Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Philadelphia Poised to Ban Employers from Asking Hires About Salary History

wsj.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 244 posts

Re: Philadelphia Poised to Ban Employers from Asking Hires About Salary History

#21

Post by _m8fo »

lend000 wrote: post #15
hackuser wrote: post #7

An important detail: Comcast, backed by the local Chamber of Commerce, has threatened to sue the city over this law. On what basis? The corporation's Constitutional First Amendment free speech right to ask the question: http://www.investopedia.com/news/comcast-threatens-sue-city-... Are these the same free speech rights the Supreme Court recently bestowed on the corporations? I remember that at the time legal analyst…

Are all employers corporations? And even as such, this is just outlawing information. I do not understand how so many on the left support such a measure. It's a question -- outlawing questions, especially between private parties in a consensual relationship (applicant and employer), is backwards. You can choose not to answer it; you can lie; you can choose not to work for employers that ask the question in the first…

> You can choose not to answer it; you can lie; you can choose not to work for employers that ask the question in the first place, especially if they coerce you into providing records.

>> you can choose not to work for employers that ask the question in the first place

>>> you can choose not to work

And here is the disconnect. Not everyone has the ability to simply "choose not to work...". Hence, laws. Your reasoning could be applied to simply working in general. After all, one can just choose not to work until they find a job that meets all of their criteria (salary, vacation time, commute, great people, great mission, etc). Unfortunately, life doesn't work like that.

Re: Philadelphia Poised to Ban Employers from Asking Hires About Salary History

#22

Post by hackuser »

rayiner wrote: post #19
hackuser wrote: post #10

Most innovation and progress now is at the city level (I'm not the first to say it). Name the last thing government achieved at a national level in the U.S. - there's health care, but that's now looking shaky. The priority of one major party in the U.S. is to shut down government as much as possible; that party can block progress everywhere but in cities, where they have no power for now. However, they are trying to…

If cities and municipalities are our hope for good governance we're are all pretty screwed. Cities across the country basically bankrupt and state and local governance is rife with corruption.

I don't agree. Is there some way you can back up that claim and be more specific? (Though I think you and I have had this discussion before?)

All human institutions are 'rife with corruption' if the standard is some ideal, but until we adopt our computer overlords we're stuck with people. On a relative scale, I don't see them as so corrupt; and I'm not willing to wait in order to make progress. (EDIT: Name the non-corrupt institution that you want to make these decisions.)

Most importantly, the cities are getting things done.

Re: Philadelphia Poised to Ban Employers from Asking Hires About Salary History

#23

Post by michaelmrose »

lend000 wrote: post #15
hackuser wrote: post #7

An important detail: Comcast, backed by the local Chamber of Commerce, has threatened to sue the city over this law. On what basis? The corporation's Constitutional First Amendment free speech right to ask the question: http://www.investopedia.com/news/comcast-threatens-sue-city-... Are these the same free speech rights the Supreme Court recently bestowed on the corporations? I remember that at the time legal analyst…

Are all employers corporations? And even as such, this is just outlawing information. I do not understand how so many on the left support such a measure. It's a question -- outlawing questions, especially between private parties in a consensual relationship (applicant and employer), is backwards. You can choose not to answer it; you can lie; you can choose not to work for employers that ask the question in the first…

If one group in a negotiation has near all the power sometimes society benefits from negotiating on behalf of the one with none.

Re: Philadelphia Poised to Ban Employers from Asking Hires About Salary History

#24

Post by ch4s3 »

lend000 wrote: post #15
hackuser wrote: post #7

An important detail: Comcast, backed by the local Chamber of Commerce, has threatened to sue the city over this law. On what basis? The corporation's Constitutional First Amendment free speech right to ask the question: http://www.investopedia.com/news/comcast-threatens-sue-city-... Are these the same free speech rights the Supreme Court recently bestowed on the corporations? I remember that at the time legal analyst…

Are all employers corporations? And even as such, this is just outlawing information. I do not understand how so many on the left support such a measure. It's a question -- outlawing questions, especially between private parties in a consensual relationship (applicant and employer), is backwards. You can choose not to answer it; you can lie; you can choose not to work for employers that ask the question in the first…

Probably because there is a very large disparity in power and information. A few points:

1. You will always need the job more than Comcast will need you (unless you're unusually skilled, most workers aren't)

2. Comcast knows how much the pay every one of their employees, you the job seeker do not.

3. Comcast is only asking so they can figure out the lowest pay you'll accept. You have no way to figure out how high they are willing to go, so you start out at a disadvantage.

4. Limiting a company's ability to ask intrusive questions in no way impinges on individual liberty, you are not a company, and a company is not a person.

5. If you choose to not answer, they likely will not hire you, if you lie and they find out, they will likely fire you. If they lie the you about the pay range and you accept, you have no recourse but to quit if you catch them in that lie, which brings us back to point #1.

Re: Philadelphia Poised to Ban Employers from Asking Hires About Salary History

#25

Post by harmegido »

lend000 wrote: post #15
hackuser wrote: post #7

An important detail: Comcast, backed by the local Chamber of Commerce, has threatened to sue the city over this law. On what basis? The corporation's Constitutional First Amendment free speech right to ask the question: http://www.investopedia.com/news/comcast-threatens-sue-city-... Are these the same free speech rights the Supreme Court recently bestowed on the corporations? I remember that at the time legal analyst…

Are all employers corporations? And even as such, this is just outlawing information. I do not understand how so many on the left support such a measure. It's a question -- outlawing questions, especially between private parties in a consensual relationship (applicant and employer), is backwards. You can choose not to answer it; you can lie; you can choose not to work for employers that ask the question in the first…

For myself, these sorts of libertarian arguments seem very similar to the concepts presented in Econ 101. They are very logical, consistent, and compelling. They also rely on a ton of assumptions that do not hold up in the real world.

