New law bans California employers from asking applicants about prior salary

[lecter]

We also get pay increases for cértificates here. You get that? My MCSE gave me 500$ a month xtra

Nope but I have to regularly renew a couple certificates which are only vaguely related to my job or mostly not related at all. The reward is to not lose my job I guess.
It's absolute cancer, RHCE and RHCA aren't fun if you do not work as a sys admin or something like that at all.

 

[KILL KILL]

Don't forget to tell them that you date Boise dimes too.

The average person wouldn't recognize the term, so it's easier just to call them California 3's.

 

[Jack V Savage]

"free market" principles don't work when there's a power and/or information asymmetry between the negotiating parties. Your constant artificial parables don't prove anything because in the Pleasantville examples you always default to, there is no massive difference in information or power between the parties. Why do you never default to examples where a job would pay 100K on the open market with perfect information for all parties but the employee has no idea and, in his ignorance, signs a contract to work for 50K/yr for 10 years with huge penalties if he leaves? Where a man is starving to death and someone offers him a banana in return for sexual favors? Where someone will die in the next hour unless she pays the ambulance driver 300,000 and the nearest other ambulance is an hour away?

Government exists precisely, in part, to handle the fact that markets are imperfect and that humans are not always on a level playing field.

Amen.

Though this creates another information gap--one that benefits the employee for once so yay, but I'm not sure that it's the best way to do it. If all salaries were public knowledge that would improve markets, and probably benefit employees.

 

[Jack V Savage]

Do you have any concept of what employer/employee relations were like before the state intervened?

Serious question. Those "leftists" are the reason workers aren't having their fingers cut off and ground into hot dog meat, widowing their family for the profits of their employers (whether from workplace death at age 35, or cancer at age 50), and getting bludgeoned to death for trying to unionize for more than $3 a day.

Unless you were both born into huge money, bitching about leftists intervening in employment relationships is fucking stupid.

Pretty much every position that guy holds is in favor of screwing people like himself. He's a political masochist.

 

[WiolentOne]

Do you have any concept of what employer/employee relations were like before the state intervened?

Serious question. Those "leftists" are the reason workers aren't having their fingers cut off and ground into hot dog meat, widowing their family for the profits of their employers (whether from workplace death at age 35, or cancer at age 50), and getting bludgeoned to death for trying to unionize for more than $3 a day.

Unless you were both born into huge money, bitching about leftists intervening in employment relationships is fucking stupid.

So that somehow justifies this unneeded state interventionism? Lol

How am I not surprised that you enjoy incessant government intrusion into shit they have no business being in.

 

[WiolentOne]

Pretty much every position that guy holds is in favor of screwing people like himself. He's a political masochist.

It's called being a man of principle.

You wouldn't know anything about that which is why you've been reduced to the laughing stock of the WR. Even liberal leftists here admit youre a joke behind the scenes.

 

[Rob Battisti]

That's still "as little as possible". It's just "as little as possible so that when they eventually find out how much I am underpaying them, they're just barely not willing to take the hassle of switching jobs to remedy what happened". Well, more like balancing that risk against the savings from not paying them the value of the job. I'm sure it's a fine line to walk and some people argue the merits of greater turnover vs lower labor costs. That said, it's still "as little as you can get away with".

It's taking advantage of an information asymmetry between employer and prospective employee. This law removes one possible source of asymmetry.

"Everything needs to be considered" to justify screwing employees leads to horrific behavior without regulation. That's why we have worker safety laws and various other regulations.

That's.... a real stretch.

It's not "as little as possible". It's the correct amount. Everyone is paid what they deserve to be paid.

I've grossly overpaid people. I've rarely ever paid someone less than what their coworkers made because of their previous pay. And in the cases where that may have happened, if their work was good, they got a raise to show their work. It's not the case that your starting salary is your only salary.

I can't speak for other companies or industries, but in finance and technology it all evens out. The information is useful and I understand why the law is in place, but it still makes my job harder and needlessly so.

My entire career has been based off of the fact that I've always fought for the candidate and the employee. The more I can act as their voice in the negotiation the better offer they will get.

