Hacker News Reader

Comment by ironchef | Hacker News Reader

As to salary, i just ask up front during opening discussions (before interviews). I ask them to give me a ballpark of salary range so we're not wasting each others' time.

View on HN

And when they respond back, "That depends on experience. Why don't you tell us what you're expecting so we're not wasting each others' time."?

Then they are screwing around. At that stage they have your resume and know your experience. I tell recruiters my salary to save time but ymmv.

Why? Tell them what you're looking for, not what you have now. "A potted plant could handle a salary negotiation better than many people (myself included at one point) -- at least the potted plant wouldn't divulge a salary history when asked." -tptacek https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3290033

Like I said, ymmv. I have no complaints.

I actually had a company that once asked for current pay stubs, they where a staffing firm and we had already negotiate the rate at which I was willing to take the job. Part of their process of on-boarding was that I had to submit three current pay stubs. I protested and they assured me that it would not be used as a lever to drive down the already negotiated salary. I agreed to submit them, but I also included a poison pill stipulation that if they tried to negotiate salary after they where submitted that my salary requirement would go to 120% of what we negotiated. Sure enough they saw that I was making far less than what we negotiated and thought that they had leverage. They tried to reduce the offer by a little more than 25%. What they did not account for was that I had another offer that was only a little less than the original agreed upon rate. I stuck to the 120% poison pill, but accepted the offer from the other company, because even if they would have accepted the rate, the well was already fouled.

How did this poison pill work? Did you simply state it verbally or in an email? In a contract?

Just verbally when they sprung the 3 pay stubs requirement on me. I kind of knew where it was heading but they said it was standard practice to verify employment. Mentally I was over it, but I submitted them more out of curiosity to see if a company would actually stoop to such practices. It was right when the .com bust happened and a lot of companies now felt like they had the upper hand.

Sorry I forgot to mention, after I declined the reduced rate and told them I would not be taking the position, they countered with a rate that was %10 below what the original offer was, stating that no one can reasonable expect to gain a 35% increase in salary by just moving jobs, but I was underpaid at the job I was at (A start-up that did not have a lot of capital) and the rate, I was looking for was only slightly above market. When I refused that, they then came back with the original offer and when I refused that they came back with %10 above what we had agreed on. I did not let them drag it out any further and notified them that I was taking another offer. The thing was, their client was a large online travel company and I have worked on a lot of the travel systems people use every day. My background read like the job description they where looking for. So I am sure they had to do a lot of explaining as to why they lost the perfect candidate. Their client is a household name in travel and they where extremely happy that I was coming on-board, I am sure they held their clients feet to the fire with my background and where just looking to squeeze out more profit by taking it out of my end. They got greedy and it cost them.

What justification could they possibly have had for wanting to see your pay stubs, other than looking for ways they could stiff you?

Did you reply saying anything like "I'm happy to provide proof of current employment." ?

No I just made the poison pill stipulation and started working on the contingency. I pretty much knew what they where going to do, I submitted them more out of curiosity to see if someone would have the audacity to do something like that. But at the point they asked for them and gave such a weak justification, I had pretty much mentally moved on, but curiosity forced me to submit them to see and gave me a war story to tell.

Which is bullshit. They know what they can afford and what range they're looking for.

You thank them for wasting your time and walk away.

Do you really think a Google or Facebook recruiter will tell you what they're willing to offer before they've interviewed you?

Maybe not, but they don't need to. A few Google searches should give a candidate some idea what to expect based on their experience. Also, Google and FB both have well known perks.

Google/FB/Other Big tech names are a lot different than some secretive private company that wants to interview for days on end and then offer half market value.

Why wouldn't they be? They already know the range they are going to offer. Why are you so open to them hiding important details that would immediately remove them from contention? Are you that happy to have them at the end of the process stating "Oh by the way we want you to move to Japan." Thanks guys, with that little bit of information we could have prevented this whole song and dance.

On top of that, just because Google or Facebook might not, doesn't mean it's the right way or that I have to put up with that.

If they won't say up front, I don't care about anything else they have to say.

Maybe not Google or Facebook (yet), but we have hundreds of venture funded companies who will do exactly that on DeveloperAuction.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com