If you are thinking of the National Labor Relations Act, that is not quite correct. Disclosing your pay to fellow employees is allowed, but the employer can prohibit disclosing your pay to outsiders. Also, this does not cover supervisors or contractors. (These limitations make some sense, as the purpose of prohibiting discussing pay was to facilitate collective bargaining).
I believe that some states have laws that provide more extensive protection for pay disclosure, including to outsiders.
You can say, I'm sorry but I'm restricted as to who I can share that information with. Who's restricting you? me, falsedan! Don't tell potential employees your current salary, unless they've given you an offer and you want to negotiate up.
Yes, I belive "recruiters" should be dealt like that when they ask such question. They can use that information to pitch some guys they have in line for your position as well.
I am not going to give free information to third party which might be actually affecting my employer.
My experience is quite bad with such companies. There are some huge ones, who are mostly remote, and the first question is "how much do you want to get". I answer, then there is no negotiation, and I usually want just too much (which usually is what I was making at that time). They don't also want to talk with me about any different figures, there is no counter offer, nothing. This is really sad, seems like they don't care because they have an endless pool of talents to hire.
But then it seems like that's not true, as the companies are posting the same job ad for the next months (or even years), and cannot find anyone for that position. And people from those companies cry that they cannot find programmers. And forums keep filling with comments about their stupid recruitment process.
It seems to me that the companies which want to talk, and negotiate the salaries are winning, and can find people.
For the question about my current salary, I answer that my contract doesn't allow me to tell that. If they insist, I ask them if, after getting me hired, they would like me to tell my future employers how much they pay me. That usually ends these questions.
However I don't have any good reason not to answer about my salary expectations, but it seems like I usually want too much :)
they probably need to post those position so that they appear legit at an audit, for whatever reason (anti discrimination quotas, visa regulations, need to make hiring a cousin's wife legit in front of hr etc)
That sounds like a recruiter going off the script. If they're being that direct, turn it around: my salary expectations depend on how I'd fit in at your company, and how much value I'd add. I hope we can talk about that further along in the interview process, but for the sake of not exceeding your hiring budget, please let me know what the salary range is for this position and I will let you know what we'll need to negotiate on to get to an offer which will work for me.
The intent here is to negotiate in good faith: if they come back with upper salary that is 75% of your expected, go back with: thanks for sharing that information, in order for me to be comfortable with that compensation I'll have to (ask for extra leave/holiday, part-time hours, work from home, X conference trips per year, stock compensation, 3/6/12 month review with performance targets agreed up front which will bump your salary up).
Like the OP says, you should avoid revealing your salary. If and when the time comes for that, you can give a wide variety of numbers for "my compensation is $X". That X can include some or all of your benefit package. They are not going to drill down to the details. If they do, and for some reason you have to reveal that, you can feel comfortable that you have told the truth.
And what if you lie? Also, I think it depends on what country you're in. For instance in UK most recruiters are 3rd party companies operating only as middlemen and their compensation from the employer company is directly proportional to your offered yearly salary (usually something like 15%), so they are interested in getting you the highest possible salary within reason.
"so they are interested in getting you the highest possible salary within reason."
They care far more about closing the sale and moving on to the next one. Also their relationship with employers is far more valuable to them than their relationship to any individual so if anything they will side with their customer (i.e. who is paying them) which is the employer not the employee.
There's no reason to answer that question. Instead, talk about your expectations: say that your understanding is the role involves X, Y, and Z, and you have experience in related areas A, B, C, and accordingly you'd be looking to get $x for this role. Then, transfer it all back to them: "Does that fit with your range for the position?"
One point raised on the article is that they will have a better idea of market and salary range than you will (or they should!). So if you give them your desired salary it might be out of their range (too high or too low). Also, especially at the beginning of the hiring process, you don't know everything about the company, so how can you have a valid desired salary?
Also, your value to them as a possible employee increases as you go through the interview process, so why would you limit yourself up front (I have done this before and it ended up in a offer that I didn't take).
The key point is that your desired salary should be an accurate amount based on your needs and expectations. If you're genuinely out of their range, why would you settle anyway?
This is why it's crucial to focus the conversation on your expectations, not your current compensation. That might not be enough for you! That might be why you are looking for a new role! It's a waste of everybody's time if they misunderstand your expectations and hire you for less than you want/need.
(Yes, your value increases as you go through the interview process, but this point of the process isn't the salary negotation. You're not going in hard at this point, just setting their expectations).
Did you read the article and not find the salary determination process convincing?
Of course you should have an expectation, but why is it incumbent on you to list your range? Why is it not incumbent on them, since they'll be an effective monopsony of your labor?
I guess it is a question of whether you want to maximize your potential income (in which case you want the cards close to your chest) or if you'd be happy getting what you expected (and maybe a bit more). I've been in both places in my life, but I remember an older person telling me when I was young (paraphrasing) that you should take your company for all it will give you, because you can bet they'll do the same to you.
