6 ms·
If this is correct, then it would be risky for someone to lie to a new employer about their former salary in order to receive an offer for a higher pay, because
by Victerius 5y ago
If this is correct, then it would be risky for someone to lie to a new employer about their former salary in order to receive an offer for a higher pay, because the new employer could use this service to cross check the employee's claims.
- nsxwolf 5y agoHow can anyone say it’s accurate?
- BeefySwain 5y agoEmployers provide it. Obviously they could report incorrectly, but it's not like Equifax is just guessing.
- nsxwolf 5y agoWould you be willing to torpedo a good candidate making a reasonable request for compensation based on a discrepancy on this site?
- BeefySwain 5y agoWould I personally? No. But then I would not ask the requisite question of "what was your prior salary" in the first place. Fact of the matter is that this tool makes it trivial for medium and large employers to suppress wages.
- avs733 5y agoAnd if you were, I suspect you are doing the candidate a favor.
- inter_netuser 5y agoa favor? how so
- redanddead 5y agoYou could start your own co. and raise your salary to the sky, this can be gamed. But then, why would you even be an employee. However, for the average worker, this is awful
- nkozyra 5y agoWouldn't you still need to be a paying Equifax customer to supply that?
- redanddead 5y agoSay you were to increase your salary to 500k/y, you work in a lucrative industry for example, I think Equifax charges less than 5k upfront for whatever suite of services they're offering, and if I understood correctly, to gain entry into the service, you simply have to add data into the database. There's a way to break Equifax, but they're expecting people not to have the balls/time to do it, and I think they're right. You can't expect your average mom of two that works at Walmart to figure this stuff out, it's a tilted playing field.
- btmiller 5y agoSilver lining is that I don't see any RSU compensation listed in my report! That's the biggest chunk of my earnings anyway, so that should be fair game during negotiations.
- dreyfan 5y ago
- moneywoes 5y agoWouldn't this just lead to lower offers all around?
- redanddead 5y agoThis makes sense from an employer's POV. It's a B2B co., this is how they appeal to their clients.
- vanusa 5y agoThat's precisely the value proposition for employers.
- errantmind 5y agoWhy are you telling prospective employers your former salary? Just because someone asks, you don't have to answer. You aren't some desperate person begging for work, you are helping them achieve their goals in exchange for payment. It is a trade.
- throwawayboise 5y agoI guess the answer now is "I'm sure you have that information already"
- psyc 5y agoI'm finding out just in the past two years that the days when you could count on Corp. Entity A in Tallahassee not knowing about a prior transaction with Corp. Entity B in Portland, are pretty much over. Everybody knows everything. Even knowing this, seeing the amount of per-pay-period to-the-penny detail, going back to 1998, that's in this Equifax report, was a little surreal.
- onion2k 5y agoYou don't need to lie. There's nothing wrong with saying "My current salary is $xxxxx, but I feel that my employer undervalues my skills so I want $yyyyyy. It's why I'm leaving my current role." There is no reason why your future salary has to be based on your current salary. If the employer you're negotiating with disagrees then walking away is the best option because they undervalue your skills too.
- kmonsen 5y agoThen they will just offer something in the middle and try to talk you into it. That being said, at least for the big companies the initial salary is not that important. In some ways you are just setting yourself up for disappointment since if you start at the top of the band there will be no significant raises without a promotion. For RSUs it has a pretty significant effect for 4 years though.
- onion2k 5y agoThen they will just offer something in the middle and try to talk you into it. You can always say no. In some ways you are just setting yourself up for disappointment since if you start at the top of the band there will be no significant raises without a promotion. It sounds like you're saying starting at 80% of the band so you can enjoy a 25% raise to get to the top is better than just starting at the top. That doesn't make sense though.
- kmonsen 5y agoSure, of course it is in some was better to start at 100%. The problem is that we all still expect to get a raise, and that cannot happen at a big company if it would take you out of band. I don't think there are many exceptions to this. If they really like you they might throw some RSUs at you, but very likely will not go over the salary for that band. So unless you think you can get promoted right away (which requires significant luck as well), I think for long term happiness it is actually better to get salary on 80% and negotiate more on the initial RSU grant.
- 5y ago