Crazy. I'd definitely send a quick note to someone higher up if you can get a hold of him/her. I know, not worth the time, a hassle etc. But a typical CEO worth his salt will crush something silly like that in no-time, if you really want to hire good people this is the type of person you want to fire.
I mean, hell, asking the question is one thing. I can live with that. But turning that into some kind of litmus test where declining to share private information completely 100% immediately disqualifies you, that's insane.
Anyway, never experienced it. Question for you all, are there any negatives to bluffing?
i.e. say you said your previous salary was $110k while it was really $90k, will HR say 'you're overqualified' or something to that extent if they were hoping to pay you say $90k and had a max of $100k in mind?
As in, can you recover from that and say 'oh but $100k is fine, too', or would that also send a signal of weakness where they won't hire you because you seem desperate (taking a $10k cut from their perspective, when you actually get a $10k raise)? Ugh the mindgames! haha. Would love to hear your experiences on this issue.
>> But a typical CEO worth his salt will crush something silly like that in no-time, if you really want to hire good people this is the type of person you want to fire
That is actually not true. This kind of employee low balling is condoned behavior.
I applied for a position at Automattic and had Matt Mullenweg (CEO) pull this on me.
Everything seemed to have gone perfectly well - everyone involved in the process seemed impressed with my abilities but when it came to this point and I declined I was told "I seem to be senstive about being Indian" out of nowhere. I don't know where that came from.
First, I'm sorry that at some point in your hiring process you got that impression, it is not in line with our philosophy or our actions. We now employ 320 people in 36 countries and with at least that many distinct racial or ethnic backgrounds, including Indian. We aim to hire another 120 in the next year so disqualifying potential candidates based on something they are born with is not just morally odious, it's logically flawed and not something I would tolerate in our organization. (We even help host events like http://accelerate.lgbt/ .)
This is also why we have a distributed model -- we wanted to create a company that where someone chooses to live is not a barrier to them doing great work at Automattic.
The words you put in quotes don't look like something I'd say, and also unusual for my interactions with potential candidates in our hiring process (which is described here - https://hbr.org/2014/04/the-ceo-of-automattic-on-holding-aud... ), if you're willing to share the date when we chatted or any other info I'd love to review my transcripts and understand the context if that was an actual quote, or if it's not I'd like to see what I said that gave you that impression it was a mistake on my part and I want to avoid giving that impression again in the future.
To summarize: Automattic wants to employ people of all backgrounds and regardless of their geography, and I personally believe there is no connection between a person's background, Indian or otherwise, and their ability to be an amazing Automattician.
I wouldn't stop it -- I'd want to talk about it to understand why. If it was because they were following advice they read somewhere because worried it would influence their offer, I'd try to dispel that myth within the context of Automattic. If they didn't believe me, we probably don't have the level of trust needed to work well together.
Our culture is really built on two-way trust: since we're distributed and seldom see each other you don't know how someone is going about their work, and most of our HR policies come down to the honor system. The company places an incredibly amount of trust in employees, and vice versa people place a great amount of trust in the company, including that we'll do our best to treat them fairly. It's a responsibility the folks on the operations side of Automattic, including myself, take very seriously.
> If it was because they were following advice they read
> somewhere because worried it would influence their offer,
> I'd try to dispel that myth within the context of
> Automattic.
If knowledge of a candidate's previous salary doesn't influence your offer, why do you ask for it and what do you do with it?
I agree it can be uncomfortable for people, as is almost everything around compensation. I don't think we're entitled to know, but it is an expression of trust when someone shares it, and thus far with ~99% of people we've hired over 10 years it hasn't been an issue.
Why should people express trust in you by deliberately sacrificing information relevant to their own interests before you've proven yourself trustworthy?
Well actually, one usually builds trust by giving it in small pieces, showing that you're willing and able to develop a relationship with the other person. But the key word there is small: you don't place yourself at a large disadvantage until the other person has shown themselves to be trustworthy in previous instances where less was at stake.
>> I was told "I seem to be senstive about being Indian" out of nowhere.
Jesus. It's amazing to think someone who's worked so long in the tech industry can think like this. If anything, we're the ones who should know best how little race means when you have the skills to get the job done.
