
Philadelphia Poised to Ban Employers from Asking Hires About Salary History - prostoalex
http://www.wsj.com/articles/philadelphia-poised-to-ban-employers-from-asking-hires-about-salary-history-1484838062?mod=e2fb
======
hackuser
An important detail: Comcast, backed by the local Chamber of Commerce, has
threatened to sue the city over this law. On what basis? The corporation's
Constitutional First Amendment free speech right to ask the question:

[http://www.investopedia.com/news/comcast-threatens-sue-
city-...](http://www.investopedia.com/news/comcast-threatens-sue-city-
philadelphia/)

Are these the same free speech rights the Supreme Court recently bestowed on
the corporations? I remember that at the time legal analysts said it would
make it hard to regulate corporations. How can you regulate, for example, what
goes in a prospectus issued to shareholders if the corporate has free speech
rights?

~~~
lend000
Are all employers corporations? And even as such, this is just outlawing
information. I do not understand how so many on the left support such a
measure.

It's a question -- outlawing questions, especially between private parties in
a consensual relationship (applicant and employer), is backwards. You can
choose not to answer it; you can lie; you can choose not to work for employers
that ask the question in the first place, especially if they coerce you into
providing records. This will just undermine the efforts of companies that have
differentiated themselves with noninvasive hiring practices and set them back
on the same playing field as less scrupulous employers.

Why is free choice so difficult to understand?

~~~
ch4s3
Probably because there is a very large disparity in power and information. A
few points:

1\. You will always need the job more than Comcast will need you (unless
you're unusually skilled, most workers aren't)

2\. Comcast knows how much the pay every one of their employees, you the job
seeker do not.

3\. Comcast is only asking so they can figure out the lowest pay you'll
accept. You have no way to figure out how high they are willing to go, so you
start out at a disadvantage.

4\. Limiting a company's ability to ask intrusive questions in no way impinges
on individual liberty, you are not a company, and a company is not a person.

5\. If you choose to not answer, they likely will not hire you, if you lie and
they find out, they will likely fire you. If they lie the you about the pay
range and you accept, you have no recourse but to quit if you catch them in
that lie, which brings us back to point #1.

~~~
lend000
> You will always need the job more than Comcast will need you

Where is the evidence for this? This is by no means an obvious claim. No one
in the world needs "the job," even though most people need "a job." Do
companies exist that are more moral/popular/friendly than others? Of course.
And some of them are successful in part because people want them to succeed
due to their aforementioned characteristics. That is freedom. There is a
market for moral hiring practices, just like every other kind of morality.

> Comcast knows how much the pay every one of their employees, you the job
> seeker do not.

Actually, this is completely false. You have a pretty good understanding of
what they pay employees in similar positions (if you've ever heard of
Glassdoor), whereas they have very little understanding what you were making
in a past life, especially if you worked at lesser known companies.

> Comcast is only asking so they can figure out the lowest pay you'll accept.
> You have no way to figure out how high they are willing to go, so you start
> out at a disadvantage.

Of course, their goal is to get a deal, just like your goal is to get a big
sale. Sounds like a free market at work. What's the problem?

> Limiting a company's ability to ask intrusive questions in no way impinges
> on individual liberty, you are not a company, and a company is not a person.

What if I am a consultant, sole proprietor, prime contractor, etc.? As I
already mentioned, not all employers are corporations. It DOES infringe on
freedom. And it's not like there is this nebulous, evil entity named Comcast
that wants to ask the question -- it's the _people_ in the business making
business decisions, who decide to ask the question to better inform their
offers (whether this is a poor decision is subjective, both morally and
otherwise).

> If you choose to not answer, they likely will not hire you

Sounds speculative -- I need data for such a broad generalization.

> if you lie and they find out, they will likely fire you.

Sounds _really_ speculative -- would you think it's common to go back in time
and try to find old salaries? I appreciate that you're putting "likely," but I
would like to see some evidence that it is indeed likely (defined as more than
50%).

> If they lie the you about the pay range and you accept, you have no recourse
> but to quit if you catch them in that lie, which brings us back to point #1.

I think it's pretty universal that you know your compensation in the contract
before you accept the job -- it's just as much your fault if you take a job
for the salary that they say you might see in a future promotion.

As you can see, I'm extremely unconvinced by any of your arguments here. I'm
open to seeing another side of this if you have more compelling arguments, but
I hope you can see that the world has not fallen apart thus far without this
regulation in place, and I don't think there is any benefit to outweigh the
losses/loss of freedom. If you can somehow show that employers are infringing
on peoples' freedoms by asking this question more than the freedoms of the
employers would be impacted by not being allowed to ask certain questions,
then that would be compelling. But I don't see it.

