Philadelphia Poised to Ban Employers from Asking Hires About Salary History

Post by Jarwain » Sun, Jan 22, 2017, 10:27 AM UTC

lend000 wrote: post #154

meanduck wrote: post #150

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> in a free society, you have the freedom to do whatever you want so long as it does not infringe on the rights of anybody else. Thats not NAP if rights is anything but right to be not physically assulted. NAP is basically: do no (physical) harm. You not only allowed to be aggressive in other ways (such as economically) but its relied upon to tackle overly powerful entities (like megacorps).

I think 'physical assault' is a very simplistic view of the NAP; and I fall on the other end of the scale where indirect damage through social/economic/environmental channels can be considered to infringe on liberty. Slander laws, noise ordinances, and non-localized environmental pollution all fall into this category and are eligible to be addressed through regulations which actually improve liberty. However, not bei…

Post by danieltillett » Sun, Jan 22, 2017, 10:48 AM UTC

wutbrodo wrote: post #182

danieltillett wrote: post #167

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That HR sounds like all HR departments I have ever had anything to do with.

Yeesh, that's super depressing. Not that I know anything about running HR departments, but that betrays such basic inability to uh, think that I can't really imagine how that could be ubiquitous.

Post by shostack » Sun, Jan 22, 2017, 11:02 AM UTC

breser wrote: post #127

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?

My employer asks this question. I refused to answer when asked in person/phone. As we got further in the hiring process they asked as part of the form they fill in to setup the background check. Again I refused to answer this question. I failed the background check due to this. When we discussed it they said it was necessary so they could verify if I had lied about my salary when I'd given it previously. I pointed ou…

Post by shostack » Sun, Jan 22, 2017, 11:06 AM UTC

accountface wrote: post #103

mavelikara wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How does such a law makes things harder for you as a hiring manger?

Because you have to get someone all the way to an offer until you know what their salary expectations are. I think it's a good rule, but it is harder for managers. Especially managers who want to find a cheap hire.

Post by foldr » Sun, Jan 22, 2017, 11:21 AM UTC

WalterBright wrote: post #161

czep wrote: post #60

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>> > You will always need the job more than Comcast will need you > Where is the evidence for this? It does not require a great deal of imagination to understand that a large corporation and single prospective employee are not equal parties. If you fail to get a job, you will starve. If Comcast fails to hire you, they most clearly will not face an existential crisis. This is most certainly not a free market at work.…

> If you fail to get a job, you will starve. That sort of implies that you were born to have that job, and Comcast was formed to provide you with that job. Furthermore, any job that pays more than minimum wage implies there was negotiating going on and either party was willing to walk away.