[jimparkins]

Have a google for: "can i lie to a employer about past salary" - it really really messes with people - people feel super uncertain about how to approach this situation. Throwing any confidence they have during the negotiation out the window.

Even now I hesitate to write this as a million people will come out and say never lie - what if they found out.

More than banning. There needs to be acceptance that if someone asks you. You are totally free to make any damn number up that you like. Seriously. Its a sales situation. It should not be like your under oath on the stand. Which is how most people view it.

[jnwatson]

Interesting. An additional argument for lying is that you're probably already lying in other parts of the interview.

Why do you want to work here? (money, and the desire to pay the bills and feed my children)

Where do you see yourself in 5 years? (probably not at this company)

What is your biggest weakness? (not like I would actually tell a stranger a real answer)

[gregmac]

If these are honestly your answers to these questions and you in fact give lies as answers, you sound like exactly the type of person I absolutely hate working with and actively try to weed out during interviewing.

To anyone reading this new to the industry, there are absolutely legitimate ways to answer these questions without lying.

> Why do you want to work here? (money, and the desire to pay the bills and feed my children)

That is a given for nearly any job. If it's your only reason you want to take this particular job, it tells me you have zero passion for your work. The people I know who are like this are what I'd describe as "9-5" employees, don't learn anything outside of work, and basically do the bare minimum at everything.

I want to work with someone that's at least somewhat excited about the job they're going to be doing, and bring some energy, new ideas and actually care about doing a good job. It's the difference between a day labourer and a craftsman.

> Where do you see yourself in 5 years? (probably not at this company)

So? That's fine. Is anyone hiring with the expectation or even desire their employees stay for 5 years?

There are many good ways to answer this, but it's definitely not "doing the same thing as today, with the same technology stack, tools and level of knowledge".

> What is your biggest weakness? (not like I would actually tell a stranger a real answer)

This is kind of a crappy interview question, but there are decent ways to answer it [1]. They are not asking for your deep, personal failings, but for your weaknesses as they apply to the job at hand.

[1] https://workplace.stackexchange.com/questions/66620/which-ow...

[denzil_correa]

> The people I know who are like this are what I'd describe as "9-5" employees, don't learn anything outside of work, and basically do the bare minimum at everything.

What's wrong being a 9-5 employee?

[gregmac]

If you're a creative person, like a developer, it's inefficient.

Context switching is expensive, and going home for the day is a big context switch.

If it's 5:00 and you have 30 minutes left on something, most likely it'll take something like two hours tomorrow to get back into and finish it.

If you always go home exactly at 5, it means you are either constantly being inefficient and doing the context switch, you are not doing anything late in the afternoon to avoid the context switch, or you are extremely good at both estimating and optimizing your time so all your tasks are quantized within working hours. While things may work out to look like the third case sometimes, I find it hard to believe anyone is that good that it can happen literally every day, which leads me to believe they're often doing one of the other two things.

[s73ver]

Or, I consider time with my family worth more than the context switch I'd have.

[eric-hu]

And just to take this further: there's a massive context switch for the dev team when a burned out developer leaves after 1-2 years, compared to the 9-5 dev who's still there and happy.

[wcummings]

They only work 9-5, duh! /s

[sqeaky]

From your perspective or the company's perspective?

From the company's perspective an unmotivated 9-5 employee not as good of a hire as one who deeply enjoys the work subject and actively learns about it on their own.

From your perspective reduced job security because you probably don't perform at the level of someone internally motivated.

Even if that is not true there are enough of these sentiments floating around to affect decisions.

EDIT - If you disagree, a well worded comment carries more weight than a downvote and avoiding the discussion.

[wcummings]

>The people I know who are like this are what I'd describe as "9-5" employees, don't learn anything outside of work

So, you just don't hire people with kids, medical problems or other responsibilities outside of work? If you want people to bone up give them time during the work day, have sr. devs run workshops on new tech you're adopting. Don't create the expectation people should work in their time off. If you want effective employees you should invest in that and not shove the cost onto the individual.

