
New York City bans employers from asking potential workers about past salary - mendelk
http://nytlive.nytimes.com/womenintheworld/2017/04/07/new-york-city-bans-employers-from-asking-potential-workers-about-their-past-salary/
======
pmoriarty
I never answer questions about my past or expected salary, not to employers
and not to recruiters.

Most employers don't ask, and the few that have (perhaps by having a part of
an employment form ask for previous salary) have never made my leaving that
information out an issue.

Most recruiters, if they even ask, respect my decision not to talk about it,
but I've been pressed hard on this by a handful of recruiters, and have had
this be a deal breaker for a couple of them. One recruiting firm admitted that
they were paid by the employers to get this information. I wasn't getting paid
to give this information out, however, and it's worth more to me to keep it
private as I'm placed at a disadvantage in negotiations if I name a number
first.

It's still a seller's market for IT talent, and there are plenty of other fish
in the sea, so if some recruiters can't accept that I won't name a number,
it's their loss.

It's great that NYC is taking the lead on this, and I really hope the rest of
the US follows suit.

~~~
louisswiss
Agree with you in principle (your previous deal with company A is absolutely
none of company B's business) but I would like to challenge you on one point:

> I'm placed at a disadvantage in negotiations if I name a number first.

... This is unlikely to be true. Generally, in price negotiations it is
advantageous to name a number first. This is known as anchoring and basically
the theory is that the end result is better for you if the company has to
wheedle you down from 170k than if they anchor the price at 100k and you have
to argue them up from there.

Plus, it saves a lot of wasted negotiation time on both sides if your price is
just way too high for the company and this is clear from the beginning.

(edit: I'm talking about expected salary in general, not disclosing your
current salary level)

~~~
komali2
I think you're confusing two sales concepts - first to talk, and anchoring.

Anchoring is a more general marketing concept that works well in
advertisements (crossing out a black $280 and putting a red $100 underneath
it). Anchoring doesn't work so well for something much more fluid (and with
much more at stake) such as a salary negotiation.

In-person sales meetings (which is what an interview is, for both sides) are
where "first to talk" come into play. It's a concept as old as war meetings
between opposing roman generals. First to talk loses, period. Why? I don't
know, but years of sales and recruitment has taught me that whoever slips is
going to give the advantage to the other side of the table.

You can _only hurt yourself_ by giving a number. The company has set a budget,
either you fit or you don't. Maybe the budget is higher than you expected and
you take the job for way more than you would have asked for. Maybe it's less
_and you don 't take the job_. The key point is that company is not the only
company you are dealing with - you can move on to another. And another and
another, and as long as you don't give your number, you will win out.

I can't share this data but when I worked at a bootcamp our analysis showed
this as well. Students that gave their number got paid less. There's a big
push for bootcamp transparency so hopefully that sort of info will get
published soon.

~~~
flyinglizard
From my experience, naming your price works in your favor if you are
aggressive. People having similar positions are paid at 20% difference all
dependent on their negotiation skills. Also, companies usually don't have set
budgets for positions. It's quite fluid depending on the person being
recruited and their other offers and expectations. You need to make it work in
your favor. If you send up leaving money on the table, it just shows you did
not come prepared. Besides, there's nothing wrong in getting what you asked
for even if in another set of circumstances, with some amount of luck, you
could have gotten more.

~~~
papabrown
I would disagree with what you're saying about companies not having set
budgets. They may have a range but it's certainly a set range. The larger the
organization the more hard the range likely is due to the fact that the hiring
manager doesn't even set the range, HR does based on salary comps.

------
showmethemoney
Once upon a time I interviewed for a role in NYC. An employee that I spoke to
said they paid pretty well, and I could expect about 120. The HR person wanted
my previous salary, and I refused. Eventually they said their range was
130-150. I said it wasn't gonna work cause I was looking for something more
like 220. They said okay we can do that no problem. My previous salary was
110.

~~~
komali2
Not bad man, although I have to wonder what you'd have made if you never gave
your number ;)

Luckily they gave 3 numbers first, so you avoided a trap many people fall into
on both sides of the table - not negotiating at all.

Imagine the first thing a company says after an interview is "what's your
number" and you shrug and say "100," and the company reps blink and go "no
problem," then pass you an offer. Wouldn't you feel a little skeeved? "I bet I
could've gotten more," you'd think. You'd be right. Companies can feel that
same feeling.

A bit of back and forth is healthy. It makes both parties feel like they
struggled and finally settled on a number that is fair for both (whether or
not that number could have been higher or lower). That's why I always
recommended bootcamp grads to push back on an initial offer. Always. Worse
case the company says "no, this is the limit." Best case, you get more money,
the company feels like you were a little bit harder to get and thus more
valuable, etc.

~~~
showmethemoney
I thought I was throwing out a crazy number. They agreed so quickly that I had
no idea what to do. It's interesting to see whether people's first reaction is
"that's amazing" or "you messed up." I felt both. I still wonder how high I
could have gone.

~~~
komali2
Well, you could've gone higher. Oh well! Next time.

------
garethsprice
Lots of people here talking from their own experience as highly skilled, in-
demand professionals.

However, helping friends apply to jobs in other industries - specifically
medical - I saw that most of the applications involved filling out an
automated form that required prior salary information to complete.

There's no advantage to an employee from being forced to disclose this
information and it perpetuates compensation discrepancies by gender/race/guts
to ask. Very glad to see this made illegal.

Now, if they were really serious about fixing pay discrepancies, they'd make
it mandatory to post salary ranges with job listings.

------
jimparkins
Have a google for: "can i lie to a employer about past salary" \- it really
really messes with people - people feel super uncertain about how to approach
this situation. Throwing any confidence they have during the negotiation out
the window.

Even now I hesitate to write this as a million people will come out and say
never lie - what if they found out.

More than banning. There needs to be acceptance that if someone asks you. You
are totally free to make any damn number up that you like. Seriously. Its a
sales situation. It should not be like your under oath on the stand. Which is
how most people view it.

