Posted on 06/04/2013 10:22:02 AM PDT by Responsibility2nd
Question: I read your article titled "Keep Your Salary Under Wraps," and I agree completely that there is no good reason (from the employee's perspective) to disclose your current salary to a future employer. A competent business should be able to independently assess a prospective employee's worth without being biased by another data point. Judging from your article, however, you may not be aware that employers require salary information.
For instance, online applications frequently make the "current salary" field mandatory. You cannot proceed without entering a numeric value. Human resources representatives almost always ask about current salary during the initial phone interview, and your refusal to follow protocol could end the interviewing.
How should applicants deal with questions that require an answer about current salary? I am confident that applicants who refuse to answer, no matter how professionally, will have little luck advancing in the application process.
Nick Corcodilos: Employers don't really require your salary history to hire you. But many do like to bully you into disclosing private, confidential information that will give them an unfair negotiating position. So they call it "the policy."
I would never, ever disclose my current salary or salary history to a prospective employer even if it means ending the interview process. That is my advice to job hunters.
Employers use online applications for two reasons. One is that they are expedient. Those poor HR staff have no way to process all the millions of inappropriate applications they solicit from people they don't know. The other reason is that automated forms enable them to intimidate you into sharing information that is none of their business. When employers re-brand their rudeness as "policy," many job applicants will go along. But not all.
Ask The Headhunter readers tell me they say no to the salary question without getting kicked out of the interview process. There are plenty of employers who will respect that position; the rest are playing games. What makes you think playing games will lead to a good job and a good salary with a good employer?
The article you refer to is actually a very abbreviated version of my PDF book, "Keep Your Salary Under Wraps." Here are a few tips from the book about how to deal with inappropriate salary requests from employers. The basic idea is, either walk away entirely, or approach from a direction that avoids such silly obstacles.
You can take a strong position with any employer by putting it all on the line. Tell the employer, "Look, I won't tell you my past salary because I'd like to have an honest, fair negotiation based on what I can do to make your business more successful. If I can't demonstrate my value, then you should not make me an offer or hire me. We can part as friends. But I'd like to show you how I can contribute enough to your business that you'll want to pay me well to do this job." See "That's why it's called compensation."
That's a friendly, assertive way to continue the interview process. If an employer still demands your salary history, I'd walk away. Don't participate in a one-sided negotiation that is not a win-win proposition.
This is true. Many managers just assume they should be paid more for being “managers” but the talent under them is far more valuable. You could replace the manager more easily than the subordinate. Not always the case, some managers are great leaders, which is highly valuable, many are not however.
From what I’ve seen of mid size to F50 companies that is unusual.
I’ve seen where you had to justify hiring anyone who wasnt a minority, period. That was at one of the global banks.
this 7 seconds stat is a joke.....I spent the weekend reading LinkedIn profiles for a project I am working on......I read over 200 LI profiles.....it took me on average 2 minutes each to read them, digest what I read and decide if they fit the profile I wanted to message and call to action.
if what you say is true and they do business with the federal govt and they get audited then they will soon be fined....and not a small fine either.....
I had much the same experience, a few years back. Turned out it was a good move, the company was in serious trouble, and went belly up not too long after they interviewed me. You can tell a lot about a company by how their employees act, when they've no skin in the game.
I always wonder why employers play these games - I interview candidates all the time and never do, ever. If an employer has a position with a job description, then they have a salary in mind, already.
And, to require an applicant to give a hard salary requirement without interviewing and knowing what the job entails is foolish. Sort of like reading a 5-line want ad, and buying a car based off only that information.
Depends on the field...In some fields, it’s a seller’s (potential employee’s) market.
I had a similar experience years ago. When asked by the CEO how much I made I told him. His reply was “That’s more than I make”. No offer forthcoming there.
the majority of HR people screening resumes spend about 7 seconds.
all they look for is key words and whether the resume is pretty.
Asking for the expected salary is not the same as asking for the salary history.
As the article points out, the prospective employee's salary history is not the prospective employer's business.
There is a way to do this. I have a couple of contacts in two of the three competitors of my industry in my town. (I won’t consider working for the third). If a job posts that I am interested in, I am allowed to use a couple of my contacts as referrals. I have friends in other businesses who are compensated when a referral is hired and/or survives the probationary period.
I do on occasion get to a hiring manager for a chat. Usually I decide not to fill out the paper work rather than actually complete it.
A position will always have some sort of salary band, a range of x to y that the employer is targeting.
I’d be inquiring about that band, I’d say, because I want us both to be happy. Which is true, because I don’t want to leave money on the table, but I also don’t want to come in to a position where I’m really squeezing what the position pays, but I was hired because the interviewers loved me so much. That can be a source of problems, where the management above me always has a bit of a burr in their saddle because they think I’m too expensive. Perhaps that can be rectified by a promotion down the road, perhaps it may get me axed in the first budget cut, since they might keep two others that are “cheap” and just let me go.
