Changing jobs

[jman]

Hi all,

So I'm in the position in my career where I'm not unhappy in my job, but I wouldn't mind having a look at other opportunities out there.

Problem is, I don't agree with these recruiters phoning me, and the first question I'm asked is what my current salary is. I don't feel I should need to divulge that private information, and that my offer should be based on my current salary, but rather what they value me at.

Have a read through this:

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/making-sense/ask-the-headhunter-never-ever/

How do others feel about this?

 

[Baxteen]

Abolutely Hate the idea, and there is no way around it. its the reality of life.

trust me I have gone for a lot of interviews in the last 3 years. I was very unhappy where I was a year ago and I was trying to change. and now I am moving because I am changing programming languages. first question will always be current CTC. if you do not give that information you do not hear from the recruiters again ever.

 

[Batista]

It is what it is man, why cant you give recruiters that information?They do need it you know, to do their job?

 

[Ancalagon]

In a perfect world, he is right. You should not have to disclose your current salary. You should be offered based on whether you can do the role in question. As he rightly says, salary is considered confidential in all other cases. If you asked the hiring manager how much he earns, or how much he pays another member of his staff, he won't tell you.

Is your salary relevant to your job application? I don't really think it is. Salary expectations on both sides are completely relevant, but current salary information is not relevant.

That being said, the problem is you are fighting an uphill battle. Everyone expects you to disclose your current salary. So its a problem.

 

[jman]

It is what it is man, why cant you give recruiters that information?They do need it you know, to do their job?

The way is see it is: Would you rather have an offer which is your current salary, plus 5 or 10%, or would you like to see what they value your skills at? Even if it's lower than my current salary and I reject that offer, I would prefer that. Pay me what I'm worth, not based on what I'm currently earning - I may be getting shafted at my current company

 

[CamiKaze]

Is your salary relevant to your job application? I don't really think it is. Salary expectations on both sides are completely relevant, but current salary information is not relevant.

That being said, the problem is you are fighting an uphill battle. Everyone expects you to disclose your current salary. So its a problem.

This.

Companies will never pay you what you are worth and they use your current salary to make you feel somewhat better than your previous job. Its as simple as that.
"Everyone expects you to disclose your current salary." That's the problem.

Responsibility should also play a huge role here but hey... we are expected to believe that it is normal to get paid less and less every year by the same company.

 

[TheJman]

First off, awesome nick name

Secondly, I swear to you, the battles I've had with this have been intense. I think it is absolutely ridiculous that you have to disclose your current salary, worse, they have all actually asked me for a payslip (I assume to confirm I'm not lying).

So to all those saying, what's the issue with disclosing your current salary, here is my issue - let's say, for example, the company I'm applying to work for is willing to pay 50k p.m for the position they are trying to fill .... then lets say in my current job, I'm being paid 30k p.m (wow these numbers are awesome! Can you imagine!)... so now I disclose I'm being paid 30k p.m and now they are sitting in the awesome position of being able to now offer me maybe 35k p.m - when in actual fact, the position (and others in the same position at that company) is a 50k p.m job - suddenly, I'm not being paid what I should be paid for that position.

For me, the job offer process is a negotiation, and by disclosing my current salary, I'm giving away my only negotiating chip... I would be happy to disclose my current salary AFTER being told what the position would be paid, but why must I let the employer have the upper hand and give them the opportunity to get cheap labour?

 

[Ancalagon]

First off, awesome nick name

Secondly, I swear to you, the battles I've had with this have been intense. I think it is absolutely ridiculous that you have to disclose your current salary, worse, they have all actually asked me for a payslip (I assume to confirm I'm not lying).

So to all those saying, what's the issue with disclosing your current salary, here is my issue - let's say, for example, the company I'm applying to work for is willing to pay 50k p.m for the position they are trying to fill .... then lets say in my current job, I'm being paid 30k p.m (wow these numbers are awesome! Can you imagine!)... so now I disclose I'm being paid 30k p.m and now they are sitting in the awesome position of being able to now offer me maybe 35k p.m - when in actual fact, the position (and others in the same position at that company) is a 50k p.m job - suddenly, I'm not being paid what I should be paid for that position.

For me, the job offer process is a negotiation, and by disclosing my current salary, I'm giving away my only negotiating chip... I would be happy to disclose my current salary AFTER being told what the position would be paid, but why must I let the employer have the upper hand and give them the opportunity to get cheap labour?

It goes like this:
Employer: So you want R50k? We're happy to pay you that, but we need your old payslip for policy reasons
Candidate: *hands payslip over*
Employer: You make R30k? I have good news for you - we'll give you a 20% raise and you'll earn R36k per month. Isn't that fantastic?
Candidate: But you said you were willing to pay R50k per month?
Employer: To a qualified candidate, yes.
Candidate: And I'm not qualified?
Employer: No you are, but R30k to R50k is quite a jump, don't you agree? It's not all about the money you know. You sound greedy.
Candidate: Fine, I'll back to you.

