>> Most important takeaway about salary negotiation, by the way: disclosing a previous salary is almost always against your interests because it pegs your new salary to that plus 5% rather than your value to the new firm minus a discount, which is a brutal mistake
I had a phone screen with an HR drone once (Cerner Inc. to be exact \waves) part way thru she asked me my current salary. I declined to provide that information. She replied "we can't continue without that information". I replied, I'm sorry, but I won't discuss salary at this point. She said, "good bye" and that was all. I had a job so was not desperate at the time. I was still shocked at how abrupt it was.
1) recently, I had very good success with a professional social networking site in this matter. Recruiter asked what my current salary details are. I told me, "If I give you this information, what information will you give me". Initially he asked me to look in glassdoor but when I said he can also do the same thing, he relented and disclosed that salary for senior software engineer is minimum of $150k going to a maximum of $190k. I was happy with that information.
Also, I discovered recently that companies cannot talk to one another about salaries, but they can all participate in a "survey" where the surveyor aggregates all this information, in a very detailed way. So, every company knows exactly what the other company is paying, even in a different industry. I guess that is another way of fixing price.
Crazy. I'd definitely send a quick note to someone higher up if you can get a hold of him/her. I know, not worth the time, a hassle etc. But a typical CEO worth his salt will crush something silly like that in no-time, if you really want to hire good people this is the type of person you want to fire.
I mean, hell, asking the question is one thing. I can live with that. But turning that into some kind of litmus test where declining to share private information completely 100% immediately disqualifies you, that's insane.
Anyway, never experienced it. Question for you all, are there any negatives to bluffing?
i.e. say you said your previous salary was $110k while it was really $90k, will HR say 'you're overqualified' or something to that extent if they were hoping to pay you say $90k and had a max of $100k in mind?
As in, can you recover from that and say 'oh but $100k is fine, too', or would that also send a signal of weakness where they won't hire you because you seem desperate (taking a $10k cut from their perspective, when you actually get a $10k raise)? Ugh the mindgames! haha. Would love to hear your experiences on this issue.
>> But a typical CEO worth his salt will crush something silly like that in no-time, if you really want to hire good people this is the type of person you want to fire
That is actually not true. This kind of employee low balling is condoned behavior.
I applied for a position at Automattic and had Matt Mullenweg (CEO) pull this on me.
Everything seemed to have gone perfectly well - everyone involved in the process seemed impressed with my abilities but when it came to this point and I declined I was told "I seem to be senstive about being Indian" out of nowhere. I don't know where that came from.
First, I'm sorry that at some point in your hiring process you got that impression, it is not in line with our philosophy or our actions. We now employ 320 people in 36 countries and with at least that many distinct racial or ethnic backgrounds, including Indian. We aim to hire another 120 in the next year so disqualifying potential candidates based on something they are born with is not just morally odious, it's logically flawed and not something I would tolerate in our organization. (We even help host events like http://accelerate.lgbt/ .)
This is also why we have a distributed model -- we wanted to create a company that where someone chooses to live is not a barrier to them doing great work at Automattic.
The words you put in quotes don't look like something I'd say, and also unusual for my interactions with potential candidates in our hiring process (which is described here - https://hbr.org/2014/04/the-ceo-of-automattic-on-holding-aud... ), if you're willing to share the date when we chatted or any other info I'd love to review my transcripts and understand the context if that was an actual quote, or if it's not I'd like to see what I said that gave you that impression it was a mistake on my part and I want to avoid giving that impression again in the future.
To summarize: Automattic wants to employ people of all backgrounds and regardless of their geography, and I personally believe there is no connection between a person's background, Indian or otherwise, and their ability to be an amazing Automattician.
I wouldn't stop it -- I'd want to talk about it to understand why. If it was because they were following advice they read somewhere because worried it would influence their offer, I'd try to dispel that myth within the context of Automattic. If they didn't believe me, we probably don't have the level of trust needed to work well together.
Our culture is really built on two-way trust: since we're distributed and seldom see each other you don't know how someone is going about their work, and most of our HR policies come down to the honor system. The company places an incredibly amount of trust in employees, and vice versa people place a great amount of trust in the company, including that we'll do our best to treat them fairly. It's a responsibility the folks on the operations side of Automattic, including myself, take very seriously.
> If it was because they were following advice they read
> somewhere because worried it would influence their offer,
> I'd try to dispel that myth within the context of
> Automattic.
If knowledge of a candidate's previous salary doesn't influence your offer, why do you ask for it and what do you do with it?
I agree it can be uncomfortable for people, as is almost everything around compensation. I don't think we're entitled to know, but it is an expression of trust when someone shares it, and thus far with ~99% of people we've hired over 10 years it hasn't been an issue.
Why should people express trust in you by deliberately sacrificing information relevant to their own interests before you've proven yourself trustworthy?
Well actually, one usually builds trust by giving it in small pieces, showing that you're willing and able to develop a relationship with the other person. But the key word there is small: you don't place yourself at a large disadvantage until the other person has shown themselves to be trustworthy in previous instances where less was at stake.
>> I was told "I seem to be senstive about being Indian" out of nowhere.
Jesus. It's amazing to think someone who's worked so long in the tech industry can think like this. If anything, we're the ones who should know best how little race means when you have the skills to get the job done.
True, and if this story is true, it also surprises me in a nasty way because
a) I am Indian, and until now had largely thought that we were largely a privileged class within tech, if not outside it -- and consequently weren't affected by race issues within it.
b) All of the articles about how oh-so-wonderfully Automattic does their remote work had always led me to believe they were a forward-thinking, "good" company. If they are bringing up race in an interview it completely destroys this perception.
> I was told "I seem to be senstive about being Indian" out of nowhere
In a climate where most companies are afraid to disclose quite reasonable reasons for not making a hire, it's remarkable that someone would think this kind of comment is appropriate.
Been thinking about this more and the only possible context I could imagine, related to the original post, could be around salary.
We base compensation on market data, value to the company, and what other people in a similar role make, we also ask what people made in the past and where they hope to be in the future. This does not determine their salary, it's market data for us, and the future part also makes sure that Automattic is a place that can meet their long-term goals and expectations, or if not that's discussed up front.
I've had this conversation about 400 times at this point, while people can sometimes be sensitive around compensation, it's like discussing a health issue with your doctor -- I've seen and heard it all and it's part of a normal days work for me. It's sometimes the source of a nice surprise, as we've had people who've doubled or trebled their salary when joining Automattic which always brightens my day. We've also had people take a small or substantial cut when joining, which isn't ideal, but we determine salaries as I said above, not based on what they say they previously made, and it's good information for the company to have because hopefully one day as our business or their contribution to it grows it'd be great to have them at or above what the market said they could make someplace else. I can only think of only once someone has not joined because of compensation, an engineer at Yahoo who had compensation 3-4x beyond what seemed fair in the market commensurate with his skills or experience.
