6 ms·

> The service is designed to provide automated employment and income verification for prospective employers, and tens of thousands of companies report employee

> The service is designed to provide automated employment and income verification for prospective employers, and tens of thousands of companies report employee salary data to it. It sounds like companies can easily use this to collude against employee wages and benefits.

dawnerd 9y ago
Makes this law a moot point https://www.usatoday.com/story/money/2017/04/27/whats-your-salary-becomes-no-no-job-interviews/100933948/ https://www.usatoday.com/story/money/2017/04/27/whats-your-s...
kevmo 9y ago
Yeah, that is pretty crazy. The ball is usually already firmly in the employer's court. This kind of information greatly diminishes the already most-diminished's bargaining power.
- Retric 9y ago
  Past pay is not directly a significant issue. It's just a question of getting competing offers. The real issue is some people suck at negotiation and past salaries will tell companies that.
  - justifier 9y ago
    If some people 'suck' at negotiating then that must mean there are others who are 'better' at negotiating If I have a guardian who pays my rent so that i can take 6months to high ball offers to finally find a job that will pay me a high wage does that mean I'm 'better' at negotiating?
    - brianwawok 9y ago
      What stops you from taking the first job you find, and then spending 6 months while working looking for better jobs? It hardly is THAT hard to get some competing offers. And if you can't be bothered, I guess you don't really want it anyway?
      - justifier 9y ago
        > What stops [someone].. Interviews scheduled during work hours, already working multiple jobs, burnout, lack of openings in your field > It hardly is THAT hard to get some competing offers. And if you can't be bothered, I guess you don't really want it anyway? This sentiment signals bias Competing offers? For what? Serving coffee? Washing dishes? DBA? CTO? If you offer anyone with a job more money my guess is 100% would take the extra cash, so just because they fail to find, or look, for more cash how does it imply they 'don't really want it anyway'?
        winston_smith 9y ago
        > This sentiment signals bias While your sentiments are presumably bias-free?
        justifier 9y ago
        I think everyone has bias, but I do think issues can be discussed without letting your biases supplant reason What I meant by signalling bias was I felt the gp was allowing bias about the issue cloud reasoning as to the nuance of the issue If my comment seemed to imply that I deny nuance then I failed to communicate my point Which was: sometimes pay is a result of other factors other than either a want or pure negotiation
        winston_smith 9y ago
        > Which was: sometimes pay is a result of other factors other than either a want or pure negotiation Thanks, I think that's a much better criticism of the original argument
      - mjevans 9y ago
        Starting anything new is a drain on resources. Someone with time to focus on interviewing is bound to be better than someone with a new job they need to figure out. After all, it usually takes a few months to get anyone up to speed in a job, and this is assuming they're giving lots of effort. For existing jobs? Inertia is probably a factor there, as well as fear of the unknown. When you've got something to loose it's different than having nothing to loose.
    - Retric 9y ago
      Try not to think in the very short term. Finding a job at ~70% of the going rate for your field is not that hard. Now at 70% a 10% raise might not seem like a huge deal as your still under market, but it only takes 7 of those to double your salary. And a 15-20% pay raise to jump to the next job is hardly unreasonable. Do those every ~3 years and you will massive difference inside a decade. Remember, the median salary is just that people really do get paid more than it.
  - shostack 9y ago
    Any suggestions on how to bypass the question of past/expected comp then?
    - deleted 9y ago
      [deleted]
    - downer72 9y ago
      In some cases, it is explicitly stated by the prospective employer that any refusal of requested information (or providing false information) will be met with a rejection letter. I have been on interviews where this is part of a boiler plate release/waiver for a background check, prior to receiving an offer letter, and on the same form, you are made to list prior employers, and fill in the salary box for each. And if you don't like it, good luck taking legal action, right? Whether something is legal or illegal, most people lack the resources to even entertain the idea of challenging legality. The only path that seems to effectively buffer this practice is working with recruiting agencies, which do a better job of negotiating, but do still collect this information. And although recruiters might only be capable of telling you whether you have real leverage for your salary demands, whether the recruiter is being paid by you or the employer is a clue as to who they're working for. Hint: if you aren't paying them out of pocket, recruiters aren't actually working for you, even if they seem really pleasant.
      - zdragnar 9y ago