True, and if this story is true, it also surprises me in a nasty way because
a) I am Indian, and until now had largely thought that we were largely a privileged class within tech, if not outside it -- and consequently weren't affected by race issues within it.
b) All of the articles about how oh-so-wonderfully Automattic does their remote work had always led me to believe they were a forward-thinking, "good" company. If they are bringing up race in an interview it completely destroys this perception.
> I was told "I seem to be senstive about being Indian" out of nowhere
In a climate where most companies are afraid to disclose quite reasonable reasons for not making a hire, it's remarkable that someone would think this kind of comment is appropriate.
Been thinking about this more and the only possible context I could imagine, related to the original post, could be around salary.
We base compensation on market data, value to the company, and what other people in a similar role make, we also ask what people made in the past and where they hope to be in the future. This does not determine their salary, it's market data for us, and the future part also makes sure that Automattic is a place that can meet their long-term goals and expectations, or if not that's discussed up front.
I've had this conversation about 400 times at this point, while people can sometimes be sensitive around compensation, it's like discussing a health issue with your doctor -- I've seen and heard it all and it's part of a normal days work for me. It's sometimes the source of a nice surprise, as we've had people who've doubled or trebled their salary when joining Automattic which always brightens my day. We've also had people take a small or substantial cut when joining, which isn't ideal, but we determine salaries as I said above, not based on what they say they previously made, and it's good information for the company to have because hopefully one day as our business or their contribution to it grows it'd be great to have them at or above what the market said they could make someplace else. I can only think of only once someone has not joined because of compensation, an engineer at Yahoo who had compensation 3-4x beyond what seemed fair in the market commensurate with his skills or experience.
The OP advice of not saying salary might be appropriate at other companies, I'm not privy to their compensation practices, but it is not correct at Automattic. A few folks in this thread suggested lying, which I would disagree with in any circumstance, much better not to answer -- lying in response to a factual question demonstrates low integrity and most employers, including us, would not want to work with that person.
Automattic is one of too few companies that tries to treat people who live in different countries the same, which is an important distinction from treating people who are from different countries and now live and work in the US the same, which of course every company is legally required to do (though there are still some serious issues around pay equality and even gender, to start). Many companies explicitly try to have offices and hire people in countries where the cost of living and wages are lower to save money; our thought is that the internet makes that obsolete and over time enlightened companies will pay people what they're worth regardless of where they live.
There have been about 5 times someone hasn't wanted to share, every time because they think making a low amount in the past (at a non-profit, in a country where wages are low) will lower their offer, which it doesn't and I try to re-assure. One case comes to mind in 2012 of someone who had attended Stanford but moved back to India because didn't have a visa, and was worried their geography would mean they were paid less, in which case I would have said to not worry about the fact that you're in India because that doesn't matter to Automattic -- if I gave the impression that it mattered whether you were Indian (or any other background) I apologize. We did end up hiring this person and at a similar salary to someone in the Bay Area doing a similar role, though there were some complications with them wanting to be paid to a US bank account, in USD (we try to pay people in the currency of where they live so they're sheltered from forex shifts), and travel to work in the US, which our attorneys advised us would create issues in absence of a work visa, which the person didn't have. They ended up only being with the company 9 months, the last few on a performance plan, but that was based on work after they had joined, not anything to do with the interview or compensation process, just sometimes there isn't a mutual fit. (Over the past 10 years we've had about 60 people be let go or leave, it's definitely not personal.)
Not sure if that was the same person as nodelessness, but if so I feel very bad you thought any of that had to do with you being Indian, and I'm happy to chat or discuss more to clear it up. I also hope the information and context above helps any one who is considering working at Automattic know that we'll do our darndest to create a comfortable and fair environment for everyone.
I've read both of these comments, and I really struggle to see how both of the following can be true:
1. As a hiring manager, knowing your previous salary will not impact my decision on your value.
2. As a hiring manager, I insist on knowing your previous salary. If you do not want to discuss it, you must not trust us.
I'm going to assume matt is lying unless he will release comp data for his offers vs what the candidates' reported salaries. he is on here doing 100% damage control.
In the original post Patrick already touched on the Japan case, but one thing I'd add is that one of the pieces of paperwork you must hand to your new employer is your final tax slip from your previous employer showing how much tax you have paid in the current year. From there it's trivial to calculate your previous salary.
