Prospective employer ask for W2

[swasat]

How many of you have been asked for a copy of your W2 by a prospective employer when anticipating an offer from a company?

I have never been asked for one. I didn't even know the practice existed. 

A friend has been interviewing and recently got a verbal acceptance from a Fortune 100 company. But before they make her a formal offer they want a copy of her W2. She believes (and I do too) thats its a huge invasion of privacy and its none of their damn business! She asked for a fair salary, its in accordance with what she makes now and whats standard for the industry and her role/experience level. 

I say they just want to lowball her offer thats why they want proof of what she makes now. She politely declined their request.

So I am curious. It doesn't seem to be a very common practice.A quick google search says its more common in sales and marketing areas due to the commission based model. How many here have experienced this?

[justme]

I haven't and I wouldn't give it.

[NomoreDramaQ1015]

I've never been asked to provide a W2.   I wouldn't give it to them either.  

[raeoflyte]

I can see it in sales, especially if they're offering a draw to start out.  

Non-sales/commission I wouldn't.  My W2 income is a heck of a lot lower than my actual pay!  

[bean29]

Just to clarify Did they ask for a W-2 or a W-9? a W-9 would make sense.

I agree that a W-2 or 1099 for commission income verification would make sense for a sales job.

[swasat]

Mar 1, 2017 11:46:03 GMT -5 bean29 said:

Just to clarify Did they ask for a W-2 or a W-9? a W-9 would make sense.

I agree that a W-2 or 1099 for commission income verification would make sense for a sales job.

W2. 

Its none of their damn business! I am pretty sure they are trying to low ball her on an offer (which might not be forthcoming now that she refused them the W2). She gave them an acceptable range earlier on. So its not like they didn't know what her expectations are before they interviewed her. 

[raeoflyte]

I think you're right and that is one reason I would fully support this kind of bill: www.payscale.com/career-news/2016/09/asking-salary-history-soon-illegal-50-states

[Deleted]

Oooh, that's a sore point with me.

In late 2001 I was with a small, struggling consulting firm and needed to find something more stable.  Our compensation had gone form salary to 85% of what we billed and collected, subject to a min of $1,500/month (my mortgage was more than that) and a max that was less than my previous monthly salary.

So- I interviewed at a major insurance brokerage in NYC.  We discussed the salary range and it met my expectations.  The HR interview was a little unusual- first I had to sign a piece of paper agreeing that if I lied about my current salary and they hired me and found out about it later, they could fire me.  Then the HR lady asked me what I made.  I told her what I just related in the paragraph above, but gave her the actual max.  She asked what I would make in that year.  It was October so I couldn't tell her, of course.  She asked me what amount would be on my W-2 for that year.  I explained that, given the parameters of my compensation, I couldn't say yet.  Any estimate I made would have had a 99.99% chance of being wrong and thus, a reason to fire me if they brought me on board.
 
The interviews with everyone else went very well.  The Managing Director told the HR lady, in my presence, that they wanted me to come back for a second round of interviews.  When the recruiter followed up, they'd changed their minds.  I'm convinced that the HR lady killed it.

I'd be 100% behind any law prohibiting requirements that you divulge your current compensation.  It really penalizes those who are underpaid in their current job, and that includes just about anyone (like me) with poor negotiating skills.

[Pants]

Mar 1, 2017 11:55:26 GMT -5 swasat said:

Mar 1, 2017 11:46:03 GMT -5 bean29 said:

Just to clarify Did they ask for a W-2 or a W-9? a W-9 would make sense.

I agree that a W-2 or 1099 for commission income verification would make sense for a sales job.

W2. 

Its none of their damn business! I am pretty sure they are trying to low ball her on an offer (which might not be forthcoming now that she refused them the W2). She gave them an acceptable range earlier on. So its not like they didn't know what her expectations are before they interviewed her. 

