Support NeoGAF

[CrunchyB]

The law should not ban asking for previous salaries, but it should compel employers to disclose current salaries of other employees at the firm so that the applicant can effectively negotiate. Employers who don't wish to do this must be scared of what a level negotiation looks like, which is evidence enough that they should be compelled to have one.

Exactly.
As soon as you publish salaries, employees will demand equal pay for equal work and companies will be forced to repair the gap or risk losing or not attracting valuable talent.

Example from the Netherlands, 10 years ago a maximum salary was set for work in (semi-)public sector. Think city and healthcare managers. The result was that everyone under that amount became motivated to reach it. Before that they had no idea what was possible, there was no obvious goal, so many were content at where they were.

 

[badcrumble]

Exactly.
As soon as you publish salaries, employees will demand equal pay for equal work and companies will be forced to repair the gap or risk losing or not attracting valuable talent.

Example from the Netherlands, 10 years ago a maximum salary was set for work in (semi-)public sector. Think city and healthcare managers. The result was that everyone under that amount became motivated to reach it. Before that they had no idea what was possible, there was no obvious goal, so many were content at where they were.

How awful!

 

[Dusk Soldier]

Doesn't everybody lie when asked that question anyway?

I guess the issue is that women/minorities don't really feel as comfortable lying about that figure.


Plus, employers base their offer partially based on your previous salary, so if you've historically made less money than your peers the current system will keep you at a lower salary.

 

[lightskintwin]

well since an offer has to come from the employer i don't really see how this makes your job more difficult, you present that to the candidate and they can accept, reject, or negotiate. the only difference having their previous salary makes is giving you the edge in negotiations, which is bullshit since employers have so much more power than employees overall.

Of course, but the problem is if you're not willing to play by those rules then there's a dozens of other qualified candidates that are. In my experience, the vast majority of people overvalue themselves, and then you'll have some that undervalue themselves. If an employer has an opportunity to hire somebody of similar experience and quality but cheaper, then chances are they will. The great candidates of a very in demand specific field with excellent experience tend to know it and can make demands that a lot of companies will usually concede to if they need a person like that.

Why can't you post a hiring range to manage salary expectations?

If I can, I will. However for a lot of companies, it's against their policy. Chances are they have a person working the same position who's below that range.

 

[Mr.Mike]

This would be great but sadly I don't ever see this happening.

It has happened in highly payed government positions in Ontario (and elsewhere I believe, I seem to recall a Freakonomics episode about this), where a conservative government made a rule that all pubic salaries greater than $100,000 had to be publicly disclosed. Their hope was to keep salaries in check, but they seem to have achieved the opposite.

 

[aeolist]

Of course, but the problem is if you're not willing to play by those rules then there's a dozens of other qualified candidates that are. In my experience, the vast majority of people overvalue themselves, and then you'll have some that undervalue themselves. If an employer has an opportunity to hire somebody of similar experience and quality but cheaper, then chances are they will. The great candidates of a very in demand specific field with excellent experience tend to know it and can make demands that a lot of companies will usually concede to if they need a person like that.

ok? again, your lack of prior salary info doesn't seem to make any difference with regard to any of that. the companies you represent will make their assessment of a candidate's worth based on everything you mentioned and you'll give them that offer, you just won't have an unfair informational advantage.

i'm not seeing your point.

 

[Dusk Soldier]

How awful!

not really.

Not that there's anything wrong with aiming higher. But you don't need to be making a lot of money to be happy.

 

[smokeandmirrors]

Exactly.
As soon as you publish salaries, employees will demand equal pay for equal work and companies will be forced to repair the gap or risk losing or not attracting valuable talent.

Example from the Netherlands, 10 years ago a maximum salary was set for work in (semi-)public sector. Think city and healthcare managers. The result was that everyone under that amount became motivated to reach it. Before that they had no idea what was possible, there was no obvious goal, so many were content at where they were.

Aka a capitalists worst nightmare.

 

[Vanillalite]

The only problem I see is if everyone knows everyone else's salary that it could create strife between co-workers?

