Live data from Hacker News

New law bans California employers from asking applicants their prior salary

m.sfgate.com

171–180 of 680 posts

Re: New law bans California employers from asking applicants their prior salary

#171

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Ok, but know that completely rational nations have decided to go with OPs way(like Norway)

I'd laugh my ass off if the CEO/upper management of any company in the US had to actually report to their employees how much they made, and not just through salary. There would be an uprising.

No uprising, but there has been an upwelling of CEO compensation, as nobody wants to lose their CEO due to a lack of compensation.

IIRC, it's been one of the biggest driving forces in CEO's salaries skyrocketing.

I don't think, however, that it would have a similar effect on our (i.e. employees) salaries.

Re: New law bans California employers from asking applicants their prior salary

#172
This is a bad law. This will perpetuate the wage gap between men and women employees. These kind of laws will continue the "don't ask, don't tell" aura around salary information. Instead of making this information secret, salary information needs to be pushed more public, so that when someone is paid less for equal work, there is absolutely no doubt about the salary that each employee receives.

Re: New law bans California employers from asking applicants their prior salary

#173

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>No thank you. >My salary is private. I do not want my family and friends to know how much I make. But have you thought about why you feel this way? I assume you are American, as am I, and so I understand we've been socialized by our culture to feel this way, but it really makes no sense. It's just a way to harm workers by keeping us from seeing when we're being screwed. I'd even go so far as to wager that this entir…

>>But have you thought about why you feel this way? Yes. I don't want to increase my attractiveness regarding a house robbery, as I live well below my means in a developing neighborhood, amongst other reasons. I very much understand the concept of leverage and have no problems privately discussing my salary amongst groups that I trust. That doesn't include the entire Internet.

>I live well below my means in a developing neighborhood, amongst other reasons.

And what, hide cash in your mattress?

Re: New law bans California employers from asking applicants their prior salary

#174
post #120

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But then you lose the chance to negotiate up. Any number you state can be interpreted as the highest you will get offered. In salary negotiation, make it so the employer presents the first offer, and then negotiate up.

Give them some range and do due diligence, the market figures are usually known

I've never found a range to work. They will immediately go to the bottom of your range or even below. So, the range you give better start at the top of your ideal range. Or, more preferably, don't name a number.

Re: New law bans California employers from asking applicants their prior salary

#175

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>>But have you thought about why you feel this way? Yes. I don't want to increase my attractiveness regarding a house robbery, as I live well below my means in a developing neighborhood, amongst other reasons. I very much understand the concept of leverage and have no problems privately discussing my salary amongst groups that I trust. That doesn't include the entire Internet.

>I live well below my means in a developing neighborhood, amongst other reasons. And what, hide cash in your mattress?

Not really sure how I store my money is relevant; are you insinuating that my neighbors and potential regionally-available criminals can get my demand deposit and IRA balances at will?

EDIT: Ah, I see, you were making a snarky joke about them breaking into my house and stealing stuff. I do have nice things in my house, yes, not cash under my mattress. Just because I live below my means doesn't mean I don't have things I wouldn't want them to steal. Expensive laptops, computing resources for work, and, oh, I don't know, just not a fan of people breaking into my house in general regardless of what I have?

Re: New law bans California employers from asking applicants their prior salary

#176

> The goal is to narrow the gender wage gap. If a woman is paid less than a man doing the same job and a new employer bases her pay on her prior salary, gender discrimination can be perpetuated, the bill’s backers say. Hmm, I'd never thought about that angle,but I guess it makes sense. No word on if they are allowed to use Equifax, etc to pull salary data from? EDIT: looking at the bill it looks like querying Equifax…

> The goal is to narrow the gender wage gap.

This makes the law seem even more ridiculous to me. Do we really need the government stepping into the hiring process like this and micromanaging? It feels like they treating us like children incapable of tying our own shoes or something

Re: New law bans California employers from asking applicants their prior salary

#177
post #126

Earlier quoted context omitted.

at the granular level of per paycheck, even

So they're buying it from ADP?

Or getting it automatically from the employers in exchange for having access to it for new hires.

Re: New law bans California employers from asking applicants their prior salary

#178

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No thank you. My salary is private. I do not want my family and friends to know how much I make. I also have never told a potential employer my salary. I believe it stopped things from going on to the interview stage but the way they took my refusal made me assume they paid under market rate.