A few days pass
Candidate: I've got an offer from another company for R49k, but I really like you guys. I want the opportunity to work for you, but the salary gap is too great to ignore.
Employer: Okay, we'll pay you R50k per month. Happy? You really are greedy, you know.

 

[TheJman]

It goes like this:
Employer: So you want R50k? We're happy to pay you that, but we need your old payslip for policy reasons
Candidate: *hands payslip over*
Employer: You make R30k? I have good news for you - we'll give you a 20% raise and you'll earn R36k per month. Isn't that fantastic?
Candidate: But you said you were willing to pay R50k per month?
Employer: To a qualified candidate, yes.
Candidate: And I'm not qualified?
Employer: No you are, but R30k to R50k is quite a jump, don't you agree? It's not all about the money you know. You sound greedy.
Candidate: Fine, I'll back to you.

A few days pass
Candidate: I've got an offer from another company for R49k, but I really like you guys. I want the opportunity to work for you, but the salary gap is too great to ignore.
Employer: Okay, we'll pay you R50k per month. Happy? You really are greedy, you know.

So true, and it's amazing how they make it sound like the employee is the bad guy - you were willing to pay 50k, why are you suddenly so happy to pay less and make it sound like I'm the bad one?

 

[creeper]

I take a different approach, I give them my salary slip(s), but then tell them, that this is the amount that I am willing to move for. If they ask why, I give them a breakdown e.g. additional travel costs etc. with a build in inflation component.

 

[TheJman]

I take a different approach, I give them my salary slip(s), but then tell them, that this is the amount that I am willing to move for. If they ask why, I give them a breakdown e.g. additional travel costs etc. with a build in inflation component.

So I do that as well, the problem that you have is, what if it's a situation like the example I mentioned, can you ever really justify such a big salary jump by expenses, so maybe you'll get to say, 40k pm in the above example by showing expenses, you're still 10k short

 

[SauRoNZA]

You are 100% within your power to reject an offer.

Therefore I'm quite happy to provide my current salary and payslip. When they come with a silly offer then I tell them it's a silly offer and they need to try again.

Generally recruiters want to aim as high as possible anyway as they get more commission for it.

At the same time many people over value themselves.

*****

Also as was mentioned above it's very easy to load it up with expenses that aren't available on paper. You can pretty much invent your own 13th cheque. Oh it's not on your payslip? Well it wasn't guaranteed...but we have received it every year the past four years so I would miss out on that potential if I move to you. Oh my company also paid my cellphone every month, no it wasn't on my payslip etc.

30k - 50k is a bit extreme. +40% I would say is a reasonable limitation.

 

[Nerfherder]

Hi all,

So I'm in the position in my career where I'm not unhappy in my job, but I wouldn't mind having a look at other opportunities out there.

Problem is, I don't agree with these recruiters phoning me, and the first question I'm asked is what my current salary is. I don't feel I should need to divulge that private information, and that my offer should be based on my current salary, but rather what they value me at.

Have a read through this:

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/making-sense/ask-the-headhunter-never-ever/

How do others feel about this?

I understand where you are coming from but you have to realise its not in your interest to hide this kind of thing. You might be applying with 150 other people and if you are one of the guys who does not want to divulge his salary then do you think its going to make you stand out (in a good way) ?

The way I see it is this....they have a budget, they are not going to hire you for more than that amount anyway. If you are getting more than that currently then they know and they wont waste anyone's time. If its more than your current salary then its important to see how much, the fact that your current employer is paying you your current salary means you hold that value for them and should do the same for your new employer.
So you are actually earning 40k and are looking to earn 50 they know its not an unrealistic salary for you, its a bit of a jump but not like you were earning 10k at your last job.

Its all about creating a realistic perception about what is going to happen.

 

[Nemus]

"They want to keep the upper hand. An ethical recruiter will advise his or her client in the same way my cartoon recruiter in the drawing advises his clients: “You don’t need the candidate’s salary history. We can share the salary range with the candidates, and ask them about their target salary range, too.”

That is not only the ethical right choice but the way that every business transaction happens in the real world. It’s only in the power-unequal world of recruiting that people delude themselves and try to delude others (that means you!) into spilling the compensation-history beans.

If the recruiter absolutely must have your salary history and won’t proceed without it, walk away. The job market is getting better all the time."

- http://www.forbes.com/sites/lizryan...-tell-job-seekers/2/#2715e4857a0b9f2392249d98

 

[TheJman]

You are 100% within your power to reject an offer.

Therefore I'm quite happy to provide my current salary and payslip. When they come with a silly offer then I tell them it's a silly offer and they need to try again.

