So I'm not sure how outsourcing plays into this at all. I have never before heard of someone expressing a desire to hire a product manager/marketer/sales/brand strategist/designer because they're a good engineer. It actually shocked me you would consider skills involved related at all. I would not expect this from an engineer, and it would make hiring one immensely difficult. That's more the type of skill that leads to starting your own company.
siculars 10y ago
This. Negotiating a compensation package, in general, is asymmetric information warfare. Having to reveal your salary history you may as well not even negotiate. I know so many women who are constantly bit by this and negotiating in general. Here's an idea: compensation agents who negotiate the compensation package on your behalf. Athletes and actors have them, why not everyone else?
- lewisl9029 10y ago
  > Here's an idea: compensation agents who negotiate the compensation package on your behalf. Athletes and actors have them, why not everyone else? I'd definitely be willing to pay for something like this. Make it commission based (pay as a percentage of additional salary negotiated) and the incentives between the negotiator and client will be perfectly aligned.
  - dsp1234 10y ago
    the incentives between the negotiator and client will be perfectly aligned. I'm not sure that this is the case when talking about such low amounts. Taking hints from a similar "agent with percentage", think real estate agents. Unless an agent is working with pretty high level homes, the 3% they are getting is not significantly effected by a something like 20k up or down on a $300k house. It's an extra $600, but often their time is better spent getting the deal closed as quickly as possible for as many people as possible. If that $20k for the client takes an extra few days the haggle, the agent could have been working with another client on another $300k house deal. In both cases, the thing that throws the agent and client out of alignment is the fact that the deals come through very infrequently, thus from the agent's perspective, they need to keep clients hustled through the door in order to be able to keep their own cash flow going, and working extra hard for a minimal gain isn't going to generally effect future gains. Most engineers would just use the same agent regardless unless the agent was spectacularly bad. (and there are way more rules for real estate agents than there would be for a hypothetical engineer's agent)
    - mindslight 10y ago
ajeet_dhaliwal 10y ago
This is desperately needed in the UK, the recruiters (external) here won't even let you proceed if you don't reveal it.
- crdoconnor 10y ago
  This wasn't my experience. Only a few recruiters asked and when told "no" they didn't ask why or ask again. Generally you don't want to work for the companies that demand it either.
  - ajeet_dhaliwal 10y ago
    Where are you based? I'm in London and it's gotten so bad for me I only apply direct now so I can ask for a specific number that I would like. I no longer take calls or reply to external recruiters because so far they all tell me they won't proceed unless I tell them my precious salary despite myselr having told them what I want to make in the new role. Even if the company is willing to pay what I want they insist on knowing. I just say thanks but no thanks.
    - crdoconnor 10y ago
      London also. I'm not a recent graduate though, and I only do contract roles.
      - ajeet_dhaliwal 10y ago
        I'm experienced/senior too but I usually look for permanents so may be that is the why we have been treated differently.
      - ionised 10y ago
        Have any advice on getting started in contracting in the UK? Currently working for a medium-sized company in the NW but open to moving.
- petepete 10y ago
justinlardinois 10y ago
Good. To be honest asking about previous salary is offensive, and only helps employers take advantage of employees who aren't tactful enough to refuse to answer.
euphoria83 10y ago
This is so needed in California. My past personal experience and my friends' experience in the Bay Area shows how hard the recruiters can push for the current salary. What they are saying is that we will give you a 10% raise from your current salary, but not what you and we can agree on is your market price. This is so against letting the markets figure it out.
- paulddraper 10y ago
  This is precisely letting the markets figuring it out. Those who offer at most 10% increase when a person's value is 50% higher will find themselves missing the good employees and ultimately, failing. --- An example: How much do I offer for this house? I have have no friggin' clue. But I can look at previous sale prices to get an rough idea. Naturally, I if trust my decision to that 100%, I'll risk making a poor decision. But the previous sales are a piece of information about the market that I ought not ignore.
  - nkurz 10y ago
    > How much do I offer for this house? I like the example, but wouldn't it be more parallel to ask "How much have you offered for other houses?" or "How much did your previous house sell for?". The seller would love to know that you are capable of offering more, but you are (properly?) reluctant to give this information. > But the previous sales are a piece of information about the market that I ought not ignore. I don't think there is any dispute that this is valuable information to the person doing the hiring. The question is whether it is fair to the person being hired to be asked this question. Despite the theoretical disadvantage to the business, the current result seems to be that those who are historically disadvantaged will remain disadvantaged, while those who started out with an advantage will be disproportionally rewarded.
    - paulddraper 10y ago
      Your proposed parallel is backwards. The house is for sale to the buyer; the employee's time and skills are for sale to the employer. So those question would be more like "How much do you pay other employees?" or "How much have you offered other candidates?" You can ask those questions. Some employers are upfront, even posting salary ranges in the job ad itself. Other employers will decline to share that information. Either side can reveal as much or as little information about their employment history as they choose. Curtailing freedoms is a heavy-handed act, despite the theoretical advantage to candidates.
news_to_me 10y ago
How weird, I just read a really interesting article about pay disclosure, esp. regarding women's pay: http://www.wired.com/2015/05/im-terrified-tell-people-much-make/ http://www.wired.com/2015/05/im-terrified-tell-people-much-m... I'm a big advocate for salary transparency, but I share that author's struggle - what's the best way to ethically disclose my salary to my coworkers, or publicly?
qaid 10y ago
I got bit by this at my current job. I didn't remember telling them my salary at my previous company (usually I decline to answer), but my manager brought it up when I was trying to negotiate an extra 5k. It's unfortunate that I must've told them my base salary when applying online and that I didn't do a proper negotiation afterwards. My new company doesn't give out stocks of any kind, so overall I'm making less.
- adamio 10y ago
  I've run into quite a few applications that won't let you continue past the salary history without entering something. Its definitely a dark pattern for job applications
  - uremog 10y ago
    Might be able to get away with an improper input though. 0? 0000000? 999999999999? N/A?
    - brianwawok 10y ago
      Sure but they auto trash apps outside the range 50k to 100k...
bargl 10y ago
I hate this question. I frequently dodge or outright deny answering it. I won't lie about it, I just say, no you don't get that information. To dodge this question I say the following: "I'm looking for compensation in the range of xxxx to XXXX. This obviously depends on the benefits packages, for an awesome benefits package you may be closer to xxxx, if your benefits are bad then you'll need to be closer to XXXX." If they persist I follow up with, "I gave you my range if that isn't enough for you then I'm sorry but I'll have to pass, I don't disclose my current salary to any recruiters." This has worked really well for me in the past.
- vivekpreddy 10y ago
  I've been recruiting for a few years now, and I've always hated asking how much someone is making currently. Have always found it better to ask "what are your compensation expectations?" Puts the ball in the candidate's court and I prefer asking this early in conversations as to make sure we're aligned and no one wastes each others time.
  - dudul 10y ago
    Why not disclose the budget you are working with and ask the candidate if it's in line with their expectations?
    - Anasufovic 10y ago
      First person to talk numbers generally has the weak hand in the negotiation.
      - JamesBarney 10y ago
        Most negotiation experts disagree with this advice. The first person who gives a number anchors the conversation to that number. When you name a number you certainly do set a max on negotiation, but you also get to set the starting number. And many negotiation experts think the latter is more valuable than the former. So they can start off trying to negotiate you down from your max, or up you can spend your time trying to negotiate them up from their min.
djb_hackernews 10y ago
I'm from MA and I think this is a great piece of legislation. I'd like to take it a step further and some day see a service where people can submit verified wage data to and access this wage data when they are negotiating employment terms. My employer uses wage data from a survey they buy for several thousands of dollars when it comes negotiation time. The wage data is reported by other employers and includes wage data from companies across the country. I think it would help level the playing field when it comes to negotiations for anyone that is in that position because as it is now, even with this piece of legislation, employers have the upper hand.
Animats 10y ago
"Companies will not be allowed to prohibit their workers from telling others how much they are paid." Companies are not allowed to do that now. That's Federal labor law, and it's been prohibited since 1935.[1] This only applies to employees, not contractors. [1] https://www.dol.gov/wb/media/pay_secrecy.pdf https://www.dol.gov/wb/media/pay_secrecy.pdf
- elicash 10y ago
  This adds additional penalties at the state level. I'm not a lawyer, but it appears to me to give a $1000 fine.
up_and_up 10y ago
Feel free to tell them what you make just add 15-40% to that number. This has worked well for me. Employers seem happy as well. Example: Assuming your current salary is X. "So I currently make (X * 1.20), but in order to make the jump I need at least (X * 1.40)." That way they get to feel out immediately whether they can afford you, you get the salary that would motivate you, and no one is wasting time in the hiring process. Keep in mind many employers wont want to pay you more than 8-10% more than what you "currently make" unless they are incredibly motivated to hire you and you alone.
- skolos 10y ago
  Works well until an employer does due diligence (ask for proof of your number). In my experience many (not all) do due diligence.
  - mandlar 10y ago
    How are they going to verify your current salary? Do companies really go out of their way to do that?
    - chipperyman573 10y ago
      They can just ask for a paystub.
      - IshKebab 10y ago
        Not anymore!
        knd775 10y ago
        At least, not in Massachusetts.
        thavalai 10y ago