I think you should have an idea about market range, but so should they. It is an asymmetric relationship--they have many employees, but you typically have only one employer. So they should have better data about pricing for the purchase of their labor than you should.
^ so much this. all those suggestion pretend the employer and the candidate exists in a vacuum of pure unadulterated haggling, while just the act of taking slightly more hr time for being difficult will get your resume thrown at the bottom of the pile.
Just lie and say something competitively high, because negotations will always lowball and haggle it down from there. Previous salaries are NEVER verified for simple reasons, its beyond offensive for the references as well as the interviewing company to ask about compensation which is a private business affair.
Why is responding to asshole questions in a pragmatic manner so hard to avenge for hanging by the doornail autists?
This is the same crowd of introverted nerds that whitenight and go for the valor M'lady type antics. Theres no honor in getting the shit end of a bargain.
Do you tell the officer who pulls you over "Am i being detained?" And pull that blatantly antagonistic yet legal shpeil? You just end up getting yourself in a worse situation even if the law is on your side. Because cops dont usually follow the law for who they deem as assholes. They make things hard.
Theres no moral highground here. Lest you want to sit in a jail cell for the night because its your word against theres.
Lie. 200k year. Done. Lowball negotation down to 150. Happy? No harm done. Because its bullshit. A lie is no more bad than a deceitful and dagger cloaked question designed to make sociay awkard nerd fucks anchor their salary at peanuts because they lack market knowledge.and their own self worth.
The high ground loses against nefarious actors. "I wont discuss this because of X Y Z. is just a replica of the cop situation. You most likely wont get the job because youll be seen as a technically abrasive smug person.
In certain countries(Sweden) all tax records are fully public and anyone can read them, so the recruiter can just look up what you are being paid without asking.
wow! Not sure how I feel about that. I find it strange that anyone can find out the price paid for any house in Britain. I often see people often 'valuing' other people with this information. I can't imagine what it would be like if people could find salaries directly.
Having been asked my previous salary at interview (and having answered honestly), on the first day at my new job they asked for various verification information - passport, degree certificates etc., and a payslip from my old job. I work in the UK FWIW, and at a company that would almost certainly not be breaking the law with HR policies.
You're under no obligation to keep them, however, so you can't be ordered to provide them. Your P60 is a different matter, but there are lots of reasons for the figures on that to not match what you claimed.
You paint it as compulsive nitpicking while it actually hurts your negotiation position.
Speaking of which - if you're happy with your current job, why should you care if they skip you to take advantage of someone more gullible? Heck, given that I'm a) pretty happy with current job and b) often contacted by recruiters, I'm going to try my hand at some negotiations around this.
The final stage hiring negotiators are very often HR personnel and you wont be working with them. Choose your battles. Almost every professional company has a rotting infestation of HR folk. You can definitely find jobs without these bloodsuckers but keep in mind that they know their place and have a narrow scope of interactivity with the employees.
But do try your hand at both methods of discourse if you have the energy and time. Based on my raw experience, I'm confident you'll find the moral highground to be a lost cause when dealing with this one sore part of job acquisition.
> Previous salaries are NEVER verified for simple reasons,
I'd be careful generalizing here as this is very local to different countries. I can check out a candidates Stackoverflow score in one web browser tab, their Linkedin profile in a second tab, and their tax returns (public info) in a third tab.
Yes. Really.
It might not be right but if it's that easy it's hard to avoid. It's certainly useful information to have in the following interview.
Almost every developed country has tax returns private and protected by law. So your article names two socialist countries out of how many on Earth? Most people here are concerned with the US but thanks for the disclaimer.
Yeah, nice idea, but then when HR comes into play you can't expect logic(or you can, but a very twisted one).
I know someone who the engineering team really wanted, but he was paid 65k currently, and he wanted at least 80k, because he would have to move to London.
Who did the HR decide to hire? A guy who scored much worse during the interview, but he "only" wanted an increase from 90k to 95k - and HR was prohibited by corporate policy from offering more than 10% increase in previous salary for new hires, so the first guy couldn't be offered 80k - even though the person they actually hired was paid a lot more than that.
Is the policy stupid? Yes it is. But that's the real world situation you sometimes have to deal with.
I've heard this before. A little over two years ago, I was asking for what amounted to a 22% increase in salary. I was perfectly within market range with the increase. The HR person said she couldn't authorize this. I politely ended the interview without answering any of her other questions.
I saw an article a few years ago, where they said most people disadvantage themselves unknowingly - by not negotiating their salary for their first job out of college harder.
The thinking being that if most people usually move jobs for their current salary +x%, that initial figure has a profound compound effect throughout the rest of your earning career.
You don't usually have anything to offer fresh out of college. Jumping jobs more often I think has a much higher pay off, and you naturally get better at negotiating from the experience.
Bad advice if your value delivered is 100-200% what you currently earn (which can vary significantly based on the organization into which you deliver it). This can mean the difference between having a boat to retire on or not, after compound interest.
I find that a lot of the tactics used to deflect or avoid answering awkward questions in interviews just do not work.
