Hiring managers--how would you like a candidate to handle this?

October 25, 2017 4:00 PM

I applied for a job and have an initial screener interview. Yay! However, the HR rep has asked me for a salary history in addition to some other pre-interview info. Problem is, this is now a banned question to ask job candidates in NYC. How do I tactfully dodge the question? Do I even have a legal right to do so?

Here's the wrinkle: the interviewer is based in an office in another state. The position is in the New York office. It's unclear from this page whether this situation falls into the local jurisdiction. It does provide a few suggestions on how to handle the situation. If you're a hiring manager in this situation, how do you think a prospective candidate could best approach this?

posted by Fuego to Work & Money (15 answers total)

Best answer: So, that law isn't in effect until next week (starts Oct 31, 2017). It seems silly because it's just a week away, but they are totally ok to ask you that question this week.

That said, unless they're asking repeatedly, the right way to answer that question is with salary expectations, and just ignore answering the salary history part.
posted by brainmouse at 4:06 PM on October 25, 2017 [7 favorites]

As a hiring manager I would be perfectly fine with a candidate standing up for their rights. Alas, HR screening reps are often an entirely different animal and can ding people for not following their processes. If it's a large company, they're probably perfectly aware they are allowed to ask this for one more week. I might suggest some kind of approach similar to what brainmouse suggests and misunderstand it as salary expectations.
posted by frumiousb at 4:26 PM on October 25, 2017

Heh. Can you dodge the interview for another week, at which point, them asking the question at all is against the law?

The page seems clear to me: "there could be jurisdiction if the impact of the unlawful discriminatory practice is felt in New York City" - if the job is in NYC, the hiring requirements of NYC will apply. They're hedging on the phrasing because "in NYC" can mean a few different things. (Living there with a job out of the city would not apply. A job that travels through NYC but is not based there, would not apply. A job technically based out of the city, with 1 day a week spent at an NYC office?... may need a lawyer to figure that one out.)
posted by ErisLordFreedom at 4:26 PM on October 25, 2017

Best answer: They are probably trying to figure out how low they can go on an offer, so I would definitely hold off giving any salary history unless you absolutely are pushed to. I would start the dialog with something like, "Based on my knowledge of industry X and role Y and my past education and experience I would expect a salary in the range of $A - $B," and leave it at that. If they come back and ask again specifically for your salary history, then you can decide how much to share or point out the law.
posted by brookeb at 4:46 PM on October 25, 2017 [3 favorites]

Best answer: "My target base salary is $X" (or total compensation is $Y, if that's more your thing). I have told HR people that my salary history is confidential and they just ask for a target at that point anyway.
posted by fedward at 4:54 PM on October 25, 2017 [3 favorites]

I would flip the script. I thought best practices in hiring is paying the market rate regardless of salary history. States and local jurisdictions have even banned asking salary history because they find it contributes to accidental wage discrimination. Why does your firm still find that question useful?
posted by politikitty at 5:01 PM on October 25, 2017 [4 favorites]

Best answer: I had a friend get away with "that question is actually banned where I live [she is in SF], so on principal I prefer not to answer. I'm expecting a salary in the range of $X-$Y." Anecdotally, where I now live and am on the hiring side, the question becomes illegal next year, and we're fine with people responding this way. We're not going to call up your former boss to ask salary - we just want to know whether we can meet your expectations or whether another interview/further conversation is a waste of everyone's time.
posted by olinerd at 5:03 PM on October 25, 2017 [8 favorites]

this is now a banned question to ask job candidates in NYC

the interviewer is based in an office in another state. The position is in the New York office. It's unclear from this page whether this situation falls into the local jurisdiction.

Just to clarify, these laws are entirely based on the location of the position. Not where the company is headquartered, where the interviewer is, or where the candidate lives.