The OP advice of not saying salary might be appropriate at other companies, I'm not privy to their compensation practices, but it is not correct at Automattic. A few folks in this thread suggested lying, which I would disagree with in any circumstance, much better not to answer -- lying in response to a factual question demonstrates low integrity and most employers, including us, would not want to work with that person.
Automattic is one of too few companies that tries to treat people who live in different countries the same, which is an important distinction from treating people who are from different countries and now live and work in the US the same, which of course every company is legally required to do (though there are still some serious issues around pay equality and even gender, to start). Many companies explicitly try to have offices and hire people in countries where the cost of living and wages are lower to save money; our thought is that the internet makes that obsolete and over time enlightened companies will pay people what they're worth regardless of where they live.
There have been about 5 times someone hasn't wanted to share, every time because they think making a low amount in the past (at a non-profit, in a country where wages are low) will lower their offer, which it doesn't and I try to re-assure. One case comes to mind in 2012 of someone who had attended Stanford but moved back to India because didn't have a visa, and was worried their geography would mean they were paid less, in which case I would have said to not worry about the fact that you're in India because that doesn't matter to Automattic -- if I gave the impression that it mattered whether you were Indian (or any other background) I apologize. We did end up hiring this person and at a similar salary to someone in the Bay Area doing a similar role, though there were some complications with them wanting to be paid to a US bank account, in USD (we try to pay people in the currency of where they live so they're sheltered from forex shifts), and travel to work in the US, which our attorneys advised us would create issues in absence of a work visa, which the person didn't have. They ended up only being with the company 9 months, the last few on a performance plan, but that was based on work after they had joined, not anything to do with the interview or compensation process, just sometimes there isn't a mutual fit. (Over the past 10 years we've had about 60 people be let go or leave, it's definitely not personal.)
Not sure if that was the same person as nodelessness, but if so I feel very bad you thought any of that had to do with you being Indian, and I'm happy to chat or discuss more to clear it up. I also hope the information and context above helps any one who is considering working at Automattic know that we'll do our darndest to create a comfortable and fair environment for everyone.
I've read both of these comments, and I really struggle to see how both of the following can be true:
1. As a hiring manager, knowing your previous salary will not impact my decision on your value.
2. As a hiring manager, I insist on knowing your previous salary. If you do not want to discuss it, you must not trust us.
I'm going to assume matt is lying unless he will release comp data for his offers vs what the candidates' reported salaries. he is on here doing 100% damage control.
In the original post Patrick already touched on the Japan case, but one thing I'd add is that one of the pieces of paperwork you must hand to your new employer is your final tax slip from your previous employer showing how much tax you have paid in the current year. From there it's trivial to calculate your previous salary.
There are ways around it but it seems most people go with "my base was XX.... and that's one of the reasons I'm out there looking to change jobs."
"...one of the pieces of paperwork you must hand to your new employer is your final tax slip from your previous employer showing how much tax you have paid in the current year..."
Are you referring to Japan?
I've worked in two states in the USA and never been required to produce such documentation.
I've always had to do that in the UK. Your previous employer gives you a form called a P45 when you leave that has information about your tax code and your earnings for the previous year.
The new employer just needs your details to identify you correctly with HMRC.
You can give them sufficient detail without handing over your P45 or income data. I have never given a P45 to a new employer and it has never been a problem.
It's possible that your tax code will reveal some information, if you're still in the same financial year, but this is an unreliable way of calculating salary.
Correct. A difference for the UK is that salary bands are often (not always) disclosed in an advertisement or told to a head hunter in advance. Not always, but enough that not doing so raises eyebrows and concerns about corporate ethics for me (and my friends).
The obvious caveat in this is that they could only estimate an average salary. You could state that your salary progresed rapidly during your previous employment, although they may not buy it.
> your final tax slip from your previous employer showing how much tax you have paid in the current year.
Do you mean in Japan or the US? Because you certainly don't have to do that in the US.
> From there it's trivial to calculate your previous salary.
And even if you did do it in the US it would be impossible to calculate your salary from it because it depends on how many exemptions you claimed in your W4 (which you can change at any time - it doesn't have to be how many children you have, it's basically a number to fine tune how much tax you pay so you don't overpay and need a refund).
IANAL, but I don't see why that would be illegal. There are very few things that it's actually illegal for an employer to ask about. (Though it would obviously be a bad idea to ask a candidate about their status in a protected class, it's not technically illegal to ask.)
That said, this is a bad idea because it would scare off plenty of people who aren't bluffing about their salary (like me). And there are already employers who will terminate you immediately if they discover you lied in your job application.
> There are very few things that it's actually illegal for an employer to ask about.
I guess it depends on your definition of "very few things" but this list[1] of Unlawful vs. Lawful questions seems pretty long/wide ranging. And I know that the small business I worked for violated it on a regular basis. I actually had it sent out to each person who does interviewing (since the company didn't have a formal policy on training someone for interviews) so they knew what was/wasn't acceptable.
Note: I'm not a lawyer so don't take this as legal advice.
My understanding is that it is illegal to use any of those things to discriminate against someone for purposes of hiring. It's not technically illegal to ask the question, but if you do, and you don't hire the person, have fun in court trying to prove that you didn't hire them for some other, valid, reason. So don't ask them, because there's no upside in it for you.
They can't legally ask for proof, no. Bluff away! (I'm not a lawyer and this does not constitute legal advice.)
I did a small bluff to try it out, just 5k above what I was making. The recruiter was surprisingly skeptical! I know I've done an good job of bumping up my salary in a short amount of time, but it was kind of off-putting to have him question it.
I'm a bootstrapped entrepreneur CEO with ~30 employees in my company now, growing quickly, expect to have ~60 in next 12 months.
I am not so interested in previous salary. Rather, I always directly ask "what is your salary requirement". I think it is good business sense to not underpay what people think they require, though sometimes this means we must pass on what could otherwise be good employees, so requesting moonshot salaries is definitely a filter for us.
Furthermore, when I ask applicants their requirement, if they just deliver a number to me using logic that does not include salary levels at previous jobs to justify, then I evaluate how close it is to my budget target for the position, and if feasible, I make an offer at that requested level.
However, if the applicant uses a previous salary to justify their current salary requirement, and it's a lot higher than I expected or had targeted for the position, I have on a few occasions offered jobs with compensation to match previous salaries, so long as applicant proves to my HR they are not lying about the salary.
So far, all offers I’ve made predicated on proving their salary claims, my HR has proven the applicants were lying to significant degree, except for one person. Those that were caught lying had job offers rescinded. The one person that wasn't lying only lasted 90 days because he clearly couldn’t add value to justify.
