this is how salary negotiation should work

The always awesome Jamie just posted this comment in response to an earlier post on job candidates disclosing their salary history:

This was absolutely the worst part of the process for me - because I hate salary negotiation.

I hate it because I'm terrible at it - so at least I'm self-aware.

In an ideal world the company would let you know the range for the position, and then making you an offer within that range based on what you bring to the table.

Then you can either accept or not based on your own criteria. Most job hunters have their own realistic ranges - many would accept less for a job if it had a great commute, or perks...whatever.

But I think the company should state the range for the position first. This way it's on the table and the candidate can determine if it's in the ballpark, if not then no one is wasting time.

Personally I would interview for a job if it were within 10,000 of my lower acceptable figure as that's within the realm of possibility for negotiation. Anything lower than that I would know it's not the right level job and move on.

The reason they want salary from applicants is to take advantage of those who were underpaid at their last job - and while I'm all for trimming every bottom line there's something just not right about that.

If you pay market value from the start you don't have to worry about one of your hires being so awesome you need to rectify this later...that's hard to do gracefully. 

Amen. It's complete BS when employers insist on guarding the range they have in mind -- because of course they have a range in mind.

If the employer doesn't want to state the range because it's flexible for the right candidate, then state it anyway and say it's flexible for the right candidate. But if you don't want to state the range because you want to lowball candidates, then you suck.

Pay people what they're worth. Salary history has nothing to do with that if you're good at understanding people's value to you, and game-playing just ensures you'll have a staff that sees you as their adversary.

That is all.

how can we respond to an employee who won't stop asking for a raise?

A reader writes:

I have an employee who has been with us since 2008 in our small municipality (read: no money) who is constantly dissatisfied with his salary. He has gone to his manager (who is now on maternity leave), his acting manager, and the manager of HR (behind his manager's back) several times about a raise. I'm the HR assistant and now current acting HR manager.

We're at the point now where his manager has gone above and beyond, and worked with our employee to explain some options for him - setting goals, learning new skills related to an Engineering Coordinator role (which we do not have staffed right now because of budget cuts), and upon the successful completion of these goals, a step increase within his range.

The employee however, is constantly compiling job ads from other private and public organizations, and requesting/demanding that his job be in a higher pay grid.

Trying to explain "total compensation" hasn't worked - he just sees that other organizations are paying more than we are, and since we're a small municipality, there isn't any room to all of a sudden get a new pay range passed through our Council just because he thinks he's underpaid.

The last straw was an email on Friday, where he emailed me asking for his job description, and that of the (vacant) Engineering Coordinator, and that "his job description needed to be revised to include some of the Engineering duties" - without any discussion or consent from his manager, and his role/experience does not have any of the requirements to be an Engineering Coordinator.

What do we do? I'm by myself in HR, all of his managers have had it with him, and I've said to him off the cuff that since he knows for sure that there will be no new salary range for his position, then he is more than welcome to go to another job which will pay him what he thinks he deserves.

His current manager has even offered to look into supporting the employee going back to school to get an Engineering designation, if he wants to become an Engineer, but his attitude is that he's already doing the job, so why isn't he getting paid for it?

He doesn't get it, he wants to stay, but he's causing stress and strife among his department, and is frankly, a pain in my ass. Do you have any advice on how to handle this? 

Someone -- ideally his manager -- needs to sit down with him and say, "Bob, I've made it clear to you what your options are for getting a salary increase. Those are the only options. If you complete them successfully, we will consider a salary increase. We will not consider one otherwise. I need you to hear me on this, because you have continued to raise this despite clear answers, and it's become a distraction from our work. This is what we are willing to pay you. It is your prerogative to choose not to accept that salary and to look elsewhere, but we will not be having this conversation over and over anymore. If you decide this salary isn't acceptable, let me know and we'll talk about your transition out of the role."

You say that you've said this to him off the cuff. Someone needs to say it more formally, with explicit direction that it can't continue.

I want to be clear, of course, that I'm not saying that employees asking about salary should be routinely shut down. The issue here is not that the guy has pushed for a higher salary -- it's that he's been given an answer, repeatedly, and is just refusing to accept it. His manager needs to spell it out for him that the answer is not going to change. And you all need to get clear on the fact that just because someone refuses to accept your answer the first five times you give it, you don't need to keep having the conversation over and over; there's a point after which you can say, "No more. We've already discussed this, and you've been given a clear and honest answer."

As a side note, I'm assuming that in general your salary structure is working for you, and that you're not having trouble attracting and retaining good people. If that's not the case, it's worth looking at your salary structure as a whole, and seeing if it needs to be updated. But even if that's the case, this guy has still handled this poorly. Speaking of which...

As a second side note, the way he has handled this situation (particularly the part about directing you to change his job description when he hadn't even talked to his manager about it) makes me think that there's no way this kind of bad judgment isn't present in other aspects of his work too. I'd be curious what his manager's take is on that.

5 reasons your co-worker makes more money than you do

Learning that a co-worker earns more than you do can be infuriating, particularly if you’re doing roughly the same work at roughly the same level.

