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

New York City bans employers from asking potential workers about past salary

nytlive.nytimes.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

341–350 of 539 posts

Re: New York City bans employers from asking potential workers about past salary

#341

Post by stale2002 »

ryandrake wrote: post #161
pmoriarty wrote: post #43

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 had a handful of potential employers ask straight up for my current salary, and they ALL got squirrely when I refused to disclose it. Currently batting zero with companies that ask for (and I politely decline to give) that info. EDIT: Also I kind of disagree with your assessment that it's a "seller's market" for IT talent. A lot of companies appear to be fishing for good deals, but is there really that much actu…

Then you avoid the question by saying stuff like "oh, my salary range is this" or "I've received offers for this amount".

Or just make up a number. Companies bluff all the time in negotiations. You should do it to.

Re: New York City bans employers from asking potential workers about past salary

#342

Post by jonathankoren »

callmeed wrote: post #338
pmoriarty wrote: post #43

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…

If you don't mind me asking, what's your reservation with revealing it? Is it more of a privacy/principle? Or do you actually lose an edge in salary negotiations by revealing it?

The idea is that the first person to give a number loses, since that anchors the conversation. As an employee, it's an counter to the asymmetry of information. Employers know their own salary structure, and even have access to anonymized salary survey information. Employees don't have this information.

Conversely, encouraging employees to not talk about your salary to other employees is another tactic to keep the information asymmetry. If you're underpaid, you'll never know it, and that's how they like it.

Re: New York City bans employers from asking potential workers about past salary

#343

Post by dharma1 »

catshirt wrote: post #247
showmethemoney wrote: post #200

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?)

NYC, 220 - finance

Re: New York City bans employers from asking potential workers about past salary

#344

Post by ramblenode »

lend000 wrote: post #184

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.

> preventing a question from being asked is state overreach and constitutes a violation of the first amendment, in my opinion.

IANAL, but asking about salary as part of an interview seems likely to fall under commercial speech.

> Commercial speech, such as advertisments, has been ruled by the Supreme Court to be entitled to less protection under the First Amendment than noncommerical speech. [0]

[0] https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/commercial_speech

Re: New York City bans employers from asking potential workers about past salary

#345

Post by lend000 »

anigbrowl wrote: post #250
lend000 wrote: post #184

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.

How is it state overreach but employers aren't engaged in corporate overreach? The state is not there to look after only the interests of the employed, but also of the employees. You don't have a right to know that information, and as an employer you potentially exert significant economic leverage over the potential employee, so the question has great potential to be coercive. It's none of your business how much a po…

> you potentially exert significant economic leverage over the potential employee

The keywords here are 'potentially' and 'significant' -- the difference is that the state has absolute power over you and the fundamental rule of law protects your right to free speech in a public context. Private, consensually entered job offer negotations are a different thing altogether. Certainly, answering a question does not strip you of any of your rights. You can say whatever you want. As I said in my original comment, discriminating based on refusal to produce prior pay stubs is a completely different category and has nothing to do with the first amendment.

> You are not engaged in speech to promote your views, nor are you being prevented from expressing your views in any way. If this should be protected speech then so should 'your money or your life' when uttered by a highwayman, who by your logic is merely proposing a bargain that the recipient is free to decline.

The first amendment doesn't come with the 'strings attached' that you seem to think. There's a nice outline here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_free_speech_exce...

Your hyperbolic example of "your money or your life" is clearly in the 'Fighting words' category, constituting a threat or intimidation, if used as such.

Re: New York City bans employers from asking potential workers about past salary

#346

Post by stale2002 »

Nadya wrote: post #301
vkou wrote: post #297

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Except that this is a lie. In the US, it is ILLEGAL to have an employee agreement that states this (at least if you are an employee potentially capable of unionizing). Then I signed an illegal agreement when I was working for one of the biggest investment banks in the United States. I should really thank them for that - in future negotiations, once I said that my current employment agreement is confidential, prospe…

Just because you signed it doesn't mean it is enforceable. You sign a waiver at trampoline parks that says you won't sue if you hurt yourself or if they cause you to be hurt. The first part covers them, the second part doesn't. If they were negligent or failed to maintain the park and you were injured as a result you can sue them, that waiver is meaningless. [0] [0] IANAL but I've heard of many cases around these sor…

Obviously it is not enforcable. But why risk it?

