California employers prohibited from relying on an applicant's salary history
webcache.googleusercontent.com
webcache.googleusercontent.com
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.
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...
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.
[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..."
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.
"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."
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. [...]
I, for one, assumed that this is about Canada.
Canada's codes are: CA, CAN, and 124.
> 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...