6 ms·

I had a similar experience with a recruiter. I asked why and she couldn't come up with a compelling answer, she just said "That's just how it is, we need your s

I had a similar experience with a recruiter. I asked why and she couldn't come up with a compelling answer, she just said "That's just how it is, we need your salary." She escalated it to her manager and he pulled the same. I eventually complied but not without telling them I didn't ever receive a good reason and it makes zero sense and I couldn't see how it would do anything but hurt me. Funny enough I ended up getting an offer way above my current salary, and a bit more than what I said I wanted. Is anyone here a recruiter and can shed some light as to why the hell these people are so adamant about getting my salary??? I'm wondering if part of the deal for them is if they don't give my current salary to HR they won't get paid. That seems really stupid but they were acting like they would let me walk if I didn't tell them my salary.

nostrademons 11y ago
It's a pretty strong signal that they want people who won't negotiate and aren't assertive. In some businesses, it's just counterproductive to hire an assertive employee: the business processes are in place, the command structure is well-established, and they just need bodies to fill places in the org chart. If it's one of those companies and you're one of those people, getting hired there will likely be painful for both of you.
- Nicholas_C 11y ago
  Hmmm, but this was the recruiter, not the company. The recruiter itself would want me to be assertive and negotiate as their compensation is calculated based on my starting salary. And this company was a very small and fast growing firm that would require a lot of hustle and assertiveness. My entire in person interview process was based on a case study that took 12 hours where I spent a large part of that arguing with my results/reasoning. So I don't think that holds.
  - nostrademons 11y ago
    In-house recruiter or independent recruiter? An in-house recruiter likely has their hands tied by company policy; if the company wants candidates who won't negotiate, the recruiters will not be permitted to negotiate, and will need to report back certain information like past salary. If it was an independent recruiter, that's a little weird, since presumably they have multiple clients. Maybe they need it for whatever matching software they use to search their available positions?
  - jrs235 11y ago
    But the recruiting shop might get paid $100 an hour for your services so if you only demand $60 instead of $75 then they, the recruiter or recruiting company, pockets that extra $15 per hour. It all depends how the recruiter/recruiting company is getting compensated.
  - learnstats2 11y ago
    >The recruiter itself would want me to be assertive and negotiate as their compensation is calculated based on my starting salary. This is a fallacy. The recruiter would rather fill the role as quickly as possible and move on to the next mark. The recruiter's choice is: wait for you to negotiate and maybe lose the role; or act as an agent for someone else.
  - pasbesoin 11y ago
    A recruiter's long-term compensation and viability is based upon repeat business. And they are working for the potential employer, not you. That is also the basis of the majority of their reputation with respect to getting contracts. So... They are interested in providing candidates that are, in as many parameter's as possible, within the employer's range -- and towards the favorable end. As to the ur-child-level idea that "good CEO's" will "clamp down" or whatever the term was on this practice... "Good CEO's" generally have NO interest in tackling the details of HR policy except when they are quite visibly causing problems and/or a big, bold initiative sweeps them into its fold ("Mind the Gap", or whatever the flavor du jour is). HR is a... well, in many ways and all the more bureaucratically so in larger firms, a nasty, detailed business. Endless quantities of compliance. "Fair" as a tool of constraint as often if not more so than enablement. Secrecy and emotions and politics, all needing to be whitewashed. The kind of details CEO's don't want to micromanage, and that the smarter ones know to stay away from -- or at least, at arm's length. There are individual exceptions -- some brave. But looking across the landscape of business, I don't think is there is any great movement to buck HR and attendant policy. It is a bureaucracy now well rooted in and growing from a depth and maze of regulation and law. Not all of which is bad -- worker safety and y and z and... have been much needed. But, don't expect your average CEO to "go there".
  - carrotleads 11y ago
    Many recruiter compensation is not a % and they pocket the difference. Atleast that is the case in Australia. When we contract we bill the recruiter whop bills the client.
- acveilleux 11y ago
  That sounds an awful lot like many healthcare IT behemoth. They mostly need bodies to bill them out by the hour keeping seat warms, conference line/room busy and to act as a buffer.
  - grecy 11y ago
    I'm at a telco, this is precisely how it works.
- vladimirralev 11y ago
  It's not really a sign of anything. Most likely some director is A/B testing a strategy or they just want data. If they want salary give it to them and see what they have to say for 5 mins. Everybody knows it is a shitty move to put you on the spot like this. And they can't be just looking for stupid people to hire. If they are willing to take the risk to piss you off may be they will have the decency to make up for it later on.
hobs 11y ago
Probably because it is a required field in whatever software or process they are using, and they are incompetent.
- ph0rque 11y ago
  "Just put $250,000 in that blank."
  - kelukelugames 11y ago
    I've been putting $1 out of pure spite. Feels great when I get an offer and they meet my asking price.
tormeh 11y ago
It could be for intelligence purposes; they want to know what other firms pay their employees.
- alexqgb 11y ago