Even if it produces the results you'd (which is pretty questionable) like these kind of criteria have obvious and well-known biases.

[gregmac]

> Don't create the expectation people should work in their time off.

I have no such expectation, nor did I say people should work in their time off.

I think people need to keep up their education. Learning doesn't stop when you graduate. Your company should be willing to pay for training/courses/conferences, but I also think people that are passionate about things will naturally grow on their own.

At the least, this might mean staying current with news and/or community, especially within your current toolset/ecosystem. As an example, if you don't usually know within at least a week or so that your main language/framework/database/etc has a new release, you're in this category if people I'm talking about.

And to clarify when I say "9-5" I mean the type of person that always has their stuff packed up and is walking out the door by 5:01pm. This tells me either you've stopped in the middle of something, which means instead of staying for 10 or 30 minutes to finish it you will take two hours tomorrow to regain context, or that when you're done something and it's after say, 4 o'clock, you just don't start anything new.

I don't believe in working crazy (or even just 'extra' hours beyond what you're paid for): that leads to burnout and that is bad for literally everybody. I do think it's better to stay longer to finish and not waste time on the context switch of going home, or other days just leave "early" if you are done and can't finish anything further.

[mjmahone17]

Why isn't it acceptable to leave in the middle of a project? If I have a very regular after-work schedule (like picking kids up from daycare), I don't understand why I shouldn't leave at exactly the same time every day. Even if that means leaving something unfinished, that I'll get back to when I get back in the morning. And I might not have anything I can "do" by leaving 30 minutes early, because I can't go home and I can't get to (regular obligation) early.

[namlem]

I think you are dramatically overestimating the amount of waste that results from context switching.

[Frondo]

"I want to work with someone that's at least somewhat excited about the job they're going to be doing, and bring some energy, new ideas and actually care about doing a good job. It's the difference between a day labourer and a craftsman."

If you're paying craftsman wages, then there really should never be a problem here, even if people just want to bring their A game for the money.

[gregmac]

> If you're paying craftsman wages, then there really should never be a problem here, even if people just want to bring their A game for the money.

Agreed. The biggest problem I find is that day labourers act/talk like they are craftsman and ask for corresponding wages. In other words: wage is not a good filter to separate people out. Craftsman won't work for day labourer wages but day labourers will not only work for craftsman wages -- they'll ask for them.

[morgante]

> That is a given for nearly any job. If it's your only reason you want to take this particular job, it tells me you have zero passion for your work.

Your reasoning seems flimsy. I'm extremely passionate about programming and technology. You definitely wouldn't describe me as a "9-5" employee (I'm constantly working on new projects and learning new things), but I'm also very broad in my programming interests. It's extremely rare for me to find a development project which doesn't interest me.

Hence, the reason I'm in technology (in general) is about passion but the reason I'll work for you specifically is because of how much you'll pay me. I take pride in my work, which means I also expect to be paid well for it.

[SilasX]

>>What is your biggest weakness? (not like I would actually tell a stranger a real answer)

>This is kind of a crappy interview question, but there are decent ways to answer it [1]. They are not asking for your deep, personal failings, but for your weaknesses as they apply to the job at hand.

As best I understand the literature on it, what they're (effectively) asking is:

"Are you one of the cool kids who knows we want to hear a pre-packaged, nice-sounding answer about a time you overcame some weakness?"

[baddox]

I don't think I lie to interviewers. Sure, I don't interpret "why do you want to work here?" as a broad inquiry into my decision to sell my labor, but I think the salary requirement is generally well understood by both parties.

I've always answered "where do you see yourself in x years" and "what is your biggest weakness" as honestly as possible.

[eanzenberg]

>> What is your biggest weakness?

