Company asked me to bring pay stub to interview..

I have a interview scheduled next week for a company as a Jr. Systems Admin position and I was asked to bring my pay stub to the interview. I never had this asked before in my career and seems like an odd request, what do you guys think? I would guess with that they could use it to lowball me or something.

Find more posts tagged with

Free for TechExams community: Cybersecurity salary guide

Compare cert salaries and plan your next career move

Button

Comments

cyberguypr

Reading crap like this makes me feel proud of my employer. I mean, how hard is it to establish a budget for a position, maybe give it some wiggle room, and interview away. The candidate's previous salary is absolutely irrelevant unless your priority as a company is being a cheap ass and getting talent at the absolute lowest cost.

apr911

networker050184 wrote: »

Nope, I've had to give a pay stub for pretty much every job I've had and always had nice bumps in pay. As I said almost double my salary once. Maybe it is just an industry thing. I've worked mostly for large service providers and it's pretty standard operating procedure.

Odd... I've only been asked for a paystub once and even then, it wasnt so much a "we need a paystub" so much as it was "we are having a hard time verifying this employment, can you provide supporting documentation?"

It was just easier to provide the paystub. It also was to a 3rd party background check company, not direct to the employer in question and it was after an offer had been extended and negotiated. Even though it was to a 3rd party, it was after an offer had been negotiated and the requested information was from a position from many moons and many raises ago, I provided the paystub with all applicable pay information blacked out.

I still would have questioned whether to even provide that information until an offer had been made as the company has no use for it until then. As Plantwiz said, its an integrity issue, knowing you're going to perform a background check anyway, if you cant trust me enough to believe my work history then it says a lot about more about the company than anything else.

Ultimately, I view past salary levels as confidential and between me and the employer. I may have accepted lesser pay at one role or another for any number of reasons, either because I was promoted (traditionally, promotions pay less than the same role hired off the street, seems nonsensical that a proven person would be paid less than some unproven person but its true), it was a great opportunity, great benefits, great location, great perks, familial reasons or because I believed in the company "mission" (especially true for working with non-profits) or other reasons and ultimately, the dollar amount I made fails to tell the whole story of that employment. Also, although many people do disclose their current salary to recruiters and places like glassdoor, doing so is still generally frowned upon. If a savvy recruiter is able to work out a payband for a role at a company, they can potentially use that information to poach people away from the company in droves.

Finally, while some disagree with me, I believe in giving the hiring company as little information as possible as to what it will take to get an acceptance from you. While the argument has been made many times that you should "know what your worth and demand it," (which I dont disagree with in principal) I doubt anyone will able to ever successfully convince me that "top talent will always draw top dollar," it makes business and financial sense to get the best product (talent) for the lowest possible amount. Yes, there is a low end to the range where you begin to question the quality of the product but its sort of like Walmart's recent pricing snafu... You'd be stupid to pass up and pay retail for a $1500 item when Walmart was willing (ok, not so willing as it turned out, but at the time they were) to accept $30 for it. And if that's still not enough to dissuade you, then all you really need to disprove the top talent-top dollar theory is to lookup the various anti-trust litigation filed against Google, Apple, et al for conspiring with each other to keep salaries artificially lower by not allowing a free market economy/trade in employees through the use of anti-poaching pacts.

N2IT

You could always find someone who makes a lot of money and forge the document with your name and information.

On a serious note I would consider reporting them on glassdoor or some other website that captures experiences of others.

kenop

networker050184 wrote: »

Nope, I've had to give a pay stub for pretty much every job I've had and always had nice bumps in pay. As I said almost double my salary once. Maybe it is just an industry thing. I've worked mostly for large service providers and it's pretty standard operating procedure.

What was the reason they gave for asking for it? Employment verification?

Around here (DC area), for the last 16 years and around 14 jobs, I have never been asked for a pay stub, don't know anyone who has ever mentioned it, and doubt it's even legal to require (of course they can ask). I would walk away from any company that asked for that, at worst they are using it to justify offer amounts, and if they're not doing that, at the very least they're irresponsible with employee personal data, both of which would turn me off in a second.

I wonder if this is a regional thing more so than an industry thing??

networker050184

I've been asked in the DC area when I was there. I just don't see why anyone would have a problem with this. What do you have to hide?

kenop

Current salary has no bearing on the new job, at all, and there are standards in place for employment verification that don't require pay stubs (HR to HR calls, and even then, in Virginia anyway, HR can't verify anything but start date, end date, title, and yes/no would you hire this person again. they are not allowed to divulge pay information.)