  Exactly. One way to deflect the question is by saying that you're not about to provide any non-public information about an employer to anyone outside that company, and that includes specific details about their pay structure. You can also note that while this may not be the answer the interviewer is looking for, it does represent the kind of discretion that the company is likely to appreciate in the event that you do take a job with them, then eventually go elsewhere. If pressed, you can say your current pay is "unsatisfactory", and let them know that's what they can list on their form. You can add that you know the company has a range, that they're in the market for the skills you have, and that you're unhappy enough with your present number and long-term prospects to hear their offer. All this should send a pretty strong signal that, pay aside, you're not in any immediate hurry to leave your current position, so trying to chisel you down to something close to your current number is just a waste of everybody's time. It also signals that lowballing you now means you'll probably move on sooner rather than later, which is something most HR departments prefer to avoid. If pressed further - after all that - see the question for the red flag it is. This is probably not a company that has much interest in supporting your growth or professional development. Unless you're desperate (i.e., going nowhere is a better alternative than crashing hard) keep looking. You can end the conversation on a positive note by saying you do understand policy, that you wouldn't be there if you didn't think the company had a lot going for it, and that they know where to reach you. If they can just find a way to keep you from having to compromise the privacy of your existing employer, you'd consider jumping ship. If this doesn't produce a callback and you happen have friends who are already there and who want to see you hired, you can share the details of this exchange with them, and let them know why you ended the conversation with HR. Chances are, they'll be pissed. If they want you badly enough, and have the clout to pull rank, they can be sure that HR finds a way to accept your silence regarding your current pay. Infighting 101.
  - JoblessWonder 11y ago
nailer 11y ago
Conversely, state you require knowledge of the maximum they'd pay for the role.
lscore720 11y ago
Recruiting expert here! First off, a company "walking" without your salary information is a failure on their part, and their loss! However, to answer your question - I find the salary question to be a great indicator on many levels, here a few: It's just one data point in determining whether you're a qualified candidate 1) Why would I waste the candidate or the client/employer's time if there's too large a gap between candidate's salary & their highest potential for this role? The company has a budget, candidate have a minimum; let's get this out of the way - it would be terrible if the interview process went swimmingly only to find that the candidate wouldn't budge under $125K and client wouldn't exceed $100K. 2. Finally: it's not a huge deal if candidate prefers NOT to provide salary; sure, it makes you feel a little uncomfortable. If that's the case: no worries, but then I do ask that the candidate gives me a 10% range for their current salary & expectations. Again, employer just wants to know that we're potentially on the same page before wasting time. 3. Literally 95% of my software engineering candidates have no qualms about sharing their salary. The other 4% will at least give me a small range. These candidates that challenge this minor issue end up being more trouble than they're worth in other ways too; it's a red flag. (next stop: "no, I'm not taking a coding test"). Again, there are ways around REQUIRING the salary #. It should not result in a candidate or employer walking. Oof!
- kooshball 11y ago
  > 1) Why would I waste the candidate or the client/employer's time if there's too large a gap between candidate's salary & their highest potential for this role? It's trivial to solve this problem for a recruiter by simply stating the company budget range upfront. The problem is that recruiters want the client to give up their information without revealing any of their. That is where the asymmetry of information come into play and engineers end up getting the short end of the negotiation.
- ef4 11y ago
  > These candidates that challenge this minor issue end up being more trouble than they're worth in other ways too; it's a red flag. Speaking of red flags: organizations that think people who have basic negotiation skill are too much trouble to work with.
- 11y ago
vivekpreddy 11y ago
I head up recruiting at the company I work for. The biggest reason I ask this is that I'm worried a candidate's expectations are outside of what our budget is. There really is no other legitimate reason to ask in my opinion. Having said that, I'm always happy to share a range (depending on experience level and how the interview process goes of course). What I don't understand is that most startups do put ranges on AngelList these days, so I'm confused as to why there's so much of a cat and mouse game. I'm running an experiment right now to simply be transparent about our ranges, even in initial reachouts. I'm curious what the data suggests in terms of my response rates and ultimately hires made...
- robryan 11y ago
  How often does the end offer end up being outside the range that you are initially considering for a position?
- alkonaut 11y ago
  Still, what you really need is the candidates expected/required compensation, not their current compensation? Ther are jobs I'd take at half my current salary, and jobs I wouldn't take at 3 times my current salary. In an interview situation I'm happy to provide a ballpark figure as to not waste time, but I won't provide my last salary (my tax details are public!), and I won't negotiatiate salary until I have a good bargaining position.
- jules 11y ago
  If you are most concerned about wasting time, then why don't you tell your number to the candidate?
rmc 11y ago
Is anyone here a recruiter and can shed some light as to why the hell these people are so adamant about getting my salary??? If the company is willing to pay €80k, and you were on €50k, then they can offer you €60k and tell you how great it is that you got a €10k raise! It's all a way for them to pay you les.

