This question doesn't just hurt women - it's hurts men and women because it puts more power in salary negotiations in the employers hands. Both lose.
Further, Cain-Miller's advice to suggest at an interview to politicize the salary negotiations and low-key threatening the company is insane. You lost the job before you finished the interview.
1
A factor that should be considered in any evaluation of pay disparities is whether or not the employees being compared have changed jobs and employers with the same frequency. Someone who is employed will generally not consider a move to another position on a different career track or to a different employer unless he/she is getting a 20% pay increase. People who take the risk of moving to a new job relinquish the certainty of their current position in exchange for the possibility of a better path and higher pay.
When Ms Rizo's employer needed to hire employees, they at times had to offer higher pay than existing employees were receiving in order to attract employees.
1
"Or they could provide context for why they’re declining to share the information, by explaining that it contributes to the gender pay gap."
I'm not sure what the author is thinking here.
There are already a number of issues when it comes to hiring women: will they leave or work less time in order to raise or support children? Are they overly sensitive such that workplace/EEOC complaints become an issue, etc. Those may not be popular, but such potential costs are always taken into consideration.
Telling a prospective employer that you are willing to politicise a workplace before you have even left the interview, let alone before you have a job offer is ludicrous.
Want to contribute in your own small way to the so-called gender gap by not getting a job offer?
Follow this advice.
4
Here's what I want to know: why is it considered verboten to ask what the salary range is DURING the interview? Why do so many companies waste my time by posting the job description without listing the accompanying salary?
8
I am glad this question is discontinued. Women are still seen as support staff for men who usually get the boss post, with fewer credentials, and then delegate most of the actual work to women.
4
The larger problem is that men are hired based on their potential, while women must prove they have done this job in the past.
Age is a large issue too. Employers are not allowed to ask, but everyone’s age range is available on Google and whitepages-dot-com. Age discrimination may be more rampant now, as employers have plausible deniability on it.
1
@Anyn Moose
Women decline stretch job assignments.
I do not provide salary history until an offer is on the table. If a company refuses to make me an offer for that reason then I am certain that it was not an organization I would want to work for.
Do you think that HR would tell you what the person who previously held the position you were applying for was paid?
3
I think this is a very important topic to talk about. When I get my first job I do not want to be working just as hard as everyone else and not receive the amount of money I deserve. When I read that jobs are banning people from asking why. There is nothing wrong with asking questions about a job you are applying for.
5
@Megan Rakoczy
when you get your first job, you will not be paid the same amount as an experienced employee who receives the additional responsibility of training you. Even if you work very hard and are a quick learner, you will not be worth as much as a skilled employee.
2
I was once being hired and I counter their first offer, asking for more money. I got it. I was there for 5 years and not only did I make more the first year, but each of the following 4 years I made more money because each raise was based on the previous year's salary. That one sentence turned out to be worth thousands of dollars to me. When I went to the next job it effected that salary too. One little sentence.
PS. I'm a woman
10
@sjs And the simple answer is: don't tell prospective employers what you're currently making. Tell them what they'll need to pay you to take the job. If they make some sort of noise about needing to verify your existing salary: leave. I was at a job interview once where they wanted me to document my past salaries and sign a form that allowed them to check this with past employers... I walked out. Of course, maybe I have it easy, being in software development (always hiring) and being male. But if we, as employees, don't stand our ground on issues like this, we all lose.
4
I'm sorry, but this policy makes no sense. A candidate's current salary is critical information for an employer trying to hire that candidate. And it doesn't always work out in the favor of the higher paid candidate. The idea that it does is based on the false premise that employers make a hiring decision and THEN negotiate salary, which is almost never the case. Indeed, if two equally qualified candidates have different salary expectations, the job will usually go to the one who will work for less.
I also don't see a new law prohibiting this practice as helping anyone ... except plaintiffs lawyers. Employers will inevitably find work arounds to get the information they need. And pointless lawsuits will even more inevitably ensue.
4
@Econ101 according to your argument, each time a man and woman are equally qualified, a company should just hire the woman, since statistically she's more likely to accept a lower salary.
How about companies start posting salary ranges for their open positions? If a candidate's experience qualifies them for that position, then they are qualified for the job. What does it matter what they made at their last position? And if the company finds they aren't attracting the best of the best, well, then they aren't offering enough money.
4
@Econ101 The problem is: employers often try to get you to tell them what you're making now as a way of trying to justify a lower initial offer. Perhaps the employer should just start the discussion with: "we plan to pay this position $75,000, and if that is more than 10% higher than your current wage, we'd prefer not to hire you". That way both sides get the benefit: I know when their offer is going to be too low to begin with and can avoid the whole application process, and the company can clearly state that they aren't willing to give you a massive raise to change jobs.
1
The underlying problem is that the whole modern salary system is nonsensical. Just like stop signs and traffic lights, it is based on historical events that are largely no longer relevant.
The poster boy for this idea was Bob Nardelli, who was paid $250 million AFTER he was fired as CEO of Home Depot due to tanking the stock and profits of the company.
In general, salary is proportional to your ability to persuade. Period. Nothing else. You get as much money as you can persuade people to give you. This is so obvious, that it became the premise of Web sites, such as GoFundMe. Remember the Potato Salad Guy ? I rest my case.
2
As a woman I agree with ban the box. However, I also wish these discussions on equitable pay by gender included discussions of equitable child custody awards or child support demands. If child support were taxed to the receiver instead of the payer, there would be an incentive to pay, plenty of “single moms” would actually make more (it is income as there are no spending restrictions) and many men would ha economic a lower adjusted income. Until we tackle the gender disparity in family courts, the men supporting families disproportionately holds some weight.
5
@Daniela Agree so much it hurts. The tax burden should fall on the person receiving the support payments OR the child should be treated as the payer's dependent for tax purposes. But it's still much to common for the payer to be getting taxed on income they have no say in how it's spent AND they don't get any of the tax benefits of supporting their child(ren).
2
I was offered a position with the fed govt after being downsized from my position as a Sr. HR Manager in the private sector. The hiring manager (HR) insisted that I provide her a pay stub to prove what I was earning at my last position. I'm sure if I had "deflected" the question the offer would have been withdrawn. I hadn't inflated my salary, was asking no more than what I was making, so I readily provided it. But that should have given me a preview of what to expect.
In my previous position as a Sr. HR Manager, I handled all the recruiting, employee relations, immigration and performance mgmt for my state. I rarely needed to contact my director in for anything - that's what they were paying me for. To assess and minimize risk. But none of the leadership I reported to with the fed gov't were able to make any decisions on their own. And laws - things like Family Medical Leave (FML) and Americans with Disabilities (ADA); they had never heard of them. I often wondered why they wanted to hire someone with my background as I could really do no more than listen to employees and talk to the managers.
The most miserable time of my life. But I stayed until I was vested and left with my pension.
4
@Ann Thank you for confirming my instinct to run away, FAST, from any company that employs this tactic. If they treat you this way during hiring, just imagine how much they are going to strong-arm you once you're hired!
1
@Ann
You took the job because it offered you job security and benefits far greater than your previous private sector job, along with guaranteed step increases along with COLAs that do not exist in the private sector.
If your job consisted of talking to the employees and their managers, you were being overpaid. If you could have gotten a higher paying job with greater responsibilities in the private sector, you would have left in a minute. Instead, you elected to remain in a job that was unchallenging.
1
One little trick that companies use so they can justify paying women less is the job titles used for the same job. I was an office manager at one of the big banks in San Francisco. In another office of the bank the office manager was a man. He was called "Office Operations Officer" and paid more than I was.
The biggest problem for women is the old attitude that men support families and women are working for "pin money." Anyone who thinks that is totally divorced from reality.
5
@Carole A. Dunn
How is it that you know he was paid more than you? Is it an assumption on your part? And how do you know that he had the same job responsibilities as you?
There is no doubt in my mind that there are pay disparities in the workplace. I worked for 22 years as an accountant, and for the first few years had enough data to infer how much others were being paid, and later had access to the full payroll data for the people in my area of responsibility.
Similar job titles are not the same thing as similar job responsibilities. Newly hired experienced employees get paid more than incumbents with the same job title, but are more likely to get fired rather than transferred if they are unsuccessful. For start up and troubled organizations, change agents are sometimes induced to take risky assignments for higher pay and the likelihood of future advancement.
I've been self-employed for decades, but the last time I worked for en employer, I found through the sheerest chance that a man who had 5 years less experience than I did was being paid $5000 more per year than I was.
That was the last time I worked for an employer. What employers do to women is the same things screwdrivers do, but without the benefit of intercourse.
3
This entire topic angers me on so many levels. How many different ways can women be discriminated against, kept down, short-changed, cheated, and disrespected? What's really infuriating are the women who knowingly and actively engage is screwing over other women and rationalize it via any number of lame excuses. It isn't necessary to cite chapter and verse. We all know already.
6
My job straight out of undergrad was a research coordinator role at a rigorous academic institution. I left after finding out that the man hired to replace my female coworker had received a starting offer that was more than what my coworker or I made after two years. The office where I worked consisted of 4 women, and no female ever received a raise commensurate with new job responsibilities and ever increasing research demands. My coworkers asked how he discussed salary with our supervisors, and his responses were not any different from my own or from the other women in the office. We were all upset about the pay gap, and he felt immensely guilty for a decision that he didn't consciously participate in.
I had questioned my supervisor about this pay discrepancy. She not only stated that it was because he had undergraduate research experience (something all five of us had). I was told I was petty for even making the comparison. When I petitioned to have my pay increased, I was denied. "There isn't any money for that." When I tried to transfer to another lab, I was told "You have too much experience with our project to start all over again".
Now, I truly believe that the gender pay gap is exacerbated by the naïveté of college graduates, being taken advantage of those with hiring power. I wish I had more foresight, knowledge and training available to me when I left undergrad, instead of blindly believing that the workplace would be just in hiring and rewarding hard work.
18
"The salary information helps them avoid interviewing people who would cost too much, they say. It can also help them avoid overpaying people whom they could hire for less, and it’s a way to find out how much previous employers thought applicants were worth."
"avoid overpaying people whom they could hire for less" In other words a woman.
"a way to find out how much previous employers thought applicants were worth" In which case they could consult the bureau of labor statistics.
As a man, I desperately want this gap filled. If there is ever an adequate supply of women to fill certain jobs, and they are uniformly paid less, then no company focused on the bottom line would ever hire another man to fill this type of position.
6
@Surfer Dude Real nice. If there's a way to keep women down, you're in favor, huh?
@Lydia Sugarman
You've misunderstood what Surfer Dude is saying. He's not in favor of keeping women down at all. Quite the reverse in fact. His point is that if we allow companies the means to justify paying us less, that it hurts men as well as women. Surfer Dude is making the point that if companies can hire women for less than men that they will, and this will lead to lower wages for everybody, AND that men will find it much harder to find good jobs if companies prefer hiring women.
1
@Surfer Dude
While your concern is logical, pay discrimination is more based on irrational prejudice than logic. It stems from a deep-seated belief that men are always more valuable, more deserving of respect, and more important and desirable employees than women. So they pay women less for the same work and even for higher or better work AND at the same time, they would prefer to have a man in the job even if they had to pay him more money.
Moreover, their ability to rationalize their irrational behavior is almost unlimited. So surfer dude, while pay discrimination insures you will almost always be paid more, it also ensures ironically that they'll prefer to hire you too.
2
When asked for salary history always answer with what you want to be paid to be happy with the new job. When given an offer,s always ask for a little more; there's a range and the initial offer is never at the top end.
8
@Mr Rogers Some employers don't just ask what you're making, they DEMAND to see a paycheck or some other verification that you've told them your previous salary. It's strong-arm tactic to do to incoming employees what they do to internal employees looking for promotions (where there are usually strict rules about how much your pay can increase if you change jobs internally).
1
35 years ago,in Los Angeles, I interviewed with and was hired by a theater company to manage a 14 theater complex in a West Hollywood shopping center. When offered the job I was asked what was the least amount of money I would accept. I said "If I tell you that then that's what you'll pay me. The least I will accept is the most I can get you to pay me." That worked really well and I started out at $35,000 a year. At that time, that was a good salary. Never let yourself be cheated in a job interview. The initial salary is quite important in your tenure with any company. I could have waited three years for my salary to reach what I started at had I not been afraid to stand firm.
6
But wait !
You don't have to tell the truth.
3
@Heckler mostly true, but I've actually had jobs ask me for past pay stubs, so you don't want to be caught in a lie...
1
It’s so uncalled for! I’ll never forget, years ago, when I was a single parent. They hired a guy to work for me. And paid him more because “he had a family to support”. We have not come very far!
12
25 years ago, four years in to my job, I had a similar experience of learning through a conversation that a male colleague doing the same job was being paid 25% more than I was. I was undone. He was one of those back slapping guys with no substance and no seat on any of the special projects to which I'd been assigned....which were very time-consuming and not at all what I had been hired to do. I enjoyed them....but the workload amplified my sense of injustice.
I went to my boss with whom I had a great relationship and spoke to him about it. It did not go well. I told him I'd like to talk to his boss. I still remember him putting his index finger in my chest and telling me I would regret it.
I made my case. The first defense was exactly what this article is about: "Well, he negotiated a better package when he came here. He made more than you did at his prior company." WHAT? At 29 I was supposed to have been a master at negotiation when hired and because I wasn't, I would suffer this disparity the rest of my career? I asked how he would feel if his adolescent daughter was working as I was when she was 33....and her lackluster male co-worker was making 25% more than she was? He listened and I knew things had changed.
I promptly received a very significant one-time raise, to adjust the playing field. And that is why I am still at this company 25 years later.
20
I live in California which has banned the salary history question. Unfortunately, employers have replaced it with "what is your salary expectation?". If women base their expectation on their current/past salary (because they don't know what the going rate should be for the job) than the discrimination continues. The other problem I see is age discrimination, if you are highly experienced (code for "old"), employers decide that you will be highly compensated and therefore not affordable. If you answer the "expectation" question with too high a number, you are immediately eliminated. To eliminate age and gender discrimination, employers should be upfront about the range for the position (which should be based on the market rate for the job).
12
Always ask what range is being offered. It is usually proscribed by the job title.
If the range is not suitable for you, ask them to change the title t one where the range is more to your liking- higher, that is.
If they refuse, be ready to walk away....your only real option at that point.
If you are really the one they want, they will come back with a better offer.
There are always other "buckets of money" available for the right person.( like certain sold out hotels that always hold back a few rooms for VIP's)
If they do not meet your needs, move on. It is the wrong place for you.
11
@ZEMAN I would tend to agree with this. At my current position, I'm paid a variety of different rates for different kinds of work(I have an Excel workbook with 12 different sheets to lay them all out, in fact), but there was one that was negotiated simply because my boss told me what she was paying and I came back with, "My old firm paid me more for that" and gave her the number. She matched it without question. It falls to the prospective employee to know 1) what the standard pay is for the job they are applying for(and there are plenty of websites that will tell you this for many different companies and jobs) and 2) what the individual knows personally that their skills and education are worth. Mind you, #2 is easier for someone in a profession, like myself, because I've specialized to some extent in order to make myself more valuable and it's paid off. If you're applying for a service-industry job or something more generalized, however, #1 still applies. If the company makes it clear in the interview that they won't respect you for your talent and skill, it would be wasted on them anyway.
3
This may have been said, but why not just "lie"? Do new employers really ask old ones how much they paid? That's competitive info...
1
The very best answer to any question about salary is "At this stage of my career, I am interested in the opportunity, compensation is a secondary
consideration."
4
@MJRJ I always have replied, "I want to be paid comensurate, or more, with others in this position at your firm. I would be upset and quit to find out that I am paid less." -
5
@MJRJ If you are in an area that still allows this question, employers can verify your salary (and some have asked for pay stubs). If they find you have lied about anything on your application (including pay), they can rescind the employment offer.
5
I prefer the meritocracy approach, pay based on what an individual produces and how they fit the requirements a position's definition dictates.
Also, it has become increasing logical in manufacturing enterprises to study how much or how many of your processes can be supplied outside of the company by contract operations. What those suppliers pay their people is not our interest only the quality of what they provide and the price they charge us. Of course, "sweat shop" conditions can't be tolerated.
It's a competitive world. I'd love for everyone to make top dollar, but the end determiner of wages and salaries paid is the customer who supplies what's charged by the price of the product. So, it's the marketplace that dictates wages. The corporate executive carries the burden of filling each component of the equation so that the end result is a profit.
@Polemic
“I prefer the meritocracy approach...”
This only works AFTER someone gets hired at a wage commensurate with experience. Or, do you expect someone to work gratis until they demonstrate what wage they Merit?
“What those suppliers pay their people is not our interest only the quality of what they provide and the price they charge us. Of course, "sweat shop" conditions can't be tolerated.“
The justification used by too many American companies to outsource jobs to other countries. Do you send inspectors to make sure “sweat shop” conditions don’t exist?
9
Another problem with the salary history: When I started my software career in the 1960s, the general rule was that every job you took paid 15% more than the last one, to compensate you for the inconvenience of moving. The resulting mindless churn made U.S. industry less efficient.
