My father-in-law was just embezzled by his accountant. It's mostly been spent, so he will get pennies in the dollar back. (I'm not well versed in legal matters...I had no idea crime could be so profitable, even after you get caught.)
It sucks that he got screwed over, but it'll suck more if the next guy has the same experience.
There must be some kinds of questions employers can be permitted to ask to help this?
"Accountant" is perhaps an overstatement. It was a very small business (<10 employees).
The position was combination of secretary, controller, and office manager. The person did payroll, made travel arragements, paid the rent, etc. Previously, the IT admin did some of these; he was the one to notice something was wrong.
They hire a CPA service for the complicated tax stuff.
Looks like this is the fourth state to make this move, so we should have data by now on how well this actually works. Have the numbers shown up anywhere?
It appears that the "intuitive" ways of reducing wage disparity sometimes have counter-intuitive real-world outcomes. And making the difference you want to make sometimes requires a lot more research and study than just the "there should be a law..." sort of armchair economics.
Having not read the specific wording of the law I am
curious, couldn't an employer just fulfill their legal obligation by saying the salary range is 1 to 300k dollars?
No, because it has to be true. All companies have their own scales, and they would probably get sued for not accurately disclosing those. There are also exceptions, which would go outside of the range and invite scrutiny/lawsuits as soon as a minority discovers one single white/Indian male whose salary exceeds the stated target range for "senior engineer".
It's one thing for employers to voluntarily provide a good faith range, which some will, but another when they expose themselves to a gender discrimination lawsuit by being wrong.
Also, everybody is going to insist on max(range).
This law seems to create a lot of legal landmines that I don't think will be beneficial. High earners can volunteer their salary anyway.
18 comments
[ 2.0 ms ] story [ 29.8 ms ] threadMy father-in-law was just embezzled by his accountant. It's mostly been spent, so he will get pennies in the dollar back. (I'm not well versed in legal matters...I had no idea crime could be so profitable, even after you get caught.)
It sucks that he got screwed over, but it'll suck more if the next guy has the same experience.
There must be some kinds of questions employers can be permitted to ask to help this?
The position was combination of secretary, controller, and office manager. The person did payroll, made travel arragements, paid the rent, etc. Previously, the IT admin did some of these; he was the one to notice something was wrong.
They hire a CPA service for the complicated tax stuff.
I am admittedly not well versed in this.
It appears that the "intuitive" ways of reducing wage disparity sometimes have counter-intuitive real-world outcomes. And making the difference you want to make sometimes requires a lot more research and study than just the "there should be a law..." sort of armchair economics.
Now that's going to create one hell of a mess. Someone didn't think that through.
It's one thing for employers to voluntarily provide a good faith range, which some will, but another when they expose themselves to a gender discrimination lawsuit by being wrong.
Also, everybody is going to insist on max(range).
This law seems to create a lot of legal landmines that I don't think will be beneficial. High earners can volunteer their salary anyway.