Answering retarded interview questions :) (actually said with a smile on my face)

[throwaway9475]

100% this. It's all a game, except prospective employees are guilted into thinking they're the only ones lying (or that doing it is wrong). It works the other way too:

Candidate: "What do you dislike the most about working here?" Interviewer: (My asshole boss...) "The office is a little noisy sometimes."

Companies are under no obligation to be truthful.

[krenden9]

I totally lie any time a recruiter asks for my current/past salary. How much I lie depends on what I think I should be getting for the role, and how likely it is that they can and will confirm the numbers I gave.

At my most recent past job, I was working for some guys at a small startup for next to nothing in salary (~$40k). I had a 10% stake in equity, but it was worth nothing, since the company was in debt. When I left I told the CEO and CTO "Can you say I made $160k salary?" Response - "Sure!" Next job was a $120k salary raise, + bonus, and I was able to work in RSUs.

At my current company, if I plan to leave, I'll fib by adding in my bonus % into base salary. I can't get away with much since I'm at a large corporation now. If they check and find a discrepancy I can blame it on a simple error.

With fibs, you can get a decent bump. But if you have complicit conspirators, then the sky's the limit.

Something I would not suggest is giving the number of a friend who will pose as HR/a past employer. This is pretty risky if you aren't attentive to detail.

[mi100hael]

There is 0 chance any past employer is going to divulge compensation details of a former employee to some random jackass recruiter that comes calling.

[krenden9]

That depends. Larger corporations tend to avoid asking things other than "Did John Doe work here as title Z from date X to date Y?" However, many smaller companies aren't legally savvy and will divulge too much information, if the other side asks questions they probably shouldn't be.

[_jal]

This.

I've mainly worked for small companies, and have had two situations where way more than was appropriate (or, you know, legal) divulged.

Neither caused me problems, but I made a point of getting back to @last_employers to point out that the next person they do that to might actually sue them.

[mdb333]

Not true. This is often included the questions asked by background check companies when they confirm previous employers. Its up to the previous employers whether they provide that information. I have seen both (ie company refuses, company provides) in my own background checks.

... so you probably want to think twice about outright lying. There are many ways to avoid lying but still getting your point across. In most cases, employers will be scared off more by someone blatantly lying (which would also be cause for termination in most cases) than someone delivering a compelling case for why they are worth more than what they were previously paid.

[komali2]

As a contract recruiter I can't imagine asking this during a reference check or employment verification. I'd have gotten fired so fast I'd still have the phone in my hand on the way out.

[j2bax]

I hope I never hire someone like you by accident. I have a feeling it wouldn't take long until this outlook would lead to other problems in the workplace that would have you on to your next con.

[krenden9]

Yes, because deceit runs through my soul and my heart is as black as damask cloth. The fact that I want to be paid what I feel I should and can be paid has no bearing on my performance and attitude at work. If you were to speak to any of my past employers, they would probably use the same sideways compliment my high school calc teacher wrote on a college recommendation: "brilliant, but like lightning in a bottle."

You'd be fortunate to hire someone like me.

[j2bax]

Honesty and integrity are pretty high on the list of qualities I like in people I associate and work with. The fact that you would conspire with your previous employer to artificially prop your value up and then tell a bold faced lie in an interview, does make it seem like you are not above doing whatever it takes to get what YOU want and feel you deserve.

[stale2002]

It is not propping up your value.

If you interview someone and they ask for X, and you agree to hire them for X, then you have made the decision that he is worth X.

That fact that he did not make X at his last job should have zero effect on his future job.

If you do not think he is worth X, then don't hire him. He is either worth X or not.

[thedufer]

I don't see anyone arguing that your past salary should have any effect on your future comp. On the other hand, the position that a candidate seems to be with X, but is actually worth Y << X if they've down themselves to be dishonest in the interview process seems pretty reasonable. In places with good labor protection, lying during the hiring process is a great way to waive all protections from being fired.