The argument of "they should be paid X because they are currently paid Y" is a HELL of a lot stronger than "they should be paid X because they want to."

You're looking at it in the negative when it's just as useful in the positive for the candidate.

 

[Rob Battisti]

So do you feel you should have to disclose what their predecessor made? Its equally relevant imo.

When opening a position I know about the limit I can go. I ask for the information first and 90% of the time it's freely given.

Also, I'm sure people lie. Heck, I would encourage people to inflate their numbers at this phase.

If the position doesn't have a hard range, I usually don't give a number until they do. If the person wants to dance, I'll give a range based on the other people I've spoken with.

While it might seem apples to apples to give what the person WAS making it's actually not.

If they had been here a number of years then the equity they built and SME they became factored into their pay. Someone off the street doesn't have this.

If the former employee had moved internally, I'm not disclosing that information as it's not a good thing to share coworkers pay.

It's not clear cut, guys.

 

[Jack V Savage]

It's called being a man of principle.

You wouldn't know anything about that which is why you've been reduced to the laughing stock of the WR. Even liberal leftists here admit youre a joke behind the scenes.

Principles like white supremacy and that that workers should be screwed relative to their employers. OK.

 

[Fluffernutter]

http://www.sfgate.com/business/netw...California-employers-from-asking-12274431.php

Good? Bad? Do you think this will cause employers to lower wages? Will higher-level jobs become more competitive?

Personally, I think it's great. I don't see the point of employers asking how much I made prior to working with them. It's just another way for them to take advantage of their future employees.

In the US, there is a culture of not discussing you salary with your co-workers, neighbors, or in-laws. So, why would you want to tell strangers?

 

[Rob Battisti]

Maybe it's my industry but people are definitely NOT underpaid. Not just the companies I've worked for, but the industries as a whole.

Maybe more labor based industries are underpaying employees but finance, tech, pharma... no way.

 

[WiolentOne]

Principles like white supremacy ...

If you believe freedom is tantamount to white supremacy that would put you in the illiberal left camp.

Silly boy.

 

[Rob Battisti]

I have him on ignore, but I just checked the messages I'm ignoring. Did JVS just say it's white supremacy to ask salary information?

 

[ChainFlow]

That's.... a real stretch.

It's not "as little as possible". It's the correct amount. Everyone is paid what they deserve to be paid.

You've got to admit that THAT is a real stretch. Saying that everyone is paid what they deserve is not obviously true and seems likely that it is actually false. Everybody does not get what they deserve in the world. Unless you're trying to say that whatever someone negotiates is what they deserve because that's what they negotiated so that's what they deserve, but I don't think that's the same sense of "deserve" that we're talking about here - which is more "expected pay for someone doing that position assuming that they already know what everyone else is paid and the employer doesn't know that they made significantly less previously".

Could you substantiate your feelings that people deserve to be paid less at a job simply because their previous job paid significantly less? Maybe I'm missing something.

I've grossly overpaid people. I've rarely ever paid someone less than what their coworkers made because of their previous pay. And in the cases where that may have happened, if their work was good, they got a raise to show their work. It's not the case that your starting salary is your only salary.

I can't speak for other companies or industries, but in finance and technology it all evens out. The information is useful and I understand why the law is in place, but it still makes my job harder and needlessly so.

Doesn't this contradict your above position that everyone gets paid what they deserve? Just because on average people get paid what they deserve (which you haven't offered evidence in favor of, just stated, but setting that aside), doesn't mean that each person individually does. This law is about preventing the people with less information from being screwed in particular, and also the people who made less money at their last job because why would that matter?

Also, just because you feel salaries work out well in the job markets you're familiar with does not mean that it does overall.

The argument of "they should be paid X because they are currently paid Y" is a HELL of a lot stronger than "they should be paid X because they want to."

1) Who said anything about "want to"? The opposite position seems to be "should be paid about what other people in the field are paid", don't argue against straw men.

