4 ms·

Companies asking for your previous salary means theyre going to try to pay you with your past salary being a benchmark to work with, not necessarily what the po

Companies asking for your previous salary means theyre going to try to pay you with your past salary being a benchmark to work with, not necessarily what the position is worth. Companies posting employee salaries publicly aims for employees at said company to be paid at the same level (with similar experience). There's a subtle difference. Every time I've been asked about salary its been an obvious ploy to lowball my salary due to previous experience of working in a lower cost area. Employees literally have zero incentive not to lie, since employers can't verify

Bartweiss 10y ago
It's also worth recognizing that things are very different if this becomes universal. If one company asks for your salary at another, they get a chance to underpay. But if every company publishes salaries, they don't get to low-ball no matter what you were getting before.
- kesselvon 10y ago
  Yep. I find that in the US people are very reluctant to discuss salary amongst themselves, which makes it super hard to figure out if you're getting screwed or not. Europeans tend to be much more open about their earnings.
notahacker 10y ago
The obvious consequence of a company publicly posting salaries (or even having clear salary ranges that nearly all the employees at the level of experience fall into) is that a thorough recruiter doesn't even need to ask your previous salary to be able to use it as a benchmark to work with though.
- kesselvon 10y ago
  I don't think I've ever seen public salaries at places that pay on the lower-end. Usually I've seen it with startups that pay fairly well, but I could be wrong.
  - reneherse 10y ago
    Gitlab is an interesting case: they publish their compensation formula, which yields different pay for the same work depending on the employee's geographic location.
  - daleco 10y ago
    Non for profit salaries are public, they aren't paying top salaries usually.
    - sqeaky 10y ago
      I also don't think this is what was meant. In the US non-profits have to disclose this because the law says so and generally the non-profits do so in the most minimal discrete way possible. Few people, rarely recruiters, know where to go to get the information. This is even a service some background check companies provide. I think the comment was referring to companies that celebrate the high wages they pay as a way to attract the best talent.
shados 10y ago
Employers ask for your salary to make sure it makes sense to talk. Everyone mentions it to be lowballing you. But what do you think happens when you mention a higher number than they expect? While it sometimes will end the conversation (because they're unwilling to pay), sometimes they'll match that, leading to a higher salary than what the offer would have been. Of course, often, including in big companies, the background check isn't done by the hiring managers. So you can straight up lie about your salary, get a higher offer, then when they background check they get the real one, and they're none the wiser ::shrugs:: Even without lying, In the couple of occasions where I was underpaid and trying to go up, it's simply what I would say when asked. "My salary was X, but I'm looking for X + Y". It's just not that hard.
- ryandrake 10y ago
  It's a classic negotiation problem. From the employee's point of view: If you specify a number, you have either A) disqualified yourself due to it being too high or B) set a cap on your potential salary (they may have been willing to pay more). Neither scenario represents upside for you. From the employer's point of view: If the company specifies a number, it has either A) disqualified itself due to it being too low or B) set a minimum that it will have to pay (candidate may have been willing to accept less). Neither scenario represents upside.
  - gdulli 10y ago
    > If you specify a number, you have either A) disqualified yourself due to it being too high or B) set a cap on your potential salary (they may have been willing to pay more). Neither scenario represents upside for you. Those are hardly the only outcomes. An impressive salary history can raise the esteem of a candidate. It's a signal that makes the candidate look good, should the employer attach meaning to it, which they're free to do or not do. But it won't hurt you. The real world is more fluid and complex than just these two rigid outcomes. An employer can put a salary range in writing and then find a great candidate who's simply worth more, and in a market where talent is hard to find you don't turn away great candidates, you reshape the job description. Or maybe the hiring manager passes the employee to a different department or different company with an opening with a higher range. Or maybe the hiring manager passes because they just can't do it but 6 weeks later you get a call back because they haven't found anyone better and the manager got more desperate or fought their boss to increase the hiring budget. And if your previous salary is higher than the absolute range of the job you're interviewing for, you're still free to tell the employer you're okay with that, if you are. I've done it before. You can also use it to negotiate other benefits. Maybe they're inflexible on the top end of the salary range but you can get extra equity or vacation out of it. > If the company specifies a number, it has either A) disqualified itself due to it being too low You must believe ranges have some flexibility or else a company disqualifying itself is upside for them because it saves them the time of interviewing candidates who aren't willing to take the disclosed range.
gdulli 10y ago
> Employees literally have zero incentive not to lie, since employers can't verify That assumes you feel lying is wrong only because of the circumstances of getting caught vs. valuing honesty for its own sake.
- kesselvon 10y ago
  Morals are nice, but if you're being underpaid purely based on your previous salary vs actual worth, then it doesn't do you much good except to feel good.
  - gdulli 10y ago
    If I'm underpaid it's because I took a job with bad pay. Presumably because I failed to demonstrate I was worth more, was incorrect about being worth more, or I chose to accept an offer that didn't match my value. I can take personal responsibility for any of those scenarios. Transparency is not the root cause of them. Taking responsibility is in general a better option than assigning blame. Acting in bad faith because of perceived bad faith just feeds into a downward spiral that makes the world worse for everyone. You don't act right because it feels good, there are practical reasons for it.
    - kesselvon 10y ago
      I think blaming people for letting themselves get screwed is rather egregious when firms have every incentive to screw you. In a lot of situations, its either you take the job offer or you don't eat. How long do you think most people can survive unemployment?
pm24601 10y ago
> Employees literally have zero incentive not to lie, since employers can't verify Bad assumption. A previous employer might reveal it. The future employer could ask for W-2's
- kesselvon 10y ago
  Employers barely check if you have a college diploma, let alone for W2's

