
Ask HN: Should I provide salary history after an accepted offer? - thrwymcthrwface
I&#x27;ve received a written offer from a BigCo that I&#x27;ve accepted, and we&#x27;ve now proceeded to the background check stage.<p>They&#x27;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&#x27;ve received large increases last time I switched and this time as well (&gt;40%), and I&#x27;m concerned they&#x27;ll lower my agreed-upon salary after seeing the results of the report (as I seriously doubt it&#x27;s a binary yes&#x2F;no from the third-party).<p>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 &#x2F; paystubs as supporting documentation (in lieu of allowing them to contact my previous employers directly).<p>I&#x27;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?
======
patio11
You would supply _supporting documentation_? Why on earth would you do that?

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.

~~~
gkoberger
To expand on this slightly, patio11 (the guy who wrote this comment^^) has
written a phenomenal post about hiring that's a must-read:
[http://www.kalzumeus.com/2012/01/23/salary-
negotiation/](http://www.kalzumeus.com/2012/01/23/salary-negotiation/)

------
cbanek
> as I seriously doubt it's a binary yes/no from the third-party

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!

~~~
masukomi
yes. these background check companies suck. I almost didn't get a job because
the company doing the background check couldn't be bothered to get off their
ass and deal with a company that went bust in the dot com crash. They just
said i was lying rather than actually taking the time to do research and see
that the company didn't exist anymore for a good reason.

I documented my BS experience here [http://weblog.masukomi.org/2007/06/22/the-
trials-and-tribula...](http://weblog.masukomi.org/2007/06/22/the-trials-and-
tribulations-of-employment-verification/)

~~~
Bahamut
I remember having to provide proof for companies that got acquired or went
bust for a background checking company...I ended up giving proof of employment
from my tax return, which sucked to have to do.

------
jdenning
I was in a similar situation a couple of years ago with a large company. They
wanted 1099's as I had been an independent contractor for years -- I refused
to provide any tax info on principle; however, my skill-set is in high demand,
and I had other competing offers.

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:

    
    
      - financial/credit checks
    
      - drug testing / medical information
      
      - salary verification
    

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.

~~~
cr0sh
> financial/credit checks, drug testing

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.

~~~
jdenning
>There are sound reasons for these kinds of checks; you may not entirely agree
with them, but they do exist.

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.

------
jzl
New York City just recently passed a law banning salary history inquiries. I
hope that other cities and states start following suit. Good coverage of it
here:

[https://www.nytimes.com/2017/06/13/business/dealbook/job-
sal...](https://www.nytimes.com/2017/06/13/business/dealbook/job-salary-pay-
women-men-wall-street.html)

 _The idea behind the new law, which was sponsored by the New York City public
advocate, Letitia James, is to try to prevent pay inequality between men and
women. According to an August 2016 study commissioned by Ms. James, women in
New York State get paid, on average, only around 87 percent of what men get
paid. Women in New York State earn collectively some $20 billion less annually
than do men. In New York City, women get paid nearly $6 billion less than men
annually._

 _This inequity gets memorialized not only when a woman starts a job but also
when she switches jobs because until now employers were able to ask
prospective employees how much they have been paid in the past. The pay
inequity gets perpetuated year-to-year, person-to-person across industries._

------
apohn
For my last 3 jobs I've entered 0 (or $1 if 0 isn't allowed) as my past salary
in online forms and blacked out my SSN, pay, taxes, etc on W2s and pay stubs.
I usually just leave my name, date, and the company logo. I've had zero
issues. Nobody has ever asked why I blacked it out or what was under there.

~~~
cr0sh
Curious - how are paid (and taxes taken out) if your employer doesn't know
your SSN?

Unless you're a contractor and using a "company" tax ID number, or being paid
"under the table" in cash, bitcoin, or other goods...?

~~~
tpolzer
Just because you do not supply your SSN to a scummy background check company
does not mean your employer can't see it.

------
wai1234
I am not a lawyer.

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.

------
maxxxxx
"I'm concerned they'll lower my agreed-upon salary after seeing the results of
the report"

Agreed upon is agreed upon. If they really try to lower your salary it's
probably not a good place to work.

~~~
hatred
hmm, Is it that binary? What if the OP lied to get higher numbers from the
prospective employer.

Usually, most employers do ask for your existing pay slip/old W2 along with
your accepted signed offer letter to ensure due diligence.

~~~
maxxxxx
I have seen plenty of times where employers lied about average salaries in the
company and told new hires that they are in the upper range at the company. I
find it crazy that somehow employees have to be fully transparent but
companies can lie and hide information as much as they want.

They should do their due diligence before hiring somebody.

------
dmalvarado
I would enter $1, as mentioned elsewhere.

"I noticed you entered $1 here. Can you please correct with your actual
salary?"

Answers: "No"

"I'm sorry, but I do not share previous salary information"

"As a matter of principle, I won't be sharing previous salary information"

"Yes I'm aware that it is required, and I would love to work for BigCo, but I
won't be sharing my previous salary information"

"I understand you need to enter salary information, but I do not share that
information with any prospective employer. I sincerely hope we can move
forward."

Notice that the reasoning for each response is "because I said so" and is not
open to prying HR tactics. They will try hard to make you second guess
yourself, they may revoke the offer. Stick to your guns, "No salary info. I'd
love to work there. Let's move on."

