Zeste said:
I have the skills for a 100k+ job or more. Bigger cities, nicer cities. Tech cities.
{snip}
Do I go for the gusto and try and cut a fat hog, jeopardizing by asking too much?
I"m not sure that working for some big named company is really worth it on your resume. Google likes to underpay people because their name is fashionable. The cost of living near their HQ is very high, so either you"re going to spend 2 hours commuting each day, or you"ll pay almost all of your salary trying to afford someplace near the office. $100k here in Denver is about equal to $200k in NYC/Silicon Valley, or $125k in DC due to differences in cost of living and higher state taxes.
I"m 50, so I"m looking for money. I"ve got to make as much as possible (and sock away as much in 401ks and IRAs as possible) before age discrimination in software development makes it too hard to get hired. Based on the experiences of a couple of older developer friends, the brick wall appears to be age 55.
Having a sexy popular employer on your resume isn"t going to do jack shit when you go to get a mortgage for a house. It might impress some folks looking at your resume.
Tyreny said:
I understand that it is common practice for employers to ask for a salary history, but my question is more to the point of why is that considered acceptable? A company (should) knows what a position is worth and be willing to pay for that. If I had worked for crap pay before hand that should not affect their decision on what to pay me now, vice versa as well.
They already know what your job is worth, but most companies don"t like to give anyone more than about 15% raise when moving. Also, if you worked for crap pay, it means that someone didn"t think you were worth paying market rates, so that means you suck (so they shouldn"t hire you) or you"re a doormat (so they"ll move you to the basement and take away your red stapler).
I missed this one last year:
Lyrical said:
As I said in my above post, I worked for a company where it was a written policy that comparing salary would result in discipline up to termination.
It is a violation of the National Labor Relations Act to do so. Anyone fired for that reason would end up quite wealthy even after the lawyers were done with the company"s carcass. Your only survival mechanisms would be to hope you only hire idiots too stupid to know their legal rights, or to very well document that they violated company policy in some other justifiable area before firing them. Having such a policy, and a written record of disciplining employees for violating that illegal policy will make you wish you hired a better lawyer.
How many businesses have a policy like the one below?
Confidentiality of Salary and Benefit Information
Employees are prohibited from discussing their salary or wage levels and company benefits with other employees. Such information is confidential and may not be discussed in the workplace. Any employee violating this policy will be considered to have committed a breach of confidentiality and will be subject to disciplinary action, up to and possibly including termination of employment.
Look familiar? Chances are good that most companies have either a formal policy similar to the one above, or else have a tradition or practice of responding to pay and benefit discussions with disciplinary action. Those same companies would likely be surprised to learn that such policies generally violate federal labor law. Indeed, the National Labor Relations Act contains a provision, Section 7 (29 U.S.C. ? 157), that gives all employees the right to "engage in concerted activities", including the right to discuss their terms and conditions of employment with each other. Section 8(a)(1) of the NLRA (29 U.S.C. ? 158(a)(1)) makes it an unfair labor practice for an employer to deny or limit the Section 7 rights of employees. Based upon those two provisions, the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) has taken the position for decades now that employers may not prohibit employees from discussing their pay and benefits, and that any attempts to do so actually violate the NLRA. Courts have basically uniformly supported that position. Moreover, those particular sections of the NLRA apply to both union and non-union employees, so there is no exception made for companies where the employees are non-unionized
Salary and Benefit Discussions Among Employees(From Texas Workforce Commission).
Even if the employees have zero intention of starting a union, the policy against discussing wages and benefits is a violation of the law protecting union organizing activity.
Handicap vs NLRBThis is the precedent where the NLRB holds that discussion of wages is a protected activity under the NLRA.
Where Does NLRA Apply? - Compensation Today
Such policies were specifically outlawed in Colorado
Employers who have workplace rules that prohibit employees from discussing the terms and conditions of employment with other employees or that require management?s approval before employees may engage in protected concerted activity will violate Section 7. However, the NLRB has approved employer policies that broadly prohibit disclosure of private information about the employer?s business. A policy is acceptable if employees can reasonably understand from the wording of the policy that it is designed to protect the employer?s legitimate interest in maintaining the confidentiality of its private business information, rather than to prohibit discussion of wages or working conditions, or require pre-approval from management to engage in protected concerted activity. Even very broadly worded confidentiality policies such as: ?Company business and documents are confidential. Disclosure of such information is prohibited,? have been held to be lawful.
On the other hand, overly broad confidentiality policies have been found unlawful.
Source