Re: Philadelphia Poised to Ban Employers from Asking Hires About Salary History

#26

Post by hackuser »

rayiner wrote: post #16
hackuser wrote: post #7

An important detail: Comcast, backed by the local Chamber of Commerce, has threatened to sue the city over this law. On what basis? The corporation's Constitutional First Amendment free speech right to ask the question: http://www.investopedia.com/news/comcast-threatens-sue-city-... Are these the same free speech rights the Supreme Court recently bestowed on the corporations? I remember that at the time legal analyst…

That's a red herring. You can hold individuals responsible for misleading statements in financial disclosures notwithstanding the fact that individuals indisputably have free speech rights. At the same time, if you can ban a corporation from asking the question about salary history, you should be able to ban a sole proprietorship or partnership from asking the question too.

> You can hold individuals responsible for misleading statements in financial disclosures notwithstanding the fact that individuals indisputably have free speech rights

I'm not sure you can be effective if you do it reactively with lawsuits; who can afford to sue a Wall Street bank? You need regulations and rules.

Also, the problem is not just misleading statements, but requiring that essential information is included, that it's expressed according to certain common standards, and that it's understandable to common people - not just to Wall Street bankers.

There's a long history of selling bad deals to widows and orphans by confusing them. Currently you can't sell certain things to non-professionals; if they have free speech, can you stop them?

Re: Philadelphia Poised to Ban Employers from Asking Hires About Salary History

#27

Post by icebraining »

Retric wrote: post #14
hackuser wrote: post #7

An important detail: Comcast, backed by the local Chamber of Commerce, has threatened to sue the city over this law. On what basis? The corporation's Constitutional First Amendment free speech right to ask the question: http://www.investopedia.com/news/comcast-threatens-sue-city-... Are these the same free speech rights the Supreme Court recently bestowed on the corporations? I remember that at the time legal analyst…

Free speech already has well known limits. Copywrite is an obvious one. Anyway, salary history's are discriminatory which seems like something that probably already has case law.

*Copyright

Discrimination is, AFAIK, only illegal if it's against or impacts workers on the basis of a few specific issues (race, sex, pregnancy, etc). I don't see salary histories fitting the bill, do you?

Re: Philadelphia Poised to Ban Employers from Asking Hires About Salary History

#28

Post by ch4s3 »

winter_blue wrote: post #12
_m8fo wrote: post #3

A society truly run by the people, ala individuals, would have banned this long ago. Just think about it: for an average person, what benefit do they receive by allowing employers to ask about past or current salary information? None. Wouldn't be surprised if there have been measures to ban this that were ultimately struck down by business people. The less information that's shared with employers, the more employers…

> A society truly run by the people, ala individuals, would have banned this I'm libertarian-leaning, and statements like these bother me deeply. If I'm an employer, why ban me from asking some question to a prospective employee? It's a restriction on the employer's freedom. The job applicant has a right to decline to answer my question (and I have a right to decline to offer a job). Regulating what questions I can a…

> Regulating what questions I can ask (i.e. my speech) is a restriction on my freedom.

I don't believe this type of question has ever been held to be political speech, so the government isn't bound to protect it. Allowing employers extra power to depress wages isn't in the interest of the government, or the employees. There are more parties interested in opposing this type of power imbalance than maintaining it, so it's being banned. Democracy isn't meant to protect you money.

Re: Philadelphia Poised to Ban Employers from Asking Hires About Salary History

#29

Post by pravda »

kerkeslager wrote: post #11
gesman wrote: post #4

Asking doesn't hurt anyone. However giving certain answers could. What prevents employees from claiming that this information is "confidential" (polite version of "it's not your business"). Or outright lying about it?

Asking hurts the people who give bad answers, which is unfair since in many cases those answers are irrelevant to the job being interviewed for. Claiming the information is confidential may hurt your chances of getting the job, or simply get the "we need this information or we can't continue, sorry, it's policy" answer. Lying about it benefits the liars (assuming they lie intelligently). I suspect that offers are fre…

>Is lying really the behavior we want to incentivize?

Oh gosh. You make it sound bad that way! It's not 'lying', it is 'strategic disinformation'.

Re: Philadelphia Poised to Ban Employers from Asking Hires About Salary History

#30

Post by Zach_the_Lizard »

hackuser wrote: post #26
rayiner wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's a red herring. You can hold individuals responsible for misleading statements in financial disclosures notwithstanding the fact that individuals indisputably have free speech rights. At the same time, if you can ban a corporation from asking the question about salary history, you should be able to ban a sole proprietorship or partnership from asking the question too.

> You can hold individuals responsible for misleading statements in financial disclosures notwithstanding the fact that individuals indisputably have free speech rights I'm not sure you can be effective if you do it reactively with lawsuits; who can afford to sue a Wall Street bank? You need regulations and rules. Also, the problem is not just misleading statements, but requiring that essential information is include…

>who can afford to sue a Wall Street bank

Probably investors or rich customers who get screwed by these statements or a band of normal folks in a class action lawsuit

Post reply on HN