Employer asking for present salary on application?

strauchr

On the topic of revealing your last salary you don't have to do it. But if you do, like I always have, just make it close to what you want to get paid. Fudge the figures, no one will know. Its not their right to know and I consider impolite to ask so if you lie a bit no problem. After all an employer is simply just to get paid right? If your just an expense to them then they are just a bank balance to you - You want to get paid as much to do as little work as possible. (See how that attitude is not constructive and can backfire?)

I prefer not to apply for jobs like that anyway. Means they probably don't value their employees and are cheapskates.

Never make the first offer, first rule of negotiation.

12thlevelwarrior

It's obvious companies are in it for money, everyone is in it for the money, but some companies understand the money comes from having good people that actually care about the company and the way to get these type of people is not to lowball them or view them as cattle, but view them as an integral part of your success.

Lets say you have someone come in for a position and the median pay for the position is 60k, the person is qualified, but they make 40k now. According to Garv you pay that person about 46,500. Ok, now they are hired and in about 6 months they learn what other employees make at their same level and in another 6 months they leave to go to a company that values people, notices a resource (this employee) is undervalued currently and snatches him/her up for their own purpose. Now the first company has to start all over again and will most likely continue to experience low retention rate.

Of course all the managers are defending this system because they are paid well and submit logically because of the money they make, even though the process is bad for the company. I have seen so many people go into management and they just become robots, afraid to comment on anything because they are constantly thinking about how they might be liable for something.

BubbaJ

strauchr wrote:

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

Today, it can be more complicated than that. Equipment that costs less than a certain amount (I think it is around $2500 now) counts as an expense. Equipment over that amount is capitalized, and loses book value on a regular schedule for several years.

garv221

strauchr wrote:

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.

I can tell you will be an employee for someone else the rest of your life. How did I get into managment? Well I can manage people and an IT Dept. I fall into the same boat of employee stuff I have been talking about, I am not independently wealthy. However, I know how the operation runs, you are thinking to liberal. Employees are an asset and I never said they were not, I said they were an expense- which is true, assests cost money but generate more than costs. Employees generate money, which in turn keeps the business running. If the business is slacking, that once asset turns into a liability because of the negative generated cash. Employees should be treated fairly and paid within reason, and I never said to pay someone less than a posted position is calling for but I did say not to post the salary and have the employee make a salary requirement. This makes the potential employee be reasonable about their request and 9 out of 10 times they will not go way higher than their current salary- Business 101. Like I said before it's common sense and a smart way of feeling out potential employees. Do you shop around before buying stuff or just buy on sight? This is all common sense on operating a business and all profitable businesses do it. These fortune 500 companies do not get rich by giving money away. They spend money to make triple. If you do not like it, start your own business and pay everyone way to much and call me collect in a year and let me know how it went. As for the cars and computers being assests; it all depends. A truck driving company considers a truck an assest b/c it's a means of money. It really depends so don't try to correct me on something as broad as that. Also, I do know the importance of IT. Do you? Do you understand that every business around the world would get rid of in house IT if every time there was a problem they called the IT contractors in your local city because it's cheaper than our wage? They charge $120.00/hr to do your job, so are you under paid by your employeer? Your only worth what someone is willing to pay you.

garv221

Question. Lets say you are all business owners. You have a position open for Sr. Network Engineer. You put out a job posting with no wages listed. You do the interviews and have two people out of 20 you think are perfect for the position and will fit right in. They are both equaly qualified on experience, certs and school. One is asking 55K/yr and the other is asking 70K/yr. Who would you hire?

I would hire the 55K/yr person, I save 15K, pocket half and give the other half in bonuses to my key employees around Christmas . Thats the benifit of having potential employees negoatiate their wages. So actualy current loyal employees will now benifit from simple business moves. Everyone wins. If anything is Business 101, thats it.

BubbaJ

garv221 wrote:

I would hire the 55K/yr person, I save 15K, pocket half and give the other half in bonuses to my key employees around Christmas . Thats the benifit of having potential employees negoatiate their wages. So actualy current loyal employees will now benifit from simple business moves. Everyone wins. If anything is Business 101, thats it.

That's a good answer. I had a professor tell me once that a for-profit business is just that - to make as much profit for the owner(s) as possible, and products, services, jobs, etc. are just necessary evils, but that doesn't mean you shouldn't do each of those excellently. This is not what employees want to hear, but it is the truth and how companies view it from the top.

garv221

BubbaJ: Thanks, I am glad you see it. As to anyone that doesn't want to reveal their current wages in an interview, I would assume they have something hide. Like for example a lot lower current salary . Its very similiar to the idea that ugly people are the only people who say beauty is skin deep. People who don't want to reveal their wages are asking way to much & no one will ever convince that is true until they actualy have to pay someones salary.

