1. I don't discuss my current or past compensation.
2. Before I engage at all, I need to know what the baseline salary and compensation package is for the role in question.
If they're coming to you, you have 100% of the negotiation leverage.
In my experience, recruiters are 'box checkers'. They have little to no knowledge of your skill set or the skills required for the job outside of buzz words that can be printed on a resume. The reason recruiters ask for your salary is not to engage in price fixing but to ensure that they pursue a placement where 1) the candidate is getting a pay bump and 2) the candidate is priced competitively.
Not entirely. It may be in your best interest to walk away from a position that is not offering as much as you want. On the other hand, the recruiter gets 0 if you walk away or are passed over because someone else asked for less. So it is in the recruiters best interests to get you placed somewhere, even if somewhere is a little lower yearly salary because they undercut competition.
> The reason recruiters ask for your salary is not to engage in price fixing but to ensure that they pursue a placement where 1) the candidate is getting a pay bump and 2) the candidate is priced competitively.
No, it's so you don't look like your biting off more than you can chew, which looks bad on them. If you move from somewhere with a low pay rate to somewhere higher and you try to get that big pay bump, they're going to tell you that you can't because you don't look like you're worth it based on your previous low pay.
YES YES YES YES YES. This is far more important than any salary disclosure. The recruiter is asking so they don't waste any one's time on a deal that will fail because of price.
> On the other hand, the recruiter gets 0 if you walk away or are passed over because someone else asked for less. So it is in the recruiters best interests to get you placed somewhere, even if somewhere is a little lower yearly salary because they undercut competition.
The problem is that you're willing to sign for a lower salary. Disclosure has no impact on you accepting or not accepting the offer, it just helps ensure the offer will be accepted when/if presented.
> No, it's so you don't look like your biting off more than you can chew, which looks bad on them.
Seriously, if your recruiter is telling the hiring company information that makes themselves look bad...they most likely are not going to close the deal. If your current would be seen as 'too low' to the client, then they won't disclose your current salary.
> If you move from somewhere with a low pay rate to somewhere higher and you try to get that big pay bump, they're going to tell you that you can't because you don't look like you're worth it based on your previous low pay.
If your recruiter tells you that, then drop them. Great recruiters know that the value of the candidate is driven by the current market, not the candidate's current pay.
I ended up getting a 1.75x pay bump. I know what I am worth, and I was getting underpaid at my previous job (but at the time when I got that job, the market wasn't as hot).
For example lets assume a recruiter can only find job offers for 1 candidate at a time, and it takes on average:
- 1 week of work to find a 10% better offer
- 2 week of work to find a 40%+ better offer
It would seem like that 40% better offer is definitely worth the work, but for the recruiter it may not be.
If engineers makes say $150k, and the recruiter gets 10% of their new salary, they would make $16.5k from 1 week of work, or $21k from 2 weeks of work. If they can turn 1 candidate per week at $16.5k they will end up making more than if they spent 2 weeks per candidate, so they have little to no incentive to actually get you a better offer if it takes more work.
Not to mention recruiters are more likely to work with companies multiple times per year and an individual maybe once per year, so it is likely in their best interest to help each company get the best price on a candidate rather than help the candidate get the best offer possible.
Maybe the better response is "I tell you mine if you tell me yours"? If you know how much the recruiter is taking home, you can get a sense of their incentives.
It's also important to weigh these costs at the margin. If they have a candidate who will sign faster and for less money, the recruiter isn't going to advocate for you.
While recruiters do often work with a small set of companies, the challenge of the job is supply, not demand. They are paid to find employees, not to find employers. Even if they're working with a single client, in a hot market this will have next to no impact on salary pricing.
This is often true, but not exactly true. Freakanomics has a study on something similar, real estate agents. See https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=17jO_w6f8Ck
The difference between you making 130k and 150k may only be 2k difference for the recruiter, which in the interest of getting the job filled is very small. However to YOU, the difference is 20k which can be life altering.
Here's a quick and short video covering the gist of it: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=17jO_w6f8Ck
(probability of you getting the job) x (recruiter cut) x (your salary)
Say that a recruiter gets a 10% of your salary, and you get an offer for $90.000, so they get $9.000 for their work.