~~~
czep
>> > You will always need the job more than Comcast will need you > Where is
the evidence for this?

It does not require a great deal of imagination to understand that a large
corporation and single prospective employee are not equal parties. If you fail
to get a job, you will starve. If Comcast fails to hire you, they most clearly
will not face an existential crisis.

This is most certainly _not_ a free market at work. Comcast wants this power
because it will give them a significant negotiating advantage and result in
lower wages. Eliminating this advantage is one small step in leveling the
playing field between the two unequal parties.

~~~
pliny
>It does not require a great deal of imagination to understand that a large
corporation and single prospective employee are not equal parties. If you fail
to get a job, you will starve. If Comcast fails to hire you, they most clearly
will not face an existential crisis.

Is Comcast the only company hiring people? If you don't get a job with Comcast
you get a job with a different company. That is a market, many sellers of
labor, many buyers of labor. The buyers look for the best labor and the
sellers look for the best price.

~~~
czep
Comcast is simply the example here. Yes you can look for another employer, but
if they are doing the same thing -- requiring disclosure of salary history --
then in aggregate this will put more negotiating power in the hands of
employers and thus reduce workers' incomes.

~~~
meanduck
Do you think market will forget this ? Govts seem to forget that despite being
big, they are market actors themselves. And it wont be the Comcasts but many
SMBs.

In todays volatile world, noones existence is certain. And govts need to
realize this soon before they spend all of their capitals like this.

~~~
ubernostrum
I'm not sure I understand what side of things you're coming down on, but
personally I'm in favor of tilting things somewhat more in favor of labor than
they are now.

Partly this is because I don't think a market _can_ function justly on a
principle of enforced asymmetry and imbalance. As I see it, if we allow people
to pool capital together to gain greater collective leverage than any of them
would have individually, and reap greater returns as a result (also known as a
corporation), we must also allow people to pool their labor together to gain
collective leverage and reap greater returns (also known as labor unions,
worker protections, etc.). Having one without the other does not appear
ethically justifiable to me, and rigging laws to strengthen one significantly
at the expense of the other is similarly unjustifiable.

Partly this is because of the relevant history. Much of what people have
convinced themselves constitutes a "free market" was in fact deliberately
rigged to artificially preserve and benefit one side (capital) at the expense
of the other (labor). Look into employment law from the 1800s, for example,
and it's very clearly designed to prevent competition between companies in the
market and ensure they each can comfortably remain immune to several important
market forces. But somehow we've idealized that period as one of "laissez-
faire" and "free markets" despite it being nothing of the sort, and then
whenever an attempt is made to un-rig the system we hear that it's bad for
business, will kill business, will hurt business, is anti-business, etc. --
being in business for business' sake is not an end worth pursuing in itself,
and if a business can't survive without the market rigged in its favor, well,
the true free-market position is that that business shouldn't survive.

~~~
meanduck
> _we must also allow people to pool their labor together to gain collective
> leverage and reap greater returns (also known as labor unions, worker
> protections, etc.). Having one without the other does not appear ethically
> justifiable to me, and rigging laws to strengthen one significantly at the
> expense of the other is similarly unjustifiable._

And free-market does not stop them in any way. In fact FM give them most
freedom. So FM favours/disfavours none.

------
jimnotgym
Interesting that various people here are horrified by restrictions on what you
can ask in an interview. In the UK there are various restrictions on what you
are allowed to ask, such as a candidates age. Actually the main risk to a
business from this is a careless interviewer asking by mistake.

An enlightened employer should not find any of this restricting at all. All of
the worst interviewers I have faced have always asked about my salary, and
recruitment consultants always do (they also tend to lie about your
expectations to potential employers in order to get interviews). It is a
deliberate attempt to screw you down and is totally unnecessary.