Over at U.S. News & World Report today, I talk about five reasons that might explain the disparity. Check it out here.

my manager refuses to give me better pay or better hours

A reader writes:

I have been working at the same job going on four years and I am still part-time. This would not really bother me other than the fact that there are a few guys, younger than myself, who get better hours and better pay and haven't been there nearly as long as I have.

It's not that I don't work, I bust my butt every single day and my manager sees this, but still refuses to put me on full-time or give me a better wage. The only reason I can think of why these other guys are getting everything over me is because they are just like my manager, they drink, party, etc. I do not do any of these things.

I've approached him a few times about a better wage or full-time, every time it's the same about the wage, "the company can't afford it." This I understand. The thing that gets me with this is when I ask about being put on full-time, he tells me there is a "hiring freeze" and he cannot. Then a week or so later there is a new guy/lady working full-time making better money than myself and they are not worth a cuss. They won't work and they are all ARROGANT! I'm at my wits end!

What should I do? Should I stick it out here or quit? I'm in college and barely making it right now, money-wise, but I have time to work more, but as I said my manager refuses to help me out!

Something's going on here, but I don't know what it is. Your manager clearly isn't being straight with you -- telling you there's a hiring freeze and then hiring someone else a week later, and not even bothering to come back to you to explain. The fact that he doesn't circle back to you to provide some sort of context sends a pretty disrespectful message.

If you want to give it one final shot, you can say to your manager: "I'm confused. When we've talked in the past about the possibility of me going full-time, you've told me there's a hiring freeze, but each time someone new has been hired soon after that. This makes me think that something else is going on -- is it something about my performance or something that you'd like to see me doing differently? I'd really like feedback if it is." And if he denies there are any performance problems, then say, "Can you tell me what I can do to work toward full-time hours?"

It's possible that you'll learn something you didn't know, about something he doesn't like about your work. But I wouldn't count on it -- it sounds like this guy is either (a) a wimp who can't bring himself to tell you that the quality of your work isn't good enough or (b) a jerk who just doesn't like you and is setting your hours and pay based on that.

At some point, you need to assume that nothing will change, since all signs are screaming that pretty loudly and really, it's been four years. And so you need to answer this question for yourself: Assuming that nothing is ever going to change, do you want to stay or leave? For all I know, maybe you want to stay anyway. Maybe you like the work well enough, despite these aggravations, that the answer is to accept that nothing is going to change but that you're going to continue working there anyway. 

But if not, then why on earth wouldn't you look elsewhere? After all, you can't make your manager do what you want, but you do have power in this situation -- the power to decide whether or not to accept what he's offering you. 

Often in these situations where people feel angry and feel mistreated, they lose sight of the fact that they do (usually) have options, and I think that's happening here. If you don't like what's being offered, go out there and see what other offers the world has for you. You might find one you like a lot better -- or you might decide that you'd rather stay put, despite the current terms. But you'll be picking it deliberately, rather than just accepting it by default and feeling frustrated.

after starting job, found out pay was lower than I'd asked for

A reader writes:

I was recently hired for a small retail gig while trying to make my way through college. I asked for $X amount on my application, and after I'd already been hired, my new manager said something along the lines of, "Oh, and I noticed you wanted $X." And they started me about a dollar and a half below what I asked, saying that was the amount all new employees start at. I agreed, especially after he promised I would get pay increases steadily. 

A couple of days later, I was chatting with another employee who had already been there about a month, and she mentioned that they started her off at the same amount I had originally asked for. And not to sound ungrateful, but my position is far more demanding than hers. So I'm kind of upset I'm not getting the pay I asked for, when others had. Should I do anything, or just deal and hope for that raise soon?

I wrote back to this writer to clarify, asking if he had accepted the job without confirming salary. He replied: "I did. Their hiring process was kind of sloppy, I never really had a chance to bring it up between the interview and my first day."

So here's where I'm going to chastise you. I don't buy that there was no chance to bring it up between the interview and your first day. At some point they offered you a position, right? That's when you bring up pay if they don't. You just ask straightforwardly: "What is the pay rate?" (And even if they never made a formal offer and instead just called you to schedule your first day, which can happen in retail, you just need to be assertive: "Before putting me on the schedule, we need to talk about pay.")

As you've now found out, you can't assume they're going to pay you the desired rate you put on your application! You have to ask.

And you need to have this discussion before you accept the job, because that's when your negotiating power is at its highest. At that point, they don't know if you're willing to accept the job or not and they have more motivation to negotiate with you than after you're already working there and have shown you'll accept the lower rate.

As for your coworker, people have different rates of pay for all sorts of reasons -- including because they negotiated at the time of hire. 

You can't really be upset that they offered you what they say is their standard new employee rate when you didn't take the initiative to go after more. All you can really do at this point is to do a kick-ass job so that you can justify asking for a raise down the road. 

And next time, make sure you do your salary negotiating before accepting the offer.

how do I state my desired salary range in a cover letter?