4
I’m my own mini rebellion, for the last ten years as a medical professional, I’ve put 000000 to negate the obligatory response on automated applications. I do contract work in the hospitals, with multiple jobs at once, so I’ve been through the hiring process many times. To date, refusing to provide this data has never preventing me from getting the job! I think it’s none of their business.
20
The first thing I alway ask is, how much does your best person make? Right there it establishes what I think of myself and how much I want to make.
18
On job applications that require a number like that, I've always just put the minimum I would consider accepting regardless of what my history was.
7
Give a range for the position up front.
3
States are free to ban whatever processes they like, however silly the proposal or specious the rationale.
But this sort of discussion assumes that women are fools, utterly lacking in agency.
If someone offers you a job at a particular wage, and you say "yes", you have no cause to complain. If you want more, ask for it. If you don't, it's not your employer's fault.
The "wage gap" is a leftist myth, because you cannot compare groups; you can only compare individuals. People in a given group may make different life choices or pursue different interests. It's just plain stupid to try and "fix" something which is not broken.
In short, if you want more money, ask for it. If you don't, you have no right to whine.
7
@Michael
You wrote, “The "wage gap" is a leftist myth, because you cannot compare groups; you can only compare individuals.”
The wage gap is established fact based upon decades of research.
You lost your argument when you used biased language to support a baseless claim.
25
"You cannot compare groups, you can only compare individuals,"
Literally all scientific evidence for every discovery is based on comparing groups to one another. It's the definition of data analysis.
If we're just talking people: this is basis for multiple fields of study, including medical research. If your statement were true, we'd have no known treatments available - we'd be going in completely blind with every patient. If you can't compare groups (of people), does that mean we can't compare, say, cancer patients to non-cancer patients? Or infants to adults? Women to men in any way?
I'll assume you mean group differences in individual behaviour cause the observed disparity. This is partly true, but why this difference exists is itself a problem. Did women choose to be raised under different social conditions causing different adult behaviour and thus deserve to suffer for it?
Even if we assume biological differences cause women and men to have different interests and behaviour, why does it make sense that the different interests of one sex should mean they deserve a harder life than the other?
Most policy exists to try to achieve some semblance of fairness (e.g. bans on murder), so most agree there's an issue when this isn't so. And the result is unfair: the rate of poverty is considerably higher in women than men.
Regardless of what explanation you think is behind it, it's certainly real and unjust, so as a society we should still find ways to eliminate it.
9
@BMUS
No, I'm afraid anyone who thinks comparing the wages of groups of people who have different jobs, different levels of experience, and who work a different number of hours each week and concludes that different wages between those groups is a function of discrimination is an economic illiterate. (That's where the 70 cents on the dollar tripe comes from.) The wage gap myth has been debunked over and over. One example: https://www.forbes.com/sites/avivahwittenbergcox/2018/09/23/gender-paygap-uber-case-study/
The salary question typically comes prior to the interview in the online application where it is a required field. In many cases an applicant will not be allowed to apply for the job if they do not complete this field. The field will only take numeric characters so you cannot enter “commensurate” or something like that. Also they do not allow a range entry.
6
@SueR. This is a big complaint even in states that ban the history question. They ask for expectations instead and many older workers fear age discrimination if they enter a high number. The advice I hear given most often is to enter the lowest number the form will allow. That may be $1 or $100. The employer will know that is a bogus answer, but you will pass through the algorithm that screens out applicants and they will be forced to ask you that in person.
2
How to fix salary inequity? Publish everyone's salary. Everyplace I've worked the employees knew who was pulling their weight and who was not, and also who the superstar performers were. HR Departments tend to do what's easy for them or what will make them look good. Let their decisions be known by all and let them live with it.
15
After decades of affirmative action hiring quotas discriminating against ME -a white straight male tradesman- and now with metoo witch hunts destroying men's careers over unproven allegations, I REFUSE to cooperate in any way with gender integration initiatives and am encouraging men's rights movements to boycott or class action lawsuit against all companies and public service sectors which violate our constitutional right to NOT be discriminated against in the workplace.
4
@barry
Sounds like a recipe for hiring a non-contributing, thin-skinned troublemaker.
26
@barry Men rights movements are oxymoronic, because men never lost their rights to begin with. >_> If you are discriminated against do your own class lawsuit. Simple as that.
18
@barry Impressive decision, you're fighting for equality by not cooperating with equality initiatives. Perhaps that type of irrational decision-making is what leads you to your feelings of being overlooked/discriminated against?
25
My company has about 40 people. We are in the tech business, quite innovative in our industry, ~40% female (quite unusual in our industry), and women happen to serve as both our senior tester and senior developer roles (with the top salaries one would expect in those roles) .
It is our policy when hiring to match a candidate's prior salary and do a review in 90 days to match the value we think they bring. If you're already making more than we believe you will be worth in 90 days then you will not get an offer. Salary history is a critical piece of information for us and if a candidate refuses to provide it they simply won't be considered. Trying to ban such questions is absurd.
@Ben Scherrey So why not simply state the salary range you would be willing to pay? People choose to change jobs for a variety of reasons. Money is only one of them. Boxing out folks from the start based on your theory than money is the sole motivating factor seems counter to building a diverse work force. And I'm saying diverse from the standpoint of work experience.
22
@Ben Scherrey Your company's policy of only matching prior salary, and not considering those who don't provide that information, must result in you overlooking a lot of really skilled and experienced candidates. If a propective employer is not willing to provide a salary range for the position, why should I share my current salary? One major reason for candidates to seek new opportunities is to increase their salary commiserate with additional experience learned on the job. That doesn't always happen unless new opportunities are sought with new employers. Apparently you don't even consider those candidates.
25
@Ben Scherrey "If you're already making more than we believe you will be worth in 90 days then you will not get an offer." Very short-sighted.
2
Ah, yes, the tender trap. What a clever ploy. The system is full of them.
1
My gripe is that they aren't allowed to ask your age but then they ask for the year you graduated from High School. I had a college degree. Why do they ask about High School except to find out how old you are.
39
SEC. 206. [Section 6]
(d) Prohibition of sex discrimination
(1) No employer having employees subject to any provisions of this section shall discriminate, within any establishment in which such employees are employed, between employees on the basis of sex by paying wages to employees in such establishment at a rate less than the rate at which he pays wages to employees of the opposite sex in such establishment for equal work on jobs the performance of which requires equal skill, effort, and responsibility, and which are performed under similar working conditions, except where such payment is made pursuant to (i) a seniority system; (ii) a merit system; (iii) a system which measures earnings by quantity or quality of production; or (iv) a differential based on any other factor other than sex: Provided, That an employer who is paying a wage rate differential in violation of this subsection shall not, in order to comply with the provisions of this subsection, reduce the wage rate of any employee.
Sorry it's a federal law about pay, what you people want are pay for similar/skilled jobs. And you talk about the Russians interfering!
3
This is such an old story. In the sixties, women were told that they didn't deserve as much as men because men were married and had families to support!
19
@Oxford96
I was told that in the early 1990's!
8
One day we will interview people behind screens with voice synthesizers, with names and other pertinent info redacted from the resume's.
These laws are probably a good thing, but the reason the lead story woman was paid less, was in all likelihood because she did not ask for more in her first jobs. So, the daisy chain of lower pay kept going.
It was not gender bias. It was the result of the well established fact that women are often not as good negotiators as men.
Yeah, no such thing as sexism. It's always simply a matter of women not being as good, in one way or another, as men.
13
@Jus' Me, NYT
Well established? There have also been studies on how when women negotiated as the men did, they were penalized for not knowing their place and being aggressive.
15
@Jus' Me, NYT
"It was the result of the well established fact that women are often not as good negotiators as men."
Wow... it appears that old dum-dum wound is acting up again. Gets dark early in Round Rock, huh?
3
"I always evaluate a position based on the total package - base compensation, bonus, benefits, the specifics of the role, upside potential, etc. This is difficult to quantify that as there are many levers to pull in creating an outcome that would meet my needs. So, I prefer to see an interview process all the way through and gather as many facts about the position before making a final decision. Maybe I love what the job has to offer and am willing to take a slight base cut, or maybe you see what I bring to the position as being more than initially sought out and you want to offer me more than originally budgeted. I'd rather collect facts than work off of some potentially irrelevant benchmark." Anyone who fights you that hard on this is probably not someone who is going to value you in the long-run, but if you're backed into a corner Glassdoor is great and then you inflate a bit and reiterate that you look at the full offering.
4
It would seem reasonable to require that potential employers must disclose what previous holders of the job, and current holders of comparable jobs, are paid at their company, before being authorised to ask what applicants earned in their previous jobs at other companies. Tit for tat.
27
Around 25 years ago when I was looking to move to my 2nd job after college, I had an opportunity to interview with a fantastic company. When it came to salary question, instead of saying what I earned, I told them what I would need to be offered in order for me to take the job. The company worked to meet my salary request, which was a significant increase from my then current job. I accepted their offer. Subsequently, I have made various requests to increase my pay with superiors, AFTER having performed above and beyond their expectations (always with the notion that if they did not follow through I would leave). I've had great luck increasing my pay and worked for the firm for over 15 years. If you are worth your pay, you should ask for it.
I am a female.
14
@Leon
As Charles Aznavour used to sing, "You've got to learn to leave the table, when love's no longer being served."
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N7PvHAzOr8w
This lesson--willingness to leave--cuts through all walks of life.
3
Great strategy, IF you have outside options. Not everyone has them, due to geographic and family constraints on mobility.
9
@Leon I am also a woman, and this is also my strategy. It's been successful enough for me that I mentor women I work with on how to ask for more.
The one job I was willing to take a pay cut to get wound up matching the job I was leaving.
The gender pay gap isn't solely negotiation, but negotiation often needs to be taught. I hope you are mentoring, too.
12
Banning the box would be great for many especially woman.As far as it backfiring, nothing is perfect.It already backfires for many. I had worked in London during the time when the dollar was worth half as much. When I moved back all I would hear is "oh no that is too much money for this position" . Now mind you I was doing a career change so I would have accepted less salary then before. So Making too much hurt me. I then accepted a position that was 20k less then I previously made and later could not make that money up since all I heard Well you only made 42K We need someone at the 75K level. Nice. Now mind you I had more experience that was required for the position. It took a stroke of luck returning to my british company that had set salary bands for each position to bring back my salary level.With everything being electronic you can't get away with putting a range like 50-60K
4
On the topic of salary, how does a recruiter get paid? Do they pocket the difference? If a job is advertised at 50K is it really more then 50K and they keep it for themselves?
@Hilliard
No, recruiters do NOT pick up the difference between the accepted salary and a max salary cap. They are paid based on yield ratios for numbers hired and the anticipated
quality of those hired.
3
I interviewed some years ago at a payroll company who was literally insistent on my past salary being revealed. This was for an IT position and the HR rep was "I need this information or we're done right now".
Oh and their pay was about half the market rate so me not being there turned out ok. I had used the usual give me your range for the position instead and as I note they were absolutely adamant on me providing salary information. (this was an interview where I felt like it was 1970 with the questions I was asked)
10
I think this is a good idea. I recently accepted a new position in Massachusetts. It was nice not to worry about having my benefits pegged to my last position. This was a step up so why would my previous position matter.
That said I'm well aware I'm benefitting from a law that was passed to help women. But a rising tide lifts all boats I guess. As they say.
16
I worked at Northern Telecom in Ottawa in the late 70s. What we learned within our tech group was that everyone who was not a manager was paid according to their age (we all had STEM degrees). I had 8 years experience and a BS, while a woman colleague the same age with 3 years and a PhD earned the same. The only way to get more than a common annual bump was to be promoted.
Clearly that avoided the gender pay gap but eliminated any merit-based pay.
4
I'm retired now, but I wish I had known how this question could affect me when I was still working. It never occurred to me that my past salary would be used to discriminate against me. (But, I grew up in a time when it was ok for employers to ask women if they were married and whether they intended to start a family. I always felt my privacy was violated by those questions, and when I asked my husband if his employer ever asked him, he said no.) The advice at the time was to leave the prior salary question blank on an application, or say negotiable, but it was still asked in an interview. I usually lied anyway and said my previous salary was higher than it actually was. I'm glad employers are not allowed to use that information to continue the unfair treatment of women in the workplace.
12
@Ms. Pea if you had applied to my company and lied it would have been discovered eventually and you'd been fired for cause. Lying is always a bad idea.
2
@Ben Scherrey
Nah, you can always say it was a typo or you misunderstood the question or your memory failed. In my experience of nearly thirty years, nobody ever checked, and most still don't. The employer is not your buddy or your "family," but your adversary.
8
@Ben Scherrey Employers lie in order to hire the best person at the cheapest price (e.g., we can only pay you X, take it or leave it), so why shouldn't prospective employees? The whole system is broken anyway.
This can work the other way. A high previous salary can spook an employer who thinks you'd be taking the job just as a placeholder.
8
There is no gender pay gap for a very large number of public positions. In private work places, one will generally receive something commensurate with one's value to the operations at least when salary is negotiable.
Now there is another factor in the work place when we discuss 'equal pay, equal work'. it is not that simple. The formula so to speak must also include 'value to the organization'. Statistically, females spend -- for whatever reasons -- fewer years hitched to a company than males. Since some positions can be valued by experience and company attachment -- people with that sort of dedication can be seen as more valuable -- even when less effective.
Simply put -- men are more easily attached to a company for the long haul. And can therefore be more valuable, statistically.
There is another factor. Most companies are started & owned by men. It is natural for people to prefer their own gender in hiring and advancing. If balance is desired, it can easily be achieved by women starting and running corporations.
2
@Feldman
" It is natural for people to prefer their own gender in hiring and advancing. "
- I'm guessing it is also natural for people to prefer their own race in hiring and advancing?
29
Feldman writes:
“It is natural for people to prefer their own gender in hiring and advancing”.
Just because it might be “natural” doesn’t mean that it ought to be legal. This sort of tribalism is the reason for a great deal of the sexism and racism that have marginalized women and minorities for centuries. There’s no reason that people have to be allowed to behave this way.
And adults are supposed to be able to use their brains to rise above their ugliest urges!
14
@Feldman Have you ever done research into capital access discrimination faced by female/minority business founders? If/when you do, it will inform your magic wand opinion.
11
I mentor younger professionals as my way to pay it forward. When asked for their salary, I advise them to simply state "my employer considers salary company proprietary information. I signed a non-disclosure agreement when they hired me. I cannot reveal my salary without violating this agreement. I assume that you would expect me to do the same at your company."
27
I think that’s a terrible attitude. More and more I’m convinced that all forms of confidentiality agreements should be outlawed. They fly in the face of a free and open democracy!
@Marko What do you recommend when you are still in the initial stage of filling out an e-application that has salary as a required field which many of them do.
1
@hilliard I enter $1.00
1
"It can also help them avoid overpaying people whom they could hire for less, and it’s a way to find out how much previous employers thought applicants were worth."
Those *objections* are the whole point. It's a way to keep people who have been underpaid in the past, continue to be underpaid forever.
36
Well, this is very helpful. Instead of waiting for legislation though, I'll take the law into my own hands. I'm going to do what many men do - lie about my prior salary and current skill set.
22
@Ann
Exactly what a previous coworker did. She "accidentally" inflated her past salary, voi la, she got a huge pay bump at the new job.
6
As a woman that has been searching for a job for 4 1/2 years, I have a lot to say about how candidates are considered. I always dread the salary question in interviews the most, whether posed as what I am (or was) making, or what my expectations are.
When I consider what I would like to be paid, what I expect to be paid based on my training, experience, geographic location and employment history, what I'm willing to take to stay in the running for the position, and what I expect this particular position with this particular company to pay - I come up with 4 completely different totals. I always turn the question back on the interviewer to find the salary range for the position before giving any numbers.
That said, my current entry level Administrative Assistant salary has nothing to do with the senior level Graphic Design position I am applying for.
20
I worked in public sector and non-profit sector jobs as a social worker and a counselor. I stopped giving my salary history early on. That resulted in a 33% pay raise from one job to the next in the mid-to-late 80s.
I also negotiated day one health benefits at every job when the standard waiting period was six months. The trick is to wait until the job is offered, then negotiate salary, then benefits.
We women have to stand up for ourselves.
38
@Barbara All people must stand up for themselves..
1
@Barbara As a single mom, I always negotiated for flex hours; my employers were leery at first, but came to realize how much more productive it made me.
7
In the 80’s I was a young female engineer making about $13,000 annually, and it was lower than male engineers. During a new job interview, I refused to disclose my salary or what pay to request, I was ashamed. They offered $18,000 which was the going rate. I was shoked and accepted.
20
Lie!!!!
Duh.
That's what men do.
We lie about your previous salary.
Then, we brazenly and confidently ask for MORE than we think they'll pay us.
They know you're lying.
And, they're lying, too.
They'll offer you a little less than your BRAZEN request and you'll end up with a nice bump in salary.
It's called negotiating( aka lying).
Wake up and smell the coffee.
It's YOUR responsibility to negotiate effectively for your your salary and for anything else you buy or sell in life.
Or, are you the sucker who pays full sticker price on the car and also cover the 7000 dollar "paperwork fee"?
