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

381–390 of 539 posts

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

#381

Post by sqeaky »

daleco wrote: post #267
kesselvon wrote: post #111

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Non for profit salaries are public, they aren't paying top salaries usually.

I also don't think this is what was meant.

In the US non-profits have to disclose this because the law says so and generally the non-profits do so in the most minimal discrete way possible. Few people, rarely recruiters, know where to go to get the information. This is even a service some background check companies provide.

I think the comment was referring to companies that celebrate the high wages they pay as a way to attract the best talent.

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

#382

Post by komali2 »

vonmoltke wrote: post #333
komali2 wrote: post #310

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In my experience (external contract recruitment) the background check usually happens after an offer has been negotiated and accepted. I've also never seen a background check request for actual salary information. I'm not even sure how that would work... we would just send the candidates' information to this company that churns through court docs to see if they have a criminal history, send them to Quest to get drug…

I was asked in my last background check, and the proof (of that and employment) was my tax forms.

You being asked is a bit different than a background check. You can refuse quite easily.

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

#383

Post by dlandis »

komali2 wrote: post #298
louisswiss wrote: post #82

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Agree with you in principle (your previous deal with company A is absolutely none of company B's business) but I would like to challenge you on one point: > I'm placed at a disadvantage in negotiations if I name a number first. ... This is unlikely to be true. Generally, in price negotiations it is advantageous to name a number first. This is known as anchoring and basically the theory is that the end result is bette…

I think you're confusing two sales concepts - first to talk, and anchoring. Anchoring is a more general marketing concept that works well in advertisements (crossing out a black $280 and putting a red $100 underneath it). Anchoring doesn't work so well for something much more fluid (and with much more at stake) such as a salary negotiation. In-person sales meetings (which is what an interview is, for both sides) are…

> You can only hurt yourself by giving a number.

That's far too big of a generalization and I think it's easier to talk about specific scenarios. The parent comment alluded to a quite common counterexample:

1. salary range for position is 100k-150k

2. candidate is first to talk and names anywhere from $130k to $170k

3. candidate gets talked down a bit, e.g. 10%

It seems to me the candidate will still end up higher than if the company is first to talk and names $100k!

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

#384

Post by flyinglizard »

komali2 wrote: post #298
louisswiss wrote: post #82

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Agree with you in principle (your previous deal with company A is absolutely none of company B's business) but I would like to challenge you on one point: > I'm placed at a disadvantage in negotiations if I name a number first. ... This is unlikely to be true. Generally, in price negotiations it is advantageous to name a number first. This is known as anchoring and basically the theory is that the end result is bette…

I think you're confusing two sales concepts - first to talk, and anchoring. Anchoring is a more general marketing concept that works well in advertisements (crossing out a black $280 and putting a red $100 underneath it). Anchoring doesn't work so well for something much more fluid (and with much more at stake) such as a salary negotiation. In-person sales meetings (which is what an interview is, for both sides) are…

From my experience, naming your price works in your favor if you are aggressive. People having similar positions are paid at 20% difference all dependent on their negotiation skills. Also, companies usually don't have set budgets for positions. It's quite fluid depending on the person being recruited and their other offers and expectations. You need to make it work in your favor. If you send up leaving money on the table, it just shows you did not come prepared. Besides, there's nothing wrong in getting what you asked for even if in another set of circumstances, with some amount of luck, you could have gotten more.

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

#385

Post by komali2 »

pc86 wrote: post #337
komali2 wrote: post #300

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Problem is even with that I would wait for an offer from your company before saying a number, and then I would ask for more, because over the course of my career this has enabled me to consistently be paid more than average. So your "maximum" would be my minimum, and if I were to work there, I'd want more. Maybe that means I don't work there, that's fine, but it'll work somewhere else, eventually!

> So your "maximum" would be my minimum, and if I were to work there, I'd want more. Oh, the "I better be the most well-compensated person on the team or I'm going to get upset" mentality. If our strategy weeds those folks out, all the better.

I don't care at all what other people at the company make. I just know for a fact that on average, across all the companies I apply to (don't forget, you see a lot of candidates, but at the same time we are seeing lots of companies), I will get more money if I push back on an offer.

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

#386

Post by tbomb »

komali2 wrote: post #311
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.

Not bad man, although I have to wonder what you'd have made if you never gave your number ;) Luckily they gave 3 numbers first, so you avoided a trap many people fall into on both sides of the table - not negotiating at all. Imagine the first thing a company says after an interview is "what's your number" and you shrug and say "100," and the company reps blink and go "no problem," then pass you an offer. Wouldn't you…

This happened to me, not necessarily in a bad way, but makes me think what I should've asked for.

I attempted to do research on the company and their salaries for that position via glassdoor, salaries in the area, etc. (they are rated as an open company). They asked what I was looking for in compensation, so I went little bit higher than what my homework said they were paying (this was still substantially more than my current pay), we negotiated a tiny bit on bonuses, but eventually got the amount I was "looking for" in my offer letter.

In the end they ended up being a great company to work for, and I'm really happy there.

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

#387

Post by pc86 »

teej wrote: post #191
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.

There are already loads of questions that employers aren't allowed to ask. Are you married? Are you pregnant? How many kids do you have? Is your significant other black? When was the last time you went to church? So, you're about 50, is that right?

A) They can legally ask all of these.

B) All of these are in reference to one or more protected classes, which is why it's not legal to discriminate based on one's answer(s) or refusal to answer.

C) Last I checked, "previously made {less,more} than a certain salary" is not a protected class.

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

#388

Post by vonmoltke »

komali2 wrote: post #382
vonmoltke wrote: post #333

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I was asked in my last background check, and the proof (of that and employment) was my tax forms.

You being asked is a bit different than a background check. You can refuse quite easily.

I agree. Just pointing it out it does sometimes come up in background checks, since you said it never had for you.

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

#389

Post by anigbrowl »

lend000 wrote: post #345
anigbrowl wrote: post #250

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

No, the state does not have absolute power over you. I'm not even going to engage with an argument based on a self-evidently false premise.

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.

Yes, I'm using a hyperbolic example to expose the flaw in your argument, while saying that there should be restrictions on speech. Trying to invalidate a counter-example directed at your by appealing to my priors is tantamount to an admission that you have no meaningful point.

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

#390

Post by clavalle »

pmoriarty wrote: post #380
clavalle wrote: post #350

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 c…

When you tell employees your number so as not to waste time, do you name the number at the top of the range or at the bottom?

Both. And I try to give them a rough idea of the things that factor into pushing one into the higher end of the range or lower end.
Post reply on HN