From my point of view, the best strategy for negotiating a higher salary is to get in front of a person that cares if you can help them make them more money than it costs to pay you, regardless of your previous salary (an HR manager is usually not the person that cares about this). Then present a clear vision to them for how you will deliver that added value.
If you are asking me to start a negotiation and I give too high a number for your tastes, that isn't my fault, it's your fault for not just offering what I'm worth to you. How am I supposed to know what you consider to be a moonshot?
Above a certain point, and most programming jobs are above that point, there is no fixed position with a fixed value. The right person in the right place can easily be worth 2x or more than originally anticipated for an opening. There's no way to predict that in advance, so at best the employer could give an ideal range and let candidates demonstrate their value if they want to exceed the range.
One of the things I've always tried to be aware of is how much value I add to a business. Dollar figures help most, but some places are wary of giving developers that knowledge, though it's usually not difficult to work out. This has helped guide my salary requests in a way that I hope is fair for all parties; rising tides lifting all boats, and that sort of thing.
Don't let their skepticism thrown you off. It is just another technique to low ball you.
In my own interviews going out of collage, I was told by peers about the offers they were making. I got asked what I was expecting to get by employers and told them around $80K because thats what my peers were getting and I consider myself to be on pretty equal ground with them and most companies scoffed at it. But then I got an offer of $95K and then they had to raise their own offers up to match. Its a ridiculous process to go through.
> They can't legally ask for proof, no. Bluff away!
Well, I am a lawyer, and this is also not legal advice.
To lie and accept a job offer whose salary is predicated on the lie would constitute fraud. Lying about your former compensation history is no different than lying about a prior criminal record, if the counterparty relies on the false assertion.
A very good point, but, and this gets a bit complex, they would have to prove that they relied upon on false information to decide to hire or pay you.
So Bob and Anna are equally qualified and currently paid 50k. They both apply for same job and Bob says he has a (fake) PhD and is paid 50k and anna does not lie about qualifications but says her base is 100k
Most of us would say Bob has committed an illegal act because the link between qualifications and hiring decision seems so clear. But there is a very weak link between previous salary and hiring decision, so how far must the company prove that it uses prior salary in hiring decisions? Just the fact that it asks? The fact it only offers prior plus 5%? That prior salary is used to rank CVs?
Unless current employer a) receives your permission to pull your tax return transcripts or b) receives your permission to contact your previous employer and you provide permission for previous employer to divulge said information, you will almost surely not be found out.
Disclaimer: Not a lawyer, not your lawyer, but fairly confident based on past experience with this over ~15 years.
You can triple-dog-dare an employer to fire you "with cause" from a role where you are performing well for lying about previous salary. This is a silly concern. It's just not going to happen.
This is what happened in my last negotiation, where $X was a 30%-ish raise. They didn't bat an eye, and made an offer of exactly $X. I asked them, "Could we make that $(X + .06*X) and they did.
I keep raising my rates 30% every time someone asks, mainly because I don't want to take on more work, but apparently people don't mind, so I keep getting more work... Oh, the humanity.
I suppose so? If I was a recruiter I wouldn't question what I thought was a 5k discrepancy. I was doing well though--- making 90k after 3 years of programming, and my bluff was 95k. I think that just the real salary alone would have been enough for him to raise suspicions.
Depends on the area, I guess. I don't think people would have blinked in SF or Boston at that.
Or he was screwing with you to try to drag down your ask. Happens pretty frequently, because their incentives don't align with yours (it's the realtor problem all over again).
While dealing with recruiters can be a hassle their goals align much more closely with ours if we are maintaining the fallacy that only the money counts. Recruiters are typically paid a percentage of your salary so they want you to receive the highest salary possible since that is the best payout for them as well.
My experience with recruiters is they want to know how little it will take for you to accept the job, but this is because they need to know which jobs they should do the legwork on.
If I'm looking for a job I call up several recruiters I trust and I tell them the specifics I'd what I'm looking for and the price I'm willing to accept. I then continue working my network and looking on my own, but now I have 4 times as many jobs and a better chance if finding the perfect fit.
> While dealing with recruiters can be a hassle their goals align much more closely with ours if we are maintaining the fallacy that only the money counts. Recruiters are typically paid a percentage of your salary so they want you to receive the highest salary possible since that is the best payout for them as well.
No, this isn't true, and this misconception is explicitly why I invoked the realtor problem. If the recruiter gets paid, say, 15%, the difference to the recruiter between $100K and $110K is $1500. To get $16,500 instead of $15,000, the recruiter risks extra days of negotiation in which the applicant may find another job, or one or both sides passing on each other because of lack of salary fit. In most cases, then, it is in the recruiter's best interest to pressure you to take the job at $100K. Most recruiters are out of the business in a couple years, only a few are in it for the long hall--since he's not going to work with you again, it's in his best interest to get the payout now. Over any length of time, they will make so much more money by you saying yes than you pushing for more money that it's stupid of them not to get you to take the first offer that comes down the pike.
A few recruiters, among them the best ones I've worked with, are in it for the long haul, and cultivate real relationships, but they are uncommon. I remain on good terms with them whenever I can--I've been on job interviews before where I was clearly sent to the wrong job and told the interviewer "look, you don't want me for this job and the recruiter just wasted your time and mine--go talk to this guy, he'll feed you candidates you can actually use." It's worth it, because what goes around comes around, but most are in-and-out and they act like it.
I think we are essentially in agreement here. I said that recruiters goals more closely align than realtors, but I need to clarify. While a realtor can represent us in either the purchase or sale I'm considering representation of a purchase. Here the realtor's goal is directly at odds. I want to purchase the house as cheaply as possible, but the realtor wants the largest commission so they want the price to remain as high as possible.
The recruiter wants the largest commission possible and I want the highest salary possible. Notice I said these "more closely align". You are right, it is not a perfect alignment. The recruiter would rather get some commission rather than none. If they are afraid you may take an offer on your own or from another recruiter they may try to get you to accept a lower offer. This is why I work with recruiters I trust and I establish clear non negotiable guidelines up front. "I am looking only for promotional level opportunities. My current salary is X; do not trouble me with positions unless the salary is paying a minimum of X + (X * .3)".
With this type of relationship we must establish clear guidelines. If we fail to stick to those guidelines then it is on us.
One wonders why the incentives aren't aligned. I.e. the value of the recruiter to the employer is finding a higher paying job, so the compensation should reflect that. E.g. 10% + 50% of the pay increase.
The value of the recruiter to the employee is that. The recruiter isn't being paid by the employee. You could consider an agency model, but honestly I don't think that's likely to actually work because of the temperament of the developers in question.
We regularly get requests for job title/tenure/salary verification forms from former employees. I'm not sure what our status on completing them is though, but there are at least some companies out there that go through the legwork to check up on something after a job offer.