~~~
gambiting
I personally know of a case where someone got rejected because they asked for
too much compared to his previous salary, even though the person who got hired
was offered more money(but it was a smaller increase percentage wise over his
previous job). Basically guy was brilliant in the interview, engineering team
said they want him, but HR rejected him because he said he wants 80k, while he
was making 60k previously(he worked outside of London before). HR instead
hired a guy who interviewed much worse, but he only asked for an increase of
5k(from 90k to 95k).

~~~
wutbrodo
Wow, that HR sounds utterly incompetent.

~~~
danieltillett
That HR sounds like all HR departments I have ever had anything to do with.

~~~
wutbrodo
Yeesh, that's super depressing. Not that I know anything about running HR
departments, but that betrays such basic inability to uh, think that I can't
really imagine how that could be ubiquitous.

~~~
danieltillett
I really think HR is a job that nobody should ever do full time. It should be
a responsibility that is only ever allocated to someone who has another job to
do - ideally someone who has to deal personally with the consequences of HR
idiocracy.

~~~
jimnotgym
Amongst the worst HR practice now is 'keyword searching' CV's against a job
spec by people who have no idea what those terms mean.

An acquaintance told me he saw a downturn in contract work offers due to X
qualification becoming widespread in his sector. He changed his CV to say 'I
don't have X but..' and found traffic returned to normal!

------
hlieberman
Massachusetts already passed a law that bars companies from asking potential
hires about their salary history until after they've made an offer.

(The law is signed, but doesn't go into effect until June.)

------
aswanson
I answer what I deem unethical/ unfair lines of questioning with any answer I
feel necessary to advantage myself in negotiating. Others should do so as
well.

~~~
jimnotgym
I have chosen to answer that it is irrelevant. I claim I am not driven
entirely by money, and therefore I would consider any offer on its total
merits, not just salary. A few employers have taken exception to this, luckily
I don't have to move jobs right now.

The point is when I was younger I would have told them, under pressure to seem
open. Ban it, it is scummy

------
hackuser
Most innovation and progress now is at the city level (I'm not the first to
say it). Name the last thing government achieved at a national level in the
U.S. - there's health care, but that's now looking shaky.

The priority of one major party in the U.S. is to shut down government as much
as possible; that party can block progress everywhere but in cities, where
they have no power for now. However, they are trying to pass 'pre-emption
laws' in many state governments which block cities from doing anything the
Republicans in the state capitals don't like. So much for the belief in
liberty and local control.

~~~
rayiner
If cities and municipalities are our hope for good governance we're are all
pretty screwed. Cities across the country basically bankrupt and state and
local governance is rife with corruption.

~~~
cmdrfred
I believe state and local governments are unable to run a deficit. If the
federal government had to play by the same rules it would be bankrupt as well.

~~~
hackuser
> I believe state and local governments are unable to run a deficit.

That's true in at least many places, but they still can borrow from the future
by issuing bonds, or by pushing off massive costs like pensions. They
underfund pensions now and let the next mayor/governor deal with it; this
process repeats until they can't meet the cash flow needed to pay current
pensions and are effectively bankrupt.

Remember when Detroit went bankrupt: According to an article I read about it,
there were at least two main causes: 1) Going back to at least the 1990s their
pensions were overfunded because they would need that money to pay future
pensions when the ratio of current workers to retirees would drop. Instead of
saving the money, they distributed it to pensioners as a '13th month'. Detroit
also invested in some financial engineering instrument sold to them by Wall
Street that the city couldn't pay off.

------
gigatexal
Good. Put the negotiating power back into the hands of the employees. Get an
offer. See that it's too low based on previous compensation and then say so.
And then proceed from there. I've burned my own ability to negotiate by
sharing current salaries before but that was with recruiters.

------
tabeth
A society truly run by the people, ala individuals, would have banned this
long ago. Just think about it: for an average person, what benefit do they
receive by allowing employers to ask about past or current salary information?
None.

Wouldn't be surprised if there have been measures to ban this that were
ultimately struck down by business people.

The less information that's shared with employers, the more employers will
have to refine their actual process for vetting people. Whether this means
more accurate metrics, that correlate to actual employee performance, or
something else, who knows. Either way, I believe it's good for the people.
However, we will have to be careful, if we go this route, to not slip into
nepotism (well, more than we already have).

~~~
winter_blue
> A society truly run by the people, ala individuals, would have banned this

I'm libertarian-leaning, and statements like these bother me deeply.

If I'm an employer, why ban me from asking some question to a prospective
employee? It's a restriction on the employer's freedom.