There are ways around it but it seems most people go with "my base was XX.... and that's one of the reasons I'm out there looking to change jobs."
"...one of the pieces of paperwork you must hand to your new employer is your final tax slip from your previous employer showing how much tax you have paid in the current year..."
Are you referring to Japan?
I've worked in two states in the USA and never been required to produce such documentation.
I've always had to do that in the UK. Your previous employer gives you a form called a P45 when you leave that has information about your tax code and your earnings for the previous year.
The new employer just needs your details to identify you correctly with HMRC.
You can give them sufficient detail without handing over your P45 or income data. I have never given a P45 to a new employer and it has never been a problem.
It's possible that your tax code will reveal some information, if you're still in the same financial year, but this is an unreliable way of calculating salary.
Correct. A difference for the UK is that salary bands are often (not always) disclosed in an advertisement or told to a head hunter in advance. Not always, but enough that not doing so raises eyebrows and concerns about corporate ethics for me (and my friends).
The obvious caveat in this is that they could only estimate an average salary. You could state that your salary progresed rapidly during your previous employment, although they may not buy it.
> your final tax slip from your previous employer showing how much tax you have paid in the current year.
Do you mean in Japan or the US? Because you certainly don't have to do that in the US.
> From there it's trivial to calculate your previous salary.
And even if you did do it in the US it would be impossible to calculate your salary from it because it depends on how many exemptions you claimed in your W4 (which you can change at any time - it doesn't have to be how many children you have, it's basically a number to fine tune how much tax you pay so you don't overpay and need a refund).
IANAL, but I don't see why that would be illegal. There are very few things that it's actually illegal for an employer to ask about. (Though it would obviously be a bad idea to ask a candidate about their status in a protected class, it's not technically illegal to ask.)
That said, this is a bad idea because it would scare off plenty of people who aren't bluffing about their salary (like me). And there are already employers who will terminate you immediately if they discover you lied in your job application.
> There are very few things that it's actually illegal for an employer to ask about.
I guess it depends on your definition of "very few things" but this list[1] of Unlawful vs. Lawful questions seems pretty long/wide ranging. And I know that the small business I worked for violated it on a regular basis. I actually had it sent out to each person who does interviewing (since the company didn't have a formal policy on training someone for interviews) so they knew what was/wasn't acceptable.
Note: I'm not a lawyer so don't take this as legal advice.
My understanding is that it is illegal to use any of those things to discriminate against someone for purposes of hiring. It's not technically illegal to ask the question, but if you do, and you don't hire the person, have fun in court trying to prove that you didn't hire them for some other, valid, reason. So don't ask them, because there's no upside in it for you.
They can't legally ask for proof, no. Bluff away! (I'm not a lawyer and this does not constitute legal advice.)
I did a small bluff to try it out, just 5k above what I was making. The recruiter was surprisingly skeptical! I know I've done an good job of bumping up my salary in a short amount of time, but it was kind of off-putting to have him question it.
I'm a bootstrapped entrepreneur CEO with ~30 employees in my company now, growing quickly, expect to have ~60 in next 12 months.
I am not so interested in previous salary. Rather, I always directly ask "what is your salary requirement". I think it is good business sense to not underpay what people think they require, though sometimes this means we must pass on what could otherwise be good employees, so requesting moonshot salaries is definitely a filter for us.
Furthermore, when I ask applicants their requirement, if they just deliver a number to me using logic that does not include salary levels at previous jobs to justify, then I evaluate how close it is to my budget target for the position, and if feasible, I make an offer at that requested level.
However, if the applicant uses a previous salary to justify their current salary requirement, and it's a lot higher than I expected or had targeted for the position, I have on a few occasions offered jobs with compensation to match previous salaries, so long as applicant proves to my HR they are not lying about the salary.
So far, all offers I’ve made predicated on proving their salary claims, my HR has proven the applicants were lying to significant degree, except for one person. Those that were caught lying had job offers rescinded. The one person that wasn't lying only lasted 90 days because he clearly couldn’t add value to justify.
From my point of view, the best strategy for negotiating a higher salary is to get in front of a person that cares if you can help them make them more money than it costs to pay you, regardless of your previous salary (an HR manager is usually not the person that cares about this). Then present a clear vision to them for how you will deliver that added value.
