Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Massachusetts Bans Employers from Asking Applicants About Previous Pay

nytimes.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

271–280 of 785 posts

Re: Massachusetts Bans Employers from Asking Applicants About Previous Pay

#271

Post by balls187 »

balls187 wrote: post #189
trentmb wrote: post #126

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Because we're not actually engineers. https://www.nspe.org/resources/licensure/what-pe Although there does appear to be a PE exam for software: http://ncees.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/07/SWE-Apr-2013.pdf

Specific to the US No, we're not "professional engineers," which means we cannot testify in court as an expert in our field, and have limitations for what we can consult on based on the licensing requirements of your state. However, the title of "engineer" can be conferred upon an individual by an employer, during the term of their employment.

And to be fair, PE's have to take two licensing exams, the FE, then the PE.

We on the other hand, have to take an "exam" everytime we show up for an in person interview.

Re: Massachusetts Bans Employers from Asking Applicants About Previous Pay

#272

Post by JamesBarney »

Anasufovic wrote: post #217
dudul wrote: post #114

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why not disclose the budget you are working with and ask the candidate if it's in line with their expectations?

First person to talk numbers generally has the weak hand in the negotiation.

Most negotiation experts disagree with this advice. The first person who gives a number anchors the conversation to that number. When you name a number you certainly do set a max on negotiation, but you also get to set the starting number. And many negotiation experts think the latter is more valuable than the former.

So they can start off trying to negotiate you down from your max, or up you can spend your time trying to negotiate them up from their min.

Re: Massachusetts Bans Employers from Asking Applicants About Previous Pay

#273

Post by cheapsteak »

Anasufovic wrote: post #217
dudul wrote: post #114

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why not disclose the budget you are working with and ask the candidate if it's in line with their expectations?

First person to talk numbers generally has the weak hand in the negotiation.

The other school of thought on this is that the first person to talk numbers has the upper hand due to anchoring power

> Just like the word suggests, you want to set a reference point around which the negotiation will revolve. Making the first offer can be to your advantage, as this offer might set the height of the negotiation bar. This anchor is the arena where the two parties will wrangle in a tug and pull negotiation scenario. Interestingly enough, many studies have shown that the first offer has a strong psychological pull, almost a magnetic lure. The resulting agreement is often strongly attracted towards the person who proposes the first offer.

http://www.negotiations.com/articles/price-negotiation/

Re: Massachusetts Bans Employers from Asking Applicants About Previous Pay

#274

Post by jack9 »

matthewowen wrote: post #237
slg wrote: post #58

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I am a developer, so I am all for higher developer salaries, but your posts shows a common misunderstanding about economics. The value someone creates has nothing to do with their salary. Their salary is dictated by how many people need to hire developers and how many developers exist to fill those jobs or in simple terms, supply and demand. I might create millions of dollars in value with my code, but there might be…

Your answer also shows a common misunderstanding about economics, because it takes too narrow a focus. If there exist jobs that produce $1MM in value but that have a going rate of 200k, then there should be more of those jobs: either the company doing the work should expand, or it should have competitors. This will lead to increased competition to hire, which means higher wages. The increased number of jobs might gen…

> either the company doing the work should expand, or it should have competitors.

That's not how technology works. The most evident example is where data feeds data, creating a market without compare. You can't compete with google for map data or AWS for hosting.

> we should ultimately reach some sort of equilibrium

The equilibrium is not based on the metrics you have proposed except in the slightest degree.

Re: Massachusetts Bans Employers from Asking Applicants About Previous Pay

#275

Post by morgante »

fecak wrote: post #269
morgante wrote: post #200

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You should align fee structures. I tell you what I think I can get out of an employer. If you think you can get more, you take me on as a client and receive x% of the additional amount.

I like that idea, and I definitely would like to see an element of incentive like your model includes, but I imagine I'd also spend a fair amount of time either (a) saying no to people with unrealistic expectations or (b) trying to manage expectations down for those I'd consider overly optimistic, which could be perceived as opportunistic. It's tricky.

If you think most people's expectations aren't reasonable, then maybe your service isn't needed. Isn't your whole thesis that lots of engineers are getting less than their worth due to their inferior negotiation skills?

Re: Massachusetts Bans Employers from Asking Applicants About Previous Pay

#276

Post by dvt »

jazzyk wrote: post #266
morgante wrote: post #245

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Glassdoor skews heavily downwards. Even for companies I've worked at, where I knew what everyone made, its data was roughly 25-40% below reality. Also, why look at median salary? We're arguing over whether it's "possible" to become affluent as a mere employee—even if only the top 20% of engineers are capable of it, it's certainly possible.

