Each time someone crosses the threshold into a new job, they carry with them not just their skills and ambitions, but the weight of what they were once paid — a figure that can quietly determine what they will be paid next. In the United Kingdom, employers may ask candidates to reveal their current salary, but no law compels anyone to answer, a fact that remains poorly understood and sits at the heart of a wider reckoning with how pay inequality is inherited and perpetuated. While the EU moves to ban salary history questions outright, Britain is charting a different course — one that bets on t
You don't have to reveal your salary in a UK job interview
You don't have to answer—but knowing your worth helps
Mark
So if an employer asks me what I'm earning now, I can just say no?
Mimi
Exactly. There's no legal obligation in the UK to answer. You can decline, or you can redirect to what you expect to earn in the new role instead.
Luke
But will declining hurt you? The source doesn't really address what happens if you refuse—does the employer get annoyed, does it count against you?
Mark
Why is the EU banning the question outright while the UK isn't?
Mimi
The Fawcett Society and others argued that asking about salary history locks in old pay gaps—if you were underpaid before because of discrimination, you stay underpaid. The EU decided to ban it. The UK is taking a different approach, focusing on transparency in job ads instead.
Luke
That's a meaningful difference. The EU ban is preventive; the UK approach assumes transparency in advertising will solve the problem. We don't know yet which works better.
Mark
What if I do lie and say I'm earning more than I actually am?
Mimi
The source warns the risks outweigh the reward. You could be caught, and that damages your credibility before you even start.
Luke
But again, the source doesn't spell out what those risks actually are. Could they rescind an offer? Fire you later? That matters to someone deciding whether to lie.
Mark
So what's the smart move?
Mimi
Do your homework. Know the market rate for your role. Go in knowing what you're worth based on your skills and experience, not on what you earned before. Then you can answer confidently, whether you choose to disclose or not.
Luke
That assumes you have time and access to good salary data, which not everyone does. And it assumes the interviewer will respect that framing. The source is optimistic about what preparation can do.
Il Polso
- A question as routine as 'What are you earning now?' carries the power to anchor a person's future pay to the inequities of their past.
- The #EndSalaryHistory campaign has exposed how basing new offers on old salaries quietly locks in pay gaps rooted in gender, race, and disability discrimination.
- The EU is moving decisively, preparing to ban salary history questions across the bloc, while the UK opts instead for requiring published salary ranges in job adverts.
- Candidates who don't know they can simply decline to answer remain at a disadvantage — silence, redirection, or a statement of market expectations are all legitimate choices.
- Recruitment experts argue the strongest negotiating position belongs to those who arrive knowing their market value and can make the conversation about skills rather than history.
Each time someone crosses the threshold into a new job, they carry with them not just their skills and ambitions, but the weight of what they were once paid — a figure that can quietly determine what they will be paid next. In the United Kingdom, employers may ask candidates to reveal their current salary, but no law compels anyone to answer, a fact that remains poorly understood and sits at the heart of a wider reckoning with how pay inequality is inherited and perpetuated. While the EU moves to ban salary history questions outright, Britain is charting a different course — one that bets on transparency in job postings rather than restrictions on what can be asked in the room.
You walk into the interview room and the question arrives: what are you earning now? In the UK, employers are legally entitled to ask — but you are under no obligation to answer. That distinction, little understood, sits at the centre of a growing debate about how pay is set when people change jobs.
Acas senior adviser Louise Rudd confirms there are no regulations preventing employers from posing the question, though discrimination law still governs what they can do with the answers. What remains largely unregulated is money itself. Rudd notes that employers who do ask should put the same question to every candidate in the interest of fairness.
The #EndSalaryHistory campaign has challenged the practice on deeper grounds. Backed by the Fawcett Society and the Recruitment and Employment Confederation, it argues that anchoring new offers to previous earnings perpetuates the pay gaps born of gender, race, and disability discrimination — locking old inequities into new contracts.
The EU has responded with binding rules prohibiting salary history questions altogether. The UK has chosen a different instrument: rather than restricting what employers can ask, Cabinet Office plans would require salary ranges to be published in job advertisements, shifting the terms of the conversation before it begins.
For candidates facing the question today, the options are real. Disclosure is a choice, not a duty. Some consider inflating the figure, though the risks of dishonesty in an interview tend to outweigh any short-term advantage. Rudd suggests stating salary expectations or citing market rates as alternatives. Recruitment advisers go further, encouraging candidates to redirect the conversation toward skills and experience — the grounds on which pay ought to be decided. Those who arrive having researched what the role is worth in the market, and who can articulate what they bring to it, stand in the strongest position to be valued for where they are going rather than where they have been.
You walk into the interview room, palms slightly damp, answers rehearsed. The interviewer settles into their chair and asks the question you've been dreading: What are you earning now?
In the UK, employers have every legal right to ask. But you don't have to answer. That simple fact—that you can decline to disclose your salary—is not widely understood, and it sits at the center of a broader debate about how pay gets decided when someone moves jobs.
According to Louise Rudd, a senior adviser at Acas, the workplace advice and conciliation service, there are no regulations preventing employers from asking about current salary or salary expectations. The law does restrict what employers can ask in other ways: they cannot discriminate based on age, disability, gender reassignment, marriage, pregnancy, race, religion, sex, or sexual orientation. But money remains largely unregulated territory. If an employer does ask, Rudd notes, they should pose the same question to every candidate to ensure fair treatment.
Yet a movement has been building against the practice. Several years ago, the #EndSalaryHistory campaign took shape, urging employers to stop asking recruits what they earned previously. The Fawcett Society, which advocates for women and gender equality, argued that the question perpetuates historical pay gaps rooted in gender, race, and disability discrimination. When employers base new offers on what someone earned before rather than on their skills, experience, and performance, they lock in old inequities. The Recruitment and Employment Confederation backed the push, encouraging recruiters to abandon the practice altogether.
The EU has moved to make this binding. New rules rolling out across the bloc will prohibit employers from asking about salary history. The UK has taken a different path. Rather than banning the question, Cabinet Office plans focus on requiring employers to publish salary ranges in job advertisements—a transparency measure aimed at shifting the conversation before it starts.
If you find yourself asked, you have options. You can disclose your current salary if you choose. Some people interviewed by BBC News suggested they might inflate the figure to secure a higher offer in the new role, but that strategy carries real risk. Lying in an interview can have consequences that far outweigh any short-term gain. There is no legal requirement to answer at all. Rudd suggests some candidates prefer to state their salary expectations instead, or to outline what they understand the market rate for the role to be.
Recruitment firms often advise candidates to redirect the conversation toward their skills and experience—the actual basis on which they should be valued and paid. Shazia Ejaz, director of campaigns at the Recruitment and Employment Confederation, frames it as a matter of preparation and confidence. Jobseekers who have researched market rates for their role and can articulate the value they bring are in the strongest negotiating position. The goal is to shift the measure of your worth from where you've been paid to what you're actually worth.
Citazioni salienti
Employers should ask each applicant the same questions to ensure they are treated fairly— Louise Rudd, senior adviser at Acas
Jobseekers who have done their homework on salaries and can explain the contribution they will make are in the strongest position to secure the right package— Shazia Ejaz, director of campaigns at the Recruitment and Employment Confederation
Vuoi la storia completa?
Leggi l'originale su BBC News ↗