8
@Chris Except when they ask for the pay stub.
10
@Chris good advice but why the punishing tone?
15
@Chris Men forced women out of the public sphere for so long that men were able to shape norms in business. Given men's overall lack of integrity, it doesn't surprise me that so much lying is involved. Women shouldn't need to lower themselves to men's level to compete.
18
Guys, this is extremely shameful! Questioning a potential employee about his/her former salary (and marital status as well) should be outlawed across the U.S. Remember: you must pretend to be in sync with the 21st Century! Just to keep up with the Joneses, the Europeans, whose food and architecture ya'all love.
And by the way, what does Ivanka have to say related to this issue? NYT should go and interview her...
3
@sor perdida
We’re not “guys”
1
@@Babs
Uh, Babs, yes you are. I've seen and heard it in too many meeting rooms including those with all female attendees and on beaches when groups of people (again, sometimes all female) gather for photos, etc. from Brides to her bridesmaids: "I love you guys!" The word 'guys' has entered the lexicon to mean everyone, male or female, transgender and all and this tiny little offense that some women keep trying to 'correct' always comes across as a thinly veiled signal of irritability and it's just this sort of thing that will rub interviewers and potential bosses the wrong way. Now maybe you got them in your pocket, they've met the wage you insisted upon, rolled out the health benefits and generous vacation package, but if you're not going to nit pick on gender neutral pronouns, they're going to start worrying whether or not they made a mistake. Please don't give men another reason to pass on hiring women besides those who are worried sick about false accusations of sexual harassment.
3
@A. Xak
I think "you guys" as a generic informal second person plural (like vous, vosotros) is, or at least was, a Midwestern thing.
It's like "y'all" in Southern or "youse" in Northeastern vernacular.
I have no sympathy for the argument that an employer risks "wasting time" or whatever considering an applicant it can't afford. You can readily handle this by writing a decent description of the job you want filled and, by providing the salary range early in the discussion. If you are afraid to do this, you are obviously hiding facts from your current payroll and applicants who are sincerely trying to figure out if your pay scale is a match for them. Lose-lose is the result.
38
So, I moved from a small Indiana city to Chicago where my husband just got a new position. I was a Comptroller for a non-profit. When I went to talk to employment agencies to just to see what was out there with my experience I was told that I could only expect to make what my last job paid. I told them that 1) it was a non-profit employer, 2) it was in a smaller, extremely smaller market, and 3) the cost of living was much lower than Chicago. Plus, wouldn't I be making what the position offered? They couldn't believe that I gave them an argument like I came from some podunk place and I should be grateful for whatever they had. The never called me with any positions and I told everyone I knew to never use them. I eventually found what I needed without their or any agency's help. My husband on the other hand started his new job $30,000 over his last.
20
Employers also perpetuate past wage gaps by asking what salary a candidate expects. Applicants who have earned less in the past generally ask for lower compensation. And we know that these are women and other minorities.
19
@Sue Haycox I always overinflate what I expect knowing they will negotiate down. Use Glassdoor to find out what their current employees are getting. I find this site extremely useful.
8
I found out I made $35,000 less than my colleagues -- including several colleagues who had the exact same degree from the exact same school with the same years of experience -- because I had worked at a nonprofit first and they were hired directly from campus. When I brought this up to my manager, instead of correcting the gap, I got in trouble for talking about salaries with my coworkers (which is legally protected, but employers don't care). I ended up having to jump to a new company. They lost a good employee and ended up paying my replacement what I was asking for anyway.
When I was searching for a new job, many recruiters and employers were offended and angry when I refused to share my salary history, and I lost out on some opportunities. I strongly support these new laws -- they're great for diversity, not just of gender, but for people who have unusual job histories because of medical issues, caring for children or elderly parents, disabilities, less privileged upbringings, or just following their low-paid passion.
91
@Lisa
Sharing income information also happens in oblique ways. Once I was sitting at the lunch table with my colleagues when they started talking about their FICA raise. It didn't occur to any of them that there might be someone at the table who wasn't getting such a raise. This was is in November. I had to ask what they meant. From there it was simple math to determine that they were making significantly more than me.
I am a software engineer as is a male buddy I worked with 2 years ago. I have more education and more experience, yet found out he was making $100,000 more than me for the same role. This inspired me to get an executive position in a better company. To further positive change for both women and employers, I mentor and counsel women to know their worth.
58
Public sector jobs do not pay as much, but salary schedules are published. You can negotiate where you start. It used to be that every new place would try to start you at zero as though the past didn't exist, but this was legally stopped. Public or private, I think the salaries at all companies should be public. It's wrong that women and men should make different salaries based on gender, period. It would also be helpful to workers to see how much administration makes so that unions can bargain on their behalf. Too many robber barons, starting at the top.
23
"Some business leaders have objected to salary history bans. The salary information helps them avoid interviewing people who would cost too much, they say. It can also help them avoid overpaying people whom they could hire for less, and it’s a way to find out how much previous employers thought applicants were worth."
These are bogus claims.
"Cost too much"? This can be avoided by stating a salary range before interviewing.
"Overpaying"? Try researching average salaries on the internet.
As for finding out "how much previous employers thought applicants were worth", that goes straight to perpetuating the gender pay gap, as women are paid less.
24
I ALWAYS found this to be an offensive, ridiculous question. Aren't I changing jobs to try to get more money? If new employer feels the job is worth $75K a year and I was making $50K, why does that matter? They have $75K budgeted. I went through this my entire career. Regardless of being male, it is wrong and always was wrong.
46
In Germany, they found a good solution to a similar problem. Employers would ask female applicants about their plans to have families in hopes of hiring only people who would not take leave to care for children. The solution to this discrimination: Employers may not ask this question. If they do anyway, the applicant is legally allowed to lie. Asking this question becomes useless.
22
Years ago, when I was a single parent, the company I worked for hired a guy to work for me. He got paid more. The reason: “He has a family to support.” Every time I dare to think that we are past that, another incredible, unbelievable story appears. When will we ever be past that?
44
@JR
The same thing happened to me in the early 1990's, which set the pay scale for my career. I want reparations!
19
@JR, I remember in the 1980s it was a common belief that men deserved higher pay because they were the family breadwinners, while women were just working for "extra" money. In other words, men had serious responsibilities, but women were not serious employees. I had one employer tell me that he never hired young women, because they would just get married and follow their husbands elsewhere.
The situation has improved somewhat, but gender and racial biases remain. I too was a single parent with sole responsibility for supporting my two young children. The solution sociologists used to push for single-parent households was for women to marry, not for employers to pay more. Although I earned a middle class salary (not as much as male colleagues) I found it amusing that society still did not think of women as serious breadwinners.
11
It should be illegal for prospective employers to inquire about a a job applicant's pervious pay because it is absolutely not their damn business. Further it should be illegal to inquire about some felonies. Instead of, "Have you ever been convicted of felony/crime?" The wording should be changed to have you ever been convicted of any of these felonies. Rape, Child Molestation, Kidnaping......etc. In other words be specific. If a person serves their sentence for particular crimes should they be stigmatized for life? I don't profess to know what crimes should be included but those of willful, vicious moral depravity speak more to a mental illness. That may continue to pose a public danger and caution.
2
It is ironic that you finish your explanation of why it is inappropriate and biased to reject people on the basis of criminal acts and then continue with a bias against those who have mental illness. And really, if your thesis is that the "bad" crimes are based in mental illness, which is something people cannot control and are not responsible for getting, does that mean that the less bad crimes are committed with intention and free will - and if so, doesn't that make them more culpable and less appealing as employees?
10
I have one word for all of this: GLASSDOOR. You can look up salaries for free but it only works if people are willing to add their salary information. DO IT NOW.
When applying for my current job, I had "the nerve" to ask for a a couple of thousand more than what was originally offered to me only to find out from the GUY who had the job before me that I should've asked for five thousand more. Thing is, when I submitted my request for additional pay, the FEMALE HR person who knew my previous salary quipped, "In all my years, I've never seen a pay raise this large," to which I quickly replied, "It shouldn't matter, I've always been underpaid." In retrospect, I'm lucky I got the job. (I truly believe it was nothing but prayer that pushed that through!)
14
@kidsaregreat Glassdoor is a great resource, but it's often out of date. Make sure you are also asking everyone in your network, especially men, what they make -- once we start speaking openly about our salaries, only then can we make real change!
7
To level the playing fields, companies should be required to list the salary range and then negotiate a salary commensurate with the applicant's experience/training. Companies know that in general they have the upper hand and count on applicants 'lowballing' themselves to remain under consideration.
If you’re in a state/city where employers can ask your salary, don't be afraid, you are interviewing for a new position, and your salary should be determined by pay range for that job. If you can show you have the required skills you should be paid what the job is worth. DO your research and know your go/no-go number when you walk in.
If you don't want to do a salary research, and just want a job, any job, you should still know how much you need to live. I had an student who accepted the first offer she got, and had to quit because the pay was low & and the hours didn't allow her to get a second job (she ended up with 2 part-time jobs)
11
The biggest winners in this are not women. It's headhunters, who will now have to function, for a hefty commission, as the third party negotiating salaries between the employer and the employee. The salary history is absolutely vital for gauging the level of experience of a candidate. Job titles and responsibilities may vary from company to company, but salaries are an absolute, objective reference point in the screening process.
4
@Ed, please explain why a salary history is vital for gauging the level of experience. That doesn't make sense. Every resume should include a detailed history of the applicant's experience (not just job titles), and the employer works from that history. The salary history adds nothing. It's simply a way to perpetuate discrimination by lowballing those who have worked for less.
The big winners are women and all those who are traditionally paid less than they're worth.
12
@Ed Salaries are in no way objective.
8
Since women are paid less for taking off from work to have a baby AND since we are seeing a decreased birth rate over the past two years and that rate not increasing--why don’t we pay women INCREASED pay for the time spent having a baby including pre and post natal care.
It’s a win-win for women. Besides it is markedly discriminatory for women to be docked pay as she is the one suffering the discomfort of pregnancy, downright pain of labor and delivery, then suffering nearly zero sleep being the usual stay at home and primary care giver.
We MUST go back to taxing corporations a higher rate and REALLY increasing the marginal tax rate of income to pay for nationalized child care and universal pre-K.
It’s time to get serious about increasing minimum wage to a livng wage...not one where a person needs food stamps, WIC, etc to make ends meet.
15
@Nuschler, I don't agree with paying women more because they take time off for a baby--that just makes it less likely that they'll be hired in the first place. But I do believe the U.S. should have a paid FAMILY LEAVE policy that allows both men and women to take time off to care for a new baby (or sick family member). My son-in-law recently took paid family leave to care for his newborn daughter.
8
@Nuschler It's a win-win for women who are having children. It's rather a rip off for the rest of us, though, isn't it? Where are our handouts?
2
@Terrils
When the birthrate falls to a point where there is not a large enough population to support Social Security and Medicare or enough people to take care of you in your old age, you will have changed your outlook. In this day and age, many women who decide not to get married or not to have children do so because it would be insane to take such a risk. Not only do they go thru pregnancy, up at night, do the greater percentage of raising the child, they take less pay, have to pay outrageous sums for day care and have a %50 chance of being a single parent. I do not call that a win win situation.
7
One point the article didn't raise. Potential employers have the right to call previous employers to confirm that your resume does not qualify for a short fiction award. There are restrictions. They cannot ask about the quality of your work, reviews, accomplishments, etc., lest someone who has a grudge can ruin a person's chances. They are, however, allowed to verify: job title, dates of employment, reason person left or was let go, and SALARY.
Knowing that they can verify salary is a strong motivation for candidates telling the truth at interviews about their previous salary, instead of giving themselves the raise they always wanted...
If the legislation recommended in the article goes through, the HR people at a prospective employer can still call the previous employer and learn the last salary, so it would be moot (or "mute," as one highly paid vice president at my previous employer used to say at meetings--not as a joke; he didn't know the diff.)
9
@Eastsider, you've made a good point, which is why this legislation should be paired with two other pieces of legislation: a law prohibiting the previous employer from discussing salary, and a law requiring the prospective employer to list salary ranges for the position. I think employers should be required to publish salary ranges for all positions in the company.
7
@Eastsider
They can ask, but many employers are afraid of liability for giving a frank and truthful employee review, so when asked for references they only say, "Yes, the person worked here from this date to that date. We don't release any other information."
1
Salary scales are public in public education, and this is helpful. In Massachusetts, we can compare one town's salary scale to another, with the the unfortunate consequence of many applying to the richer schools (higher tax rate on housing or more businesses). However, there is little room for negotiating beyond the step you start on, which is based on education and experience. You are rewarded for longevity and education and training. I think that is why you will find many women, beyond historical prejudice, in education and nursing. I wonder how one negotiates their first job without a salary scale without loss? With the high cost of education for professional positions, I think more transparency and less gaming is needed. Two people should not be paid different wages for the same job regardless of gender.
10
Interestingly, the U.S. government is one employer that requests (demands) salary history, on the standard application form.
My view is it's nobody's business. The employer knows what the job is worth to them, and should be guided by that. Certainly any candidate with any leverage should refuse to answer, and perhaps use this as the point at which to begin negotiations.
But the article also shows that a low salary might also turn off an employer, making them think the person couldn't be particularly good if he/she was earning only that amount.
I'm glad to work for the government; when applying, there is a prescribed range, and none of this game-playing. And we all generally know what everyone earns, and why.
9
I'm late to this party and don't have time to read all 350+ earlier comments, so someone may have already said this; but:
So often we read about someone finding out that, for years, she had been making less than her less qualified/ less experienced coworker(s), and never knew it. One thing companies appear to be counting on is the taboo, in the US at least, against talking about our salaries at work. If we could drop that unwillingness, it would deprive employers of one of their major weapons in underpaying equally-qualified workers.
42
It was more than a taboo. During my working years, discussions among or between employees about their salaries were grounds for termination, and it was written into your employment contract..
12
Simple solution -The job to be done for the company to make a profit is willing to pay $X, given the experience of the applicant and potential to produce, so that is the offered to the applicant regardless of any other parameters...! DJM
1
I find that most recruiters in Europe ask about salary expectations rather than salary history. However I still find the question really annoying. It assumes that all jobs are the same, and that money is everything, whereas in reality I might have been willing to take a more fun job, say, with more challenge and more flexibility, or maybe with some interesting travel, for less pay. I didn't want the recruiter deciding that I'll cost too much, I wanted her to make an offer, even if it was far below my previous salary, and let me decide. I might well have accepted.
But I found that any answer other than a number just dragged out the question - it seems like they had a standard format and they just needed to put in a number, didn't matter if it's totally off, just a number. So I just picked one that seemed reasonable to me, and when they asked, I said "about $X" and at least the endless hedging about the question was finished :)
4
I have had good luck with turning the question around and asking for the salary range. Recruiters will almost always share that.
8
I (a woman) once had a very successful negotiation for a position in technology in 1986. I knew what salaries people in that position (mostly men) were earning and asked for that amount. When the interviewer asked me if I would accept less, I answered, "That's what the position is worth. If you don't think I'm qualified, that's a different story." He was working under a deadline to fill the position, and he knew I was the person he wanted to hire. I got the job at the salary I demanded.
22
I'm in executive search in a specialized function (HR). Sometimes I will find two execs at the same company, with the same title & responsibilities, working in the same city, with wildly different compensation. Similar base and annual bonus but one will be equity eligible. This can double their annual compensation. Salary history is most often the reason why.
The right question should be "What are your salary expectations?" That opens the door to a productive conversation that doesn't discriminate against people who started their career in a low cost of living state, or in non-profit, or a different industry or just graduated during a recession.
Clients' are getting comfortable with the new status quo. Just like they got comfortable with not asking about marital status, health history, religious affiliation, etc.
The times are a changin'. This is a good thing!
27
I'm in executive search in a specialized function (HR). Sometimes I will find two execs at the same company, with the same title & responsibilities, working in the same city, with wildly different compensation. Similar base and annual bonus but one will be equity eligible. This can double their annual compensation. Salary history is most often the reason why.
The right question should be "What are your salary expectations?" That opens the door to a productive conversation that doesn't discriminate against people who started their career in a low cost of living state, or in non-profit, or a different industry or just graduated during a recession.
Clients' are getting comfortable with the new status quo. Just like they got comfortable with not asking about marital status, health history, religious affiliation, etc.
The times are a changin'. This is a good thing.
3
Let's regulate everything! Big government can save us from suffering. Chavez promised this in Venezuela, it just takes time. Bernie promised this here with same policies as Chavez. Let's regulate everything!
4
Joe,
Wanting fairness in wages for women is not the same thing as asking for a Venezuela style economy. Are you saying that only paying women less for the same job is the only way to make your business work?
34
@Dr. Conde The Southern plantations were doing really, really well before the Civil War. Why? Because they had slaves. The upfront costs could be rather steep, especially if that slave had skills, but after that, the costs were minimal and the savings to the slave-owners were tremendous. That's how the plantation-owners got to be rich.
It's not that much different now. If you can get people to do their jobs for as little as you can possibly pay them, convince them that they or that job is not worth a living wage, or get them to do the same job but as family members, interns or volunteers and not pay them at all, then you can pocket the difference and quickly become a billionaire.