        I wouldn't paint so broad a brush with your "only path" argument; I've never listed my salaries, and have always negotiated my own (even when connected to jobs via a recruiter). Then again, I'm fortunate to have highly sought skills and years of experience, but I wouldn't go so far as to say that's the only way to get fair pay. Edit: I should point out that I'm not making anything to brag about by silicon valley standards, but I also live somewhere with much, much lower cost of living and salaries in general, and make the high end of what's common out here.
      - iosDrone 9y ago
        My offer letter says that I'm legally forbidden from disclosing the terms of my compensation. You should just fill in the salary boxes that you are under a legal obligation not to do so.
- downer72 9y ago
  And how does this further complicate the gender inequality issues, in terms of salary negotiations? A common tactic is, if a company knows what you're making, they'll try to hold your earnings as close as possible to something only slightly better than any potential raise you'd be entitled to at your current employer, and you'll get the same tactic from multiple potential employers. If you're only entitled to a 3% raise, organizations with access to this information might only ever offer 5%, and refuse to go higher. With this information in the picture, lower salaries mysteriously stay low, even for some lateral moves, depending on who you are and what they can dig up on you.
mjevans 9y ago
Maybe it's time to just make tax returns (and therefore salaries) part of the public record. I think that transparency could make for a more fair process and also level negotiation since the compensation would then be about the role and how good someone is actually rated, rather than about how much they happened to have been paid in the past or how good they are about lying about it.
- nowarninglabel 9y ago
  It'd be great to read the arguments against making them public. There's good reasons why we should make them public available here: http://www.nytimes.com/2010/02/14/business/yourtaxes/14disclose.html http://www.nytimes.com/2010/02/14/business/yourtaxes/14discl... Secrecy is good in many places, but I can't think of why it is good for tax returns, asides from perhaps allowing criminals to more easily target those with high incomes?
  - paulddraper 9y ago
    Same reason why I have an opaque fence instead of a transparent one. I prefer for every random passerby to know full details of everything I do.
    - cwkoss 9y ago
      I think you missed a negation
  - TimPC 9y ago
    How about start-ups? If employers have access to your salary history in terms of a taxable compensation number but no access to information on what your options were this seems to suggest that employers will discriminate against start-up workers who traded off compensation, since their automated HR look-up would be unwilling to give someone the big raise related to not having equity and working in big corp.
    - mjevans 9y ago
nwatson 9y ago
I just froze my family's credit reports with all three credit reporting agencies ... I wonder whether that blocks employers from this info as well, I imagine it's a completely separate service though.
- TaylorGood 9y ago
  There's a fourth as I've learned through this fiasco. Worth freezing: Innovis
  - bspn 9y ago
    Which, as I discovered today, is a massive PITA. A letter arrived in the mail saying the freeze won't be effective until I mail them a copy of my photo ID.
- justgottasay3 9y ago
  want to get rich fast... start a new credit reporting agency that just does a 'sed' on one of the big three reports and feeds it to you as their report... put a big warning on the home page that folks should freeze their report from your CRA for just $5.00. Watch the money roll in. Lather. Rinse. Repeat.
paxy 9y ago
This is why you never agree to a background/credit check from an employer unless you have an offer – with a number – in hand.
- dboreham 9y ago
  As a business owner I have had to run background checks on prospective employees (because contracts with our clients required it). In no case were we given this kind of information.
dboreham 9y ago
Is this actually true though? Lenders want to "verify employment" and I can imagine a service where big employers report who is working for them to an agency, allowing lenders to query the agency to check employment. What I doubt is that employers report salary data to Equifax. I'm an employer and I've never heard of this. I'm good friends with (well...married to) someone who worked in this field and tells me it is highly illegal to divulge non-anonymized salary data to any entity other than the IRS. I've been trained how to answer calls from lenders asking about our employees (I can answer "yes that person works for us", and provide no other information, period). The idea that Equifax built a giant database of everyone's salary data is completely at odds with everything I've ever heard as a person running a business with employees. Also...if they had this data why am I always asked to provide my salary on loan applications?
- tzm 9y ago
  In California, background verification includes salary history and included in a subsequent disclosure packet that's mailed to prospects.
6stringmerc 9y ago
So when can we file a class action lawsuit?
- matt_wulfeck 9y ago
  You’ll be better off taking them to small claims court.

dawnerd 9y ago

Makes this law a moot point https://www.usatoday.com/story/money/2017/04/27/whats-your-salary-becomes-no-no-job-interviews/100933948/ https://www.usatoday.com/story/money/2017/04/27/whats-your-s...

kevmo 9y ago

Yeah, that is pretty crazy. The ball is usually already firmly in the employer's court. This kind of information greatly diminishes the already most-diminished's bargaining power.

