Live data from Hacker News

Massachusetts Bans Employers from Asking Applicants About Previous Pay

nytimes.com

741–750 of 785 posts

Re: Massachusetts Bans Employers from Asking Applicants About Previous Pay

#741
post #687
post #458

Earlier quoted context omitted.

yahoo did this to me. Verifying employment is one thing (I guess...), but their background check thing wanted exact salaries too, and permission to ask HR at all my previous employers. Is this common? I've worked for small companies so haven't run into anything like this elsewhere. Except for one asshole that wanted to do a reference check two weeks after I started work (!!!) (he offered me a job at the end of the in…

> Verifying employment is one thing (I guess...) Why are you reluctant about a company being able to verify that you worked where and when you said you did?

1 - if I can pass the interview having lied about where I worked, why did I have to do the interview? It just seems silly.

2 - they all insist on contacting the current employer, which I refuse to allow until I have a non-contingent job offer in hand from the new place. If X can't make me a firm offer, I'm not allowing X to contact (ie notify) the company currently paying me.

Re: Massachusetts Bans Employers from Asking Applicants About Previous Pay

#742

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Where are you based? I'm in London and it's gotten so bad for me I only apply direct now so I can ask for a specific number that I would like. I no longer take calls or reply to external recruiters because so far they all tell me they won't proceed unless I tell them my precious salary despite myselr having told them what I want to make in the new role. Even if the company is willing to pay what I want they insist on…

London also. I'm not a recent graduate though, and I only do contract roles.

I'm experienced/senior too but I usually look for permanents so may be that is the why we have been treated differently.

Re: Massachusetts Bans Employers from Asking Applicants About Previous Pay

#743

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> So your argument is that it's okay that we've made it worse for the people who already had it the hardest because the rest of the more wealthy people in the country benefitted from it? Where did I write that? I included the excerpt from the article to demonstrate your intellectual dishonesty in selectively quoting a single sentence from an article that is positive about the effects of immigration. I did not make an…

I wasn't referring to philosophical existentialism. This is the definition of existential I was using, straight from google.com: ex·is·ten·tial ˌeɡzəˈsten(t)SH(ə)l/ LOGIC (of a proposition) affirming or implying the existence of a thing. Sure, okay, there's no absolute standard for fairness. So there's no point in discussing the article, because by what basis would you even discuss whether or not employers should be…

I didn't say that fairness does not exist, or that there are not standards for fairness for some things. I said there is no standard for determining the fairness of what someone is paid. There are plenty of areas of life where fairness can be determined.

Re: Massachusetts Bans Employers from Asking Applicants About Previous Pay

#744
post #523

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I don't consider a single one of those comparable. Azure and Google Compute Engine? I'd say those are pretty comparable to AWS.

Spend 25k a month on Azure vs AWS. It's not comparable any more than Sonii branded product are comparable to Sony products. One derives revenue comes from ignorance while the other is the product being copied, badly. GCE is akin to Oracle's "cloud offering" which is simply a different product, but hey they all say "cloud" so they are competing! Market influence isn't as powerful when you can't actually deliver. What'…

What's to the left of you at 33.802799, -117.885665 using apple maps?

Could you explain your example? I tried this, thinking it might give me something interesting, but I couldn't figure out what you were referring to.

Re: Massachusetts Bans Employers from Asking Applicants About Previous Pay

#745
post #694

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> it's on you to come up with evidence supporting this supposed (much) higher marginal value. There's no more onus on me to prove a higher marginal value than there is on you to prove a lower one. You've attempted to shift the burden of proof by arbitrarily deciding that your assumption is the correct one. I will say that most of the people I've read trying to determine the marginal value of software engineers, think…

So we've been disagreeing the whole time on what it means to be a 'qualified engineer'. The employers don't consider someone who can't pass an AmaGoogTwitBook interview (with some practice, of course) to be a 'qualified engineer', and there is indeed a shortage of such people.

Companies have arbitrarily set a very high standard that can only be passed by x% of engineers, and then argued they can't find enough. You could do the same for any industry. Here's an example (also keep in mind this next example would work the same even if the bar isn't set arbitrarily):

Let's say I run a cleaning business, and I decide that I only want to hire janitors who can run a 4 minute mile. I think that they are the best people for the job, and no-one else will do.

Let's also say that I only want to pay them $50k a year. Some time goes buy and I'm having a really hard time finding people. Now I could raise what I'm offering to $100k a year, and find plenty of candidates who would move here from other states, change careers, move from management back to working as a janitor, come out of early retirement etc...

Or I could relax my requirements--take people who show the potential to run a 4 minute mile and train them.

Or I could lobby the government to increase the visa cap so I can import qualified people who are willing to work for $50k.

This doesn't sound so bad when you think about it. I wasn't willing to offer more than $50k a year, so wages weren't increasing anyway.

However, if I didn't have the option of raising the visa cap, and I really believed that only janitors who meet my qualifications would work, I would have no choice but to offer a higher salary.