A reader writes:

I am having trouble including my salary requirements on cover letters from a wording standpoint -- every way I word my desired salary, the sentence looks ackward. I have always experienced writers' block on this segment of a cover letter.

How do I include my salary range without making it sound like I simply added up my bills and added a few thousand for vacations? Do I have to include my last salary to substantiate the required salary?

Can you please recommend a less ackward-sounding formula than "as per salary requirements, I would need to be in the $42,000 - $47,000 range." Or does this sound fine? Thank you!

"I'm seeking a salary in the $42-47,000 range." As long as you're basing the range on the market rate for the position and for your experience and skills, no one is going to think you just added up your bills and tossed in some extra for a holiday cruise. But you have to do your research to make sure you do know the market rate, specific to your geographic area.

But more to the point, why are you including this information at all? If you're doing it of your own volition, stop! There's no reason to talk salary at this stage. I've noticed that some candidates announce their salary requirements in their resumes or cover letters without anyone ever asking -- and sometimes they wildly underprice themselves compared to what I'm planning to pay. (In fact, sometimes they do this even when the ad they're responding to clearly stated a higher range.)  

Now, if an employer requires you to include this information, then you have a decision to make. A lot of people will tell you to try to avoid talking salary up front and instead say that you'd prefer to talk about salary once you've had a chance to learn more about the specifics of the job ... and then you just hope that if you're a strong enough candidate, the employer isn't going to discard your application just because of that. But of course, in this job market, with far more highly qualified candidates than can be hired, it's understandable not to want to do anything to give an employer an excuse not to look at you further.

It's not crazy for companies to want to address salary very early on -- they don't want to waste their time if you're wildly out of their price range. That's perfectly legitimate, especially if what they're able to pay is on the lower side of the normal range for the position. But if that's the case, they really should just post their intended salary range and let applicants decide if they're interested or not.

Most of them don't do that, of course, because if you're willing to accept a lower offer, they want to get you for that lower price. But that's short-sighted: If they lowball you now and you figure out later that you're underpriced for the market, they risk losing you over it. So they should tell you the range they plan to pay, deal with the consequences, and put an end to all the drama and hand-wringing these practices cause.

(By the way, I want to point out here that we're talking about salary expectations. If we were talking about salary history, I'd tell you that that's no one's business but your own and to hell with companies that think they're entitled to it.)

should I get a raise for taking on more work?

A reader writes:

My coworker is leaving in two weeks, but my company has a hiring freeze and will not be able to hire anyone for some time, which the HR dept has not specified. The head of my department is planning to ask me to take on some of my coworker's duties in addition to my regular, full time duties. I heard about this in a very informal meeting with my supervisor, who wanted to get an idea of if I would willingly take on the additional duties.

I asked about a raise and my supervisor said that she didn't think to even ask because of our budget crunch. No one in the company has had a raise for last year or this year. I think that I should get a raise because I will have to be trained to do this co-workers duties, the job is usually filled by someone with a Masters degree (which I do not have), and because I am doing extra work.

I'm just out of college, and I feel like this job is a good fit for me because it is in my chosen field. I've been in this position for about six months. I would prefer a raise (who wouldn't!), but if I wasn't offered one, I suppose I would continue to stay and do the extra work.

So, my questions for you are: Should I have even asked about a raise? If so, how much should I negotiate for? If I cannot get a raise, would it be appropriate to ask for something not monetary, like more vacation/personal days? And, is there something here that I'm missing or not thinking of to do or ask about?

Thie is happening at companies all over the place, as the economy makes hiring freezes and layoffs widespread. And the reality is that as staffs shrink, the remaining employees have to pitch in and pick up additional work, and raises rarely come along with it.

That doesn't mean there's nothing in it for you though. In fact, this sounds like a very good thing for you, because this is how people get promoted: by taking on new responsibilities, increasing their skills, and proving themselves at something beyond what they were originally hired to do. And if it doesn't eventually get you promoted at this company, it's going to help you when you're looking for your next job somewhere else.

So I think you should be looking at this differently:  Six months out of college, you're being given higher level responsibilities in your chosen field.  This is something to be excited about.

And as for the raise, this is how people eventually get them -- not at the start, but later on, after they've been successfully doing the new work for a while and have shown that they do it well. I wouldn't push the raise issue now, when the company is in tight financial straits. (And when the rest of the country is too, meaning that more experienced people would likely line up to do your expanded job, and probably for less than you're currently making.) Instead, now is the time to jump in and prove yourself. Eight or 12 months from now is the time to ask for compensation that reflects what you've accomplished, when you can point to a track record of doing well.

So tell your boss you're excited about the opportunity for new responsibilities and go prove yourself. Then later on, at your next salary review, you'll have plenty to point to in support of your case for a salary increase then.

Seriously. Think long-term on this one.

negotiating an offer to keep existing job

A reader writes:

When a business comes under new ownership and employees receive offers to keep their current jobs, can one negotiate? In this case a larger company has purchased a small business. I'm managing my expectations and trying not to count on even being offered my current salary.

