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

231–240 of 244 posts

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

#231

Post by snarf21 »

crdoconnor wrote: post #210
snarf21 wrote: post #206

I understand the goal of this law but don't see how it solves it. I usually ask people what their current salary is now. I want to offer them (at least) a modest raise to come here. I want them to be happy and excited. I also want to not waste a ton of time negotiating salary if they want 50K more then I have available in my budget. You are worth whatever you can get someone to pay you. Some people may come in with a…

I usually respond to this question with a question of my own: "Are you asking this question because you don't have faith in your own ability to interview and value employees or because you are trying to lowball me?"

I understand what you are saying but I personally don't think any amount of interviewing will ever tell me exactly how much value an employee will give me in the next year.

[Serious] Do you think this is possible? I can think of no way except to put them on a 3 month contract to see what they are really worth and I don't think that is what candidates are looking for.

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

#232

Post by snarf21 »

philliphaydon wrote: post #213
snarf21 wrote: post #206

I understand the goal of this law but don't see how it solves it. I usually ask people what their current salary is now. I want to offer them (at least) a modest raise to come here. I want them to be happy and excited. I also want to not waste a ton of time negotiating salary if they want 50K more then I have available in my budget. You are worth whatever you can get someone to pay you. Some people may come in with a…

Your example. You don't value the candidate. If you want that candidate then offer them what you believe they are worth to the value they will bring to your company.

I made a similar response below but how can any amount of interviewing give me anything but a vague notion of the amount of value they will provide the company over the next twelve months.

I assume that their previous employer, who had them working there for years, is a much better judge of value they can provide. So if I am offering more than that, I don't see how I am not valuing the candidate.

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

#233

Post by philliphaydon »

snarf21 wrote: post #232
philliphaydon wrote: post #213

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Your example. You don't value the candidate. If you want that candidate then offer them what you believe they are worth to the value they will bring to your company.

I made a similar response below but how can any amount of interviewing give me anything but a vague notion of the amount of value they will provide the company over the next twelve months. I assume that their previous employer, who had them working there for years, is a much better judge of value they can provide. So if I am offering more than that, I don't see how I am not valuing the candidate.

This is why probation periods exist. Either you value the individual or you don't. You either both agree on a fixed amount or you don't. If the individual says no. He feels undervalued.

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

#234

Post by crdoconnor »

snarf21 wrote: post #231
crdoconnor wrote: post #210

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I usually respond to this question with a question of my own: "Are you asking this question because you don't have faith in your own ability to interview and value employees or because you are trying to lowball me?"

I understand what you are saying but I personally don't think any amount of interviewing will ever tell me exactly how much value an employee will give me in the next year. [Serious] Do you think this is possible? I can think of no way except to put them on a 3 month contract to see what they are really worth and I don't think that is what candidates are looking for.

Yes, I got this from what you said:

"Some people may come in with a lower ask but then you have yourself, are they a bargain or are they just less talented?"

shrug I have faith in my interviewing skills. I was interviewing for a position for about 5 months for a very picky employer. I interviewed a lot of people who were good but expensive and even more who were cheap but not so good. Eventually I spotted a bargain and they snapped him up.

I don't really believe in bargains though. It takes a lot of time and effort to find one and they tend to leave quickly once they've figured out that they underpriced themselves.

Most places I've worked I've done so initially on a short term contract. I prefer it mainly because I can charge more.

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

#235

Post by FullMtlAlcoholc »

lend000 wrote: post #74
FullMtlAlcoholc wrote: post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You have a very naive, non-nuanced, and absolutist view of the world. > Actually, this is completely false. You have a pretty good understanding of what they pay employees in similar positions (if you've ever heard of Glassdoor), Are you serious? Do you really think Glassdoor is a legitimate authority for salary at companies? They do zero verification and are mostly dependent on people's honesty. Personally, I've sig…

> You have a very naive, non-nuanced, and absolutist view of the world. Already excited for the personal attacks and logical fallacies which await. > Are you serious? Do you really think Glassdoor is a legitimate authority for salary at companies? They do zero verification and are mostly dependent on people's honesty. Personally, I've signed up for no less than 10 Glassdoor accounts with companies I've never worked f…

