Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
What does your salary history have to do with anything. There are only 2i portent questions. Is the job worth more than 75k to the company or not. Will the applicant work for less than her stated expectation.
It doesn't matter what she previously got paid.
Nice in theory, doesn't work like that in practice. Your salary history establishes your "true worth" in the minds of many, fair or not. And it often establishes the strength of your negotiating position.
As much as people think it is relevant, salary history is irrelevant.
It's relevant to those who think it's relevant. As long as it's a legal question to ask, an employer can evaluate it however they choose. It doesn't matter whether you think it's relevant or not. It doesn't matter how strong an argument you can make against it. It doesn't matter how silly and/or inaccurate it is. And I'm telling you from observation and experience, many employers think it is relevant.
I believe the reason they are including the potential for a raise in three months is because I asked for $85,000 and their offer is $10,000 below that target. At the time I shared my salary target, the hiring manager told me he didn't think they could go quite that high and I said I do have some flexibility.
When I said that I meant I would be fine making $80K. I did not expect an offer $10K below ask.
You may have meant that but did you say that? When you use a vague term like "some flexibility" without quantifying it then you shouldn't be surprised when their interpretation of flexibility is different from yours.
Certainly bring it up if it is important to you but I'd be more concerned with quantifying the "potential for a raise" offer for the same exact reasons. You don't want to be back here in three months because you were expecting a $5-10k increase and they were thinking a $2k increase.
Nice in theory, doesn't work like that in practice. Your salary history establishes your "true worth" in the minds of many, fair or not. And it often establishes the strength of your negotiating position.
Then, I'd argue those people aren't worth working for in the long run.
There are many different variables that go into someones salary, some of which are outside someones control. This is a perfect example of correlation vs. causation.
Then, I'd argue those people aren't worth working for in the long run.
There are many different variables that go into someones salary, some of which are outside someones control. This is a perfect example of correlation vs. causation.
Feel free to make that argument and not work for employers like that. But it could be causation OR correlation. Maybe an employer's or manager's past experience is that one is more likely than the other.
I don't think we're talking about a career shift where one would expect a big difference in salary. I doubt an employer hiring a recent engineering graduate is concerned about his past history making minimum wage while putting himself through school. But when an applicant would be seeing a big change in salary for a lateral change in career there are some obvious questions to be answered.
There are many reasons an employer wants to know salary history. For one, they want to know how an employee might really feel about the salary they can offer. If industry average is $85k and they can only offer $75k then a person that had been making $65 might be pretty excited while a person that had been making $95k might feel resentful and only taking it til he finds something better.
That employer might be seeking out applicants with low salary history so that they can offer below market AND find employees who will be excited and happy with their offer.Or they might be excluding applicants with low salary history because they have concerns. Maybe that person hasn't been able to make more because they aren't worth more?
Feel free to make that argument and not work for employers like that. But it could be causation OR correlation. Maybe an employer's or manager's past experience is that one is more likely than the other.
Your arguments are based around making unfounded assumptions about candidates and their history.
First, you state:
Quote:
Originally Posted by oceangaia
But when an applicant would be seeing a big change in salary for a lateral change in career there are some obvious questions to be answered.
Maybe that's why the applicant is applying to your job in the first place.
There are plenty of reasons why someone might be "underpaid" that are not bad.
Then you state:
Quote:
Originally Posted by oceangaia
There are many reasons an employer wants to know salary history. For one, they want to know how an employee might really feel about the salary they can offer. If industry average is $85k and they can only offer $75k then a person that had been making $65 might be pretty excited while a person that had been making $95k might feel resentful and only taking it til he finds something better.
Again, you're making assumptions.
People are willing to take a pay cut all the time and it doesn't mean they would be unhappy. If you provide better benefits. Or if they are in a toxic environment. Or if they are a bad fit for a job.
This can also be solved by you asking them what would they be happy with to make and for you to tell them what you have budgeted for the job.
Quote:
Originally Posted by oceangaia
That employer might be seeking out applicants with low salary history so that they can offer below market AND find employees who will be excited and happy with their offer.Or they might be excluding applicants with low salary history because they have concerns. Maybe that person hasn't been able to make more because they aren't worth more?
Someone can be happy with the offer you give them if it is less than previous.
You're also taking someone else's valuation of someone's worth as Gospel when you ask for salary history. That is taking the lazy way out. If the person is coming from a failing company, but they are OK, then why hold that against them?
Women are often paid less than their male counterparts. Basing pay on salary history continues the bias.
Do your research, find out what the market is for the position in the community, be prepared to advocate for your value to the employer.
That said the fringe benefits and working conditions listed are very generous. Consider the total picture.
The wage gap depends on the variables you look at, but using salary history as the primary indicator of skill or value is not the best thing to do.
Companies should really be looking at how much profit/cost savings a position can provide, and then decide how much people are worth according to the attributes that are important to them.
People are willing to take a pay cut all the time and it doesn't mean they would be unhappy. If you provide better benefits. Or if they are in a toxic environment. Or if they are a bad fit for a job.
This can also be solved by you asking them what would they be happy with to make and for you to tell them what you have budgeted for the job.
I'm not making assumptions, I'm posing possibilities.
While you complain that applicants are being viewed in black and white terms that doesn't consider individual circumstances, you are doing the same in viewing employers in black and white terms. Employers have their own numerous and varied reasons for asking about salary history. As I said, some seek out applicants with low salary history and some rule out applicants with low salary history. Some use it because they are concerned with applicants used to making more and some use it because they are concerned with applicants used to making less.
Employers, in fact everyone, make generalizations all the time about all kinds of things. And there are always exceptions to everything if you drill down to individual circumstances. An employer has no obligation to spend the time understanding your particular situation. An employer is probably going to invest a lot more time and effort into an applicant if they have 5 positions open and 10 applicants than if they have 2 positions open and 50 applicants. These days it tends to be closer to the latter. Not everyone who applies may get called for an interview. Snap decisions are made to whittle down the pool and those snap decisions are made on generalities that may or may not hold true for any particular individual. Like it or not, salary history is often a criteria in that. Like it or not, employers may eliminate the applicants whose history is well outside the range they have in mind.
It doesn't matter whether or not you think salary history tells you anything about an applicant's past, present, or future. Except for when you are in the other seat doing the hiring. As long as it is legal to ask, employers are free to ask about it or not, to give it a lot of weight or none. Get over it.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