However, when I took this job I took a substantial pay cut (almost 20%) versus my previous position. If I do receive an offer from the new owners, I'd like to request that they match my prior salary. I was told at hiring that because the company was a small one they couldn't match what I was making before. I ended up taking their offer without trying very hard to negotiate. Now that a larger company that has plenty of cash on hand will potentially be employing me, I'd really like to get back to my previous salary level.

Is explaining this and negotiating with the new ownership acceptable, or would I just be marking myself as difficult from the start?

It seems pretty unlikely to me that you're going to get a substantial raise simply because the new owners have more cash.

The way they're going to see it, you've already shown that you're willing to do the job at your current salary, so what incentive do they have to significantly increase it? The only way I can see this being likely to happen is if (a) you're an absolutely fantastic employee, rock star quality, (b) they know this, (c) they think you're going to leave without the raise, and (d) they're highly motivated to hold on to you. 

(One exception to this would be if they raise salaries across the board to bring the company in line with their overall corporate salary structure, which does occasionally happen.)

It's not typical for people who can command a significantly higher salary to take a job at a major pay cut just because the company can't afford more (except in the case of nonprofits, where people have other motivations); most people aren't that altruistic. So the new owners are likely to assume that you took the pay cut for other reasons -- that you just didn't care about the money that much, that you really wanted to do this job or work for this company, that you found the market wasn't willing to pay you what you were earning previously, or whatever. 

So you're not in a very strong negotiating position; you've already shown your hand, that you're willing to do the job at your current salary. 

Furthermore, once you're already on the job, your negotiating power comes from the implied possibility that you might look elsewhere if you don't get the money you're asking for here. It sounds like these are relatively risky circumstances to be making that implied threat; the new owners, who don't know you, probably aren't going to be as highly motivated to keep you as a manager who knows your work would be.

This doesn't meant that you absolutely shouldn't try; you know your circumstances and the nuances of this situation better than I do. But the best thing you can do is to put yourself in their shoes and figure out what a compelling argument to them would be, if there is one; the fact that they have more cash than the old owner isn't it.

my company promised me a raise and won't come through

A reader writes:

I started a job at $10 an hour. I took the job because I needed income, and wasn't planning to stay for very long. I liked it, because it was a 10 minute drive to work, and steady pay. I was offered another job that would be $14 an hour, but it was a 30 minute drive. I offered the place I was working a chance to keep me on by meeting the offer, because I liked the office and the short drive.

My boss's reponse was this email:

We would like to keep you as an Administrative Assistant with BUSINESS. I can offer you a full-time position as an Administrative Assistant but only at the $12.00 per hour mark right now due to the limited duties. Once we finish the mailings which should be in a month or so (based on your speediness), we will have the option to increase you to your desired wage of $14.00 per hour. I will have HR manager put a formal promotion letter for the Administrative Assistant position in place to you by tomorrow. Please confirm that you will be staying and that you are accepting this promotion. Thank you.

Well, this was well over a month ago. Plus, during this time, I've been taking on a lot of additional duties, and we've moved the office (in a very quick and unexpected move) so that my current commute is now 35 minutes. We moved because the rent would be much lower and would save the company a lot of money.

I asked my boss about the raise and was told it might be two months now... and to ask again in a couple days. I asked again in a couple days and I've been told that the company can't afford it right now. I'd just have to stay at $12 an hour.

I'd like to know if I have any recourse open to me, legally, about getting the raise I've earned. Or should I just start looking for another job?

I'm not a lawyer, and you may want to consult one, but at a minimum, this is terribly unfair: You turned down a job specifically because they made you a promise to increase your rate of pay. It sounds like you have that in writing.

There may be a legal issue here. On the other hand, even if there is, you can pretty much expect your relationship with your employer to go to hell if you bring in a lawyer. (Fair? No. Reality? Yes.)

I'd handle it this way: Go to your boss and explain that you're very concerned because you turned down another offer at their request, specifically because they offered you a pay increase. Say that you turned down the more lucrative position because your boss gave you her word, and you're asking her to honor it, since you accepted it in good faith.

Now, I suppose it's possible that the company really is in such dire financial straits that they can no longer afford to make good on their promise -- in which case, you'll need to decide whether or not you want to stay. But if they can't afford to pay you this extra $80/week, I'd be questioning whether you or any of their employees have much job security anyway.

is a contract position worth the risk?

A reader writes:

I am trying to decide if it is too risky to leave my current position for a better one that is a contract position.

I'm currently underemployed. I'm making $30,000/yr less than I did before I was laid off, but at least I'm working in my field. I don't enjoy my job, my department is quite dysfunctional, and I don't make enough to keep my head above water. If I don't find a new job soon, I will have to foreclose on my house. On the bright side, my job is very secure. My company was recently awarded a large government contract so we are safe from lay-offs for at least 4 years.

I have an opportunity to take a better position with a fabulous company. The job is more aligned with my long term career goals. The downside is it's a contract position for 1 year. The salary is close to what I used to make. It would be enough to allow me to keep my house and work my way out of debt, even after I factor in that I would have to buy my own health insurance.