Retric 9y ago
Past pay is not directly a significant issue. It's just a question of getting competing offers. The real issue is some people suck at negotiation and past salaries will tell companies that.
- justifier 9y ago
  If some people 'suck' at negotiating then that must mean there are others who are 'better' at negotiating If I have a guardian who pays my rent so that i can take 6months to high ball offers to finally find a job that will pay me a high wage does that mean I'm 'better' at negotiating?
  - brianwawok 9y ago
    What stops you from taking the first job you find, and then spending 6 months while working looking for better jobs? It hardly is THAT hard to get some competing offers. And if you can't be bothered, I guess you don't really want it anyway?
    - justifier 9y ago
      > What stops [someone].. Interviews scheduled during work hours, already working multiple jobs, burnout, lack of openings in your field > It hardly is THAT hard to get some competing offers. And if you can't be bothered, I guess you don't really want it anyway? This sentiment signals bias Competing offers? For what? Serving coffee? Washing dishes? DBA? CTO? If you offer anyone with a job more money my guess is 100% would take the extra cash, so just because they fail to find, or look, for more cash how does it imply they 'don't really want it anyway'?
      - winston_smith 9y ago
        > This sentiment signals bias While your sentiments are presumably bias-free?
        justifier 9y ago
        I think everyone has bias, but I do think issues can be discussed without letting your biases supplant reason What I meant by signalling bias was I felt the gp was allowing bias about the issue cloud reasoning as to the nuance of the issue If my comment seemed to imply that I deny nuance then I failed to communicate my point Which was: sometimes pay is a result of other factors other than either a want or pure negotiation
        winston_smith 9y ago
        > Which was: sometimes pay is a result of other factors other than either a want or pure negotiation Thanks, I think that's a much better criticism of the original argument
    - mjevans 9y ago
      Starting anything new is a drain on resources. Someone with time to focus on interviewing is bound to be better than someone with a new job they need to figure out. After all, it usually takes a few months to get anyone up to speed in a job, and this is assuming they're giving lots of effort. For existing jobs? Inertia is probably a factor there, as well as fear of the unknown. When you've got something to loose it's different than having nothing to loose.
  - Retric 9y ago
    Try not to think in the very short term. Finding a job at ~70% of the going rate for your field is not that hard. Now at 70% a 10% raise might not seem like a huge deal as your still under market, but it only takes 7 of those to double your salary. And a 15-20% pay raise to jump to the next job is hardly unreasonable. Do those every ~3 years and you will massive difference inside a decade. Remember, the median salary is just that people really do get paid more than it.
- shostack 9y ago
  Any suggestions on how to bypass the question of past/expected comp then?
  - deleted 9y ago
    [deleted]
  - downer72 9y ago
    In some cases, it is explicitly stated by the prospective employer that any refusal of requested information (or providing false information) will be met with a rejection letter. I have been on interviews where this is part of a boiler plate release/waiver for a background check, prior to receiving an offer letter, and on the same form, you are made to list prior employers, and fill in the salary box for each. And if you don't like it, good luck taking legal action, right? Whether something is legal or illegal, most people lack the resources to even entertain the idea of challenging legality. The only path that seems to effectively buffer this practice is working with recruiting agencies, which do a better job of negotiating, but do still collect this information. And although recruiters might only be capable of telling you whether you have real leverage for your salary demands, whether the recruiter is being paid by you or the employer is a clue as to who they're working for. Hint: if you aren't paying them out of pocket, recruiters aren't actually working for you, even if they seem really pleasant.
    - zdragnar 9y ago
      I wouldn't paint so broad a brush with your "only path" argument; I've never listed my salaries, and have always negotiated my own (even when connected to jobs via a recruiter). Then again, I'm fortunate to have highly sought skills and years of experience, but I wouldn't go so far as to say that's the only way to get fair pay. Edit: I should point out that I'm not making anything to brag about by silicon valley standards, but I also live somewhere with much, much lower cost of living and salaries in general, and make the high end of what's common out here.
    - iosDrone 9y ago
      My offer letter says that I'm legally forbidden from disclosing the terms of my compensation. You should just fill in the salary boxes that you are under a legal obligation not to do so.
downer72 9y ago
And how does this further complicate the gender inequality issues, in terms of salary negotiations? A common tactic is, if a company knows what you're making, they'll try to hold your earnings as close as possible to something only slightly better than any potential raise you'd be entitled to at your current employer, and you'll get the same tactic from multiple potential employers. If you're only entitled to a 3% raise, organizations with access to this information might only ever offer 5%, and refuse to go higher. With this information in the picture, lower salaries mysteriously stay low, even for some lateral moves, depending on who you are and what they can dig up on you.