        I got excited about this, as I live in MA and seriously considering a change, until I read the part that it doesn't go into effect until July 2018.
tmaly 10y ago
how would this prevent an external recruiter from asking? What if the company has an office just over the MA border where they hire then later relocate the employee to MA?
estrabd 10y ago
In the past I have always declined, no one has ever pressed it. I even have refused to define a minimum salary or salary requirement. Let them tell me what I am worth. Giving any of that information always seemed like a move that put me at a disadvantage.
ktRolster 10y ago
I never tell people anyway. I slightly evade the question and say, (in a somewhat annoyed tone), "I'm looking for something in the $X range," where $X is higher than what I actually want. So far, that's worked out fine, since that is the information they actually want to know.
- paulddraper 10y ago
  Exactly. This should get you a long way. If it's really a deal-breaker (maybe standard red tape or other BS), I say "My previous/current salary is $W, but I'm looking for $X." After all, there is a reason you're leaving your current employer, right?
__abc 10y ago
I never ask the question, "what did you make", but "what do you want to make". More often specifically preface with, "do not tell me what you make".
drawkbox 10y ago
Massachusetts is doing some good steps to better the work environment and entrepreneurship. This is a nice to have in negotiations and MA challenging non-competes are great things to change[1]. Non-competes are extremely anti-innovation, anti-worker, anti-business and really anti-American. Workers that are skilled cannot be owned. Good knowledgable workers should be compensated to keep them around, not fear of legal threat of using skills they developed. Non-competes need to go away everywhere. [1] http://fortune.com/2016/06/30/massachusetts-non-compete-passes/ http://fortune.com/2016/06/30/massachusetts-non-compete-pass...
- lsllc 10y ago
  Sadly, the MA house & senate couldn't reconcile their two versions of the non-compete bill and it died in committee: https://www.bostonglobe.com/business/2016/07/31/noncompete-changes-founder-legislature-frantic-end/W0rbVNv2Cqe0dCScOVD5SI/story.html https://www.bostonglobe.com/business/2016/07/31/noncompete-c... These reform attempts have been going on for years in MA and never make it into law.
  - exhilaration 10y ago
    California's Chamber of Commerce should buy billboard space outside of MIT and Harvard highlighting this, it's a huge incentive for new grads to move to California instead of taking jobs in Massachusetts.
    - dragonwriter 10y ago
      > California's Chamber of Commerce should buy billboard space outside of MIT and Harvard highlighting this Since employers (who make up the CoC) in California often try to get people to sign non-competes that are unenforceable in California, and to restrain their behavior after having signed them based on the misperception that the agreement is enforceable, its unlikely that the CoC would trumpet publicly the fact that such agremeents are not enforceable in CA as a positive thing.
- mindvirus 10y ago
squozzer 10y ago
I am not sure of the utility of asking the salary question anyway. A credit check which is usually part of the pre-offer paper chase will provide an employer with plenty of info for determining your current burn rate.
- Artlav 10y ago
  Interesting, i thought this sort of research was done after the offer, when you are in process of doing the paperwork to get in? And AFAIK a lot of people don't have any credit history, so this does not sound useful anyway.
VladKovac 10y ago
What are the chances that in this particular case, enforcing noise in the data actually leads to better economic results? Technically less information can lead imperfect human reasoners to more rational allocation of resources, but you'd have to do a lot more work to prove that to me than some policymaker's "feeling".
astoellis 10y ago
No one mentions that this isn't officially implemented until 2018. Don't go into interviews expecting this to be law, and definitely use the strategies that other users have pointed out.
nostromo 10y ago
Might this be unconstitutional under the first amendment?
bcheung 10y ago
I started off with a really low salary because I was working as a developer outside the SF bay area and in an industry that paid really low. Then moved to the bay area. Every company or recruiter tries to place you at maybe 5% to 10% more than your current job. There was a time when I was just hopping from job to job to increase my salary. If there wasn't this convention of paying someone the same I wouldn't have switched so many jobs. There are plenty of places I wanted to stick around but got a much higher offer somewhere else so I pretty much had to switch. My salary is more than 400% what it was 10 years ago. I feel that I have finally reached market value and have a salary I am happy with. It would have been nice if it was based on supply / demand and how well I interviewed. That being said, I'm not sure I agree with this law. I like the outcome but not the implementation. Having a law that says you can't ask someone something seems to violate Freedom of Speech and it sets a dangerous precedent.
- ohitsdom 10y ago
  "Having a law that says you can't ask someone something seems to violate Freedom of Speech and it sets a dangerous precedent." Like your age, religion, sexual orientation, or if you're planning on getting pregnant?
  - bcheung 10y ago
    I'm fine with the not discriminating part, it's the asking part I'm concerned with. It seems like censorship and going against Freedom of Speech to me. A better law would be that employers may not discriminate or refuse to hire someone if they refuse to tell them their previous salary. Specificity is key, just saying you can't ask feels too overreaching. The intent is to prevent discrimination, not speech.
    - hx87 10y ago
      We can't effectively legislate thought yet, although that hasn't stopped legislatures from trying and lawyers from making loads of money arguing over intent. It's incredibly difficult, inefficient and expensive to determine whether an asked question led to a discriminatory decision, so asking is prohibited instead.
jxramos 10y ago
Does this sort of information get revealed in background checks for previous places of employment or is that a privacy thing? Also is it really necessary for a state to dictate such things? Is it too much pressure for someone to respectfully decline to answer such a question and practice some negotiation skills? What exactly is the state's interest in this sort of thing precisely?
- mfringel 10y ago
  Having it stipulated by the state means that people who have less leverage to decline to answer such questions have the power of the state behind them.
- tastynacho 10y ago
  No it doesn't come back in a background check. The only thing that comes back is your title and employment dates. That is actually how I've avoided all those annoying salary negotiations. Lie about how much I make, let them offer me slightly above that and gladly accept.
  - deleted 10y ago
    [deleted]
intrasight 10y ago
Are you a star? If not, then you have very little leverage in negotiating compensation. That is true across professions: Rock Star, Sports Star, Sales Star, Surgical Star, you name it. Next ask if stars are made or born. If born, then you're out of luck again - until you are reincarnate. If made, then learn from how others made themselves stars. Like many things in life, it helps to start young, and it often comes down to luck. If your plan is not to achieve fame and fortune via stardom, then pursue it through more accessible means like being a doctor or lawyer or banker or businessperson. Being an engineer or scientist can be a stepping-stone, but if you stay on that stone then there is a slim chance of achieving star power.
- Tideflat 10y ago
  Not all markets are superstar markets. Some places the 100th best worker is about just as good as the best worker, like for janitors.
  - intrasight 10y ago
    First, I beg to differ your "like for janitors" statement. In almost every profession there is a large difference between the top performers and the average. But your statement "Not all markets are superstar markets" is exactly the point of my post - engineering is not a superstar market, and hence engineers will never have much compensation leverage.
nkrisc 10y ago
This is good legislation. Hopefully this is legislation that we will no longer need in the future. Good government doesn't always mean smaller government. It gets smaller when it needs to and sometimes larger when it needs to.
Artlav 10y ago
How common is this question? Over here in Russia asking how much you make is often considered a taboo, or a bad tone. I've never been or heard about this being asked at the interviews.
- brianwawok 10y ago
  In the us between 98 and 99% of interviews. Salary is very taboo w friends and family. But when interviewing it nearly always comes up.
  - romanovcode 10y ago
    Not sure about friends and family. In Europe AFAIK it's not taboo at all and people are completely normal and open about it.
throwaway201607 10y ago
I love the new law, sad to see it based on a false premise: http://www.forbes.com/sites/karinagness/2016/04/12/dont-buy-into-the-gender-pay-gap-myth http://www.forbes.com/sites/karinagness/2016/04/12/dont-buy-...
- chug 10y ago
  I think at most it's an exaggerated premise, not false. There's tons of evidence that it does exist, though there is much debate over what exactly the percentage of the gap is. It's hard to find "the gap doesn't exist at all" evidence outside of certain think tanks or opinion pieces.
devishard 10y ago
This is interesting, especially given that many people lie about previous pay in order to get a higher pay. It's an extremely effective strategy.
pauljaworski 10y ago
I've never understood why this question is such a big deal for people. When asked what you made at your last job, you should just give the number you would like to make at this new job.
- nkurz 10y ago
  Some people place an intrinsic value on honesty, and dislike being forced into situations where the advantage is given to brazen liars. I upvoted you since I think this is a topic worth discussing, and probably many others share your view, but I personally find your lack of compunction reprehensible.
  - pauljaworski 10y ago
    I appreciate your honesty! I say that's what you "should" do, because I think it's the most logical way to respond to that question. That doesn't mean I wouldn't feel guilty about lying, and I've never actually had to do it, so I'm not sure how I would realistically respond in the situation. In my case, my total compensation at my last job is far more than I could expect to earn at a new job anyway, ha!
throwAway295 10y ago
Here's a question I've wondered for a long time -- replies appreciated!: Is there any legal risk in lying about your current/past salary? I'm not talking ethically. That's a different discussion.
- hellogoodbyeeee 10y ago
  I have seen that some employers ask for documentation of past salary. I don't think you will have any legal ramifications. Only they might rescind their offer or later fire you if they find out you lied
r0m4n0 10y ago
I applied and soon after worked as an engineer for a large company that not only asked for my previous compensation but part of the application process involved my employer validating that I actually made what I told them. They worked with a third party to match my figures with W2 statements and/or pay stubs. It was really intrusive. Pay should equate to value, not some silly ladder climb
- jimcsharp 10y ago