Don't feed the troll

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

#236

Post by lend000 »

FullMtlAlcoholc wrote: post #235
lend000 wrote: post #74

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> You have a very naive, non-nuanced, and absolutist view of the world. Already excited for the personal attacks and logical fallacies which await. > Are you serious? Do you really think Glassdoor is a legitimate authority for salary at companies? They do zero verification and are mostly dependent on people's honesty. Personally, I've signed up for no less than 10 Glassdoor accounts with companies I've never worked f…

Don't feed the troll

It would appear you were the condescending troll based on your original post, and I'm glad to have put you in your place. Being outwardly rude does not make your arguments more compelling, and it usually signifies your frustration with your own inability to express yourself. So, sorry about that, but there are more mature ways to handle your emotions. Educating yourself on the specifics would be a good first step, and not making assumptions about others that are irrelevant to the discussion would be another.

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

#237

Post by lend000 »

crdoconnor wrote: post #228
lend000 wrote: post #227

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Most people won't agree on a definition of "property" or "aggression" rendering the point moot, however. First of all, the only relevant definition in the NAP is "aggression." Regardless, I think it's incredibly useful to have a fundamental basis that people agree on, which can be used as a pillar of debate. It's the closest you can come to a 'scientific method' in political discussion, as opposed to the Democrats'…

>First of all, the only relevant definition in the NAP is "aggression." Literally in the first paragraph: "Aggression", for the purposes of NAP, is defined as initiating or threatening the use of any and all forcible interference with an individual or individual's property .[1]" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-aggression_principle >Regardless, I think it's incredibly useful to have a fundamental basis that people a…

> Literally in the first paragraph:

I laid out my definition in a prior comment; the most succinct version is "your only right is the right to not be aggressed against." Adding property is a nice way of delving into specifics, but it's not the most fundamental definition.

> That's hilarious.

Sounds like you have a personal bias against libertarianism. This is nothing new -- I deal with contrarians all the time, who are usually dead set on dismissing alternative views instead of building their own. Yes, nothing in the world is "pure" and "perfect," but I'm curious what criteria you use to evaluate policy, or if it's just a doozy and you agree with whatever you read in the New York Times.

Not trying to insult you, but please, for your sake and everyone else's: don't be a contrarian. This is serious life advice. Multiple companies I've worked for have had rules like "don't complain unless you provide a better solution," and they're right. You don't need to blindly pat everyone on the back, but arguing against something without proposing or referencing something better is one of my pet peeves.

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

#238

Post by lend000 »

Jarwain wrote: post #181
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…

What is your opinion on regulations that protect certain social classes. For example, should a business be allowed to refuse a LGBT customer their services?

Sole proprietor/family business/lemonade stand: yes, refuse whoever you want, even if you blatantly say "we don't serve gays."

Corporations/LLC's: these entities have obtained special government privileges (being detached from any personal liability/ ability to seize an owner's assets), and so it seems reasonable that they can be considered to 'meet some public standards' in exchange for these privileges. Anti-discrimination falls into that category in my opinion.

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

#239

Post by meanduck »

aninhumer wrote: post #196
meanduck wrote: post #156

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

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

You are right. For this desirable, two universal consents are needed: 1. NAP 2. Land Registry (eg blockchain based).

I claim that there will be 99%+ consent among inhabitants of a perticular region, which is good enough.

This have to be mentioned that no society (ancapism or socialism) can function without some minimum level of cooperation from all which is safe assumption because we are after all social animals. When this characterstic is not found, people migrate as they have been doing since ages.

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

#240

Post by foldr »

WalterBright wrote: post #222
foldr wrote: post #190

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And this law does nothing to prevent interviewees voluntarily disclosing their previous salary.

That's right. And the employer will likely infer that the salary is low if it is not disclosed.

Why? It's not normal practice for interviewees to volunteer their previous salaries.
Post reply on HN