~~~
jnwatson
Interesting. An additional argument for lying is that you're probably already
lying in other parts of the interview.

Why do you want to work here? (money, and the desire to pay the bills and feed
my children)

Where do you see yourself in 5 years? (probably not at this company)

What is your biggest weakness? (not like I would actually tell a stranger a
real answer)

~~~
gregmac
If these are honestly your answers to these questions and you in fact give
lies as answers, you sound like exactly the type of person I absolutely hate
working with and actively try to weed out during interviewing.

To anyone reading this new to the industry, there are absolutely legitimate
ways to answer these questions without lying.

> Why do you want to work here? (money, and the desire to pay the bills and
> feed my children)

That is a given for nearly any job. If it's your _only_ reason you want to
take this particular job, it tells me you have zero passion for your work. The
people I know who are like this are what I'd describe as "9-5" employees,
don't learn anything outside of work, and basically do the bare minimum at
everything.

I want to work with someone that's at least somewhat excited about the job
they're going to be doing, and bring some energy, new ideas and actually care
about doing a good job. It's the difference between a day labourer and a
craftsman.

> Where do you see yourself in 5 years? (probably not at this company)

So? That's fine. Is anyone hiring with the expectation or even desire their
employees stay for 5 years?

There are many good ways to answer this, but it's definitely not "doing the
same thing as today, with the same technology stack, tools and level of
knowledge".

> What is your biggest weakness? (not like I would actually tell a stranger a
> real answer)

This is kind of a crappy interview question, but there are decent ways to
answer it [1]. They are not asking for your deep, personal failings, but for
your weaknesses as they apply to the job at hand.

[1] [https://workplace.stackexchange.com/questions/66620/which-
ow...](https://workplace.stackexchange.com/questions/66620/which-own-
weaknesses-are-ok-to-state-during-job-interview-if-demanded-to-say-s)

~~~
denzil_correa
> The people I know who are like this are what I'd describe as "9-5"
> employees, don't learn anything outside of work, and basically do the bare
> minimum at everything.

What's wrong being a 9-5 employee?

~~~
gregmac
If you're a creative person, like a developer, it's inefficient.

Context switching is expensive, and going home for the day is a big context
switch.

If it's 5:00 and you have 30 minutes left on something, most likely it'll take
something like two hours tomorrow to get back into and finish it.

If you always go home exactly at 5, it means you are either constantly being
inefficient and doing the context switch, you are not doing anything late in
the afternoon to avoid the context switch, or you are extremely good at both
estimating and optimizing your time so all your tasks are quantized within
working hours. While things may work out to look like the third case
sometimes, I find it hard to believe anyone is _that_ good that it can happen
literally every day, which leads me to believe they're often doing one of the
other two things.

~~~
s73ver
Or, I consider time with my family worth more than the context switch I'd
have.

~~~
eric-hu
And just to take this further: there's a massive context switch for the dev
team when a burned out developer leaves after 1-2 years, compared to the 9-5
dev who's still there and happy.

------
mdb333
It will be interesting to see how this affects the hiring markets. Out in
SF/etc it came up in just about every discussion I had last time I was looking
for work usually as part of the first phase. No point interviewing candidates
that wouldn't accept the job. It's pretty much a risk mgmt exercise from the
hiring side. Similarly, I always asked what the compensation range they're
targeting is as I don't want to waste my time either.

I wonder if this ban addresses background checks covering the same
information, because some companies do ask for this data from previous
employers although not all provide it. Without protection there this ban seems
fairly limited.

Anyhow, I don't agree with all advice to never disclose current/previous
salary. In some scenarios certainly it makes sense, but in others it is the
opposite. You want to justify a higher market value and set the expectation
that you're unlikely to be interested unless they're willing to compensate at
$X or higher. Of course it's different in terms of leverage if you're employed
currently or not. Recruiters and interviewers will waste tons of your time if
you don't get on the same page quickly. Lack of transparency around your
compensation expectations will exacerbate this issue. Whether that means you
tell them what you're making or what you'd like to make doesn't really matter,
but you better do at least one of the two.

~~~
komali2
In my experience (external contract recruitment) the background check usually
happens after an offer has been negotiated and accepted. I've also never seen
a background check request for actual salary information. I'm not even sure
how that would work... we would just send the candidates' information to this
company that churns through court docs to see if they have a criminal history,
send them to Quest to get drug tested, donesies bananas. Maybe in the
employment verification stage? Even then though, I highly doubt a previous
employer would offer that information up - oftentimes they weren't even
allowed to comment on the _quality_ of the candidates' work. Nightmare for
reference checks to the big EPCs and operators like BP or Jacobs.

~~~
vonmoltke
I was asked in my last background check, and the proof (of that and
employment) was my tax forms.