Yes. Unless they are trying to steal her identity, they are trying to us her W2 as a way to get her down on salary. I'm not sure I'd want to work for a company that works like that, honestly. They are telling you up front that they don't value you a whole lot. 

[MJ2.0]

I have filled out some applications and gone through some phone interviews where they asked me about my salary and expectations. I always bump it up a little. If I HAVE to tell them my salary info, why aren't they required to post a damn salary range?

[tskeeter]

Forbes columnist and HR expert, Liz Ryan, regularly writes about employers and head hunters asking for compensation information.  The main reason to do this is to see how little they might be able to get away with paying you.  Some justify the request as away to confirm that you're as good as you say you are.  Hells bells, the employer is doing the interview and know the job requiremints.  Their job during the interview is to assess how well you fit their requirements.  They shouldn't be looking to your current employer to do their work for them.  And, if you were being paid appropriately, you probably wouldn't be looking for a new job.

Your current pay isn't relevant to your job search.  The only thing that is relevant is your target compensation for the job requirements of the new job.

As Liz often says, if they will strong arm you for compensation information while they are trying to recruit you, what kinds of things will they strong arm you about once you are an employee?  Right now, they are treating you as well as they will ever treat you.

unless you are really, really, really desperate for a job, in your position, I would tell them, "my target compensation is X.  If that information doesn't meet your needs, it appears we are not a good fit." and walk away.

[movingforward]

I have never had a prospective employer ask for my W-2 and I am not sure I would want to work for one that made it a requirement. 

[emma1420]

I've never been asked for a W-2.

I did get asked on an application what the lowest salary i would accept, which was directly below the salary expectations question.  I always thought that was stupid.

[TheOtherMe]

Never been asked for a W-2 and would never give it to anyone.

Wouldn't complete the W-9 until hired.  They don't need my SSN until there is an offer and they need to do a background check, etc.

[Miss Tequila]

I have never heard of a prospective employer asking for a W-2. Granted, I have only had two jobs since college but I cant' believe this is common practice. What I am making now is no indication of what a different job is worth in the market place.

[swasat]

Well...surprise! They did get back to her despite her refusing to give them her W2.    So all's not lost yet.

I don't know the details of the offer, neither am I interested in knowing. She is still considering and interested because its in another city and she is very interested in moving there. So maybe overall relocation package will work out in her favor.

It does bring to light the games companies and HR play to fleece the candidates.

[hoops902]

Mar 2, 2017 11:15:44 GMT -5 swasat said:

Well...surprise! They did get back to her despite her refusing to give them her W2.    So all's not lost yet.

I don't know the details of the offer, neither am I interested in knowing. She is still considering and interested because its in another city and she is very interested in moving there. So maybe overall relocation package will work out in her favor.

It does bring to light the games companies and HR play to fleece the candidates.

I'm not sure this is so much about "fleecing" candidates as much as it might be about trying to verify information. People "enhance" their qualifications on resumes all the time. If you've listed qualifications/titles on a resume that should have had you making $80k/year...and you say you're making $80k/year, and you're really making $20k/year...you probably aren't a good fit or anywhere near qualified for the job. The problem is that it's VERY difficult to know if you're qualified before you're hired since former employers are almost completely silent on quality of former/current employees. Your current pay/benefits is the best indisputable fact of your potential value. 

Does your friend think she's getting a "relocation package" from the potential employer? Those aren't common these days (unless they've already mentioned they do that obviously). 

[swasat]

Mar 2, 2017 11:42:57 GMT -5 hoops902 said:

Mar 2, 2017 11:15:44 GMT -5 swasat said:

Well...surprise! They did get back to her despite her refusing to give them her W2.    So all's not lost yet.

I don't know the details of the offer, neither am I interested in knowing. She is still considering and interested because its in another city and she is very interested in moving there. So maybe overall relocation package will work out in her favor.

It does bring to light the games companies and HR play to fleece the candidates.