I'm torn between sticking with the security of my current job, even though I'm in the red every month vs. a job that would cover my expenses but has the risk of being unemployed a year from now. I know you don't have a crystal ball to predict what the economy will be like next year. I just want to make sure I'm not missing something when I weigh the risks vs. benefits. I feel like I'm so concerned with the money that I'm overlooking something else. What am I missing?

I'd take the contract job. Here's why:

If you stay in your current job, you know you will lose your house. That's guaranteed, and that's a big deal. Yes, you have employment for four years, but it's employment that you don't like and which isn't paying you what you're worth somewhere else. So you'd be signing up for four years of low quality of life. (There's also no certainty that you'll be secure there for four years, despite the contract. You could clash with a boss, they could lose the contract, etc.)

If you take the contract job, you push yourself forward, professionally and financially. You know it only lasts a year, so you can spend that year networking and building relationships -- and your savings -- so that when it's time to move on, you have a safety net waiting for you.

Anyone want to disagree?

employer "appalled" by candidate's questions to HR

A reader writes:

I've been working in a freelance position that is project based for a few months with a medium sized company. They have been working towards hiring me on more permanent part-time basis. The position would include working on an event basis but also office hours, and include similar but not exactly the same work as I am doing now by completing projects for all of the various departments.

My boss said once I had "applied" and references were checked, we could go over any details and negotiate salary. "Applying" was primarily providing references and contact information online - no resume, no cover letter. I received an offer letter with a lower salary than I am willing to take and no details about the position.

This offer was sent from an HR representative, and I sent an e-mail back asking about negotiating salary, receiving a job description, an outline of any benefits, the parking situation, and mentioned I would discuss a schedule with my boss. I tried to write the letter similar to examples I found online, as a proposal and to be further discussed.

The HR representative then forwarded my letter to my boss and one of the directors of the company. I was told by my boss that the director does not want to hire me as they "were appalled that I would email the HR person rather than talk to my boss directly" and I was "too demanding."

They were terribly surprised when I said with all other previous jobs I've been offered, I have been asked to send these requests directly to HR. In fact, on the online form sent to "accept" the job said to email the HR person with any questions. After sending the email to HR (in which I also asked if any of my questions should instead be directed to my boss), I even emailed my boss telling him I had sent an e-mail to HR with these questions.

Is it bad form on the part of the company to get angry and suggest not hiring me over asking to negotiate salary, obtaining a written job description and a more detailed schedule?

They are still willing to offer me the job, but when we sat down to talk about a schedule and job description, I was given general "ideas" of what they thought I would be doing and the hours. Essentially "playing it by ear" once I start.

It's a new position that only one person before me has held (for a month) - so I understand they don't know exactly what will happen. The company and position title would look impressive on my resume, but I'm afraid I'm going to have to live up to expectations that no one seems to agree on or is willing to put in writing. Is this a red flag? How would you turn down a job offer on something like this?

Um, wow. I don't know how badly you need to accept a job right now, but unless you're desperate, I'd probably run in the other direction.

They were "appalled" that you asked perfectly reasonable questions to someone who it was perfectly reasonable to ask them to? Even if there were something unusual about you directing those questions to HR -- which there isn't -- their aggressive attack in response is really weird and inappropriate.

And you're "too demanding"? What are these people going to say when you ask for time off or a raise or a new computer?

These are not good signs.

I'm not as bothered by the fact that the job is still something of a work in progress, but you'd want to make sure you were reasonably aligned on how your success would be judged and what their overall goals for the position will look like. Yes, they're playing it by ear a bit, but they still must know what they'd be happy with at the end of a year and what they wouldn't be. And if they don't know, now is a good time for them to figure it out with you.

I think I would say to these people something like this: "I'm really interested in this job, but there's something that I'm unsure about. I was surprised by the reaction when I emailed my questions to HR. I thought my email was pretty reasonable, and I'm trying to understand why you were appalled and found it inappropriately demanding. I'm a big believer that cultural alignment is important and can predict a lot about a candidate's chances of success once on the job, so I'm hoping you can tell me a bit more about why the company reacted the way it did so we can figure out if I'm the right fit for you or not."

And then really listen to the answer. If you're not comfortable with the response, you should have no qualms about telling them that you're turning down the offer because of that.

should you take on extra work without extra pay?

A reader writes:

I am an administrative assistant at a 10-person marketing company. My new boss just asked me to take on a project that my coworker used to do. I'd be willing to do it, but I wonder if I should. Is it a bad idea to let him give me more work that isn't part of my job description? I want to stay at this company for a long time but he isn't offering me a raise.

My answer to this reader's question is up over at U.S. News & World Report. Please check it out here and leave your own thoughts in the comments over there.

how to handle requests for salary history

A reader writes:

I am searching for a new position and more than half of listings require salary history. Not even requirements but history, which I think is completely unjust and I typically do not give out because a) it’s confidential, b) it’s excessive in wanting to know about the applicant and c) if my future salary is to be determined by my past salary, I would be broke for the rest of my life because I was grossly underpaid!

