Ask HN: Should I provide salary history after an accepted offer?
They've contracted with a third party to perform a background check, and part of the employment verification step requires previous salaries and dates of employment. I have an issue with providing my salary history as I've received large increases last time I switched and this time as well (>40%), and I'm concerned they'll lower my agreed-upon salary after seeing the results of the report (as I seriously doubt it's a binary yes/no from the third-party).
Since I have not previously disclosed my salary history during the interview process, my plan is to bend the rules of allowable characters in the salary field to provide a null value and supply heavily redacted W-2s / paystubs as supporting documentation (in lieu of allowing them to contact my previous employers directly).
I'm wondering--Is this a sound plan? Would you do something different? Am I being overly-cautious with information I perceive to be confidential and irrelevant in my background check given I already have an accepted offer?
60 comments
[ 4.2 ms ] story [ 111 ms ] threadI understand your desire for privacy, and it sucks that BigCo is asking for this person info. But if you didn't lie about previous salaries and they've already offered you a certain amount, I think your risk is lower if you just give them the info.
HR departments can be pretty rigid and unforgiving if you try to deviate from their prescribed processes...
I'd write $1 for previous salaries, let the human figure out that it is obviously an error, and say "That's confidential." when asked, in the unlikely event that was asked. Your new employer is not performing the background check to get permission to hire you. They've already made the decision to hire you. If a blip pops up in the background check, that's going to be HR's minor emergency, not yours.
(Why do employers do background checks? In most cases, so that they never have to say in the future "No, we don't do background checks." Consider the case where an employee embezzles a large amount of money from the firm. One of the first questions they'll be asked by various aggrieved parties is "Did you do minimal due diligence when hiring like background checks?" and if that answer is "No." then regardless of the contents of the hypothetical background check on that employee they're in a bad way.)
Your old employers will generally verify employment in the most minimal manner possible. You'd have to pull teeth to get anything more than dates and titles from a lot of firms; anything more than that a) gets them absolutely nothing to provide and b) exposes them to liability.
bend the rules of allowable characters in the salary field to provide a null value
DO NOT HACK THE WEBSITE OF THE BACKGROUND CHECK COMPANY YES I AM SHOUTING.
This law is broken more frequently than it should be.
> DO NOT HACK THE WEBSITE OF THE BACKGROUND CHECK COMPANY YES I AM SHOUTING.
ducks Yeah, this was a dumb idea. I'll avoid the form validation antics.
Especially now that he's documented his intention to do so on the public internet, which could add charges like conspiracy and wire fraud.
Unless you're a contractor and using a "company" tax ID number, or being paid "under the table" in cash, bitcoin, or other goods...?
There's no reason for me to give my SSN to a third party.
I typically provided my SSN to HR as part of the onboarding process after the background check was completed and my offer was finalized.
Agreed upon is agreed upon. If they really try to lower your salary it's probably not a good place to work.
Usually, most employers do ask for your existing pay slip/old W2 along with your accepted signed offer letter to ensure due diligence.
Never seen this happen. Ever.
They should do their due diligence before hiring somebody.
That would be a really easy reason for you to back out and to start out not happy with them. If they did this, I'd consider leaving immediately.
"Okay, but we really do need that information."
"That's between me and my accountant, haha. But based my my research this is the amount people in my field make so let's put this number down. -places print out of Glassdoor salary info on table-"
Ultimately it's just another method to pressure you into giving them more leverage in salary negotiation. You still don't have to give it.
Actually, this is most likely what it is. Checking on employment history, they just need your name really, and the company should be able to say you worked there or not, and the dates. Providing dates is just helpful to match up to your resume. They don't need your salary to be able to verify employment history - I've never heard of this before. The company will say you worked there or not. They may also say if they fired you or you resigned. Anything other than that seems pretty unlikely.
Part of the reason for this is liability. If this happened, and you got paid less all of a sudden (or didn't get the job), you could possibly sue your former employer. I think this is why references these days are not at the company level, but you provide your own references.
I think it's just as likely that you got the job without having to fill out a salary / job history (because you sound smart, and they obviously like you), and this is just them catching up on paperwork. I wouldn't put the salary in, and see if they even bring it up. My bet is they won't.
Also, and this is important, make sure you have their offer in writing with the salary clearly spelled out. If you've already signed a written offer letter, I think it'd be very questionable of them (legally, morally, ethically) to change the terms. Especially before you've started (where they can make up some reason why they don't want to pay you that much).
Congrats on the new job and the pay raise!
I documented my BS experience here http://weblog.masukomi.org/2007/06/22/the-trials-and-tribula...
The hiring manager really wanted me, so he argued with HR until they waived the requirement for me. I think it was kind of a pain in the ass for him, so I think it comes down to how much the manager is willing to fight for you.
Edit: I always refuse to allow employers:
I always explain this to recruiters - I can pass any of these checks, but I think they are immoral; since my skills are in high demand, I try to fight the battle for those who don't have as much negotiation strength. I don't believe that any of this information is relevant for employment, and these types of checks tend to hold back people who are already struggling.There are sound reasons for these kinds of checks; you may not entirely agree with them, but they do exist. For certain industries, it is almost mandatory to use them.
They all basically exist as proxies for determining how honest or trustworthy a person is. Can the person being hired be trusted to keep our proprietary information confidential? Can they be trusted not to pawn their laptop? Can they be trusted not to sell company secrets to someone they owe a favor to?