I'm not sure this is so much about "fleecing" candidates as much as it might be about trying to verify information. People "enhance" their qualifications on resumes all the time. If you've listed qualifications/titles on a resume that should have had you making $80k/year...and you say you're making $80k/year, and you're really making $20k/year...you probably aren't a good fit or anywhere near qualified for the job. The problem is that it's VERY difficult to know if you're qualified before you're hired since former employers are almost completely silent on quality of former/current employees. Your current pay/benefits is the best indisputable fact of your potential value. 

Does your friend think she's getting a "relocation package" from the potential employer? Those aren't common these days (unless they've already mentioned they do that obviously). 

All of that can be verified by calling previous employers (except the actual salary part). Your roles, progression through the ladder, job responsibilities, term of employment etc is all information that is easily obtainable from previous employers. Beyond that its on the HR to figure out how much a certain role makes in the market. One doesn't need a W2 for that! If someone says they are a software developer with 5 years of experience and working in Podunk USA making $200K a year, I'd call it bull crap! But if he says he makes $80K, thats quite possible IMO. 
So flagrant enhancement is easy enough to notice.

But its very hard to figure out if the candidate is making $100K instead of the $120K he says he makes as a Sr Developer. Is that that much of an enhancement? Maybe...may be not. Then it all boils down to whether this person would be a good "fit" for the role or not.  

As far as quality of the employee...meh...its a gamble anyways. Thats why there are multiple levels of interviews and various vetting mechanisms. And despite all the screening it still turns out to be a bad hire sometimes. But so is the cost of doing business. 

[hoops902]

Mar 2, 2017 11:54:39 GMT -5 swasat said:

Mar 2, 2017 11:42:57 GMT -5 hoops902 said:

I'm not sure this is so much about "fleecing" candidates as much as it might be about trying to verify information. People "enhance" their qualifications on resumes all the time. If you've listed qualifications/titles on a resume that should have had you making $80k/year...and you say you're making $80k/year, and you're really making $20k/year...you probably aren't a good fit or anywhere near qualified for the job. The problem is that it's VERY difficult to know if you're qualified before you're hired since former employers are almost completely silent on quality of former/current employees. Your current pay/benefits is the best indisputable fact of your potential value. 

Does your friend think she's getting a "relocation package" from the potential employer? Those aren't common these days (unless they've already mentioned they do that obviously). 

All of that can be verified by calling previous employers (except the actual salary part). Your roles, progression through the ladder, job responsibilities, term of employment etc is all information that is easily obtainable from previous employers. Beyond that its on the HR to figure out how much a certain role makes in the market. One doesn't need a W2 for that! If someone says they are a software developer with 5 years of experience and working in Podunk USA making $200K a year, I'd call it bull crap! But if he says he makes $80K, thats quite possible IMO. 
So flagrant enhancement is easy enough to notice.

But its very hard to figure out if the candidate is making $100K instead of the $120K he says he makes as a Sr Developer. Is that that much of an enhancement? Maybe...may be not. Then it all boils down to whether this person would be a good "fit" for the role or not.  

As far as quality of the employee...meh...its a gamble anyways. Thats why there are multiple levels of interviews and various vetting mechanisms. And despite all the screening it still turns out to be a bad hire sometimes. But so is the cost of doing business. 

Totally disagree that you can verify that from the employer.  You can verify their job title sometimes...but we've had the discussion on this board before...what's your job title and what do you actually do?  Right now I could put my job title down, and I could write my qualifications to be anything from software engineer to stock market specialist to HR management to the guy who sits in a cubicle and does basic data entry all day long and you'd have no way to refute any of those claims.  You're not going to pick out from my official title, so pretty much anything I write will seem reasonable and possible...and all my company is going to verify are dates of employment (they actually won't even tell you the title, only that I work here and for how long).

I hire people occasionally, I have yet to meet a company that would list off someone's job responsibilities or progression through the company.  The MOST I've ever gotten is most recent job title and term of employment (because let's be honest, HR has no idea what someone's job responsibilities are in most cases and these things go right to HR in companies of a decent size).