If you have a corporate lawyer and/or experienced HR director, you do the same thing everyone does: inform the questioner of the individual's dates of employment and nothing else.
Only if that employee has the time and money to waste on the lawsuit, and has any evidence in hand to make it go. How is that employee supposed to discover this? By fraudulently pretending to be a prospective employer?
You certainly shouldn't share your salary, much less provide a W2, for most positions. However, not only is it not illegal to ask for a W2, for most sales positions it is the norm.
The reason is that sales people make most of their money on commissions in most places, and checking how much they made in commissions in previous years is the simplest way to figure out how effective they have been in past positions.
There is an altogether separate discussion about whether commission heavy compensation works better or not though.
Don't lie, respond with this: "I cannot disclose my current salary, but my desired salary is X." They just need a number. If they will not accept desired salary in place of current salary, you do not want to work there.
I have had several interviews where after I had passed all the technical screens that the company was simply unable to offer me what I was asking for after weeks of trying. I managed to find a list of what local area start-ups were paying for different roles and was shocked to find myself in the top 10% when I had taken multiple pay cuts within defense and was getting mediocre compensation compared to every Bay Area and NYC located company I had talked to.
I've talked to a number of folks with inside knowledge for a couple different regions and it's quite possible that they're simply not budgeted to pay for that role and they just can't politically negotiate that while meeting certain fiscal commitments. If I started a company right now and bootstrapped, I can't pay someone market rate at all and expect to be in business a year without taking outside funding, so that's just reality.
I get the impression that a lot of companies out there either don't have that mentality (thinking cheap is enough) or don't know how to actually do good hiring.
The good thing about this kind of reaction is that it helps you filter out that kind of company you wouldn't want to work for.
Regarding bluffing: I've seen it happen where the company has asked for a pay stub as part of the final paperwork to confirm that the stated current salary was legit. So yeah that could be a downside to bluffing if you want the job.
I've never heard of such a thing but it undoubtedly happens. Your pay stub is really just showing the floor though. For many positions, there are fairly regular bonuses, variable comp, etc. So, in reality, there's usually some wiggle room in providing current salary info while still being essentially truthful.
I've been recruiting engineers for almost 20 years, and I have probably had a dozen cases where a client asked for a pay stub around the time an offer is presented. It's obviously rare, and most of the time it was for high-ticket talent that seemed to be paid noticeably above market rate.
I have to say, I find that sorta weird. At that point, I would think if the pay stub didn't square with the claimed salary (and there was no convincing explanation for the difference), they'd almost have to not hire the person. And, if it did square, it's like they'd already decided the price tag was too rich for their blood.
Excellent points, and I'm not necessarily condoning the practice (I don't control that). It does seem they are trying to call a bluff where you either expose the bluffer or get locked in to a rate above market. I can't recall an instance where the stub was provided and the client didn't make a competitive offer, but my data set isn't large.
Maybe it's a "There must be a reason they value them so much" (even though we don't see it) sort of thing. Hardly an uncommon situation. Doesn't mean it worked out in the end :-)
You can get fired if they figure out you have been fudging the figures and 'lying' to them. I'm not sure how they would know, but if they do, it can create problems for you.
Error-level analysis of the Jpeg. As you say, if it comes out later that could have bad legal consequences - the term is 'detrimental reliance' and the dishonest person could conceivably face fraud charges. Even if not, it could easily become a a career-damaging topic of gossip.
Re: error analysis—it's a "picture of line-art" kind of document, isn't it? Not even a watermark. So: scan it at super high resolution, blow out the contrast, countour-vectorize it to SVG (effectively equivalent to recovering the original PDF), edit that, print the result, and then scan the print.
(It just occurred to me that if there was "an app for that" in this case, no parent would ever be able to trust their child's report card again.)
Don't even both with all of that.. Just make a reproduction from scratch.
Make it look more or less like the original. As long as nobody sees the original next to the mock-up, who's ever going to notice that one or two digits changed?
Question for you all, are there any negatives to bluffing?
In many countries the employer does the employees tax, and they will be able to see how much you earned in that calendar year. Being hired under false pretenses is fraud and means you could be legally fired at will at any later date.
People in the USA might be used to this (since this is very common), but in many places with actual employment law, this is a bad deal for the employee.
Of course, that's only if you lie to them. If you just don't tell them the salary, then they only find out after you are hired and hopefully have a nice proper salary.
Recruiter here. Some may not like this answer, but: honesty is the best policy. Bluffing, or LYING, could backfire - especially if things escalate and they eventually learn about this.
It's bullshit, especially for those who began their careers during a time of salary deflation.
However, the right employer will NOT base your future salary solely on your current. It should simply be one data point in the process - your value as an employee should be based on a multitude of factors. This isn't pie in the sky; many of my clients do have a compensation system for employees and end up paying fairly.
Sorry but I disagree. Nobody has ever asked me how much I currently make or I made at my last position. It is just not relevant. You make an offer. I might or might not take it. Asking me to reveal my current salary first is silly. If you insist on this information before the conversation can continue, then conversation is over.
They shouldn't ask the question much less demand an answer threatening to close communication if the demand is not met. If they do so, they are clearly not somewhere you want to work.
> Recruiter here. Some may not like this answer, but: honesty is the best policy. Bluffing, or LYING, could backfire - especially if things escalate and they eventually learn about this.
Hahahhaa, I like that you even all-capsed "lying". Give me a break.
I had a similar experience with a recruiter. I asked why and she couldn't come up with a compelling answer, she just said "That's just how it is, we need your salary." She escalated it to her manager and he pulled the same. I eventually complied but not without telling them I didn't ever receive a good reason and it makes zero sense and I couldn't see how it would do anything but hurt me.
Funny enough I ended up getting an offer way above my current salary, and a bit more than what I said I wanted.
Is anyone here a recruiter and can shed some light as to why the hell these people are so adamant about getting my salary??? I'm wondering if part of the deal for them is if they don't give my current salary to HR they won't get paid. That seems really stupid but they were acting like they would let me walk if I didn't tell them my salary.
Recruiting expert here! First off, a company "walking" without your salary information is a failure on their part, and their loss! However, to answer your question - I find the salary question to be a great indicator on many levels, here a few:
It's just one data point in determining whether you're a qualified candidate
1) Why would I waste the candidate or the client/employer's time if there's too large a gap between candidate's salary & their highest potential for this role? The company has a budget, candidate have a minimum; let's get this out of the way - it would be terrible if the interview process went swimmingly only to find that the candidate wouldn't budge under $125K and client wouldn't exceed $100K.
2. Finally: it's not a huge deal if candidate prefers NOT to provide salary; sure, it makes you feel a little uncomfortable. If that's the case: no worries, but then I do ask that the candidate gives me a 10% range for their current salary & expectations. Again, employer just wants to know that we're potentially on the same page before wasting time.