But some companies insist on it, including a few companies I badly want to work at. And since I can’t be unemployed forever, should I…. a) surrender my principles and submit a history and b) if I do, can I slightly exaggerate the numbers? Like I said, it’s confidential and the company cannot ask others about my financial record so they wouldn’t be able to find out.

Well, there's how things should be and then there's how things often are.

Personally, I believe that your salary history is no one's business but your own, and that employers should pay based on their assessment of your value, not what their competitors thought you were worth. And I think that insisting on salary history is the mark of a lazy HR department.

However, the reality is that many, many employers do require it. And some will discard you immediately if you don't provide it. So you have to decide if you want to hold firm on not giving it out and risk not being considered, or whether you're willing to compromise in order to possibly get the job.

If you decide to hold firm, Nick Corcodilos has a lot of advice on how to do it (as well as some impassioned treatises on why you should). You can also try saying that you committed to your past employers to keep your salary confidential, and you need to honor that.

But some employers will end things right there, so you need to be prepared for that. It's possible that this is a sign of an employer who you don't want to work for anyway, but it's also possible that they just have a bureaucratic HR person. So you need to decide how important this is to you and how much risk you're willing to take on.

But one thing you can't risk: lying about the numbers. If you give numbers, they must be accurate, since if they find out later that you lied, employers can and will yank job offers over that, because it speaks to your integrity -- in fact, they can even fire you after you've been hired if they find out you lied in your application materials. And they can indeed find out; some companies actually ask candidates for W2s or other documentation of the numbers they gave, as part of the offer paperwork. So either tell or don't tell, but don't lie.

upset with size of raise

A reader writes:

I'm on my 6th year of working with the same small nonprofit. I haven't moved up or down. I've stayed at my same position.

Every year they do an evaluation, and every year I get the same raise, 1.5%. Since I have been working here, I have taken on more than my requirements. I have shed blood, sweat, and tears at this company.

I had asked for a 3% increase on my recent evaluation and was denied because I didn't "supervise" anyone. Is this honestly fair? I also received my A+ IT Technician Certification before my evaluation when I had asked for the raise. My manager denied my raise because she said that other employees in the company that received any type of certification were not given a raise. Is it really fair to base my job and my responsibilities against someone else in the company?

Salaries are based (or should be based) on market value. In the nonprofit world, sometimes that's also balanced against what the organization can afford to pay; many people accept lower salaries at nonprofits because they feel the work provides other rewards.

1.5% is low, even for nonprofits. This could mean one of several things:

1. Your employer tries to get away with lowballing employees and hopes you'll accept it, but might give you more if you present a strong case for it.
2. Your employer tries to get away with lowballing employees and won't budge regardless of the strength of your argument.
3. Your employer, like many nonprofits, is struggling with funding and can't give you more even if it wanted to.
4. Your employer is open to giving larger raises, but doesn't believe your performance warrants more.

I have no idea which of these is going on here, but what I do know is that you need to ask different questions when you next talk to your manager about this. Ask directly: "What would I need to change about my performance to get a higher raise?" Maybe it's not even possible, who knows. Ask and find out.

You asked whether any of this is fair. Fair means compensating you according to your value to the company, based on your contributions there. It's not really about what your coworkers earn or who has what certification. It's about the employer's assessment of your value. If you disagree with that assessment, you have the following choices:

* Ask for more -- but this must be presented as the case for why your accomplishments warrant more, not just longevity or certifications.

* Accept it and stay.

* Or, if you don't you don't like the salary you're being offered and the employer won't budge, go out there and see what other offers the world has for you. You might find one you like a lot better -- or you might decide that you'd rather stay put.

Good luck.

will taking a pay cut now harm my earning potential later?

A reader writes:

Going on so many interviews lately for jobs that I am well-qualified if not overqualified for, I keep getting salary responses that would pretty much allow me to break even. Whoopidy doo.

If I ended up taking one of these jobs that pay way below what I was previously making and stayed for a year or so, would it potentially damage my chances of getting a significantly higher salary when I switch positions? Do companies base what you will make with them based on what you previously made (along with their budget and your skill sets, of course)? I was always taught that when you change jobs, you should never accept less than what you were making before. Based on the economy and job crisis, I'm not sure if that is even legit at this point.

The answer will be quite unsatisfying: It varies.

Some companies will demand to know your salary history and will resist giving you a substantial increase. Others -- the more sensible ones, I would argue -- will base their salary offer on the market, and could care less what you were making previously.

However, I suspect that, as you point out, the economic crisis may be rewriting the rules on this. There are a lot of people who are in the situation you describe and who will be taking pay cuts due to the sheer awfulness of the current climate. When the economy picks back up, those people should presumably be able to find jobs at higher salaries again. I think it will be quite normal to explain to a prospective employer that -- like many people -- you took a lower salary when jobs were scarce, but that you've always used the market to inform your salary expectations, and the market now says that a reasonable a salary for this job is in a higher range.

If an employer doesn't get the logic of that, I question whether they're an employer you should want to work for anyway.

