261–270 of 539 posts
Once upon a time I interviewed for a role in NYC. An employee that I spoke to said they paid pretty well, and I could expect about 120. The HR person wanted my previous salary, and I refused. Eventually they said their range was 130-150. I said it wasn't gonna work cause I was looking for something more like 220. They said okay we can do that no problem. My previous salary was 110.
I never answer questions about my past or expected salary, not to employers and not to recruiters. Most employers don't ask, and the few that have (perhaps by having a part of an employment form ask for previous salary) have never made my leaving that information out an issue. Most recruiters, if they even ask, respect my decision not to talk about it, but I've been pressed hard on this by a handful of recruiters, an…
I've never gotten a lot of grief about disclosing past salary. I generally try to set the anchor and conversation around what I want to be making to join their company. I have (very fortunately) never been in the position where I _had_ to leave or accept an offer on anything but my own terms, I feel that when you're negotiating from that position, the complete lack of pressure to accept a lower number becomes pretty…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This is why we publish salary ranges with our job ads but also require a desired salary within that range from candidates.
Every time I ever tried this, the candidates hover around the top of the range regardless of qualification and experience.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Has anyone run into issues for sharing a current salary that anchors the discussion too high? I could see how an employer might pass on a candidate who's actually interested in the job, just because they know they can't match what the candidate is currently making and it's likely a waste of time to spend hours evaluating someone who's making 50k more than what you could ever offer. Or is this purely theoretical and n…
Yes, lots of times. Pay varies widely in our industry, and it isn't uncommon for a lot of companies to never pay above $X, where X is substantially less than your current salary. Earlier in my career, I was less willing to share salary information. But now that my compensation is above average, I always have the "I am paid toward the top of the range in this area, here is what I make now/would be looking for, so that…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Unfortunately there are employers in NYC who do call previous employers to verify salary. Remember that most white-collar employees are in much less demand than developers and have to deal with far more employer bullshit.
How can it be legal for an employer to disclose a specific employees salary to a third party?
Once upon a time I interviewed for a role in NYC. An employee that I spoke to said they paid pretty well, and I could expect about 120. The HR person wanted my previous salary, and I refused. Eventually they said their range was 130-150. I said it wasn't gonna work cause I was looking for something more like 220. They said okay we can do that no problem. My previous salary was 110.
care to share your position and some discreet information about the company (size, industry?)
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The obvious consequence of a company publicly posting salaries (or even having clear salary ranges that nearly all the employees at the level of experience fall into) is that a thorough recruiter doesn't even need to ask your previous salary to be able to use it as a benchmark to work with though.
I don't think I've ever seen public salaries at places that pay on the lower-end. Usually I've seen it with startups that pay fairly well, but I could be wrong.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
1. Parent post was just for illustration, he's probably not talking about his actual salary + equity. 2. Is that really true? Multiples? Maybe for the CEO! I've been in tech for almost 2 decades and have never seen an equity package of more than ~25% or so of base salary. Usually it's about 5-10%, no?
I have more than 25% at a public company at the initial offer, but not multiples. However, I left a company that wasnt liquid which was multiples in equity. But once you risk-adjust it for ever being worth something...
There's a case to be made for an employee protection preventing an employer from firing an employee for refusing to produce pay stubs from a past employer. However, I've said it before -- preventing a question from being asked is state overreach and constitutes a violation of the first amendment, in my opinion.
While it's a smart move not to disclose your prior salary during negotiations, I really don't want there to be legal implications for the back and forth during this process. It's great in theory, but micromanaging businesses like this is over reach, though typical for NYC.
Why is it overreach when government promulgates policies that support the interests of citizens, presumably at the request of those citizens? Businesses are constantly lobbying government to change the rules in their favor, but any time rules are changed in the ways that don't benefit them they howl about government overreach.
The government is not some meddling entity that barged into a happy marriage between you as employer and your workers as employees. In theory - though governmental behavior is also flawed in the real world - it exists to serve the interests of all, individual or organizational. It's apparent that a majority of people dislike answering questions about pay and do not wish to be pressured into revealing such information, but as soon as they formalize that preference by making it into a rule folks like yourself are labeling it as overreach.
Once upon a time I interviewed for a role in NYC. An employee that I spoke to said they paid pretty well, and I could expect about 120. The HR person wanted my previous salary, and I refused. Eventually they said their range was 130-150. I said it wasn't gonna work cause I was looking for something more like 220. They said okay we can do that no problem. My previous salary was 110.