I think it has less to do with fleecing candidates, and a whole lot more to do with not getting fleeced as the company.  If you've told the truth, then all the W-2 does is confirm what you've already told them (I don't think it's any of their business personally, but you can't really get fleeced as the candidate, if they offer you less than you're willing to take, then don't take the job.  The fleecing on either side is really about whether the job/candidate is as-advertised, not the pay.  The pay is either agreeable or it isn't to both sides.).  I think the "none of your business" piece really hinges around ever disclosing current pay.  A W-2 after you've been asked and answered about current pay is really just a truth-check...if you're going to disclose your current pay, I don't see any reason to have a problem with showing your W-2 as well.

[emma1420]

Mar 2, 2017 12:06:25 GMT -5 hoops902 said:

Mar 2, 2017 11:54:39 GMT -5 swasat said:

All of that can be verified by calling previous employers (except the actual salary part). Your roles, progression through the ladder, job responsibilities, term of employment etc is all information that is easily obtainable from previous employers. Beyond that its on the HR to figure out how much a certain role makes in the market. One doesn't need a W2 for that! If someone says they are a software developer with 5 years of experience and working in Podunk USA making $200K a year, I'd call it bull crap! But if he says he makes $80K, thats quite possible IMO. 
So flagrant enhancement is easy enough to notice.

But its very hard to figure out if the candidate is making $100K instead of the $120K he says he makes as a Sr Developer. Is that that much of an enhancement? Maybe...may be not. Then it all boils down to whether this person would be a good "fit" for the role or not.  

As far as quality of the employee...meh...its a gamble anyways. Thats why there are multiple levels of interviews and various vetting mechanisms. And despite all the screening it still turns out to be a bad hire sometimes. But so is the cost of doing business. 

Totally disagree that you can verify that from the employer.  You can verify their job title sometimes...but we've had the discussion on this board before...what's your job title and what do you actually do?  Right now I could put my job title down, and I could write my qualifications to be anything from software engineer to stock market specialist to HR management to the guy who sits in a cubicle and does basic data entry all day long and you'd have no way to refute any of those claims.  You're not going to pick out from my official title, so pretty much anything I write will seem reasonable and possible...and all my company is going to verify are dates of employment (they actually won't even tell you the title, only that I work here and for how long).

I hire people occasionally, I have yet to meet a company that would list off someone's job responsibilities or progression through the company.  The MOST I've ever gotten is most recent job title and term of employment (because let's be honest, HR has no idea what someone's job responsibilities are in most cases and these things go right to HR in companies of a decent size).

I think it has less to do with fleecing candidates, and a whole lot more to do with not getting fleeced as the company.  If you've told the truth, then all the W-2 does is confirm what you've already told them (I don't think it's any of their business personally, but you can't really get fleeced as the candidate, if they offer you less than you're willing to take, then don't take the job.  The fleecing on either side is really about whether the job/candidate is as-advertised, not the pay.  The pay is either agreeable or it isn't to both sides.).  I think the "none of your business" piece really hinges around ever disclosing current pay.  A W-2 after you've been asked and answered about current pay is really just a truth-check...if you're going to disclose your current pay, I don't see any reason to have a problem with showing your W-2 as well.

My previous salary should have no relevant to whatever salary a new employer will offer me.  Too often employers are lazy and they don't want to do the research to determine fair market value for a role and so they base an offer from the potential employee's previous salary.  Or they want to low-ball a potential employee.

And to be honest, the interview and reference check process should be able to help an employer determine if the potential employee has the skill set necessary.  Sure, some potential employee's are great bullshitters, but I've found most people can't discuss things competently that they haven't done.  If I claim I've done something then I should be able to explain how I did and any specific information that is pertinent to the thing that I "did".   

However, I also loathe having to provide any sort of salary history to a potential employer.  Because it is not relevant.   I am happy to provide salary expectations.   But, I 've worked more than one job where I was underpaid for the work I was doing and if an employer had assumed that my salary was reflective of my responsibilities then I would have never moved up.

