Live data from Hacker News

Massachusetts Bans Employers from Asking Applicants About Previous Pay

nytimes.com

351–360 of 785 posts

Re: Massachusetts Bans Employers from Asking Applicants About Previous Pay

#351

Feel free to tell them what you make just add 15-40% to that number. This has worked well for me. Employers seem happy as well. Example: Assuming your current salary is X. "So I currently make (X * 1.20), but in order to make the jump I need at least (X * 1.40)." That way they get to feel out immediately whether they can afford you, you get the salary that would motivate you, and no one is wasting time in the hiring…

> Assuming your current salary is X. "So I currently make (X * 1.20), but in order to make the jump I need at least (X * 1.40)."

Regardless of whether or not the employer actually does due diligence, why put yourself at risk by lying? The second half of that statement is the only part that matters. If you simply say "I need (X * 1.40) to make the jump", you'll accomplish your goal without putting yourself at risk by being dishonest.

Due diligence or not, dishonesty during a job interview can only come back to hurt you.

Re: Massachusetts Bans Employers from Asking Applicants About Previous Pay

#352

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…

> if there are companies so desperate to hire engineers that they're turning to immigration law to try to increase the supply, why aren't they simply offering large enough compensation packages to attract the existing pool? I don't get this argument. If there are 100 open positions and 80 eligible candidates, 20 (at least) positions will remain vacant, regardless of compensation. Not saying that this example reflects…

The argument is that there are thousands of eligible candidates who simply haven't chosen to apply for your company because they are happy at their current position, and Apple/etc are choosing to focus on increasing the pool of candidates rather than increasing their attractiveness to the existing group of candidates.

Re: Massachusetts Bans Employers from Asking Applicants About Previous Pay

#353

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…

> if there are companies so desperate to hire engineers that they're turning to immigration law to try to increase the supply, why aren't they simply offering large enough compensation packages to attract the existing pool? I don't get this argument. If there are 100 open positions and 80 eligible candidates, 20 (at least) positions will remain vacant, regardless of compensation. Not saying that this example reflects…

Your math is wrong, or rather irrelevant. The pool of eligible candidates is not fixed. It constantly changes based on the offered compensation and other factors. For example there are plenty of people qualified to do engineering work who aren't working in that field right now for whatever reason, but could be enticed to take an engineering job for enough money.

Re: Massachusetts Bans Employers from Asking Applicants About Previous Pay

#354
post #291

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This works iff you shoot very high/low and if it's a very fungible range of possible outcomes. In something that is fairly well-bounded like job compensation (or most residential real estate transactions, as another example) it's usually better to let the counterparty turn the first card.

That's a sensible rationale as well, but if you are already familiar with the bounds of compensation, may it not be preferable to throw out a number that's slightly higher than the upper bounds of that yourself? Since employers know the bounds as well, letting them name the first price would seem likely to result in a number that's near the mid range and not take into consideration you as an individual (skills & pers…

Yours is a good thought too. Here is my perspective/experience:

Scenario 1: You start at the high end of the range or just a bit above it, I think you risk the employer coming in low as a counterplay, expecting to meet in the middle. Now, it's up to you whether you do actually meet in the middle, or hold firm and move them way up, or just end the negotiation entirely. But I think this opens up their strong counterplay and establishes their ability to take the reasonable-seeming ground that it's fair to meet in the middle (even if it isn't).

Scenario 2: They throw out the first price. Scenario 2a: They throw out the first price, and it's low for the range. Now you can counterplay by going high. You also can take the strong moral high ground here by showing comp data and basically saying that it seems like they're not being fair or don't value your experience and skills correctly, which is a concern to you. Often, this will be enough to get them to offer a higher price, and you can then spring from there to continue negotiations from this higher spot. Whether they offer a higher price or not, you can start high and employ meet-in-the-middle even from the low starting point. So, Scenario 2a is no worse than Scenario 1, and has some chance of being better.

Scenario 2b: They throw out the first price, and it's mid- or high for the range. Hey! Free money! Now you can safely shoot higher and hopefully end up somewhere between where they started (already on the good side of the range) and where you countered. :-D So, again, Scenario 2b is at least as good as Scenario 1. Very rarely will a company demand no negotiation whatsoever (and maybe you want to tell them kiss off if they do, unless they have a very good philosophical / values-based reason for doing this, and they do it consistently with all candidates), so you're only bettering your position by opening the possibility for them to start somewhere above the low-end of the established market range.