The job applicant has a right to decline to answer my question (and I have a
right to decline to offer a job). Regulating what questions I can ask (i.e. my
speech) is a restriction on my freedom.

I recently interviewed for a job, and they asked me what (minimum) base salary
I was looking for, and I didn't answer their question, and said that I wanted
them to make an offer based on what they thought I was worth. As a result, I
ended up getting a higher base salary than I'd expected.

But that detracts from the main point. The reason I oppose such laws and
regulations is that I feel like it's an infringement on personal freedom.
Employers are made up of people, and regulating their speech and their actions
is a limitation on their personal freedom.

~~~
czep
> If I'm an employer, why ban me from asking some question to a prospective
> employee? It's a restriction on the employer's freedom.

Please see ch4s3's excellent itemized response to an earlier thread for a
concise summary of the reasons why this can't be framed simply as an issue of
free speech.

The key point is the power differential. While you may be lucky enough to be
highly skilled and have enough cultural capital to refuse intrusive questions
like this and still find suitable employment on your own terms, many people in
our society simply are not in that position. Allowing large powerful
corporations to insist that prospective employees disclose their earnings
history will simply place downward pressure on wages.

I sympathize with the sentiment, and it is always important to question any
limits on speech. But once you factor in the issue of power, pure libertarian
ideals will cause greater exploitation of those who have less power to begin
with.

~~~
witty_username
There is a power differential but it is not high. You can find another
employer (just don't apply to employers that ask these questions).

Indeed, if most people refuse such employers, the employers will have to raise
their wages or stop asking that question.

They're only able to ask this question because some employees are fine with
it. So let both voluntarily discuss that question.

------
otakucode
It is bizarre that so many people tolerate this behavior by employers yet also
cling to ideas about compensation being linked to the value of the work being
performed (things like 'work hard and you will make more'). If compensation is
determined based primarily upon the value of the work being done, prior salary
could not be more irrelevant.

But of course, what people are paid has nothing to do with the value of their
work any longer. Computers and software unfortunately make that socially
untenable. They make employees so abundantly productive, and increase that
productivity so quickly, that it would have to translate into very high
salaries and high annual raises for many, if not most, employees. It doesn't
take a genius to look at the average profitability of corporations overall
since 1980 to see the meteoric rise coupled with total wage stagnation for
non-executives.

Get 2% more productive, then a 2% raise is acceptable. Get 100% more
productive, then a comparable raise is unacceptable. Especially if "the
computer is doing all the work."

~~~
cheald
Nobody who actually thinks about salary thinks that salaries are set by the
MPL. The _ceiling_ on salaries is set by the MPL. The level is set by the
available supply of labor and negotiations during the hiring process.

------
snarf21
I understand the goal of this law but don't see how it solves it. I usually
ask people what their current salary is now. I want to offer them (at least) a
modest raise to come here. I want them to be happy and excited. I also want to
not waste a ton of time negotiating salary if they want 50K more then I have
available in my budget.

You are worth whatever you can get someone to pay you. Some people may come in
with a lower ask but then you have yourself, are they a bargain or are they
just less talented? If they come in high, are they overpriced or are they just
that good?

I also think this only works for the employee if there is a shortage in this
field and employers are desperate (but the market will force those prices up)
or if you are trying to just get more than your experience might warrant.
Let's say you are a knowledge worker making $80K and hoping to go to $90K. So,
in the new rules, the employer asks for your expected salary and you say "give
me your best offer". The employer will either get annoyed and work with the
candidate that said $85K in response or they low ball you at $60K because they
can play games too. You say "no" and they ask what you are looking for, rinse
and repeat. It seems like you still end up at the same place with the same
result except the negotiation process sucked. As a candidate, I don't see the
downside of saying I want X+ dollars. I'd rather know about the job and
culture and other things than $5K more or less.

~~~
crdoconnor
I usually respond to this question with a question of my own:

"Are you asking this question because you don't have faith in your own ability
to interview and value employees or because you are trying to lowball me?"

~~~
snarf21
I understand what you are saying but I personally don't think any amount of
interviewing will ever tell me exactly how much value an employee will give me
in the next year.

[Serious] Do you think this is possible? I can think of no way except to put
them on a 3 month contract to see what they are really worth and I don't think
that is what candidates are looking for.