  Yeesh. That's when you go along and let them pay for the audit before bailing.
- jrockway 10y ago
  The problem is that they must have too many qualified engineers applying, and they need an arbitrary way to filter people out. I almost managed to write that with a straight face.
  - x0x0 10y ago
    yahoo did this to me. Verifying employment is one thing (I guess...), but their background check thing wanted exact salaries too, and permission to ask HR at all my previous employers. Is this common? I've worked for small companies so haven't run into anything like this elsewhere. Except for one asshole that wanted to do a reference check two weeks after I started work (!!!) (he offered me a job at the end of the interview with a 24 hour time limit and had me start 3 days later; I had already left the previous employer so it suited me well enough at the time), and was unhappy when I told him what he could do with himself.
    - mixmastamyk 10y ago
      I worked for Y and did the bg check and did not give salaries, I never do. Wasn't a problem.
    - pc86 10y ago
      > Verifying employment is one thing (I guess...) Why are you reluctant about a company being able to verify that you worked where and when you said you did?
tn13 10y ago
I don't like bans but whenever people asked me about my current pay I told them it is confidential and I should be judged based on what you are willing to pay rather than what I am making. My first job change gave me 2X the salary.
kevin_b_er 10y ago
At will employment. The company may change the salary at any time. They can just employ them, then immediately seek their salary history, then _alter_ their salary based on it. If a whole lot of companies coordinate to do it together, then the system is bypassed rather easily.
seehafer 10y ago
Would love to hear the opinions of founders who hated this practice as employees now they're on the other side of the table. Personally I've always had a strict salary/comp band in place for each position, but having never had a company with > 25 people, I wonder at what point that breaks down.
shanacarp 10y ago
First thought Finally! Jobs are worth what the market bears right then, not what they were previously worth, so why do employers want to ask such demeaning questions Second thought Boy, all of those recruiting/hr programs are going to need to be re-written to comply. A lot require you to say what you've been paid at every previous job. Since they are sold nationally, all of those HR departments will need that one field stripped out to now comply to MA law.
mancerayder 10y ago
Where does the law sit on recruiters asking that question? Because they're the ones who've loved asking me that one. I see a loophole forming before my eyes.
mancerayder 10y ago
Where does the law sit on recruiters asking that question? Because they're the ones who've loved asking me that one. I see a loophole forming before my eyes.
mixmastamyk 10y ago
I've read a few anecdotes here about fumbling the question. Let me tell you the magic words, "Sorry, that's confidential (it really is), I'm looking for $X."
- switch007 10y ago
  My contract states I'm not allowed to disclose such information. And I'm pretty sure their contract will say the same.
atom-morgan 10y ago
If an employer asks for your previous salary decline and threaten to walk. It's not that hard. Learning how to handle these situations is an acquired skill. Learn it.
stevebmark 10y ago
By the way, if a new employer asks this, you don't have to answer them. You can politely say "I'd prefer not to share my previous salary with you." If you're at this point in the discussion this isn't likely to hurt your chances of being hired.
GirlsCanCode 10y ago
To solve a mythical problem, employers now have one more restriction on hiring. Pretty soon the government will just select a person at random and order companies to provide him or her a job for life.
maxxxxx 10y ago
One of my coworkers just got hired by one of the big Silicon Valley companies and he said that the company knew his salary down to the cent without him disclosing it. Does anybody know how they could have found out? Could this be part of the background check?
blazespin 10y ago
non compete is far more valuable.
- emodendroket 10y ago
  I don't disagree, but that doesn't necessarily mean this is a bad idea. The difficult part is enforcement, of course.
xiaoma 10y ago
The part of this that looks more important than forbidding recruiters from asking about previous pay is this: >"And the law will require equal pay not just for workers whose jobs are alike, but also for those whose work is of “comparable character” or who work in “comparable operations.” Workers with more seniority will still be permitted to earn higher pay, but the law effectively broadens the definition of what is equal work." I suspect the result will be to flatten wages everywhere except the most easily quantifiable, thus legally defensible, cases. Sales people will still make a commission on what they sell and have a huge gap in their earnings, but it will become much harder to reward rare engineering talents or even people who work on their craft recreationally.
- WalterBright 10y ago
  It also means that pay will be determined by judges, not markets, as it is an impossible to define concept. More of the economy will get sucked up into litigation. Comparable Worth is another incarnation of the Labor Theory of Value, which has long been discredited. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Labor_theory_of_value https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Labor_theory_of_value
- deleted 10y ago
  [deleted]
- danielweber 10y ago
  This is a big problem that I hope doesn't swamp the benefits of making salary private. Employers might have to prove in a court of law that I'm worth more than another employee? This could really really suck.
WalterBright 10y ago
I suspect this law may backfire. It's hard enough determining what a prospective employee may be worth to a company, and the salary history is used as a proxy. Take that out of play, and the risk is higher in hiring the candidate. Higher risk means lower pay offers, not higher.
- twblalock 10y ago
  In a similar vein, there is evidence that laws which forbid employers from asking about applicants' criminal records on job applications significantly increase hiring discrimination toward blacks: http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2795795 http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2795795 This happens because many employers assume blacks have a criminal record, and asking the question tends to exonerate those who do not, rather than penalize those who do. The default assumption means that things can't get worse if the question is asked, but they can get better. This law only banned asking the question, not running a background check. But employers don't even get that far, because they presumably do not want to pay for a background check on an applicant they assume has a criminal record. Of course, this law was intended to have the opposite of its actual effect.
WalterBright 10y ago
> a group of female cafeteria workers who filed a lawsuit in 1991 seeking parity with male janitors, who did comparable work, the cafeteria workers said, but were paid significantly more. You'd have to pay me more to do janitorial work than cafeteria work. Cleaning bathrooms is dangerous, dirty work.
kc10 10y ago
What's the use? Employer: We are willing to make an offer to you. We will offer a base pay of $125k. Employee: what? I am already making $150k with my current employer. Employer: Oh..we can't ask your current salary..so we just threw a number at the lower end to see if you would accept.
martin1975 10y ago
If Hillary wins, you'll also be able to ask about your peers' salary, legally - not sure to what extent of course, probably won't apply if you're asking for a level higher than yours - so that the "glass ceiling" might be broken, meaning women in the same job w/the same quals/experience should make the same as men. My wife found out through a colleague who's a friend of hers as well that he made 10k over her, same experience/qualifications/title....
- pluma 10y ago
  If Obama wins, Guantanamo and CIA blacksites will be shut down. Oh, wait, presidential candidates' promises aren't worth anything.
josh_fyi 10y ago
If asked, say "My previous contract prohibits sharing compensation details [as it probably does], and I take my commitments very seriously."
- ionised 10y ago
  Is that actually a thing that can exist in employment contracts? Because it would be a great way to shut down anyone asking about your salary. If it's not then they're going know you're just trying to avoid answering the question.
  - josh_fyi 10y ago
    As far as I know it is quite common.
known 10y ago
Can an employee ask employer's debt details?
barnacs 10y ago
It pains me to see that people can't apply common sense without law anymore. If a potential employer asks about my previous salary, I refuse to answer. Similarly, it never even occured to me to hide my salary from my coworkers regardless of what my employer asked me to do. Needless to say, if any employer has a problem with that, I definitely don't want to spend 8+ hours of my day with them.
- danielweber 10y ago
  Right now, it is an applicant's ballgame, because our skills are highly valued. What happens if that is no longer the situation?
  - barnacs 10y ago
    I'll try to keep my response short. Ideally, everyone should be working for something they actually believe in and everyone should work with people whose skillset is valuable to achieve their common goal. If there is no mutual respect and at least a minimum level of decency and each party of the employment contract is just chasing their own gains then we end up in this sad situation where laws are needed to lay out and enforce the rules of even basic human interaction. That's why it pains me to see this.
rajeshp1986 10y ago
I think is a great step. I work for a big company and has been around for 4 years. when I joined this company, my salary was on par (also justified as per my previous salary). We saw a tremendous amount of growth in the technology and the team has grown by 20X. The people joining now are getting far better salary because either their current salary is high and they negotiate on that OR the company is ready to pay more for filling up the positions. But I feel very bad when I think of it, the employees who laid the foundations got very small hike over the years and I feel underpaid now. Also, I was the member who laid the foundation of the team and created the initial reputation which was required. Salary negotiations based on previous salaries are just plain idiocracy. I have co-workers who are excellent in terms of the skillset and the value they create but they come from either smaller cities where the pay was not great or from startups which didn't pay very well in the early days. These people suffer a lot even though they know that their counterparts who come from large companies and had good salaries get paid almost 1.5-2X.
brodo 10y ago
Any change to the bargaining process will not fix the gender pay gap, as it is no significant factor. There is an excellent Freakonomics episode about it: http://freakonomics.com/podcast/the-true-story-of-the-gender-pay-gap-a-new-freakonomics-radio-podcast/ http://freakonomics.com/podcast/the-true-story-of-the-gender...
- pluma 10y ago
  Of course not. But if feminism can be abused to improve workers' rights in the US, that's good enough, isn't it?
horsehidebag 10y ago
This law goes in effect in two years!?
horsehidebag 10y ago
This law goes in effect in two years?!