[MJ2.0]

Mar 2, 2017 12:42:18 GMT -5 emma1420 said:

Mar 2, 2017 12:06:25 GMT -5 hoops902 said:

Totally disagree that you can verify that from the employer.  You can verify their job title sometimes...but we've had the discussion on this board before...what's your job title and what do you actually do?  Right now I could put my job title down, and I could write my qualifications to be anything from software engineer to stock market specialist to HR management to the guy who sits in a cubicle and does basic data entry all day long and you'd have no way to refute any of those claims.  You're not going to pick out from my official title, so pretty much anything I write will seem reasonable and possible...and all my company is going to verify are dates of employment (they actually won't even tell you the title, only that I work here and for how long).

I hire people occasionally, I have yet to meet a company that would list off someone's job responsibilities or progression through the company.  The MOST I've ever gotten is most recent job title and term of employment (because let's be honest, HR has no idea what someone's job responsibilities are in most cases and these things go right to HR in companies of a decent size).

I think it has less to do with fleecing candidates, and a whole lot more to do with not getting fleeced as the company.  If you've told the truth, then all the W-2 does is confirm what you've already told them (I don't think it's any of their business personally, but you can't really get fleeced as the candidate, if they offer you less than you're willing to take, then don't take the job.  The fleecing on either side is really about whether the job/candidate is as-advertised, not the pay.  The pay is either agreeable or it isn't to both sides.).  I think the "none of your business" piece really hinges around ever disclosing current pay.  A W-2 after you've been asked and answered about current pay is really just a truth-check...if you're going to disclose your current pay, I don't see any reason to have a problem with showing your W-2 as well.

My previous salary should have no relevant to whatever salary a new employer will offer me.  Too often employers are lazy and they don't want to do the research to determine fair market value for a role and so they base an offer from the potential employee's previous salary.  Or they want to low-ball a potential employee.

And to be honest, the interview and reference check process should be able to help an employer determine if the potential employee has the skill set necessary.  Sure, some potential employee's are great bullshitters, but I've found most people can't discuss things competently that they haven't done.  If I claim I've done something then I should be able to explain how I did and any specific information that is pertinent to the thing that I "did".   

However, I also loathe having to provide any sort of salary history to a potential employer.  Because it is not relevant.   I am happy to provide salary expectations.   But, I 've worked more than one job where I was underpaid for the work I was doing and if an employer had assumed that my salary was reflective of my responsibilities then I would have never moved up.

That's exactly it. It keeps underpaid workers underpaid.

[raeoflyte]

Mar 2, 2017 12:51:05 GMT -5 MJ2.0 said:

Mar 2, 2017 12:42:18 GMT -5 emma1420 said:

My previous salary should have no relevant to whatever salary a new employer will offer me.  Too often employers are lazy and they don't want to do the research to determine fair market value for a role and so they base an offer from the potential employee's previous salary.  Or they want to low-ball a potential employee.

And to be honest, the interview and reference check process should be able to help an employer determine if the potential employee has the skill set necessary.  Sure, some potential employee's are great bullshitters, but I've found most people can't discuss things competently that they haven't done.  If I claim I've done something then I should be able to explain how I did and any specific information that is pertinent to the thing that I "did".   

However, I also loathe having to provide any sort of salary history to a potential employer.  Because it is not relevant.   I am happy to provide salary expectations.   But, I 've worked more than one job where I was underpaid for the work I was doing and if an employer had assumed that my salary was reflective of my responsibilities then I would have never moved up.

That's exactly it. It keeps underpaid workers underpaid.

And according to Hoops own post, they aren't worth promoting.  Because employers are always on top of wage surveys and evaluating comp to performance.  Obviously if they were capable of doing the work on their resume, they should already be making the money they're trying to get in a move.  