There are two questions that always get me in interviews. The first one is the salary one. If I am evasive, or try to deflect, the interviewer will probe deeper. They just wont take no for an answer. In fact I've even been told straight up "Give us a figure, or we won't proceed".
Another one is about my children. They are five and seven and finish school in the afternoon, when they are collected by their after school service. Under EU law interviewers cannot ask about my family life, but they do. They ask what my children's ages are, they ask when the finish school, and crucially what happens if there is a problem that would require me to dash out to pick them up (illness etc). When I say my wife will take care of that they ask what she does for a living. If I say that I'd rather not discuss that then I can be certain no matter how skilled I am for the job, I wont be getting it.
In my experience most interviewers know all the tricks. If they want an answer to a question they will get it. If you don't play ball then you probably wont get the job.
Totally agree. Its the same as when a cop pulls you over. Being abrasive yet technically legally correct will just get the cop to royally shit on your situation.
Do you need any one job that badly? Appreciate I am in a fortunate position but I was under the impression that there is more demand for developers than there is supply.
How do you define "their dime", "expensive" and "what you are worth"? Because anyone could agree or disagree with this statement, depending on those definitions.
Interesting, my view has been almost the opposite. It's difficult to get your first developer role. But after a year of that and salaries increase quite rapidly. likewise with contracting / freelancing.
Of course my view of cheap and expensive may be different from yours.
I have found that with a shortage of developer talent companies are quite happy to pay to get staff who have no baggage that can affect productivity. In other words they'll pay you loads, but you better be in the office all the time, and maybe throw in a bit of overtime as well.
Most companies that claim to be family friendly are anything but.
It is not legal (data protection act). And my experience is the same. I tell the recruiter this and if they persist I politely end the conversation. There are enough jobs out there.
I don't know what kind of positions you are applying for but if a recruiter started antagonizing me like that I'd say "well it looks like we are not a good fit for each other. Have a nice day!"
If the applicant has the upper hand (i.e. if he has highly desired rare skills), this will not happen.
And if he doesn't because you are applying for the 99% of jobs that require no unique knowledge - then it is no loss for the recruiter to antagonise the applicant. The worst outcome is to get the subjectively second-best candidate out of a hundred who can all do the job just as well.
Laugh at their crappy joke and start talking about what you delivered at your last job. Ask if cashmoney is tight, so what can they offer you besides salary.
The point is you are now firmly in negotiation mode, you just said so! But you have turned the question into what you are worth and what can they do to secure you.
But if they are really pushy and say, no seriously what did you get at your last job, push back. Seriously, is this an interview or are you just looking for market data... and always be prepared to walk out.
> Another one is about my children. They are five and seven and finish school in the
> afternoon, when they are collected by their after school service. Under EU law
> interviewers cannot ask about my family life, but they do.
That's a huge red flag. Just asking the question in an interview situation leaves them open to unfair discrimination lawsuits, and you can easily get a negotiated settlement whenever they end the interview process.
I would find the time to have a brief consultation with a lawyer familiar with workplace & EEO law, and hear what they think.
Note that EEO law usually aren't regulated (companies don't need to show they are in compliance, and government agencies don't conduct spot checks with 'mystery candidates'); they have to fear the punishment of a settlement in order to abide with the law. If they're a tiny fly-by-night company they might just close up and re-establish elsewhere to avoid the suit.
It's not criminal law, so there's no need for proof beyond a reasonable doubt. The burden is on the company to show that their interview process was in compliance e.g. with training material and documented feedback regarding the interview. A legit company would have no problem with that.
It's enough to say: I am an employee with children, I was asked about how my family obligations might affect how I would perform on the job, I was not given an offer because I was unfairly discriminated against.
Oh I know, but what can you do. It's your word against theirs. And if you were to tape the interview and successfully claim for unfair dismissal your name will get around the local IT industry pretty quickly.
Talk to a lawyer to find out what you can do; they will know the likelihood of a successful case, and most would be happy to at least do a free consultation for 30m-1h.
> And if you were to […] successfully claim for unfair dismissal your name will get around the local IT industry pretty quickly.
That's also unfair discrimination! But I'd be amazed if any settlement didn't include a gag clause to prevent the parties from commenting on anything related to it. If they did, then it's back to court for a breach of contract…
This isn't personal, it's just business. Companies use these tactics because candidates let them get away with it.
Here's something that worked well for me: I deferred the salary question until after I'd had some contact with my potential employer (rather than the recruiter) so they had a sense of my value. Then, when asked what my current salary was, I said something along the lines of the following: "my current salary is well below where I want it to be, because I started out in a low-level job and worked my way up getting the usual incremental pay rises when I changed jobs. I'm currently on £XX,XXX but rather than give me an incremental offer I want you to give me an honest offer of what you think I am worth".