Your value could be higher, let's say $120.000, so the recruiter can make $3.000 more. But the situation from the recruiter POV is: a) Make $9.000 now and work on another hire b) Waste time negotiating and possibly lose the $9.000 just to make $3.000 more
I will go with a), make $9.000 and move on.
20-80 chances of $80,000 is 20% chance of getting $8,000
it's actually in the recruiter's interest to force you into accepting a low offer right away rather than possibly getting another offer by your current employer or another offer through an acquaintance
I can look it up later but it has been shown that real estate brokers wait longer for better prices on their own house than they do for their clients.
This may not align with your best interests as he can make you a lower offer than you aim for, if you reveal your past salary information.
- "I don't feel comfortable sharing that" - "I'm still looking at a couple different options and don't want to pigeon hole myself" - "What salary is being offered with this position?"
If they take issue with your non-response, its a (small) sign that you might headed towards a non-ideal working environment.
If it's confidential after that, it should be confidential before, too.
http://www.npr.org/2014/04/13/301989789/pay-secrecy-policies...
Discussing your salary is always, ALWAYS legal.
ALWAYS.
It's also moral and ethical. It's the cornerstone of collective action. It is information that can NEVER hurt either you or your coworker, because someone is going to have to justify a salary in one direction or another as a result. Never, ever hesitate to share your salary information with anyone who wants to know.
Ashamed that it's too high? Work to get your coworkers raises. Ashamed that it's too low? Time to open negotiations, either with your current employer or another one.
Here are few conversations (from what I remember):
Amazon Recruiter: So how much are you making right now?
Me: I'm in Canada and I'm interviewing for a position in NYC, how's that relevant. In my Province, we've a central database with salary stats. If you've something similar, I can use that to come up with a number backed by data.
Amazon Recruiter: I'll get back with that info (he never did!)
Generic Recruiter: How much in CAD dollars you make right now?
(Me thinking: Do you've any idea about conversion rate? If so, you'd not be asking this)
Me: Sorry I can't provide that information.
Recruiter: Just so you know when you work with US recruiters, this is a standard requirement that you must provide your current salary for us to be able to proceed.
Me: Thanks, I think I'll have to find someone else (and we ended there).
Based on news articles it seems it is difficult for tech companies to find good people but it is equally difficult for individuals to weed out these recruiters trickery from my experience.
Glad to see that asking for salary is not 'standard' requirement!
I've seen some recruiters straight up refuse to work with me when I wouldn't disclose my current salary. Very glad they did.
Also go read "A Strategy of Conflict", which will enable you to understand and analyze all sorts of negotiations.
Society at large does not work as a huge family - this does not mean that it's a dog eat dog world but it's good to have some negotioations theory under ones belt as one becomes a seasoned professional.
There's little that's a more powerful statement of your value to your prior employer as the salary you'd previously negotiated.
Most candidates who say nothing are either underpaid or overpaid and are trying to dance around that, instead of simply reframing the conversation to be about your market value.
The entire culture of a company trying to offer you less than you're worth so that they can save a few pennies is disgusting.
There shouldn't be salary negotiations - people who do the same job should be paid the same salary. If you want to negotiate for extra vacation days or a signing bonus or whatever, fine, but not salary. Just pay people a fair salary and pay them the same.
The current salary negotiation setup is extremely detrimental to people and should be eliminated, not encouraged.
"What will it take for you to switch jobs?"
No problem with telling them your current salary- their goal is to offer you something better, and you can straight up say I'd need 30% more to switch. Remember, they get paid a % of your salary to get you!
Not to mention that many companies do 'require' it. Next time I should claim it's confidential. Just to see how they react to a novel situation.
You mean to tell me that this is actually a bad idea?
Similarly, disclosing your salary to a potential employer helps them by increasing their ability to bargain effectively with you.
This article is more about negotiation.
This post seems to be more about at a personal level, and not giving in when the salary negotiations start.
I recommend reading Kahneman... here: http://www.pnas.org/content/107/38/16489.full.pdf
Is that why the downvote? I linked the paper people can make their own interpretation... that's at least as praise worthy as "common sense".