Maybe once it became commonplace people wouldn't care as much.

I also think it's hard to quantify equal pay for equal work as it doesn't factor in the fact that everyone doing the same job don't have the same performance.

 

[lightskintwin]

ok? again, your lack of prior salary info doesn't seem to make any difference with regard to any of that. the companies you represent will make their assessment of a candidate's worth based on everything you mentioned and you'll give them that offer, you just won't have an unfair informational advantage.

i'm not seeing your point.

Part of assessing a candidate's worth is their prior salary info. Companies tend to low ball salaries, I typically have to sell them on a candidate, and make the case why they should be paid more. People don't understand that negotiations that go on between recruiter/account managers and companies. We go to bat for our candidates, because we want to get paid too. LOl

 

[Mr.Mike]

Aka a capitalists worst nightmare.

There is an important distinction between being pro-market or pro business in general vs being pro some specific business.

I'd impinge most "capitalists" would be very much for reducing information asymmetry in the market. (Whereas perhaps some businessmen would rather not because they personally benefit from the current situation).

 

[Random Painted HIghway]

For me, who has a career recruiting top talent for Fortune 500 corporations, Asking a potential hire their current salary, keeps their expectations for their new salary in check and reasonable.

I was recently contacted by a head hunter for an attorney position with a hospital conglomerate. I asked what the compensation range was, because frankly i didn't want to waste my time as it would have required a move that would necessitate a huge salary to justify.

His response: The compensation question is complex and a bit difficult to answer. My advice to clients is to discard the antiquated notion of a salary range. Instead, if they are interested in attracting the best possible candidate, they need offer a package that will meet a specific candidates needs. Therefore, at this time, we are not excluding anyone due to salary requirements. If the position might be of some interest I would encourage you to email a resume to me. We can then decide together if the client will be able to structure a package that would be attractive to you.

To which I graciously declined. I do not have time for games like that. Antiquated notion of a salary range? Is this common in the recruiting world, refusing to provide even a hint of what the position offers financially? You're coming to me with a position, not the other way around, please be more respectful of my time.

 

[aeolist]

Part of assessing a candidate's worth is their prior salary info. Companies tend to low ball salaries, I typically have to sell them on a candidate, and make the case why they should be paid more. People don't understand that negotiations that go on between recruiter/account managers and companies. We go to bat for our candidates, because we want to get paid too. LOl

but if you don't have prior salaries then you just have to use the usual factors like references, experience, etc. i don't see how that makes less sense than throwing a somewhat arbitrary wage into the formula.

 

[Mr.Mike]

The only problem I see is if everyone knows everyone else's salary that it could create strife between co-workers?

Maybe once it became commonplace people wouldn't care as much.

I also think it's hard to quantify equal pay for equal work as it doesn't factor in the fact that everyone doing the same job don't have the same performance.

If I'm recalling correctly (from the Freakonomics episode on this), it does create strife between co-workers. Of course their case study was when a company first instituted such a policy and people were finding out these big pay discrepancies between co-workers of seemingly similar experience and skill.

Eventually it'd settle down, but it would definitely become a big thing in office gossip. "Does x really deserve to make y?". But perhaps that's a better overall situation than the current one.

Maybe a solution would be to have a base salary by position and some system of performance bonuses that make it clear why somebody might be earning more than others (setting up a good system to do this would be very difficult, but worth the try).

 

[TheRagnCajun]

Both employers and applicants can have a gross misunderstanding of what the position should pay. I think the only thing that is relevant is the salary for the position. I don't see why it matters what the applicant currently makes in any circumstance - if you have told the applicant what the pay is, and he hasn't walked out the door yet, it means he's still interested, you're not wasting your time with him.

 

[ColdPizza]

Part of assessing a candidate's worth is their prior salary info. Companies tend to low ball salaries, I typically have to sell them on a candidate, and make the case why they should be paid more. People don't understand that negotiations that go on between recruiter/account managers and companies. We go to bat for our candidates, because we want to get paid too. LOl

Even then, I've told recruiters what I'm looking for as an employee and to not bother me with any opportunities that come in less than that. You don't need prior salary info for that.