It depends on the company, but in my experience SMEs aren't out to screw people on salary and being honest and straightforward netted me a much more generous offer than I would have gotten otherwise. Many of the comments in this thread seem to advocate using tricks to fight the tricks that recruiters use, but sometimes being honest and letting your potential employer see your perspective can work wonders. Especially once you've gotten to know them a little bit in an interview or phone call so they don't feel like they're taking a gamble by employing you.
It has nothing to do with "screwing people". This is terrible advice. Salary negotiation is the single most important financial decision you will make in your life. That shit compounds, son!
you say all this like I suggested anything different. Salary negotiation is important, and in my experience the worst thing you can do is either mentally commit to taking the job before you negotiate a salary, or sow the seeds of mutual distrust early on. If you try to pull the same bullshit on the recruiter that they're pulling on you then you're playing their game on their terms.
What I've suggested, contrary to your (unnecessarily abrasive) reply, is not to give up on negotiations but to push past the impersonal arguing over numbers and get to the actual negotiation at hand by laying not only your own cards, but the other person's cards, on the table. You implicitly say up front "if you try to pull the same old $salary * 1.1 game with me I'll turn down your offer" while also laying out what your expectation is. You name a number, and say "that number is not good enough, make it better" and thus leave the ball in their court. This is not you saying "well I want a better salary than I have now, I make £20,000 and I will accept £27,000" - you're saying "well I want a better salary than I have now, I know I'm underpaid, I make £20,000 right now - it's on you to guess what I place my value at, but you know it's not a small jump".
All this without making you look like a distrustful asshole like many of the previous suggestions would do.
Oh, and I forgot to mention in my previous comment - you can be ambiguous about the amount you make too if you want, e.g. "I make below market rate" or "I make about 2/3 of what my friend makes for the same job". But it's very transparent.
You suggested giving a number first. Your mental gymnastics about why that is justified or professional do not somehow make that a game-theoretical good choice.
Seriously, you don't come across as "distrustful asshole" when you repeatedly refuse to divulge it, you come across as competent at business.
Transparency is not your friend in a negotiation. You profit from
having secrets. Every professional negotiator knows this.
your black-and-white view of "giving a number" and complete refusal to seemingly even read my comment shows that there's no point trying to explain this to you again.
As developers we are highly in demand right now so don't have to be overly clever in negotiation.
I use a simple and foolproof strategy when asked for my current or expected compensation: "sorry I'm not willing to disclose my current comp, but I am looking for around X", where X is the amount you would need if there are no other bonuses or perks.
Then they can talk you down from there if they want to proceed, you have anchored the conversation appropriately, and demonstrated you are negotiating from a position of strength, not weakness - which is the key to not getting pushed around.
If they push on current comp just stand firm and politely refuse - you likely don't want to work anywhere that won't talk to you if you refuse to disclose your current comp, and there are plenty of other options besides. Save your time and energy for good companies willing to negotiate in good faith, there are lots around.
The only hard part is determining what your labour is really worth - this can take a fair bit of effort, research and soul-searching, but is an absolutely essential prerequisite to negotiation.
> The only hard part is determining what your labour is really worth - this can take a fair bit of effort, research and soul-searching, but is an absolutely essential prerequisite to negotiation.
I disagree. I think the intrinsic value of labour is not necessary to consider when calculating what you should be paid. The golden rule is: you're worth what people will pay you.
I think you need three numbers: how much you need to be comfortable (i.e. you have a budget for living expenses & savings goals); how much the market is paying for similar positions; how much value you will add to their company.
The first number is your low-end: you can't accept an offer under it, and you'd accept an offer around it to build your skills, experience, and networking. The third is their high-end: they can't pay more than you bring in or else they'll go bust. They probably don't know this number, their budget would be set based on market rates.
Your job as a candidate is to find positions where the market rate is above your low-end, and then identify the areas where your skills & experience will provide more value to the company that they expected, so they can better calculate their high-end & are willing to negotiate up accordingly.
Sorry my comment was unclear, I mostly agree with you. In a negotiation the only thing that matters is how much the company values your labour, and how much of that value you can capture. Figuring this out is the hard part.
If at all possible, avoid going in through the front door i.e. use your network to get introduced. Perhaps someone you worked with or went to school with works at the company you're interested in. This may give you a little more leverage with H.R.
An even better way is avoid companies that are large enough to even have an H.R. department.
When faced with the "give us a number or we're done" just stand up, reach out to shake their hand, smile and say "Thank you for your time." You have no leverage, and the company is demonstrating that they want to hire developers like they are an interchangeable commodity - they don't really value them.
Or just say "I'm looking for around X for a position like this". What's between the lines is you not saying "...and what I make right now isn't relevant at this point".
That said, there are traps here. a) for e.g. some public authorities and such it might be the case that your salary is public and the interviewer already has it. or b) As where I live, it's one step worse - everyones salary is public (or rather their tax returns are - but it's pretty easy to deduct someones salary from their tax returns if they are ordinary employees).
So I would always assume the interviewer already has the number, and I wouldn't worry much about whether they know or not - but I'd try to steer the conversation away from it and not try to anchor at the current salary.