~~~
crdoconnor
Yes, I got this from what you said:

"Some people may come in with a lower ask but then you have yourself, are they
a bargain or are they just less talented?"

 _shrug_ I have faith in my interviewing skills. I was interviewing for a
position for about 5 months for a very picky employer. I interviewed a lot of
people who were good but expensive and even more who were cheap but not so
good. Eventually I spotted a bargain and they snapped him up.

I don't really believe in bargains though. It takes a lot of time and effort
to find one and they tend to leave quickly once they've figured out that they
underpriced themselves.

Most places I've worked I've done so initially on a short term contract. I
prefer it mainly because I can charge more.

------
jimmywanger
There are two things that spring out instantly.

First, the motivation is to close gender pay inequality. Assuming such a thing
exists (women get paid less for the same job), where is the evidence that this
policy would reduce the supposed gap?

Second, they're prohibiting you from asking, not prohibiting employers from
not choosing you for failing to answer with the truth.

It's part of negotiation. Would it be legal to ask "what's the least amount of
money we can give you for you to accept the job?" (Which, btw, is the question
they're indirectly asking you.)

Why are they trying to outlaw negotiation skills for a somewhat unproven
premise and an unclear cause and effect relationship?

------
jacquesc
I support this, but I also think employers should be banned from requiring a
credit check for employment. There are regulations on discriminating on race,
gender, etc. The one missing piece is discriminating against the poor (which
indirectly tie back to race, gender). It's still amazing to me that this is a
practice that's still allowed for a society that purports to value social
mobility.

------
re_todd
It always amazes me when I hear about people asking this question. Don't these
hiring managers consider for a second how intrusive and rude it is? Aren't
they concerned they may come across as douchebags for asking it? And yet I've
been asked this several times by people that act like it's no big deal, like
asking how was the traffic on the way in. Are they under pressure from the
top? Or are hiring managers in general lacking in scruples?

~~~
problems
I think it actually plays both ways - it's a way for me to give them an idea
of what I'm expecting.

------
jackbrian
> Councilman William Greenlee, a Democrat, who sponsored the bill, says the
> measure wouldn’t prevent employers from setting a fair salary, bar salary
> negotiations with prospective hires, or keep job candidates from voluntarily
> sharing their pay history. But if passed, violators who quizzed would-be
> hires about salary could face fines up to $2,000.

Even if passed, the penalty hardly seems disincentivizing.

~~~
douche
A proportional penalty based on the salary of the position would make more
sense. If you're hiring at McDonalds at minimum wage, $2000 is a bigger
penalty than if you're hiring an engineer.

------
gesman
Asking doesn't hurt anyone. However giving certain answers could.

What prevents employees from claiming that this information is "confidential"
(polite version of "it's not your business").

Or outright lying about it?

~~~
breser
My employer asks this question. I refused to answer when asked in
person/phone. As we got further in the hiring process they asked as part of
the form they fill in to setup the background check. Again I refused to answer
this question. I failed the background check due to this.

When we discussed it they said it was necessary so they could verify if I had
lied about my salary when I'd given it previously. I pointed out that I had
never given this information. HR insisted that I must have since they require
it. Round and round we went for a while.

Eventually they let it go and hired me anyway.

So to answer your question. Companies will typically call up your previous
employer and ask if the salary you provided them is correct.

Lying on your application form is almost always cause to fire. So if they ever
find out you lied you about your previous salary you can be fired on the spot.

~~~
user5994461
> So to answer your question. Companies will typically call up your previous
> employer and ask if the salary you provided them is correct.

Very unlikely. I don't know a single company that would reply to that request.
That's sky high in terms of liability.

> Lying on your application form is almost always cause to fire. So if they
> ever find out you lied you about your previous salary you can be fired on
> the spot.

You drank the HR FUD too much. A company doesn't go through all the troubles
to hire someone just to get rid of him the next week for some stupid forms
that noone cares about.

------
logicallee
[Edit: if a potential employer asked my previous salary] I would have zero
qualms (zero) saying any number I wanted. If I was asked for paystubs I would
say I'll get them later and add that the number may not have been exact, it
could be off substantially I want to be upfront about that. If I have to put a
number in a form and sign that I swear it is accurate, I would put an asterisk
and explain that it is indicative of what I want them to think.

I don't see ethical problems with this behavior. It is practically what I
actually would do.