 

[lightskintwin]

I was recently contacted by a head hunter for an attorney position with a hospital conglomerate. I asked what the compensation range was, because frankly i didn't want to waste my time as it would have required a move that would necessitate a huge salary to justify.

His response: The compensation question is complex and a bit difficult to answer. My advice to clients is to discard the antiquated notion of a salary range. Instead, if they are interested in attracting the best possible candidate, they need offer a package that will meet a specific candidates needs. Therefore, at this time, we are not excluding anyone due to salary requirements. If the position might be of some interest I would encourage you to email a resume to me. We can then decide together if the client will be able to structure a package that would be attractive to you.

To which I graciously declined. I do not have time for games like that. Antiquated notion of a salary range? Is this common in the recruiting world, refusing to provide even a hint of what the position offers financially? You're coming to me with a position, not the other way around, please be more respectful of my time.

Recruiting is highly specialized. So you have legal recruiters, medical recruiters, IT recruiters, etc.. but the methodology remains the same. Reading what that legal recruiter wrote it sounds like his client would consider anybody as long as their work experience matches their salary demands, and for the right candidate even if they couldn't match your salary demands it sounds like they're willing to put together a package that will compensate for it such as signing bonus, quarterly to yearly bonus, performance bonus, perks and benefits etc...

but if you don't have prior salaries then you just have to use the usual factors like references, experience, etc. i don't see how that makes less sense than throwing a somewhat arbitrary wage into the formula.

You're right, but most companies don't want to give somebody a 20 to 30K raise for somebody who's been doing the same job for 20 to 30k less.

Even then, I've told recruiters what I'm looking for as an employee and to not bother me with any opportunities that come in less than that. You don't need prior salary info for that.

That's fine. It's amazing how little pushback I've gotten for asking the question. I typically start with their salary expectations for this job, and politely say, "If you don't mind me asking, what's your current salary." about 95% of people tell me. This is how it helps, suppose I know the salary range is between 90 to 100k, and the person's salary expectations is 105K or higher. I ask them how negotiable they are about that, and they say they aren't. i then ask what their current salary is and they say it's 92.5K. I now have something that can help them consider a 100K salary.

 

[YuriLowell]

I've never had an employer ask for my w2. Is this really a thing?

Me neither. I wouldn't want to work for someone who did.

 

[Russ T]

The present method, with applicants disclosing previous salaries and then negotiating a new salary, creates information asymmetry. They know what you expect AND they know what they can pay; you only know what you expect, not what they can pay. Market competition works better with information symmetry. The law should not ban asking for previous salaries, but it should compel employers to disclose current salaries of other employees at the firm so that the applicant can effectively negotiate. Employers who don't wish to do this must be scared of what a level negotiation looks like, which is evidence enough that they should be compelled to have one.

Thissssssssssssssssssssssssss so much this.

Related: I hate that it's taboo to discuss salary with fellow employees.

 

[Alavard]

I've actually never been asked what my previous/current salary is during a job interview. Instead, the question is always asking what I expect salary-wise for the job I'm applying for. I'm in Canada, so, I don't know if that's a factor, but it's just not something I've ever run into.

All my work since graduating has been in IT, so that could also be a factor.

 

[ColdPizza]

That's fine. It's amazing how little pushback I've gotten for asking the question. I typically start with their salary expectations for this job, and politely say, "If you don't mind me asking, what's your current salary." about 95% of people tell me. This is how it helps, suppose I know the salary range is between 90 to 100k, and the person's salary expectations is 105K or higher. I ask them how negotiable they are about that, and they say they aren't. i think ask what their current salary is and they say it's 92.5K. I now have something that can help them consider a 100K salary.

Sure, and usually when I have a specific salary in mind, it's not just because it's X amount higher. It's because I consider other intangibles such as added commute, cost and time of that commute, access to daycare for my children, work environment etc. Right now I place a premium of 12-15% what I'm making now to move and work downtown.

