7 ms·
If they're pushy I ask if they want to know so that they can A) lowball me B) because they don't trust their own assessment of my value C) something else (this
by pydry 5y ago
If they're pushy I ask if they want to know so that they can A) lowball me B) because they don't trust their own assessment of my value C) something else (this is a trap: there is no C).
One time an HR drone told me it was policy to ask and he didnt know why. I quizzically asked him why as an HR rep he didnt understand the HR policies of the company he worked for. I even asked him if it was policy for HR to not understand HR policy.
I kind of wished I'd told him that I'd recorded this phone call for training purposes :/
It's amazing how sweet and polite you can be with this line of questioning and how humiliating their answers will be (because there is no good answer).
It's a massive red flag so I doubt ive lost any good jobs this way.
- WalterBright 5y agoThe reason for asking the question is knowing a candidate's salary history reduces the risk of hiring him. Just like when you buy a house, knowing the house's sale history helps you avoid a big mistake.
- walshemj 5y agoNo if you do a Phd at CERN or similar tier 1 institutions the pay there is often very low I found that for starting work at a world leading RnD organisation.
- diob 5y agoThis is literally a way to suppress folks from the lower class. They can't afford to jump to FANG or some other great job right out of college in a lot of cases, they need to start making money.
- WalterBright 5y agoAll the person has to do is stand firm on the salary he feels he deserves.
- Firadeoclus 5y agoStanding firm is a useful negotiation tactic at times, yet no guarantee for success. If companies you want to work for collectively take the stance that you don't deserve the salary you're asking for, possibly influenced by their knowledge of your salary history, then you standing firm means you don't get the job. Even if it's only some companies doing that, it influences the time it takes for you to find a job that pays what you feel you deserve, increasing the cost of your "stand firm" stance.
- WalterBright 5y agoNobody said negotiation offered guarantees. It's not negotiating that gets you a guaranteed worst case result.
- Firadeoclus 5y ago"All the person has to do" reads to me as if you're implying it's a guaranteed road to success, or that it comes at minimal cost. If this wasn't intended, I apologise. Not negotiating means you get low offers, standing firm might mean you get none at all. I think the latter is the worst case result.
- diob 5y agoThis is troll level of misunderstanding how the world works.
- WalterBright 5y agoBelieving one has no agency is a self-fulfilling prophecy. Two days ago I met an Afghan who escaped from Afghanistan safely last summer with his family. They lost everything but their lives. He barely speaks English, but he's already up and running with his own business, and drives a new car. What's he got that you don't have?
- diob 5y ago
- kyralis 5y agoOn what basis? Knowing the candidates job history may do so, but what signal does the salary itself give? The company is highly unlikely to answer the question, "what did you pay the previous employee in this position?"; why should I answer "what did the company that previously employed me pay me?"
- WalterBright 5y ago> what signal does the salary itself give? That someone else thought you were worth that much. > why should I answer You don't have to answer any question you don't want to. But if your previous salary was high, mentioning it will frame the negotiations in a higher salary bracket.
- kyralis 5y agoYou're looking at this consistently through the lens of someone coming in with an existing high salary who can exploit that during negotiations. But someone coming in from that perspective is likely already in a strong enough economic position to negate some of the leverage that the company starts with. > That someone else thought you were worth that much. No, it suggests that someone thought you were worth at least that much. It sets a floor, not a ceiling. If that floor is high, then it may be a valuable signal as long as others corroborate it. If it's low, however, that signal is effectively meaningless. And yet, employers start assuming that a low existing salary does imply a ceiling on - or even accurate measure of - worth, as you seem to be doing.
- WalterBright 5y ago> that signal is effectively meaningless No, it isn't. > or even accurate measure of I didn't say it was accurate. I said it wasn't meaningless. Nobody is dumb enough to think that it's exact. > employers start assuming You're doing a lot of assuming. But at least you kinda sorta agree now that it is a signal, so, progress!
- mlyle 5y ago
- pydry 5y agoThat would seem to put your company squarely under the heading of checks notes A) "doesnt put enough faith in own ability to assess talent without it". If you place a preference on candidates who share the information, your lack of faith in your own ability to value talent is presumably also strong enough that you are willing to forgo the (better) candidates who do not feel compelled to share their salary history. That's quite the declaration to make to a job applicant. I agree entirely about the house buying thing. I find the metaphor apt. I like to know. I have never bought a house so, at that, I consider myself an amateur who needs all the help he can get.