mjevans 9y ago

Maybe it's time to just make tax returns (and therefore salaries) part of the public record. I think that transparency could make for a more fair process and also level negotiation since the compensation would then be about the role and how good someone is actually rated, rather than about how much they happened to have been paid in the past or how good they are about lying about it.

nowarninglabel 9y ago
It'd be great to read the arguments against making them public. There's good reasons why we should make them public available here: http://www.nytimes.com/2010/02/14/business/yourtaxes/14disclose.html http://www.nytimes.com/2010/02/14/business/yourtaxes/14discl... Secrecy is good in many places, but I can't think of why it is good for tax returns, asides from perhaps allowing criminals to more easily target those with high incomes?
- paulddraper 9y ago
  Same reason why I have an opaque fence instead of a transparent one. I prefer for every random passerby to know full details of everything I do.
  - cwkoss 9y ago
    I think you missed a negation
- TimPC 9y ago
  How about start-ups? If employers have access to your salary history in terms of a taxable compensation number but no access to information on what your options were this seems to suggest that employers will discriminate against start-up workers who traded off compensation, since their automated HR look-up would be unwilling to give someone the big raise related to not having equity and working in big corp.
  - mjevans 9y ago

nwatson 9y ago

I just froze my family's credit reports with all three credit reporting agencies ... I wonder whether that blocks employers from this info as well, I imagine it's a completely separate service though.

TaylorGood 9y ago
There's a fourth as I've learned through this fiasco. Worth freezing: Innovis
- bspn 9y ago
  Which, as I discovered today, is a massive PITA. A letter arrived in the mail saying the freeze won't be effective until I mail them a copy of my photo ID.
justgottasay3 9y ago
want to get rich fast... start a new credit reporting agency that just does a 'sed' on one of the big three reports and feeds it to you as their report... put a big warning on the home page that folks should freeze their report from your CRA for just $5.00. Watch the money roll in. Lather. Rinse. Repeat.

paxy 9y ago

This is why you never agree to a background/credit check from an employer unless you have an offer – with a number – in hand.

dboreham 9y ago
As a business owner I have had to run background checks on prospective employees (because contracts with our clients required it). In no case were we given this kind of information.

dboreham 9y ago

Is this actually true though? Lenders want to "verify employment" and I can imagine a service where big employers report who is working for them to an agency, allowing lenders to query the agency to check employment. What I doubt is that employers report salary data to Equifax. I'm an employer and I've never heard of this. I'm good friends with (well...married to) someone who worked in this field and tells me it is highly illegal to divulge non-anonymized salary data to any entity other than the IRS. I've been trained how to answer calls from lenders asking about our employees (I can answer "yes that person works for us", and provide no other information, period). The idea that Equifax built a giant database of everyone's salary data is completely at odds with everything I've ever heard as a person running a business with employees. Also...if they had this data why am I always asked to provide my salary on loan applications?

tzm 9y ago
In California, background verification includes salary history and included in a subsequent disclosure packet that's mailed to prospects.

6stringmerc 9y ago

So when can we file a class action lawsuit?

matt_wulfeck 9y ago
You’ll be better off taking them to small claims court.