The morality of disclosing salary requirements

Fair market negotiations should be informationally symmetric.

I think that is essentially impossible. And not a good idea anyway. If I know I will take a job for $75,000 but am anticipating getting $110,000, why should I have to reveal that to the company? Information symmetry would require this.

You don't need to know everything that the company knows about the job in order to negotiate effectively and reasonably. What you need to know is at least something about what your choices are. You accomplish this by applying for more than one job at once. You don't need to know anything about any of the companies, except what they are offering you, and how they respond when you "hold them up" by talking about the other jobs you are considering.

As to disclosing my previous salary? I am virtually positive that I am well paid in my current job, and if I thought proof of this would get me a higher offer at a new job, then I would disclose it. If they asked for proof and I thought it was in my interest to provide it, I would. If they made me an offer I considered too low, I might explain to them that no matter what I was making in my previous job, that for my own reasons, the amount they needed to get me is X, and what did they think of that? If they called my bluff, so be it. If they tried to call my bluff and I didn't like it, I wouldn't take the job.

Considerations of whether I am supporting a family or not have to be irrelevant! My urgency to get a job should make me apply for more jobs at a time, which means I am going to do a better job of maximizing my outcome by having competing offers. My urgency or not to get a job is irrelevant just as their urgency to hire someone should not cause a moral obligation on me to behave differently in making it easier for them to hire me.

I think there should be a name for a cognitive bias whereby a story about your self-interest gets turned in to a moral argument that the other parties "should" do the thing that is more in your self-interest. Maybe this is named already and I'm just not aware of it.

I'm not sure I see the moral aspect. Assuming the same work gets done, it's pretty much zero sum whether the applicant, other applicants, or shareholders get more of the surplus. If it matters to you, look for a coasean solution (side-payments to those you think you've harmed).

There is a moral argument to be made regarding good matching of jobs to candidates for optimum production. But it's not clear which direction this pulls in this case.

I certainly can understand tactical aspects, and it probably depends on specifics whether it's in your best interest to disclose your current/previous salary.

The problem with the current system is that people with good haggling skills (for example, former used car salesmen) have an unfair advantage against people with less haggling and more technical skills.

If you were applying for a job that you wanted, and the company said "You must give us proof of your current or most-recent salary or we will not give you an interview," what would you probably do? [pollid:816]

Many firms require job applicants to tell them either how much money they're making at their current jobs, or how much they want to make at the job they're interviewing for.

Citation needed as this is actually illegal in many jurisdictions. They may ask, but they may not require disclosure.

What do you think? If you were applying for a job that you wanted, and the company said "You must give us proof of your current or most-recent salary or we will not give you an interview," what would you do?

Next job please. I wouldn't want to work for these jokers.

If asked your salary requirements, put off your answer to as late a phase as possible.

I precommit to myself to always say "let's see if we're a fit first, I'm sure we'll agree on a reasonable salary" at any phase of negotiations before they know they want me. " I perfume to do this even I think it will lose me the job. I don't think it ever has.

When asked my salary requirements by third party recruiters, I always say " you're the expert. You know the member better than i do. What do you think i can make at a stretch?"

One way to get yourself some flexibility is to remember that compensation includes not only salary but also various benefits. So, if you crack under pressure and tell them previous pay or requirements, you can use that fact to later give your answers the interpretation you want.

If asked your previous salary, say "my contract with my former employerforbids me to say that [which is probably true], and I take my responsibilities to my employers very seriously."

My view is that the company knows what the job is worth, and the applicant does not...

Is this a problem now a days with sites like glassdoor? Or maybe some industries are not well represented.

When interviewing if you can get multiple job offers then you can play them off each other (in some industries). I don't have any experience with government work though.

I think it depends. In a high-demand field, applicants will have their pick of jobs. The applicant has more leverage than the company, and it's reasonable for the company to want to know if they are even able going to be able to recruit you. In a high-supply field, the practice is exploitative. Companies should let their employees know what their salary is from the outset. Luckily, most companies have fixed wages for low-level employees and are generally upfront about what those wages are. Your experience seems to suggest that you are in a high-demand field. If you're in a position to demand a ludicrous salary any time you're forced to answer the salary question first, then that doesn't sound like a monopoly to me.

If wages are too high, causing unemployment, might it be better for employers to get more advantages while hiring?

Are you American? I have a feeling a crazy thing like this can only be found in America.