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

191–200 of 244 posts

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

#191

Post by jimnotgym »

danieltillett wrote: post #183
wutbrodo wrote: post #182

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I really think HR is a job that nobody should ever do full time. It should be a responsibility that is only ever allocated to someone who has another job to do - ideally someone who has to deal personally with the consequences of HR idiocracy.

Amongst the worst HR practice now is 'keyword searching' CV's against a job spec by people who have no idea what those terms mean.

An acquaintance told me he saw a downturn in contract work offers due to X qualification becoming widespread in his sector. He changed his CV to say 'I don't have X but..' and found traffic returned to normal!

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

#193

Post by meanduck »

EliRivers wrote: post #188
meanduck wrote: post #112

Earlier quoted context omitted.

HN is toast. Its being overrun by statists/socialists.

Indeed. Those filthy commies will be completely unable to provide and discuss anything that "good hackers would find interesting". Only God's only people, the Objectivists, can do that.

Im perfectly ok if HN bans all political news.

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

#194

Post by d4rti »

shostack wrote: post #187
accountface wrote: post #103

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

There isn't anything stopping you from asking expectations. Just history, which removes some of your leverage (arguably a good thing). And people looking for "cheap hires" deserve to be hit hard by this the most IMHO. Leveling the playing field with information asymmetry is a good thing.

There's also no prohibition of advertising the job with a salary range, which would also solve the problem.

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

#195

Post by literallycancer »

hackuser wrote: post #141
literallycancer wrote: post #106

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>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. Whether it's understandable doesn't matter, you only need to prove that they intentionally mislead you to get you to sign something detrimental to your interests. >There's…

> Whether it's understandable doesn't matter There is a wide chasm between provably misleading and confusion or lack of information on the readers' side. That's why those communications are regulated, afaik. > I'm sure there already are laws that prevent/penalize sellers from conning people. Right, laws and regulations. 1) My point above was that the legal analysts said that the new corporate free speech rights, whic…

>1) My point above was that the legal analysts said that the new corporate free speech rights, which the Supreme Court said were Constitutional rights (if I understand correctly), might invalidate those laws.

But then why aren't individuals using this as a defense already?, they have had the free speech rights for much longer.

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

#196

Post by aninhumer »

meanduck wrote: post #156
lend000 wrote: post #154

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

> I think 'physical assault' is a very simplistic view of the NAP Its simple by design. Its easiest to get universel consent. > 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 r…

>Its simple by design. Its easiest to get universel consent.

And it falls down as soon as you want to enforce any other rules, like say, property rights.

If I reach to take your property and you slap my hand away, you have broken the NAP as you define it. Or you let me take it, but then expect the police or security company to punish me, they are breaking the NAP.

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

#197

Post by witty_username »

ch4s3 wrote: post #24
lend000 wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 the…

You forget that if companies win we win by higher interest rates on bank accounts and higher stock prices.

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

#198

Post by witty_username »

czep wrote: post #40
winter_blue wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

> 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. Please see ch4s3's excellent itemized response to an earlier thread for a concise summary of the reasons why this can't be framed simply as an issue of free speech. The key point is the power differential. While you may be lucky enough to be highly skilled and have enough cultural capita…

There is a power differential but it is not high. You can find another employer (just don't apply to employers that ask these questions).

Indeed, if most people refuse such employers, the employers will have to raise their wages or stop asking that question.

They're only able to ask this question because some employees are fine with it. So let both voluntarily discuss that question.

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

#199

Post by aninhumer »

jacquesc wrote: post #166
criveros wrote: post #153

I added 10k to my salary last time I was asked.

You may have stumbled upon a solution here. Make it legal to ask the question, but also make it legal to lie about the answer (including doctoring paystubs, etc). Seems like a uniquely libertarian solution.

I don't think it really solves the problem. Making it legal to lie means employer can't sue you for fraud, but they can still fire you if they find out.

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

#200

Post by Latty »

witty_username wrote: post #197
ch4s3 wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 the…

You forget that if companies win we win by higher interest rates on bank accounts and higher stock prices.

Who is "we"? People who already have wealth? Sure.
Post reply on HN