1195 points by OhHeyItsE 10y ago

dudul 10y ago

Excellent measure. I remember interviewing at a very large corpo (think one of the main phone carriers), their application process online required applicants to reveal their salaries for the past 10 years. And before making an offer, they were asking for a W2 to make sure you were currently making what you claimed. Needless to say, I laughed at their face and walked. I assume this law won't apply to questions like "how much are you expecting to make?".

wavefunction 10y ago
There is a lot of salary data available for people through services offered by the credit bureaus. If they want to find out, they will.
- dudul 10y ago
  I'm not saying otherwise. I just find it incredibly insulting to claim access to my taxes information even before making me an offer.
- Spivak 10y ago
  Well duh, this law isn't trying to keep companies from knowing what the salary range for an industry is, they're trying to keep companies from taking advantage of (usually young) professionals who don't have the power to negotiate fair compensation.
  - wavefunction 10y ago
    I mean they know what your individual salaries have been at previous work-places. http://www.nbcnews.com/technology/exclusive-your-employer-may-share-your-salary-equifax-might-sell-1B8173066 http://www.nbcnews.com/technology/exclusive-your-employer-ma...
- Cherian_Abraham 10y ago
  There isn't a service offered by a credit bureau that I know, which allows an employer or a lender to find out about a prospect's salary. Salary info is used for credit risk strategies, and only where applicable or allowed.
  - wavefunction 10y ago
    I just posted one offered by Experian in a reply to one of your sibling comments.
    - wavefunction 10y ago
      Sorry Equifax
    - HillaryBriss 10y ago
      I don't know how credible this is, but "The Work Number" (owned by Equifax) put this on an FAQ about this nefarious service: Can just anyone get my income information from The Work Number? No. You have to give someone authorization to get your income information from the service. There are numerous ways in which you can give someone authorization to access your income information. A few examples - by signing a borrower's authorization form when applying for a loan or by creating a salary key on our service, a one-time electronic signature. More at: http://www.theworknumber.com/Employees/Help/faq.asp?category=general http://www.theworknumber.com/Employees/Help/faq.asp?category...
- deleted 10y ago
  [deleted]
- aianus 10y ago
  > There is a lot of salary data available for people through services offered by the credit bureaus. This is based on self-reported data to creditors. I've never had a creditor verify my stated income in any way, they always waive in because my score is good enough.
  - wavefunction 10y ago
    I posted a link in one of the siblings to your comments, but this data results from employers giving/selling the data to Equifax for their The Work Number service. I have to say I'm surprised at the number of HN readers who are unaware about the availability of this data.
tn13 10y ago
Excellent measure only if the world worked by laws passed. Clearly the job market in Mass is very competitive and current salary is something that is helping employers make a better decision. Outlawing it only means top employers will have to rely on proxies where as low-end employers will violate the law nevertheless. On the ground it only makes things worse for both employees and employers.
- bitJericho 10y ago
  I love it when companies violate the law during the interview process so I know what companies to avoid.

fdsaaf 10y ago

LOL. Massachusetts lawmakers passed this stupid, empty gesture but didn't ban noncompetes. Enjoy your technology non-industry, Massachusetts.

swalsh 10y ago
You seem like a nice guy
- akshatpradhan 10y ago
  It feels like we may need a site-wide HN reminder about avoiding gratuitous negativity. Especially in our current heated climate. https://blog.ycombinator.com/new-hacker-news-guideline https://blog.ycombinator.com/new-hacker-news-guideline
dudul 10y ago
You got downvoted probably mostly for the form of your comment, but you're not wrong IMO. I wish MA would look into banning over-the-top non competes, and revisit the default IP regulation.
- mackal 10y ago
  They are also wrong since MA still has one of the tech centers in the US... I do agree that banning non-competes would be good.
  - jbooth 10y ago
    There's probably something to the fact that it's biotech first, government contractor tech second and software startups third, though. Those employer-friendly and IP-friendly laws work a lot better for biotech's long product cycles and government contractors.. whatever it is about them.
    - ghaff 10y ago
      Although EMC is the company name that comes up repeatedly in its support for non-competes.

