Employer asking for present salary on application?

12thlevelwarrior

Ok, everyone has seen where the employer asks for salary history. My friend in HR says you should NEVER lie about what you make, they can find out and fire you for lying. Anyone ever flubbed these numbers, padded alittle to make your salary increase request look less than gigantic?

Any thoughts appreciated, I have an application I have to turn in tomorrow.

Ricka182

I would only put factual info on the app. If they do find out, or if they already have a good idea, you'll get looked at differently.

int80h

You can leave that part of the app blank. Your current salary should be confidential and the company you are applying for doesn't have the right to that information.

Olajuwon

A prospective employer has no right to find out about your current salary. You have to fill it out when they ask for it though. It doesn't mean you have to be honest if your current salary is low because they will offer you something close to what you're making. Be careful what company you mess with though. Some company will dig up and find out if you look suspecious. Those release forms they have you sign are for a reason, right.

BubbaJ

Olajuwon wrote:

A prospective employer has no right to find out about your current salary.

Actually, if they ask, you should tell them. There is no legal restriction for them to know this, nor is there a legal restriction preventing them from rejecting you outright for not providing the legally requested information. They could even ask you to sign a release so that your current employer must furnish this information to them. If you refuse to sign, you probably won't be considered.

Having said that, I don't think most companies care that much on the application, but if you don't put it there it may come up in the interview.

12thlevelwarrior

yeah, i don't think it is fair for a company to request salary information, but hey they have the job i want. my current salary i feel is under market and i think a salary request of 18% above what i am making now is not outrageous. just filled out the app and i was honest and forthcoming about my salary information.

one a side note, i do not trust human resource departments. the only reason companies ask for salary information is so they can keep the advantage when it comes to negotiation time. when i buy a car from someone i don't ask him how much he is making on the sale. as long as the company knows my salary request my current salary should have nothing to do with it.

in this situation i really want the job so i gave them what i think is a very competitive, low-end market salary requirment, which is still enough to make me happy if the move was made.

also, it's weird I was offered an application by the hiring manager after i interviewed. anyone had situation like this. usually the app is the first thing requested. don't want to read to much into it, but i think it may be positive.

garv221

I've known companies to demand last years W2 before hiring/interviewing anyone. Makes sense to me.

SRTMCSE

it's the worse thing you can do. I used to never put it on my applications and never got called back. I put it on and instantly started getting call backs. Unfortunately it also screwed me over with my current job, the had the position posted for $40,000-$50,000. As soon as they seen my previous job only paid $20,000, the offer instantly fell to to $28,000. Took me 3 weeks to negotiate to $34,000.00. Last time I ever put a salary on my resume, and if I do, I'll flub it to at least $40,000.00.

Like another poster mentioned it's strictly to keep the advantage on there end. I unfortunately had to take this position, b/c I was out of work and had a pregnant fiancee.

12thlevelwarrior

garv221 wrote:

I've known companies to demand last years W2 before hiring/interviewing anyone. Makes sense to me.

Hmm, makes sense to you? Please give me the reasoning behind companies requiring this information because I cannot come up with reasoning that would stand up to most peoples logic filters.

JDMurray

In California it's practically illegal to require past job information, like salary history. If a prospective employer asks for your salary history, and you give it, that's OK. But if you don't give it (I rarely do), there should be no penalty.

Your previous employers should not give out your past salary history. That is private employee information and proprietary business information, and they could face possible legal actions if they do. This means that it should be nearly impossible to accurately verify what you actually made, making it quite easy to lie about salary history. If keeping your salary history secret is important to you, make sure that your references don't say or speculate on what you made either.

drainey

I've never failed to get an interview for not putting current salary levels on an application, but it doesn't surprise me that it happens. Usually I put what my salary requirements are and that they are negotiable and leave blank my current salary.

I just had an interview last Friday and they asked in the interview what I'm currently making as I didn't fill out that part of the app. I replied that it's less than the current average for someone with my experience and training as well as certs. The interviewer just looked at me so I added that I didn't feel it was relevant for them to know exactly what I make. He of course asked why and I responded that they should have a salary range for their position already established and that if they were to make me an offer that wasn't finacially acceptable I would let them know and we could negotiate an altenative offer acceptable to both parties.