By combining all the above logic, you don't want to go first.

In practice, I think this works a lot better for prospective employees too. :-) I personally think companies should offer first, for this reason (even though it's bad "negotiation" on the company's part... I actually don't think employing people is a zero-sum game, let alone a one-turn game... so I think you're better off trying to position them well. But of course not all employers think this way, and it seems in fact most do not.)

Re: Massachusetts Bans Employers from Asking Applicants About Previous Pay

#355

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This reality provides one of the best arguments for a switch from a capitalist economy, in which it is shareholders who have little to do with the creation of value in the economy who ultimately benefit the most from it, to a free market socialist economy (one based on democratically owned worker cooperatives). In an economy based on worker cooperatives, the distinction between "employee" and "owner" is eliminated. I…

This is interesting. Can you suggest any resources that lay out concrete proposals for how this could work in practice? Are there examples of where it has already worked in the world? Some questions: 1. Wouldn't there still be a need for capital to finance risky ventures that take a long time to create value? How would a forward-looking startup with high capital costs, such as a biomedical device company with unprove…

Richard Wolff and Gar Alperovitz have both written about alternative economies based in part or in whole on worker cooperatives. If you're just curious about how worker cooperatives work in the existing economy, read up about Mondragon or the South Mountain Company. A good book about the latter, written by its founder, is Companies We Keep by John Abrams.

http://www.chelseagreen.com/business-economy/companies-we-ke...

Re: Massachusetts Bans Employers from Asking Applicants About Previous Pay

#356
post #322

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Does this mean if a company loses money the employees should contribute to the funding of the company rather than take a salary?

No. Why would that be a remotely rational thing for them to do? When I use "should" in my earlier post, I don't intend it as an ethical "should". I mean it as a "if everyone acts in a rational way, this should, eventually, be the outcome".

If everyone acts in a rational way, and there is no occurrence of monopolies or price fixing, and if information is widely distributed, and a few other "ifs" that are not obviously missing from the scene, this should, eventually, be the outcome

Re: Massachusetts Bans Employers from Asking Applicants About Previous Pay

#357

I started off with a really low salary because I was working as a developer outside the SF bay area and in an industry that paid really low. Then moved to the bay area. Every company or recruiter tries to place you at maybe 5% to 10% more than your current job. There was a time when I was just hopping from job to job to increase my salary. If there wasn't this convention of paying someone the same I wouldn't have swi…

"Having a law that says you can't ask someone something seems to violate Freedom of Speech and it sets a dangerous precedent." Like your age, religion, sexual orientation, or if you're planning on getting pregnant?

Companies don't always have the same rights as people other wise companies would be allowed second amendment rights

Re: Massachusetts Bans Employers from Asking Applicants About Previous Pay

#358
post #71

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Can you tell me the reason behind you thinking that "100k for a JavaScript engeneer is more than the "fair share"? And why you highlight the word "engeneer"?

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

Sorry, but the NSPE has no say on the definition of what an "engineer" is or isn't.

I mean, they say so as much:

> "What makes a PE different from an engineer?"

They're talking about a specific type of certification, not what an engineer is or isn't.

Re: Massachusetts Bans Employers from Asking Applicants About Previous Pay

#359

This. Negotiating a compensation package, in general, is asymmetric information warfare. Having to reveal your salary history you may as well not even negotiate. I know so many women who are constantly bit by this and negotiating in general. Here's an idea: compensation agents who negotiate the compensation package on your behalf. Athletes and actors have them, why not everyone else?

I don't know how much I would pay for this, but it would be more than zero dollars.

Re: Massachusetts Bans Employers from Asking Applicants About Previous Pay

#360
post #167

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Works well until an employer does due diligence (ask for proof of your number). In my experience many (not all) do due diligence.

I've never had a company ask for proof of income and I wouldn't work at one that did. That's an insane requirement that should have nothing to do with whether or not I'm fit for the job and they're willing to pay what I ask for someone to do the job.

I am at a higher end of market salary range and when I tell potential recruiters my expectations and my previous salary they take my desires into account but ask for documentation.

There was a discussion here on HN a couple months ago that this approach is common in such cases.

Post reply on HN