marme 10y ago

this wont really help much because they will still ask how much do you expect to make and people who have low salaries currently will say a low number that is just slightly higher than their current salary. They need to make it illegal to ask any salary questions prior to the company making an initial offer. I cant even understand why they would not just make it mandatory to reveal the salary range of the position at the beginning of the interview process. No company can make a valid argument for why they cant reveal a salary range to prospective employees other than we can pay them less if they dont know the range.

bsilvereagle 10y ago
> I cant even understand why they would not just make it mandatory to reveal the salary range of the position at the beginning of the interview process. Something of this nature would lead to the 'bait and switch' by companies with shady interview practices. Interview a candidate for a position with a $150k posted salary, then make an offer for a different position that is $100k and the company has deemed a better fit for the skill set.
mhurron 10y ago
> this wont really help much because they will still ask how much do you expect to make and people who have low salaries currently will say a low number Yes the person still needs to do their research to figure out what the job should actually pay.

dnautics 10y ago

This may have the opposite effect as intended, as men are more likely to apply to a job that has a lower upfront compensation and try to negotiate the price upward.

inlined 10y ago

Candidates "may" offer this information upfront? I feel like I'm watching Office Space "Am I supposed to tell you my salary before even hearing your initial offer?" "Some employees choose to offer salary information, and we encourage that"

dudul 10y ago
"We want you to join us for the mission, not for the money. Be a team player and share your salary with us!"
- IThoughtYouGNU 10y ago
  It makes me sad how accurate this is.
- CapitalistCartr 10y ago
  "Yeah, and of course you'll share equity and strategic decision-making with me." Employers, executives, managers all love to move their problems onto the employees.
- theorique 10y ago
  "We're into changing the world - we don't care about petty things like money" (CEO who owns 25% of the company)
- azakai 10y ago
  That would be illegal according to this law, I think.
fdsaaf 10y ago
That's why the measure comes across as empty pandering. (Hint: you can tell it's pandering because all the rationale is gender gap bullshit instead of the job application process being shitty for everyone.) If Massachusetts really wanted to improve the strength of employees with respect to employers, the legislature would do things like ban non-competes, ban non-solicits, clarify IP assignment rules, and ban mandatory binding arbitration clauses. But what do we get instead? Identity politics pandering.

markonthewall 10y ago

I love the US and California, the tech scene is amazing and I was lucky to met such talented and friendly people in about every place I worked... from very large tech cos to "garage" startups. Which is why it pains me to see that so many engineers get stuck with such ridiculous salaries (relative to the value and wealth they provide and create). Problem is that some salaries are seemingly high compared to what the average worker does in the country but ridiculously to what they would look like if engineers were allowed to capture a greater (that is a >0.01%) percentage of the added value they CREATE. Most, from the freshly out-of-school to the senior engineer with glowing reviews are getting scammed because they get paid just enough to live a comfortable life but not nearly enough to what they are worth and what they would need to consolidate their place in the upper middle class. I had one company acquired by a large tech co. Probably going to start another one soon, I won't commit the same mistake twice... engineers need their fair share. They are the one creating things, they are the one on the front line and we should not get satiated by the crumbles we are left with.

duaneb 10y ago
Developers are just another means—we're not wizards. We are a commodity, and if you don't recognize that you're in for a hard midlife crisis. Do you really expect to make any money without taking the risk of deciding what to build? How it's constructed is a (admittedly time-consuming and distracting) detail—only a small aspect of the company's value. Risk and comfort are tradeoffs. If you want to live without risk, you'll have to be satisfied with whatever salary you can negotiate as a commodity.
- dudul 10y ago
  But a good engineer will have a say in what to build, not only how to build it. Otherwise all dev work could just be outsourced. IMO, the role of a good engineer is to deeply understand the business/domain to provide good insight in regards to what to build.
  - duaneb 10y ago
    > Otherwise all dev work could just be outsourced. The value of American engineers is their ability to a) speak english well, b) show up at the office, and c) swallow large amounts of debt for college to ease hiring. So I'm not sure how outsourcing plays into this at all. I have never before heard of someone expressing a desire to hire a product manager/marketer/sales/brand strategist/designer because they're a good engineer. It actually shocked me you would consider skills involved related at all. I would not expect this from an engineer, and it would make hiring one immensely difficult. That's more the type of skill that leads to starting your own company.

siculars 10y ago

This. Negotiating a compensation package, in general, is asymmetric information warfare. Having to reveal your salary history you may as well not even negotiate. I know so many women who are constantly bit by this and negotiating in general. Here's an idea: compensation agents who negotiate the compensation package on your behalf. Athletes and actors have them, why not everyone else?

lewisl9029 10y ago
> Here's an idea: compensation agents who negotiate the compensation package on your behalf. Athletes and actors have them, why not everyone else? I'd definitely be willing to pay for something like this. Make it commission based (pay as a percentage of additional salary negotiated) and the incentives between the negotiator and client will be perfectly aligned.
- dsp1234 10y ago
  the incentives between the negotiator and client will be perfectly aligned. I'm not sure that this is the case when talking about such low amounts. Taking hints from a similar "agent with percentage", think real estate agents. Unless an agent is working with pretty high level homes, the 3% they are getting is not significantly effected by a something like 20k up or down on a $300k house. It's an extra $600, but often their time is better spent getting the deal closed as quickly as possible for as many people as possible. If that $20k for the client takes an extra few days the haggle, the agent could have been working with another client on another $300k house deal. In both cases, the thing that throws the agent and client out of alignment is the fact that the deals come through very infrequently, thus from the agent's perspective, they need to keep clients hustled through the door in order to be able to keep their own cash flow going, and working extra hard for a minimal gain isn't going to generally effect future gains. Most engineers would just use the same agent regardless unless the agent was spectacularly bad. (and there are way more rules for real estate agents than there would be for a hypothetical engineer's agent)
  - mindslight 10y ago

ajeet_dhaliwal 10y ago

This is desperately needed in the UK, the recruiters (external) here won't even let you proceed if you don't reveal it.

crdoconnor 10y ago
This wasn't my experience. Only a few recruiters asked and when told "no" they didn't ask why or ask again. Generally you don't want to work for the companies that demand it either.
- ajeet_dhaliwal 10y ago
  Where are you based? I'm in London and it's gotten so bad for me I only apply direct now so I can ask for a specific number that I would like. I no longer take calls or reply to external recruiters because so far they all tell me they won't proceed unless I tell them my precious salary despite myselr having told them what I want to make in the new role. Even if the company is willing to pay what I want they insist on knowing. I just say thanks but no thanks.
  - crdoconnor 10y ago
    London also. I'm not a recent graduate though, and I only do contract roles.
    - ajeet_dhaliwal 10y ago
      I'm experienced/senior too but I usually look for permanents so may be that is the why we have been treated differently.
    - ionised 10y ago
      Have any advice on getting started in contracting in the UK? Currently working for a medium-sized company in the NW but open to moving.
petepete 10y ago

justinlardinois 10y ago

Good. To be honest asking about previous salary is offensive, and only helps employers take advantage of employees who aren't tactful enough to refuse to answer.

euphoria83 10y ago

This is so needed in California. My past personal experience and my friends' experience in the Bay Area shows how hard the recruiters can push for the current salary. What they are saying is that we will give you a 10% raise from your current salary, but not what you and we can agree on is your market price. This is so against letting the markets figure it out.