Questions like that can be somewhat answered by the results of such tests. If, for instance, they have a bad credit score, it may mean that they run up high bills on their credit cards, and don't pay off the balance in time, or miss payments. Why would that be, if they are being payed a decent salary? Could they be coerced by someone to lend them money in exchange for say - a list of passwords to some servers? Or a dump of the database?
Drug testing is the same way; if they test positive for an illegal drug, that right there is a huge red flag that says to the employer "this person is in contact with people doing illegal things" - and again, coercion or extortion are possible here.
Depending on the employer, these proxies may or may not be overkill. As I noted above, you can make valid justifications for them even in a white-collar software engineering role. It should go without saying that for certain roles (financial, medical, heavy equipment) that having a trustworthy employee can mean the difference between "life or death" of the company, liability risks, or injury/death of the employee or fellow employees.
Well, I understand their reasons, but I dispute that the logic behind this reasoning is sound.
The best overall argument I have ever heard is that for security clearance, a company might want to evaluate how susceptible a candidate would be to blackmail; however, at that level of background check, a candidate would typically be given a chance to explain any issues.
If I were seeking a high security clearance, government role, I think I could understand the justification.
However, this type of invasive background check is frequently used for jobs that have no need for security clearance, in which case it seems like an automated "purity test", which is automatically waived for higher-level hires (e.g. do CEO's have to piss in a cup before being hired?)
Re: Drug Tests -- Easy to beat if you've got the $. I also dispute that drug use is a valid measure of morality. If someone is intoxicated on the job, that should be obvious. I find drug tests particularly hypocritical at companies that have weekly happy hour gatherings, or other job-related consumption of alcohol.
Re: Credit/financial checks -- Likewise, I think this is a poor measure of morality or future performance. Lots of people have had financial trouble; it doesn't mean they're going to steal, or be unable to do their job. Again, if they are stealing, or unable to do their job, they should be fired, regardless of any past credit history.
I think that these checks/tests are inaccurate predictors, and are generally used only in situations where there there is a great power asymmetry between the employer and the employee.
I understand there are exceptions where they might be more justifiable, but in general, I feel they're an invasion of privacy.
Not really. Credit checks and drug tests are worthless for determining the trustworthiness of employees beyond serving as filters so basic that they border on being comical.
For example: a clean drug test and perfect credit score wouldn't save a company from a sociopath that grew up with a silver spoon in their mouth, and gets blackout drunk every other night.
Moreover, I'm willing to bet Snowden had quite excellent credit and finances prior to taking off with the sum total of the intelligence community's PowerPoint files. In fact, I bet his drug tests were spotless too.
Real trust is far more complicated.
On the bright side, at least credit and drug tests do screw the companies that use them out of otherwise excellent candidates on a regular basis. It also saves their apathetic HR departments from having to solve the mystery of why a candidate's affinity for the number 300 stems from the fact it's both their credit score and the number of times they've taken PCP. I'm sure someone of that caliber would've otherwise just slipped right past and landed a cushy software development job.
With that out of the way, you have already completed the negotiation phase of the process. They can't reopen the salary question without rescinding the offer completely. Why would they do that? They've already invested heavily in recruiting you and have offered a salary they must be comfortable with. To squeeze you now would make no sense. If they did that, you wouldn't want to work there anyway.
The third party is certainly some 'bcheck' company that services many clients that do require salary info as part of their negotiation process. They don't have a custom process for BigCo, so you got the generic form everyone gets, regardless of employer. They run a series of standard online checks, maybe call past employers and get only dates and title (no employer gives out salary data when asked), and forward the whole mess to BigCo HR. The bcheck company has no opinion in the matter. I'm guessing the only use for past salary data they might have is to judge how they are doing versus the market.
This is why this check is in with the background check and why you should never give salary history to a potential employer.
Null value FTW.
They will still contact your previous employer but all that they will confirm is whether you worked there, no one will give out your previous salary. And no, I wouldn't give any supporting docs as per patio.
this line should just read,
> they can withdraw their offer.
I'm pretty sure they can withdraw their offer at any time for any reason or no reason at all.
If they come back to you with "proof" that you had a lower salary just say that that didn't include your large yearly bonuses and that your previous salary was confidential anyway.
If their background check comes with a much lower salary they'll probably doubt the agency anyway. This information is supposed to be pretty protected and most people are probably just doing the old trick where they pretend to be someone interested in a job at your former company and ask about general compensation there.
Resorting to entering '; DROP TABLE candidates; -- will definitely get your application rejected though.
So you can just leave it out, if it's important they'll ask you and you can discuss why you're not confortable sharing it. Anyway it won't cost you the job.
During the background check provided by the 3rd party, I actually filled in my STARTING, not FINAL salary for some of the previous companies that I worked for.
This actually came up in the final report as mismatches in my history since they actually do call up each company you provide information for, but nothing ever came of it.
I suggest that you not lie on a background check. The company will not renege on an already agreed on salary nor does a BigCo care how much they're paying you.
What they're looking for is honesty and that there are no glaring red flags in your personality or history.
When I tried to negotiate my low-ball offer this docu was brought up, that she had taken a look at my past salary that was provided here. I would not fill this out if I could go back in time. That being said, this was provided prior to the salary offer.