3 ms·

It is illegal to prevent people from discussing their salaries in the United States. National Labor Relations Act, 1935, plain as day, and reaffirmed several ti

It is illegal to prevent people from discussing their salaries in the United States. National Labor Relations Act, 1935, plain as day, and reaffirmed several times in court. I'm also proud to work in Massachusetts, where it's illegal for prospective employers to ask about your prior job's salary. This harms workers by pegging future comp to past comp. It's particularly destructive to women and people of color. There are sneaky ways for employers to circumvent this law - I've written a blog post before about how this happens: http://cushychicken.github.io/what-to-say-when-asked-salary-history/ http://cushychicken.github.io/what-to-say-when-asked-salary-... Discussing salary is, in my view, one of the last major bits of power retained to workers in the US. It is also one of the only labor rights that the government has meaningfully protected. Talk about your salary with others. It's an important behavior to normalize, and a powerful way to help spur pay equity in this country. It's one of the easiest ways to push back against the information asymmetry that most corporations naturally exploit. (Though I suspect this is almost purely out of self interest, and not any real malice.)

Wowfunhappy 5y ago
Re: your article: > Disclosing your salary can turn a potential double digit raise when changing jobs to a few percent raise. You could leave thousands, or even tens of thousands of dollars on the table. But isn't it possible for this to happen in the opposite direction? I.e., turning a pay cut into a small raise.
- MisterBastahrd 5y ago
  Here's my unvarnished opinion as a former recruiter turned developer... You would have to be a complete and utter moron to truthfully relate your current or former pay history to a potential employer. There are two primary things that they are doing when they ask for your salary history: 1. They want to know whether they can get you for cheap 2. They want to know the rates that the market is setting for a person of your talent level You never have to be truthful about what you were paid and why you left unless you are in a profession that requires such information to be disclosed. Add 20% and let them negotiate you down to what you are willing to move for. Any employer that isn't competent enough to price your talent versus the market is an employer who will screw you over in the future.
  - cushychicken 5y ago
    This guy recruits. Talk to recruiters like you cultivate mushrooms. Feed em shit, and keep em in the dark.
  - BizarroLand 5y ago
    What I do is combine all of my current salary & benefits (including counting my PTO as additional "base" salary) and then round that up to the nearest $2.5k. I have that number ready so that if I mention my previous salary I have a number that amounts to the value of my current or previous job to me to set the base for the upcoming one. Example: If your salary is $25/hr with 2 weeks PTO and other Perks valued at 5% annual salary (401k matching, health insurance, work perks like food or discounts, etc.) That is $52k + $2k + ~$3k = ~$57k rounded up to $57.5k is the "Previous" annual salary I would represent. That poses you as someone who would "jump ship" for $60k + similar benefits when in reality it would be a 15% pay raise to have the same benefits + an additional $8k a year. It's a win all around. The recruiter thinks they're getting a deal, you know you're getting a deal, and everyone is happy and no one is the wiser.
- cushychicken 5y ago
  isn't it possible for this to happen in the opposite direction? I.e., turning a pay cut into a small raise. It is, but that's only something that can happen when you allow the company to make the first offer. If they do, and they undershoot your current comp, it likely means that: * they have no idea how to price your skills against the market rate, * they are strapped for cash, and trying to get you at a bargain price, or * they are simply trying to lowball you and see what you do. You can counter by saying something to the effect of "Thanks, but that represents a pay cut for me, and that doesn't make financial sense for me right now." An honest mistake will result in them hustling to redo the offer to your liking. I don't know thst I've ever seen an honest mistake of this kind from a recruiter. They simply have too much data for me to believe that. None of these scenarios are a great look for a company that wants to recruit you. Seeing these from a company offering me a job leaves me pretty hesitant to work for them. To me, it telegraphs either amateurism, or bad faith negotiations. The one exception to this - and, I gotta say, this tradeoff has never made financial sense to me, personally - is to take a pay cut to work at a startup. At that point, you're swapping pay for the opportunity to learn or advance your career in some other way.
david38 5y ago
No, it’s particularly destructive to anyone who starts out low wage. In other words, anyone who starts as the working poor. Instead of othering the other poor, by just talking about the working poor, there is more likely to be progress for the poor.
- cushychicken 5y ago
  it’s particularly destructive to anyone who starts out low wage. In other words, anyone who starts as the working poor. I'm firmly of the belief that poverty is intersectional to the discrimination of women and non-white people in the USA. The data bears this out. Salary data about these demographics suggest that women make about 60-80% of what a man is paid for similar work. People of color - particularly Black men - are in a similar position. This is certainly not an issue solely confined to the working poor, either. It transcends class boundaries. It just happens to impact low income women and POCs more severely because it means they're batting from behind on two fronts instead of just one.
- russelldjimmy 5y ago
  As someone who doesn’t live in a western democracy, help me understand why “people of colour”, “wage gap”, “minorities” and all these other keywords need to be shoehorned into so many articles and discussions? It is so tiring to find any kind of articles that report things without getting the author/organisation’s political agenda in the way.