Webmaster

I agree. Unless I actually had a confidentiality agreemtent explicitely stating I cannot disclose my salary, and I really want the job, I would reveal it. If I wanted and expected to earn more with the new job, which usually is the case, I would just mention that instead making up a higher salary for whatever reason.

I agree also with garv regarding the majority of companies/business owners. We have a saying here, which somewhat applies (roughly translated:) "businesses are not philanthropical institutions". However, there are still for-profit companies who consider 'employing' a noble thing. I.o.w. giving someone a job to help the family, town, region, country and reduce the unemployment rates. Obviously more profit is still the main goal, as it allows them to employ more people. But they are more than an asset or expense, they are an investment in the future (of the company, the employee, the country, the world...). I admit, it's becoming rare, and you won't find many of these in the IT industry.

garv221 wrote:

Question. Lets say you are all business owners. You have a position open for Sr. Network Engineer. You put out a job posting with no wages listed. You do the interviews and have two people out of 20 you think are perfect for the position and will fit right in. They are both equaly qualified on experience, certs and school. One is asking 55K/yr and the other is asking 70K/yr. Who would you hire?

Easy decision for the business owner, especially these days. "are perfect for the position" would make all the difference for me. In many corporations the there's often not 'a' business owner, and the IT manager and/or HR decides who gets the job. That obviously wouldn't change anything for you, and if I were that IT manager for me neither, but for many IT managers other factors can easily outweigh the 15K per year. Even though they are both perfect for the job, no two people are the same, and IT managers can prefer one of the other for all sorts of more and less silly reasons (accent, age, sense of humor etc.) without having or wanting to worry about spending only 15K per year extra.

I've never been in the position myself but worked closely with quite a few as a consultant and project manager and once the company starts making serious profit the IT manager is the last person that worries about 'a couple of thousand'. 5-7 years ago the guy asking 71K would probably have got the job because since he's asking 15K more he 'must' be really good. I know, things changed...

sprkymrk

garv221 wrote:

Its very similiar to the idea that ugly people are the only people who say beauty is skin deep.

I am NOT the only person who says that! :P
Sorry everyone is jumping on you garv. There is a lot of good discussion about how things are and how they should be, but the fact is that not all (or even most) employers care much about the employees - they just want us to help them be profitable. If you want to work for an organization that REALLY appreciates you as an individual, go work for some non-profit organization that caters to the less fortunate like the Red Cross or Salvation Army. They will REALLY appreciate you and pay you about half the going rate of someone in your profession with poor working conditions to boot, plus pay your own expenses.

Addressing the original question - if you don't want to tell them your previous salary history you don't have to, but you shouldn't be surprised if they count that as a mark against you. If you want to tell them and want to lie about it, then quit preaching that companies should take the moral high ground and pay you according to your worth rather than according to your previous salary. Quit jumping all over garv for stating the way his company does business and the way he manages. Which is worse, a company that asks for a salary history or a person that lies about it when asked?

Slowhand

I wanted to clarify one thing I've been reading in the responses. I don't object to a company hiring someone for a lower wage if they can get it, especially if they do advertise the positon as "DOE", or as "Competitive". The objection I had was to companies that will advertise one rate, say $70,000, and then offer the potential hire a lower rate because he/she was making significantly less elsewhere.

As for the question of if people are assets of expenses, and how they should be treated. . . well, I can say this. I'm not a business major, (and I don't really want to be,) but I do know that some of the most successful companies in the world treat their employees as people, as part of the company, not as "things that cost money". That's not to say that there aren't successful companies that treat their employees like garbage and make a killing; I'm just saying that the ideology can work.

I've been to a lot of trade shows, and I've traveled out to a lot of different company events and seminars. I have yet to meet a disgruntled Microsoft employee or a disillusioned, broken Google employee.

sprkymrk

Slowhand wrote:

I wanted to clarify one thing I've been reading in the responses. I don't object to a company hiring someone for a lower wage if they can get it, especially if they do advertise the positon as "DOE", or as "Competitive". The objection I had was to companies that will advertise one rate, say $70,000, and then offer the potential hire a lower rate because he/she was making significantly less elsewhere.

I can certainly agree with that.