What, is the employer that you are talking to going to say "actually, that contract is illegal, therefore tell me your salary"?

Re: New York City bans employers from asking potential workers about past salary

#347

Post by throwaway_374 »

Meegul wrote: post #324
mbroshi wrote: post #63

The analogy is not perfect, but all the time people like to know how much a house or car sold for in the past, or how much a stock traded for the in past, etc. Seems like useful data. Now, I'm not advocating for or against this particular question, but I sure do hope there is data collected and studied on the effect this has in NY before anyone jumps to conclusions. I feel it's too easy to have a knee-jerk reaction o…

Knowing a candidate's compensation history can save an employer a significant amount of money which they otherwise might've spent on the same candidate. This gives them an unfair advantage, and the way I see it, it's unavoidable to remove this advantage. By restricting employers from asking about previous compensation, we're just shifting this advantage to the employees, for better or worse.

Can you actually rationalise your argument a little further? Why on earth should your salary for a new role be benchmarked to your previous compensation? Do you realise how ridiculous that sounds? Ultimately, the market sets some value for a role - largely based on competitor analysis - and that is a fair value. Your previous pay is irrelevant.

Re: New York City bans employers from asking potential workers about past salary

#348

Post by gesman »

Instead of salary it may worth disclosing ballpark of total compensation including shares/options vesting, bonuses, etc, without breaking it down.

After all "desired salary" question is answered sooner or later but in reality - the total compensation is more important.

Re: New York City bans employers from asking potential workers about past salary

#349

Post by metaphorm »

shados wrote: post #121
kesselvon wrote: post #91

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Companies asking for your previous salary means theyre going to try to pay you with your past salary being a benchmark to work with, not necessarily what the position is worth. Companies posting employee salaries publicly aims for employees at said company to be paid at the same level (with similar experience). There's a subtle difference. Every time I've been asked about salary its been an obvious ploy to lowball my…

Employers ask for your salary to make sure it makes sense to talk. Everyone mentions it to be lowballing you. But what do you think happens when you mention a higher number than they expect? While it sometimes will end the conversation (because they're unwilling to pay), sometimes they'll match that, leading to a higher salary than what the offer would have been. Of course, often, including in big companies, the back…

> But what do you think happens when you mention a higher number than they expect?

if they think you're a really good candidate they interview you anyway and try to negotiate. if they think you're a borderline candidate they don't waste either your or their time. this is the best outcome for both parties. in other words, the prospective employee should ALWAYS highball the company.

Re: New York City bans employers from asking potential workers about past salary

#350

Post by clavalle »

komali2 wrote: post #304
clavalle wrote: post #185

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I didn't at the time. I do now.

Problem is, is every potential employee worth the same to you?

Of course not. But every role has a range, more or less, which is a balance of the value that role creates vs the alternatives in the market. The range is due to factors such as the risk an individual embodies based on previous experience, demonstrable skill, references along with likely ramp up time based on those factors.

To take a silly but illustrative example: if I'm looking for a javascript developer, I don't care if the person I'm interviewing also has a law degree from a top tier school and can craft airtight patent applications even if I may have some use for that skill. I am hiring for a javascript developer. That is the role I need filled. I will offer a salary range based on that need.

It is a silly example but I see the issue so often: someone will apply for a role and then expect to be compensated for their other skills. While, sometimes, it may be worth it to do a bit of management gymnastics and get someone brilliant through the door and find out how to fully leverage their talents later, most of the time that's just wishful thinking on everyone's part.

Post reply on HN