Generally recruiters want to aim as high as possible anyway as they get more commission for it.

At the same time many people over value themselves.

*****

Also as was mentioned above it's very easy to load it up with expenses that aren't available on paper. You can pretty much invent your own 13th cheque. Oh it's not on your payslip? Well it wasn't guaranteed...but we have received it every year the past four years so I would miss out on that potential if I move to you. Oh my company also paid my cellphone every month, no it wasn't on my payslip etc.

30k - 50k is a bit extreme. +40% I would say is a reasonable limitation.

I agree with what you're saying - and while a jump from 30 - 50 is extreme, it happens, especially when someone has been at a small company and then moves to a large corporate, there is often a very big jump up

 

[Nerfherder]

So I do that as well, the problem that you have is, what if it's a situation like the example I mentioned, can you ever really justify such a big salary jump by expenses, so maybe you'll get to say, 40k pm in the above example by showing expenses, you're still 10k short

Remember though, they are looking to avoid people who just want to make a big jump. This is one of the ways for them to discourage it.

Everyone wants a pay increase when they move (even me who just wants to do something else).
Why must they hire someone who is just looking to get more money, think from their point of view, asking for a 40% increase looks way dodgy to them.
That is where supply and demand comes in, if there is no one else then they have to hire you at that salary.

 

[scudsucker]

I don't know if requiring a payslip is all that important an issue.

I received a 50% increase (C to C) when I moved to my current company. Most of the increase is eaten by pension, medical etc, but, when I negotiated I used my after tax, take home salary and used that as the basis to get a small increase (10%) in that.

My former company did not offer pension, medical etc.

I was asked to provide a payslip, but I am almost 100% sure it was received by HR, never read, and filed immediately.

I think the Payslip also proves you are employable- mine had the number of months I'd been employed. But honestly, I doubt anyone regards it as much more that yet another piece of HR bollocks that makes HR feel more important.

 

[MagicDude4Eva]

From an employers perspective: I often advertise salary bands for certain positions and the actual salary is really based on the actual skills. So last year I posted a Linux position with a band of up to 60K (<20k=junior, 20-35K=mid-level, 35K>=senior) and some candidates took this as a goal without a reality check on their actual skills.

I can somehow understand that some companies perhaps use the payslip as a screening method (it would be highly unlikely that an inexperienced candidate would earn a 60K salary). Unfortunately some candidates lie on their CVs, fake references and qualifications and I guess where companies have high churn-rate, they will probably apply unsavoury screening methods.

TBH: If I have budgeted a certain amount of opex for a specific skill and that person comes in at two-thirds of it, I would still offer the amount I had in my mind - it's not like the employee is not worth it. I find it unethical if a proof of salary is required - in some rare cases I request a payslip as a proof of employment rather than anything else.

 

[MagicDude4Eva]

Remember though, they are looking to avoid people who just want to make a big jump. This is one of the ways for them to discourage it.

Everyone wants a pay increase when they move (even me who just wants to do something else).
Why must they hire someone who is just looking to get more money, think from their point of view, asking for a 40% increase looks way dodgy to them.
That is where supply and demand comes in, if there is no one else then they have to hire you at that salary.

Not really, at some point in time your salary will cap off (if you do not progress your skills / responsibilities). In some rare cases (supply-and-demand) you might be able to score an exorbitant salary (guys working on legacy assembler/Cobol/AS400 systems) without having moved into the 20th century

 

[Ancalagon]

From an employers perspective: I often advertise salary bands for certain positions and the actual salary is really based on the actual skills. So last year I posted a Linux position with a band of up to 60K (<20k=junior, 20-35K=mid-level, 35K>=senior) and some candidates took this as a goal without a reality check on their actual skills.

If that's the case, I would prefer to advertise for a senior linux position which requires X years of experience with a band of R35k to R60k, dependent on the calibre of the individual. Instead of a generic linux position with different requirements to get into different bands. But yeah, if someone is applying for a role for which they are under qualified, that is a different matter altogether.

I can somehow understand that some companies perhaps use the payslip as a screening method (it would be highly unlikely that an inexperienced candidate would earn a 60K salary). Unfortunately some candidates lie on their CVs, fake references and qualifications and I guess where companies have high churn-rate, they will probably apply unsavoury screening methods.

People do have a tendency to slide upwards with salary, so I actually don't think it guarantees that much. I've interviewed "senior" candidates that I would not hire for a junior role. A lot of them. Some of them may have been lying about being seniors, but all of them? When I say senior, I mean years of experience. So my hunch is that they have actually been working for 10 years - they just have nothing to show for it in terms of knowledge.

If you can fake a reference and a qualification, you can fake a payslip. In fact, faking a payslip is probably easier.