I've recently been on both ends of the table here. I don't share my previous salary but I'm always willing to share a pay range. The range being higher than I'd ever expect to get paid. I find this to be important when discussing salary with an employer because it gives me a baseline to continue discussions. If they can't meet my bottom line then I'm not interested. The reason I give a range is because salary is only a SMALL part of your compensation package. If there is a yearly bonus program, great medical, 401k matching, vacation, etc. Each of these things need to be considered when accepting a position. Hence the range.
I've also come to expect that I'm going to give a candidate a pay range as well. It is one of the first things I do when trying to on board because if they can't afford to live on the range I'm telling them then I don't want to waste either of our time on discussing a position they can't live on. I'm pretty upfront about this because the worst thing an employee working for me can do is have to start budgeting a lot and be resentful about it.
In my mind this law can really hinder that conversation. I like giving a range and asking a candidate if they can deal with that, but it's really nice when a candidate is secure enough to tell me what they are worth up front as well. I would also recommend against giving anyone a fixed value always always give a range.
"I don't share my previous salary but I'm always willing to share a pay range. The range being higher than I'd ever expect to get paid."
That sounds like you are actively exaggerating the amount you have been paid previously to establish a "baseline" of what you are willing to accept as a minimum salary in the job you're applying for. Anyways, from what I understand, the new law does not seem to prohibit you from asking for a salary (range) that the applicant would be willing to accept, just from asking for how much specifically they made in the past.
> Anyways, from what I understand, the new law does not seem to prohibit you from asking for a salary (range) that the applicant would be willing to accept, just from asking for how much specifically they made in the past.
This is a very good point. It's a fine line but I appreciate the input.
I do give a rather large range. It's typically a 20-40% range based on how much I want the job. And I tailor it to every employer.
> The reason I give a range is because salary is only a SMALL part of your compensation package
I wish people would stop perpetuating this myth. Bonus is discretionary (meaning they can give you $0) while salary is not. Salary is a BIG part of your compensation package because that is the primary reason people work. Most would work for salary without medical but not the other way around. Claiming salary is small potatoes is just one of the more insidious things companies and their agents will spit at you to justify paying you less.
Don't fall for it!
It is not a myth. If the company pays out then you make more money. It isn't GUARANTEED salary but neither is stock. Sure it's not worth every dollar they say you might get but it does have a value based on the history of the Company. I've done very well for myself going with a slightly lower salary and accepting a 2x1 ratio on the bonus. I.E. If they offer 100K. I'll accept 90K and a 20K bonus (this advice very much depends on the company). If the company has a history of giving out their minimum bonus every year then you're probably OK. If it's a startup that ratio would go up. 3x1 or 4x1. It's more of a risk so don't take it all on yourself.
Medical can be up 500 per month per person in your family for a fully covered company. 401K can also be a great tool as well.
This is 100% why I suggest giving a range of salaries. Take the bonus at what it's worth to you. Just like stock. It is not a 1 to 1 relationship but it does add value. If you just assume you make what you get in your salary you aren't doing the real math of evaluating what you are really worth.
For that matter factor in commute too! It's time you are away from home.
It is a myth and this is the same shaky reasoning I always hear from people who have been on the "other side" (hiring). I don't blame you for it, it is your job to compensate people as little as possible while extracting the most wealth from them. That said, there are a lot of people who fall for this "if you have a family (of 20 dependents) you totally make up what you lose in salary!" fable and that puts downward pressure on all our salaries.
So you are saying that all that matters when getting hired is salary. That's it, nothing else? If you want your salary to max out be a 1099 employee. You'll make the most money possible and you won't have to worry about pesky things like insurance...
You missed a major point in what I do when I'm being hired. I use benefits like a bludgeon. I get MORE money because of the variety of benefits I've seen over the course of my career. While looking ONLY at salary is simpler to compute and categorize people, that simplistic look at things will reduce your ability to negotiate and get the most out of future opportunities.
I've also come to expect that I'm going to give a candidate a pay range as well. It is one of the first things I do when trying to on board because if they can't afford to live on the range I'm telling them then I don't want to waste either of our time on discussing a position they can't live on. I'm pretty upfront about this because the worst thing an employee working for me can do is have to start budgeting a lot and be resentful about it.
In my mind this law can really hinder that conversation. I like giving a range and asking a candidate if they can deal with that, but it's really nice when a candidate is secure enough to tell me what they are worth up front as well. I would also recommend against giving anyone a fixed value always always give a range.