Hacker News Reader

Comment by offtop5 | Hacker News Reader

I'm actually not a fan of this law. My first salary position was for job which advertised a range of something like 80 to 90k a year. The highest I had made previously was $10 an hour, the CEO of the company was a nice guy who brought me in for an interview anyway.

I took an offer at 40K or so, and within 3 years I was at 100k. With laws like this in play I'm not sure if that would still be legal. A lot of these ideas sound great on paper, but in reality you've completely eliminated any room to negotiate salaries downward in case an applicant isn't all that experienced.

I imagine what's going to happen is you'll see companies become much stricter with documentable requirements. Such as a bachelor's degree, which I also lacked back then. Saying please I need a job, I'll take 50% less since I don't have a bachelor's will open up companies to lawsuits

View on HN

The act allows exceptions to the prohibition against a wage differential based on sex if the employer demonstrates that a wage differential is not based on wage rate history and is based upon one or more of the following factors, so long as the employer applies the factors reasonably and they account for the entire wage rate differential:

- A seniority system;

- A merit system;

- A system that measures earnings by quantity or quality of production;

- The geographic location where the work is performed;

- Education, training, or experience to the extent that they are reasonably related to the work in question; or

- Travel, if the travel is a regular and necessary condition of the work performed.

The things you listed, like taking the job for less because you lack the relevant education are actual exceptions written into the law.

This law is about ending pay disparity for two people doing the same work. This is not what you are describing. In your scenario a new title could simply be created more appropriate for the experience/skill. That would then establish what is appropriate pay for that skill/experience level for future candidates.

The company is free to offer you a different job with the lower salary: that is, nothing requires a person to be offered the job to which they applied.

> I took an offer at 40K or so, and within 3 years I was at 100k.

These are not the same jobs. You took a junior position and in 3 years were promoted once, or maybe twice, into more senior position(s).

>These are not the same jobs. You took a junior position and in 3 years were promoted once, or maybe twice, into more senior position(s).

Nope, I switched to a new company. You can't really expect a company to take care of you

Does this law say that you cant offer someone below the salary posted in the job? I thought it was just a referance point more than anything.

I'd imagine companies wouldn't want to do that, because you could come up with an argument that you're being discriminated against.

The road to hell is paved with good intentions

You could always hire the person for a different role. Say its a SE position in the company but then the person doesn't meet the requirements. The company can offer a jr position.

Especially in your situation it would make sense to have a separate title at the start.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com