3. Literally 95% of my software engineering candidates have no qualms about sharing their salary. The other 4% will at least give me a small range. These candidates that challenge this minor issue end up being more trouble than they're worth in other ways too; it's a red flag. (next stop: "no, I'm not taking a coding test").
Again, there are ways around REQUIRING the salary #. It should not result in a candidate or employer walking. Oof!
I'm happy with your candor, at the same time you're displaying just about every trait that makes me loathe recruiters. It's refreshing to have this so out in the open, a bit like an SEO expert giving you the inside of his mind.
Someone's current salary is none of your business, it's that simple and as a block of reasonably intelligent professionals we could simply all agree to never supply that information to the company hiring.
Note that almost all of the risk at the time of a job change is already born by the employee, the employer using a recruiter is actively looking to dislodge employees elsewhere and has a few tools at his/her disposal to effect this.
Since recruiters are paid by the future employer they should be considered an extension of that employer and in no way are they to be taken to be independents or objective, their job is simply to dislodge you for the minimum amount required.
If you want to know that your employer and the candidate are on the same page then why don't you, the person initiating the contact disclose the range of salary offered plus or minus 10% so the prospective employee can decide whether or not you're on the same page? That's because you'd like to snag them for a little bit over what they are currently making, and you'd be happier if you could deliver a 'gem' well under the budget your employer has set aside. You might even get a bonus for that.
If 95% of your software engineering candidates have no qualms about sharing their salary then that is what should change if you continue to game the process by asking such questions. What a software engineer makes is their private information, and asking for it is just another means of price-fixing between employers.
And those candidates that challenge that requirement are not more trouble then they're worth, they are the only ones that apparently understand your game enough to not be easy marks and that is why you feel they are more trouble than they are worth because it isn't easy money.
Interesting response. Loathe recuiters? Let's take it easy on the echo chamber cliche here. Yeah, lots of bad apples out there, but ask any reasonable professional: a good recruiter is extremely valuable.
You did forget that there are 2 types of recruiters: agency (outside) and corporate (inside).
I, the agency recruiter, do not want to "dislodge" the candidate for the minimum amount required. Not because my fee will be higher with a greater salary, but because I'm actually incentivized to do what is best for both the employer & employee. This is called sales. When you do good by all parties to the transaction, it pays dividends long-term.
So, no, we're not trying to "snag" them. I appreciate your paranoia, as you're not alone; many people dealing with bad recruiters probably need to vent.
But for the most part, your perception of the recruiting industry is different from the reality.
You did not reply to @jacquesm 's post. If you want to make sure the salary expectations from the applicant and the employer, you only have to
1. tell the employee what salary range the employer is willing offer, or
2. ask the applicant for their desired salary level.
The current salary is NOT your business. If the applicant earns 1x salary now and wants 2x salary and decide to look for a new job that offers that, how does it help the applicant to tell the recruiter that he earns 1x in his current job? You basically ask the employee to play a cards game but have them all in the open for you.
"This is called sales".
Yeah, involving an engineer lacking any business skills and two weasels.
> Interesting response. Loathe recuiters? Let's take it easy on the echo chamber cliche here.
That's my personal opinion based on personal experience. Feel free to attribute it to others but the echo chamber does not factor in there unless you wish to consider my office part of the echo chamber.
> Yeah, lots of bad apples out there,
Present company, as always, excluded.
> but ask any reasonable professional: a good recruiter is extremely valuable.
A good recruiter is a good recruiter for their paymaster. I've yet to see 'reverse headhunting' where you submit your resume to a recruiter and they then go out to find the best possible position for you. So for now recruiters are exclusively working for companies looking to employ people.
> You did forget that there are 2 types of recruiters: agency (outside) and corporate (inside).
I've dealt with both, neither group to date has me particularly impressed. And I've dealt with them both as an employer and as someone who somehow made it onto the list of recruiters. Clueless wouldn't begin to describe them, they used to have a joke saying that 'those who can do, and those who can't teach', you could probably amend that with 'and those that can't teach recruit' and it wouldn't be too far off the mark.
> I, the agency recruiter, do not want to "dislodge" the candidate for the minimum amount required. Not because my fee will be higher with a greater salary, but because I'm actually incentivized to do what is best for both the employer & employee.
And what is that?
> This is called sales.
I don't particularly care about what you call it, to me it felt more like interacting with a class of buzz-word wielding vultures trying to make money from placing people based on an extremely limited understanding of what makes the tech world tick.
There are multiple ways to make money in any industry: you either dig for gold, you sell shovels to the miners or, in the case of the recruiters, you sell the miners to the mining company.
> When you do good by all parties to the transaction, it pays dividends long-term.
Yes, I'm sure it does. In the long term your loyalty has to lie with your repeat customer, the corporation that hires you. Since you are not going to get any repeat business from the individuals that you've placed (unless you're willing to risk that long term relationship, but there are plenty of other recruiters that will be more than happy to play the game again).
> So, no, we're not trying to "snag" them.
Said the fox to the chicken.
> I appreciate your paranoia, as you're not alone; many people dealing with bad recruiters probably need to vent.
So, many people dealing with bad recruiters on the one hand..
> But for the most part, your perception of the recruiting industry is different from the reality.
And yet my perception is different from reality. That's an interesting concept but I can't fit both of those into my head without significant cognitive dissonance.
Either my experiences match those of others and the venting has - as you apparently confirm - a basis in fact or my perception (and by extension that of all the others complaining about their experiences with recruiters) is wrong. You can't have it both ways.
And you conveniently forgot to address the main point I made and instead latched on to my 'perception issues'.
First, I already addressed the main salary point in my original post. I don't need to respond to every random who wants to poke holes. I will address a couple issues you brought up in your reply. Just like I don't presume I know more about software engineering than my candidates, I trust you'll defer to someone who knows recruiting.
--I've yet to see 'reverse headhunting' where you submit your resume to a recruiter and they then go out to find the best possible position for you.
Yeah, this exists - they're "agents" for software engineers (for example). But it's rare and not sustainable.
---In the long term your loyalty has to lie with your repeat customer, the corporation that hires you. Since you are not going to get any repeat business from the individuals that you've placed (unless you're willing to risk that long term relationship, but there are plenty of other recruiters that will be more than happy to play the game again).
You forgot one thing: reputation. If you do best by your client AND candidate, then your candidate sends your referrals, eventually comes to you when he/she becomes a hiring manager, etc.
---I don't particularly care about what you call it, to me it felt more like interacting with a class of buzz-word wielding vultures trying to make money from placing people based on an extremely limited understanding of what makes the tech world tick.
I've heard this before, usually from less level-headed software engineers. Like I said, sales is a different business - we do different things than you guys. I have repeatedly watched as techies have tried and failed to transition into recruiting. There is an extremely low correlation between tech savvy & recruiting success. Recruiting is a people business.