Therefore, importing more workings depresses wages for qualified janitors.

Now you might be thinking $50k is plenty for qualified janitors. They can live with less. But here's the important part. You didn't increase the visa cap for only qualified janitors.

You increased the visa cap for all janitors, who are making at least the prevailing wage. And it's based on a lottery. The number of extra visa spots aren't proportional to how much a company is paying. Every company who is willing to pay the candidate at least the prevailing wage gets the same shot at these visa slots. Since, most companies don't have sub 4 minute mile requirements for janitors, the prevailing wage is much lower than $50k a year.

Now the market is flooded with janitors willing to work at average companies for $20k a year, and you've driven down wages for all janitors not just the top 1% of qualified janitors. Even though the shortage is only for the top 1%.

Average software developers aren't making $150k a year and buying Teslas, and they are the ones you're going to hurt with visa cap increases.

I'll agree that there is a shortage of top 1% programmers. There is a shortage of the top 1% in nearly every industry almost by definition. However, until you develop a system for only importing enough top 1% programmers to meet demand, you're going to hurt everyone who's not in the top 1%.

There are several systems for doing this. The easiest to implement probably to use an auction instead of a lottery (this comes with a set of its own problems though).

Re: Massachusetts Bans Employers from Asking Applicants About Previous Pay

#746
post #647

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> "OK, we can do that. But we have a policy of always making the lowest possible offer to candidates who won't share their compensation information. I just want the best for you." This makes absolutely no sense to me. "Oh, we can't use previous compensation to effectively lowball this candidate we like, so we'll ineffectively lowball them instead."

It makes perfect sense. If an applicant doesn't want to disclose their previous salary and disclosing it is the cultural norm, that indicates a) they're troublemakers (very privacy conscious or what have you), or b) their previous salary was very low. You probably don't want troublemakers so there's no point in making them a generous offer. And if the previous salary was very low the lowest possible offer is probably…

How//Why is being privacy-conscious troublemaking?

Re: Massachusetts Bans Employers from Asking Applicants About Previous Pay

#747
post #114

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I've been recruiting for a few years now, and I've always hated asking how much someone is making currently. Have always found it better to ask "what are your compensation expectations?" Puts the ball in the candidate's court and I prefer asking this early in conversations as to make sure we're aligned and no one wastes each others time.

Why not disclose the budget you are working with and ask the candidate if it's in line with their expectations?

I ask what the budget is when I'm asked what about my salary history.

Re: Massachusetts Bans Employers from Asking Applicants About Previous Pay

#748

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's not just scarcity. That ignores half the equation (demand). Poop popsicles are extremely rare (I have yet to see one). But their price would be essentially $0, if/when they exist.

Just in case you don't know how close you are to be wrong... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Artist%27s_Shit ... truth is stranger than fiction!

Hahahaha, wow. Amazing.

Re: Massachusetts Bans Employers from Asking Applicants About Previous Pay

#749
post #432

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not sure why these comment is being down-voted. It is not even rude. The law does seem stupid and an empty gesture. (Like NY state banning Sex offenders from playing Pokemon Go) but such laws benefit no one, add an extra layer of complexity in hiring process. Are not there any other proxies for determining a person salary ? For example you can always ask a person his/her house rent or ask for tax returns.

Who the hell asks for those things in an interview? Considering how much salary negotiation advice talks about how revealing your current salary puts you at a disadvantage this doesn't seem like an awful thing to try.

Why do you think only employees deserve the protection from the law and not employers ? All they are asking for some information to make an informed decision.

Re: Massachusetts Bans Employers from Asking Applicants About Previous Pay

#750
post #691

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Here's an idea: compensation agents who negotiate the compensation package on your behalf. Athletes and actors have them, why not everyone else? I'd definitely be willing to pay for something like this. Make it commission based (pay as a percentage of additional salary negotiated) and the incentives between the negotiator and client will be perfectly aligned.

> pay as a percentage of additional salary negotiated So many things wrong with this. Agents typically negotiate fixed-term contracts for athletes and entertainers. Agents take 10% of the entire pot, not "additional salary negotiated" whatever that means. You don't know what you would have been able to negotiate so there is no "additional" amount, only what they got you. Are you willing to give 10% of every paycheck…

Not sure why you're assuming I wanted something analogous to agents for athletes and entertainers. Those work full time and have a lot more responsibilities and provide many more services than simply doing a one time negotiation for a higher salary, none of which I'm actually looking for.

I'm looking to pay someone to negotiate a salary raise on my behalf in exchange for a cut of the additional salary negotiated. It's a one time deal, that should take a couple of emails and a couple of phone calls at most, not a full-time job. It has the potential to pay very well considering the minimum amount of effort required on the part of the "agent" as far as I can see.

Of course, I'm not denying that there could be something I'm missing that could make this arrangement infeasible (in fact, other replies have already mentioned many such factors), but I'm not sure how your post about agents for athletes and entertainers was in any way relevant to the discussion.

Post reply on HN