If you are asking me to start a negotiation and I give too high a number for your tastes, that isn't my fault, it's your fault for not just offering what I'm worth to you. How am I supposed to know what you consider to be a moonshot?
Above a certain point, and most programming jobs are above that point, there is no fixed position with a fixed value. The right person in the right place can easily be worth 2x or more than originally anticipated for an opening. There's no way to predict that in advance, so at best the employer could give an ideal range and let candidates demonstrate their value if they want to exceed the range.
One of the things I've always tried to be aware of is how much value I add to a business. Dollar figures help most, but some places are wary of giving developers that knowledge, though it's usually not difficult to work out. This has helped guide my salary requests in a way that I hope is fair for all parties; rising tides lifting all boats, and that sort of thing.
Don't let their skepticism thrown you off. It is just another technique to low ball you.
In my own interviews going out of collage, I was told by peers about the offers they were making. I got asked what I was expecting to get by employers and told them around $80K because thats what my peers were getting and I consider myself to be on pretty equal ground with them and most companies scoffed at it. But then I got an offer of $95K and then they had to raise their own offers up to match. Its a ridiculous process to go through.
> They can't legally ask for proof, no. Bluff away!
Well, I am a lawyer, and this is also not legal advice.
To lie and accept a job offer whose salary is predicated on the lie would constitute fraud. Lying about your former compensation history is no different than lying about a prior criminal record, if the counterparty relies on the false assertion.
A very good point, but, and this gets a bit complex, they would have to prove that they relied upon on false information to decide to hire or pay you.
So Bob and Anna are equally qualified and currently paid 50k. They both apply for same job and Bob says he has a (fake) PhD and is paid 50k and anna does not lie about qualifications but says her base is 100k
Most of us would say Bob has committed an illegal act because the link between qualifications and hiring decision seems so clear. But there is a very weak link between previous salary and hiring decision, so how far must the company prove that it uses prior salary in hiring decisions? Just the fact that it asks? The fact it only offers prior plus 5%? That prior salary is used to rank CVs?
Unless current employer a) receives your permission to pull your tax return transcripts or b) receives your permission to contact your previous employer and you provide permission for previous employer to divulge said information, you will almost surely not be found out.
Disclaimer: Not a lawyer, not your lawyer, but fairly confident based on past experience with this over ~15 years.
You can triple-dog-dare an employer to fire you "with cause" from a role where you are performing well for lying about previous salary. This is a silly concern. It's just not going to happen.
This is what happened in my last negotiation, where $X was a 30%-ish raise. They didn't bat an eye, and made an offer of exactly $X. I asked them, "Could we make that $(X + .06*X) and they did.
I keep raising my rates 30% every time someone asks, mainly because I don't want to take on more work, but apparently people don't mind, so I keep getting more work... Oh, the humanity.
I suppose so? If I was a recruiter I wouldn't question what I thought was a 5k discrepancy. I was doing well though--- making 90k after 3 years of programming, and my bluff was 95k. I think that just the real salary alone would have been enough for him to raise suspicions.
Depends on the area, I guess. I don't think people would have blinked in SF or Boston at that.
Or he was screwing with you to try to drag down your ask. Happens pretty frequently, because their incentives don't align with yours (it's the realtor problem all over again).
While dealing with recruiters can be a hassle their goals align much more closely with ours if we are maintaining the fallacy that only the money counts. Recruiters are typically paid a percentage of your salary so they want you to receive the highest salary possible since that is the best payout for them as well.
My experience with recruiters is they want to know how little it will take for you to accept the job, but this is because they need to know which jobs they should do the legwork on.
If I'm looking for a job I call up several recruiters I trust and I tell them the specifics I'd what I'm looking for and the price I'm willing to accept. I then continue working my network and looking on my own, but now I have 4 times as many jobs and a better chance if finding the perfect fit.
> While dealing with recruiters can be a hassle their goals align much more closely with ours if we are maintaining the fallacy that only the money counts. Recruiters are typically paid a percentage of your salary so they want you to receive the highest salary possible since that is the best payout for them as well.