paulddraper 10y ago
This is precisely letting the markets figuring it out. Those who offer at most 10% increase when a person's value is 50% higher will find themselves missing the good employees and ultimately, failing. --- An example: How much do I offer for this house? I have have no friggin' clue. But I can look at previous sale prices to get an rough idea. Naturally, I if trust my decision to that 100%, I'll risk making a poor decision. But the previous sales are a piece of information about the market that I ought not ignore.
- nkurz 10y ago
  > How much do I offer for this house? I like the example, but wouldn't it be more parallel to ask "How much have you offered for other houses?" or "How much did your previous house sell for?". The seller would love to know that you are capable of offering more, but you are (properly?) reluctant to give this information. > But the previous sales are a piece of information about the market that I ought not ignore. I don't think there is any dispute that this is valuable information to the person doing the hiring. The question is whether it is fair to the person being hired to be asked this question. Despite the theoretical disadvantage to the business, the current result seems to be that those who are historically disadvantaged will remain disadvantaged, while those who started out with an advantage will be disproportionally rewarded.
  - paulddraper 10y ago
    Your proposed parallel is backwards. The house is for sale to the buyer; the employee's time and skills are for sale to the employer. So those question would be more like "How much do you pay other employees?" or "How much have you offered other candidates?" You can ask those questions. Some employers are upfront, even posting salary ranges in the job ad itself. Other employers will decline to share that information. Either side can reveal as much or as little information about their employment history as they choose. Curtailing freedoms is a heavy-handed act, despite the theoretical advantage to candidates.

news_to_me 10y ago

How weird, I just read a really interesting article about pay disclosure, esp. regarding women's pay: http://www.wired.com/2015/05/im-terrified-tell-people-much-make/ http://www.wired.com/2015/05/im-terrified-tell-people-much-m... I'm a big advocate for salary transparency, but I share that author's struggle - what's the best way to ethically disclose my salary to my coworkers, or publicly?

qaid 10y ago

I got bit by this at my current job. I didn't remember telling them my salary at my previous company (usually I decline to answer), but my manager brought it up when I was trying to negotiate an extra 5k. It's unfortunate that I must've told them my base salary when applying online and that I didn't do a proper negotiation afterwards. My new company doesn't give out stocks of any kind, so overall I'm making less.

adamio 10y ago
I've run into quite a few applications that won't let you continue past the salary history without entering something. Its definitely a dark pattern for job applications
- uremog 10y ago
  Might be able to get away with an improper input though. 0? 0000000? 999999999999? N/A?
  - brianwawok 10y ago
    Sure but they auto trash apps outside the range 50k to 100k...

bargl 10y ago

I hate this question. I frequently dodge or outright deny answering it. I won't lie about it, I just say, no you don't get that information. To dodge this question I say the following: "I'm looking for compensation in the range of xxxx to XXXX. This obviously depends on the benefits packages, for an awesome benefits package you may be closer to xxxx, if your benefits are bad then you'll need to be closer to XXXX." If they persist I follow up with, "I gave you my range if that isn't enough for you then I'm sorry but I'll have to pass, I don't disclose my current salary to any recruiters." This has worked really well for me in the past.

vivekpreddy 10y ago
I've been recruiting for a few years now, and I've always hated asking how much someone is making currently. Have always found it better to ask "what are your compensation expectations?" Puts the ball in the candidate's court and I prefer asking this early in conversations as to make sure we're aligned and no one wastes each others time.
- dudul 10y ago
  Why not disclose the budget you are working with and ask the candidate if it's in line with their expectations?
  - Anasufovic 10y ago
    First person to talk numbers generally has the weak hand in the negotiation.
    - JamesBarney 10y ago
      Most negotiation experts disagree with this advice. The first person who gives a number anchors the conversation to that number. When you name a number you certainly do set a max on negotiation, but you also get to set the starting number. And many negotiation experts think the latter is more valuable than the former. So they can start off trying to negotiate you down from your max, or up you can spend your time trying to negotiate them up from their min.

djb_hackernews 10y ago

I'm from MA and I think this is a great piece of legislation. I'd like to take it a step further and some day see a service where people can submit verified wage data to and access this wage data when they are negotiating employment terms. My employer uses wage data from a survey they buy for several thousands of dollars when it comes negotiation time. The wage data is reported by other employers and includes wage data from companies across the country. I think it would help level the playing field when it comes to negotiations for anyone that is in that position because as it is now, even with this piece of legislation, employers have the upper hand.

Animats 10y ago

"Companies will not be allowed to prohibit their workers from telling others how much they are paid." Companies are not allowed to do that now. That's Federal labor law, and it's been prohibited since 1935.[1] This only applies to employees, not contractors. [1] https://www.dol.gov/wb/media/pay_secrecy.pdf https://www.dol.gov/wb/media/pay_secrecy.pdf

elicash 10y ago
This adds additional penalties at the state level. I'm not a lawyer, but it appears to me to give a $1000 fine.

up_and_up 10y ago

Feel free to tell them what you make just add 15-40% to that number. This has worked well for me. Employers seem happy as well. Example: Assuming your current salary is X. "So I currently make (X * 1.20), but in order to make the jump I need at least (X * 1.40)." That way they get to feel out immediately whether they can afford you, you get the salary that would motivate you, and no one is wasting time in the hiring process. Keep in mind many employers wont want to pay you more than 8-10% more than what you "currently make" unless they are incredibly motivated to hire you and you alone.

skolos 10y ago
Works well until an employer does due diligence (ask for proof of your number). In my experience many (not all) do due diligence.
- mandlar 10y ago
  How are they going to verify your current salary? Do companies really go out of their way to do that?
  - chipperyman573 10y ago
    They can just ask for a paystub.
    - IshKebab 10y ago
      Not anymore!
      - knd775 10y ago
        At least, not in Massachusetts.
        thavalai 10y ago
        I got excited about this, as I live in MA and seriously considering a change, until I read the part that it doesn't go into effect until July 2018.

tmaly 10y ago

how would this prevent an external recruiter from asking? What if the company has an office just over the MA border where they hire then later relocate the employee to MA?

estrabd 10y ago

In the past I have always declined, no one has ever pressed it. I even have refused to define a minimum salary or salary requirement. Let them tell me what I am worth. Giving any of that information always seemed like a move that put me at a disadvantage.

ktRolster 10y ago

I never tell people anyway. I slightly evade the question and say, (in a somewhat annoyed tone), "I'm looking for something in the $X range," where $X is higher than what I actually want. So far, that's worked out fine, since that is the information they actually want to know.

paulddraper 10y ago
Exactly. This should get you a long way. If it's really a deal-breaker (maybe standard red tape or other BS), I say "My previous/current salary is $W, but I'm looking for $X." After all, there is a reason you're leaving your current employer, right?

__abc 10y ago

I never ask the question, "what did you make", but "what do you want to make". More often specifically preface with, "do not tell me what you make".

drawkbox 10y ago

Massachusetts is doing some good steps to better the work environment and entrepreneurship. This is a nice to have in negotiations and MA challenging non-competes are great things to change[1]. Non-competes are extremely anti-innovation, anti-worker, anti-business and really anti-American. Workers that are skilled cannot be owned. Good knowledgable workers should be compensated to keep them around, not fear of legal threat of using skills they developed. Non-competes need to go away everywhere. [1] http://fortune.com/2016/06/30/massachusetts-non-compete-passes/ http://fortune.com/2016/06/30/massachusetts-non-compete-pass...

lsllc 10y ago
Sadly, the MA house & senate couldn't reconcile their two versions of the non-compete bill and it died in committee: https://www.bostonglobe.com/business/2016/07/31/noncompete-changes-founder-legislature-frantic-end/W0rbVNv2Cqe0dCScOVD5SI/story.html https://www.bostonglobe.com/business/2016/07/31/noncompete-c... These reform attempts have been going on for years in MA and never make it into law.
- exhilaration 10y ago
  California's Chamber of Commerce should buy billboard space outside of MIT and Harvard highlighting this, it's a huge incentive for new grads to move to California instead of taking jobs in Massachusetts.
  - dragonwriter 10y ago
    > California's Chamber of Commerce should buy billboard space outside of MIT and Harvard highlighting this Since employers (who make up the CoC) in California often try to get people to sign non-competes that are unenforceable in California, and to restrain their behavior after having signed them based on the misperception that the agreement is enforceable, its unlikely that the CoC would trumpet publicly the fact that such agremeents are not enforceable in CA as a positive thing.
mindvirus 10y ago

squozzer 10y ago

I am not sure of the utility of asking the salary question anyway. A credit check which is usually part of the pre-offer paper chase will provide an employer with plenty of info for determining your current burn rate.