~~~
komali2
_You_ being asked is a bit different than a background check. You can refuse
quite easily.

~~~
vonmoltke
I agree. Just pointing it out it does sometimes come up in background checks,
since you said it never had for you.

------
pbasista
My past salary is an irrelevant information for my potential future employer.
If they ask about it, my response would be: "Why would you like to know it?"
Any answer to this question is bad. If they do not bail out and stop asking at
this point, then I bail out.

The point is that if I want, I can completely change my way of life by
switching to a job which pays 50 % of my current salary. Or 400 % of my
current salary. It does not matter. What matters is that it is solely my
decision and none of my potential future employer's business.

If they want to know my current salary, it is a red flag. I do not care about
them knowing it, but there is a high risk that they will use that information
to try to make an offer which _they_ think that I ought to consider good. They
can offer e.g. my current salary + their negotiating margin and think "hey, we
have offered you more than you have now, so you ought to be happy". While in
reality, the only person who can responsibly decide whether I am happy about
it or not is me.

Note that I am not criticizing companies which want to hire for cheap. This is
all right. But they need to do it transparently, from the beginning. They
should say it clearly and upfront: for this position, our budget is somewhere
in this range ... are you interested or not? This is a fair way to go.

~~~
socalnate1
"But they need to do it transparently, from the beginning. They should say it
clearly and upfront: for this position, our budget is somewhere in this range"

This goes both ways I think: For this position, I am looking for something in
this range, are you interested or not?

~~~
downrightmike
I'll have to look it up, but there are few large groups that basically track
and record a number of industries including tech. I'll have to look it up
Monday. They use this info to help companies to pay in a range of +- 20% for
any position. At least that's what I've learned from the management training
part of this gig.

------
paulcole
Good. Not enough people realize the best way to answer this question is with a
straight-up lie.

~~~
nommm-nommm
Careful!!

There's quite a few ways to verify past salary. Specially some employers
report employment information to private databases and your potential employer
runs a "employment report," like banks run a credit report, as part of a
mandatory background check. To see if you lied.

Of course, they can't do that without your permission but agreeing to a
background check is a condition of employment.

The database i am thinking of is, IIRC, owned by Lexis Nexis and they claim to
have employment data for the majority of Fortune 500 companies.

EDIT: The database I am thinking of is called The Work Number and is owned by
Equifax.

[http://www.businessinsider.com/salary-information-not-
privat...](http://www.businessinsider.com/salary-information-not-private-
anymore-2013-1)

>One woman interviewed by CNBC had a Work Number report that was a whopping 22
pages long, complete with a copy of all of her paychecks over the years.

They claim to have employment information for over 1/3rd of American adults.

~~~
matwood
That's why you just say "around" and add 20% to your current salary.

And even if a company does find out, who cares? What I made at a prior job has
zero bearing on my next job. If the new company thinks I bring in enough value
to be paid X, then they paying X should be fine.

~~~
pc86
Our internal recruiters ask but it's not a deal breaker if someone doesn't
answer. You know what is a deal breaker? Lying.

I've personally seen two offers rescinded after it came out that someone added
an egregious amount of money to their previous salary (one to the effect of
made approx $100k, _said_ they made $185 and took $175 while complaining
loudly about their "pay cut").

What sucks for them is:

A) Everyone involved in that process knows they're a liar.

B) They were now unemployed because this was during the post-acceptance
background checks

C) They won't be able to work at any company anyone from A is doing hiring
stuff for

~~~
matwood
Wait, so you were ready to pay someone 175k until you found out they only made
100k at their last job and rescinded the offer? How about name the company so
people can make sure to avoid them. I hope this company also lists their
internal budget for every position, since you know we want to all be honest
and everything.

~~~
poikniok
If the user's summary is accurate / I found the correct individual on Linkedin
the company is [redacted]. I agree with your assessment that this sounds like
a unethical company, not to mention the amount of glee expressed in the post
over an individual being screwed by the company is disconcerting.

~~~
dang
On HN users aren't allowed to pursue each other's personal details and bring
them here as ammunition in an argument. That crosses the line into personal
attack, which is emphatically not allowed here, regardless of how wrong you
think someone else or their employer may be. Please don't do it again.

------
lend000
There's a case to be made for an employee protection preventing an employer
from firing an employee for refusing to produce pay stubs from a past
employer. However, I've said it before -- preventing _a question_ from being
asked is state overreach and constitutes a violation of the first amendment,
in my opinion.

~~~
teej
There are already loads of questions that employers aren't allowed to ask. Are
you married? Are you pregnant? How many kids do you have? Is your significant
other black? When was the last time you went to church? So, you're about 50,
is that right?

~~~
pc86
A) They can legally ask all of these.

B) All of these are in reference to one or more protected classes, which is
why it's not legal to discriminate based on one's answer(s) or refusal to
answer.

C) Last I checked, "previously made {less,more} than a certain salary" is not
a protected class.

~~~
marcosdumay
About (C), it has just become one.

------
ransom1538
So people on HN are _pro_ employers posting their employee salaries publicly
but _against_ previous companies asking what their salaries are. WTF. I must
be missing something here.

I personally believe your salary is your business. Period. Getting salary
information bad, forcing employees to divulge salaries from a position of
power is disgusting.

Here is me being publicly quartered on HN for pushing back on forcing
employees publicly posting salaries:
[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12805814](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12805814)

~~~
kesselvon
Companies asking for your previous salary means theyre going to try to pay you
with your past salary being a benchmark to work with, not necessarily what the
position is worth.

Companies posting employee salaries publicly aims for employees at said
company to be paid at the same level (with similar experience).

There's a subtle difference.

Every time I've been asked about salary its been an obvious ploy to lowball my
salary due to previous experience of working in a lower cost area. Employees
literally have zero incentive not to lie, since employers can't verify

~~~
shados
Employers ask for your salary to make sure it makes sense to talk.