2) You claim that X because Y is stronger, but why? If I decide to switch from mid-level commercial banking (let's say paid 80,000) into medical lab analysis (let's say average salary for the area is 90,000), put myself through school at night, and then apply for the job, why should I expect to be paid more than someone who worked in maintenance at a factory and did the exact same education path as I did and applies for the same job, but only made 60K at his old factory?

You're looking at it in the negative when it's just as useful in the positive for the candidate.

You may feel that you act ethically and for the benefit of the recruits, but laws are not made to handle people acting in good faith, or we wouldn't need to have laws against fraud or extortion.

 

[EvilManny]

What employer asks that sort of question anyway? Seems like a question an unqualified can would ask

I got asked that on a season summer application at six flags.

 

[Satsui Ryu]

That's where I wouldn't tell them.

I'd just say, I'd rather not give out that information.

Last two jobs I've gotten required a pay stub sent to HR. No pay stub, no job.

Giving pay info can screw you in a lot of ways. If you have a low salary you can get lowballed. If too high, you may come off as being too expensive and only using a job until something better comes along.

 

[kuromusha]

Last two jobs I've gotten required a pay stub sent to HR. No pay stub, no job.

Giving pay info can screw you in a lot of ways. If you have a low salary you can get lowballed. If too high, you may come off as being too expensive and only using a job until something better comes along.

Same here. When I was looking for a job right out of college, the recruiter wouldn't even consider processing my resume without a wage history. I've also had an employer bounce back a resume, telling me to put in a wage history and then re-send it.

 

[SleepyBoy]

Recruiter here with 10+ years and a high level HR certification. (Sphr).

I like the proposed law for several reasons.

1. Asking them their previous salary will often be asking the employee to violate their non-disclosure with their previous employer. The prospective employer wouldn't much appreciate their former employees broadcasting their most recent salaries that could effect current employees.

2. The only reason to ask is to pay the employee lower. Point blank, That's it. If hr can't tell the difference between an overpriced candidate and a market rate candidate, then hr needs to stop being lazy and do a little research. You would never asked what the previous person at the job made, because a business would laugh at that. Well it's almost just as rude the other way around too.

3. This doesn't stop employees from telling their previous salary voluntarily. "I make 85k but I am not leaving my current job unless I get 100k.". This tells the recruiter everything he needs to know. If the employer wants to make a gamble and low ball, that's fine, but I can only laugh at them when the candidate they really needed takes another job because they got low balled out of the process even though their salary was well with in the budget.
"Can you find me another candidate just like that, but make sure he/she commented this time". Lol, sure I will keep sending you candidates that you'll end up chasing away.




But at the same time, candidates please remember that although you may be a fantastic match, you might not get the job because there are several qualified candidates all at different rates, some might be much better than your rate. All business should strive to do their best work in the most efficient fashion, so don't price yourself out of the job. Just because "you can do the job," doesn't mean that there isn't another you out there asking for less.

If you the job has a salary range of 70-100k and you're making 65k, do you really think you'll get the job asking for 100k? Do you think you will do well Against people who have been making 100k or even a little more for years, and have proven themselves at the professional level time and time again? You might get the job at 75k because you're a great asset at the price. But comparing your skills and experience to someone who has been at those jobs for a while will not go well.

Both sides should approach the table with market knowledge or the other side will have a distinct negotiating advantage.

 

[SleepyBoy]

So that somehow justifies this unneeded state interventionism? Lol

How am I not surprised that you enjoy incessant government intrusion into shit they have no business being in.

I suppose you are against all state intervention into the market. So you're probably in favor of businesses giving up their limited liability, corporate charter, copyright protection, all trademarks, patents...etc.

You're for the free market right, where one employee mistake could bankrupt not only the entire company, but the owner personally and put the owner at risk for jail time with zero protections what so ever.

Tell me about how you hate limited liability.

 

[FrankensteinMMA]

It should never be so difficult to get someone hired that you have to ask how much they made at their previous job.

Im not going to go into details on what I do but if you can pass a backround check, come back clean on a drug test, show to be of average intelligence...then you can be trained if need to.

Thats all I ask. Simple.

There are way to many abled bodied people without jobs because of the way employers are hiring these days.