Jump to content

Sign in to follow this  
Andy Milner

Hiring managers asking existing salary

Recommended Posts

Andy Milner

Amazon and Bank of America have joined Google, Facebook, Amex, Wells Fargo and Cisco is banning asking for previous salaries even where it's not (yet) forbidden by state law.


It doesn't seem that any of these organisations are currently extending this outside of the US as far as I can tell - that would be an interesting step as it would likely indicate that they are seeing benefits (or at least a lack of impact) from the change, rather than just reducing administrative overhead in managing different policies across US states.



<p>Job applicants at Amazon’s second headquarters won’t be asked to divulge their salary history during the application process, as the Seattle-based tech giant recently decided to ban the inquiries.</p>


Here's a good summary of what Amazon are doing:




  • Amazon has forbidden hiring managers from asking job applicants about their pay history, Buzzfeed reports.
  • The policy took effect Jan. 1 and is in direct response to the 13 salary history bans adopted at the state and local level. "Amazon is taking a proactive stance to be consistent for all candidates residing in, or applying to jobs in, the United States," it told hiring managers in a memo.
  • The company is banning direct and indirect questions about current or previous base pay, equity compensation, bonuses, benefits and variable pay. Hiring managers also may not consider salary history, even if an applicant volunteers the information. Likewise, they may not use LinkedIn Recruiter or similar tools to estimate or obtain someone's salary history, Buzzfeed says.




As more state and local governments ban pay history questions, some employers are opting to preemptively prohibit such inquiries internally.


Share this post

Link to post
Andy Milner

@Eva Keogan that brings to mind another discussion on the Community around pay transparency and the rather radical way that they do it in Finland!!



Share this post

Link to post
Eva Keogan

Great to hear @Jonathanmax your friend had a salary increase - but in reality she's been underpaid by 40% for her whole career!

It seems regulation is not really working at the pace it should. I think the industry should consider some kind of pay grading system and even go as far as reimbursement. 


So on that basis, when it comes to asking about pay levels, it would be more appropriate for candidates to be proactive as well. 


We have been reading more news about the widening Gender Pay Gap in the City, as well as the bonus gap. Blackrock has reduced their gap by 5% down to 23% and says this is largely due to a “gender distribution imbalance” - perhaps a bit of plain English could be put to use here, and some clear steps as to what the next steps are which will be taken because it's still way off target. 


Progress puts BlackRock ahead of some of the City’s largest firms, which have failed to improve disparity in the past year


Share this post

Link to post
Andy Milner

@Jonathan Max - that’s a great result for her!


Something we haven’t touched on directly here (and probably hasn’t been discussed enough) is the racial pay gap.


Although this article is from the US and not industry specific, it quotes that Latina women are paid 46% less than white men (vs 20% for women generally).



In a growing number of places, it's illegal to ask about salary history.


The question is also likely to disadvantage people moving into the industry or rejoining after career breaks.

Share this post

Link to post
Jonathan Max

I was speaking with a female professional with Asset Management the other day; who was enjoying a well earned period of gardening leave and looking forward to joining a large asset manager.

She received ~40% increase on base salary......the company confirmed the level was set due to the requirements of the role and not what her salary was at her previous firm; the latter (strangely enough) was well under the size required for GPG!

Share this post

Link to post
Andy Milner

I've been trying to track down details on that statement from the CBI, but I'm not sure they elaborated on what the "unintended consequences" could be - I assume one could be wage inflation due to reduction in the negotiation advantage of the employer.


Whether this is a bad thing is debatable when (by some measures) wage growth has been stagnant in the UK for longer than any time since the Napoleonic wars..



Reality Check examines the claim that real-wage growth is at its worst since the 18th Century.


Share this post

Link to post
Eva Keogan

There are multiple points to consider and this article covers it well - including exacerbating GPG - not sure I agreed with this part though - 'CBI warned that silencing discussions on pay at recruitment stage could have “unintended consequences”.'


Employers that ask candidates their current salary are partly to blame for the gender pay gap, according to the Young Women’s Trust. Gender pay gap Widen gender pay gap reporting to firms with over 50 staff, say MPs Gender pay gap: PWC bans male-only candidate shortlists In a YouGov survey of employers, the charity found …
Read more  



Share this post

Link to post
Luuk Jacobs

I am a bit at odds here as I believe if the candidate has proven through the interview that (s)he can do the job and has all the relevant skills and experience, that should be the main reason for offering the job. The current salary should, as Jonathan mentioned,  only be checked to ensure that it is not the only motivating factor for wanting a job.  Equally it should be considered that the change in position should be a step up for the candidate (and not just the same job and another company in which a significant salary increase would just create “inflation”) and the associated salary a recognition of that

Share this post

Link to post
Jonathan Max

Thanks @Andy Milner

I still think it is important to ask about current salary to understand push and pull factors for an candidate's interest in a role. When the balance of motivations is weighed too heavily around compensation then, in my experience, this is more likely to end badly!

