California bans salary question

[Emjay]

It doesn't matter if you know how to negotiate.

Unless it is a very senior/executive position, or someone with a critical skill, the room for negotiation is not very large.

Asking for previous pay slips feels like a bit like price fixing. If you want a skill, pay for it what you deem the value is. The market will determine the salary via demand versus supply.

As someone who worked hard to get to say $450k/y, I wouldn't want to be lumped with a bunch of opportunists who would never justify $450k anywhere they've worked. Today this isn't an issue.

Also, since you may have missed my point - there are no $500k+ interview questions.

Sound just a tad smug there. You worked hard? Really? Tell me more.

If you were really good at what you do, you wouldn't be worried or have the need to raise a concern about "being lumped with opportunists", who according to you don't work hard...

Somehow, it seems that you are the opportunist. You don't see high paying executives/skilled folk needing to discuss how much they earn on a public forum.

 

[ToxicBunny]

I was told by a company not too long ago that they do not offer more than 10% more than what a candidate currently earns. I told them the risk of moving to them was just not worth the 10%. They don't exist anymore

Had a similar thing recently... also didn’t move as my move number is 20%

 

[sox63]

Had a similar thing recently... also didn’t move as my move number is 20%

Mine is 20% too minimum

 

[SauRoNZA]

Its easy, if the job is advertised with a certain salary , and the candidate passes the interview process, offer him/her the salary advertised - it doesn't matter what they earned at their previous job.

This is exactly how it should work.

Job should be advertised with a given salary and interviewed as such.

Not negotiated after the fact.

 

[SauRoNZA]

Most companies DON'T negotiate outside of their allowable existing salary + percentage range...

Which is fine.

Have a static value up front and stop wasting everyone’s time.

I no longer attend any interview before getting the numbers up front.

 

[Ancalagon]

You missed the point completely. Age has nothing to do with it.

Okay, so then what is your point? Someone worth $450k should get paid $450k because that is what the market thinks he is worth.

What he earned before should not matter - what he can prove to the market in terms of his worth is what matters.

So I really don't understand where your sour grapes about this are coming from.

 

[cguy]

Okay, so then what is your point? Someone worth $450k should get paid $450k because that is what the market thinks he is worth.

What he earned before should not matter - what he can prove to the market in terms of his worth is what matters.

So I really don't understand where your sour grapes about this are coming from.

No, I think that someone who interviewed well and also managed to make themselves sufficiently valuable to their previous company as to earn $450k/y, is far more likely to justify the $500k salary, than someone who just interviewed well.

 

[cguy]

Sound just a tad smug there. You worked hard? Really? Tell me more.

Yes, and yes. What's your point?

If you were really good at what you do, you wouldn't be worried or have the need to raise a concern about "being lumped with opportunists", who according to you don't work hard...

"Opportunist" in this context, means exactly that, by definition. Also, being really good at what you do is precisely why one would be concerned with this legislation - that's the whole point.

Somehow, it seems that you are the opportunist. You don't see high paying executives/skilled folk needing to discuss how much they earn on a public forum.

What on earth are you talking about? I'm not discussing how much I earn.

 

[ToxicBunny]

No, I think that someone who interviewed well and also managed to make themselves sufficiently valuable to their previous company as to earn $450k/y, is far more likely to justify the $500k salary, than someone who just interviewed well.

There is no doubt about that..

But if a position is advertised at $450k - 550k, and I interview well etcetcetc and the company wants to hire but they get my salary slip at 250k, then it should be a case of offering within the range of what the position was advertised for.. not salary + percentage.

 

[cguy]

There is no doubt about that..

But if a position is advertised at $450k - 550k, and I interview well etcetcetc and the company wants to hire but they get my salary slip at 250k, then it should be a case of offering within the range of what the position was advertised for.. not salary + percentage.

I disagree with this... conditionally. I agree with you absolutely for income ranges where there are testable skills. I.e., If someone is working as a web developer for $60k/y, and learns a bunch of ML/datascience after hours, they should absolutely be able to get a $150k/y job as a data scientist, and their previous salary should be irrelevant. For higher end positions, it is very unlikely any interviewable skills will take someone past a certain threshold in certain industries. The best indication is usually a combination of interview skill level, but also existing experience, and the value that the previous company(ies) put on it.

Edit: I should add as well, that if they make you an offer of $250k + percentage, then they're also likely, hiring you for a technically different job, with a very different level of responsibility.

 

[shooter69]

... and the value that the previous company(ies) put on it.

And this is where you miss the point exactly the same way recruiters do.
Some guys are brilliant at what they do but get low-balled by their companies. I have personally seen that at a small dev house. Some people are not worth the payslip their names are printed on but make a tone of money.

 

[ToxicBunny]

I disagree with this... conditionally. I agree with you absolutely for income ranges where there are testable skills. I.e., If someone is working as a web developer for $60k/y, and learns a bunch of ML/datascience after hours, they should absolutely be able to get a $150k/y job as a data scientist, and their previous salary should be irrelevant. For higher end positions, it is very unlikely any interviewable skills will take someone past a certain threshold in certain industries. The best indication is usually a combination of interview skill level, but also existing experience, and the value that the previous company(ies) put on it.

Edit: I should add as well, that if they make you an offer of $250k + percentage, then they're also likely, hiring you for a technically different job, with a very different level of responsibility.

Why should a previous companies value of a skill make ANY impact?

 

[Craig_]

Not in my experience.

Companies will pay your existing salary plus a percentage... They are not negotiable and won't budge even if the extra is entirely worth it for them.

Easy then, you don't take the job. If they screw you over even before you are employed by them, can you imagine how deep the will screw you once in.

 

[ToxicBunny]

Easy then, you don't take the job. If they screw you over even before you are employed by them, can you imagine how deep the will screw you once in.

And I don't take the job...

I have my numbers and the recruiter is aware of those numbers before I even go beyond a 5 minute call with them.... I've shat on my fair share of recruiters for wasting MY time, and I know of 2 companies that have done similar to the recruiter after I've talked with the HR and Finance people when an offer has been presented.

 

[Mike Hoxbig]

Was going to say inb4 cguy but it seems like I'm late again...

 

[VooDooC]

Had an incident a while back where the job offer was at R40k per month, when I applied for the job they asked me to send payslips and give them a rough salary amount I'm looking for. Long story short, they came back a couple days later and said sorry the company can not offer me more than R28k p/m, when I asked them why then advertise the position for R40k p/m they didn't even bother to reply.

 

[Mike Hoxbig]

The best indication is usually a combination of interview skill level, but also existing experience, and the value that the previous company(ies) put on it.

If a previous company valued a skill at the level that you're happy with, you wouldn't be looking for another job. It has zero bearing on anything.

If one company employed slaves, should we expect all companies to employ slaves? Since one company places no value on the labour, the others should follow suit right?

 

[skinndeep]

I'm in this position now. Salary calculators all say I'm under paid. Recruiters keep saying asking for more than 10% is impossible in the current climate.

 

[ToxicBunny]

I'm in this position now. Salary calculators all say I'm under paid. Recruiters keep saying asking for more than 10% is impossible in the current climate.

Tell the recruiters to screw themselves... You WON'T accept anything less than whatever is required to get you to a point you're happy and if they want their commission cheque they'll fight for that figure. If they aren't prepared to do that find a different recruitment agent.

 

[vic777]

Tell the recruiters to screw themselves... You WON'T accept anything less than whatever is required to get you to a point you're happy and if they want their commission cheque they'll fight for that figure. If they aren't prepared to do that find a different recruitment agent.

Not always that easy - especially when people get retrenched, you have a family to support and you need a new job, ASAP.