No, this isn't true, and this misconception is explicitly why I invoked the realtor problem. If the recruiter gets paid, say, 15%, the difference to the recruiter between $100K and $110K is $1500. To get $16,500 instead of $15,000, the recruiter risks extra days of negotiation in which the applicant may find another job, or one or both sides passing on each other because of lack of salary fit. In most cases, then, it is in the recruiter's best interest to pressure you to take the job at $100K. Most recruiters are out of the business in a couple years, only a few are in it for the long hall--since he's not going to work with you again, it's in his best interest to get the payout now. Over any length of time, they will make so much more money by you saying yes than you pushing for more money that it's stupid of them not to get you to take the first offer that comes down the pike.
A few recruiters, among them the best ones I've worked with, are in it for the long haul, and cultivate real relationships, but they are uncommon. I remain on good terms with them whenever I can--I've been on job interviews before where I was clearly sent to the wrong job and told the interviewer "look, you don't want me for this job and the recruiter just wasted your time and mine--go talk to this guy, he'll feed you candidates you can actually use." It's worth it, because what goes around comes around, but most are in-and-out and they act like it.
I think we are essentially in agreement here. I said that recruiters goals more closely align than realtors, but I need to clarify. While a realtor can represent us in either the purchase or sale I'm considering representation of a purchase. Here the realtor's goal is directly at odds. I want to purchase the house as cheaply as possible, but the realtor wants the largest commission so they want the price to remain as high as possible.
The recruiter wants the largest commission possible and I want the highest salary possible. Notice I said these "more closely align". You are right, it is not a perfect alignment. The recruiter would rather get some commission rather than none. If they are afraid you may take an offer on your own or from another recruiter they may try to get you to accept a lower offer. This is why I work with recruiters I trust and I establish clear non negotiable guidelines up front. "I am looking only for promotional level opportunities. My current salary is X; do not trouble me with positions unless the salary is paying a minimum of X + (X * .3)".
With this type of relationship we must establish clear guidelines. If we fail to stick to those guidelines then it is on us.
One wonders why the incentives aren't aligned. I.e. the value of the recruiter to the employer is finding a higher paying job, so the compensation should reflect that. E.g. 10% + 50% of the pay increase.
The value of the recruiter to the employee is that. The recruiter isn't being paid by the employee. You could consider an agency model, but honestly I don't think that's likely to actually work because of the temperament of the developers in question.
We regularly get requests for job title/tenure/salary verification forms from former employees. I'm not sure what our status on completing them is though, but there are at least some companies out there that go through the legwork to check up on something after a job offer.
If you have a corporate lawyer and/or experienced HR director, you do the same thing everyone does: inform the questioner of the individual's dates of employment and nothing else.
Only if that employee has the time and money to waste on the lawsuit, and has any evidence in hand to make it go. How is that employee supposed to discover this? By fraudulently pretending to be a prospective employer?
You certainly shouldn't share your salary, much less provide a W2, for most positions. However, not only is it not illegal to ask for a W2, for most sales positions it is the norm.
The reason is that sales people make most of their money on commissions in most places, and checking how much they made in commissions in previous years is the simplest way to figure out how effective they have been in past positions.
There is an altogether separate discussion about whether commission heavy compensation works better or not though.
Don't lie, respond with this: "I cannot disclose my current salary, but my desired salary is X." They just need a number. If they will not accept desired salary in place of current salary, you do not want to work there.
I have had several interviews where after I had passed all the technical screens that the company was simply unable to offer me what I was asking for after weeks of trying. I managed to find a list of what local area start-ups were paying for different roles and was shocked to find myself in the top 10% when I had taken multiple pay cuts within defense and was getting mediocre compensation compared to every Bay Area and NYC located company I had talked to.
I've talked to a number of folks with inside knowledge for a couple different regions and it's quite possible that they're simply not budgeted to pay for that role and they just can't politically negotiate that while meeting certain fiscal commitments. If I started a company right now and bootstrapped, I can't pay someone market rate at all and expect to be in business a year without taking outside funding, so that's just reality.
I get the impression that a lot of companies out there either don't have that mentality (thinking cheap is enough) or don't know how to actually do good hiring.
The good thing about this kind of reaction is that it helps you filter out that kind of company you wouldn't want to work for.
Regarding bluffing: I've seen it happen where the company has asked for a pay stub as part of the final paperwork to confirm that the stated current salary was legit. So yeah that could be a downside to bluffing if you want the job.