BubbaJ

Slowhand wrote:

I've been to a lot of trade shows, and I've traveled out to a lot of different company events and seminars. I have yet to meet a disgruntled Microsoft employee or a disillusioned, broken Google employee.

Part of that is that most of them are also owners (stockholders). I have a couple of hundred K worth of my company's stock, and it will change your attitude. Enron forced their employees to put their retirement money into Enron stock. The employees loved the company...

It would not be a very good move for a company to send disgruntled employees to a trade show. I've never met a Google employee, but I know a couple of dozen Microsoft employees, and most are, at least somewhat, critical of the comapny but only a couple are downright disgruntled. Even the disgruntled ones, however, know which side of their bread is buttered.

garv221

I in no way shape or form am representing my current compnay or how they conduct busniess. I am just expressing this is how overall business works, from the Motor City car shops to the warehouse that puts the elastic on your underware, its all the same . Behind every interview and every recomendation for a job there is someone punching numbers into a calculator figuring costs about the potential position. As for the companies like Google & Microsoft, there is alot of money to go around with them, they bring in alot each year. If you were to do a comparison on profits to payroll every week, I think the payroll ratio would be alot lower than the majority of every business in America because of their massive profits and the money they keep among top partners. Like this 15K/yr I used as an example, I think regardless of the companies size, a small business saves 15K, the owner throws it down on a vacation, a large company shaves that on a 100 people and saves 1.5 Million a year and does some rasies for employees and pockets alot more.What makes this conversation interesting is, about 4 years ago I think I would have argued the other way against business. It really is a harsh reality and I think once you grasp this concept, you can use it to benifit yourself.

strauchr

My reply was a bit harsh. I know what your saying garv. For the record I do project manage, which entails managing budgets and resources and I have been very close with managers at all levels over my years.

Some do think the way you have described and some don't. Some are successful using either way of management styles and some aren't. The only difference I see between managers who don't treat employees well and pay them what they are worth often make their own job more difficult and stressful due to unhappy employees, high staff turn over and other issues.

We all know businesses are in it for money etc. and employees are just a vehicle to achieve that but there is no to be an a**hole about. Employees can be treated fairly and nicely. And I wasn't referring to yourself garv.

I've worked for both types of management and have experienced the results and I know what type of manager I'd rather be. It doesn't take much to be a decent manager.

strauchr

garv221 wrote:

Question. Lets say you are all business owners. You have a position open for Sr. Network Engineer. You put out a job posting with no wages listed. You do the interviews and have two people out of 20 you think are perfect for the position and will fit right in. They are both equaly qualified on experience, certs and school. One is asking 55K/yr and the other is asking 70K/yr. Who would you hire?

I would hire the 55K/yr person, I save 15K, pocket half and give the other half in bonuses to my key employees around Christmas . Thats the benifit of having potential employees negoatiate their wages. So actualy current loyal employees will now benifit from simple business moves. Everyone wins. If anything is Business 101, thats it.

See I think that is a rookie mistake. Hiring the cheapest person is likley to result in possible fighting later on as they look for a pay rise, staff turn over which will result in higher costs of hiring another person and training them into the position etc. etc.

Your much better off paying for what the position is worth to secure a more committed person for the job.

I've seen businesses who underpay and problems that result in this style of business. They work half arsed, milk the job for all the training they can get and move on once a better job comes along.

Most people will only take less than the position is worth becuse they are desperate for a job then they move on. I'm not suggesting to overpay them but just pay what they are worth.

12thlevelwarrior

Good exchange of ideas, I think the truth lies as usual somewhere between the two views. Does the employer or the employee have the power? I think the answer to this question is different during different stages of the employment process. One thing I think we all can agree on is that an employer will not tell an employee they are just a number to their face and an employee would not tell an employer that they are just a paycheck to their face. Instead both parties most of the time treat each other with respect atleast when face to face . To me this illustrates that both parties need each other and both parties know it. Other conclusions can be drawn from this simple foundation of logic.

JDMurray

RussS wrote:

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.

I use an identical tactic when asked to provide samples of my coding. I simply say that all of the code I write is proprietary to my present and former employers, and it would be a violation of my NDAs to use the code in any way without written permission from my employers (that permission would never be given). I'm always interested in seeing if the interviewer: A) is impressed with my ethics and integrity; is annoyed and considers me to be a trouble-making smart-ass; or C) asks to see some code that I've written on my own time. I mostly see B, rarely A, and only C if the interviewer is him/herself a programmer.