 

[Clockwork]

What I would like to see addressed is the huge discrepancy between salaries for internal hires/promotions for new position versus when that position is hired externally.

Usually the internal hire gets plain screwed.

 

[LProtag]

I'm glad that as a teacher I don't really have to worry about salary negotiations.

There's a salary table, and I get placed on it based on my length of experience and my degrees/qualifications.

Honestly, I think if more jobs were open about how much they paid and how much your coworkers were paid, we'd have a better chance of getting wage equality. I agree that what you currently make shouldn't matter to a new employer, but I also think that there shouldn't be this huge stigma about telling people (like coworkers) how much money you make.

 

[george_us]

Hmm, I don't know. I know plenty of people who got like a 50% hike in salary by exaggerating their old salary to a new job. In my experience discussion of prior salary has been a boon to prospective employees, not employers.

I've always been extremely wary of doing this in fear of getting caught somehow.

 

[lightskintwin]

Sure, and usually when I have a specific salary in mind, it's not just because it's X amount higher. It's because I consider other intangibles such as added commute, cost and time of that commute, access to daycare for my children, work environment etc. Right now I place a premium of 12-15% what I'm making now to move and work downtown.

Exactly. The majority of people consider other things as well as the salary, instead of only the salary mattering.

What I would like to see addressed is the huge discrepancy between salaries for internal hires/promotions for new position versus when that position is hired externally.

Usually the internal hire gets plain screwed.

This is very true. I've worked as an on site corporate recruiter on contract for various big corporations. This is probably the biggest reason why companies don't like salary ranges floating out there in the public.

 

[entremet]

I've always been extremely wary of doing this in fear of getting caught somehow.

How will you get caught?

 

[george_us]

How will you get caught?

Having to provide W2s or something like that.

 

[Zoe]

Having to provide W2s or something like that.

Or employment verification letters.

 

[kinggroin]

There is also the problem of companies just giving everyone a unique title as to not have a "direct" corollary to look at.

Why are you so smart in here

 

[IvanJ]

The law should not ban asking for previous salaries, but it should compel employers to disclose current salaries of other employees at the firm so that the applicant can effectively negotiate. Employers who don't wish to do this must be scared of what a level negotiation looks like, which is evidence enough that they should be compelled to have one.

You are absolutely correct, and I am surprised that you don't habe that law.
In Croatia, the law stipulates that the employer, when advertising for a position, must declare the salary that position will pay.

 

[tokkun]

The present method, with applicants disclosing previous salaries and then negotiating a new salary, creates information asymmetry. They know what you expect AND they know what they can pay; you only know what you expect, not what they can pay. Market competition works better with information symmetry. The law should not ban asking for previous salaries, but it should compel employers to disclose current salaries of other employees at the firm so that the applicant can effectively negotiate. Employers who don't wish to do this must be scared of what a level negotiation looks like, which is evidence enough that they should be compelled to have one.

What you are describing as the "present method" is already the old method. When I negotiated the salary at my current job, I was able to research what other employees of the company with the same job title were being paid using sites like GlassDoor, PayScale, and Quora. Even if you work for a small company, you can at least get a good idea of the market rate this way. This is basic due diligence when entering into a salary negotiation. Not to get all libertarian, but I think this is something that can be solved with a market-based solution rather than a legal one.

 

[Joni]

Good. It is a stupid question. If I was happy with my current pay, I wouldn't be in the interview in most cases.

What you are describing as the "present method" is already the old method. When I negotiated the salary at my current job, I was able to research what other employees of the company with the same job title were being paid using sites like GlassDoor, PayScale, and Quora. Even if you work for a small company, you can at least get a good idea of the market rate this way. This is basic due diligence when entering into a salary negotiation. Not to get all libertarian, but I think this is something that can be solved with a market-based solution rather than a legal one.

The market based solution has failed. The current situation proves that.

 

[tokkun]

The market based solution has failed. The current situation proves that.

How so? Bearing in mind that we were talking about access to salary information, not ensuring salary parity.