The underlying theme here, again, is that you're lumping every recruiter into your personal bad experiences - like I already said, some are good. That's not a valid approach in this situation.
You pretty clearly don't know to whom you were replying so your language ends up looking a little off. If you're going to come pick a fight in HN, you could probably make a better choice as to who to pick it with.
> 1) Why would I waste the candidate or the client/employer's time if there's too large a gap between candidate's salary & their highest potential for this role?
It's trivial to solve this problem for a recruiter by simply stating the company budget range upfront. The problem is that recruiters want the client to give up their information without revealing any of their. That is where the asymmetry of information come into play and engineers end up getting the short end of the negotiation.
It's a pretty strong signal that they want people who won't negotiate and aren't assertive. In some businesses, it's just counterproductive to hire an assertive employee: the business processes are in place, the command structure is well-established, and they just need bodies to fill places in the org chart. If it's one of those companies and you're one of those people, getting hired there will likely be painful for both of you.
It's not really a sign of anything. Most likely some director is A/B testing a strategy or they just want data. If they want salary give it to them and see what they have to say for 5 mins. Everybody knows it is a shitty move to put you on the spot like this. And they can't be just looking for stupid people to hire. If they are willing to take the risk to piss you off may be they will have the decency to make up for it later on.
Hmmm, but this was the recruiter, not the company. The recruiter itself would want me to be assertive and negotiate as their compensation is calculated based on my starting salary.
And this company was a very small and fast growing firm that would require a lot of hustle and assertiveness. My entire in person interview process was based on a case study that took 12 hours where I spent a large part of that arguing with my results/reasoning. So I don't think that holds.
In-house recruiter or independent recruiter? An in-house recruiter likely has their hands tied by company policy; if the company wants candidates who won't negotiate, the recruiters will not be permitted to negotiate, and will need to report back certain information like past salary. If it was an independent recruiter, that's a little weird, since presumably they have multiple clients. Maybe they need it for whatever matching software they use to search their available positions?
A recruiter's long-term compensation and viability is based upon repeat business. And they are working for the potential employer, not you. That is also the basis of the majority of their reputation with respect to getting contracts.
So... They are interested in providing candidates that are, in as many parameter's as possible, within the employer's range -- and towards the favorable end.
As to the ur-child-level idea that "good CEO's" will "clamp down" or whatever the term was on this practice...
"Good CEO's" generally have NO interest in tackling the details of HR policy except when they are quite visibly causing problems and/or a big, bold initiative sweeps them into its fold ("Mind the Gap", or whatever the flavor du jour is).
HR is a... well, in many ways and all the more bureaucratically so in larger firms, a nasty, detailed business. Endless quantities of compliance. "Fair" as a tool of constraint as often if not more so than enablement. Secrecy and emotions and politics, all needing to be whitewashed.
The kind of details CEO's don't want to micromanage, and that the smarter ones know to stay away from -- or at least, at arm's length.
There are individual exceptions -- some brave. But looking across the landscape of business, I don't think is there is any great movement to buck HR and attendant policy. It is a bureaucracy now well rooted in and growing from a depth and maze of regulation and law. Not all of which is bad -- worker safety and y and z and... have been much needed.
But the recruiting shop might get paid $100 an hour for your services so if you only demand $60 instead of $75 then they, the recruiter or recruiting company, pockets that extra $15 per hour. It all depends how the recruiter/recruiting company is getting compensated.
That sounds an awful lot like many healthcare IT behemoth. They mostly need bodies to bill them out by the hour keeping seat warms, conference line/room busy and to act as a buffer.
Exactly. One way to deflect the question is by saying that you're not about to provide any non-public information about an employer to anyone outside that company, and that includes specific details about their pay structure.
You can also note that while this may not be the answer the interviewer is looking for, it does represent the kind of discretion that the company is likely to appreciate in the event that you do take a job with them, then eventually go elsewhere.
If pressed, you can say your current pay is "unsatisfactory", and let them know that's what they can list on their form. You can add that you know the company has a range, that they're in the market for the skills you have, and that you're unhappy enough with your present number and long-term prospects to hear their offer.
All this should send a pretty strong signal that, pay aside, you're not in any immediate hurry to leave your current position, so trying to chisel you down to something close to your current number is just a waste of everybody's time. It also signals that lowballing you now means you'll probably move on sooner rather than later, which is something most HR departments prefer to avoid.
If pressed further - after all that - see the question for the red flag it is. This is probably not a company that has much interest in supporting your growth or professional development. Unless you're desperate (i.e., going nowhere is a better alternative than crashing hard) keep looking.
You can end the conversation on a positive note by saying you do understand policy, that you wouldn't be there if you didn't think the company had a lot going for it, and that they know where to reach you. If they can just find a way to keep you from having to compromise the privacy of your existing employer, you'd consider jumping ship.
If this doesn't produce a callback and you happen have friends who are already there and who want to see you hired, you can share the details of this exchange with them, and let them know why you ended the conversation with HR. Chances are, they'll be pissed. If they want you badly enough, and have the clout to pull rank, they can be sure that HR finds a way to accept your silence regarding your current pay.
> saying that you're not about to provide any non-public information about an employer to anyone outside that company, and that includes details about their pay structure.
I really like this advice! Thanks for the tip. I'm stuck being [possibly...] underpaid at the moment and struggling with how to address my current salary without tanking future offers.
Hope this helps. Good luck. And one more thought: even though companies have pay ranges for each position, they're not about to disclose that directly, for obvious reasons. Instead, the person negotiating on their behalf will size you up, and pick a number from the bottom or the top of the range accordingly.
Assuming your deflection doesn't end the conversation, the fact that you can hold your ground calmly and polity, yet firmly and clearly will probably cause the rep. to opt for the high end.
I head up recruiting at the company I work for. The biggest reason I ask this is that I'm worried a candidate's expectations are outside of what our budget is. There really is no other legitimate reason to ask in my opinion. Having said that, I'm always happy to share a range (depending on experience level and how the interview process goes of course). What I don't understand is that most startups do put ranges on AngelList these days, so I'm confused as to why there's so much of a cat and mouse game. I'm running an experiment right now to simply be transparent about our ranges, even in initial reachouts. I'm curious what the data suggests in terms of my response rates and ultimately hires made...
Still, what you really need is the candidates expected/required compensation, not their current compensation?
Ther are jobs I'd take at half my current salary, and jobs I wouldn't take at 3 times my current salary. In an interview situation I'm happy to provide a ballpark figure as to not waste time, but I won't provide my last salary (my tax details are public!), and I won't negotiatiate salary until I have a good bargaining position.