I never ask for code samples when I'm conducting interviews. Instead, I throw a half-dozen or so of our current problems at the candidate and get their opinion on how to solve them. Whether or not they are a good programmer will only reveal itself over time and not in an interview.

ngmtech

When an employer requests a salary requirement or previous salary prior to making the decision to hire you leave it blank (or put in a 0 if it's a web based form that requires an entry).

You never want a potential employer to make their decision based on your salary requirements / history. You want them to base their decision on your qualifications, not who's willing to work for the cheapest pay.

Once they've decided you meet their requirements or that you're the best qualified candidate for the job should you discuss your salary history and or requirements. This will help ensure you get the pay that you deserve and prevents one from having to give a low number so that the employer can price shop. It also prevents you from being eliminated from consideration if your requirements are too high.

strauchr

brennonbladin wrote:

Good exchange of ideas, I think the truth lies as usual somewhere between the two views. Does the employer or the employee have the power? I think the answer to this question is different during different stages of the employment process. One thing I think we all can agree on is that an employer will not tell an employee they are just a number to their face and an employee would not tell an employer that they are just a paycheck to their face. Instead both parties most of the time treat each other with respect atleast when face to face . To me this illustrates that both parties need each other and both parties know it. Other conclusions can be drawn from this simple foundation of logic.

Society is conditioned to think that the employer has all the power. This results in an attitude by employers such as 'If you won't do it I'll find someone that will'.

As you have stated this is simply not the case. It is very much equal standing. Believe me, I have not been as successful as I have by believing I am nothing but a number to a company and that they have ALL the power. That attitude has gotten me a long way.

And if I ran my own business I'd like people who worked for me to feel the same way. That they are a contibutor to my company and that they are an invesmtent for my company rather than just a number. It seriously affects employee morale and output which in turn affects profits.

strauchr

ngmtech wrote:

When an employer requests a salary requirement or previous salary prior to making the decision to hire you leave it blank (or put in a 0 if it's a web based form that requires an entry).

You never want a potential employer to make their decision based on your salary requirements / history. You want them to base their decision on your qualifications, not who's willing to work for the cheapest pay.

Once they've decided you meet their requirements or that you're the best qualified candidate for the job should you discuss your salary history and or requirements. This will help ensure you get the pay that you deserve and prevents one from having to give a low number so that the employer can price shop. It also prevents you from being eliminated from consideration if your requirements are too high.

Spot on. Thats why I don't waste my time with intrusive employers. Theres plenty of jobs around, thats why I do the shopping around.

garv221

strauchr wrote:

garv221 wrote:

Question. Lets say you are all business owners. You have a position open for Sr. Network Engineer. You put out a job posting with no wages listed. You do the interviews and have two people out of 20 you think are perfect for the position and will fit right in. They are both equaly qualified on experience, certs and school. One is asking 55K/yr and the other is asking 70K/yr. Who would you hire?

I would hire the 55K/yr person, I save 15K, pocket half and give the other half in bonuses to my key employees around Christmas . Thats the benifit of having potential employees negoatiate their wages. So actualy current loyal employees will now benifit from simple business moves. Everyone wins. If anything is Business 101, thats it.

See I think that is a rookie mistake. Hiring the cheapest person is likley to result in possible fighting later on as they look for a pay rise, staff turn over which will result in higher costs of hiring another person and training them into the position etc. etc.

Your much better off paying for what the position is worth to secure a more committed person for the job.

I've seen businesses who underpay and problems that result in this style of business. They work half arsed, milk the job for all the training they can get and move on once a better job comes along.

Most people will only take less than the position is worth becuse they are desperate for a job then they move on. I'm not suggesting to overpay them but just pay what they are worth.

I can understand that but this person requested this salary which leads me to believe he would be happy with it and that he wouldn't requst a salary less than his current. With this lower salary than the other option, the employer also gets a nice window of raises to keep him happy before hitting the other requested salary.

garv221

strauchr wrote:

My reply was a bit harsh. I know what your saying garv. For the record I do project manage, which entails managing budgets and resources and I have been very close with managers at all levels over my years.

Some do think the way you have described and some don't. Some are successful using either way of management styles and some aren't. The only difference I see between managers who don't treat employees well and pay them what they are worth often make their own job more difficult and stressful due to unhappy employees, high staff turn over and other issues.

We all know businesses are in it for money etc. and employees are just a vehicle to achieve that but there is no to be an a**hole about. Employees can be treated fairly and nicely. And I wasn't referring to yourself garv.

I've worked for both types of management and have experienced the results and I know what type of manager I'd rather be. It doesn't take much to be a decent manager.

