"Effective October 6, 2017 employers are prohibited from seeking the pay history of an applicant or employee from the applicant or employee or a current or former employer of the applicant or employee before the employer makes an offer of employment to the prospective employee that includes an amount of compensation;"
If someone would throw a hissy fit and set a salary range at which they cannot legally hire anyone because now applicants have a little bit more negotiating power, it's hard to believe they're in a position to do that in the first place, because the new rules will not be anywhere near the biggest annoyance in the hiring process.
This means as an applicant, if you ask for a salary range, you're creating a legal compulsion on them to give you one. This is an act of aggression and immoral. First you should ask if they would have been willing to give a salary range if asked and if it wasn't legally required. Then, only if they say yes, is it moral to ask for the salary range.
If that's an act of aggression and thus immoral, what is it when an online job application form requires you to enter your salary expectation before submitting (outside California)?
I don't exactly see the relationship you may, between being free to disengage from a situation and being (or not being) aggressed against. It seems like you think they are related in a certain way you didn't make explicit. Are they mutually exclusive to you?
And if an employer doesn't want to provide a salary range, they are free not to hire any candidates. The same sauce is equally tasty for both the goose and the gander.
You're just choosing a different set of moral rules. That's OK -- I'm not expecting everybody to have the same I follow. You could just state that outright instead of making a clever twist of words about it.
Levering a set of moral rules inherently leads to immorality. You can do what is right whether or not it is according to the rules, so the only thing that rules enable you to justify that you couldn't otherwise, are the things that are in fact wrong.
I am not a Christian, but the bit about "Ye shall know them by their fruits" I think is genuine wisdom.
AB168, signed Thursday by Gov. Jerry Brown, applies to all public- and private-sector California employers of any size. The goal is to narrow the gender wage gap. If a woman is paid less than a man doing the same job and a new employer bases her pay on her prior salary, gender discrimination can be perpetuated, the bill’s backers say.
Last year, the state passed a weaker law that said prior compensation, by itself, cannot justify any disparity in compensation. The new bill goes further by prohibiting employers, “orally or in writing, personally or through an agent,” from asking about an applicant’s previous pay. However, if the applicant “voluntarily and without prompting” provides this information, the employer may use it “in determining the salary for that applicant.”
Delaware, Massachusetts and Oregon have passed similar laws that take effect later this year or next, said attorney Ben Ebbink of Fisher & Phillips in Sacramento. Philadelphia passed one that was supposed to take effect in May but is being challenged in court. New York City and San Francisco have similar ordinances that take effect Oct. 31 and July 1, respectively.
I would not be against all salaries being public, like with public employees or in some European country that I forget. I've been paid from the high $30s to the low $80s for the exact same responsibilities. It can be a bad thing, in my mind, to be overpaid as well, because someone who is willing to overpay is possibly (a) incompetent, (b) compensating for a bad environment, and/or (c) has unrealistic/impossible expectations. So even if you have been or expect to be overpaid, I think there could be benefits to transparency.
I'm generally skeptical of regulations but in this case I think it's warranted because companies were basically "price fixing" by asking candidates about their previous salary and then matching or nudging up a bit.
This piece of regulation will make the market more efficient, dynamic, and fair too. Companies already have information asymmetry working to their advantage. Asking about salary history only increased that. And that's why it's unfair.
I think thought this change will hurt those who are perform well but not good at negotiating a salary. Maybe they gained a high salary at their previous employer and it used to be a signal of their value. Should we also hide where they graduated from and the name of their previous employer too because a prestigious university or employer will definitely give an advantage.
"The bill would not prohibit an applicant from voluntarily and without prompting disclosing salary history information and would not prohibit an employer from considering or relying on that voluntarily disclosed salary history information in determining salary..."
If you're not good at negotiating a salary, you never had a high salary in the first place. There isn't a single company out there that pays you well out of the good of their heart.
Apply some game theory thinking here: companies will now have to lead with an honest offer -- an offer that correctly values the candidates skills and experience -- because that's their best option. They don't have an anchor and getting it wrong means the candidate walks away.
If anything this will be more fair for those who can't or don't want to negotiate.
The previous salary question was also a penalty for being honest or not in-the-know. All the advice I ever heard about this question was to exaggerate. This creates an undesirable equilibrium where savvy people wink at each other while newcomers miss out.
I've never disclosed this when interviewing with employers, prior to the law. Not past compensation nor desired/expected comp. I don't see how it would be in my interest to disclose.
When recruiters ask, I say "I'd prefer not to disclose that information. Let's focus on figuring out whether there's a good fit, and if we decide that there is, then we can work out the compensation." It's never been an obstacle to the interviewing process, or getting offers at top-tier companies, though some recruiters were fairly insistent in trying to find out.
> The First Rule Is What Everyone Tells You It Is: Never Give A Number First
> Every handbook on negotiation and every blog post will tell you not to give a number first. This advice is almost always right. It is so right, you have to construct crazy hypotheticals to find edge cases where it would not be right.
> When Does A Salary Negotiation Happen?
> Only negotiate salary after you have agreement in principle from someone with hiring authority that, if a mutually acceptable compensation can be agreed upon, you will be hired. [...]
I say: "That's not a relevant number. The two relevant numbers are the number at which I'd be willing to take this job, and the number you're willing to pay to get me."
Because it's designed around a protected group. It's the same reason why asking someone's immigration status or country of birth is illegal. The equal protection clause of the Constitution can trump free speech when they conflict.
Well in anti-harrasment training they definitely tell you not to ask those questions. Search on Google for illegal interview questions and you'll get similar advice (0). Hell, I just saw an HR sign warning that asking for the name of someone's spouse is discouraged because it can be used to discover gender identity and sexual orientation. You can certainly ask these questions in an interview, but you run the risk of being sued.