By the way, there's also a school of thought that says your salary history is no one's business but your own. I tend to agree. An employer should pay based on their assessment of your value, not what their competitor thought you were worth.

I said I was okay with a salary range when I really wasn't

A reader writes:

I had a first interview with a hiring manager that went very well, and I was asked to interview again. Before moving forward with the entire process (extensive interviews with VPs and clients), the recruiter wanted to make sure I was comfortable with the salary range. Although it is 25-35% below my last salary, I told her that I wanted to move forward, that I am excited for the job (true) and that salary is not the sole factor in my job search (also true, but it's still a big factor for me).

I may be coming close to an actual offer - can I negotiate salary after this conversation or was the interview process a complete waste for the company?

I do like the job for what it is, but by taking such a large pay cut, I will have to make some major lifestyle changes (move to smaller apt), and I'm not sure I would be comfortable with the salary as much as I thought. I have an MBA and lots of debt to go with it.

Well, you're in a tough position. Because you already told them that you were comfortable with their range and they moved forward on that assumption, there's a decent chance they'll feel like you acted in bad faith on the salary question and wasted their time. At a minimum, they'll be annoyed.

But all isn't necessarily lost.

First, I can't tell from your letter whether there's any chance you would accept this job at the salary range they stated, or very slightly above it. But if you're really uncomfortable doing that, you should probably stick with that feeling and not compromise. Taking a salary you really, really don't want (especially when it's that large of a cut) rarely goes well.

So then the question becomes: Do you just bow out or do you try to negotiate for more, even though you already told them you weren't going to do that? If you do get an offer and decide to try to negotiate for more, the only way to do it is to give them some sort of compelling narrative that makes what happened understandable. You're going to have to acknowledge that you earlier said you were fine with the range, and you're going to have to explain why you're now not. You're also going to have to apologize profusely for the possibility that you've wasted their time.

They will either hold firm, go up very slightly but not enough, or go up a lot more than you think (depending on whether they want you enough, what their back-up candidates are like, and what their budget permits).

You mentioned a recruiter. Is it their in-house recruiter or an outside recruiter? If the latter, you might also talk candidly to her and explain what happened and see what her advice is on how to proceed. She probably has a good feel for their likely reaction. Good luck!

accepted offer without asking about salary

A reader writes:

I'm fresh out of college, just got hired at my first "grown up job." I'm supposed to start training next week but my bosses haven't gone over pay with me.

The job is selling ad space in a magazine. They told me I would have the option of commission only or base plus a lower commission. They told me the commission only plan was 20% commission, but they never told me what the base was.

My mom thinks I'm an idiot for not addressing this yet. How do I politely inquire about this and my other questions like being reimbursed for travel to training, etc?

You're not the only person who forgets to ask this when accepting her first job -- often just out of excitement/relief at getting a job offer -- but you definitely need to. In the future, never accept a job without agreeing on a salary first! Even if you secretly are going to accept the job no matter what the salary is, you don't want them to know that -- it destroys any negotiating position you have.

At this point, you've already accepted it so it's unlikely you can negotiate, but you do need to find out what the salary is and decide if it's acceptable to you or not. Call up whoever your contact has been at the new company and say something like, "I feel silly not having asked this earlier, but I just realized we never got into the specifics of pay. We discussed commission, but what is the base pay?"

Also, know before you call what answer would be a deal-breaker for you. If the number is absolutely too low for you and you're not willing to accept the job at that salary, ideally you'd be prepared to raise the issue then and there, by saying something like, "That's definitely not what I was prepared for. Is there any flexibility there?" Again, because you've already accepted the job, you can't go into this planning to negotiate it higher -- but if they give you a number that you're not willing to work for anyway, you might as well see if you can get it higher before politely telling them that you're not able to accept at that salary.

Regarding being reimbursed for travel to training, are we talking about standard commuting costs or something like being sent out of state for training? If the latter, they should cover it, but you should find out up front, so ask that on your phone call too. But if it's something like 100 miles or less, generally you'd cover that yourself unless they offer otherwise.

And as for general advice, don't be afraid to ask this stuff. An organized employer will raise it themselves, but plenty overlook it -- so you shouldn't feel at all weird about speaking up and asking whatever questions you have at the time that an offer is made. Good luck!

when a job offer isn't acceptable

A reader:

I have been working for a very small company for about 8 months. One of my co-workers is leaving and they have offered me his position. However, they are offering my a much lower salary than he currently earns for the same position. The salary they are offering me is also much less than the average for the industry. I have tried to negotiate based on the duties/responsibilities of the job and my value to the organization. They produced little to no effect on the offer. I mentioned that it was hard for me to accept the offer knowing that the current salary for the position was much higher than the one they were offering me. The owner told me that the other employee's salary was an exception because this particular employee had quit his job in another state to help him start the company and did not receive payment for a few months. So, the owner pays him that salary in order to pay him back.

Is this a fair practice? Am I wrong in expecting a salary that is closer to what the person who currently performs the job makes? The current employee is also the owner's very good friend and they've known each other for years.