Maybe I am a total loser, but I am not aware of any companies which "routinely" pay $300K for technical positions, not even at the Director level, in the Boston area.

Because these companies don't exist. Top companies pay SDE3s and tech leads like 300-400k. Medium-sized companies in high cost of living areas pay directors around that much. No one pays engineers that much. Literally no one.

Unless you're Norvig or Dijkstra.

Re: Massachusetts Bans Employers from Asking Applicants About Previous Pay

#277

Post by gozur88 »

matthewowen wrote: post #237
slg wrote: post #58

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I am a developer, so I am all for higher developer salaries, but your posts shows a common misunderstanding about economics. The value someone creates has nothing to do with their salary. Their salary is dictated by how many people need to hire developers and how many developers exist to fill those jobs or in simple terms, supply and demand. I might create millions of dollars in value with my code, but there might be…

Your answer also shows a common misunderstanding about economics, because it takes too narrow a focus. If there exist jobs that produce $1MM in value but that have a going rate of 200k, then there should be more of those jobs: either the company doing the work should expand, or it should have competitors. This will lead to increased competition to hire, which means higher wages. The increased number of jobs might gen…

>If there exist jobs that produce $1MM in value but that have a going rate of 200k, then there should be more of those jobs: either the company doing the work should expand, or it should have competitors.

How could you possibly determine how much value your efforts are producing? How much value are you assigning to the risk the founder and investors are taking? Maybe your $200k job is producing $200k in value. Or even less.

>The fact that tech companies bemoan how hard it is to find employees suggests that we aren't at this equilibrium.

Tech companies always pretend it's impossible to find employees. That's not reality, though. That's a political strategy.

Re: Massachusetts Bans Employers from Asking Applicants About Previous Pay

#278

Post by tastynacho »

jxramos wrote: post #248

Does this sort of information get revealed in background checks for previous places of employment or is that a privacy thing? Also is it really necessary for a state to dictate such things? Is it too much pressure for someone to respectfully decline to answer such a question and practice some negotiation skills? What exactly is the state's interest in this sort of thing precisely?

No it doesn't come back in a background check. The only thing that comes back is your title and employment dates.

That is actually how I've avoided all those annoying salary negotiations. Lie about how much I make, let them offer me slightly above that and gladly accept.

Re: Massachusetts Bans Employers from Asking Applicants About Previous Pay

#279

Post by [deleted] »

JustSomeNobody wrote: post #222
ubernostrum wrote: post #155

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So, this supply and demand thing. We keep hearing from large tech companies that there's a crisis -- a massive shortage of qualified software engineers, to such a degree that they won't be able to operate at all if they can't raise the H1-B quotas and import more people to fill all the jobs currently going unfilled. If that truly is the case, then supply and demand would tell us that currently engineers are underpaid…

Exactly. If a company were to announce they were going to bump dev salaries up by 75K/year, they'd be flooded with people wanting to interview.

[deleted]

Re: Massachusetts Bans Employers from Asking Applicants About Previous Pay

#280

Post by SiVal »

jazzyk wrote: post #156
cheald wrote: post #104

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Assuming that you can tolerate the commensurate risk, absolutely. Many people forget that the rank-and-file employee isn't exposed to the financial and legal risk that their employers were/are.

But they are exposed! In case of financial trouble (very common at startups), who gets to be laid off first, the CEO or the developer? Also, rank-and-file employees are typically scape-goated in legal proceedings, example: finance people going to jail for rogue/insider trading, even though upper management at least encouraged such behavior.

who gets to be laid off first, the CEO or the developer?

Wrong comparison. The CEO and developer are both employees. I've outlasted laid-off CEOs at several places of employment.

The comparison is between an employee and an owner. (Of course an owner may ALSO be an employee, maybe even CEO, and an employee may also be an owner, but comparison should consider these roles separately.)

The employee is risking having his assets stop growing temporarily as he is forced to go find another source of income. The owner might have no income from the business for a long time even if it is succeeding (or ever if it fails) and has to hand over already-earned assets to the business in hopes of getting it back plus more, but if things go south, he might not get anything back and may even be forced to hand over additional assets to cover damages. The employee's risk is temporarily not gaining assets, while the owner's risk is potentially losing his.

Reality is a little murkier than this separation, because an employee might lose assets moving to a new city only to get laid off. In a certain sense, an employee is the "owner" of a small service business providing services to a customer (his employer) and owners can trade off equity for risk by bringing in partners, but the big picture is still that people who decide on ownership vs. employment are choosing between two very different risk/reward profiles.

Post reply on HN