Everyone mentions it to be lowballing you. But what do you think happens when
you mention a higher number than they expect?

While it sometimes will end the conversation (because they're unwilling to
pay), sometimes they'll match that, leading to a higher salary than what the
offer would have been.

Of course, often, including in big companies, the background check isn't done
by the hiring managers. So you can straight up lie about your salary, get a
higher offer, then when they background check they get the real one, and
they're none the wiser ::shrugs::

Even without lying, In the couple of occasions where I was underpaid and
trying to go up, it's simply what I would say when asked. "My salary was X,
but I'm looking for X + Y".

It's just not that hard.

~~~
ryandrake
It's a classic negotiation problem.

From the employee's point of view:

If you specify a number, you have either A) disqualified yourself due to it
being too high or B) set a cap on your potential salary (they may have been
willing to pay more). Neither scenario represents upside for you.

From the employer's point of view:

If the company specifies a number, it has either A) disqualified itself due to
it being too low or B) set a minimum that it will have to pay (candidate may
have been willing to accept less). Neither scenario represents upside.

~~~
gdulli
> If you specify a number, you have either A) disqualified yourself due to it
> being too high or B) set a cap on your potential salary (they may have been
> willing to pay more). Neither scenario represents upside for you.

Those are hardly the only outcomes. An impressive salary history can raise the
esteem of a candidate. It's a signal that makes the candidate look good,
should the employer attach meaning to it, which they're free to do or not do.
But it won't hurt you.

The real world is more fluid and complex than just these two rigid outcomes.
An employer can put a salary range in writing and then find a great candidate
who's simply worth more, and in a market where talent is hard to find you
don't turn away great candidates, you reshape the job description. Or maybe
the hiring manager passes the employee to a different department or different
company with an opening with a higher range. Or maybe the hiring manager
passes because they just can't do it but 6 weeks later you get a call back
because they haven't found anyone better and the manager got more desperate or
fought their boss to increase the hiring budget.

And if your previous salary is higher than the absolute range of the job
you're interviewing for, you're still free to tell the employer you're okay
with that, if you are. I've done it before. You can also use it to negotiate
other benefits. Maybe they're inflexible on the top end of the salary range
but you can get extra equity or vacation out of it.

> If the company specifies a number, it has either A) disqualified itself due
> to it being too low

You must believe ranges have some flexibility or else a company disqualifying
itself is upside for them because it saves them the time of interviewing
candidates who aren't willing to take the disclosed range.

------
Taylor_OD
I'm not sure how effective this will be. When I was recruiting It got to the
point where I would never ask salary's I would just say, "I'm assume your
currently making between XXk and XXk?" and 9 times out of 10 I was in the
right range. 1 time out of 10 they would say no and correct me. I just took a
educated guess based on knowing the market. Any good recruiter should be able
to do the same.

~~~
burkaman
The bill also makes it illegal to "rely on the salary history of an applicant
in determining the salary, benefits or other compensation for such applicant
during the hiring process, including the negotiation of a contract" even if
you find out without asking.

------
dkrich
This is the #1 rule I always tell people who are interviewing for a new job.
Never tell a potential employer your past job salary, especially so if you are
unhappy with that salary.

When my girlfriend was interviewing for a new job two years ago we talked
about this because the recruiter was very demanding about knowing what her
current salary was and I told her to stay firm on it because the salary in her
current job was, frankly, shit. In the end she got a 50% pay increase over her
previous job and then six months later got promoted with a pay increase that
effectively doubled her salary from her previous job. Which brings me to
another point- a lot of people will justify disclosing the amount by reasoning
that they can always ask for a raise after they get hired and the important
thing is to get a foot in the door. The problem is that anchoring is a very
real thing. If you start at $50k instead of a $75k, every raise you get at
that company for the rest of your career will be based off that first salary.
If you stay at a company for 10-15 years, that is an enormous difference that
could be well into the six figures.

Bottom line, don't disclose salary history to employers. You'll seldom find an
employer who will tell you what your colleagues in the same job make. Why do
you want to show your hand?

As for this law, I'm actually mildly opposed to it. I don't think that the
government should have a hand in determining salary beyond minimum wage,
because that is an agreement made between two consenting parties in private
industry. If you are a more experienced negotiator and are willing to ask for
more money than your counterparts, why shouldn't you be at an advantage?
There's no law that says you have to disclose it and the rest is up to you.

~~~
s73ver
Why should you be at an advantage? Why should the negotiations have anything
to do with your current salary?

~~~
downrightmike
They need to be at the advantage, their life and time is being bought. And
because if the pay is shit, they'll only end up doing shitty work. Possibly
leaving much not finished the next chance they get somewhere that is willing
to compensate appropriately.

~~~
s73ver
"They need to be at the advantage, their life and time is being bought."

Same is true for someone who is not good at negotiating, or is negotiating
from a weaker position.

"And because if the pay is shit, they'll only end up doing shitty work."