It's pretty well established that the state has the right to dictate how employers treat employees as well as many aspects of compensation, so I don't see why you'd think this particular rule wouldn't be constitutional.
We learned from the Equifax breach that salary is part of the information collected.
"So, it's illegal to ask? Who cares, that guy's just going to lie anyway. Let's make him give us permission to check his credit report on the job application and get the exact number. Like we always did."
If you want to get rid of equality, shouldn't salaries of positions public? I'm not saying an exact number, but a range. This asymmetric information gives the employer a much larger edge in wage negotiation.
They are secret only to potential employers in the context of salary negotiation, you can still willingly divulge the information
That said, the balance of leverage for a totally fair sistem would make salary range on job listing binding and prohibit public job offer without role and range
Just last month I had to search and present all my W-2s and last paychecks of my previous jobs in order to enter my new job. I cannot think on something more annoying and invasive than that. This regulation must be a national law.
This was many years ago now but I had an acquaintance who fudged his current salary while interviewing and then was caught when his new employer asked for W-2s. Needless to say, he was looking for a new new employer right quick. Because of that I never lied about my salary history again.
It might not have been for pay history, it might have been for employment history. People are considerably less likely to create fraudulent tax documents than faking other types of employment records. Plus it's super easy to check. Although in general, the goal should be to be valuable enough to tell any prospective employer none of your business when they ask you about prior pay.
71 comments
[ 3.1 ms ] story [ 142 ms ] thread[0] - http://www.oregon.gov/boli/TA/Pages/Equal%20Pay%20Law.aspx
"Effective October 6, 2017 employers are prohibited from seeking the pay history of an applicant or employee from the applicant or employee or a current or former employer of the applicant or employee before the employer makes an offer of employment to the prospective employee that includes an amount of compensation;"
"Effective Oct. 31, 2017, it will be illegal for public and private employers of any size in New York City to ask about applicant's salary history..."
https://www1.nyc.gov/site/cchr/media/salary-history.page
If I were to abide by a policy that tries to force the situation, I would force all salaries and compensations to be public, and to hell with it.
These policies have unmeasurable effects.
Its either ineffectual, or its easy to skirt. Its a meaningless idea that now will turn one more human behavior into a crime.
Assuming that, is it then aggression/immoral?
(Edit: and if they were free to cut off contact, it's still an imposition on them by the state that you're participating in.)
I am not a Christian, but the bit about "Ye shall know them by their fruits" I think is genuine wisdom.
AB168, signed Thursday by Gov. Jerry Brown, applies to all public- and private-sector California employers of any size. The goal is to narrow the gender wage gap. If a woman is paid less than a man doing the same job and a new employer bases her pay on her prior salary, gender discrimination can be perpetuated, the bill’s backers say.
Last year, the state passed a weaker law that said prior compensation, by itself, cannot justify any disparity in compensation. The new bill goes further by prohibiting employers, “orally or in writing, personally or through an agent,” from asking about an applicant’s previous pay. However, if the applicant “voluntarily and without prompting” provides this information, the employer may use it “in determining the salary for that applicant.”
Delaware, Massachusetts and Oregon have passed similar laws that take effect later this year or next, said attorney Ben Ebbink of Fisher & Phillips in Sacramento. Philadelphia passed one that was supposed to take effect in May but is being challenged in court. New York City and San Francisco have similar ordinances that take effect Oct. 31 and July 1, respectively.
This piece of regulation will make the market more efficient, dynamic, and fair too. Companies already have information asymmetry working to their advantage. Asking about salary history only increased that. And that's why it's unfair.
"The bill would not prohibit an applicant from voluntarily and without prompting disclosing salary history information and would not prohibit an employer from considering or relying on that voluntarily disclosed salary history information in determining salary..."
If anything this will be more fair for those who can't or don't want to negotiate.
When recruiters ask, I say "I'd prefer not to disclose that information. Let's focus on figuring out whether there's a good fit, and if we decide that there is, then we can work out the compensation." It's never been an obstacle to the interviewing process, or getting offers at top-tier companies, though some recruiters were fairly insistent in trying to find out.
See also: Patrick McKenzie on Salary Negotiation - http://www.kalzumeus.com/2012/01/23/salary-negotiation/
> The First Rule Is What Everyone Tells You It Is: Never Give A Number First
> Every handbook on negotiation and every blog post will tell you not to give a number first. This advice is almost always right. It is so right, you have to construct crazy hypotheticals to find edge cases where it would not be right.
> When Does A Salary Negotiation Happen?
> Only negotiate salary after you have agreement in principle from someone with hiring authority that, if a mutually acceptable compensation can be agreed upon, you will be hired. [...]
> The equal protection clause of the Constitution can trump free speech when they conflict.
They never conflict.
0: https://www.monster.com/career-advice/article/illegal-interv...
"So, it's illegal to ask? Who cares, that guy's just going to lie anyway. Let's make him give us permission to check his credit report on the job application and get the exact number. Like we always did."
I, for one, assumed that this is about Canada.
Canada's codes are: CA, CAN, and 124.
Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ISO_3166-1
That said, the balance of leverage for a totally fair sistem would make salary range on job listing binding and prohibit public job offer without role and range
I'm saying that if you see a job posting, it should say "Pays $50-$60k/yr". Employee knows where to begin and end negotiation.
The problem is that people show them anything at all. If everyone simply said no, they would stop asking.
It's good to look up such threads before reposting. You can do so like this:
https://hn.algolia.com/?query=california%20salary&sort=byDat...