Artlav 10y ago
Interesting, i thought this sort of research was done after the offer, when you are in process of doing the paperwork to get in? And AFAIK a lot of people don't have any credit history, so this does not sound useful anyway.

VladKovac 10y ago

What are the chances that in this particular case, enforcing noise in the data actually leads to better economic results? Technically less information can lead imperfect human reasoners to more rational allocation of resources, but you'd have to do a lot more work to prove that to me than some policymaker's "feeling".

astoellis 10y ago

No one mentions that this isn't officially implemented until 2018. Don't go into interviews expecting this to be law, and definitely use the strategies that other users have pointed out.

nostromo 10y ago

Might this be unconstitutional under the first amendment?

bcheung 10y ago

I started off with a really low salary because I was working as a developer outside the SF bay area and in an industry that paid really low. Then moved to the bay area. Every company or recruiter tries to place you at maybe 5% to 10% more than your current job. There was a time when I was just hopping from job to job to increase my salary. If there wasn't this convention of paying someone the same I wouldn't have switched so many jobs. There are plenty of places I wanted to stick around but got a much higher offer somewhere else so I pretty much had to switch. My salary is more than 400% what it was 10 years ago. I feel that I have finally reached market value and have a salary I am happy with. It would have been nice if it was based on supply / demand and how well I interviewed. That being said, I'm not sure I agree with this law. I like the outcome but not the implementation. Having a law that says you can't ask someone something seems to violate Freedom of Speech and it sets a dangerous precedent.

ohitsdom 10y ago
"Having a law that says you can't ask someone something seems to violate Freedom of Speech and it sets a dangerous precedent." Like your age, religion, sexual orientation, or if you're planning on getting pregnant?
- bcheung 10y ago
  I'm fine with the not discriminating part, it's the asking part I'm concerned with. It seems like censorship and going against Freedom of Speech to me. A better law would be that employers may not discriminate or refuse to hire someone if they refuse to tell them their previous salary. Specificity is key, just saying you can't ask feels too overreaching. The intent is to prevent discrimination, not speech.
  - hx87 10y ago
    We can't effectively legislate thought yet, although that hasn't stopped legislatures from trying and lawyers from making loads of money arguing over intent. It's incredibly difficult, inefficient and expensive to determine whether an asked question led to a discriminatory decision, so asking is prohibited instead.

jxramos 10y ago

Does this sort of information get revealed in background checks for previous places of employment or is that a privacy thing? Also is it really necessary for a state to dictate such things? Is it too much pressure for someone to respectfully decline to answer such a question and practice some negotiation skills? What exactly is the state's interest in this sort of thing precisely?

mfringel 10y ago
Having it stipulated by the state means that people who have less leverage to decline to answer such questions have the power of the state behind them.
tastynacho 10y ago
No it doesn't come back in a background check. The only thing that comes back is your title and employment dates. That is actually how I've avoided all those annoying salary negotiations. Lie about how much I make, let them offer me slightly above that and gladly accept.
- deleted 10y ago
  [deleted]

intrasight 10y ago

Are you a star? If not, then you have very little leverage in negotiating compensation. That is true across professions: Rock Star, Sports Star, Sales Star, Surgical Star, you name it. Next ask if stars are made or born. If born, then you're out of luck again - until you are reincarnate. If made, then learn from how others made themselves stars. Like many things in life, it helps to start young, and it often comes down to luck. If your plan is not to achieve fame and fortune via stardom, then pursue it through more accessible means like being a doctor or lawyer or banker or businessperson. Being an engineer or scientist can be a stepping-stone, but if you stay on that stone then there is a slim chance of achieving star power.

Tideflat 10y ago
Not all markets are superstar markets. Some places the 100th best worker is about just as good as the best worker, like for janitors.
- intrasight 10y ago
  First, I beg to differ your "like for janitors" statement. In almost every profession there is a large difference between the top performers and the average. But your statement "Not all markets are superstar markets" is exactly the point of my post - engineering is not a superstar market, and hence engineers will never have much compensation leverage.

nkrisc 10y ago

This is good legislation. Hopefully this is legislation that we will no longer need in the future. Good government doesn't always mean smaller government. It gets smaller when it needs to and sometimes larger when it needs to.

Artlav 10y ago

How common is this question? Over here in Russia asking how much you make is often considered a taboo, or a bad tone. I've never been or heard about this being asked at the interviews.

brianwawok 10y ago
In the us between 98 and 99% of interviews. Salary is very taboo w friends and family. But when interviewing it nearly always comes up.
- romanovcode 10y ago
  Not sure about friends and family. In Europe AFAIK it's not taboo at all and people are completely normal and open about it.

throwaway201607 10y ago

I love the new law, sad to see it based on a false premise: http://www.forbes.com/sites/karinagness/2016/04/12/dont-buy-into-the-gender-pay-gap-myth http://www.forbes.com/sites/karinagness/2016/04/12/dont-buy-...

chug 10y ago
I think at most it's an exaggerated premise, not false. There's tons of evidence that it does exist, though there is much debate over what exactly the percentage of the gap is. It's hard to find "the gap doesn't exist at all" evidence outside of certain think tanks or opinion pieces.

devishard 10y ago

This is interesting, especially given that many people lie about previous pay in order to get a higher pay. It's an extremely effective strategy.

pauljaworski 10y ago

I've never understood why this question is such a big deal for people. When asked what you made at your last job, you should just give the number you would like to make at this new job.

nkurz 10y ago
Some people place an intrinsic value on honesty, and dislike being forced into situations where the advantage is given to brazen liars. I upvoted you since I think this is a topic worth discussing, and probably many others share your view, but I personally find your lack of compunction reprehensible.
- pauljaworski 10y ago
  I appreciate your honesty! I say that's what you "should" do, because I think it's the most logical way to respond to that question. That doesn't mean I wouldn't feel guilty about lying, and I've never actually had to do it, so I'm not sure how I would realistically respond in the situation. In my case, my total compensation at my last job is far more than I could expect to earn at a new job anyway, ha!

throwAway295 10y ago

Here's a question I've wondered for a long time -- replies appreciated!: Is there any legal risk in lying about your current/past salary? I'm not talking ethically. That's a different discussion.

hellogoodbyeeee 10y ago
I have seen that some employers ask for documentation of past salary. I don't think you will have any legal ramifications. Only they might rescind their offer or later fire you if they find out you lied

r0m4n0 10y ago

I applied and soon after worked as an engineer for a large company that not only asked for my previous compensation but part of the application process involved my employer validating that I actually made what I told them. They worked with a third party to match my figures with W2 statements and/or pay stubs. It was really intrusive. Pay should equate to value, not some silly ladder climb

jimcsharp 10y ago
Yeesh. That's when you go along and let them pay for the audit before bailing.
jrockway 10y ago
The problem is that they must have too many qualified engineers applying, and they need an arbitrary way to filter people out. I almost managed to write that with a straight face.
- x0x0 10y ago
  yahoo did this to me. Verifying employment is one thing (I guess...), but their background check thing wanted exact salaries too, and permission to ask HR at all my previous employers. Is this common? I've worked for small companies so haven't run into anything like this elsewhere. Except for one asshole that wanted to do a reference check two weeks after I started work (!!!) (he offered me a job at the end of the interview with a 24 hour time limit and had me start 3 days later; I had already left the previous employer so it suited me well enough at the time), and was unhappy when I told him what he could do with himself.
  - mixmastamyk 10y ago
    I worked for Y and did the bg check and did not give salaries, I never do. Wasn't a problem.
  - pc86 10y ago
    > Verifying employment is one thing (I guess...) Why are you reluctant about a company being able to verify that you worked where and when you said you did?

tn13 10y ago

I don't like bans but whenever people asked me about my current pay I told them it is confidential and I should be judged based on what you are willing to pay rather than what I am making. My first job change gave me 2X the salary.