[krenden9]

> make it seem like you are not above doing whatever it takes to get what YOU want and feel you deserve.

Absolutely true. I'm also not an idiot and I apply this technique selectively. If I have to prevaricate to get something I want in a business setting, I have no problem with that. It's business, not a church confessional. However, when I'm at a company I align my desires with theirs and we BOTH get what we want.

Honesty and integrity in a corporate environment is a myth. To succeed you just have to project an illusion of those qualities. This is especially true higher up in the ranks.

Do you think your manager would tell you you're being laid off after having asked him? Hell no! He'll lie by omission or commission to save his skin. Is that honesty? Is there integrity in it? No! It's business. Get off your high horse.

My life goal is to retire early so no one fucking tells me what to do with my time. It's working out so far, so I see no need to change my means.

[kentrado]

This kind of naive thinking only hurts good people. Bad people already know not to listen to you.

[pixl97]

>I hope I never hire someone like you by accident.

It's likely employers like you that force employees to lie. It's amazing when employers are handed resumes that are anonymized, such as names, race, and sex information are removed they choose resumes with less bias. Yet you refuse to see that pricing information will cause additional bias on your part.

[krenden9]

> Yet you refuse to see that pricing information will cause additional bias on your part.

This is why I chose to have my former employers give a different salary figure. If I had told my prospective, new employer I had been making $40k/year, I doubt they would have taken me seriously, and even possibly ended recruitment. "He only makes $40k! He must be bad or stupid!" I don't consider myself bad or stupid, I'm just not afraid of taking calculated risks.

[j2bax]

Or you could simply say, "I prefer not to disclose that information". If a potential employer continues to push you to make the first offer, you can dodge the bullet and walk away with your integrity intact.

Personally, I never ask a candidate what they previously made. I do occasionally ask what their salary expectations are, but only when someone has applied that I perceive as far overqualified for the position they are applying for. e.g. Someone with a PHD and 20 years of experience applying for a Jr - Mid level position.

[sqeaky]

I find it so weird to see a lone person here defending integrity. Capitalism, the kind that enables startup culture, is built on trust. Starting an employment relationship with a lie is not good way to build trust.

I don't think employers should ask this, and they do employees should hold it against them. Employees shouldn't disclose it unless they want too. Anyone lying about this or anything else in the all too brief hiring process should be enough of a red flag to make the other party consider leaving.

[morgante]

Or you could have integrity and refuse to answer the question. I've never had a recruiter push back when I said "I can't disclose my current salary, but I'm looking for around $x."

[krenden9]

That's nonsense. Just like innocent people with integrity who plead the Fifth. The recruiter will think you're hiding something and you'll be bumped down the list. The analogy of the Fifth is quite appropriate, as the US court system has had bias against defendants who might/do invoke that right. It was only in the previous decade that the Supreme Court made a definitive ruling (in a liberal interpretation of the Fifth) about the subject.

The only integrity involved is the integrity I have toward myself and my goals. The goals of the company are ancillary.

[solotronics]

Employers should not be asking previous salary anyways. Its the same tactics aggressive car salesmen use. People should be paid what they are worth and this is a tactic to maximize corporate profit at the COST of individual suffering.

[FireBeyond]

Yep. "How much are you looking to pay?" No, stop it.

"You can probably discern by the cars that I'm looking at or asking about a good ballpark of my range and desires."

[sneak]

It's not a con to negotiate a price and agree to it with mutual consent.

Anchoring a prospective customer of your labor to a high price is not a con. Nothing forces them to take the deal.

Please don't be a jerk.

[jhasse]

In Geemany you are allowed to lie to any question the employer doesn't have the right to ask (e.g. Are you pregnant?)

[davidiach]

Did not know that. Is asking for past salary in that category as well? I've been asked about past salary many times.

[jhasse]

I think it depends if it's relevant (see https://www.verdi.de/service/fragen-antworten/++co++61c52da6... for example). I guess a court would judge on a case by case basis.

