[abannin]

Recruiters are often paid x% of one year's base salary. In this case, your interests are aligned with the interest of the recruiter.

In my experience, recruiters are 'box checkers'. They have little to no knowledge of your skill set or the skills required for the job outside of buzz words that can be printed on a resume. The reason recruiters ask for your salary is not to engage in price fixing but to ensure that they pursue a placement where 1) the candidate is getting a pay bump and 2) the candidate is priced competitively.

[mhurron]

> Recruiters are often paid x% of one year's base salary. In this case, your interests are aligned with the interest of the recruiter.

Not entirely. It may be in your best interest to walk away from a position that is not offering as much as you want. On the other hand, the recruiter gets 0 if you walk away or are passed over because someone else asked for less. So it is in the recruiters best interests to get you placed somewhere, even if somewhere is a little lower yearly salary because they undercut competition.

> The reason recruiters ask for your salary is not to engage in price fixing but to ensure that they pursue a placement where 1) the candidate is getting a pay bump and 2) the candidate is priced competitively.

No, it's so you don't look like your biting off more than you can chew, which looks bad on them. If you move from somewhere with a low pay rate to somewhere higher and you try to get that big pay bump, they're going to tell you that you can't because you don't look like you're worth it based on your previous low pay.

[abannin]

> It may be in your best interest to walk away from a position that is not offering as much as you want.

YES YES YES YES YES. This is far more important than any salary disclosure. The recruiter is asking so they don't waste any one's time on a deal that will fail because of price.

> On the other hand, the recruiter gets 0 if you walk away or are passed over because someone else asked for less. So it is in the recruiters best interests to get you placed somewhere, even if somewhere is a little lower yearly salary because they undercut competition.

The problem is that you're willing to sign for a lower salary. Disclosure has no impact on you accepting or not accepting the offer, it just helps ensure the offer will be accepted when/if presented.

> No, it's so you don't look like your biting off more than you can chew, which looks bad on them.

Seriously, if your recruiter is telling the hiring company information that makes themselves look bad...they most likely are not going to close the deal. If your current would be seen as 'too low' to the client, then they won't disclose your current salary.

> If you move from somewhere with a low pay rate to somewhere higher and you try to get that big pay bump, they're going to tell you that you can't because you don't look like you're worth it based on your previous low pay.

If your recruiter tells you that, then drop them. Great recruiters know that the value of the candidate is driven by the current market, not the candidate's current pay.

[X-Istence]

My recruiter for my current position didn't ask me about my previous salary information and instead asked me what I wanted to make.

I ended up getting a 1.75x pay bump. I know what I am worth, and I was getting underpaid at my previous job (but at the time when I got that job, the market wasn't as hot).

[joncalhoun]

The problem with positions that pay a commission of sale price or new job offer is that they are great at convincing you that everyone is on your side when they likely are not.

For example lets assume a recruiter can only find job offers for 1 candidate at a time, and it takes on average:

- 1 week of work to find a 10% better offer

- 2 week of work to find a 40%+ better offer

It would seem like that 40% better offer is definitely worth the work, but for the recruiter it may not be.

If engineers makes say $150k, and the recruiter gets 10% of their new salary, they would make $16.5k from 1 week of work, or $21k from 2 weeks of work. If they can turn 1 candidate per week at $16.5k they will end up making more than if they spent 2 weeks per candidate, so they have little to no incentive to actually get you a better offer if it takes more work.

Not to mention recruiters are more likely to work with companies multiple times per year and an individual maybe once per year, so it is likely in their best interest to help each company get the best price on a candidate rather than help the candidate get the best offer possible.

[abannin]

Really great points.

Maybe the better response is "I tell you mine if you tell me yours"? If you know how much the recruiter is taking home, you can get a sense of their incentives.

It's also important to weigh these costs at the margin. If they have a candidate who will sign faster and for less money, the recruiter isn't going to advocate for you.

While recruiters do often work with a small set of companies, the challenge of the job is supply, not demand. They are paid to find employees, not to find employers. Even if they're working with a single client, in a hot market this will have next to no impact on salary pricing.

[brianwawok]

> Recruiters are often paid x% of one year's base salary. In this case, your interests are aligned with the interest of the recruiter.

This is often true, but not exactly true. Freakanomics has a study on something similar, real estate agents. See https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=17jO_w6f8Ck

The difference between you making 130k and 150k may only be 2k difference for the recruiter, which in the interest of getting the job filled is very small. However to YOU, the difference is 20k which can be life altering.

[abannin]

I think the better counter argument is that many recruiters work on retainer, which lowers the marginal incentive for a hire.

[brianwawok]

Or of course internal recruiters, which want to minimize the cost to the company.

[jrs235]

The recruiters's interests and your interests are not as aligned as you may think. Freakonomics covered this with Real Estate agents trying to sell your house.

Here's a quick and short video covering the gist of it: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=17jO_w6f8Ck

[SandB0x]

The recruiter wants to maximise

    (probability of you getting the job) x (recruiter cut) x (your salary)

and they also want to maximise the first term. It doesn't necessarily matter if the job is the best option for you, from their point of view.

[fach]

This is the distinction between third-party recruiters and first-party recruiters. When I was hired via a third-party recruiting company, all negotiations happened via the recruiting company on behalf of myself. This was successfully because, as you mentioned, our interests were aligned, and as a result, I went from a 60k a year role to a 120k a year role. On the other hand, when I moved on from the 120k a year role, I dealt with first-party recruiters, where their interests were aligned with the hiring company, which means attempt to bring me on as cheap as possible. In the later case, it is clearly not in your best interest to disclose salary.

[fasouto]

It should be like this but I doubt that that's exactly how it works in real life.

Say that a recruiter gets a 10% of your salary, and you get an offer for $90.000, so they get $9.000 for their work.

Your value could be higher, let's say $120.000, so the recruiter can make $3.000 more. But the situation from the recruiter POV is: a) Make $9.000 now and work on another hire b) Waste time negotiating and possibly lose the $9.000 just to make $3.000 more

I will go with a), make $9.000 and move on.

[iopq]

Actually not. 50-50 chances of getting 10% of $70,000 is 50% chance of getting $7,000

20-80 chances of $80,000 is 20% chance of getting $8,000

it's actually in the recruiter's interest to force you into accepting a low offer right away rather than possibly getting another offer by your current employer or another offer through an acquaintance

[abannin]

But of that lower number makes you walk, then the deal is off. Having a minimum salary is far more effective in negotiation than any disclosure of pay.

[iopq]

That's why they tell you things like "if they extend you an offer be prepared to accept it" and if you tell them your salary they'll pressure you into accepting an offer you would normally refuse.

[joshu]

Only theoretically. The difference between a decent negation and a great one relative to the difference in time for that negotiation.

I can look it up later but it has been shown that real estate brokers wait longer for better prices on their own house than they do for their clients.

[aaronbrethorst]

Independent recruiters. Not FTEs. This is a huge and crucial distinction.

[abannin]

Agreed, in-house is entirely different.

[znt]

Recruiter's priority is to get you to sign a contract so he can take his cut.

This may not align with your best interests as he can make you a lower offer than you aim for, if you reveal your past salary information.

[abannin]

The problem here isn't that you disclosed your current salary, it's that your 'must have' salary is too low. Tell your recruiter "I need $x minimum", and they will get you $x or not work with you.