kevin_b_er 10y ago

At will employment. The company may change the salary at any time. They can just employ them, then immediately seek their salary history, then _alter_ their salary based on it. If a whole lot of companies coordinate to do it together, then the system is bypassed rather easily.

seehafer 10y ago

Would love to hear the opinions of founders who hated this practice as employees now they're on the other side of the table. Personally I've always had a strict salary/comp band in place for each position, but having never had a company with > 25 people, I wonder at what point that breaks down.

shanacarp 10y ago

First thought Finally! Jobs are worth what the market bears right then, not what they were previously worth, so why do employers want to ask such demeaning questions Second thought Boy, all of those recruiting/hr programs are going to need to be re-written to comply. A lot require you to say what you've been paid at every previous job. Since they are sold nationally, all of those HR departments will need that one field stripped out to now comply to MA law.

mancerayder 10y ago

Where does the law sit on recruiters asking that question? Because they're the ones who've loved asking me that one. I see a loophole forming before my eyes.

mancerayder 10y ago

Where does the law sit on recruiters asking that question? Because they're the ones who've loved asking me that one. I see a loophole forming before my eyes.

mixmastamyk 10y ago

I've read a few anecdotes here about fumbling the question. Let me tell you the magic words, "Sorry, that's confidential (it really is), I'm looking for $X."

switch007 10y ago
My contract states I'm not allowed to disclose such information. And I'm pretty sure their contract will say the same.

atom-morgan 10y ago

If an employer asks for your previous salary decline and threaten to walk. It's not that hard. Learning how to handle these situations is an acquired skill. Learn it.

stevebmark 10y ago

By the way, if a new employer asks this, you don't have to answer them. You can politely say "I'd prefer not to share my previous salary with you." If you're at this point in the discussion this isn't likely to hurt your chances of being hired.

GirlsCanCode 10y ago

To solve a mythical problem, employers now have one more restriction on hiring. Pretty soon the government will just select a person at random and order companies to provide him or her a job for life.

maxxxxx 10y ago

One of my coworkers just got hired by one of the big Silicon Valley companies and he said that the company knew his salary down to the cent without him disclosing it. Does anybody know how they could have found out? Could this be part of the background check?

blazespin 10y ago

non compete is far more valuable.

emodendroket 10y ago
I don't disagree, but that doesn't necessarily mean this is a bad idea. The difficult part is enforcement, of course.

xiaoma 10y ago

The part of this that looks more important than forbidding recruiters from asking about previous pay is this: >"And the law will require equal pay not just for workers whose jobs are alike, but also for those whose work is of “comparable character” or who work in “comparable operations.” Workers with more seniority will still be permitted to earn higher pay, but the law effectively broadens the definition of what is equal work." I suspect the result will be to flatten wages everywhere except the most easily quantifiable, thus legally defensible, cases. Sales people will still make a commission on what they sell and have a huge gap in their earnings, but it will become much harder to reward rare engineering talents or even people who work on their craft recreationally.

WalterBright 10y ago
It also means that pay will be determined by judges, not markets, as it is an impossible to define concept. More of the economy will get sucked up into litigation. Comparable Worth is another incarnation of the Labor Theory of Value, which has long been discredited. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Labor_theory_of_value https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Labor_theory_of_value
deleted 10y ago
[deleted]
danielweber 10y ago
This is a big problem that I hope doesn't swamp the benefits of making salary private. Employers might have to prove in a court of law that I'm worth more than another employee? This could really really suck.

WalterBright 10y ago

I suspect this law may backfire. It's hard enough determining what a prospective employee may be worth to a company, and the salary history is used as a proxy. Take that out of play, and the risk is higher in hiring the candidate. Higher risk means lower pay offers, not higher.

twblalock 10y ago
In a similar vein, there is evidence that laws which forbid employers from asking about applicants' criminal records on job applications significantly increase hiring discrimination toward blacks: http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2795795 http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2795795 This happens because many employers assume blacks have a criminal record, and asking the question tends to exonerate those who do not, rather than penalize those who do. The default assumption means that things can't get worse if the question is asked, but they can get better. This law only banned asking the question, not running a background check. But employers don't even get that far, because they presumably do not want to pay for a background check on an applicant they assume has a criminal record. Of course, this law was intended to have the opposite of its actual effect.

WalterBright 10y ago

> a group of female cafeteria workers who filed a lawsuit in 1991 seeking parity with male janitors, who did comparable work, the cafeteria workers said, but were paid significantly more. You'd have to pay me more to do janitorial work than cafeteria work. Cleaning bathrooms is dangerous, dirty work.

kc10 10y ago

What's the use? Employer: We are willing to make an offer to you. We will offer a base pay of $125k. Employee: what? I am already making $150k with my current employer. Employer: Oh..we can't ask your current salary..so we just threw a number at the lower end to see if you would accept.

martin1975 10y ago

If Hillary wins, you'll also be able to ask about your peers' salary, legally - not sure to what extent of course, probably won't apply if you're asking for a level higher than yours - so that the "glass ceiling" might be broken, meaning women in the same job w/the same quals/experience should make the same as men. My wife found out through a colleague who's a friend of hers as well that he made 10k over her, same experience/qualifications/title....

pluma 10y ago
If Obama wins, Guantanamo and CIA blacksites will be shut down. Oh, wait, presidential candidates' promises aren't worth anything.

josh_fyi 10y ago

If asked, say "My previous contract prohibits sharing compensation details [as it probably does], and I take my commitments very seriously."

ionised 10y ago
Is that actually a thing that can exist in employment contracts? Because it would be a great way to shut down anyone asking about your salary. If it's not then they're going know you're just trying to avoid answering the question.
- josh_fyi 10y ago
  As far as I know it is quite common.

known 10y ago

Can an employee ask employer's debt details?

barnacs 10y ago

It pains me to see that people can't apply common sense without law anymore. If a potential employer asks about my previous salary, I refuse to answer. Similarly, it never even occured to me to hide my salary from my coworkers regardless of what my employer asked me to do. Needless to say, if any employer has a problem with that, I definitely don't want to spend 8+ hours of my day with them.

danielweber 10y ago
Right now, it is an applicant's ballgame, because our skills are highly valued. What happens if that is no longer the situation?
- barnacs 10y ago
  I'll try to keep my response short. Ideally, everyone should be working for something they actually believe in and everyone should work with people whose skillset is valuable to achieve their common goal. If there is no mutual respect and at least a minimum level of decency and each party of the employment contract is just chasing their own gains then we end up in this sad situation where laws are needed to lay out and enforce the rules of even basic human interaction. That's why it pains me to see this.

rajeshp1986 10y ago

I think is a great step. I work for a big company and has been around for 4 years. when I joined this company, my salary was on par (also justified as per my previous salary). We saw a tremendous amount of growth in the technology and the team has grown by 20X. The people joining now are getting far better salary because either their current salary is high and they negotiate on that OR the company is ready to pay more for filling up the positions. But I feel very bad when I think of it, the employees who laid the foundations got very small hike over the years and I feel underpaid now. Also, I was the member who laid the foundation of the team and created the initial reputation which was required. Salary negotiations based on previous salaries are just plain idiocracy. I have co-workers who are excellent in terms of the skillset and the value they create but they come from either smaller cities where the pay was not great or from startups which didn't pay very well in the early days. These people suffer a lot even though they know that their counterparts who come from large companies and had good salaries get paid almost 1.5-2X.

brodo 10y ago

Any change to the bargaining process will not fix the gender pay gap, as it is no significant factor. There is an excellent Freakonomics episode about it: http://freakonomics.com/podcast/the-true-story-of-the-gender-pay-gap-a-new-freakonomics-radio-podcast/ http://freakonomics.com/podcast/the-true-story-of-the-gender...

pluma 10y ago
Of course not. But if feminism can be abused to improve workers' rights in the US, that's good enough, isn't it?

horsehidebag 10y ago

This law goes in effect in two years!?

horsehidebag 10y ago

This law goes in effect in two years?!