4
15 years ago, I made more than the average person working in a similar position now which is pretty wild wage stagnation. I have worked in smaller roles since but I find it amazing though, that I tell employers that I would like to make the same amount of money that I made so long ago.
8
When asked what salary I expected during interviews, I always responded that I desired to be paid the fair prevalent rate for the position. I always received more than I would have requested, with the exception of my Consulting position which I interviewed for in 2008 after the job crash. I typically was better educated than the men in similar positions, but I was able to make close to what they made or more. In my experience a women could make a similar salary as men, but required higher credentials.
I am please to see my home state being proactive to rectify these inequalities.
8
" Some research has found that ban-the-box policies, which prohibit employers from asking on job applications whether people have criminal records, resulted in fewer black and Hispanic men being interviewed or hired. One theory is that without the information, employers assumed they had criminal records."
So, banning employers from asking job applicants about their previous salary may cause more white men to be hired than women or black or brown applicants. In other words, based on the prejudice of employers, it is necessary to continue providing empolyers with information that provides them no information on the qualifications of the applicant.
Obviously, if you are black or brown, you have been incarcerated if you are unwilling or not required to responded to a question regarding past imprisonment. In a similar manner, no salary history means if you are a woman or a black or brown job applicant, your salary must have been less than a white mail applicant.
Hey, why not continue to feed the beast of prejudice?
Just in case this article fell on deaf ears, your employers who use questions that prejudice fair equal pay and equal employment opportunities need to get your act together. Vice versa, this article is putting women and black and brown men on notice that their applications are not being judge with the same open mindedness as white men.
Ah, but you knew this already? No!
3
@cdearman, there are ways to move into the twenty-first century. As another commenter said, the correct question should be "What are your salary expectations?"
In any event, I don't think employers are going to reject a female candidate based on not having a salary history. She may well be the candidate with the experience they're looking for. Salary history was used as a way to pay qualified candidates less.
1
In 1986 at Data General Corporation, I won employee of the quarter and got a 15% raise. Within a week, I discovered that a new-hire male in my group who had no hands-on experience and a lesser degree than me had been hired at the same salary I was now making (after 2 years and the award). That I have enough money to retire comfortably is due to my savings and investment acumen, surely not my cumulative salary. Glad to not be "working for The Man" any more. The world hasn't changed much. Glad at least someone is paying attention to the discrepancies.
20
Hogwash!
These greedy companies voluntarily pay men more, WHY?
Why would they even hire a man if they cost more to do the exact same job?
It is amazing that any men even have jobs, after all women do a better job, and cheaper too!
6
@edge, that's the way prejudice works historically. It may not make sense to you, but read up on the literature. The gender pay gap persists regardless of experience, education, responsibilities, marital status, years on the job, or any parameter other than gender.
Do you doubt that the pay gap is real?
5
This is very important information! As a woman (of a "certain age") about to go on the job market again in a different state, I've been thinking about how to deal with the past-salary question. I've decided two things:
1. If a company is overly focused on what my salary expectations are or what my salary history was (relative to other questions), it's not the place for me.
2. If asked my last salary, I plan to say something like, "I was earning in the low $XX. However, if offered this position, I'd expect to be paid commensurate with the position's responsibilities and in line with what my colleagues here are making. So -- what else can I tell you about my background?"
9
You can always do that, and the interviewers can decide not to hire you on the basis that smart alecks can be troublemakers (nobody has time for that). Instead, you might consider giving a figure close to what you're expecting, and see how that turns out. An interview is not the place to make political points, but it's really up to you whether you want the job or not.
7
Probably better to tell them what you want (realistically). That way they know. But don’t price yourself out of reach if you want the job.
3
When they ask, ask them for the salary range. I have never had a recruiter say no to that. They want to know that you have realistic expectations before continuing.
5
In my teens I had read a career section newspaper article that said if you were truly underpaid then tell a hiring manager what you should be earning. Scroll ahead 5-6 years when I was working at job where I was low-balled and didn't have the experience to negotiate, at a company where I had helped get a male friend from college a job that offered him more money for a lesser job. I learned what other salaries were at comparable jobs in the company and was sickened by my situation. So when I interviewed for my next job and was asked what I was making, I told the HR person $15K more because that was what I should have been earning. It made all the difference for me.
5
I get ya but new employers can generally at least get your last job title and salary. It totally depends on the last employers policy. The problem is if you lie (justifiable but still a lie)...and prospective employer finds out then......
5
As an employer I would be less concerned about compensation than getting the best fit, innovative and productive person for the position regardless of gender, race or class.
2
Sounds right, but money is always an issue.
3
salary history - that worked way for me, I was taking a 'career break' from the corporate world, applied at a great Mom'n'Pop hardware store and all was great until the guy saw my salary history, even explaining I didn't expect to make anything near what I did writing proposals for international architecture firms but wanted out of that, loved hardware stores and being able to pay my bills.
I wanted to take a pay cut and was screwed by having made too much. now I decline or if in writing fill in N/A. hasn't been a problem yet.
3
@richard, good point. Salary history can work against men who were highly compensated. Many executives laid off during the Great Recession were unable to reenter the job market because prospective employers considered them over-qualified, and therefore unlikely to remain on the new job.
4
I've noticed that online applications often contain this question about salary history, AND the application can not move on online if that part is not completed.
the salary history question may also start at $10,000.00 or so, so it excludes a unemployed person.
There are many questions that are not supposed to be asked before hiring, but those questions often are asked anyway. For example, ID might be required to apply which would give information not supposed to be asked previous to a hire.
Here's another question, if certain issues are not supposed to be asked at interview, may an employer ask those questions after an applicant is hired?
6
The handicap create by a low previous salary is not limited to gender. It is also affected by regional disparities. When I accepted a job in Cleveland, the HR department asked what my previous salary was in Alabama. Salaries in Alabama are a lot lower than they are in Ohio, particularly for teachers. As a result, I was offered a lot less than I would have if I had been moving from New York or another school in Ohio.
18
Unfortunately, Human Resources' primary objective is to appear to add value. One of their approaches is to abuse candidates when they are negotiating compensation. Anyone applying for a job should prepare a script and practice how to discuss compensation. Be brief. Be confident.
By the way, companies that pay their employees fairly have happier, more productive and more loyal workers. Now that's something Human Resources should embrace.
21
@A
HR is just a front for the legal department, it's been several decades since they acted as a liaison between employees and owners.
20
You don't have to give your previous salary in an interview for the employer to find out about it. Equifax's theworknumber.com will gladly tell it to them for a fee.
10
So they may have checked you out prior to the interview?
4
Interestingly, the Province of Ontario has just introduced gender pay transparency legislation where employers will be required to publish salary ranges. In addition, employers may not ask potential employees about their pay history. Finally, employers will have to report to the government all salaries, broken down by gender. We are gearing up for a contentious election in just over a month, so I am not super comfortable that the legislation has been well thought out....seems a bit “of the moment”. In general, though, I do support evaluating the job at hand, and what you pay should not be influenced by what you are (or were) earning. It makes sense to me, then, that questions about past earnings are out of line and should not be asked.
7
Easy answer. A job pays a salary. That salary by LAW should be stated. IMO a range is also nonsense. Wasn't that easy? Can't do the job-- get fired. Do a great job -- get a bonus or promoted.
Experience can work both ways -- ever heard of bad habits?
Yes, there should be a law against asking about
3
The federal government sets the salary for specific positions. Whomever is hired receives that salary. That's one of the reasons why there is less of a gender gap between federal employees.
18
You just reintroduced disparity when you offer merit increases or bonuses.
2
@Eric, why would merit increases or bonuses result in gender disparities?
1
This is less a gender issue than an age one.
3
It's both.
5
Great report! We need more investigate articles like these that hit home
3
I've never understood why women fall into that trap. I've usually tried to turn it around by asking what the job paid; but if push came to shove, I would answer the question of 'what were you earning in your last job?' with the amount I expect to earn on the one I was interviewing for. Previous employers will never answer questions about salary.
13
I live in California and the HR person who just interviewed me asked the now illegal question under the guise of, “you don’t have to tell me, but it is useful, so feel free to volunteer this information, as I can taylor an offer much more effectively”. Don’t worry HR people, we’ll negotiate up if you lowball us, but don’t take the lazy route of just tacking a +3% on a previous person’s salary, make a market-reflecting offer and see what the candidate says in return. I should totally report this HR person, but who’s got the time? PS. If you doubt whether “not asking but asking” is legit, imagine this same HR person not asking but asking about your sexual orientation or your age or marital status...
27
I was paid competitively in my last job. When an interviewer inquired, I was content and answered the question honestly. They offered me the position and I was considering it. At exactly that time, I interviewed the man whom they had let go (he was applying for a position at my business). I asked him how much he had earned and was floored at the higher amount. I used that info when I negotiated for my new salary. So, in my unusual case, it worked well. My anger subsided when I learned that he had two advanced degrees that I did not have (jd and phd) which somewhat justified the difference.
5
If his degrees were unrelated to the work being performed, than under EPA law it should not be taken into consideration when setting salaries.
3
When I go on a job interview, am I allowed to ask for the salary history of the former employees who held the position I wish to obtain?
I agree with one of the people who said in their comment all job postings should include the starting salary offered. It would definitely help people looking for work and assist the employer in weeding out those looking for a higher salary.
23
Yes, prior salary questions impacts and hurts women more than men. But it can also hurt men, just ask my husband. He was downsized in the great recession and took a lower paying job to get back into employment and 10 years later that lower paying job is still haunting him.
Employers will pay between x-y for a job. What someone made at another job should have no impact on pay at a later job somewhere else.
13
compensation should be transparent. it is intended to value the business/job the employer needs to get done. yes, there is an element of what you bring to the organization (ie education, experience elsewhere) but the majority of pay is recompense for what is done on the job. negotiation within an established range or pay package is appropriate, but ultimately it is realistic to have a ceiling on what a job is worth to an organization, regardless of incumbent. that keeps the pay program from becoming twisted and unfair. and keeps managers in check from playing favourites or succumbing to bias - deliberate or inadvertent. if an employee wants more - get a promotion to a job valued at a higher level, or move to an organization that values the work at a greater level (or has more resources to pay higher.)
6
Leadership is clearly at fault here due to what I term it’s bait and switch thinking. What I mean is executives at companies have their HR departments evaluate the worth of a position in the marketplace. However, when it comes to selection they fail to recall that they are paying for the worth of the job in the marketplace and not the worth of a particular individual based on their current compensation. If the organization determined that a certain position is worth X and a particular candidate was paid X-1 the organization should pay that candidate X (the value of the position in the marketplace) and not X-1 or whatever the particular candidates history of pay was/is.
13
The salary history question can also be damaging if you're trying to get started in a completely different field. If the field you worked in paid less than what people outside of the field would expect it to, it makes it look like you are lying on your resume about your responsibilities.
The science industry I used to work in was low-paying due to over-competition in bidding for projects and being hit hard by the collapse of the real estate market. People who worked in that industry saw my pay was about in the middle of the range but my friends who worked in different fields were always shocked at how little my industry's jobs paid.
After a few years I went back to school to enter a different field.
One great company for entry level jobs in my new field required giving salary history with resumes. I hemmed and hawed about giving it, but the application also said "incomplete applications will not be considered" so I reluctantly included my salary history.
I made it to the interview round. Hurray, right? Nope. Even though I was excited about the position and had a solid portfolio of work to show, every single answer I said fell flat with the interviewers. Finally one of the interviewers asked "So, what else did you do for money?" dripping with distain. I was not invited back for a second interview.
It was so devastating that all those years later the salary woes of my old field hurt me in this new one. It's like a ghost you can't escape when they ask for salary history.
16
I always asked what they've made in a previous job. In my stated still legal and I'm still going to ask. I want to make sure that I'm paying higher than their last job. No one wants to feel that they are stagnant.
I also make it really clear that I'm a liberal to future hires. I have an extremely small business, and in my state, political preferences are not a protected class. I don't have much of a problem since I'm in an extremely liberal area, but I wouldn't want somebody to come in and feel uncomfortable since I am so vocal about it. :)
3
You're a rare bird. Kudos for your candor, and for understanding that people want/need to make more than they've been making.
2
Questions about previous salaries hide another bias: age. The older you are, the more likely employers will expect that your salary "requirements" are higher (especially in professional vocations). Irrespective of questions about previous salary, I answer any salary questions from a prospective employer with some variant of the "I expect to be paid commensurate with the job and peers within the company". Does it work? Mostly not, I think, but it is an attempt to push back on the salary question.
12
There is a straightforward solution for this. All job openings should be required to list a starting salary. People who already make more and are not willing to take a pay cut would not apply, saving the time of employers. Likewise people who are willing to work for that salary have self-selected, so employers are assured of interest.
Starting salaries should remain in force for six months, at which time the employer and employee both have a better idea of what the employee contributes, and the salary could be adjusted in accordance with the company's HR policy.
14
I see what you're saying, however I pay more for experience and capability so that wouldn't work for most employers. I do post a range... then I hold it down by what they've made previously, and what their experience is.
2
Julia did say a "starting salary..." So people can self select if they would work for that amount. Of course with more experience one would naturally expect to earn a higher salary... It's just a starting point.
1
In my university department, salary comparisons of male and female professors showed that with the same citation fame, men made more money than women.
10
Citation fame is a really non-specific, squishy metric. People with the same number of citations can produce very different quality or type of work.
1
How about being asked on the application, what you would like to earn? You put in a number say $75,000 for that particular position... That number/salary could be too low or maybe too high for the position, how are you supposed to know? I was told afterwards, I could have put in $0 rather than a real supposed number, who knew? Another way to disqualify you, just do away w/any salary questions altogether!!
7
“Some business leaders have objected to salary history bans. The salary information helps them avoid interviewing people who would cost too much, they say.” - ummmm, just ask them their salary requirements? The ONLY reason an employer wants to know your salary history is so they can pay you the lowest salary it will take for you to accept the job. They may have budgeted 100k but if you were making 65k, they’ll offer you 68k. You just lost out on $32,000. A recruiter reached out to me a few months ago regarding a job where the employer was going to request written proof of my salary history. I declined and told him I would not be interested in an employer that requires my personal financial information and that it was inappropriate. Don’t succumb to this. Stand up for yourself.
59
I made less than my male classmates right out of grad school and never caught up. I had two Masters and always have described my salary history as one of a very well-paid white male high school grad. I never interviewed without being asked this question.
16
I made no more than my female classmates right out of grad school, but as soon as they enjoyed their first maternity leave I started to make more than them and they never managed to close the gap afterwards.
4
@Erwan, that's extremely rare. Statistically women with advanced degrees make less than men. How do you know your female classmates were making as much as you?
Also, it sounds as though you're referring to a time when family leave was called maternity leave. Men take that time off too. Times have changed.
3
@Erwan
so we'll stop having kids and the problem is solved.
also, i'm not sure all of maternity leave is "enjoy"able.
4
I think it's a great idea, and could help not only people who have had lower salaries in the past but also those who previously made much more. One of the main pseudo-justifications for age discrimination is that the older person would be too expensive, they are used to making too much. It would be far better for all if employers decided what a reasonable salary range for a position would be and stated the range up front in the job ad. Let the applicant decide whether that range would be acceptable for them or not, and negotiate where in that range he or she would start. Base the salary on the value of the duties the applicant would be expected to perform, not on the perceived value of the person.
13
Why are men paid, on average, more than women? For ten of the many reasons, see http://worksnewage.blogspot.com/2015/03/yes-pay-gender-gap-is-real-but-i... .
3
Broken link. Broken beliefs, too.
8
Claudia Goldin has done ample work in this area.
1
Asking salary history or requirements is also a subtle but frequently used method to practice age discrimination. Answering the question honestly is likely to get the experienced candidate dropped from contention ["Your salary requirements fall outside the range of what we're budgeting for the position." I.e., you're old enough to bring certain expectations of a salary level.] Such practices should be a violation of the ADEA Act, but in fact they're almost impossible to prove. Face it -- these days, all the cards are held by the HR hiring offices and their minions. A sorry state of affairs for those seeking work, or to switch careers.
14
A very simple solution is to lie about your pay by moving it up to what you should have been paid. Potential employers cannot legally ask to verify your salary. Also, you should be paid what the job is worth regardless of prior history. The approach is wrong and must stop.
8
Actually, if you lie and are hired, the company can fire you if it finds out you lied on your application. I have seen this happen where I worked Being fired is much worse than not being hired. Be truthful or decline to answer.
5
I am curious how they would find out you lied, if a previous employer can't and won't confirm your prior salary?
@Miranda Spencer Once you get settled in your new job, you accidentally blurt out the truth to one of your coworkers, who didn't lie about her prior salary, and she rats you out to your boss.
1
Another complicating factor is that different parts of the country have different pay scales.
13
Past salary history should have no bearing on what a job candidate could earn in a new job. Basis for salary should be based on the candidate’s knowledge, skills, abilities, experience, and how well they match the position requirements . A simple way to solve this is to require employers to publish the salary range with the job announcement. That way potential applicants can self select. If the pay range is too low, then they won’t apply. So the the employer will have some assurance that the people they are interviewing already know the salary range and that it fits with their salary expectations.