So why not just have the company pay well for everyone?

~~~
downrightmike
"So why not just have the company pay well for everyone?" That's just not
something they do.

------
aglavine
I advocate for all salary data being public.

To get a better salary and better work conditions cannot depend of hiding a
figure. It is a weak position, to say the least.

------
ElijahLynn
That is fantastic news!

I recently interviewed with a prominent Drupal company, Forum One, and was
shocked that they not only asked for my previous salary, but previous 3
salaries and also wanted me to verify them with pay stubs! I told them no and
the interview stalled after that. That was a sad day, I really wanted to work
with them but what they asked for was unacceptable.

They were not in New York but I welcome this law everywhere.

~~~
pixl97
>I told them no and the interview stalled after that. That was a sad day, I
really wanted to work with them

You assumed you wanted to work with them based on a false idea of what that
company was. It sounds like you lucked out.

------
southphillyman
They are trying to pass this in Philadelphia in May. Comcast and the local
Chamber of Commerce are suing to stop it citing that it's a Freedom of Speech
violation.

Besides being able to freely low ball candidates who started behind the 8 ball
(women/minorities/people who didn't go to elite schools), is there a real
argument for companies HAVING to know your previous salary?

~~~
specialp
There really isn't. In a negotiation knowing the price paid for a product
previously, or in this case a person, is a distinct advantage to the person
paying. And will do nothing else but perpetuate low pay for underpaid people.
Think of the scenarios:

1\. I made X at my last job where X is far less than what you are paying your
current employees. Well as a business owner and negotiator if I offer them X +
a small bump I can probably get away with paying less.

2\. I made X at my last job where X is far more than you are paying your
current employees. You either are going to stretch the budget, or negotiate.

So it is always a negotiation _unless_ the person says they made less. A true
negotiation is "How much are you asking for?" A person selling products isn't
going to tell someone what they are selling their products for to a
competitor. They are both going to negotiate a price or decide not to do
business.

------
mbroshi
The analogy is not perfect, but all the time people like to know how much a
house or car sold for in the past, or how much a stock traded for the in past,
etc. Seems like useful data.

Now, I'm not advocating for or against this particular question, but I sure do
hope there is data collected and studied on the effect this has in NY before
anyone jumps to conclusions. I feel it's too easy to have a knee-jerk reaction
on this one.

There is no way to know whether this helps/hurts/is neutral for any particular
class of people without studying its effects.

~~~
CJefferson
The problem is the one way communication. I would personally have no problem
giving out my past salary, in return for the current salaries if all
comparable current employees at the company.

~~~
mbroshi
You can refuse to answer their question. You can also ask them how much others
are making at your position (and they can refuse to answer that, too). I don't
see where the asymmetry is.

~~~
ryandrake
It's often more a power asymmetry. You need the job, they have a line of
candidates out the door.

------
lr4444lr
A lot of the analogies and reasoning I'm reading here is faulty. Nothing stops
HR depts. from sharing information which to a first degree of approximation
would give them an idea of the market rate for the positions they're filling.
Companies are already free to rescind offers if they find out that you've lied
about aspects of your past work history. It's part of what at-will employment
is. This is about interfering with the negotiation of the individual job
seeker. If I can't ask for your salary history, then I might miss out on the
competitive advantage you as a candidate have in that you're willing to work
for less over potentially more qualified people as you build your skill-set
and expertise. The right way to help those who are taken advantage of is
education about how to bargain and what information they need and need not
share, not legislation.

------
arunitc
Here in India, you are not only asked your previous salary, you have to
provide your last (sometimes three) payslip while joining. Some companies have
a policy of NOT giving more than a 30% hike from your previous salary - you
need top management approval for such a hike.

~~~
anupshinde
At the time of joining - is usually for background verification. Most
companies don't even care what your last pay was. Even if you are paid higher,
they are going to play in their range.

However, during negotiation, if you lied about your previous pay just to get a
better hike - you would get flagged, may get fired and get yourself listed
into an unofficial blacklist. Its more of an ethics issue than just a pay
mismatch.

> Some companies have a policy of NOT giving more than a 30% hike from your
> previous salary These companies are telling you "loud and clear" \- "we
> don't care about talent".

There are other companies that would pay "fairly" as per their bands - even if
that means a 100-200% hike

~~~
thammudu
I have been through job searching recently in India and I have applied for 10s
of companies most of them are statups.

> At the time of joining - is usually for background verification.

Not just during joining, many companies asked my previous salary and expected
salary during the first talk. Some companies did not even contact back when I
refused to disclose my previous salary.

Salary discrimination is everywhere in startups, not just by gender also by
number of years of experience, University, Degree, previous company...

My opinion is "every employee doing the same job should be paid the same."

------
Ultramax
Seems like an ethics test. Will you tell the truth about your previous low
salary or lie to make sure you don't get lowballed?

Then for the employer, will you decrease the salary to match previous low
rates or wages? Or will you pay him/her the market rate regardless?

Personally, I have always been asked how much I made at previous places. I
prefer to give a range than specify individually.

~~~
cjbprime
> I prefer to give a range than specify individually.

FWIW, this is likely almost as bad for you in the negotiation as giving the
number. You will simply always get offers towards the bottom of your range. It
is better to refuse to answer, and just say you're looking for a market rate
salary for this role.

~~~
eru
Giving the number doesn't have to be bad for you. (But it can be.)

But yeah, never give any range. Not when talking about previous compensation,
and not when talking about what you want. Just give them straight up numbers,
if you give anything at all.

And you should definitely give them a number about how much you want to be
paid. You want to set the first reference point. And yes, that means you will
have to do your own due diligence about how much the market can currently bear
for your (interviewing) skills. But you need to know these numbers anyway.