It may cost me that job, but if I'm going to make a move then it should be the right one. And any company that won't hire me without trying to take advatange of me by low balling the offer is a company I don't want to work for.

JDMurray

Not giving your salary history won't cost you that job. Appearing to be impolite and uncooperative during the interview will. Just explain that your employer has a strict policy against reporting salary levels, and therefore you are not authorized to divulge that business-related information. Next time, say this politely and with an apologetic smile.

I did work at one place with had such stiff competition that individual salary levels were actually treated as trade secrets. It seemed silly then and it still seems silly now.

rcoop

jdmurray wrote:

In California it's practically illegal to require past job information, like salary history. If a prospective employer asks for your salary history, and you give it, that's OK. But if you don't give it (I rarely do), there should be no penalty.

Your previous employers should not give out your past salary history. That is private employee information and proprietary business information, and they could face possible legal actions if they do. This means that it should be nearly impossible to accurately verify what you actually made, making it quite easy to lie about salary history. If keeping your salary history secret is important to you, make sure that your references don't say or speculate on what you made either.

My previous employment required me to hire many employees (both tech and administrative), as well as confirm prior employment for employees that had left. It just so happens the business was headquartered in California. jdmurray is right in his above statements, and I'm surprised no one ever used the "my prior employer does not allow the information to be made public". For most positions I advertised for, I asked for prior salary information, and if it wasn't provided, I would review the rest of the resume to determine if they looked like they fit into the job role, and also if there existing experience was well above what the position was to be paid. Since they didn't provide prior salary information, I would assume that the skill set and experience (appropriately) deserved more than I would be offerring for the position, and they would usually make it into a reserved pile (no interview, unless all other prospects did not work out). Although for the jobs I was filling I never needed to, I can't say if I had the salary information, I wouldn't have used it in my negotiations. For most resumes, salaries were provided, and they usually were in the range of the position (and even ones that were low didn't change what I was going to pay for the position), and I only called (or had HR call to confirm) the top two or three candidates after one or two interviews. And as jdmurray alluded, when it came to salary confirmation, the prior employers had one of two answers, "we don't give out that information" or "that sounds about right", due to potential legal liability... and when I received calls to confirm applications for new potential employers, I either said nothing (for the bad employees), or gave rave reviews (for the good ones)... and when it came to salary, if asked directly for last salary information, the reply was "we don't give out that information", and if they asked to confirm the amount put down by the employee on the employment application, was "that sounds about right".

So, I'd say put it down for most positions, but if you are approached about a job, be selective on revealling the amount, as you want the ability to negotiate. I even had a friend, who when he felt comfortable that the interview was going well, asked how much the highest paid "consultant" made, and could he make that!" Needless to say, it was followed by a surprised stare and a "No", but he still got the job... it never hurts to ask the job range, and if they try to get you in the low range of it, explain why you think you would be worth a bit more... definitely do not be weary of negotiating.

Take Care,
Rcoop

garv221

brennonbladin wrote:

garv221 wrote:

I've known companies to demand last years W2 before hiring/interviewing anyone. Makes sense to me.

Hmm, makes sense to you? Please give me the reasoning behind companies requiring this information because I cannot come up with reasoning that would stand up to most peoples logic filters.

When a potential employee is trying to negotiate a high salary. Why would I want to hire someone in at 100K/yr when they are currently making 50K? Now 60K is a little more reasonable. It is not an employee's market.

Megadeth4168

Sigh.... My wages can be found out by anyone willing to fill out a FOIA form.... There is not much I can hide from in a government job.

I applied for a job near the beginning of the year that was for a network engineer position. The Senior Network Engineer is/was a reference of mine for the job. This person really wanted me to get the job... Found out that the spot was budgeted for 70k per year... Upon hiring I would have to get take classes and pass the CCNA... No big deal I thought....