Thanks.

sprkymrk

strauchr wrote:

Spot on. Thats why I don't waste my time with intrusive employers. Theres plenty of jobs around, thats why I do the shopping around.

Plenty of jobs???
Okay, but what if the highest paying job was the one asking about your past salary history? How much higher would it have to be than a job that is not asking for past history for you to provide that information?

strauchr

sprkymrk wrote:

strauchr wrote:

Spot on. Thats why I don't waste my time with intrusive employers. Theres plenty of jobs around, thats why I do the shopping around.

Plenty of jobs???
Okay, but what if the highest paying job was the one asking about your past salary history? How much higher would it have to be than a job that is not asking for past history for you to provide that information?

Well you see, if the salary offer was already made then there would be no need to know my current salary and I would tell them that in polite terms.

And yeah, I have never had trouble finding work, often having to chose between jobs. I pick jobs based on what they could offer me and how well I think they would treat me rather than just based on salary.

Asking for my current salary and having a problem with me not providing it would mean the company may have a problem with requests of privacy and therefore probably wouldn't be worth working for.

But trust me, there is heaps of work out there. Don't let the hype bring you down to take a lower level lower pay job where you put up with crap - and if you do milk them for everything they are worth, find a good employer and then move to them. Don't waste time on employers who couldn't care less about you - lifes to short and you have to spend on average 11 hours a day on work (8 hours working, 2 hours commuting, 1 hour lunch brak usually behind your desk working!)

DO NOT submit to industry bullying

garv221

strauchr wrote:

Asking for my current salary and having a problem with me not providing it would mean the company may have a problem with requests of privacy and therefore probably wouldn't be worth working for.

I have found going against the grain and arguing with the way things are does nothing to benifit yourself.

BubbaJ

garv221 wrote:

I have found going against the grain and arguing with the way things are does nothing to benifit yourself.

You are a salesman trying to sell yourself to a company. What would you, as a buyer, do if a salesman refused to answer your questions?

12thlevelwarrior

Wow, I feel very proud of myself, My first post to ever hit 56 replies!!! Definitely a personal best for me. I would like to thank the webmaster and all my friends and family. Thank you for your support!

strauchr

garv221 wrote:

strauchr wrote:

Asking for my current salary and having a problem with me not providing it would mean the company may have a problem with requests of privacy and therefore probably wouldn't be worth working for.

I have found going against the grain and arguing with the way things are does nothing to benifit yourself.

Nah, it just about finding the right fit youself. If you feel uncomfortable then why put up with it? Otherwise your just a blind sheep and what next?

Anyway, best get back on topic. This getting a little too political

pjam76

It's nice to believe that companies should pay top dollar for their employees. it just doesn't work that way.

And really why should it.

As one poster said, If he doesn't get a raise or the right salary, he walks and goes to another job or opening.

Lets talk about fair according to some posters.

You get a job making 95K per year. It's a 30K raise over your last job someplace else. You have the experience and knowledge and now your making decent money.

But like many "Businesses" that you might work for, some years are not as good as others. Sometimes the markets are not as good as other years.

So now making 95K a year is great for you but the business is still losing money. IT is not some magic wand that's waved and suddenly the business becomes successful. It does't work like that.

So if the business is making less money this year, maybe they need to cut your salary from 95K to 85K......... Most people, as stated previously, would walk.

heck look at some airlines looking to cut costs but the flight attendants and unions are fighting the salary cuts.

IT's business. If you are not going to take a paycut in bad times, then it's only reasonable and "ethical" to think why would a business give you $95K when you've only been making 65k.

Most positions don't have a set in stone factor.

And the truth is, in the business world, 2 evenly matched candidates making 50K are a lot better then one great one making 100K.

Because in the real world, people get sick, people go on vacation, people move onto other jobs and/or retire.

Business is not a one man sport nor is IT anymore. It's too large. And the truth is, while everybody is important, there are millions of people waiting in line to take your job... Maybe even at a less wage.

Is it fair... Probably not.

But it's not fair when a business is losing money because many IT projects over the years are failures or overbudgeted.... and most of those employees are not going to take a pay cut when times are bad for the company.

So why should a company be over generous to an employee when times are good. Be fair, but you don't have to be like everybody was during "DOT COM" days. Cause if you remember correctly, most of those companies are long gone.

Olajuwon

pjam76 wrote:

And the truth is, in the business world, 2 evenly matched candidates making 50K are a lot better then one great one making 100K.

I disagree with this statement. It's like saying 2 average Joes are better than 1 genius. Think about it.