[zimzam]

Unfortunately there are employers in NYC who do call previous employers to verify salary. Remember that most white-collar employees are in much less demand than developers and have to deal with far more employer bullshit.

[emh68]

Before you're hired? If I found out that a prospective employer was calling my current employer, I would decline to continue interviewing and tell them exactly why.

[richrichardsson]

How can it be legal for an employer to disclose a specific employees salary to a third party?

[heywire]

This has me thinking, if that is legal, what is to stop any old random person who wants to know what you make from calling your employer posing as a recruiter/hiring manager looking for current salary?

[baddox]

It would be odd if that were illegal. There are some well-known "radical transparency" startups that publicly post all employees' salaries.

[pixl97]

Is there any express reason it is illegal?

[ska]

I've had prospective employers call for reference/jobs description check and ask this question. It's really easy to not answer, or to answer "market rates".

[w0rd-driven]

The immediate information I found when doing that was that background checks, which almost always happen at least in Georgia, disclose the exact amount. I would rather just be honest and say I've been making below market rate and I'm looking for that to change. I feel asking my current salary is a tell whereas asking my expected compensation treats it more as it should be, a negotiation. Being asked both my current rate and expected doesn't sting as much because I feel they understand the realities of the situation but at the same time I still feel like I don't have as much bargaining power. I know I don't have much on my own merits coming in but even having the illusion helps tremendously for someone like me.

[sqeaky]

I find it interesting that you find it OK to lie in sales situation.

I'll not be doing business with you. Just as I don't with the skeezy used car salesmen you seek to emulate.

[komali2]

Most of us on here are trained and work in disciplines that allow us the luxury of saying to every potential employer "nah, I don't give my number, sorry," and simply moving on to the next one out of a thousand potential opportunities.

This, I think, is going to be very good for the classes of people that don't have that luxury.

[pc86]

You don't need to be a shit person to get a good deal (and yes, lying to someone in hopes of getting money generally makes you a shit person, even if that person happens to be a recruiter). If someone asks what your salary is, just say you don't disclose it. Tell them what you want your salary at this job to be. That's all they're trying to figure out, anyway.

That question (usually) isn't asked because they actually want to know what you used to make. It's asked because they want to know what number they can offer you that will make it likely you take the job. If you make $80k and are applying for a job where their range is $120-140, saying "I don't disclose previous salary but for this position I won't take anything less than $135" you will very likely get it provided you merit being in the top portion of their range.

[teknologist]

Except in countries where it's required to hand over past salary information (pay slips and tax receipts) to HR at your new employer. Then it's clear you've been telling a lie.

[eanzenberg]

Not sure what the big deal with this is! Whatever the recruiter wants to think, you are offering what it would take to make the move over. It's not like if they offered less that you would just as likely make the move. You are saving both parties times which is positive overall.

[tarr11]

That's not how (good) sales works.

[aswanson]

Tell us how good sales works.

[tarr11]

Sales people doing relationship/long-term sales can build trust with customers. If you are purely transactional about it (and willing to say anything to get maximum salary) then it may work, but it also may backfire.

If your hiring manager is the one you are lying to, they will also be responsible for your raises, promotions and bonuses. It's a long term relationship, one which can last beyond the current company you are at.

It's a small world in technology, and beyond hard skills, your reputation is all you've really got.

[aswanson]

Thanks for the quality response.

[devmunchies]

haha. yeah ok. My company has sales guys closing 6 to 8 figure deals every quarter and they "stretch the truth" all the time. Its part of sales. Thats why I only did sales for 2 years... the pay is the best but its an emotional roller coaster.

[matwood]

> My company has sales guys closing 6 to 8 figure deals every quarter and they "stretch the truth" all the time.

Best term I heard for that was 'overhang the market'. Sales people promising features that are only sort of on the roadmap at some point in the future :)