9
Simply put, companies want the most amount of experience possible at the lowest price. Comparable to a large discounter in reverse. Well, you get what you pay for. (And this doesn't even take age-ism, the underuse of experienced workers, into account.)
10
A) It's true employers won't verify salary but I've heard of applicants being asked to provide paperwork to prove it. B) Asking for too high a salary can kill an interview but so also can asking for too low a salary. They think you don't value yourself or in trouble at the current job (really, you just hate it but can't say that) or are desperate if not currently employed. It's a sick game. Employers should have to state the salary they wish to pay.
15
The hiring process that nearly all American companies use is seriously broken, dysfunctional, and too often unfair for everyone involved. Banning salary history is a small but helpful step in the right direction.
Although basing salary and hiring decisions on previous salary is particularly unfair to women, it also penalizes numerous others of all genders. That includes anyone who changes industries or careers, and those who are chronically underpaid due to a previous employer's financial situation or internal politics.
I have no sympathy for any employer who whines about the ban making it difficult to screen out candidates with robots, to low-ball candidates in salary "negotiations," or to otherwise exploit the opacity of salary information. A fairer and more transparent hiring process will ultimately benefit workers as well as employers and their precious shareholders.
31
When I ran a vocational rehabilitation service, I trained them not to answer such questions. Instead, they might ask what the interviewer thought was an appropriate salary for the position, what the salary range was or some similar question. I myself was never asked about previous salaries and once scored a 33% raise in my next job as a result. I also violated the norm by asking the salary range before agreeing to an interview. In my field, ranges vary greatly; there is no point interviewing for a job I would never accept due to a low salary.
18
Any time I was asked -- over a stretch of 40 or so years -- what my salary history was, I lied. Yep, I gave whatever figure I thought the interviewer would like, because it was a good bet that 1) no one was going to get the info from a previous employer, and 2) the earth won't cease revolving no matter what.
And when asked what salary I'm looking for, I usually chose a figure that was just on this side of outrageous. And smiled sweetly to let them know I might just be kidding... .
14
Same here.
1
I have been asked for W2, or prior pay stub (ostensibly to verify SSN, previous employer, blah blah) in the past. I complied but thoroughly redacted all the pay and tax info. I was told later I was the only one who did that (and that it was actually a positive).
The pay gap isn't always based on gender, either. My father was handicapped, and persistently underpaid relative to his peers throughout his career. Even though he was known nationally within his profession, there was a certain insecurity that was taken advantage of by his employer.
10
Should pay stubs or W2 forms be required prior to hiring? Or at all? This is personal information.
1
It doesn't make sense for a company to base a new employee's salary their pay at a previous company. That's giving an unknown hiring manager at another company too much power over your companies finances. You have no idea why that previous hiring manager made his/her compensation decisions. I've heard of many instances where a highly paid employee was fired for incompetence. I've also found many great employees who have been held back because their previous employer was cheap or even discriminatory. An employee should be paid based on the skills and competencies they can demonstrate during the interview and the value a company places on the position.
20
Curious as to why the article FAILS to address the federal (EEO) guidelines under the Equal Pay Act?
Notwithstanding, an applicant should know/ask what the starting salary ranges are, clearly articulate the reason they are applying for the position (esp. when still employed) is they NOT ONLY MEET STATED REQMTs (hence the interview) but feel they would be an asset to the company for years to come.
It is from that point thereafter, if an offer is made, the negotiating can begin.
6
What one employer of size X and revenue Y valued a job at should be irrelevant to what New Company values it at. Example: I worked at a small startup and had a senior level title in a field with titles all over the place. I was not paid senior $. Now new company requires last salary on a form. This company is much larger, many more resources. The going market rate for this position is many thousands more than old company could pay.
If New Company thinks, well, I can get this person on the cheap and save money, this is setting the tenor for a relationship based on budget and not on valuing the candidate or the role. So, if I got paid $20k below value at Job One, you're going to offer a salary $19k below market to save money? No wonder 70% of workers report job disengagement.
12
Don’t most firms now ask for your salary expectations? They accomplish the same thing, winnowing out people and avoiding this issue. Most firms do have salary ranges for every position from which they cannot deviate for legal protection. Salary does not enter into discussion until hiring discussion begins with prime candidate. If that candidate states expectations outside the range, the HR rep moves to the next candidate. I expect most medium and large firms follow a similar flow. Deviations cause lawsuits. Managers have a budget for each position. Contrary to the myths, no one wins if you hire someone below the range. The HR computer simply jacks up their salary to the range on the next payroll run.
Most of the salary jawboning described here likely occurs at small firms or new tech firms with weak HR structures. After a few lawsuits, they learn to set up the hard structure.
2
I think most places do ask for salary expectations, but I've worked for both large and small firms and the "hard structure" you describe has not existed at any of them. In fact, one of the largest places I applied to in recent years was the ONLY one to request a specific salary history -- and their online application system would not submit your application if you didn't fill it out.
3
On an interview I (female) was once asked (by a male executive) to compare my management style to a coach of an A. Baseball Team B. Basketball team or C. Football team. #sexist
26
I know female baseball and basketball coaches for women's teams. Only football is perhaps sexist. And, not all males are that into either of those three sports. And, some women are really into football. But yes, a rather poor question.
1
@Elleno You could always say you've only coached boxing and MMA (true for most mothers).
2
I have no idea why this is at all meaningful. Unless you are applying for a different job at the company where you already work, there is no way for an external employer to know your salary history. If it were possible, then they wouldn't be asking you that question. So, if there is no way for the prospective employer to know the answer, then who cares if they can or can't ask it? You'll already know the salary range for the job you're applying for so you base your response to a salary question on that, not what you actually made in your old job. Anyone who isn't smart enough to understand this probably deserves to make less than smarter colleagues.
1
At many companies, if you don't provide your current salary, you will not be considered for the job. There are generally enough applicants that do provide salary information that the recruiter will simply move on to the next candidate. Moreover, many online applicant tracking systems require the information or you can not complete the application. Also, if you exaggerate your current salary, many large companies will withdraw their offer if the background check shows the salary difference is not within an arbitrary percentage of what you reported (higher or lower).
9
No, this is not true at all--I can't tell you how many times I've had NO idea about the salary range for a position. Nor can I tell you how frustrating it is to spend hours on a cover letter, customized resume, interview prep, etc. only to get past the first round and find out how far apart my expectations and their proposed pay are.
I wish more employers would offer this information up front!
4
FYI - Salary information does NOT show up on a background check.
1
The labor market is intransparent for all stakeholders, hence the desire to find comparable hard values indicative of actual market behavior, and that is in the form of previous salary. One gets asked this by every headhunter and every hiring manager, so it is extremely prevalent and ubiquitous. In fact we should have more transparency and not less transparency, in order to fight all kinds of labor market distortions. How to do that while maintaining individual privacy rights?
I agree the labor market is intransparent for job applicants - but it is not for employers. Employers have a wealth of data about their own employees, what it takes to retain their employees, and they often pay consultants and/or participate in studies that provide meaningful benchmarks for labor market trends in their respective industries. These tools are not generally available to employees, who must rely on "word of mouth" and their own experience to negotiate salary.
How many times have been I asked what I expect for a salary - but the employer is never willing to offer to me what the range of salary is for the position, with a commensurate number of years of experience? Why? The employer wants to hold all the cards. Moreover, if one tries to ask colleagues about their compensation, if your employer finds out you could be penalized.
I think everyone would be better off if employers were just upfront about the range of salary they are willing to consider when posting a job. Take the gamesmanship our of salary discussions.
Outside of a few "high status" job categories with exorbitant salaries, I think most people just want to be paid fairly and treated fairly for the work they do.
12
I agree.
When I first entered the workforce many decades ago, I don't recall being asked for a salary history except for the lowest level positions or discussing money until after the first interview. Many employers would provide a salary range for a posted position. In recent years, the question of "Salary Expectations" is either on the application or the first question out of a recruiter's mouth.
I got so fed up with having to guess at a magic number, that I went to great lengths to explain that my salary requirements are quite flexible beyond a certain point depending on workplace conditions, the quality of life on the job, cost of benefits and a whole slew of factors beyond salary.
The employer knows their budget for the position and the excuse for asking the candidate upfront is that it's a question of not wasting our time. If that's the case, then tell me what you're willing to pay and I'll tell you if I can live on that, so let's keep talking. That's what happened with my current employer. Actually, I said no to the recruiter initially, then called back after thinking about it for a few minutes to schedule and interview.
As for negotiating a salary; who actually does that?
A business should pay only what is necessary for the particular worker. Salary history is a necessary factor unless you believe all workers are the same. Business is not the same as civil service.
3
That’s the most ridiculous thing I’ve ever heard. What if an employee is underpaid? What if an employee moves to a higher paying industry? They should carry their low paying wages with them? What if a company fails to meet it’s financial objectives and can’t provide raises to employees who had high performances? Their salaries would not be an indication of of the type of employee they are and should not be considered or hold them back in the future.
6
Wrong. A business should pay what it has to to get the most potential out of a particular worker. And there is often NOTHING from a previous position that is comparable to the next one, making the history information completely irrelevant.
2
We are underpaid in civil service, too.
1
"cities and companies have recently banned asking about salary history. They include Massachusetts, California, New York City, Philadelphia and Chicago, as well as Amazon, Google and Starbucks."
Oh, reallly? Well here's news for you newsy type writers- Amazon still asks for salary history.
But practically speaking, compensation in private enterprise is company confidential information- so you can't be compelled to answer that question. Just say so.
You can, however, be reasonably asked about your expected salary range.
6
Perhaps employers should be barredfrom asking about grade point averages in college, I mean you have a degree the only reason to ask is to make different offers to people.
1
At the same time, what IS the value of asking someone who has been in the workplace for 10, 20 years what their GPA was? You’d be correct if you said that question is strong evidence of horrible HR and hiring practices.
17
Haha. I laugh every time I get that question. My answer is always “I don’t recall - it was 12 years ago.” And then I remove myself from the process because I would never work for an employer that cares about my GPA.
7
I worked for a government contractor that interviewed an experienced transmission system designer with over 10 patents solely to his name. The hiring managers were ecstatic and the candidate was enthusiastic about the match. Nothing happened for a while until the candidate called the hiring manager who was curious, too. The manager called HR, HR had killed the process because the MIT graduate's 2.8 GPA 10+ years ago didn't meet standards. Let's just say the language was colorful when the candidate was told this...
The company lost a candidate with highly desirable, demonstrable skills over a GPA...
4
If employers ask for prior salary history in order to avoid wasting time interviewing candidates whose salary expectations are too high, one easy solution would be for the prospective employer to tell the candidate the salary range for the position before the interview. Believe me, the employer already knows what the salary range should be; the only reason they don't want to disclose it is because they hope to find a candidate who will accept less. (Been there, done that (although I didn't want to).)
23
Businesses ask this question for one reason: to save money. If they can get a good employee on the cheap, they will do it every time. There is no morality in maximizing the bottom line. Making this question illegal along with things already illegal like marital and family status and ethnic background is a great start toward employment equality.
Now let's add gender identity to the list to assure full non-discrimination in the work place.
21
It's easy to see how a salary history can disproportionately harm females because of the pay gap, but it's actual purpose is to allow the employer to pay *everybody* less than they have to. If employers could pay everybody $0.00 they would. (There's a name for that.)
14
@Stevenz Capitalism.
2
I have two very smart Millennial daughters. I have always suggested and encouraged my daughters to not be afraid to counter offer their opening salary from whom ever they are interviewing with. They have countered and their offer has been accepted every time. This began with their first jobs post college.
Don’t be afraid to do your homework. Research salaries in your field and company and counter offer. Every company wants confident devision makers and good negotiators. Counter offer!! This is the first step in shrinking the income gap over your working career.
Do not be afraid to go for it!
15
One reason for asking the candidate their salary information is to avoid paying Experian / Talx a nominal fee to obtain a candidate's salary history. Simply not asking the candidate just means obtaining the information from Talx. Virtually all American employers pump the information to Talx-- yes, you are the product. Don't lie, a candidate finalist could be dropped if caught lying on the salary question depending on the opinion of the company considering the hiring.
So an interview ban would have little real effect without also banning companies peddling personally identifiable salary information.
2
In the HR world, there is a big difference between the decisions that are made before and after an offer has been made. There is value in knowing the candidate actually worked at the companies listed on the resume. As long as the candidate did not lie about their salary on background check form, there is no reason to withdraw the offer due to the previous salary. Some companies may still withdraw the offer, but by banning the pre-offer salary question, candidates are more likely to have the opportunity to demonstrate their skills in an interview rather than being screened out by the recruiter based on one data point.
Having worked for the EEOC, when checking an applicants previous employment history ALL the previous employer is allowed to disclose is job position, dates of employment and whether or not they were terminated.
2
Actually, I have learned that is no federal law and few state laws restraining employers from reporting as much as they like as long as it is true. As with most HR Policies regarding employment, limiting responses to "job position, dates of employment and whether or not they were terminated" has to do with not getting sued.
I've seen employers complain about the practice because it's how they end up with somebody else's problem.
I recommend asking for what you want. If the prospective employer thinks your number is too high they either negotiate or they don't. I believe people should be able to say that your previous salary history is confidential and leave it at that.
If someone can't decide to pay you what you are asking for then it seems less likely that you will receive much in the future in the way of raises. A bargain hunter never changes.
3
There is no "gender pay gap," of course. Women make different decisions in life than men and often want extra time with family and children. This is natural and good. When men and women compete equally in the workplace (in terms of time, effort, education), the fabled "gap" disappears.
5
Where’s your evidence?
9
No, that is not how it works. Nor is it “good”. Women are working the same jobs as men and getting paid 30% less. That is not good.
19
Not married, no kids - hard worker. I compete equally and want to be paid as much.
Besides, I work in a male dominated industry where a lot of my fellow male coworkers leave early to pick up their kids, and to attend their kids events.
10
If they can ask expected salary, then not asking about the salary history does not solve anything, in my opinion.
1
If someone will do the job for less why shouldn't they be hired. Do you hire a house painter without asking what their bid is?
2
The two scenarios are quite different. Salaried employees are salaried because they operate in an environment where intangibles largely affect results. It is possible to characterize, but not precisely define requirements. In contrast, requirements for construction work and similar jobs like house painting can be readily detailed and agreed upon in advance
2
JJ, I havve gotten bids for construction jobs large and small over the years. I often throw out the lowest bid and have been known to take the bid that is considerably highest when discussions indicated that the contractor would provide a much higher standard of performance. One time I did not do that for a roofing job and I still rue that decision 30 years later.
Reading this article made me feel lucky.
No interviewer has ever asked me my former salary, but if one did, I would say matter-of-factly, "I'm not applying for my old job. I'm applying for this one."
I have been asked how much I'm hoping to earn in a new position, and -- in an attempt not to be locked in -- I always say it depends on the quality of the benefits package. Somehow the interviewer and I end up agreeing that if my salary requirements exceed what the company hopes to pay but the benefits are flexible, there will be a way to make us both happy.
Finally, I've also been in a position to hire people as well, and once our HR department issues an offer, both HR and I fully expect the candidate to push for more. It need not be a huge amount more, but it's been my experience that most offers are made with some amount of wiggle room built in, so the candidate can negotiate and accept the offer feeling good about the company's generosity.
20
@D Price
Thanks for sharing these strategies and the specific language that women in particular should use instead of naive honesty. This type of elegant negotiation is both anxiety provoking and foreign to the experience of many women, the newly graduated, or those moving from one field to another. It sounds a little like buying a car, a new home, playing poker, or having coffee with genial con artists. However, I really think it would be easier to publish the salary or the salary range. Some excellent employees just aren't good players.
2
How about requiring potential employers to disclose the salary range of jobs before the interview. I'm always surprised at the end of the interview to discover a skilled job requiring advanced degrees offers sweatshop wages. I wouldn't have gone for the interview if I'd known in advance.
101
How about putting government in charge of everything? Brilliant!
2
Don’t go to an interview before you know the salary range for the role. Ask before you agree to an interview. Not sure why you wouldn’t. That’s a waste of everyone’s time.
4
A few thoughts: I was always taught to add 10% to whatever my last salary was when asked your current salary in an interview. My mother taught my brothers and I the same lesson. It's a basic interview skill. Maybe we just need to make that rule of thumb 20 or 30% for women. Men can keep the 10%.
1
Isn’t this lying?
2
Yes. It is. And I’m going to continue to keep doing it.
2
In all the couples I know, the women, every one, makes more money than their husbands.
The gender pay gap is real. But it's not women earning less.
2
Your sample size is small. Women generally are paid less for comparable jobs. My spouses have all (one at a time, not concurrently) made more than me, but we did different jobs. Of course there are many exceptions (like where I work now), but the exceptions prove the rule, as they say.
11
Two things about this article surprise me: that teachers in generally-union environments experience wage gaps and that minorities are presumed to have criminal backgrounds if they do not provide past income information.
The challenge in education is that salaries are generally based on a combination of years of service and education. Women are more likely to have fewer years of service than men due to leaving the workforce to raise children. However, there should be no gap between women and men with the same education and years of service.