Anyway, I go there and interview with the big boss.... I'm asked what I currently make. I tell them 40k per year. They ask how much I would like to start here. I say minimum 55k. They were shocked by this and said I asked too much based on my experience. They didn’t offer me the networking job they offered me a desktop support job making what I make now so that I could one day move up in the company. I turned the Job down.

Hmmm, lets see... Give up 6 years seniority at my current job.... No...
Drive 60 miles to work instead of 1 mile... Don't think so.....
Be on call 24-7 and be woken up in the middle of the night instead of my current job where that never would happen.... No thanks.
I think instead I will wait for the right time at my current job to ask for a raise...

Yep, I know I could have got the job if I told them I would do it for 40-45k. It is definitely an employers market.

SRTMCSE

Megadeth4168 wrote:

... the spot was budgeted for 70k per year...

...I tell them 40k per year. They ask how much I would like to start here. I say minimum 55k. They were shocked by this...

That kinda crap from employers pisses me off to no end.

garv221

Megadeth4168 wrote:

Yep, I know I could have got the job if I told them I would do it for 40-45k. It is definitely an employers market.

Yup, to many people seem to think that the employer is in business to employee people and make the employee happy. Its just not true. The beauty of the US is every person has the right to start their own business and run it their way.

12thlevelwarrior

garv221 wrote:

brennonbladin wrote:

garv221 wrote:

I've known companies to demand last years W2 before hiring/interviewing anyone. Makes sense to me.

Hmm, makes sense to you? Please give me the reasoning behind companies requiring this information because I cannot come up with reasoning that would stand up to most peoples logic filters.

When a potential employee is trying to negotiate a high salary. Why would I want to hire someone in at 100K/yr when they are currently making 50K? Now 60K is a little more reasonable. It is not an employee's market.

This is exaclty the wrong way to analyze a potential employee. You should be asking how much is this guy worth to my organization. If he is worth 100k, then pay him 100k. If he is worth 60k then pay him 60k. Companies should already know what they will pay for each position they are posting. If a guy asks for 100k you don't need to know what he makes now to know that you can't pay him that if your company already had carved out a range for the position he was applying for. I don't know maybe your company has ranges of 40k-100k, if so maybe that is the problem.

Megadeth4168

SRTMCSE wrote:

Megadeth4168 wrote:

... the spot was budgeted for 70k per year...

...I tell them 40k per year. They ask how much I would like to start here. I say minimum 55k. They were shocked by this...

That kinda crap from employers pisses me off to no end.

Yeah, it upset me a bit. But honestly, I love my job I have now. I get all my bills paid and still have a little spending money and I only have to work 37.5 hours per week. Oh yeah and government jobs have great bennefits.

To me, I named a price to them that I might have been willing to take to give up 2 hours a day in extra drive time out of my life, being on call, stress from road rage and burn out, trying to get comfortable in a new work enviroment, losing my vacation time I get every year ect....

Can you blame me for turning down the other job offer and being slightly dissapointed with their shock at what I was asking?

garv221:
I do understand taht side of it as well. I can't fault the employer.... Although I do know that they ended up hiring 2 people at 40k each instead of just hiring 1 person. I found that to be interesting....
[/quote]

garv221

brennonbladin wrote:

This is exaclty the wrong way to analyze a potential employee. You should be asking how much is this guy worth to my organization. If he is worth 100k, then pay him 100k. If he is worth 60k then pay him 60k. Companies should already know what they will pay for each position they are posting. If a guy asks for 100k you don't need to know what he makes now to know that you can't pay him that if your company already had carved out a range for the position he was applying for. I don't know maybe your company has ranges of 40k-100k, if so maybe that is the problem.

I believe my last quote explains everything.

garv221 wrote:

Yup, to many people seem to think that the employer is in business to employee people and make the employee happy. Its just not true. The beauty of the US is every person has the right to start their own business and run it their way.

Why should a company pay 100k to a guy who is currently making 50K, no matter what they carved out for a budget. Lets say you are buying a car, you have a budget for 50K. Surely you can afford to pay 50K, but would you if you knew you can get the same car for 30K? The employer always has the upper hand, just as you do when looking for a car. Its how busniess runs. You can always start your own busniess and be a cash chucker when it comes to salary positions.