Here's a better advice, if you allow me to quote the title of a book by Cal Newton: be so good at what you do that they can't ignore you.
Don't play little games like that. You end up wasting everybody's time. Maybe you don't care about their time, but you should care about yours. The interview process is taxing, you can't focus properly at your current job, the uncertainty eats at you, you can't treat it as a zero cost to you.
how about " Well, I did apply to your company to improve, so we should rather have a conversation about the money I expect than what I currently have. Here is what I want to get paid [insert number 20% higher than what you really would settle for].... Does it fit into your range ? "
That gives enough room but also leaves enough chance to go on in the interview. Remind yourself that getting a job at a price that you set by yourself is better than being afraid of loosing out the opportunity to max out to the limit. Good staff always gets a second chance !
As a tech founder, who see's lots of CVs, I'd like to call BS on salary expectations being simply a negotiation tactic. Knowing what salary the candidate expects, in an industry where salary ranges are extremely large, allows you to compare and contrast to other candidates with similar expectations. This creates a fair playing field for all candidates.
We publish our salary ranges, but the ranges are large - and I think this comes down to different ways people hire in tech. Big corporates say - we want a person @ £80k pay grade and expect them to have XYZ experience. On the other hand, a start-up will say, we want great coders - straight out of uni? 10 years experience? Doesn't matter. We want great coders. You'll be compared against others in your pay bracket when you apply.
It is in the candidates interest to state their expectation, as it doesn't waste anyone's time. If a candidate appears to be wasting our time, I'll automatically be less inclined to proceed - hiring isn't a game where you try to outsmart the other person. It's someone's livelihood, and ensuring both parties are clear, upfront, and honest is vital to a good employer / employee relationship.
As a candidate you should be thinking what makes me infinitely more hireable than the other candidates - playing a salary negotiation game from step 1 isn't going to do that.
As an employer, we try to be as clear as possible about our expectations - and it seems to work. Alternatively, we could of course split the "roles available" into 10 different pay brackets each with different expectations and force candidates to apply to the bracket they feel most suited for (and hence tell us their salary expectations), but this doesn't match reality, is disingenuous, and feels like a pointless exercise when it's so easy to be up-front and honest when neither party is trying to game the other!
What if... your min-salary-absolutely is 70k, but their max-salary-whatever-happens is 50k, and you waste weeks of your time on several stages of interviewing only to learn that?
None of those "never tell your salary expectations" ever respond that question.
It's one thing not to say what your current salary is, sure.
If you don't have required salary figure, there's a risk you'll spend a bunch of time interviewing for companies that can't afford you.
The times I've received job offers, I've had to spend at least two weekends preparing and two days of annual leave to reach the offer stage. And if the employer's pay scale caps out at a fraction of what I currently earn, why waste my time?
Of course, I'm fortunate enough that I've been in the industry for a reasonable amount of time, and I think I've got a good idea of what my skills are worth.
A well-run company will commonly list a salary range for position so that there is less confusion about this issue. How much another company paid you isnt the best signal of your worth and unfairly affects people who were paid less than they were worth and vice versa
Since companies don't open up their finaces to me during the interview process, it's none of their business and if they ask, it is generally 5-7% less than the current salary Im seeking
I have changed employers a lot, never asked for much on average (proportionally to the risk let's say), so my salary grew up a lot without difficult negotiations. (And -- yes, it did happen to me that I was offered more than I asked for... it is very, very far from being good thing for your future in the new company.)
One point to keep in mind. In my personal experience, big companies are frequently behave well when hiring for regular tech jobs -- they won't offer stellar salaries, but will not try to squeeze you dry from the start either (will try to get you to what they believe is median for your qualifications). And usually will let you understand this during salary negotiation, so you kind of have less reason to conceal your present figure.
However, as you salary grows, many of them will not be adjusting the grade in the hiring process (and of course never afterwards, except for big promotions).
So when negotiating, once you got the amount from them, ask where it lies on the range for the grade you will be given. Make sure there is a margin for growth. If there is not -- beware, it might be very hard for you to be raised afterwards, however excellent your results might be.
> ask where it lies on the range for the grade you will be given. Make sure there is a margin for growth. If there is not -- beware, it might be very hard for you to be raised afterward
That's a very good piece of advice, thanks for writing that!
110 comments
[ 3.5 ms ] story [ 244 ms ] threadI believe that some states have laws that provide more extensive protection for pay disclosure, including to outsiders.
Many other advocate lying. I'm kind of hesitant to do that because of my believe that it is "starting off on the wrong foot".
I am not going to give free information to third party which might be actually affecting my employer.
But then it seems like that's not true, as the companies are posting the same job ad for the next months (or even years), and cannot find anyone for that position. And people from those companies cry that they cannot find programmers. And forums keep filling with comments about their stupid recruitment process.
It seems to me that the companies which want to talk, and negotiate the salaries are winning, and can find people.
For the question about my current salary, I answer that my contract doesn't allow me to tell that. If they insist, I ask them if, after getting me hired, they would like me to tell my future employers how much they pay me. That usually ends these questions.