If HR absolutely cannot start without my notarized sworn copy of pay stubs
then I would not work there, and their loss. For anyone else, HR's job is to
find qualified people, they are not going to kick you out once they've started
onboarding you.

You don't have to lie, but you don't have to answer their questions any more
than they have to ask yours about their company - HR doesn't work far from
payroll, if as part of your interviews you asked to know the CEO's salary,
would they tell you? Or the ratio between then lowest and highest salary at
the company? (2.5x, 3x, 5x, 10x, 50x, 100x)

Things don't have to be hard and fast. If they don't like how I roll they can
hire someone else. If I don't like their level of transparency I can refuse
their offer.

Plus they're free to fire me if they don't like me.

You should answer illegal questions the same way. e.g. in an interview, how
old are you. Say whatever you want, just add "I don't like to give am exact
age just use that". If they're surprised that a 55 year old shows up too bad
for them. Fire you if they don't like it. You're not paid to be 25 and you're
not paid to have a certain salary history. You're paid to do a certain job -
everything else is just friction.

Say whatever you want, as long as you can do the job. Don't lie about degrees
or credentials.

Don't practice law or perform surgery without a license.

~~~
prostoalex
> and add that the number may not have been exact, it could be off
> substantially

Beyond pure monetary compensation, there are various non-monetary parameters -
quality of health plan, quality and employee cost of dental plan, parental
leave policy, 401(k) matching, mobile phone or Internet reimbursement,
employer stock purchase plan - that any random number feels like a good
ballpark estimate.

E.g. how does one value a health PPO with monthly premium $298 per family vs
Kaiser HMO at $152 a month? A 5-day vs 3-week parental leave? The answer is
highly dependent on personal circumstances, such as distance from home to the
nearest Kaiser facility and whether or not someone in the family is expecting.
The value of either might be $0 if interviewee plans to stay covered by
spousal health plan and does not plan to have children.

~~~
logicallee
I'm not sure if you got my meaning - I added the part you quote at the top of
your comment as a "CYA" (cover your ass.) For example say someone is a 22 year
old very expert programmer with a degree from a top school who for some reason
is only making $35k. I would advise them to have zero qualms to lie and say
they are making $75K (with the cya line that this number could be off
substantially) if they were interviewing for a job paying $80k. Because they
are being paid to do a job, not to be of a certain age or have a certain
salary history. That's my opinion anyway.

If what you've given is further cya points - then by all means, use them.

------
tossaway1
Massachusetts did this last summer. Seems like a strange trend. Not
necessarily bad (though it makes things harder for me as a hiring manager) but
I wonder what group is pushing for this. Laws don't tend to get passed unless
they're backed by special interests.

~~~
mavelikara
How does such a law makes things harder for you as a hiring manger?

~~~
accountface
Because you have to get someone all the way to an offer until you know what
their salary expectations are.

I think it's a good rule, but it is harder for managers. Especially managers
who want to find a cheap hire.

~~~
shostack
There isn't anything stopping you from asking expectations. Just history,
which removes some of your leverage (arguably a good thing).

And people looking for "cheap hires" deserve to be hit hard by this the most
IMHO.

Leveling the playing field with information asymmetry is a good thing.

~~~
tossaway1
I'd say that preventing potential employers from asking questions about salary
while allowing applicants to ask whatever they want is creating, not removing,
assymmetry. In both cases, parties are free to refuse to answer questions.

One could argue that the potential employer is in a position of power and
should therefore be constrained but I don't see that as the case at all these
days, at least not in the tech industry.

------
general_ai
Can we go a little further than this? Can we require employers to post the
details of the compensation package that comes with each job? That would save
a lot of time for all involved and obviate the need to even ask this question.

~~~
tn13
No. It will stop us from bargaining and pushing for biding wars.

~~~
general_ai
You'll just front load the "bidding war". You will still be able to negotiate
incidentals like PTO, signing bonus, etc. When recruiters from e.g. Japan or
some European countries reach out to me it's easy for me to dismiss them out
of hand since their comp is stated up front. This is also more fair to
demographics which don't like to negotiate, and women in particular.

------
criveros
I added 10k to my salary last time I was asked.

~~~
jacquesc
You may have stumbled upon a solution here. Make it legal to ask the question,
but also make it legal to lie about the answer (including doctoring paystubs,
etc). Seems like a uniquely libertarian solution.