------
crazy1van
Laws like this one that restrict businesses from asking questions that
individuals could ask strikes me as very strange.

I could ask my buddy how much he made at his last job.

I couldn't ask my buddy how much he made at his last job if I'm considering
hiring him to work at my company.

Why is this information legal to acquire when I'm wearing my business hat vs
when I'm wearing my friend hat?

~~~
dikdik
Do you plan to have children in the near future? Are you currently pregnant?
Do you prefer men or women as romantic/sexual partners? How old are you? What
religion were you raised with? Do you currently attend a church?

>Why is this information legal to acquire when I'm wearing my business hat vs
when I'm wearing my friend hat? You tell me....

------
gdulli
I'll have to find some way to bring it up myself. A higher than usual salary
history is a good tangible signal to future employers and I'm not going to
give it up.

~~~
mbillie1
Way to see the bigger picture for employee rights here.

~~~
gdulli
I didn't say I'd fight against the existence of the law. I said people who are
hurt by the law should retain the same negotiating power they had before
rather than lose their right.

~~~
ballenf
You won't lose any negotiating power. Just because they can't ask doesn't mean
you can't counter an offer and ask for a higher salary. If they want you and
think you're worth it, you'll get it. Just don't see them not being able to
ask really shifting the negotiating power much if any for you.

~~~
gdulli
Likewise, just because an employer offers a lower salary than you want based
on your salary history doesn't mean you can't counter with the salary you
want. If they want you and think you're worth it, you'll get it.

The benefit of telling a prospective employer that a previous employer decided
you were worth an above-average salary vs. simply requesting an above-average
salary without context is obvious.

------
georgeecollins
I have gotten out of discussing past salary by saying that I believe salary
history perpetuates wage discrimination. I am a white man, so I think this
only makes me seem idealistic rather than disgruntled. But I do honestly
believe this to be true.

Smart people who negotiate your salary do not want to get anywhere near a
conversation that has the phrase "wage discrimination" in it for any reason,
even hypothetical. They do not want to argue about what is or isn't wage
discrimination, even if they disagree. So it can end the discussion with both
parties feeling they are being high minded by avoiding the topic.

------
riskable
Whenever I'm asked for my current or former salary I tell the recruiter/HR
person to first tell me the salary of all the peers I'll be working with. If
it's a contracting company I also ask how much they'll be paid for my
position.

If they don't provide those money details why should I?

------
retube
This will be tricky for banks and hedge funds etc. These firms typically, in
London at any rate:

\- never quote a salary (or even a range) for a job opening

\- following many interviews any offer is always based on prior "comp", of
which you will have to provide 3 years of info (base, bonus, deferred awards,
retention awards, benefits etc) plus, of course, documentary evidence to
support. HR departments start squealing if uptick is a greater than 20%
increase, although some people do manage higher (anything over 30% is almost
unheard of, except for a handful of big producers)

\- they go through your background with a fine toothcomb and check EVERYTHING
you supplied on your CV and in the screening questionaires you have to
complete. They employ specialist third party agencies to do the research on
you.

If you do not comply with this you simply won't get hired. It is universal and
practiced everywhere in finance, I've never heard of anyone not being
subjected to this.

~~~
TheCoelacanth
Not sure how it's tricky for them. They just have to stop doing it or never
hire anyone.

------
highdesertmuse
Mandating that employers are forbidden to ask about previous salary seems like
a pathway to more government intrusion into a complex process. Part of job
seeking involves learning how to negotiate with a potential employer. I've
side-stepped many an inappropriate or premature question about salary with
"Are you making an offer," followed by agreement to disclose the "details" if
and when such offer is forthcoming at which point I know far more about what
the position involves, am in a much better negotiating position and can
explain, if necessary, why the pay scale was lower. If that doesnt satisfy a
recruiter or potential employer, I tend to think they're not very serious
about me as a candidate and I havent disclosed personal information that might
limit my future job search.

~~~
s73ver
No. Why should the negotiation have anything to do with the prospective
employee's current salary?

Not to mention, you're saying that prospective employees shouldn't answer the
question anyway. However, that only protects those who feel they're in a
strong bargaining position. It does absolutely nothing to help those who
aren't, and those are generally the ones that need the most help.

------
droopyEyelids
This is a beautiful worker protection, and it makes me feel optimistic about
our country's future.

~~~
mrcactu5
keep telling yourself that... this law is bullshit

~~~
MichaelApproved
How so?

~~~
mrcactu5
you will see...

~~~
lovich
so no answer? If you have a reason I'd like to hear it. I cant think of a
problem with this cause it makes the information disparity between employees
and employers more equal, but Id like to hear any counterargument

~~~
mrcactu5
i don't think the law will improve the information disparity. I think
employers will quickly find ways around it as they always have and it will
promptly be business as usual.

~~~
droopyEyelids
I see perspectives like yours very frequently in many topics of discussion.

The point I'd like you to consider:

The ease with which something can be done can affect the probability and
frequency of an action without affecting the possibility of the action.

------
csneeky
I know one employer this will impact: Goldman Sachs. Not only do they demand
you tell them what your current salary is during the interview process, they
force you during a rigorous background check before your first day to prove
it.

------
loufe
"Closing the gender pay gay is important" Come on NYT....