Olajuwon

You shouldn't be paid based on your current salary, period. You should be paid what the company is paying for the position. Happy employees perform better and stay longer. Underpaid employees will never be happy when they know someone doing the same job is getting paid much more.

Slowhand

I think I've been down this road a little too much, to think that employers are reasonable when it comes to paying by experience, or giving a fair salary, in many cases. I do agree that you can get paid more if you have more experience and/or more education, but going about it by giving the advertized salary to that guy, and lowering it for someone who currently makes less, isn't exactly an ethical high-point.

I'm reminded of something I was reading in the MS Press book for 70-290, about how "employees are assigned permissions based on their job role, not by who they are." I suppose this should be true when it comes to the hiring process. The minimum salary should not reflect the person, but the job that person does. (Note, this doesn't give an employer the right to treat you as any less than a person, but you're not being hired for looks or personality, you're being hired for the skills you possess and your ability to do the job.) At this point, you haven't built any relationships with coworkers, you haven't given any years of service, and you haven't been able to show yourself as anything but what your qualifications state about you.

If you're interviewing someone for a position, and you don't think they're worth the $100k you advertised the job for, then hire someone else. If they've got the right qualifications for the job, then it shouldn't matter that they got half the salary at their last job. This isn't their last job. Don't try to knock down the salary for the guy you've got. In the end, the employee will feel bitter about the pay cut, and that's something that could potentially lead to issues later down the road, if the company was more interested in saving a few bucks versus hiring the right person for the job, at the right pay.

I think we're left with the problem of, "they could, but that doesn't mean they should", with employers slashing salaries when they find out that they could get you for cheaper than they were expecting. If the job's worth the salary they advertise, that's what they should hire at. If they want a CCIE, and most of the people coming in to interview are CCNA's, they should offer that one guy/girl internetworking guru a higher rate, in the hopes to get them.

Employers shouldn't be looking for the lowest bidder. We're people, resources to a company that they want to keep for years. We're not commodoties like cars or computers, that you use up and get rid of once we've served our purpose.

garv221

Slowhand wrote:

Employers shouldn't be looking for the lowest bidder. We're people, resources to a company that they want to keep for years. We're not commodoties like cars or computers, that you use up and get rid of once we've served our purpose.

Slowhand- I agree that once a position's salary range is posted, a company should stick within that. However, the majority of positions that have a wage posted are lower level jobs with the exception for goverment and a few others. The majority of postings I see are mid-higher/managment level and do not have a wage listed, the interviewer will ask the potential employee what his salary requirements are. This allows the employer to view all candiates, their skills, expereince & wage requirements. The employer can now sort through all their interviews and make the best decision based on alot of information the potential employee gave them without having to give anything away in a posting. It just makes more sense. I do not agree with your quote though, as harsh as it sounds, people are commodoties like cars or computers to employers. People are just another expense, if a sinlge person could run a company without staff, he would. A company develops by the employer discovering he needs more help, if he does not need the help anymore they get laid off/fired, they just don't come to the office and get paid to sit around. We are only resources to a company if were are making them money. If we go negative, the job is gone.

12thlevelwarrior

garv221 wrote:

Slowhand wrote:

Employers shouldn't be looking for the lowest bidder. We're people, resources to a company that they want to keep for years. We're not commodoties like cars or computers, that you use up and get rid of once we've served our purpose.

Slowhand- I agree that once a position's salary range is posted, a company should stick within that. However, the majority of positions that have a wage posted are lower level jobs with the exception for goverment and a few others. The majority of postings I see are mid-higher/managment level and do not have a wage listed, the interviewer will ask the potential employee what his salary requirements are. This allows the employer to view all candiates, their skills, expereince & wage requirements. The employer can now sort through all their interviews and make the best decision based on alot of information the potential employee gave them without having to give anything away in a posting. It just makes more sense. I do not agree with your quote though, as harsh as it sounds, people are commodoties like cars or computers to employers. People are just another expense, if a sinlge person could run a company without staff, he would. A company develops by the employer discovering he needs more help, if he does not need the help anymore they get laid off/fired, they just don't come to the office and get paid to sit around. We are only resources to a company if were are making them money. If we go negative, the job is gone.