~~~
aninhumer
I don't think it really solves the problem. Making it legal to lie means
employer can't sue you for fraud, but they can still fire you if they find
out.

------
davej
I'll either politely refuse to answer or if I have thought about it beforehand
then I'll give a number that guides them towards the salary I am looking for
this time around.

I don't really mind the question. It's a little rude and it's only asked to
get a gauge of salary expectations so why not ask what the current salary
expectations are directly.

~~~
shostack
I've actually flat out said "that it isn't really relevant, but can you share
your range and we'll see if that makes sense once I learn more about the
role?"

It has worked a few times. Some get surprised when someone tries to flip that
on them. The ones that balk get dropped from consideration.

~~~
user5994461
They'll always consider the low end of the range while you'll always consider
the end.

It's not a practical reply.

~~~
shostack
That's always a possibility. I usually frame it as something more like "I
still need to learn a lot more about this role in order to tell you an amount
that would make sense for me, and you still likely need time to learn more
about what value I can add. If you can share your range, we can make sure
we're at least in the right ballpark, and if it makes sense to move forward
I'm confident we can arrive on a comp package that works for everyone."

Very often this question gets asked on initial screener calls. They don't know
how to really evaluate you or what you bring to the table, and you know
whatever high level thing the recruiter was told about the role. The purpose
of the call is to determine in the quickest amount of time whether it makes
sense to move forward to a deeper, more formal discussion about the
opportunity with the people actually qualified to discuss the role at that
level (hiring manager, etc.). Make it clear that you are interested in the
entire comp package and not just salary. I haven't really had that much
resistance to this.

At the end of the day it is on you to do your research on what they need to
pay you for this to make sense, and be happy with that number. If they won't
go for it, you tell them what that minimum happy number is, and if they won't
get there one way or another (extra vacation, etc.), then you need to pass
(assuming that is a realistic option for you).

------
gdulli
That's too bad. My salary history tells a good story about me, that employers
have found me more valuable than average. It's a pretty tangible and direct
signal. In an interview it's convenient for them to ask and for me not to have
to awkwardly bring it up.

~~~
pimlottc
I should think it would be easier for you to avoid the awkwardness and bring
it up anyway than it is for people to resist the pressure of having to answer
the question now.

------
anon31415927
Most people don't realize that companies can get salary history from a number
of sources. ADP actually provides this as a service to larger customers.

~~~
chillwaves
Are you saying ADP will give my salary information to a company I might apply
to? That doesn't seem ethical. Do you have a source on this? I am surprised to
hear it.

~~~
nommm-nommm
When you give them permission to run a "background check" on you then they
most likely will consult with a database that may have your employment
information in it.

[http://www.annualmedicalreport.com/do-a-total-background-
che...](http://www.annualmedicalreport.com/do-a-total-background-check-on-
yourself-annual-consumer-reporting-agency/)

>The Work Number (a service of TALX / Equifax Inc.) – The Work Number is a
paid employment verification database operated by the TALX Corporation (owned
by Equifax Inc.). The Work Number database contains more than 192 million
entries and is used by by over 50,000 organizations to verify employment
data... Your Employment Data Report contains (1) employment and income
information from your employers who send data to The Work Number, (2)
information about lenders, credit agencies, and other verifiers that have
received your data, and (3) any messages, alerts, or statements you have
requested be put in your data file

------
tyingq
Paywalled, so I can't read it. Curious if this would ban asking about even
current salary. That will make things interesting in Philly.

~~~
legodt
Try hitting the "web" button under the link and navigating in through google.

If that doesn't work, I made you a pastebin of the raw text:
[http://pastebin.com/kS5QPEiF](http://pastebin.com/kS5QPEiF)

~~~
ennuihenry
It seems like the WSJ has closed the HTTP Google referer paywall loophole.
I've tried a couple of browsers/OSes over the last week and I can't view any
articles. TY though for the pastebin.

~~~
jacquesc
The trick is opening the search result link in an incognito window (if you're
using Chrome). It's a pretty nutty loophole, surprised it's gone on as long as
it has.

------
danieltillett
Every regulatory hurdle to hiring decreases the propensity of businesses to
hire marginal candidates. The easier you make it to hire and fire people the
more marginal candidates will be given the chance. There is no free-lunch
here.

------
iamthepieman
All of my employers are already banned.