nostrademons 11y ago

It's a pretty strong signal that they want people who won't negotiate and aren't assertive. In some businesses, it's just counterproductive to hire an assertive employee: the business processes are in place, the command structure is well-established, and they just need bodies to fill places in the org chart. If it's one of those companies and you're one of those people, getting hired there will likely be painful for both of you.

Nicholas_C 11y ago
Hmmm, but this was the recruiter, not the company. The recruiter itself would want me to be assertive and negotiate as their compensation is calculated based on my starting salary. And this company was a very small and fast growing firm that would require a lot of hustle and assertiveness. My entire in person interview process was based on a case study that took 12 hours where I spent a large part of that arguing with my results/reasoning. So I don't think that holds.
- nostrademons 11y ago
  In-house recruiter or independent recruiter? An in-house recruiter likely has their hands tied by company policy; if the company wants candidates who won't negotiate, the recruiters will not be permitted to negotiate, and will need to report back certain information like past salary. If it was an independent recruiter, that's a little weird, since presumably they have multiple clients. Maybe they need it for whatever matching software they use to search their available positions?
- jrs235 11y ago
  But the recruiting shop might get paid $100 an hour for your services so if you only demand $60 instead of $75 then they, the recruiter or recruiting company, pockets that extra $15 per hour. It all depends how the recruiter/recruiting company is getting compensated.
- learnstats2 11y ago
  >The recruiter itself would want me to be assertive and negotiate as their compensation is calculated based on my starting salary. This is a fallacy. The recruiter would rather fill the role as quickly as possible and move on to the next mark. The recruiter's choice is: wait for you to negotiate and maybe lose the role; or act as an agent for someone else.
- pasbesoin 11y ago
  A recruiter's long-term compensation and viability is based upon repeat business. And they are working for the potential employer, not you. That is also the basis of the majority of their reputation with respect to getting contracts. So... They are interested in providing candidates that are, in as many parameter's as possible, within the employer's range -- and towards the favorable end. As to the ur-child-level idea that "good CEO's" will "clamp down" or whatever the term was on this practice... "Good CEO's" generally have NO interest in tackling the details of HR policy except when they are quite visibly causing problems and/or a big, bold initiative sweeps them into its fold ("Mind the Gap", or whatever the flavor du jour is). HR is a... well, in many ways and all the more bureaucratically so in larger firms, a nasty, detailed business. Endless quantities of compliance. "Fair" as a tool of constraint as often if not more so than enablement. Secrecy and emotions and politics, all needing to be whitewashed. The kind of details CEO's don't want to micromanage, and that the smarter ones know to stay away from -- or at least, at arm's length. There are individual exceptions -- some brave. But looking across the landscape of business, I don't think is there is any great movement to buck HR and attendant policy. It is a bureaucracy now well rooted in and growing from a depth and maze of regulation and law. Not all of which is bad -- worker safety and y and z and... have been much needed. But, don't expect your average CEO to "go there".
- carrotleads 11y ago
  Many recruiter compensation is not a % and they pocket the difference. Atleast that is the case in Australia. When we contract we bill the recruiter whop bills the client.
acveilleux 11y ago
That sounds an awful lot like many healthcare IT behemoth. They mostly need bodies to bill them out by the hour keeping seat warms, conference line/room busy and to act as a buffer.
- grecy 11y ago
  I'm at a telco, this is precisely how it works.
vladimirralev 11y ago
It's not really a sign of anything. Most likely some director is A/B testing a strategy or they just want data. If they want salary give it to them and see what they have to say for 5 mins. Everybody knows it is a shitty move to put you on the spot like this. And they can't be just looking for stupid people to hire. If they are willing to take the risk to piss you off may be they will have the decency to make up for it later on.

hobs 11y ago

Probably because it is a required field in whatever software or process they are using, and they are incompetent.

ph0rque 11y ago
"Just put $250,000 in that blank."
- kelukelugames 11y ago
  I've been putting $1 out of pure spite. Feels great when I get an offer and they meet my asking price.

tormeh 11y ago

It could be for intelligence purposes; they want to know what other firms pay their employees.