The theory that minorities who do not supply income information is simply absurd.
3
This is fine, but when you go for a job you really should do your homework, finding out what the market value of the position is. After all they accepted the salary, no slaves here.
1
Work pay history is just that - history. Employers should not be allowed to ask, for the reasons that they do is to get the prospective employee on the cheap. There are employers out there who have yet to discover that happy employees work harder and are more loyal - it is not that complicated boys and girls.
6
If it were true that women get paid less than men for the same production, then it would be a great business strategy for technology companies to hire only women, because then they would have a labor cost advantage over their competitors who hire mostly men.
11
Thank you for pointing this out!
1
Banning salary history questions might also help the only group in America who are discriminated against and blacklisted with complete and utter impunity- the older worker. Employers will have one less excuse for excluding the older worker from consideration. Of course they may still assume they are too expensive, but at least the employee isn’t providing the knife that stabs them in the back.
38
This article ignores the fact that most of the gender wage gap is not due to discrimination but to the career choices women make. Also it seems to me government restrictions on what employers can and can’t ask prospective employees is a clear violation of the First Amendment. Sadly, these days “progressives” seem to have no problem with restrictions on speech if it’s in pursuit of one of their cherished goals...
3
In one place where I worked, due to a change in the law, the salaries of all employees became public information and were posted on the internet. The gap was so serious that men with only a stint in the service or a 2 year college degree beat the salaries of women with Phds in their technical fields! It was absolutely how wide the gap was even for well trained career professionals in technical fields. To some degree women do make poor career choices, but clearly there is a whole lot more than career choices going on, too! If women actually knew where their salaries stood with respect to those of men in their organizations, there would be even more women in the street!
43
That is not true. All of the statistics related to pay and gender are based on the same career, same job, same responsibility, etc. which of course is the only way a gap can be measured.
12
Not the ones Ms Cain Miller perenially uses, JMM.
Google “Uber salary gap study.” It showed that, in a business that is gender blind, men make more than women. This in the study is due to three reasons: men drive faster (more work per hour); men take the undesirable but higher paying jobs; and men have more experience (know how the system works and are more efficient). In my experience this applies in most workplaces, plus the fact that women are more likely to trade pay for flexibility.
5
Whether it's legal or not, never, never, NEVER reveal your salary history to a prospective employer or a co-worker, or anyone. You probably signed a non-disclosure agreement when you were hired for your current job, so you're NOT ALLOWED to tell. Regardless, just tell interviewers "That's confidential between me and my employers. Sorry". If they insist, you really don't want to work there.
4
It’s actually illegal for companies to tell you (or have you sign a non disclosure agreement) forbidding you from talking about your salary.
https://www.npr.org/2014/04/13/301989789/pay-secrecy-policies-at-work-of...
5
So, no one here compares prices online or checks Blue Book values before buying a car?
People aren't cars. In court you can refuse to testify against yourself, if that testimony would hurt you. The same should be true in job interviews. If the boss wants to know how much people make in the position being interviewed for, there is always the Department of Labor which maintains such statistics.
5
Unlike court, a job interview can't land you in jail. Bad analogy. Back to my point, it is a business transaction.
1
this is the classic method of discriminating against all older workers, regardless of gender
21
I have hired several women in contract positions. All of them asked for half, or even less, of what I had been authorized to pay them. During negotiations I basically told them to increase their ask. All of them did, and thus all were paid more than they expected. (Oh, and all were very skilled with many years of experience and did excellent work.) A female friend was freelancing for an ad agency and she found out one day that a male freelancer working on the same things, on the same projects, with the same amount of experience, was getting paid THREE TIMES what she was. So she went in and asked for his rate and got it -- and the management didn't even blink.
What you get paid often has little to do with your worth.
53
Salary history also is used as an excuse not to hire older workers of any gender. They "wouldn't be satisfied" with a job which pays less than they formerly earned is the illogical rationale.
43
I am thrilled employers in MA can no longer ask salary history starting this summer. I know I personally have left a lot of money on the table by answering this question then starting at a company and then seeing what others in my role make. And then seeing juniors get hired at significantly higher rates. Employers should be paying for the job.
24
They always ask this. Tell them an amount that’s 20% more than what you want. They’ll offer about 20% less than what you ask for. Problem solved. They can’t find out your actual salary, at least not in my state (CA).
9
It’s most interesting you mention that as a strategy which was also noted by someone to me some years ago. Bottomline is, past employers would employment history but they won’t give out salary details. So, you are right, next time when you go to a job interview, research on average salary for the industry as well as target employer for similar position, and mark yourself for the salary you target for. Then you can negotiate from there, should the employer want you badly enough.
2
But a problem with this is lying in your application. This is not a good thing and leaves your position vulnerable in perpetuity.
8
I'm not sure how they could EVER find out your former salary -- almost no former employers give out any information anymore (except for the dates you were employed and your title) -- because of the risk of lawsuits.
I used to pad my salary if asked the question. Most companies wont give out your salary information for fear of you suing them. Same reason most companies wont give references.
9
This is not just a gender issue.
Anyone looking to get a "better job" is held back to minimal increases with a change of position. To think that stopping employers from asking the applicants their previous salaries will make a difference is naive.
Who interviews anyone when they don't check references, including previous employers? What fact-based questions do you think are asked the previous employers? Pay, maybe? Duh.
If you're interviewing for a job in the same organization, they already have that information and will seek to limit your increase to as little as they have to. When they can get more out of you for less than the last person they were paying, "they" all look good while you get stiffed.
Welcome to unbridled capitalism.
9
I have done quite a bit of hiring and I don't think I have ever spoken with an employer (other than a job reference) who would do more than confirm dates of employment and whether the employee is qualified for rehire.
16
DH: I think back in the olden days -- 60s or 70s -- some employers did this and got SUED for libel or ruining candidates job prospects. It became a game of "he said, she said" and so today, no HR department will give out anything more than dates of employment and perhaps the employee's official job title.
I'm glad this is becoming a trend. I felt I was underpaid for many years, but when seeking a new job, the fact I was underpaid made me feel as though I needed to seek other, similarly low paying jobs. I also felt a giant knot in the middle of my stomach when lying about how much I made, since lying during an interview is grounds for dismissal for cause, no unemployment, no old job.
There is generally an imbalance between company and worker when negotiating. Anything that evens out that imbalance is good public policy in my eyes.
I'm also a person who feels that a sizeable fraction of the gender imbalance is due to legitimate differences in the way the genders approach work, and not entirely due to discrimination. But let's always work to eliminate discrimination and unfair practices wherever we can.
4
The data does not support your "feeling" that "a sizeable fraction of the gender imbalance is due to legitimate differences in the way the genders approach work". Unless by that you mean how effectively the genders negotiate for themselves.
Your feeling however, since not supported by the facts, may be an example of bias.
5
Suznyc – Actually, the data does not support the idea that it is entirely discrimination that causes the gender pay gap. The genders do approach work differently, and make different choices as to the fields they enter. This very article is clear that the pay gap is caused in part by women choosing lower paying fields such as education or child care. Effectively negotiating salary is also something that factors into this, as well as choices being made.
Cannot two things be true at once?
Indeed they can.
But the commonly sited 82% figure is based on similar jobs (levels and fields).
Which means that in actual earned income women are even further behind men.
1
Previous salary is not relevant. What is relevant is what you bring to the table in the way of skills, abilities and accomplishments and what the employer is willing to pay for those attributes.
If you're interviewing and asked about previous salary, you should respond with the above statement.
20
The #METOO movement is an about-time wave in social consciousness and action. But while it is occuring, there is one minority group that i fear is going to be dropped into a deep hole and forgotten for eons. That would be black men. Black men are so feared in our society that even after a 97% turnout of Black women for Doug Jones totally minimized a 92% turn out for Black men.
What other demographic had a 92% turnout?
While off topic, I wonder when this will be covered by any media outside of urban barbershops. For black families to be nourished and succeed, a strong male earner in a family tends to be a strong parameter for unit cohesion of the family.
3
Equalizing pay among all individuals shouldn't hurt black men. It would just allow women to catch up with them.
Nationally, black men make more than white women. And all women of color make less than white women. But raising the earnings of all women will make families better off since, usually, there is both a male and a female in a family.
I understand seeing black women organizing must be a bit scary for black men, but surely black men will appreciate a little help in getting rid of such predators Roy Moore.
My understanding of pay rates may be a little dated, but according to the Pew Research Center article released July 1, 2016 the following rates apply:
In 2015, average hourly wages for black and Hispanic men were $15 and $14, respectively, compared with $21 for white men. Only the hourly earnings of Asian men ($24) outpaced those of white men.
Among women across all races and ethnicities, hourly earnings lag behind those of white men and men in their own racial or ethnic group. But the hourly earnings of Asian and white women ($18 and $17, respectively) are higher than those of black and Hispanic women ($13 and $12, respectively) – and also higher than those of black and Hispanic men.
The only men who are frightened by black women organizing are those at the high levels of power, whoever they may be.
Growing up in a Caribbean immigrant community here in the US, I always observed the black women in my home, community and church working to maximize the effect of the dollars they were able to command, through their salaries, and if partnered, along with the black men in their lives. And the benefit gained from husbands, brothers and sons also accrued to wives, sisters and daughters.
#NotScaredOfBlackLife
With dual-income couples, decisions are made as to which partner's career is principal. Relocation or advancement decisions are typically made in favor of the principal career. The partner with non-principal career will often opt for non-salary incentives and job flexibility over decisions based on salary alone. As a B.Sc., married to a Ph.D., I've benefited from a varied career while contributing to the advancement of my partner's principal career.
6
That’s not what this article is about.
1
I was applying for a job with a nonprofit that--like me--values equity and diversity. When they asked me about my previous salary, I shared this context, that previous salary contributes to pay gaps, and the interviewer continued pressing. I did ask about salary ranges and said that--luckily I have no dependents and no more student loans--and that the job itself, not the paycheck, would be my reason to say yes. I only wanted to be paid fairly to what the job offered and not engage in that question. That was in Massachusetts before they passed the law.
Another issue for me was I had worked educational/nonprofit jobs in places that don't pay competitively. I worked in Indigenous communities for 8 years of my career, and tribal schools pay less than public schools, Midwestern jobs pay less than East Coast jobs. Thus, my salaries were always lower than other applicants. This would make it tricky to move to the East Coast from a prior salary question perspective. What's livable when you have subsidized housing is not livable when you're moving to more expensive areas.
12
Another way they suppress pay is by designating the salary range for a job according to the "industry norm." If the job tends to be gender-segregated then this perpetuates the imbalance. And if the job tends to be mixed gender, it effectively allows businesses to collude in holding down wages for everyone regardless of gender.
7
In a recent job interview, I was asked what my salary expectations were and because of this new law, I was able to ask them what the range was. Having worked for the same company for five years, it was hard to know what positions pay now. I think this is a good law.
8
A salary should be based on a number of factors but your previous salary should not be one of them. The whole idea is upward mobility as you navigate life and prepare for financial security. So if stating your previous package can jeopardise your prospects of getting a higher pay, then don't disclose. Or even better, state your expectations and justify them.
Any respectable company worth their salt should have a fixed pay based according to the demands of the job, and should not fluctuate according to the negotiating skills of the interviewee.
Doing so not only creates unfair pay gaps, but erodes principles of transparency. If a company can't display openness during an interview before someone is hired, don't expect that person to reciprocate after they've gotten the job.
34
I think regulations should focus on hiring process transparency; specifically background checks. Some states have innovated here a little. National regulation is the next step. My company - thankfully - dropped credit checks and instituted a clearly defined criminal history policy. Now I don't have to listen to a totalitarian HR Assistant, with two years experience, lecture me on character risk because I hired a kid with a public intoxication charge from college.
As for salary, I disclose during the interview. I never ask for theirs. It's irrelevant.
20
Unfortunately, it's sometimes hard to lie about your current salary because HR and managers from (even) competing companies sometimes talk to each other.
As a middle-manager for a name brand tech company, I was courting a potential hire, but we were foundering on salary. My HR contact told me, "I have a well-placed friend at that company. I'll find out exactly what he makes." She did, and we offered him a very nice bump to jump to us.
2
What your HR person did was unethical, even if it resulted in a pay raise for the candidate. Shame on you both.
28
Sounds like highly unethical behavior on the part of your HR contact and the counterpart at the other company. There is a reason that most companies won't officially confirm anything more than the dates of employment for a former employee. Anything more could be the basis for a lawsuit.
13
Both comments calling this unethical are correct. My perception is that it was (mid 1990s) fairly common practice. Looking back, it doesn't make me proud.
1
Asking this salary question was an eye opener for me as a panel interviewer for a parallel role. Everyone made 30% more than me. The salary for this role was too low below market value and without asking this question, my boss honestly would not have known. Managers fought to increase their hiring budget after multiple offers got rejected and I also subsequently left for a higher paying job. Some companies are truly clueless and at least I benefitted from asking this question.
19
California also has passed the Fair Pay Act, which allows any female employee to request salary information from her employer that would allow her to compare her own salary to that of any other employee performing similar work at the location where she is employed or at other locations of the employer. We are on the verge of a revolution to eliminate the gender pay gap: as a recent federal court of appeals judge remarked, gender discrimination is baked into our salary structures. The gap is huge: women earn 80 to 82% of when men earn performing the same work. The estimated cost to female employees in California alone is estimated to be $30 billion. Women should be far more assertive in demanding equal pay. The laws are on the books and are there to be used when necessary.
42
California is indeed a progressive state.
4
I'm not sure why anyone would answer this question honestly or at all in the first place. Most employers aren't likely to check with a previous boss to see what your salary was.
The only time I was ever asked in person, I responded by telling them how much I wanted to be paid at the new position instead - which was actually a 40% raise from previous salary. No need to tell them how big a jump it was. If I'd asked for too much they wouldn't have hired me and if they'd offered too little based on previous salary I wouldn't have taken the job, so I think it worked out much better this way regardless.
14
Now instead of being asked what my last salary was, I find that I'm universally asked what my salary "expectations" are.
10
@Jay Not sure how that's different. My response would still be "what is the range for the position? You're the one offering the job, not me."
Just from personal experience, the California law helped my financial future immensely. I always got raises between 7-14% but because I started so low, my salary was never going to be at par with market value. It was very demoralizing when more was asked of me in my workplace and to know that I was making way less than I should. I also worried about being low-balled when interviewing with prospective employers. Fortunately, I ended up interviewing with a new company, being represented by a California firm that could not ask about my salary history. I received a super competitive offer, and it feels good working hard but also getting compensated fairly.
121
7-14% raises annually? Where do you work? I want to work there!
16
7-14% raises? I work for an international financial services company with YOY record profits. My last raise was 1.5%, pretty much the same as past years. I want to work where you work!
10
I haven’t had a raise in more than three years, although the scope of my job has tripled and my area has been a top revenue creator. They know I’m 55 and won’t find another job easily.
14
In this country we should just openly discuss our salaries instead of being so closeted about it. Other countries do this (India). Would out the companies giving unequal pay.
10
Avoid providing your salary history. Instead, answer all requests for salary disclosure by offering evidence based research findings documenting the median salary for the position you are applying for in the geographical region you wish to work. Avoid referencing sloppy research conducted at indeed and glassdoor. Instead use the salary tools available at the Bureau of Labor Statistics or micro targeted research from professional associations like the AMA, the American Bar Association, etc... By conducting quality research and making use of professional grade information and tools a candidate can distinguish herself from others who cannot tell a quality source from a sloppy google search.
Instead of focusing on the inequities of a past lower salary, a candidate can highlight her professional approach to data driven decision making and can model how to make solid arguments based on high quality evidence.
10
Many online applications require previous salary entries. It's not possible to submit many applications without the information. :-/
14
True. Many online application forms also ask for birth date and won’t let you submit the application without that information, making it easier to discriminate based on age.
26
Exactly - my husband and I are both victims of this very thing now. We are both early 60s, healthy, strong and capable, and hard working, yet can't even get arrested in spite of both having very good resumes/work experience. It's beyond frustrating!
2
As we used to say "Just say no". If the online application insists, get on the phone to the hiring firm and get an in-person interview. And STILL don't give out your personal information. It's illegal everywhere in the US to ask an appicant's age, gender, etc. Asking your birthdate is the same, so just give the month and day, if you must.
1
As a business owner, I find this a grotesque governmental overreach. I provide my employees with good salaries and full benefits — because I want to attract and keep good people. And I have done just that. But let’s be clear: At hiring time, my job is to find the best person (regardless of race, gender or age) at the least cost to the company. It’s called being competitive.
The idea that my private sector business should operate like a non-competitive government agency and pay X amount for X job category is absurd...and would be a giant step backward for the system of American enterprise. Women should demand their skills and experience be appropriately compensated. But this “equal pay for everyone” business is socialism run amok.
5
So basically you are saying that someone who was underpaid at their last job - regardless of the reason - should continue to be underpaid in their new job, regardless of their skills or experience. And, conversely, someone who was overpaid - for reasons that have nothing to do with their ability to do the job - should continue to be overpaid? As a former manager I understand your position and I acknowledge your stated goal of fairness. But. . . it’s possible to meet both goals by relying on the position’s pay range and your assessment of applicants’ capabilities. Using previous salary is just, well, lazy (sorry).