~~~
lr4444lr
Freudian slip, perhaps? [https://www.usnews.com/news/articles/2013/03/01/gay-
couples-...](https://www.usnews.com/news/articles/2013/03/01/gay-couples-more-
educated-higher-income-than-heterosexual-couples)

------
somethingwitty1
I'm a bit skeptical that this will have a real impact. It may stop employers
from asking, but it does not stop them from low-balling someone based on
race/gender, etc. HR departments calculate this in to their offers already.

Don't get me wrong, I think this will help some folks and is a great step
forward. People who know their value and what the employer pays will surely
benefit (or great negotiators). But for the people this is touted to help,
they can still very easily be kept in the lower-end of the pay scale.

It seems to me that the only way to close the pay gap is to have employers
release what they pay. That in itself is a tough thing to write legislation
for. In my mind, it would need to take into account experience, actual
role/leveling, etc. A lot of it is subjective and easy to manipulate to help
the employer. And of course, if we just release a straight list of all
employees' salaries (with the details needed to calculate where you fall), you
may run into privacy concerns.

------
user5994461
"It will take $xxx k base salary to leave my current company" \-- The ultimate
answer to life and the universe and everything.

------
taternuts
Personally I think it's good when they ask. I no longer answer that question
with the truth, but as if they asked "what do you think you're actually
worth?" \- and you can find out pretty quick by their response/reaction
whether or not they are going to try and lowball you.

------
paul7986
Totally avoid this question Being asked by setting the salary you seek in
stone before going to the interview. Especially if your working with a
recruiter!

If they suddenly ask this question then they are trying to renege on their
promise and for me it's time to go.

------
losteverything
For me it's not the salary (been out of tech and would not expect much nego.
power), but how do I quantitfy primo health insurance, 31+ days off a year, 5
months sick leave and a 1/2 mile commute.

I really don't know how to assign a number to all that.

------
fmsf
My experience with this was in London, a twitter.com recruiter contacted me a
couple of years ago. At the time I was searching for a job so I replied that I
was interested. We had the usual HR/Recruiter call. It ended with them asking
how muh my previous employer was paying me. I said that was confidential and
would not share. Their reply was "this information is mandatory and we cannot
continue the process if you will not provide it." I said I wouldn't and it
ended there... two months later their recruiter contacted me again saying it
was ok for me not to share and provide expectations instead.

------
pm24601
> Underlying the bill is the notion that employers “anchor” the salaries they
> offer to potential employees based on their current or previous salary — if
> an employee had faced pay discrimination at a previous job, in other words,
> the employer’s subsequent lower than market value offer would effectively
> perpetuate the discrimination.

> “Being underpaid once should not condemn one to a lifetime of inequity,”
> said New York City Public Advocate Letitia James

... Or if a person does not know how to negotiate.

------
infodroid
As far as I know, there's nothing to stop employers from exchanging salary
information directly with previous employers under quid-pro-quo agreements.

And there's nothing to stop employers from buying/renting this information
from third parties, such as recruitment agencies or brokers in personal data.

All of these are arguably more reliable sources of salary information than
asking the candidate directly.

------
ajeet_dhaliwal
Well done New York City! London needs this desperately, most recruiters here
won't let you proceed without it, unless you apply directly.

------
jondubois
I think this law is silly.

If you don't like this question, then you can either choose not to answer it
or use it to your advantage by 'rounding up' your numbers - This should
actually help you with your negotiations as an employee.

In the unlikely event that they ask for proof, you can always tell them that
your personal finances are a private matter between you and your accountant.

~~~
s73ver
Not really. Someone who is not in a strong bargaining position is not going to
be able to push back and say no. The company will say, "Answer or we don't
hire you." And while you might say "You don't want to work there anyway," I
know I like being able to buy food and pay rent much more than I like not
being hired. By banning the question outright, they make sure that your
ability to not answer the question is not related to the strength of your
bargaining position.

------
inputjoker
It should also ban potential employee disclosing the pay of previous
employment. Otherwise it would become a norm soon that the companies
specifically won't ask about it, but will hire only the candidates who
disclose it by themselves, which makes the candidate to disclose the previous
income by themselves for having a better shot at getting hired.

------
rdiddly
Wow, this is _yuge_. Sure I can refuse to answer the question, but nothing
beats a law that makes the question futile and unlikely to be asked in the
first place.

Granted employers will just scrounge around on the internet for your salary
info instead, which is slightly creepier, but at least they have to work for
it.

Can't wait for other states to follow suit.

------
funkyy
I was asked this before. When I refused, they said it was mandatory. I put my
number as 30% more. There is no way for them to confirm, I think this is an
unfair practice, so if they are forcing you to play the game, why you would be
fair? I have got the job, as a junior, I was making same money as senior minus
the benefits.

------
pklausler
It's a sellers' market. If you're looking, just state your requirements and
negotiate from there (or not). If you're not looking, then your current
compensation is your current job's best offer, and you might as well share
that information in case somebody wants to beat it.

------
kelukelugames
I dislike employers who take advantage of employees.

I dislike New York City's solution too. There are other ways to empower
employees and not asking about past salaries won't eliminate the pay gap. But
I'm not an expert so maybe this is a step in the right direction and can
result in lasting changes.

------
nfriedly
When IBM hired me, the only question I was asked about salary was "how much
would you like?" I picked a number and he said "I think I can do that, let me
check" followed the next day by "yes".

Maybe I left money on the table, but I'm happy, and I've gotten good raises
since.