What is extremely important however, is that organisation's pay what the role is worth rather than the minimum amount they get get away with paying! In the recruitment process it is vital to look at compensation in the round and in the context of an individuals' skills and experience. I have advocated significant increases in salary when it the right thing to do; similarly, for a range of reasons sometimes flat / marginal uptick is the right decision.



Share this post

Link to post
Andy Milner

I have always struggled to see a fair reason why employers should be allowed to ask about a potential hire’s current remuneration, other than to give them an advantage in pay negotiations.

It’s something which can only exacerbate existing pay inequalities and  it’s abolishment can surely only be a positive thing.

Here the Guardian argues specifically about its impact with regards to the gender pay gap:


I believe this has already been outlawed in some US states?

@Jonathan Max - would be interesting to hear the view from HR. 

Share this post

Link to post

Become a member to read more and join the discussion

Members can read and contribute to discussions


Register now for free access.

Create your account

Sign in

Already a member? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

Sign in to follow this  
  • Related Content

    • Andy Milner
      By Andy Milner
      An interesting read from TheCityUK, which highlights the lack of diversity and need for more FinTech skills as being key challenges across FS.
      Financial Services Skills Taskforce - Interim report | TheCityUK
    • Andy Milner
      By Andy Milner
      This year it has been hard to escape Pride season – throughout June and into July there have been events all around the world commemorating the 50th anniversary of the Stonewall riots and the effective start of the fight for equal rights for the LGBT+ community.
      The celebration of diversity has gone well and truly mainstream, with companies from PWC and Barclays to Argos and GoPro changing their logos to include a rainbow flag. Marks and Spencers are even pushing a new “LGBT” sandwich, adding guacamole to the classic bacon, lettuce and tomato combo.
      Our industry is also in on the action, with the Investment Association and Schroders amongst the organisations that are showing their support via updated logos.

      Is this public outpouring of support for the LGBT+ community merely a sign of corporations attempting to “diversity-wash” their images, or reflective of deeper changes in their attitudes and approaches to D&I?
      According to Stonewall, 6 in 10 LGBT+ 18-24 year olds are still choosing to hide their sexuality in the workplace, which is perhaps not surprising when 1 in 5 of those who have come out say they have been the target of negative comments or conduct in the workplace.
      The Investment Association’s new report Do You Remember the First Time? (the follow up to last year’s Bringing Your Whole Self To Work report) is about coming out and being out in Investment Management and makes for interesting reading.
      It highlights practical steps that can be taken to improve the experience of LGBT+ individuals in areas including recruitment, employee on-boarding, workplace policies and people management. It’s also encouraging to read a number of real-world examples of where these are being put into place across the industry.
      What definitely feels like a positive change is the growing ground-up movement, supported by a number of Industry initiatives, that has been beginning to push the LGBT+ equality agenda more visibly in the last year or so. In 2019, the City of London has been host to more Pride related events than ever before, from talks and discussion panels, to the raising of the Pride flag over the Guildhall in the run up to London Pride this weekend.
      Next week also sees the official launch of InterInvest – an industry wide LGBT+ network with the potential to make a real impact on how LGBT+ professionals surface and tackle the issues they face. This sits alongside LGBT Great, an initiative of the Diversity Project, which has just announced its 50-for-50 list of LGBT+ role models – an important part of the strategy for making LGBT+ professionals feel accepted and comfortable.
      All of this suggests cause for optimism. However, we also shouldn’t forget that LGBT+ hate crimes are on the rise in the UK and in other parts of the world as the forces of populism become more prominent.
      So are these public displays of support just rainbow-washing? The verdict isn’t clear.
      Peter Tatchell, a prominent campaigner sees it as a capitalist sell-out of the Pride movement’s principles. However, even if some of the motives are cynical, and it is not a true reflection of real progress, at the very least the increased visibility of the Pride movement helps to further bring the LGBT+ community into the mainstream of public perception.
      Here’s to more rainbow logos in 2020.
      Main photo credit: Matias Altbach 
    • Jonathan Max
      By Jonathan Max
      @Anthony - looked like a fantastic event; well done!
      Anthony Guinot posted on LinkedIn
      WWW.LINKEDIN.COM Sign in or join now to see posts like this one and more.
    • Jonathan Max
      By Jonathan Max
      Really interesting Policy Paper from the IA which certainly highlights the fundamental changes underway across the industry, particularly against a backdrop of increased regulation and technology disruption.
      Clearly the 'people' aspect is key, would be great to find out more about the Talent and D&I Strategy @gillian.painter?
    • Eva Keogan
      By Eva Keogan
      We all want to love our jobs but what if the environment you are working in doesn't love you back? That's something many women are facing daily. Sexism is such an old fashioned concept and it’s really time for it to go, but it still exists.  How can firms stamp it out when it seems to be ubiquitous?
      You may have spotted the headlines recently about the Lean In survey which found 60% of male managers are ‘uncomfortable participating in a common work activity with a woman, such as mentoring, working alone, or socialising together’. 
      The choice of wording used is a bad start as it immediately puts the man in the role of the victim, with him being the one made to feel ‘uncomfortable’. And the study finds even worse thinking. 
      Apparently, senior male professionals are less likely to fraternise with junior females than they are with junior males. This is underpinned by these startling statistics: 
      Men are 12x more likely to hesitate to have 1-on-1 meetings with women Men are 9x more likely to hesitate to travel together for work with women Men are 6x more likely to hesitate to have work dinners with women  
      And to top it off, 36% of men say they’ve avoided mentoring or socialising with a woman because they were nervous about how it would look.
      If we look at these figures from the other side it becomes even more alarming – women are 12x less likely to get a meeting with a senior manager. Women are 9x less likely to get go on business trips. Women are 6x less like to be invited to work dinners.
      Yet this doesn't seem to be a case of fixing one problem and causing another, as 57% of women still report that they’ve experienced some form of sexual harassment in the workplace. 
      So what exactly is going on here? It's surely enough to put many women off working in a corporate environment altogether. 