57
This response is what one can always expect from business owners and executives. These individuals view their employees not as people but just another commodity. To them, people are only worth what the market rate indicates. They assume that the workforce is to be bid on and/or traded just like any other faceless entity.
13
You sound absolutely thrilling to work for.
10
"Some business leaders have objected to salary history bans."
"The salary information helps them avoid interviewing people who would cost too much, they say." - Dog whistle for overqualified, which is illegal discrimination.
"It can also help them avoid overpaying people whom they could hire for less...: - Dog whistle for underpaying a candidate, which oddly enough goes back to race and gender discrimination.
"...and it’s a way to find out how much previous employers thought applicants were worth." - Dog whistle for perpetuating discrimination. Again.
174
My daughter spent 3 years studying for and obtaining a Masters Degree with the goal of advancement in her chosen profession. Shortly after she completed the degree, The Great Recession kicked in. She interviewed with dozens of organization and was always one of the last 3 candidates in the selection process. The organization would choose a PhD who had been recently displaced and was willing to work for less. This is a story with an economic situation that could be used to justify the hiring decision. There have been many such stories since the early 1970s. Good times, bad times, the employer has been looking for a deal all my adult life Workers must unite and organize.
12
Salary history bans also appears to violate a company's First Amendment rights according to a ruling by U.S. District Judge Mitchell S. Goldberg.
https://www.shrm.org/ResourcesAndTools/hr-topics/talent-acquisition/Page...
2
@EM
Maybe it is time for a general strike in the USA. No one, no one at all in any industry, goes to work until some of the increased productivity from the last 40 years of upward wealth redistribution is reallocated from executive salaries and bonuses to the regular labor force.
1
"Aileen Rizo was training math teachers in the public schools in Fresno, Calif., " I don't think that Ms. Rizo is being truthful. In California public school teachers are paid from a published salary schedule. Placement on the schedule has nothing to do with pass salary, but rather years of experience and academic qualifications. Teacher can increase their salary by moving across the schedule or by taking classes, or down by just being employed for another year.
These are objective standards. She either met them or she didn't.
If she was paid less, it was because she was less qualified.
4
The article says Ms Rizo was a teacher trainer and in my experience that makes it likely that she worked for an outside contractor and was not employed by the school district as a teacher. But the article was not clear about her employer.
5
So much more to it than that. Many school districts do not keep their negotiated salary promises. For years!
I recently applied to a job where they asked for expected salary range and I provided the information. I received an email back saying that I had been selected for further consideration but before scheduling an interview they wanted me to know that pay rate that they had established for the position was below my stated range. They disclosed the salary rate and asked if I still wanted to interview. I declined, but I appreciated that it was my decision. Sometimes things are simply not "negotiable" and getting to the end of the process to realize that, simply wastes everyone's time.
49
I know that in finance, how well you negotiated your salary was considered proof in itself of whether you merited it.
11
If they ask your past salary, lie your butt off. It's none of their business
24
This is not a question I ask of potential employees, but if I learned that a potential employee blatantly lied to me during the hiring process, it would absolutely be a deal breaker. Decline to respond, say what you expect to be paid, leave the meeting, but don't lie (or expect to be fired if found out).
7
The number one and number two reasons for salary differences are, in this order, (a) experience, and (b) time of employment.
Statistically an employer will hunt out your worth to the operation and strive to keep you there. A huge determinant is your I'll-stay-around factor.
While gender may play a role in hiring, it fades after a few years. If you want to understand the so-called gender gap in pay, you need to look at the full statistical picture not simply 'salary'.
One factor: how long can we expect to have this person, and invest so much in him/her? Someone who is statistically likely to move on in 2-4 years will simply not warrant (in most cases) the same serious consideration as a 'lifer'.
Given that-- what are the gender duration statistics?
5
What is your basis for your belief that experience and duration are the to top reasons? I can't find anything to support that. In fact, hiring bias, unwillingness to bargain, preconceived notions about advocating for oneself, and many others appear to have a huge impact.
7
Really? Most industries I've worked in consider "lifers" to be toxic. If you are at a job more than three years, people start to ask what's wrong with you. Someone who has stayed more than five years is considered to be dead weight, not advancing or developing their skills or able to sell themselves. Promotions and salary increases come when someone outside the company bids for you, not when the boss man bestows them.
Not saying that it's right - it's exhausting - but that's how it is. I'm curious what industry hires someone with plans to invest in them for decades. I thought that kind of hiring went the way of the eight-track and indoor ashtrays.
11
@LF
The problem is that once you're over 50, you're less likely to be getting other offers, much less offers at a higher salary. You also get much more cautious about negotiating annual raises, since a high salary is the equivalent of a target on your back. And of course employers know all this and take advantage of it.
Oh, and your retirement is likely to be determined on their schedule, not yours. Of my female friends, not one retired voluntarily.
I’m glad to see this law not only if it reduces discrimination but for all job seekers. This question is a challenge for me in interviews, since I want to be equitably compensated, but I don’t want to be eliminated from consideration when factors such as benefits, travel, or commute also have value for me. I believe one of the challenges for employers is that when they give a range, candidates set their expectations at the top of the range and then are disappointed.
The best I’ve seen it handled so far is that I give the interviewer a broad range where my former pay is somewhere in the middle. Good companies will tell you if you are way over the range for that job or within the range. The best companies will let you know if you are near the top of the range, so you have the opportunity to express any flexibility. For example, I’m interviewing for a role that will probably be less than my former job, but they will pay to relocate me to a place with a lower cost of living.
The worst I’ve seen is when you are told the job pays one range, and then you are offered something much lower. I guess this could be discrimination, but I attribute it to confusion, recruiters under pressure, or companies negotiating.
I refuse to provide anyone with a salary history, it’s just not relevant. It’s particularly irritating when recruiters ask you this. I also don’t put my salary into any applications, if the field is required I enter $10,000.
8
Sunshine is the best disinfectant.
Government jobs are becoming more equity oriented because the salaries are all available on-line.
(after my friend learned that her male counterpart was making 10K more - with much less experience and no graduate degree, she was able to get an "adjustment".)
61
There are so many restrictions already placed on the hiring process that it has created a number of unintended consequences. The headlines around pay disparity imply (this article does not do this), that it is a function of bias where research has shown that a variety of factors play roles including choice of jobs, number of hours worked, time off track, as well as issues of direct bias. There is a more fundamental issue around whether we are a society of equal opportunity or one that demands a change in the commercial rules to increase pay for people who work less, work less consistently, and work in less economically valued jobs (e.g. teaching vs computer programming).
1
Please tell me about the factors that restricted my earning potential and job opportunities once I have had kids, taken time off work to care for my aging parents, given back my two Masters degrees, and forgotten everything I know about in the field of IT and computer security.
Until then I don't want to hear the same tired old excuses.
8
You go, girl!
MS, what is your point? Are you suggesting, that having kids, taking time off for your aging parents, etc have no impact or should they not have impact?
For some jobs, market data is scarce, and for all jobs, benchmarking data is expensive to obtain. Large employers can afford the surveys; they should not be asking for prior job salary info. Small employers need a reference point. If they can get benchmarking studies for free, ok, but if not, they are left to guessing.
1
Benchmarking data is available free to all through the federal government. Small employers can figure it out. Why should the burden be on jobseekers?
11
I admit its a bad practice to reply within your own post, but I prefer to be more helpful than wrong. You are correct that the The Bureau of Labor Statistics web site provides useful (and free) salary data that is one of several tools used to set compensation levels. Information-rich as that site is, it's too blunt a tool to rely on for to find the right salary. What's right for a research report or news article isn't necessarily right for the HR practitioner.
According to the Society of Human Resource Management, "to obtain current, accurate salary information, employers will typically need to purchase salary data. A few resources, such as the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS), offer free data, but the data may be older and too broad in terms of industry, geography or other factors." So employers are looking for data points to get a clear picture of what to pay. By all means inspect the BLS's web site, but it would be a mistake - and not a minor one - to rely on it as the sole source of your information to set market-based compensation levels for prospective hires.
@MWR Small employers, like large ones, only need to know what they are willing to pay.
I prefer not to release my salary history to an organization I want to work for and grow my career. But companies often say they will not consider your application unless you provide them with the information.
Question - what right does any potential employer have to ask for such personal, confidential information?
Men and women should be paid the same for the same job. Experience, education, or a unique skill may warrant a moderate increase in a candidate's base salary over other people performing the same job, but it should be minimal, like 5%. Potential employers ask for far too much information.
Pay women what they are worth: the same amount as men.
84
"Experience, education, or a unique skill may warrant a moderate increase in a candidate's base salary over other people performing the same job, but it should be minimal, like 5%. "
If an employee is 25% more productive, whether by experience, education, or a unique skill, why should he or she be paid only 5% more? This can be unfair to the more skilled as they'd be underpaid, but it can also be unfair to the less skilled as - if baseline salaries climb to better attract the skilled - those less skilled won't be hireable as they'd cost more than they're worth.
...Andrew
2
Completely disagree. Have no interest in working for minimum wage because what do I have more than experience, education, or unique skills ...
People are worth very different amounts, depending on yes, experience, education, or unique skill or the ability to think beyond the box, do more than they are told, to get things done, to get along with their fellow employees and build a team ..
And your comment really leads to rampant age discrimination or very low paid middle aged workers being paid new hire salaries (and likely not Google new hire salaries). And you have the experience, education and skills .. but no way to monetize it ? How do you save for retirement, pay for kid's college, finish paying off your own student loans ?
Maybe that is why I am basically a consultant. The gig economy has many potential downsides, but in truth, if you are a high achiever, people may be willing to pay more short-term ... and then you can leverage prior experience into a higher paying long-term job ..
1
"How do you save for retirement, pay for kid's college, finish paying off your own student loans ?"
Live in a functional society? Works for a few countries.
But if you choose not to, you want to pay for your own college as well as college for other people? You want double everyone else right there, and think anything less isn't worth your time?
I should note that a key factor in functional societies is there's less greed. Free or heavily subsidised education is useful of course, but when people start to think of others as worth less than them, well that's where it all goes downhill.
1
This is a great way to address the issue in theory. Potential employers and HR now frame the question as “what are your salary expectations?”which is even more insidious. You have to present your potential pay without knowing the budget for the position. How can you do that without prior salary history? You either price yourself out of the job or underestimate your worth. Salaries for positions should just be pre-disclosed and then negotiated from there.
147
Well, you can research online to find salaries for the position based on location and qualifications so as to have appropriate expectations. But yes, employers should disclose their intentions upfront.
13
You can still turn that around and ask them what the range is. I've done it. They have to tell you what the range is, if you ask.
10
@Joanne
I like that approach. Make them declare a starting point.
1
For a supposed position of "openness" and "diversity," it's amazing how many things "Progressives" ban us from talking about, creating chilling environments to the free exchange of ideas and banning questions .....
12
I think that job applicants should definitely be able to ask prospective employers what the employer is willing to pay them.
2
Says the guy who didn't bother reading the article.
6
progressives? where do you get that from?
8
I see this "gender gap" on pay as...... theft. Pure and simple.
Someone needs to be arrested on this charge of theft....
And someone needs to put me on that jury.
When a company can steal 20% from the paycheck of every woman and do so every week, that's a felony.
Sue them.
136
By your logic, companies are ignoring the 20% in potential savings on labor by not hiring women. And because 20% is significant, these companies must be malicious or stupid or both. After all, the companies are in business to turn a profit, and labor is the single most expensive cost to an employer. So, why not pay very close attention to the sex of an employee and only hire women?
4
Well, D, studies have shown that companies with more diverse boards/executive staff outperform their peers, yet only a small percentage of companies have diversified boards/executive staff. Company managers do not always make decisions based upon what really is better business wise, often it's based on what feels right, comfortable, familiar, which I see how you get people hiring, advancing, rewarding people who look like them.
13
A lot of economics theory tends to assume rational actors, but have you looked at a democracy lately? We don't vote for our best interests. We'll take an economic system which funnels resources away from the group to a lucky few in the hope that we'll make that few.
Everyone thinks they're going to be the winner at casinos too, but that's not how maths works.
We're irrational actors no matter how you look at it. And irrational people do irrational things.
5
93% of all workplace deaths are suffered by men, because men disproportionately enter dangerous, high paying fields.
If women started choosing dangerous jobs, that could be one way to close the gender pay gap, as well as the gender death gap.
11
There's a couple flaws in your argument:
1. Are you saying men entering dangerous, high paying fields is the only reason why there's a pay gap? Actually, the main reason is something called the motherhood penalty. A lack of maternity leave, inflexible work hours & even the expectation within families that the mother will take care of the children over the husband all lead to women dropping out of the workforce during the formative career-building years of her life.
2.There is a systemic problem in America with valuing men's work above women's. It's drilled in women from a young age from all corners of society that to be a woman is to be caring, pretty & support the work of men. This has ramifications for the occupations women tend to go after. Also, our society values certain positions less BECAUSE they are female dominated. Do you really feel that the work teachers or nurses provide is less valuable to society than the contributions of construction workers?
69
And the number one reason for workplace deaths of women? Murder.
3
Or Consider, Nate, that women DO apply to these high paid dangerous positions, yet never get hired.....
7
The workplaces on The Top Level of the BusinessWorld, do not get caught-up in this unintelligent salary practice, as well as others. The places that do this stuff, are in a "lower tier". This article does not separate businesses into tiers.
It is important to let people know that they are working-in a place that is not as high rated, powerful, wealthy etcetera., as they think or have been lead to believe. Perhaps, this would encourage people to get more education, so they can work in better places of business, and have more intelligent co-workers.
Many people think they have made-it, and then they run into unintelligent practices like this, where they work. Obviously, they have not made-it. Advanced degrees were the way-out for me. Otherwise, work for yourself, and charge your own hourly rate.
4
This argument doesn't follow through. NYT recently had an article reporting that the number of Fortune 500 Chief execs named John was pretty equal to number of female Chiefs.... "John" was more common than a female. If anything, the gap is more extreme at the top.
From my experience, I've found that I have to deflect the previous salary question in every initial call. I also hold an advanced degree.
8
@Kim Susan Foster
Hunh - my workplace (someplace everyone here has heard of) would most definitely fall into that "Top Level of the Business World" category you refer to - and yet a few years back had to recalibrate on a massive scale because everyone's salaries were all over the map.
A similar policy at the government (in my state) leads to employees who have worked in the private sector having significantly higher salaries that state employees with similar experience (time). Over time the difference is compounded. Recently my supervisor increased my salary by nearly $20,000 in the last 2 years to get me to within "striking distance" of another manager in my division (male). I count myself one of the lucky ones.
We should offer the salary based on experience and aptitude rather than expecting that someone will not take a cut in pay from their previous job.
6
Are you sure you are "lucky"--are you sure you haven't been "quieted"? This sounds more like they realized they were paying your colleague 50k more and were about to get in trouble, so they tried to placate you with 20k. You leave thinking you got a steal, but they're still paying you way less.
EVERY business will always try to pay you less. It's the same with consumers. We all go to Bed Bath and Beyond with expired coupons, and we all try to pay 5$ less.
3
Legitimation => more legitimation.
It's like with grants. Once you've had a few, its easier to get more. Committees don't have the time or skills to fully evaluate proposals, so they go with candidates who've already been validated elsewhere.
10
Most people have heard the term "glass ceiling", but for many women it's a "sticky floor" that keeps women in low paying jobs.
Once a woman (or anyone for that matter) takes one low paying job, it is harder to get a higher paying job, because potential employers think there is something wrong with her, or that she is not worth more than that. The reality is, she looked and applied for higher paying jobs with no success. Her savings account is dwindling fast, and she has to take some job, any job, in order to make next months rent. Once you take a lower paying job, it's much like a scarlet letter on your future resume.
271
Bingo.
When I had two children, I left my telecom job to avoid daycare. I wanted to be home with them more, so took a part-time retail position for about 3 years. When I returned, I had to "start at the bottom" again.
Women really are punished for having to bear most of the burden of bearing and caring for children. And it's usually the political party of "family values" that is in favor of that punishment. Sigh.
88
This is true also for those laid off in the Great Recession, and those who are now in their late 50s.
31
Absolutely yes. The story of my life. I wish younger women well, but I grew up a feminist of the 70s and I tried all this stuff 30-35 years ago. I was once offered a terrific job, but the pay was very low -- less than I had been earning. As a compromise, I asked for ONE DOLLAR more per hour. The company rescinded the offer immediately.
27
If employers are worried about interviewing people that would cost too much for the position, maybe they should post the salary range with their job posting.
294
"Women continue to earn less than men, for a variety of reasons. Discrimination is one"
I fixed your typo "Women continue to earn less than men for one reason. Discrimination".
29
Not quite. There are a variety of reasons and as a woman I had to learn the hard way is that one of those reasons is many women's reluctance to be assertive and try to negotiate a higher wage.
4
I agree, but assertive women are looked down upon as uncooperative, while assertive men are seen as strong. That too is discrimination.