In addition, this company had also "promoted" me from an hourly position after the first two months I started. However, the salary and benefits that were offered (verbally) were never received and the position did not live up to what I was originally promised. This past situation makes me hesitant to believe what they are telling me. I am the only female in the office and often feel like I am treated differently because of this as well as the fact that I am not their
friend outside of the office. I am not quite sure how to handle the situation anymore. Thank you for any advice that you can provide!

It's dangerous to base your salary expectations on what someone else in the position makes. There are lots of reasons why someone might have earned a higher salary than what you're offered: maybe the person was hired when the market was tight and thus salaries were higher, maybe there was something specific in their background that the company found especially valuable, or whatever. You just can't base your negotiation on what someone else is making; fair or not, it's just not really done.

Now, you said that you didn't base your negotiation on that -- which is good, but you mentioned it as a major part of your thinking, so I think first you need to find a way to remove it from your mental framework about this. Base your salary requirements on the industry norm and what you'll be bringing to the company, nothing else.

Of course, the company can refuse, and you can't make them give in. They may be willing to hold firm, in which case you have to decide if the job is worth it to you at the salary they're offering. Ultimately, salary negotiation often comes down to the question of who is the most willing to walk away.

However, I'd question whether you should be accepting this position at any salary. This company has already misled you about salary, benefits, and job duties in the past; unless there has been a change in management, that's not a company you want to be working for anyway.

can boss deduct the cost of a mistake from my paycheck?

A reader writes:

Last year, I overcharged a customer by approximately $1500. No one caught it and the customer paid the bill. In reviewing what the customer wanted to purchase for this year, they saw the mistake and requested a $1500 credit.

My boss has decided that I must cover this loss for the company and is taking it out of my paycheck. I found out that this is illegal but I am afraid that if I confront him he will fire me, as he has all the power and I have none. Of course, if he does fire me, I could go after him legally but I am not big on doing something like that. So it comes down to this: Do I stand up for my self and risk getting fired (knowing I stood up for myself and did the right thing, and also knowing in this economy I will have to find a job that may be non existent), or do I eat the $1500 and get on with my life with my tail between my legs (and keep my job)?

Ugh. What a horrible situation. People are human and from time to time they'll make mistakes. A good manager will see something like this as part of the cost of doing business. Of course, if an employee makes a lot of these mistakes, you have a pattern and that needs to be addressed, through coaching, warnings, termination, whatever is appropriate. But one mistake? No, not unless it's far bigger than this one.

Regarding the legality: I'm not a lawyer and laws vary from state to state, but in general, most state laws prohibit an employer from deducting this sort of thing unless it was the result of willful, deliberate misconduct.

Here's how I'd handle it, with the caveat that I know nothing about your boss or your relationship with him. I'd sit down with him and say something like: "I feel really awkward about this, but I'd like to talk to you about this $1500. I'm mortified that I made the mistake, and I've been reviewing the procedures I use so that I can put safeguards in place to ensure it never happens again. However, we both know that mistakes happen in the normal course of business. In fact, sometimes people make enormous mistakes that we can't even put a price tag on, such as when a strategic decision goes wrong. Generally people aren't asked to pay the company back for the costs of those mistakes, because they're part of the cost of doing business. I know that this mistake reflects on me, and I'm holding myself accountable to making sure it doesn't happen again, but asking me to pay the money back doesn't seem right to me. Does the company generally ask people to reimburse the cost of mistakes they make?"

Hopefully, your boss just hasn't thought this through clearly and this will inspire him to. On the other hand, if he's a jerk and not very bright, this may get you nowhere. I'd try it though.

boss paying under the table

A reader writes:

I work for a very small company that is having cash flow problems. For the past few months the boss has been paying the employees our net wages in cash, not giving us payslips, and not paying any tax to the government. He simply expects us not to report this income on our tax returns.

We are all unhappy about this, concerned that it might get us into trouble, but he said the alternative was to fire one of us so he can afford the taxes. He says he’ll return to regular paychecks when he can.

What do we do? If one of us is audited, will we be in trouble or does he take all the blame?

What your boss is doing is illegal, and unfortunately, if you and other employees go along with it, you will be breaking the law too. Specifically, your boss is breaking the law by not paying payroll taxes or withholding taxes, and you and your coworkers would be breaking the law if you don't report the income.

His reasons aside, what he's doing opens you all up to criminal prosecution, fines, and even the possibility of jail time. Plus, if you or your coworkers ever need to file unemployment, workers comp, or disability claims, your benefits could be denied because you won't have a way to prove your earnings -- and it could also affect your Social Security earnings down the road.

I recommend that you and your coworkers approach the boss as a group and tell him that you know that he's trying to avoid a difficult staffing decision, but that he's jeopardizing himself, the business, and all of you with his current "solution." Perhaps there are other alternatives to laying someone off that you could suggest -- maybe you're all willing to work four days instead of five, at four-fifths your current salary, or other things along those lines. Ultimately, though, it's your boss' responsibility to figure out what to do without breaking the law.

I'd also start job-searching, as these aren't good signs.