~~~
quickthrower2
You have to be prepared to walk away from the offer though to make this work.

Which makes for some interesting game theory.

------
chamza
I fell in to this trap with 'BigCo'. I never gave my salary information to the
recruiter, and kept my cards to my chest.

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.

------
Jemmeh
Don't get fancy with a null. Just put $0 or $1. If they ask about it say it's
confidential. They already made you an offer, it's unlikely they'll do
anything at this point. They want you to work there.

~~~
ttlaxia
Most of these sorts of forms I've seen in recent years have been online things
that have some kind of input validation. In particular, the ones I've seen
tend to be a drop box with choices like $20,000-$29,999...$30,000-$39,999...
etc. And the form won't submit without making a choice. The point evidently
being to leave no realistic choice but to tell them the truth.

~~~
Jemmeh
Put the lowest or highest amount the drop down says so it still seems
unrealistic if possible. They'll probably ask about it, and again your answer
is, "That information is confidential, so I just put in the lowest the form
would take."

"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.

------
smileysteve
> "I'm concerned they'll lower my agreed-upon salary after seeing the results
> of the report"

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.

~~~
grigjd3
Not to mention that this kind of dirt gets around. Employers don't want to be
viewed as bad employers.

------
emodendroket
I would be pretty surprised if they decided to reduce their offer after you'd
already accepted it.

------
nedwin
My partner works in HR. If you have given them a salary figure previously and
they do this check and find you have lied then they can withdraw their offer.

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.

~~~
jfoutz
> If you have given them a salary figure previously and they do this check and
> find you have lied then they can withdraw their offer.

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.

~~~
acjohnson55
Right, in the sense that they don't owe the applicant a reason. But being
caught in a lie is an especially good reason, from an internal perspective, to
decide to move on from an applicant.

------
thisisit
It is not the BigCo which is asking for the info but the third party. You can
refuse to share the information by writing "undisclosed" if it allows for text
or just write 0. In case the BigCo wants the salary information let someone
from the company contact your directly and discuss it.

------
fred_is_fred
I also had this happened with BigCo. I left it blank or if required entered
$0. Nobody said anything about it.

------
acjohnson55
My decision would depend on how hungry I am. It's difficult for me to imagine
being in a position where I would disclose previous salary information, at
this point in my career. It's irrelevant. I should be paid what I'm worth to
this company at the present moment, which has nothing to do with what I may
have earned elsewhere.

I personally would not submit the form until I've had a conversation with
someone. I'd tell them, in writing, I won't share my salary history, and then
ask how I should proceed on the background check form without it. I would not
submit a null value without giving them a heads up.

That said, if you really want or need the job, feel free to make an exception.

------
kookiekrak
I went through this when I received an offer to join a BigCo.

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.

------
the_arun
Isn't there a way to find your current salary by your future employer? For eg.
I am making x$ per year today, could I say I am making 1.5(x) to my future
employer and wouldn't he validate/verify it?

~~~
bjt
Only if the future employer asks the current employer for this information,
and the current employer agrees to provide it. Both those things are unlikely
in the US.

------
matrix
Just put one or zero in the salary field(s). No company worth working for is
actually checking your salary history.

Resorting to entering '; DROP TABLE candidates; -- will definitely get your
application rejected though.

------
mattchamb
I jist went through this. The company used a firm called HireRight. They
wanted to confirm my employment history, and get info on my past salary. I
left those fields empty, and redacted salary info from other documents I had
to provide them. They also tried to get this info from my past employers, but
no one in their right mind would disclose that to a random third party. This
hasn't caused any problems for me - turns out they want to hire me more than
they want that info.

------
smt88
I'd suggest showing your offer letter to a lawyer and discussing it with
him/her.

I 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...

------
eloisant
Basically they make you fill it, but I think the idea is that the company
who'll hire you fill in the salary you claimed you had during the interview
and the background check company will check if you didn't lie.

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.

------
liberte82
No, no and no. Everything is negotiable, and employers don't need to know your
previous salaries. They want it as a negotiating tactic only, there is no
other legitimate reason to require it. Any company that would bar you from
employment for (tactfully) refusing to provide this information is not a place
you want to work.

------
yaur
For VOE they should just need start and end dates (at least anywhere I have
worked) possibly with a heads up from you, but if I accepted an offer that was
contingent on passing a background check I would just cooperate as that is
just part of what you are signing up for this that type of position.

------
3pt14159
Just lie or if you want to be a stick in the mud put $0 in the field and tell
them to buzz off.

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.

~~~
emodendroket
Don't lie about it. The odds of them withdrawing or changing their offer at
this point because of your salary history are lower than the odds they fire
you for lying.

------
grigjd3
You're not supposed to be required to report previous salary. Just give names
of previous employers and don't tell lies.

------
richardknop
Just say $1 and tell them it's confidential. You value your privacy and don't
want to reveal this information to them.

------
tjarratt
No, never.

------
probinso
no

------
smegel
It seems unusual. Can anyone else vouch for this happening to them?