~~~
adrr
More than likely you left money on table. I found asking people what salary
they would like, they always low balled themselves with a 10% increase of
current salary. Minimum i give is 15% because that is average for people
changing jobs. Devops engineer i just hired was well under priced for the
market so i gave him 45% raise. He didn't even ask for increase in pay.

Not every company/hiring manger is trying to rip off their employees. Paying
people industry/local a bit above averages for the job duties makes for
happier employees that are less likely to leave or have moral issues.

------
donovanm
In the interviews I've had so far the 'how much are you making' question comes
up at the beginning of the process almost everywhere. It's an obvious lowball
play, anywhere that is super aggressive about asking for this is a giant red
flag to me.

------
gesman
Instead of salary it may worth disclosing ballpark of total compensation
including shares/options vesting, bonuses, etc, without breaking it down.

After all "desired salary" question is answered sooner or later but in reality
- the total compensation is more important.

------
tinythrowaway
throwaway for obv reasons. This is fantastic news. But for those of you
wondering what to do if you are asked this - it's pretty simple: you lie. This
is a negotiation. If you ask a car salesman how much the dealership paid for a
car, you think they're going to tell you the truth?

"What if they find out?" They won't. How could they? There ARE laws, very
clear and absolute ones, about what a past employer can share about you. Your
salary history is most certainly protected by them.

"What if they ask for a paystub?" Ask yourself if you know what you're getting
into here. This is not a company that is going to treat its employees well.

------
aphextron
I never understood this one. I have always told recruiters straight up that
I'm not going to disclose that information. Nobody involved with making the
hiring decision is going to be asking you how much you made at your last job.

------
rodionos
What effect is this going to have if the state agency wages are already
online:
[https://catalog.data.gov/dataset?tags=salary](https://catalog.data.gov/dataset?tags=salary)

------
dudul
I interviewed at a big phone/ISP company a few months ago in MA.

They would not make me an offer unless I shared my past W2 with them for them
to make sure my past salary was what I claimed it was.

Needless to say, I laughed at them and walked away.

------
Overtonwindow
I once worked for a large trade association in Georgia. The Director had a
general policy that anyone who refused to provide expected salary was not even
considered, at all, no exceptions.

~~~
city41
Did you find other things that Director did made the company less effective or
unpleasant to work at? In other words, if that's the company's policy, is it
possibly a sign the company is not the best place to go?

------
dingdongding
So I should not be divulging my current salary to recruiters? Interesting.

------
awinter-py
we should make it illegal to ask about college degree. That would erode the
signaling value of a degree and bring down the price / paper value of a
diploma.

------
ballenf
Would have rather seen a bill also legitimize complete and total lying in
response to the question. Answers or claims regarding past salary may not be
verified or used as the basis of any employment action.

~~~
comicjk
A bill to legitimize lying would help people who know about it. But the people
who most need the help are those who have never heard about this controversy
or don't think they have the power in the negotiation to consider lying. The
way NYC did it, the law protects the most vulnerable.

~~~
ballenf
True. I edited my response to say "also" thinking about your point. I like my
proposal less and less, honestly. I'm personally not a very good liar, so it
wouldn't help much.

Also, there's just something that feels wrong about normalizing lying instead
of fixing the root problem.

------
parasight
Is it legal to lie about the past salary in the US?

------
thoreauway
When does this take effect?

------
bingomad123
Personally I have found disclosing salary to be far more beneficial in
negotiations. I guess who wish to disclose their salary still can right ? Or
has the law banned employees from disclosing it ?

------
xyzzy4
This is bad for the free market and freedom of speech. I hope it gets
challenged on First Amendment grounds.

~~~
maxxxxx
I see my past salaries as trade secret of my business. So it's good that I can
protect this secret.

~~~
mdb333
...yeah but imagine you're trying to hire a contractor to do some job. Of
course you're going to ask, "how much does it cost?" Generally you will shop
this job around to get an idea of the range of prices for similar work from
qualified contractors and then make an informed decision. If you go at it the
opposite, "I'm willing to pay X for this job Y" then you've skewed your
capability to make an informed decision unless you already have an accurate
basis for what the job should cost.

In the employment world, folks use Radford and similar as guidance which of
course can steer them of course from where the local talent market actually
is.

~~~
maxxxxx
They are asking for past salaries not the salary an employee wants for this
particular job. You aren't demanding a full list of past work and its price
from a contractor either.

------
mrcactu5
umm... laws like this don't last very long. employers quickly develop work
arounds. I will be interested to see what hiring managers try (or fail).

~~~
thinkmilitant
This can't be true 100% of the time or the hiring/working condition would be
roughly the same regardless of legal environment. This, at least to me, does
not seem to be the case.

------
rodionos
Don't have to ask. The data is open:

[https://gist.github.com/rodionos/b77080e028e3b680b2c1b5091ba...](https://gist.github.com/rodionos/b77080e028e3b680b2c1b5091ba61911)

Source: [https://catalog.data.gov/dataset/civil-
list-2014](https://catalog.data.gov/dataset/civil-list-2014)

> The Civil List reports the agency code (DPT), first initial and last name
> (NAME), agency name (ADDRESS), title code (TTL #), pay class (PC), and
> salary (SAL-RATE) of individuals who were employed by the City of New York
> at any given time during the indicated year.

~~~
burkaman
This bill applies to private companies too. In cases where a company discovers
your past salary without asking, the bill makes it illegal to rely on that to
determine an offer.

~~~
mdb333
good to know, I was wondering if this would include information from previous
employers on background checks... which it sounds like it does.