That’s why “fit for the position” is so important, like some have said here, and why it’s best for both sides to get all those cards on the table first.
Just how much do I like this position ? How good of a fit is it ? If it’s a bad fit, I may not want it even though the pay would be great. Perhaps it’s right up my alley; then I’d perhaps take less than I hope for because it would be so easy, location what I like, etc.
How much do they like what I bring to the table for this position ?
Once we both know who wants who and how much they want them, then there’s a good framework for price discovery.
Having had employee and consulting jobs, I simply say a “variety of factors” influence rates, and every situation is unique (the market at the time, whether I was independent or not, and what type of work was being done (skillset in high or low demand)). Of course, I need to know going in what ballpark they’re in, so I can decide when I hear the details where I want to start my side of the negotiations from.
Etc., and so forth.
If I’m doing the hiring, I simply get an idea of where the person is at paywise, which has always been easy to do without pressuring in any way. If I had an applicant that really did not want to divulge that, all I can do is float out a lower salary range and leave open an option to increase it in the conversation IF I think the candidate is great. Of course, one assumes that some people will puff their salary history a little, some a lot. But at the end of the day, the answer is pretty obvious because of the interest they show in the salary you propose. Mostly today jobs are advertised with a salary or range, and the candidate showed up, so either it’s worth their consideration or they’re desperate. The employee always should remember the one doing the hiring has a choice between candidates, so it comes down to how much they want you versus what do you want, and the same for every other candidate. It’s not a yes/no question, it’s a multiple choice.
I may want them to be not too happy with their payscale, but begrudginly accept because I’ve come across well; this will make the job a “try and buy” for both of us. If I wind up liking them, I can always boost their pay. If not, that’s a hint to them, they will go away soon, and I’m getting them cheap if they stay longer than they’re wanted.
If they work out very well, I know they have to have a pay they are ok with and promotions or job changes according to what they like. (some people get uncomfortable from a huge jump in salary and don’t want a lot of unfamiliar responsibilities thrown at them; some love the same exact job year in and year out. others are very impatient to learn. Some just want to earn. etc.)
If the position is for a consultant, of course, the raise idea does not come into play. You’re really putting the candidates in order of who can get your project done, then making sure that you’re not lowballing them so much that the minute a higher-paying client comes along they just disappear - and your project is left hanging while you look for another consultant. You’re seeking reliable completion.
“The majority of jobs are never really advertised.”
That used to be the case but the federal government decided any job not advertised is a job hidden from minority view. So, not advertising a job is an EEOC violation and no most HR departments now advertise. That, and if a company doesn’t advertise “properly”, they get the same result, an EEOC violation for targeting “non-minority” media.
It certainly is the employers business.
If you’re making $100k and have held the job for 5 years it shows something about you.
Vs you’re making $50k and want to double your salary but have never done anything to earn it.
“Yeah some recruiters do this but in today’s environment that recruiter would not last long at any F500 company.”
They still do that at the F500 I know of. Recruiters are still primarily recent grads with no experience. They work cheap.
Thats true for big companies.
With small to mid-sized companies you can go to a hiring manager and have a position created.
Call BS from the rooftop with musical accompaniment if you like. I made no such reference to any web site.
I’m talking about HR collecting applicant data and using salary as a first and only filter.
No, don’t “lie.” That’s grounds for dismissal after you land the job and you’ve left your old one.
I can make the same argument for any function in regards to protecting the company - yours is related only to HR regulations/requirements. As an example: try the medical device world where the HR people (and others) want to approve suppliers of services outside the process or can’t document training to save their lives.
The issue is that in order to move a company forward there must be constructive conflict: goals, objectives, competition. Could you ask the appropriate questions related to statistical analysis, strength of materials, CFR 820, or ISO 13485 - likely not, nor would I expect to negotiate the world of college job fairs, ADP payroll, required postings, or insurance benefits.
A hiring manager knows what skillset they need technically to overcome said conflict and in some cases they cannot find it because the good ones are screened out too soon.
Quotas (if reflecting race, creed, gender), imhop, are imposed illegal bigotry and have no impact on if the job can be accomplished by the candidate. When they are established they also typically include a statement that the individual is STILL required to meet the minimum requirements. I’ve often been forced to sit through interviews with unqualified candidates because HR didn’t want to take the heat for turning them down. (If your referring to headcount that’s an issue of budget for which the manager should already be aware)
The hiring manager has to deal with meeting the Gs&Os with the resources available and have final say for their staff everywhere I have been and rightly so.
HR has a purpose - but sometimes they, as with all functions, overstep and try to dictate decision results instead of procedures and process. As with all functions I’ve worked with good and bad.
With all due respect, have you spent much time on the other side of the hiring desk?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.