Recruiters on LinkedIn message me all the time. I come back with, "unless your client is looking to pay {double my current annual income is} + {25% bonus} I'm really not able to make that kind of transition in my life" (I would act as if that was my base)
Didn't work a few times, which I was fine with as I didn't want to jump ship. I really just wanted to get off their list. Then, a few contacted me again a month later saying how they found me the perfect fit.
LOL, of course it works. why wouldn't it? someone asks you a question, you give them an answer. to me all of this buffoonery around hiding your salary requirements sounds ridiculous.
i'm a startup co-founder, i hire all the time.
if i asked someone what their salary requirements are and they said 200k or 300k i'd immediately interview them to see if they're worth that much. i would take it as a personal challenge to see if i could stump them, and if i couldn't, i'd start negotiating their salary on the spot.
some people get paid MILLIONS OF DOLLARS! how the hell d'ya you think they got that much? they asked for it!
people who don't want to "reveal" their salary requirements like it's some big huge secret have probably never hired anyone in their life.
There's an important distinction here though. This isn't a discussion about disclosing salary requirements, it's a discussion about disclosing previous salary, presumably so the company can make you an offer only marginally better than that. That's a big problem if you're already underpaid.
So you refuse the offer! I've been in the position where I was underpaid to the point where the next job almost doubled my salary. When asked, I told them what I had been making and what I expected to make.
They hired me. I would have refused any offer less than I was asking for. Lesson learned: if they want you they will pay at least market rate.
I also "negotiated" (negotiated, hell. I just asked for it) a raise well above what they offered a year later at my first review.
huh? what distinction? who says you have to tell them the truth? obviously if you make 40k you're not going to be competent enough to jump to 200k, but if you were making 150k and ask for 200k, just tell them you were making 190 before. who cares?
when it comes to this kind of topic on HN, sometimes i feel like i'm taking crazy pills.
If you want $200k but are making $150, just say you are looking for a salary around $200k. If they ask again how much you make presently, you can say "I negotiated my present salary years ago, it's not relevant to the value I provide now, I'm sure you understand".
I'm not going to be pushed into lying and making things up out of expediency. YMMV.
i engage people with my own self expectations in mind. i believe that's what makes me an effective leader. i could be wrong.
i have not, and i would never in a million years ask someone what they currently make. why would i ever do that? what's the point? you might as well ask them about the size of their genitalia.
the range of bullshit answers you will receive, even from the lowest level of positions, just means you're only fooling yourself if you ask these kinds of questions. just ask for what they want. lying about that won't benefit them, it will only benefit me.
I really do agree with you. But somewhere in my late 20's I made the conscious decision to acquit myself with honesty as much as I possibly can. If you find the question so outlandish why not just say "I'm sorry, I don't find that question appropriate."?
The reason you're a co-founder is because you take risks and are willing to push the limits of what's socially acceptable, and have face-to-face discussions about personally-difficult topics.
Most engineers want to "stay within the rules", which is why they get walked on.
(I'm not for one second saying you do that, personally)
They may not be getting paid that much because they can answer your "stumpers." You might be better served by using the interview to find out why they add so much value instead of trying to prove that you're superior in some way.
uh, well, my stumpers include, "why should we pay you 200 grand?" which should naturally flow into a conversation into the amount of value this particular engineer or executive will bring to my organization.
here's another one: "how will you pay for yourself in 6 months?"
i'm no longer technically competent enough to stump an extremely talented engineer on a technical question. not really sure where you get the 'superiority' language, since i would be out of business if i didn't hire employees who were 'superior' to me.
again - sometimes i feel like i'm taking crazy pills around here.
There's a lot of context that made me assume you were talking about stumping them on technical questions. This is Hacker News and the topic of how to do technical interviews is a frequent focus.
yeah. when i hire sales guys, or product guys, they just tell me how much money they generated (or their products or teams generated) at previous companies. it doesn't always have to be a $ figure. sometimes it's, "my work at previous company X was used by Huge Company A, Huge Company B, Internal Division C, etc. here are my references."
these are just nuts-and-bolts dollars-and-cents conversations people have when hiring non-engineering professionals or executives.
you can talk about all of the above without actually stating how much money you made. it's moot. it's irrelevant. what matters is what they accomplished, if they are enthusiastic about doing the same for our startup, and how much money/compensation they need to feel good about it. i am trying to make people feel good about working for me! the first step is to have an honest conversation about everyone's needs (maybe requirements is a better word).
> Don't stop until you've got a sheepish grin on your face.
When you hit "sheepish grin"...go up another two steps. Then practice saying it with a straight face. This is probably closer to your actual market value.
We're fortunate enough to be in an industry where it's rare to be really desperate for a job, so I've come to take this kind of thing as a very strong indication that it's the kind of place that would really suck to work at in any case. From that point of view, the earlier all the BS floats to the surface, the better, so you can get on with looking for a good job.
> where it's rare to be really desperate for a job
My personal experience tells me there are plenty of people desperate for a job, and that is likely why these HR drones can still do this.
I have become so disillusioned even talking to these kinds of people because they refuse to consider talented people when its staring them in the face.
Yeah except sometimes good engineering teams sit behind ugly HR practices, and hiring processes unfortunately expose you to HR far more than the actual job does.
The world is full of people doing good and interesting stuff without having all kinds of lame bureaucracy. I'm more than willing to bear the risk of missing out on something interesting by passing on that kind of company.
I don't think level of HR bureaucracy is very well correlated with anything relating to job satisfaction, and it is easy to over-index on during the hiring process. I don't think your willingness to bear the risk of false negatives is unreasonable at all, but it's worth being aware that you're judging one department based on interactions with a completely different one.
If a company has ugly HR practices, you can be sure you will not be the only good person who is balking at the company.
If you HR put you off, you're not the only one. Externally they will find it more difficult to hire, and internally the real talent will start to notice.
Therefore, you don't need to worry about it. There are other places you can work with good people.
The funniest one I ever had: Going from my wife's startup to Google.
> What is your current salary?
> I make minimum wage, plus founder equity current valued at $X Million over the next few years.
I soon made it clear to the recruiter (who was very nice and understanding, btw) that previous compensation comprised of intentionally-minuscule salary and startup equity with funny-money valuations would not be a good proxy for my value-add. Worked out fine.
I learned my lesson about this once. I accepted an offer at a company who wanted 10 years of my salary history.
10 years.
So I provided it to them, and one of the companies (who was out of business) could not verify my salary (Pay stubs were not enough, they had to talk to someone).
After this they said they may have "adjust the offer accordingly" and it would most certainly be less because the offer was based on my stated salary at the time.
As most of you are probably guessing, I declined their offer and withdrew myself. Ever since then when they ask my current salary, I don't give it to them.
I would think that at this point they _are_ interested in bringing you on. Then you could go in different directions:
"I'll be glad to discuss my salary requirements at the appropriate time, would you please tell me first how badly do you need me? more about ... say work-life balance, employee rotation, non-monetary perks, whatever...