I've never heard of such a thing but it undoubtedly happens. Your pay stub is really just showing the floor though. For many positions, there are fairly regular bonuses, variable comp, etc. So, in reality, there's usually some wiggle room in providing current salary info while still being essentially truthful.
I've been recruiting engineers for almost 20 years, and I have probably had a dozen cases where a client asked for a pay stub around the time an offer is presented. It's obviously rare, and most of the time it was for high-ticket talent that seemed to be paid noticeably above market rate.
I have to say, I find that sorta weird. At that point, I would think if the pay stub didn't square with the claimed salary (and there was no convincing explanation for the difference), they'd almost have to not hire the person. And, if it did square, it's like they'd already decided the price tag was too rich for their blood.
Excellent points, and I'm not necessarily condoning the practice (I don't control that). It does seem they are trying to call a bluff where you either expose the bluffer or get locked in to a rate above market. I can't recall an instance where the stub was provided and the client didn't make a competitive offer, but my data set isn't large.
Maybe it's a "There must be a reason they value them so much" (even though we don't see it) sort of thing. Hardly an uncommon situation. Doesn't mean it worked out in the end :-)
You can get fired if they figure out you have been fudging the figures and 'lying' to them. I'm not sure how they would know, but if they do, it can create problems for you.
Error-level analysis of the Jpeg. As you say, if it comes out later that could have bad legal consequences - the term is 'detrimental reliance' and the dishonest person could conceivably face fraud charges. Even if not, it could easily become a a career-damaging topic of gossip.
Re: error analysis—it's a "picture of line-art" kind of document, isn't it? Not even a watermark. So: scan it at super high resolution, blow out the contrast, countour-vectorize it to SVG (effectively equivalent to recovering the original PDF), edit that, print the result, and then scan the print.
(It just occurred to me that if there was "an app for that" in this case, no parent would ever be able to trust their child's report card again.)
Don't even both with all of that.. Just make a reproduction from scratch.
Make it look more or less like the original. As long as nobody sees the original next to the mock-up, who's ever going to notice that one or two digits changed?
Question for you all, are there any negatives to bluffing?
In many countries the employer does the employees tax, and they will be able to see how much you earned in that calendar year. Being hired under false pretenses is fraud and means you could be legally fired at will at any later date.
People in the USA might be used to this (since this is very common), but in many places with actual employment law, this is a bad deal for the employee.
Of course, that's only if you lie to them. If you just don't tell them the salary, then they only find out after you are hired and hopefully have a nice proper salary.
Recruiter here. Some may not like this answer, but: honesty is the best policy. Bluffing, or LYING, could backfire - especially if things escalate and they eventually learn about this.
It's bullshit, especially for those who began their careers during a time of salary deflation.
However, the right employer will NOT base your future salary solely on your current. It should simply be one data point in the process - your value as an employee should be based on a multitude of factors. This isn't pie in the sky; many of my clients do have a compensation system for employees and end up paying fairly.
Sorry but I disagree. Nobody has ever asked me how much I currently make or I made at my last position. It is just not relevant. You make an offer. I might or might not take it. Asking me to reveal my current salary first is silly. If you insist on this information before the conversation can continue, then conversation is over.
They shouldn't ask the question much less demand an answer threatening to close communication if the demand is not met. If they do so, they are clearly not somewhere you want to work.
> Recruiter here. Some may not like this answer, but: honesty is the best policy. Bluffing, or LYING, could backfire - especially if things escalate and they eventually learn about this.
Hahahhaa, I like that you even all-capsed "lying". Give me a break.
I mean, hell, asking the question is one thing. I can live with that. But turning that into some kind of litmus test where declining to share private information completely 100% immediately disqualifies you, that's insane.
Anyway, never experienced it. Question for you all, are there any negatives to bluffing?
i.e. say you said your previous salary was $110k while it was really $90k, will HR say 'you're overqualified' or something to that extent if they were hoping to pay you say $90k and had a max of $100k in mind?
As in, can you recover from that and say 'oh but $100k is fine, too', or would that also send a signal of weakness where they won't hire you because you seem desperate (taking a $10k cut from their perspective, when you actually get a $10k raise)? Ugh the mindgames! haha. Would love to hear your experiences on this issue.