Hmm, it's funny I was taught exactly the opposite while obtaining my Business undergrad degree. Maybe colleges just teach future managers and business owners the exact wrong thing to do. I had many professors that were sucessful business ownders and managers of major corporations and they all focused in on empowering employees, reataining and developing employees, basically teaching that the employees "are" the company. Without employees companies would be nothing and companies are only as competitive as their employees make them. You don't build a competitive company by viewing and treating employees as assets. I sincerely hope your employees do not know you view them as commodoties. If they do, I hope you enjoy the process of replacing employees. I am not even going to get into the prooven fact that an employee doesn't even make a real difference until after atleast four months.

You cannot apply your idealogy to all companies, because that is not "how business runs" although it's fun to apply a black and white explanation to something as complex business. For example my company values their employees and have responded positively to me twice over they past year when I requested a pay adjustment. This in turn makes me work harder for them as opposed to spending my time surfing for jobs on the internet.

sprkymrk

brennonbladin wrote:

Hmm, it's funny I was taught exactly the opposite while obtaining my Business undergrad degree. Maybe colleges just teach future managers and business owners the exact wrong thing to do. I had many professors that were sucessful business ownders and managers of major corporations and they all focused in on empowering employees, reataining and developing employees, basically teaching that the employees "are" the company.

No, they teach the "ethical" thing to do, which may or may not happen in the real world. How many middle managers do I know that would LOVE to give their top guy/s a raise only to be denied by someone higher up? Companies and individuals within those companies have different ethics, standards and morals. How about a situation where a company can't give Joe a 7% raise because then John will only get 3%? Both are great workers and valuable to the company - but there is only a certain amount of money to go around.

brennonbladin wrote:

For example my company values their employees and have responded positively to me twice over they past year when I requested a pay adjustment. This in turn makes me work harder for them as opposed to spending my time surfing for jobs on the internet.

How do you know they weren't thinking "Wow, is that all he wants? Geez, his market value is 10K higher, so let's just give him the 2K raise he is asking for and make it look like we really care about him". That's the same kind of example as "We know he made 40K at his other job, so let's offer him 48K even though we budgeted for 60K".

Just a couple of things that came to mind while reading everyone's posts. You may not like what garv is saying, but he's not wrong in stating that companies do work that way in many cases. If life was fair we'd all be as ugly as me so I wouldn't stand out in a crowd....

TeKniques

My whole opinion on this is if I'm looking for a different job to advance my career I am looking to get paid more. End of story. In most cases an employer will pay the competitive rate for the area of the specific job so I think that this 100k down to 40k stuff is unrealistic. Most of the job openings I read say 'DOE' for the payrate.

I also agree with the ideology that a company is not there to make employees happy and give them the world. They are there to make money, and if you're important to making that company money you will be paid accordingly. This doesn't mean employees won't shape the company, because the people that really make it go around are taken care of.

Think about it ...

For example, I used to work at Toys 'R' Us and had to clean up puke that was too chunky to mop up and got paid $7.35 /hr to do it. The person who was helping guests at the service area made more than me even though I was doing the crappier job, and the managers of course were being paid the most at the store. Hence, I wasn't that important to the company so I made crap compared to others. It's the way it goes in any business, you just have to do the things for yourself to get ahead and that doesn't mean just graduating college and getting a job that pays the greatest. Those salary surveys are so skewed that they give people false hope with college degrees IMO. Degrees are great to get you into the door in most cases starting at a lower position, but gradually with hard work and determination someone can gain experience and knowledge to really excel and get an exceptional paycheck.

12thlevelwarrior

I am not arguing that companies do not sometimes work like Garv says, but all companies do not work like this. I would argue companies that are less competitive follow Garv's idealogy.