However I don't have any good reason not to answer about my salary expectations, but it seems like I usually want too much :)
The intent here is to negotiate in good faith: if they come back with upper salary that is 75% of your expected, go back with: thanks for sharing that information, in order for me to be comfortable with that compensation I'll have to (ask for extra leave/holiday, part-time hours, work from home, X conference trips per year, stock compensation, 3/6/12 month review with performance targets agreed up front which will bump your salary up).
Of course, negotiation is expected and you shouldn't lay all your cards on the table, but outright lying might poison the relationship.
They care far more about closing the sale and moving on to the next one. Also their relationship with employers is far more valuable to them than their relationship to any individual so if anything they will side with their customer (i.e. who is paying them) which is the employer not the employee.
Also, your value to them as a possible employee increases as you go through the interview process, so why would you limit yourself up front (I have done this before and it ended up in a offer that I didn't take).
This is why it's crucial to focus the conversation on your expectations, not your current compensation. That might not be enough for you! That might be why you are looking for a new role! It's a waste of everybody's time if they misunderstand your expectations and hire you for less than you want/need.
(Yes, your value increases as you go through the interview process, but this point of the process isn't the salary negotation. You're not going in hard at this point, just setting their expectations).
Of course you should have an expectation, but why is it incumbent on you to list your range? Why is it not incumbent on them, since they'll be an effective monopsony of your labor?
I guess it is a question of whether you want to maximize your potential income (in which case you want the cards close to your chest) or if you'd be happy getting what you expected (and maybe a bit more). I've been in both places in my life, but I remember an older person telling me when I was young (paraphrasing) that you should take your company for all it will give you, because you can bet they'll do the same to you.
Again, it's primarily a negotiation tactic.
On the other hand, if you do accept a job below your range and you talk to enough recruiters, soon you'll be poached anyway.
Why is responding to asshole questions in a pragmatic manner so hard to avenge for hanging by the doornail autists?
This is the same crowd of introverted nerds that whitenight and go for the valor M'lady type antics. Theres no honor in getting the shit end of a bargain.
Do you tell the officer who pulls you over "Am i being detained?" And pull that blatantly antagonistic yet legal shpeil? You just end up getting yourself in a worse situation even if the law is on your side. Because cops dont usually follow the law for who they deem as assholes. They make things hard.
Theres no moral highground here. Lest you want to sit in a jail cell for the night because its your word against theres.
Lie. 200k year. Done. Lowball negotation down to 150. Happy? No harm done. Because its bullshit. A lie is no more bad than a deceitful and dagger cloaked question designed to make sociay awkard nerd fucks anchor their salary at peanuts because they lack market knowledge.and their own self worth.
The high ground loses against nefarious actors. "I wont discuss this because of X Y Z. is just a replica of the cop situation. You most likely wont get the job because youll be seen as a technically abrasive smug person.
It is what it is...
So you can see who accessed it, or that someone did.
I think there's no notification or anything, but it is there.
Could be wrong but this is what I've gathered.
Speaking of which - if you're happy with your current job, why should you care if they skip you to take advantage of someone more gullible? Heck, given that I'm a) pretty happy with current job and b) often contacted by recruiters, I'm going to try my hand at some negotiations around this.
But do try your hand at both methods of discourse if you have the energy and time. Based on my raw experience, I'm confident you'll find the moral highground to be a lost cause when dealing with this one sore part of job acquisition.
I'd be careful generalizing here as this is very local to different countries. I can check out a candidates Stackoverflow score in one web browser tab, their Linkedin profile in a second tab, and their tax returns (public info) in a third tab.
Yes. Really.
It might not be right but if it's that easy it's hard to avoid. It's certainly useful information to have in the following interview.
Edit: Public tax returns periodically surface in he US debate too, and taxes were (last) public in 1923-24 it seems http://www.nytimes.com/2010/02/14/business/yourtaxes/14discl...
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/26/7213
I know someone who the engineering team really wanted, but he was paid 65k currently, and he wanted at least 80k, because he would have to move to London.
Who did the HR decide to hire? A guy who scored much worse during the interview, but he "only" wanted an increase from 90k to 95k - and HR was prohibited by corporate policy from offering more than 10% increase in previous salary for new hires, so the first guy couldn't be offered 80k - even though the person they actually hired was paid a lot more than that.
Is the policy stupid? Yes it is. But that's the real world situation you sometimes have to deal with.
X is 20% more than what I actually earn.
The thinking being that if most people usually move jobs for their current salary +x%, that initial figure has a profound compound effect throughout the rest of your earning career.
There are two questions that always get me in interviews. The first one is the salary one. If I am evasive, or try to deflect, the interviewer will probe deeper. They just wont take no for an answer. In fact I've even been told straight up "Give us a figure, or we won't proceed".