If the job is located in NYC, then the law will apply as of 10/31.
posted by NotMyselfRightNow at 5:30 PM on October 25, 2017 [2 favorites]

I have had the experience of HR people at a large firm not knowing state law regarding access to employment records in a state with their main U.S. office (Illinois). I told them to look it up, and that it overrode their claimed policy. They folded straightaway.
posted by lathrop at 6:25 PM on October 25, 2017 [3 favorites]

Nthng what everyone else said:

“That question has actually recently been made illegal where I live, so I’d prefer not to answer. I can tell you that I am looking for something close to market rate (or near the top of market rate) for this type of role, because of my experience (or, with flexibility based on the benefits package.)
posted by samthemander at 7:45 PM on October 25, 2017

You can squeeze a little extra juice out of the "illegal question" lemon, I believe. IANYL, and IANAEEL (I Am Not An employEE Laywer) but I would respond with one or more of "that question is illegal where I am" or "that question is illegal where you are" or "that question is illegal where the job is" and (the extra squeeze) "I would not want to put an employer in an untenable position by answering an illegal question." (The details of the illegality are irrelevant; if they're savvy and trying to grind you, then fuck'em; and if they're just clueless, then fuck'em anyway. You're not applying for a legal analyst job.)

Then tell them whatever you want: "I want $X" or "Market rate is $X" or "You'd be a fool to spend less than $X" etc.
posted by spacewrench at 8:36 PM on October 25, 2017

Best answer: "I'd love to answer that question, but I don't want you to get in legal trouble because of the new law. But I can give you a salary range that I am interested in..."
That way it looks like you are trying to help them, rather than be combative.
posted by 445supermag at 7:40 AM on October 26, 2017 [1 favorite]

We stopped asking that question a year ago because we saw the writing on the wall. As a hiring manager, I certainly don't want to do anything that's illegal, but pointing out that a question is illegal does not signal to me that this is a person who stands up for their rights. It signals to me this is a person who may be a problem. I start wondering is this the kind of person who may look to avoid coaching or shuck responsibility by rules-lawyering the situation. In and of itself, it wouldn't be disqualifying, but it probably would be a tick in the negative column. I'm not suggesting that you do give up your rights, but the way you choose to assert your rights tells me something about the type of person I may be dealing with. I would rather have somebody give me their target range or turn it around on me to ask what our budget is or ignore the question entirely depending on the context in which it was asked. All of those show fluidity and an ability to roll with the situation.
posted by willnot at 12:00 PM on October 26, 2017

There is no reason to disclose past salary information or expectations. The law doesn't matter one way or another. Recruiters ask that because it gives them power in the negotiation process. They claim it's for you, purely under the guise of "oh, I want to make sure our expectations are in line and it's worth continuing the conversation." The recruiters I work with have never bounced a candidate out of my team's hiring process on this question, and the only time it is relevant is when the recruiter writes up an opening offer, they peg it to the person's expectations every time. You can only lose by giving a number.

You could just as well turn it on its head and say "what is your budget for this role?" and get to the same place. Or alternatively just say "I expect market rates this job and my level of experience" — do you think your pay scales are inline with the market? Some companies legitimately are not and think you're getting other benefits (equity, prestige work, major growth opportunity, etc.) and should be able to say that in the first call. Market pay scales are not a secret and unless you are somehow so exceptional that they don't apply to you (e.g. you're changing job functions dramatically or have some super rare skill) there's no value in talking about your precise pay history + details.

The only downside to stalling on these question is that recruiters will mark you as "annoying" and sometimes complain to the hiring manager that you wouldn't tell them anything. But generally the recruiter isn't making the final call and the hiring manager will hire the person they want regardless of whether they are stonewalling the recruiter.

(YMMV, my experience is with medium->big sized tech company hiring in SF where the question has been out of bounds for a while but we still ask about expectations and sometimes get rebuffed. Hiring is super competitive here so the costs of frustrating your recruiter are probably lower overall.)
posted by heresiarch at 1:33 PM on October 26, 2017 [1 favorite]

(One minor case in which it does come up — we have seen candidates who have unreasonably high expectations and it can shift the hiring bar. Yes, if you expect to be the best paid person in this job function at your level by 15% you need to be super duper exceptional to justify that. If you come in low, though, it doesn't lower the bar.)
posted by heresiarch at 1:37 PM on October 26, 2017