How would you recommend handling negotiations with an employer that asks for W2's to justify a salary range that is commensurate with my current income?  I'm anticipating an offer that is more than my current salary but don't want to tip my hand and have them offer less based on my current situation.  Is it legal for them to ask?  Thoughts on how best to handle?

Thanks

Everybody and his brother makes way more out of this sort of request than it deserves.  Most, not all, but most employers are simply verifying that you're telling the truth about your most recent salary, just as they would verify a degree claimed.  There are several valid reasons to verify salary - not the least of which is most employer's general reluctance to hire liars.  Most employers have budgeted salary ranges for the positions they want to fill.  The salary you'll initially be offered will be a reflection, in most cases, of how well they think your qualifications for the job match the requirements of the job - not how much you were being paid in your last job.  Providing salary information isn't giving away a negotiating tool, most of the time it's simply to make sure you've told the truth on your application - just like anything else that's on a job application - that's why companies do background checks.  Your position should be to make it clear that you're anticipating an increase in compensation.  Otherwise why bother looking for a better job?  I think you can confirm that your salary was $X, but make it clear that your anticipated salary is negotiable within the $Y to $Z range, (Y and Z should be at least 10% and 15% more than you're earning now).  Yes, it's legal for them to ask for a copy of your last pay stub or a W-2.  Obviously, you don't have to give either to them, but they don't have to hire you, either.  The best thing to do is provide the information that's been requested, assuming your want the job.

Paul W. Barada

The Negotiation Expert

Basically the company is looking for your OK to lowball you.  It's sleazy, but a company can ask you just about anything - wether you'd like to provide it is up to you.

Wouldn't it be better if companies and their recruiters would be honest and upfront about salaries rather than play this-for-that games.

There is another reason why employers don't always list the budgeted range for the job they want to fill.  What anticipated salary range do you think every applicant will put down if they know the employer's budgeted range is, let's say, between $50K to $60K?  Think most of them will put down an amount within that range?  That would defeat the purpose of screening out people who are earning more than $60K who probably won't be interested in taking a pay cut.  But it also enables people who aren't qualified for the job at all to stay in the running by putting down an anticipated salary within the budgeted range.  Suppose somebody who's earning $30K per year applies for the job, what anticipated range do you think they'll list?  Thank it might be in the $50K to $60K range when, in fact, they're not qualified for the job in any respect?  Publishing the budgeted range, in most cases, will defeat the purpose of reducing the pile of job applications to candidates to a more manageable size and eliminating a lot of people who simply aren't qualified for the job - it's not a foolproof system, but that's why lots of employers don't publish their budgeted range for a particular job.

Paul W. Barada

The Negotiation Expert

makes sense....This is a very senior level position and I'm tempted to tell them that I either meet the requirements, qualify for the position and the best candidate for the position or I'm not.  If I am, then make me an offer that reflects the responsibilities that come with the position and within the budgeted peramters for the job, period.  If they've done their diligence, multiple interviews, checked references, background checks, etc. and I'm still their #1 choice, my current income should be irrelevant.... They've already asked what I'm making now and I've provided a very general description of my current plan so I don't see much reason to provide them with specifics...but that could be extremely short sided on my part.....

It's a two way street - employers get far fewer qualified applicants by NOT publishing  the range - there's no point to go through all the applications and interviews when the pay is below par.  If the employers would just be upfront (and honest) about the salary ......

I think the key phrase if "qualified applicants."  The idea is to eliminate people who are unqualified earning $30K a year or less who, if they know the budgeted range, will submit their applications stating that their anticipated salary is in the published $50K to $60K range.  All that does is create more headaches for the prospective employer weeding out those people.  Despite your contentions to the contrary, not every employer is trying to hire people for nickles and dimes.  Most employers realize that qualified talent costs money and try to budget salaries that will attract capable people with attractive salary and benefit packages.  A highly qualified candidate isn't going to take a job for a pittance when other employers are offering attractive salaries and good benefit packages anyway.  The fundamental idea here is to use previous salary to screen out people who are earning far more than the employer's budgeted range and people who aren't qualified for the requirements of the job who are attempting to make the big jump from a low pay job to a job for which they're probably not qualified.  Screening people out from the low side and the high side of the employer's budgeted range just saves everybody a lot of time and trouble.  What's so horrible about that?

Paul W. Barada

The Negotiation Expert

Despite your contentions to the contrary, not every employer is trying to hire people for nickles and dimes.

A company won't think twice about paying a headheader $20K - $30K per person that get's brought on, but they'll start negotations from someone wanting $60K/yr on a contract paying $300K+/yr.

Most employers realize that qualified talent costs money...

Very few employers realize that qualified talent costs money...  I fixed that for you. 

The fundamental idea here is to use previous salary to screen out people who are earning far more than the employer's budgeted range

If employers would post the information they'd have less applicants to start with.  What's so hard about that.  I'm sure that a plumber has no experiece with Mega or System Architect, thus won't go after a $120K/yr job.

and people who aren't qualified for the requirements of the job who are attempting to make the big jump from a low pay job to a job for which they're probably not qualified.

You making a "qualification" for the next job what someone's current salary is rather than focusing on experience and potential?  That's type of reasoning is really part of the problem. 

On your third point, I'm merely saying that's one of the factors some employers consider, certainly not the only factor, but it is one some employers do consider - an upward path in both responsibilities and commensurate compensation.  They usually go hand in hand.  On the other points, you certainly are entitled to your opinion.  But just out of curiosity, how do you know that "very few employers realize that qualified talent costs money?"  Have you done a study, what statistical data do you have to support that contention - or is it just your opinion?

Paul W. Barada

The Negotiation Expert

But just out of curiosity, how do you know that "very few employers realize that qualified talent costs money?"

I worked with dozens of recuiters and the supporting management throughout the years.  I'm familiar with the sleazy tactics that are used.

You are of course welcome to your opinion of what an employers intent might be.