alexqgb 11y ago
Exactly. One way to deflect the question is by saying that you're not about to provide any non-public information about an employer to anyone outside that company, and that includes specific details about their pay structure. You can also note that while this may not be the answer the interviewer is looking for, it does represent the kind of discretion that the company is likely to appreciate in the event that you do take a job with them, then eventually go elsewhere. If pressed, you can say your current pay is "unsatisfactory", and let them know that's what they can list on their form. You can add that you know the company has a range, that they're in the market for the skills you have, and that you're unhappy enough with your present number and long-term prospects to hear their offer. All this should send a pretty strong signal that, pay aside, you're not in any immediate hurry to leave your current position, so trying to chisel you down to something close to your current number is just a waste of everybody's time. It also signals that lowballing you now means you'll probably move on sooner rather than later, which is something most HR departments prefer to avoid. If pressed further - after all that - see the question for the red flag it is. This is probably not a company that has much interest in supporting your growth or professional development. Unless you're desperate (i.e., going nowhere is a better alternative than crashing hard) keep looking. You can end the conversation on a positive note by saying you do understand policy, that you wouldn't be there if you didn't think the company had a lot going for it, and that they know where to reach you. If they can just find a way to keep you from having to compromise the privacy of your existing employer, you'd consider jumping ship. If this doesn't produce a callback and you happen have friends who are already there and who want to see you hired, you can share the details of this exchange with them, and let them know why you ended the conversation with HR. Chances are, they'll be pissed. If they want you badly enough, and have the clout to pull rank, they can be sure that HR finds a way to accept your silence regarding your current pay. Infighting 101.
- JoblessWonder 11y ago

nailer 11y ago

Conversely, state you require knowledge of the maximum they'd pay for the role.

lscore720 11y ago

Recruiting expert here! First off, a company "walking" without your salary information is a failure on their part, and their loss! However, to answer your question - I find the salary question to be a great indicator on many levels, here a few: It's just one data point in determining whether you're a qualified candidate 1) Why would I waste the candidate or the client/employer's time if there's too large a gap between candidate's salary & their highest potential for this role? The company has a budget, candidate have a minimum; let's get this out of the way - it would be terrible if the interview process went swimmingly only to find that the candidate wouldn't budge under $125K and client wouldn't exceed $100K. 2. Finally: it's not a huge deal if candidate prefers NOT to provide salary; sure, it makes you feel a little uncomfortable. If that's the case: no worries, but then I do ask that the candidate gives me a 10% range for their current salary & expectations. Again, employer just wants to know that we're potentially on the same page before wasting time. 3. Literally 95% of my software engineering candidates have no qualms about sharing their salary. The other 4% will at least give me a small range. These candidates that challenge this minor issue end up being more trouble than they're worth in other ways too; it's a red flag. (next stop: "no, I'm not taking a coding test"). Again, there are ways around REQUIRING the salary #. It should not result in a candidate or employer walking. Oof!

kooshball 11y ago
> 1) Why would I waste the candidate or the client/employer's time if there's too large a gap between candidate's salary & their highest potential for this role? It's trivial to solve this problem for a recruiter by simply stating the company budget range upfront. The problem is that recruiters want the client to give up their information without revealing any of their. That is where the asymmetry of information come into play and engineers end up getting the short end of the negotiation.
ef4 11y ago
> These candidates that challenge this minor issue end up being more trouble than they're worth in other ways too; it's a red flag. Speaking of red flags: organizations that think people who have basic negotiation skill are too much trouble to work with.
11y ago

vivekpreddy 11y ago

I head up recruiting at the company I work for. The biggest reason I ask this is that I'm worried a candidate's expectations are outside of what our budget is. There really is no other legitimate reason to ask in my opinion. Having said that, I'm always happy to share a range (depending on experience level and how the interview process goes of course). What I don't understand is that most startups do put ranges on AngelList these days, so I'm confused as to why there's so much of a cat and mouse game. I'm running an experiment right now to simply be transparent about our ranges, even in initial reachouts. I'm curious what the data suggests in terms of my response rates and ultimately hires made...

robryan 11y ago
How often does the end offer end up being outside the range that you are initially considering for a position?
alkonaut 11y ago
Still, what you really need is the candidates expected/required compensation, not their current compensation? Ther are jobs I'd take at half my current salary, and jobs I wouldn't take at 3 times my current salary. In an interview situation I'm happy to provide a ballpark figure as to not waste time, but I won't provide my last salary (my tax details are public!), and I won't negotiatiate salary until I have a good bargaining position.
jules 11y ago
If you are most concerned about wasting time, then why don't you tell your number to the candidate?

rmc 11y ago

Is anyone here a recruiter and can shed some light as to why the hell these people are so adamant about getting my salary??? If the company is willing to pay €80k, and you were on €50k, then they can offer you €60k and tell you how great it is that you got a €10k raise! It's all a way for them to pay you les.