Another one is about my children. They are five and seven and finish school in the afternoon, when they are collected by their after school service. Under EU law interviewers cannot ask about my family life, but they do. They ask what my children's ages are, they ask when the finish school, and crucially what happens if there is a problem that would require me to dash out to pick them up (illness etc). When I say my wife will take care of that they ask what she does for a living. If I say that I'd rather not discuss that then I can be certain no matter how skilled I am for the job, I wont be getting it.
In my experience most interviewers know all the tricks. If they want an answer to a question they will get it. If you don't play ball then you probably wont get the job.
See my relevant comment in the thread below:
https://news.ycombinator.com/reply?id=13947819&goto=item%3Fi...
Great devs should receive their worth as compensation. But that wouldn't make them expensive. That would just make them worth their dime.
But I totally get the point you were trying to make. Lot's of employers try to get one over and not pay you what you are worth.
Of course my view of cheap and expensive may be different from yours.
Most companies that claim to be family friendly are anything but.
The negotiation stranded on other points, so I never had to. But I had the gut feeling this practice is not legal (in EU).
"Is this a salary negotiation? Lets talk about what I am worth."
And if he doesn't because you are applying for the 99% of jobs that require no unique knowledge - then it is no loss for the recruiter to antagonise the applicant. The worst outcome is to get the subjectively second-best candidate out of a hundred who can all do the job just as well.
The point is you are now firmly in negotiation mode, you just said so! But you have turned the question into what you are worth and what can they do to secure you.
But if they are really pushy and say, no seriously what did you get at your last job, push back. Seriously, is this an interview or are you just looking for market data... and always be prepared to walk out.
I would find the time to have a brief consultation with a lawyer familiar with workplace & EEO law, and hear what they think.
Note that EEO law usually aren't regulated (companies don't need to show they are in compliance, and government agencies don't conduct spot checks with 'mystery candidates'); they have to fear the punishment of a settlement in order to abide with the law. If they're a tiny fly-by-night company they might just close up and re-establish elsewhere to avoid the suit.
It's enough to say: I am an employee with children, I was asked about how my family obligations might affect how I would perform on the job, I was not given an offer because I was unfairly discriminated against.
> And if you were to […] successfully claim for unfair dismissal your name will get around the local IT industry pretty quickly.
That's also unfair discrimination! But I'd be amazed if any settlement didn't include a gag clause to prevent the parties from commenting on anything related to it. If they did, then it's back to court for a breach of contract…
This isn't personal, it's just business. Companies use these tactics because candidates let them get away with it.
It depends on the company, but in my experience SMEs aren't out to screw people on salary and being honest and straightforward netted me a much more generous offer than I would have gotten otherwise. Many of the comments in this thread seem to advocate using tricks to fight the tricks that recruiters use, but sometimes being honest and letting your potential employer see your perspective can work wonders. Especially once you've gotten to know them a little bit in an interview or phone call so they don't feel like they're taking a gamble by employing you.
Do. Not. Give. Them. A. Figure. First. Don't!
@patio11 explains why in exquisite detail here: http://www.kalzumeus.com/2012/01/23/salary-negotiation/
What I've suggested, contrary to your (unnecessarily abrasive) reply, is not to give up on negotiations but to push past the impersonal arguing over numbers and get to the actual negotiation at hand by laying not only your own cards, but the other person's cards, on the table. You implicitly say up front "if you try to pull the same old $salary * 1.1 game with me I'll turn down your offer" while also laying out what your expectation is. You name a number, and say "that number is not good enough, make it better" and thus leave the ball in their court. This is not you saying "well I want a better salary than I have now, I make £20,000 and I will accept £27,000" - you're saying "well I want a better salary than I have now, I know I'm underpaid, I make £20,000 right now - it's on you to guess what I place my value at, but you know it's not a small jump".
All this without making you look like a distrustful asshole like many of the previous suggestions would do.
Oh, and I forgot to mention in my previous comment - you can be ambiguous about the amount you make too if you want, e.g. "I make below market rate" or "I make about 2/3 of what my friend makes for the same job". But it's very transparent.
Seriously, you don't come across as "distrustful asshole" when you repeatedly refuse to divulge it, you come across as competent at business.
Transparency is not your friend in a negotiation. You profit from having secrets. Every professional negotiator knows this.
I use a simple and foolproof strategy when asked for my current or expected compensation: "sorry I'm not willing to disclose my current comp, but I am looking for around X", where X is the amount you would need if there are no other bonuses or perks.
Then they can talk you down from there if they want to proceed, you have anchored the conversation appropriately, and demonstrated you are negotiating from a position of strength, not weakness - which is the key to not getting pushed around.
If they push on current comp just stand firm and politely refuse - you likely don't want to work anywhere that won't talk to you if you refuse to disclose your current comp, and there are plenty of other options besides. Save your time and energy for good companies willing to negotiate in good faith, there are lots around.
The only hard part is determining what your labour is really worth - this can take a fair bit of effort, research and soul-searching, but is an absolutely essential prerequisite to negotiation.
I disagree. I think the intrinsic value of labour is not necessary to consider when calculating what you should be paid. The golden rule is: you're worth what people will pay you.