[NomoreDramaQ1015]

Bullshit that a W-2 reveals what you are "really worth".   I accept an artificially lowered salary in exchange for non-salary benefits.  My total compensation package is close to $55k.   Any raises I recieve are determined by the state not by merit or experience, which at it's highest was 3% but is usually 0-1%. 

My W-2 does not show the non-salary perks I get in exchange for a lower salary.   

I thought the whole point of having to go thru an interview was to be able to demonstrate you can back up what is on your resume by talking the talk.

If all they need is my W-2 to verify if I am qualified for the job then why do I have to put on a dog and pony show for every prospective employer?

[hoops902]

Mar 2, 2017 12:55:43 GMT -5 raeoflyte said:

Mar 2, 2017 12:51:05 GMT -5 MJ2.0 said:

That's exactly it. It keeps underpaid workers underpaid.

And according to Hoops own post, they aren't worth promoting.  Because employers are always on top of wage surveys and evaluating comp to performance.  Obviously if they were capable of doing the work on their resume, they should already be making the money they're trying to get in a move.  

Actually if you read my post, it said that someone who CLAIMS they are making the money they are trying to get in a move, when they're really making 25% of that...probably isn't a good candidate for a position. If you're trying to jump up 300%, there's something most likely fishy, or a very long story about life in there somewhere. What I actually said was that the current salary is the only indisputable fact to determine value, it's not indisputable value, it's the indisputable fact.

I made no claims that they shouldn't get a pay increase...but you've gotta explain why you're worth it at that point (just like you've gotta explain to me why you have that 8 year gap in employment).  Like I said, I'm all for telling employers that my current salary is none of their business...but once you tell them there's no real issue with showing the W-2 as proof.  I think the concern is misplaced...it's not about showing a W-2, it's about including wage information at all. 

There's a difference between "not worth promoting" and "not worth promoting based on the lying about their current role and pay".   

[hoops902]

Mar 2, 2017 12:59:53 GMT -5 NomoreDramaQ1015 said:

Bullshit that a W-2 reveals what you are "really worth".   I accept an artificially lowered salary in exchange for non-salary benefits.  My total compensation package is close to $55k.   Any raises I recieve are determined by the state not by merit or experience, which at it's highest was 3% but is usually 0-1%. 

My W-2 does not show the non-salary perks I get in exchange for a lower salary.   

I thought the whole point of having to go thru an interview was to be able to demonstrate you can back up what is on your resume by talking the talk.

If all they need is my W-2 to verify if I am qualified for the job then why do I have to put on a dog and pony show for every prospective employer?

Has literally anyone said that a W-2 shows what you're really worth?

If you're making $20k now, and you're asking for $60k in your new job...I don't think there's anything wrong with wanting to have you explain why you're worth such a big jump. That's what a salary negotiation is. That's precisely the time you say "I had these perks that you aren't offering which was a huge benefit at that employer".

[NomoreDramaQ1015]

.I don't think there's anything wrong with wanting to have you explain why you're worth such a big jump. That's what a salary negotiation is. That's precisely the time you say "I had these perks that you aren't offering which was a huge benefit at that employer".

Then we're back to why does the prospective employer need my W2?   That doesn't verify anything I say about non-salary benefits.   That doesn't verify that I am actually underpaid for my current role and job duties.

If I have to prove myself in an interview and then have to prove myself again to negociate my salary then what purpose out of trying to stack the cards in their favor does providing my W2 to a prospective employer serve?

Either I've proven I can talk the talk in the interview or I haven't.  There is nothing my W2 can do to prove that the previous salary I've disclosed, if required, is accurate.

[hoops902]

Mar 2, 2017 13:24:22 GMT -5 NomoreDramaQ1015 said:

.I don't think there's anything wrong with wanting to have you explain why you're worth such a big jump. That's what a salary negotiation is. That's precisely the time you say "I had these perks that you aren't offering which was a huge benefit at that employer".

Then we're back to why does the prospective employer need my W2?   That doesn't verify anything I say about non-salary benefits.   That doesn't verify that I am actually underpaid for my current role and job duties.