      Data and Facts

      While it’s always difficult to apply generic survey data to a particular industry – especially when it’s a sample size of 2000 and generated in the US – there’s no denying that these issues are global, and that sexism and sexual harassment are still rife in the City of London.
      In 2017, the FTfm Women in Asset Management Survey found 70% of women have been the subject of sexism. That’s pretty depressing.
      It’s really important for everyone to enjoy work – we work longer hours in the UK than our European counterparts and the City is no exception. But while on the one hand we have diversity drives, returnships and Gender Pay Gap reporting designed to give women and other groups support and reassurance through legislation and behaviour change campaigns, recent stories coming out of the City at large show types of misconduct such as sexism, exploitation and at the very least crass jokes, are by no means going away any time soon. 
      The Toxic City?

      News stories around sexism in the City aren't positive at the moment - here are just some which have made the news:
      James Conmy and his ‘glazed ring’ comment ended up with him being fired. The Bloomberg exposé The Old Daytime-Drinking, Sexual-Harassing Ways Are Thriving at Lloyd’s  which contributed to the banning of alcohol. Coutts is facing a significant pay out to a female employee of its ‘unspoken culture of sexism’.  In February 2019, the FCA met Nathalie Abildgaard, a former employee of IFM Investors, an Australian investment manager with an office on Gresham Street, to discuss her claim that a senior manager sexually harassed her on a work trip – she has settled out of court this April for a six figure sum.  
      With all of this on the table it’s quite easy to lose faith in change at all but we just can’t give up and go home if we want to see change. 

      Who is responsible?
      Organisations themselves are responsible for their own culture but they need more than a gentle nudge. Campaigns such as Women in Finance are pushing for the numbers of women in the industry to increase. 
      The Investment Association also has a role to play. It currently campaigns around Diversity & Inclusion as well and while it has written to FTSE 350 companies about diversity it has not been so vocal about sexism in the industry itself – but is this something it should champion or should it tackle broader issues?  The Diversity Project, the campaign set up to promote Diversity & Inclusion in the industry has a broad remit across the diversity spectrum and is a force for good overall but holds no power to enforce rules or regulation.
      All the above are working towards change but it is only when there is jeopardy, or high stakes, we will see any kind of radical reform or progress.
      Calling out to the FCA
      When it comes to any kind of enforcement, the FCA is the only organisation with real teeth and it has stated over the last few months sexual harassment falls within its remit, so perhaps we will start to see some tangible movement on the issue.
      Speaking at City and Financial's Women in Finance Summit 2019 this month, Nausicaa Delfas, executive director of international at the FCA, pointed to an increase in non-financial misconduct as a threat to the sector's diversity.
      "This type of serious misbehaviour is toxic to a working environment and can lead to bad outcomes for customers, staff, stakeholders and the firm. In our view, tolerance of this sort of misconduct would be a clear example of a driver of unhealthy culture. This area clearly requires management attention and a broader change in the firms’ mindset."
      Will this effect change?
      First and foremost, we’ve seen little change in the Gender Pay Gap reporting figures so should women expect much else to change? Yes of course women should. 
      According to Wealth Manager ‘The FCA has said firms need to demonstrate good practice in purpose, leadership, rewarding and managing people, and governance arrangements.'
      With SMCR coming into play in December 2019, company culture is being given increasing importance in the Investment Management sector, and the risk of high profile fines for senior management and directors from the regulator may encourage organisations to stamp out any form of misconduct – sexual or otherwise – more quickly than before.

      Let’s hope 2020 sees a step change in stamping out sexism and misconduct for once and for all and we can all enjoy our jobs, regardless of gender or identity.
Debug info for admin:
topics/forum ID48
page ID
PHP user agentCCBot/2.0 (https://commoncrawl.org/faq/)

We use cookies to give you the best possible experience. If you continue, we’ll assume you are happy with this. For further information, see our Privacy Policy.