I think you need three numbers: how much you need to be comfortable (i.e. you have a budget for living expenses & savings goals); how much the market is paying for similar positions; how much value you will add to their company.
The first number is your low-end: you can't accept an offer under it, and you'd accept an offer around it to build your skills, experience, and networking. The third is their high-end: they can't pay more than you bring in or else they'll go bust. They probably don't know this number, their budget would be set based on market rates.
Your job as a candidate is to find positions where the market rate is above your low-end, and then identify the areas where your skills & experience will provide more value to the company that they expected, so they can better calculate their high-end & are willing to negotiate up accordingly.
An even better way is avoid companies that are large enough to even have an H.R. department.
When faced with the "give us a number or we're done" just stand up, reach out to shake their hand, smile and say "Thank you for your time." You have no leverage, and the company is demonstrating that they want to hire developers like they are an interchangeable commodity - they don't really value them.
Seriously guys, how hard is this?
That said, there are traps here. a) for e.g. some public authorities and such it might be the case that your salary is public and the interviewer already has it. or b) As where I live, it's one step worse - everyones salary is public (or rather their tax returns are - but it's pretty easy to deduct someones salary from their tax returns if they are ordinary employees).
So I would always assume the interviewer already has the number, and I wouldn't worry much about whether they know or not - but I'd try to steer the conversation away from it and not try to anchor at the current salary.
Don't play little games like that. You end up wasting everybody's time. Maybe you don't care about their time, but you should care about yours. The interview process is taxing, you can't focus properly at your current job, the uncertainty eats at you, you can't treat it as a zero cost to you.
how about " Well, I did apply to your company to improve, so we should rather have a conversation about the money I expect than what I currently have. Here is what I want to get paid [insert number 20% higher than what you really would settle for].... Does it fit into your range ? "
That gives enough room but also leaves enough chance to go on in the interview. Remind yourself that getting a job at a price that you set by yourself is better than being afraid of loosing out the opportunity to max out to the limit. Good staff always gets a second chance !
We publish our salary ranges, but the ranges are large - and I think this comes down to different ways people hire in tech. Big corporates say - we want a person @ £80k pay grade and expect them to have XYZ experience. On the other hand, a start-up will say, we want great coders - straight out of uni? 10 years experience? Doesn't matter. We want great coders. You'll be compared against others in your pay bracket when you apply.
It is in the candidates interest to state their expectation, as it doesn't waste anyone's time. If a candidate appears to be wasting our time, I'll automatically be less inclined to proceed - hiring isn't a game where you try to outsmart the other person. It's someone's livelihood, and ensuring both parties are clear, upfront, and honest is vital to a good employer / employee relationship.
As a candidate you should be thinking what makes me infinitely more hireable than the other candidates - playing a salary negotiation game from step 1 isn't going to do that.
As an employer, we try to be as clear as possible about our expectations - and it seems to work. Alternatively, we could of course split the "roles available" into 10 different pay brackets each with different expectations and force candidates to apply to the bracket they feel most suited for (and hence tell us their salary expectations), but this doesn't match reality, is disingenuous, and feels like a pointless exercise when it's so easy to be up-front and honest when neither party is trying to game the other!
Wait, isn't it also in your interest to not have your time wasted?
So why not just share the salary range with the candidate, then?
Also, people still apply with expectations above the range - knowing that up front is useful!
"I expect a salary that's competitive for someone with my abilities and experience."
Do not ever say any numbers, exact or ballpark (as the article says in so-many-words).
If they insist, you repeat the same answer.
If they insist yet again, you repeat the same answer again.
None of those "never tell your salary expectations" ever respond that question.
But that possibility doesn't seem to deter some companies from making salary ranges public (see Stack Overflow job listings for examples).
If you don't have required salary figure, there's a risk you'll spend a bunch of time interviewing for companies that can't afford you.
The times I've received job offers, I've had to spend at least two weekends preparing and two days of annual leave to reach the offer stage. And if the employer's pay scale caps out at a fraction of what I currently earn, why waste my time?
Of course, I'm fortunate enough that I've been in the industry for a reasonable amount of time, and I think I've got a good idea of what my skills are worth.
Since companies don't open up their finaces to me during the interview process, it's none of their business and if they ask, it is generally 5-7% less than the current salary Im seeking
One point to keep in mind. In my personal experience, big companies are frequently behave well when hiring for regular tech jobs -- they won't offer stellar salaries, but will not try to squeeze you dry from the start either (will try to get you to what they believe is median for your qualifications). And usually will let you understand this during salary negotiation, so you kind of have less reason to conceal your present figure.
However, as you salary grows, many of them will not be adjusting the grade in the hiring process (and of course never afterwards, except for big promotions).
So when negotiating, once you got the amount from them, ask where it lies on the range for the grade you will be given. Make sure there is a margin for growth. If there is not -- beware, it might be very hard for you to be raised afterwards, however excellent your results might be.
That's a very good piece of advice, thanks for writing that!