4
Or, after hearing for year that they needed to be more assertive and advocate for themselves more and try to negotiate for higher wages/benefits, they found they were labeled as difficult, too demanding and pushy, and then penalized for that.
https://www.newyorker.com/science/maria-konnikova/lean-out-the-dangers-f...
https://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2017/01/women-negotiating/5...
4
Glad NYS now has this law. Employers know full well the range in which they're willing to pay and requiring a salary history has enabled exploitation and kept women from gaining parity. It has also encouraged people to lie, knowing their salary history wouldn't likely be verified. Decent people wouldn't feel good about this but it was the only defense against being hired at a low salary that could haunt them for years to come.
12
New York CITY has this law.
3
I always feel annoyed when the interviewer asks about prior salary; I feel it's not their business!
Employers need to stop being coy with salary information too. It would waste less of everyone's time if the salary range was known ahead of applying for a job. If a person can't live on the proposed salary, they might not waste their time applying, thus saving both employer and job seeker's time.
201
@ALB I frequently see job applications where you are *required* to put salary information for each previous job (so they could theoretically check when they ask your references). You can't submit without it and they can use it to decide whether to interview you.
3
@Leah
I have seen that. I fill in fake numbers either super high or super low. Ridiculous enough to be clear that I am making a statement and not trying to misrepresent myself. I do not get calls from those places but it is worth it to send the message.
1
Laissez-faire Capitalism is flawed? Woops.
4
Instead of asking for your past salary history, they just ask what your salary expectations are. It's basically the same thing
9
Not necessarily. If you don’t want your male counterparts earn, you’re still potentially leaving money on the table.
2
It's actually not at all. It's very easy to move out of a position in which you were underpaid (maybe for really valuable experience) and seek a market salary in a new position. I've taken jobs that moved down the pay scale for education and opportunity, but I expected that when I moved up, I would be paid market for the new job, not a raise on the old salary.
2
Well, there is nothing that says one has to be totally truthful when this question is asked. Isn't there a recent incident where someone got a high paying and prestigious job by lying about everything he did and would do? Facts are so last decade man, no one really cares about the truth anymore...say what you wish to be true- its ok now!
32
@John
So the interview is just a dance of lies like our current administration? Tell me, when the bridge you're driving on falls down, who will be to blame? I prefer published salary scales, and for there to be at least of modicum of truth for the people who make the world work.
1
Brilliant!!!
The best way to solve a problem is..... Make it illegal to talk about it.
7
What's been made illegal is for hiring employers to ask applicants about their salary history. That's not "talking about it."
Employers are not restricted from talking about how much they expect to pay. Applicants are not restricted from talking about how much they expect to be paid. There's plenty of opportunity for a two-way conversation. Maybe more of that would solve the problem.
3
YEA!!! Finally, pay discrimination is still rampant. Lets work to make this a global law. My former employers ask us to NOT reveal our previous history claiming its proprietary information. BTW - They will not confirm no deny any salary when asked.
7
At the University of California they have adopted this claiming that they didn't need to. But it's a scam. They are allowed to find your salary online and use that and all UC employees salaries are available online!
3
"Women continue to earn less than men, for a variety of reasons. Discrimination is one, research shows"
Interesting that "discrimination" is the one aspect of the "pay gap" that you didn't provide a source for, when it's the basis of the argument that any gender pay gap is unfair and unexpected.
The link on the text "for a variety of reasons" leads to a study with this language in its abstract: "research based on experimental evidence strongly suggests that discrimination cannot be discounted."
That is not "research shows," it's not a strong finding of the study it just wasn't DISproven.
All the other aspects of the "pay gap" are justifiable and perfectly ethical, e.g. role and experience/skillset and hours worked.
It is disappointing but unsurprising that this op-ed has decided to focus on the "discrimination" victim angle, which has no supporting evidence unlike all the aspects of career path that are conscious choices taken by each of us with obvious and immediate effects.
Abstracting personal responsibility away into the Big Bad Societal Zeitgeist has become quite trendy.
14
It reminds me of what happened when on campus recruiters were not allowed for reasons of "equity" to preselect student resumes or learn GPA or class standing information before granting interviews. When academic performance issues came up in interviews, there were many awkward silences as it sunk in for recruiter and candidate alike that the candidate had no realistic shot at an offer. Furthermore, many firms just stopped coming to campus.
7
I hire at a large NYC corporation. If when interviewing one asks for salary history from the candidate it is often not accurate and intentionally boosted upwards. IF one tries to cross-verify with the previous employers they will OFTEN say they are not allowed to give out that info on previous employees (basically they fear a lawsuit and it is easier to decline than offer the facts).
What that means is that I would ask salary history to the candidate but I didnt care about its accuracy because I already knew the salary I was going to offer anyway. It didnt matter. If the candidate refused we didnt hire that person. There is always another person who will take the job at that salary.
Since nothing in this article mentions any of this I thought I would throw it out there.
4
I am curious to know why you went through this exercise if your salary range was set already.
Why should a potential employee's previous salary be of any concern - unless the intent is to under-pay...
59
I'm certainly glad not to be looking for a job with the company that employs you to make hiring decisions.
You ask candidates a salary history question as a cudgel--not because you will take that information into consideration? And you hire the candidate who gives you an answer even if he/she is lying?
Does your employer know that's the way you operate?
9
Folks, central HR has the applicant fill out the box for requested salary. I should have said that. But my point is that any attempts to verify that salary history was often blocked by the previous employer. This is not new info to people that hire.
Since applicants tend to misrepresent their salary history, I didnt regard it one way or the other when making the decision.
The question is based on the assumption that you were fairly compensated previously. Not a great assumption if you are voluntarily looking for a new position. Not a great question if the new position has different responsibilities or requirements.
I once accepted a new job after being laid off at my old salary where only later did I find out that they believe they got a great deal because they expected to pay 25% more but were able to hire me for a lot less based on my old salary. Thus that original salary has haunted me for years in comparison to my peers AND sub-peers in experience and responsibility.
156
I came out of college in the Reagan recession, and it has murdered my salary ever since.
13
Same here. I was working & going to school full time during my last year in college. I was waitressing and tending bar because the hours were flexible enough to schedule my classes around. After graduation, several job offers were low balled because of my previously low salary. I ended up taking a job with a company that I later found out was paying me 20% less than the 2 young men doing the same job. A year later, I went back to school to get a master's and got dinged on salary again when I went for jobs in line with my new degree. This time I was told outright that the reason was my "previous salary history" and the time I'd taken out of the workforce to get my masters!
Ending this is long overdue!
15
Employers should state the salary they intend to pay in the job listing, then applicants can know whether or not they are interested in the job. Simple. If they want to pay more for more experience, say so. Say "Salary will be $X for people with A years of experience and $Y for people with B years experience. Be transparent.
333
That doesnt work for about 2 dozen reasons unless the job is hourly-paid or union contract. There is RARELY an ideal candidate who has ALL the skills ready to go -- so there has to a specific conversation about existing skills and compensation. You are making everyone the same round peg that fits in a round hole but everyone is not the same. Nothing is "simple" about hiring. Perhaps the most low-skilled no-skilled jobs but those are hourly jobs typically anyway.
6
Then can't employers state a range, clearly stating that candidates with more of the desired skills will fall on the higher end of that stated spectrum?
8
If job applicants agree to be transparent, it's a deal!
2
When I was looking for a job a few years ago I naively thought that salary history was somewhat an indicator of accomplishment, but after having interviews go cold when I mentioned my salary history I started saying that I would only provide it when they provided a job offer. Some companies had you state what what you wanted as a salary on the job form, which allowed them to lowball people as much as possible.
I was never ambitious short term about pay and raises but I wanted to see increases long term, and things have turned out better than expected. As others have mentioned Glassdoor helps to set expectations. Instead of not asking about salary, employers should be required to state a pay range up front, kind of like Civil Service.
87
a good ploy. Also you dont have to fill the box about your salary requirement. If you are for some reason required to do that and you REALLY want that job then low ball it in the box and then negotiate at the offer. If they really want to hire you they will listen to your salary request.
7
While I'm happy about the new law in NYC, I do think it can backfire.
How? Because some people may shoot for the stars when asked for salary range and price themselves out of decent jobs.
We've recently posted multiple manager level positions and we were amazed how much junior level candidates with only 3-4 years of actual business experience were asking for in terms of annual salary. Those who did not fall within our budget range were not asked in for interviews, even if we liked their resumes.
4
The answer to this is twofold:
1. Candidates should do some research on Indeed, GlassDoor, and other sites that collect salary data, and pitch themselves accordingly when the time is right to discuss salary. But we shouldn't be asking for salary requirements at the application stage. If the candidate asks in the initial call, sure, give them an answer, but otherwise, wait until the in person interview.
2. Employers should be transparent, up front, about starting pay. $X/hour+, dependent on experience sets the minimum floor and candidates can rule themselves in or out accordingly. Candidates who push for more anyway aren't a good cultural fit. But candidates who are wanting to make a career change and take a salary downgrade can respond yes or no.
7
Catherine, I think you are misreading this.
The new laws call for the *employer* to give full and honest info about the salary range *they will pay for the job* that is posted.
The applicant does not need to "shoot for the stars" because they are NOT or should not be asked what THEIR salary range is.
This is much more, all now on the employer, not the job seeker.
10
Berkeley Bee - misreading what? This article only says that asking about *prior* salary is banned. Not preferred salary range, or the employer providing that info. I hope you are correct, as it would be great to know when applying, but where are you seeing that?
Studies have shown that interviews are a poor predictor of ability and decisions are often made on "proxies", including gender. It's likely your ability to persuade prior employers to give you raises is likely better than your ability to overcome interview bias.
The real beneficiaries of "don't ask salary history" may be older, overqualified workers whose positions have been eliminated, since employers are often reluctant to employ someone at a significantly lower salary, for fear they won't stay. Certainly that is likely true in the tech industry.
18
I'm wondering what you mean by "overqualified".
Overqualified means you have more skills/ education / experience thant the job requires.
1
"I'm not comfortable bidding against myself."
"Well, what I earned in my previous position is comparing apples to oranges given the different responsibilities in this position."
In other words, just as you can't ask an employer too many questions while they feel free to interrogate you, I decline to answer the question.
60
Darcey, stellar!
4
Without being able to negotiate based on past salary I would be making almost 20% less than I do now. Without past salary companies will always want to start you at the bottom of a pay grade whenever possible. This could prove devastating to people who survive on short term contracts.
In short, I’d worry that if banning previous pay consideration did in fact affect the ‘gender pay gap’ that it would do so by bringing average male salaries down, not by bringing average female salaries up. I’m not sure that this is the best way forward. More accountability in advertising and normalising pay scales within industries might be a better way to do it.
6
Glassdoor has given the average worker so much leverage against large companies. Most pay rates at places I've worked have been pretty accurate. You already know what others are getting and what to ask. Better to get another job offer and make them compete for more cash.
18
I've always heard that two wrongs don't make a right, but in this case, why not? Tell your employer you're currently making what you expect them to you offer you. If the past few years have taught me anything, it's that playing by the rules isn't always the right move.
This tactic by companies is the equivalent of asking your opponent to show you her cards. It's gamesmanship and it should be illegal.
Look out for yourself and don't feel bad about muddying the ethical waters if necessary.
44
And then later if they're looking for an excuse to fire you, they can point to the lie you told on your application. It really isn't that much different from claiming you have a master's degree when you may have taken all the coursework and passed exams but not finished the thesis. A lie is a lie. Wouldn't it better just to write in "negotiable"?
15
C Wolf -- Typically previous employers wont verify previous salary of former staff if you contact them. There is nothing in them to do so AND there is some risk of a lawsuit. It isnt right but that's how it is.
How naive you are! Most online applications would not even allow you to type characters in a numeric field. And being asked in an interview you can say "negotiable" a couple times but if they ask repeatedly and you won't answer then you have effectively lost the job.
It would be super easy for companies to pay for the salary range they're able to pay for a position--I think that would cut out most people who don't want to take a salary cut. I'm always upfront with job candidates, if they ask, about how much I make. Why not? The only people who benefit when you don't share your salary info is the company. The more transparent you and your colleagues are about pay, the more equal the environment becomes.
50
That's how I got hired with 10 years supervisory experience (major companies) at compensation so low they had to bump me up six months later to keep me in the pay grade.
I was co-supervisor with a guy with zero years supervisory experience, and they didn't have to bump his pay. I figured it out when he was grumbling about what a lousy raise he'd gotten.
5
Once again - there is no pay gap.
The largest study of pay rates for men and women around the world was completed and according to data for 8.7 million employees worldwide gathered by Korn Ferry, a consultancy, women in Britain make just 1% less than men who have the same function and level at the same employer.
They summarize their results as:
"However, they do suggest that the main problem today is not unequal pay for equal work, but whatever it is that leads women to be in lower-ranking jobs at lower-paying organisations."
https://www.economist.com/blogs/graphicdetail/2017/08/daily-chart
39
Wow. Did you even tread the article? And did you note that the US is not one of the country's examined? You are comparing apples and oranges.
Moreover, there seem to be no controls for education or experience. This is just a raw data analysis, which tells you little. (Check out econometric studies on wage discrimination.)
Labor laws in Europe are far better than the US and may explain why at lower levels, there is less obvious pay differentials. Finally, the article states that there is most definitely a pay gap at the highest levels:
"Moreover, even if the bulk of the BBC’s 9,000 female employees are not underpaid relative to their male colleagues, the list does suggest a problem among the broadcaster’s top brass. That pattern is fairly common. Pay gaps between men and women in the same roles at the same employers are narrow across Europe for 15 of the 16 job levels in Korn Ferry’s database—but the highest one is the exception. In Spain and Germany, top-ranking women make 15-20% less than similarly high-flying men."
You should read more carefully.
82
Are you for real? Obviously a statement that there is no pay gap coming from a guy.
41
When you've experienced it personally Steve, than come back and tell us about it. Too many of us have and have seen the evidence, not merely supposition or guessing.
42
It's very difficult to fire or replace someone without a clear reason, especially if they are a minority (i.e. discrimination lawsuits). Suppose someone is okay at their job, but you want to upgrade to a better employee?... you can't.
To combat this issue and safeguard against the hiring of mediocre employees (people who don't commit fire-able offenses, but fail to excel at the highest level) employers utilize skepticism and doubt during the hiring process, which involves a detailed understanding of a candidates past (i.e. salary).
8
Wow. I sure don't want to work where you work or, even, work for you. What a horrible attitude and POV. And this is not about sussing out bad workers.
It's about the whole phenom of playing the stupid guessing game with an employer over what a job pays. Why do that? Why keep doing that?
If you have a job and you know it pays between X and Y, what good does it do you or the company to create some odd, byzantine, psych game for applicants?
Just tell us!
If it makes sense to us out here looking for jobs, we will apply. If it doesn't, we won't. But we will save time and energy on both sides if we know.
31
"employers utilize skepticism and doubt during the hiring process, which involves a detailed understanding of a candidates past (i.e. salary)"
Subjective skepticism is not detailed, it's discriminatory.
And if every employer hired only rock stars, there would be a lot more unemployed people. The myth of the A+ employee being a universally available resource is an elitist excuse to continue to underpay reliable, consistent, mediocre workers less for still getting the posted job done.
I'd much rather pay a B level employee more for showing up every day and doing everything that was asked, than pay an A+ employee who is not in on time, questions reasonable requests, and sidetracks projects because they think their idea is better. Perfect is the enemy of the good; it's also the enemy of getting things done and moving on.
10
"Suppose someone is okay at their job, but you want to upgrade to a better employee?... you can't."
.......... Yes you can. It's called at-will employment. You are just completely incorrect. The idea that employers need to be terrified of firing any non-white, cis-het male employee because of the discrimination lawsuit bugaboo is utterly ridiculous. Such lawsuits are actually quite difficult to successfully prosecute. I know because I've dismissed a number of them in the course of my legal career.
And why on earth do you think that salary is a meaningful barometer of a candidate's abilities? Holy unsupported assumption, batman!
9
"It can also help them avoid overpaying people whom they could hire for less, and it’s a way to find out how much previous employers thought applicants were worth."
Overpaying people whom they could hire for less? Are they interviewing candidates without having any salary range in mind? If employers offer a salary that is within their planned range -- no matter what the candidate earned on a prior job -- then they are not "overpaying." If the prior salary history of a candidate leads to the prospective employer to offer less than their expected range for a position they are underpaying.
How often do we hear the "business community" tell us that they pay what jobs are worth? Apparently not. They pay what they can get away with. And any legislation that levels that playing field in favor of the employee is a plus for the country. Please let's not forget that, demographically speaking, the majority of our citizens are current, past, or future employees.
No other developed nation is as hostile to its own workers -- the majority of its citizens -- than the United States. It's long past time for that to change.
418
When senior execs at my company were asked if they were going to share some of the tax savings with the emplyees, the answer was -- no, we already pay market salaries. All that means is that they pay only what they absolutely have to, no more, no less. And I can attest to the fact that once you are in the door that the raises do not keep up with inflation.
57
No group of workers is so hostile to its own interests as American workers.
30
A job is “worth” what businesses can get away with paying. Or do you overpay for things you buy on a routine basis because you think they are worth more than the sticker price?
11