The school not only taught me the ethical thing to do, but taught me what proven succesful companies have done. These companies did what they thought would give them an advantage and this just so happens is the ethical thing to do as well. The "company" and the employees are one in the same, to differentiate them is wrong. A company that looks at employees like a car or a hunk of meat with a pulse is viewing itself as a non-important and selling the company and everyone that works for it short. Sub par companies are made up of sub par employees who were lowballed to start with and really could care less about the work they do which directly translates into a company that is sluggish and below average.

As far as my adjustments, they were triple the national average on a yearly basis, so if they think that is low then more the better for me.

RussS

Several times I have been asked my previous salary/package when applying for a position. If on a written form I leave it blank and if I am asked verbally I state that I can not supply that as it is commercially sensative information for my last/current employer and offering that information would be breaking confidentiality with them. If pushed I will state that just as I would not disclose confidential information as your employee I will not do so to a past/current employer.

sprkymrk

brennonbladin wrote:

The "company" and the employees are one in the same, to differentiate them is wrong. A company that looks at employees like a car or a hunk of meat with a pulse is viewing itself as a non-important and selling the company and everyone that works for it short.

I'm not disagreeing with you on how things "should" be.
Let me define what I mean when I say "the company" vs "the employee". The company is generally the highest level of management - the Board of Directors, President, CEO, VP's, and some Directorate level managers. These guys don't even know you, let alone care about anything much beyond making money for themselves and the share holders. That is their job.

As you stated, the smart ones know that happy employees are productive employees, so they create a corporate philosophy that rewards good employees enough to keep them productive. This makes more money for them and the share holders. So they don't all do it because it's morally right, but because in doing this THEY GET MORE MONEY. Do you think they would really continue to give you 3x the national average in raises if it made them lose money? Do you think they would do it because you're a nice guy? Not a chance.

brennonbladin wrote:

Sub par companies are made up of sub par employees who were lowballed to start with and really could care less about the work they do which directly translates into a company that is sluggish and below average.

And some bankrupt companies were made up of well meaning business men who couldn't afford to stay in business regardless of how skilled and great their employees were because they could no longer afford to retain them.

brennonbladin wrote:

As far as my adjustments, they were triple the national average on a yearly basis, so if they think that is low then more the better for me.

And if your true market value was much higher and you didn't know it, the better for them. By the way, if you were able to get that kind of raise out of them, what does that say about the starting wage you were hired at? You didn't work for garv did you?
Seriously though, congrats on the raise.

strauchr

garv221 wrote:

Slowhand wrote:

Employers shouldn't be looking for the lowest bidder. We're people, resources to a company that they want to keep for years. We're not commodoties like cars or computers, that you use up and get rid of once we've served our purpose.

Slowhand- I agree that once a position's salary range is posted, a company should stick within that. However, the majority of positions that have a wage posted are lower level jobs with the exception for goverment and a few others. The majority of postings I see are mid-higher/managment level and do not have a wage listed, the interviewer will ask the potential employee what his salary requirements are. This allows the employer to view all candiates, their skills, expereince & wage requirements. The employer can now sort through all their interviews and make the best decision based on alot of information the potential employee gave them without having to give anything away in a posting. It just makes more sense. I do not agree with your quote though, as harsh as it sounds, people are commodoties like cars or computers to employers. People are just another expense, if a sinlge person could run a company without staff, he would. A company develops by the employer discovering he needs more help, if he does not need the help anymore they get laid off/fired, they just don't come to the office and get paid to sit around. We are only resources to a company if were are making them money. If we go negative, the job is gone.

How the hell did you get into management? You have got the wrong attitude. First of all employees are NOT an expense but are an asset. Without that employee doing his part in your company you can not make money and you are broke! End of storey!

They may not directly make you money but things need to be run. You of all people should know the value of IT people. Think computers run on their own without IT people maintaining them, think the bills get paid by themselves without accounts, think your money gets managed on its own without finance, think customers just automatically find your business know exactly what to do without anyone selling your business.

Naive!

And to your other posts. Why would you want to pay a person less than they are worth? They'll do a half arsed job and go somewhere else as soon as a better offer comes up. No wonder IT management are so out of touch with their employees with attitudes like that.

strauchr

And BTW - cars and computers are considered assests by a company not an expense. Business 101.