So my only other assumption is that they want to know what I make now as if to factor it in to negotiations.

I'm still gonna ask for what I'm worth, but it's already off to a bad start. I know that the employer is focusing on how much he has to pay, not how much value he's going to get from this new employee. That's not the kind of company that I want to work for, nor am I the guy they're looking for.

When it comes to winning negotiations, you have everything to hide.

networker050184

I think that is BS really. If you have to hide your current salary to get a fair salary at the new place do you really want to work there? Seems like they are doing you a favor and letting you know they are a shady low balling organization you should avoid anyway.

What happens when you go to negotiate a raise with this company if acquire new skills etc? You certainly aren't going to be able to hide what you are making then.

Danielm7

Sure it's BS, but it sounds like exactly what happened to the OP anyway. They didn't give him an offer until they saw his pay stub, saw it, and offered him $1500 more for the new role, sounds like below what the job should have paid and not a good deal for him at all. I'd think nothing positive about a company that required you to bring proof of your pay to an interview. God help they actually have a budget, tell you what the job pays or what the range is and go from there.

srabiee

REMOVED UNNECESSARY QUOTED REPLY FROM PREVIOUS POST

Bingo, that's exactly what they did.

networker050184

And now he knows to avoid this place. At least he didn't get suckered in to working for some cheap company that doesn't value their employees.

colemic

I can't see how this is legal - it could indicate whether you have child support payments, garnishments, alimony, health insurance premiums, your recurring paycheck donation to the St. Ignatius Underwater Basket Weaving team, etc. I am really surprised that some see this as a common practice - it is not, and it is a risky tactic for a company to pursue, due to the potential for sensitive personal details, or a protected status to be revealed.

I don't know what is wrong the enter button doesn't work for a new paragraph for me, LOL. My current salary has no bearing on what I should be paid in a new role. Ethics aside, it seems the primary reason is to offer an incrementally higher salary, instead of value-based compensation. For some folks, there is a heckuva lot of differences between old job responsibilities and new job responsibilities, therefore a significant income jump is to be expected, if the candidate is the right person for the role. Common sense says this only favors one party... and it ain't you.

Legacy User

Its sucks they tried to sucker you but glassdoor that company so I don't apply there

Gorby

I felt like it was a waste of time, with having to pay for parking and a longer commute I would have lost money just going back and forth to work. It's interesting seeing different opinions and hearing about how common it is to be asked such as question. I always thought it was confidential between me and my employer and was surprised that HR actually wanted me to bring it in.

I'm writing a glassdoor review of the company now actually to let anybody interviewing for the company know what to expect..

apr911

networker050184 wrote: »

I think that is BS really. If you have to hide your current salary to get a fair salary at the new place do you really want to work there? Seems like they are doing you a favor and letting you know they are a shady low balling organization you should avoid anyway.

What happens when you go to negotiate a raise with this company if acquire new skills etc? You certainly aren't going to be able to hide what you are making then.

Which is why, typically, people who have been at a company for a while and have acquired their role through a promotion or internal transfers make less, usually significantly so, than the people they hire from outside the company for the same role.

Onefte

And if a web comic is not your idea of sufficient evidence... Here's a study that was conducted by a professor at Wharton School of Business UPENN, published in ASQ (Administrative Science Quarterly) and cited by Forbes, Wall Street Journal and several other more official sounding places:

Why External Hires Get Paid More, and Perform Worse, than Internal Staff » Knowledge@Wharton

The study found external hires often times make 18-20% more than internal promotions even though the internal person has a more proven track record. Even scarier is the study found the external hires were more likely to perform worse and vacate the position sooner (through layoffs, voluntary departures or promotion).

Ultimately, this shouldn't be a surprise to anyone with business sense... There is a business/financial incentive to keep salaries low because it reduces cost of the product and thus increases profits or sales by keeping the margins high or prices low. My previous comments about Walmart's recent pricing snafu are just as true for businesses as consumers... You'd be stupid to pay full price for something you can get at a marked discount. Businesses are consumers too.

networker050184

That is why it is important to get in with a company that values their employees from the get go. If you have to hide what you currently make to get a fair deal then you really don't want to work there anyway.