If I have to prove myself in an interview and then have to prove myself again to negociate my salary then what purpose out of trying to stack the cards in their favor does providing my W2 to a prospective employer serve?

Either I've proven I can talk the talk in the interview or I haven't.  There is nothing my W2 can do to prove that the previous salary I've disclosed, if required, is accurate.

Sure it does. If you list your salary, your W-2 absolutely proves that. It doesn't contain your complete benefits package, it absolutely verifies your salary though. Hence my point that providing the W-2 is no big deal if you've already chosen to disclose your salary to your potential employer. The question isn't why the employer needs the W-2, it's why they need your salary in the first place.  If you're ok disclosing your salary, there's zero harm in showing your W-2, unless you lied about your salary when you disclosed it.

ETA: And yes, you absolutely have to prove yourself again. Interview you are proving you can handle doing the job. Salary negotiation you are proving what pay you deserve to do the job you convinced them you can handle (or more realistically, how much it will actually cost them to get you to do that job...what you're worth in some theoretical way is almost completely irrelevant).

[raeoflyte]

Mar 2, 2017 13:29:16 GMT -5 hoops902 said:

Mar 2, 2017 13:24:22 GMT -5 NomoreDramaQ1015 said:

.I don't think there's anything wrong with wanting to have you explain why you're worth such a big jump. That's what a salary negotiation is. That's precisely the time you say "I had these perks that you aren't offering which was a huge benefit at that employer".

Then we're back to why does the prospective employer need my W2?   That doesn't verify anything I say about non-salary benefits.   That doesn't verify that I am actually underpaid for my current role and job duties.

If I have to prove myself in an interview and then have to prove myself again to negociate my salary then what purpose out of trying to stack the cards in their favor does providing my W2 to a prospective employer serve?

Either I've proven I can talk the talk in the interview or I haven't.  There is nothing my W2 can do to prove that the previous salary I've disclosed, if required, is accurate.

Sure it does. If you list your salary, your W-2 absolutely proves that. It doesn't contain your complete benefits package, it absolutely verifies your salary though. Hence my point that providing the W-2 is no big deal if you've already chosen to disclose your salary to your potential employer. The question isn't why the employer needs the W-2, it's why they need your salary in the first place.  If you're ok disclosing your salary, there's zero harm in showing your W-2, unless you lied about your salary when you disclosed it.

W2's don't disclose salary.  Between insurance, 401k, and HSA my W2 is about 25k lower than salary--and I don't max my 401k. 

[whoisjohngalt]

I have never told the prospective employer my current salary.  Never.  I have always told them that I have $x total compensation package and I will look at their total compensation package. 

When my husband was getting a job out of state, he wanted to ask for $10K more in salary, I told him to ask for 4-day work week instead.  He did and he got it.  It was worth much much more to us than extra $10K.

If his next employer would see his W-2 - that benefit would not be part of it - so the "next" employer would still not be able to accurately evaluate what my husband was making at a previous job

I think asking for W-2 is very......can't think of a word....narrow-minded?

[hoops902]

Mar 2, 2017 13:31:23 GMT -5 raeoflyte said:

Mar 2, 2017 13:29:16 GMT -5 hoops902 said:

Sure it does. If you list your salary, your W-2 absolutely proves that. It doesn't contain your complete benefits package, it absolutely verifies your salary though. Hence my point that providing the W-2 is no big deal if you've already chosen to disclose your salary to your potential employer. The question isn't why the employer needs the W-2, it's why they need your salary in the first place.  If you're ok disclosing your salary, there's zero harm in showing your W-2, unless you lied about your salary when you disclosed it.

W2's don't disclose salary.  Between insurance, 401k, and HSA my W2 is about 25k lower than salary--and I don't max my 401k. 

Your company doesn't put your gross pay on your W-2s?  Most companies do.  It should definitely be showing your pre-tax deductions as well.