>No thank you. >My salary is private. I do not want my family and friends to know how much I make. But have you thought about why you feel this way? I assume you are American, as am I, and so I understand we've been socialized by our culture to feel this way, but it really makes no sense. It's just a way to harm workers by keeping us from seeing when we're being screwed. I'd even go so far as to wager that this entir…

Money is also the root of a lot of strife, both within families and beyond, both for people who have money and those that don't. People should have a right to privacy in their financial affairs.

Re: New law bans California employers from asking applicants their prior salary

#179
post #54

I've recently been on both ends of the table here. I don't share my previous salary but I'm always willing to share a pay range. The range being higher than I'd ever expect to get paid. I find this to be important when discussing salary with an employer because it gives me a baseline to continue discussions. If they can't meet my bottom line then I'm not interested. The reason I give a range is because salary is only…

"I've also come to expect that I'm going to give a candidate a pay range as well." Employers in California are now required to do so upon request, so be prepared.

the new law stipulates disclosure of a pay range? that's fantastic! probably only for base though not total comp?

Re: New law bans California employers from asking applicants their prior salary

#180
post #109

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Recruiters need to find candidates for a given range. Considering the breath of paygrades for even similar experience level jobs across the tech sector it’s not that surprising. If a company looks for some one for say 100-120K you are wasting your time and the recruiters time if you won’t take any offers below 180. Whilst you might find an employer who’ll be willing and able to go 5-10% over the max it’s not likely t…

But then why not just post the salary range? The truth is, employers are willing to pay $180k, but if someone would work for $110k[1], they'd rather find that out in advance. Btw, I've had a recruiter from GooglAmaFaceSoft tell me in advance the max may for a position. [1] I consider this to be a bad idea. An employee who won't negotiate a higher salary will often instead test his or her market value by interviewing…

There are plenty of employers that can't afford to pay 180k, not everyone works for Google, Amazon or Facebook.

Here in London you have a lot of companies that look for people with similar experience that have huge pay ranges.

A Sr. Engineer can be making anywhere from 40-45K to 110-120K a year (in general health care pays the least, fintech/finance pays the most, startups in the UK often underpay and equity is a joke if they'll even give you any (like 0.5-1% to single digit employee's straight after the accelerator).

Yes when you break it down not every company gets the same level/quality of talent but the requirements on paper are the same.

As for Salary ranges in the UK most of them post, but the ranges can be pretty huge (my company has a range of 65-110K for Sr. Engineers (which overlaps with both engineer III and Lead Engineer), and while it might appear that it's "well they are willing to pay 110 but they rather pay 60" deal there is another side to the story.

Headcount doesn't makes sense, quite often you might get a head count for a specific position say a Sr. Engineer but the team doesn't need one backfilling positions with lower grades isn't always possible so what end up being is that they'll hire people with the bare minium amount of experience needed to pass the HR filter at the lower end of the pay grade spectrum to keep enough money in their budget for pay rises or to hire external consultants.

So while huge ranges can lead to what some people see as underpaying because some one didn't ask enough or didn't had a large enough salary previously to get more it's also the case that these ranges allow teams and departments to navigate through the corporate bullshit of arranged headcounts and stupid ratios.

When you need to have 2 engineer II for every 4 engineer I, and 1 engineer III for every 5 engineer III and 1 sr engineer for every 3 engineer III and so and and so forth you really needs these huge and overlapping ranges to actually be able to hire people in a way that is sensible to the your team / department needs.

On the more anecdotal side this is what currently actually helped my team a lot we need a Sr Engineer but we don't have a headcount, but since Engineer III on the top end is about the middle field of the Sr. paygrade we can use that with a signing bonus to get the people with the experience and skills we need rather than just effectively waste money on a person that we will not be able to get from.

I've joined as a Sr on an intentionally downgraded backfill on a recommendation from a friend who works in the same department since the pay would be identical near the top end of the pay grade but having another tier to "grow into" would allow me to get a bigger raise in the future since a grade promotion has a 12.5% pay raise by default which means that if I can't get the raises I would like I can always be internally promoted to for a bigger raise, and it's much easier to be promoted from Sr to Lead than taking the tech expert or manager roles since those require more years of experience in the company for an internal promotion (again dumb policies but you can't always fight the system).

Post reply on HN