Bartweiss 10y ago

It's also worth recognizing that things are very different if this becomes universal. If one company asks for your salary at another, they get a chance to underpay. But if every company publishes salaries, they don't get to low-ball no matter what you were getting before.

kesselvon 10y ago
Yep. I find that in the US people are very reluctant to discuss salary amongst themselves, which makes it super hard to figure out if you're getting screwed or not. Europeans tend to be much more open about their earnings.

notahacker 10y ago

The obvious consequence of a company publicly posting salaries (or even having clear salary ranges that nearly all the employees at the level of experience fall into) is that a thorough recruiter doesn't even need to ask your previous salary to be able to use it as a benchmark to work with though.

kesselvon 10y ago
I don't think I've ever seen public salaries at places that pay on the lower-end. Usually I've seen it with startups that pay fairly well, but I could be wrong.
- reneherse 10y ago
  Gitlab is an interesting case: they publish their compensation formula, which yields different pay for the same work depending on the employee's geographic location.
- daleco 10y ago
  Non for profit salaries are public, they aren't paying top salaries usually.
  - sqeaky 10y ago
    I also don't think this is what was meant. In the US non-profits have to disclose this because the law says so and generally the non-profits do so in the most minimal discrete way possible. Few people, rarely recruiters, know where to go to get the information. This is even a service some background check companies provide. I think the comment was referring to companies that celebrate the high wages they pay as a way to attract the best talent.

shados 10y ago

Employers ask for your salary to make sure it makes sense to talk. Everyone mentions it to be lowballing you. But what do you think happens when you mention a higher number than they expect? While it sometimes will end the conversation (because they're unwilling to pay), sometimes they'll match that, leading to a higher salary than what the offer would have been. Of course, often, including in big companies, the background check isn't done by the hiring managers. So you can straight up lie about your salary, get a higher offer, then when they background check they get the real one, and they're none the wiser ::shrugs:: Even without lying, In the couple of occasions where I was underpaid and trying to go up, it's simply what I would say when asked. "My salary was X, but I'm looking for X + Y". It's just not that hard.

ryandrake 10y ago
It's a classic negotiation problem. From the employee's point of view: If you specify a number, you have either A) disqualified yourself due to it being too high or B) set a cap on your potential salary (they may have been willing to pay more). Neither scenario represents upside for you. From the employer's point of view: If the company specifies a number, it has either A) disqualified itself due to it being too low or B) set a minimum that it will have to pay (candidate may have been willing to accept less). Neither scenario represents upside.
- gdulli 10y ago
  > If you specify a number, you have either A) disqualified yourself due to it being too high or B) set a cap on your potential salary (they may have been willing to pay more). Neither scenario represents upside for you. Those are hardly the only outcomes. An impressive salary history can raise the esteem of a candidate. It's a signal that makes the candidate look good, should the employer attach meaning to it, which they're free to do or not do. But it won't hurt you. The real world is more fluid and complex than just these two rigid outcomes. An employer can put a salary range in writing and then find a great candidate who's simply worth more, and in a market where talent is hard to find you don't turn away great candidates, you reshape the job description. Or maybe the hiring manager passes the employee to a different department or different company with an opening with a higher range. Or maybe the hiring manager passes because they just can't do it but 6 weeks later you get a call back because they haven't found anyone better and the manager got more desperate or fought their boss to increase the hiring budget. And if your previous salary is higher than the absolute range of the job you're interviewing for, you're still free to tell the employer you're okay with that, if you are. I've done it before. You can also use it to negotiate other benefits. Maybe they're inflexible on the top end of the salary range but you can get extra equity or vacation out of it. > If the company specifies a number, it has either A) disqualified itself due to it being too low You must believe ranges have some flexibility or else a company disqualifying itself is upside for them because it saves them the time of interviewing candidates who aren't willing to take the disclosed range.

gdulli 10y ago

> Employees literally have zero incentive not to lie, since employers can't verify That assumes you feel lying is wrong only because of the circumstances of getting caught vs. valuing honesty for its own sake.

kesselvon 10y ago
Morals are nice, but if you're being underpaid purely based on your previous salary vs actual worth, then it doesn't do you much good except to feel good.
- gdulli 10y ago
  If I'm underpaid it's because I took a job with bad pay. Presumably because I failed to demonstrate I was worth more, was incorrect about being worth more, or I chose to accept an offer that didn't match my value. I can take personal responsibility for any of those scenarios. Transparency is not the root cause of them. Taking responsibility is in general a better option than assigning blame. Acting in bad faith because of perceived bad faith just feeds into a downward spiral that makes the world worse for everyone. You don't act right because it feels good, there are practical reasons for it.
  - kesselvon 10y ago
    I think blaming people for letting themselves get screwed is rather egregious when firms have every incentive to screw you. In a lot of situations, its either you take the job offer or you don't eat. How long do you think most people can survive unemployment?

pm24601 10y ago

> Employees literally have zero incentive not to lie, since employers can't verify Bad assumption. A previous employer might reveal it. The future employer could ask for W-2's

kesselvon 10y ago
Employers barely check if you have a college diploma, let alone for W2's