Wowfunhappy 5y ago

Re: your article: > Disclosing your salary can turn a potential double digit raise when changing jobs to a few percent raise. You could leave thousands, or even tens of thousands of dollars on the table. But isn't it possible for this to happen in the opposite direction? I.e., turning a pay cut into a small raise.

MisterBastahrd 5y ago
Here's my unvarnished opinion as a former recruiter turned developer... You would have to be a complete and utter moron to truthfully relate your current or former pay history to a potential employer. There are two primary things that they are doing when they ask for your salary history: 1. They want to know whether they can get you for cheap 2. They want to know the rates that the market is setting for a person of your talent level You never have to be truthful about what you were paid and why you left unless you are in a profession that requires such information to be disclosed. Add 20% and let them negotiate you down to what you are willing to move for. Any employer that isn't competent enough to price your talent versus the market is an employer who will screw you over in the future.
- cushychicken 5y ago
  This guy recruits. Talk to recruiters like you cultivate mushrooms. Feed em shit, and keep em in the dark.
- BizarroLand 5y ago
  What I do is combine all of my current salary & benefits (including counting my PTO as additional "base" salary) and then round that up to the nearest $2.5k. I have that number ready so that if I mention my previous salary I have a number that amounts to the value of my current or previous job to me to set the base for the upcoming one. Example: If your salary is $25/hr with 2 weeks PTO and other Perks valued at 5% annual salary (401k matching, health insurance, work perks like food or discounts, etc.) That is $52k + $2k + ~$3k = ~$57k rounded up to $57.5k is the "Previous" annual salary I would represent. That poses you as someone who would "jump ship" for $60k + similar benefits when in reality it would be a 15% pay raise to have the same benefits + an additional $8k a year. It's a win all around. The recruiter thinks they're getting a deal, you know you're getting a deal, and everyone is happy and no one is the wiser.
cushychicken 5y ago
isn't it possible for this to happen in the opposite direction? I.e., turning a pay cut into a small raise. It is, but that's only something that can happen when you allow the company to make the first offer. If they do, and they undershoot your current comp, it likely means that: * they have no idea how to price your skills against the market rate, * they are strapped for cash, and trying to get you at a bargain price, or * they are simply trying to lowball you and see what you do. You can counter by saying something to the effect of "Thanks, but that represents a pay cut for me, and that doesn't make financial sense for me right now." An honest mistake will result in them hustling to redo the offer to your liking. I don't know thst I've ever seen an honest mistake of this kind from a recruiter. They simply have too much data for me to believe that. None of these scenarios are a great look for a company that wants to recruit you. Seeing these from a company offering me a job leaves me pretty hesitant to work for them. To me, it telegraphs either amateurism, or bad faith negotiations. The one exception to this - and, I gotta say, this tradeoff has never made financial sense to me, personally - is to take a pay cut to work at a startup. At that point, you're swapping pay for the opportunity to learn or advance your career in some other way.

david38 5y ago

No, it’s particularly destructive to anyone who starts out low wage. In other words, anyone who starts as the working poor. Instead of othering the other poor, by just talking about the working poor, there is more likely to be progress for the poor.

cushychicken 5y ago
it’s particularly destructive to anyone who starts out low wage. In other words, anyone who starts as the working poor. I'm firmly of the belief that poverty is intersectional to the discrimination of women and non-white people in the USA. The data bears this out. Salary data about these demographics suggest that women make about 60-80% of what a man is paid for similar work. People of color - particularly Black men - are in a similar position. This is certainly not an issue solely confined to the working poor, either. It transcends class boundaries. It just happens to impact low income women and POCs more severely because it means they're batting from behind on two fronts instead of just one.
russelldjimmy 5y ago
As someone who doesn’t live in a western democracy, help me understand why “people of colour”, “wage gap”, “minorities” and all these other keywords need to be shoehorned into so many articles and discussions? It is so tiring to find any kind of articles that report things without getting the author/organisation’s political agenda in the way.