"Let me tell you about how much more value I bring to my work, many times over salary, which I am ready to do for you, because your great company really prizes the beneficial effect I'll bring to the bottom line."
So you're answering, things they want to hear, not exactly what they asked, but better, for you and for them.
I should listen to myself now. (Edited formatting, structure)
None of that actually works. I'm not sure why you think it does but the HR "drone" that acts as a Gatekeeper requires a dollar figure to put into the box or they punt you, like the comment you are replying to says.
It doesn't happen often [at least for me] but it does happen. I have similar issues when I decline to put an "Education" section on my resume. Both are groups I'd prefer to avoid, personally, but you do need to recognize there is a certain percentage of people that won't work with due to their process.
I find that quote interesting as well. Would anyone actually leave their job for $5k? Unless you hate your current job or the new job is more intellectually stimulating/better culture, that's a pretty paltry amount to take the risk of leaving your current role. Especially considering if you leave and don't like it you may have to stay in a role you don't like for a couple years to avoid looking like a job hopper. I make well under $100k and wouldn't leave my company for $5k unless the work is significantly more interesting. I work in finance so perhaps engineering is different.
I originally wasn't really very against these kinds of questions, until someone pointed out that they're basically asking how much a different company values different work you're doing for different ends, to help them determine how desperate you are for doing their totally unrelated work. I got much more resistant after that.
Imbalance of power fuelled by a recession = more inappropriate/rude/immoral behaviour to take advantage of the situation.
They know they can say "tell us your previous salary, or else". What's worse is that they will ask your references to confirm, and they'll likely happily tell them. If you lied, it won't go down well.
As if there wasn't enough crap to fight against in your career.. ugh.
EDIT: I forgot about employment contracts that prohibit you from disclosing your previous salary. Yes, they exist.
I had a recruiter tell me I was legally obligated to tell him my current salary. I said no thanks, not interested and he proceeded to attempt to keep me on the phone for another 10 minutes (after which I hung up).
Needless to say, I don't waste my time any longer when a recruiter asks. I just say "here's what I expect".
Legally obligated, wow, never heard that one before! Good answer. When I'm talking to a reasonable candidate, that's all I need at the end of the day: an expectation $ range.
I'm not really surprised, because, well, whatever people do just ceases to surprise at some point, but I guess it's quite likely that there's something in my contract (and I guess it's quite typical, so the same could be assumed about yours) that legally disallows me to disclose whatever there is to disclose about my relations with my current employer, including my salary. Of course, it doesn't stop me from actually doing so, because, well, the inequality of market knowledge between your typical employer and your typical employee just really isn't fair when it comes to discussing your remuneration. But sure as hell I'd remember of that NDA thing when asked of something like this by an HR, and would try to sound as shocked by the assumption I can disclose something like this, as possible.
I've had recruiters do this (Explore LTD in London).
The 'data collector' asked me my current salary and I refused to state it. She became very hostile saying "How are we meant to negotiate for you if you won't disclose what salary you are on?". I told her to let me negotiate my own salary.
Similar experience in other places but I replied "We are a little early in the interview phase to talk about this, lets come back to it later".
This worked until I reached the last phase of the interview, the salary discussion. The HR person simply refused to proceed further without the current salary information, as a matter of fact when I told them they should be paying what I'm worth, he said they can't proceed without it any cost. I wasn't interested in the Job so I didn't care, but they seem to count on the fact that given so many programmers out there they it wouldn't matter to them if they would lose a candidate even that late in the interview phase.
In short if there are many devs out there looking for a job, there will always be some one willing to work for a lesser pay.
I've heard of recruiters doing this with the sole purpose of discovering what their competitors are paying. Depending on how far along in the hiring process you were, it may be that she actually had no interest in hiring you but was simply polling for salary information.
Many times asking for your salary isn't a nefarious negotiating tactic - it's just to make sure both parties are in the same ballpark. If you're already at $110K and the opening tops out at $80K, there's no reason to waste either party's time.
If that is the real reason, there is nothing keeping them from disclosing the salary range for the position. That way they don't waste anyone's time...
Recruiter here. Good question. In the majority of cases, I would say your approach would be just as effective. However, I prefer asking because:
1) It's about gaining intelligence - not in a nefarious way. If enough candidates at the right experience level are giving me a range of $90K - $100K and the client still won't budge beyond looking at candidates in the $60K - $80K range, I can eventually come back to them and say "Listen: of the last 10 candidates you liked, their salaries were..." A smart, reasonable client will make adjustments.
2) In rare cases: a "rockstar" candidate may be able to get 10% more than the budgeted amount, for example. So I would hate to send you that $80K tops message if there were potential for a perfect match. Then suddenly you're no longer interested and we missed a grand opportunity.
Again, I agree with you for the most part. But ultimately, the recruiter figures: 99% of candidates give their salary number or a tight range, upfront, without issue, so there's no harm in asking for reasons 1 and 2.
None of this makes perfect sense, and reads like just-so stories. On 1), you could just as easily say "of the 10 candidates you liked, 8 of them were still interested given the salary bracket." For 2), you could say "the job pays $X-Y, with flexibility on the top end if they really want you."
It's interesting ("gaining intelligence") to read an account of recruiter allegiances, though.
You made the right call, I think, unless there was some way to get what you were looking for by either answering the question with a lie, or otherwise evading it. Sometimes, people press you for info because they need to have it on paper that they tried. It's possible you could have just made up a number, and the HR drone just needed something to write on the paper. But anyway, yeah, answering that question honestly is for suckers.
For my internship, I got asked on the phone how much the others were offering me. I first asked "if I tell you, will you lower your offer?". It got my interviewer a pretty good laugh and he told me that he wasn't that malicious. I told him what he wanted to hear and I think I got a fair offer anyway (which was like more than twice the best offer I had).
I am curious though, what were you protecting by declining to tell them? You could just make up an exorbitant number for one. I understand not talking about money with our friends, it's bad social signaling, but a recruiter is a different thing.
The flipside is that you give them a number and get a good idea if they are going to be able to compete, and if not, you don't waste any more of your time.
Most of the time (in my experience) the recruiters know how much the companies are willing to pay and will tell you a range. Or you can tell them what range you're targeting. There really isn't any real upside to giving your salary away.
I a have had similar experience for a well known uk agency - I effectively fired them and of course If I should ever need to interview any of their candidates the cv's are going in the bin unread
I had a phone screen with an HR drone once (Cerner Inc. to be exact \waves) part way thru she asked me my current salary. I declined to provide that information. She replied "we can't continue without that information". I replied, I'm sorry, but I won't discuss salary at this point. She said, "good bye" and that was all. I had a job so was not desperate at the time. I was still shocked at how abrupt it was.