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

New law bans California employers from asking applicants their prior salary

m.sfgate.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

431–440 of 680 posts

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

#431

Post by ch4s3 »

WalterBright wrote: post #338
ch4s3 wrote: post #294

Earlier quoted context omitted.

ah yes, the booming American kidnapping business. /s Seriously though, it's not hard to find targets for this sort of thing by looking at census data and sales records for nice homes, yet it really never happens in the US. WHen was the last time you heard of some random lawyer, ceo, or banker getting kidnapped in the US?

Back when I worked for Data I/O, the wife of the CEO was kidnapped and held for ransom. There was a home invasion a couple blocks away. Lots of people prefer to keep a low profile and not attract these sorts of crimes.

I mean yes, if you can imagine a crime, surely it has happened in a nation of 350 million people. I think my point stands that it's an extremely rare crime, that's hard to commit, harder to cash in on, and harder still to get away with.

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

#432

Post by Sohcahtoa82 »

syshum wrote: post #374
rifung wrote: post #208

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> This makes the law seem even more ridiculous to me. Why is it more ridiculous? We already have laws against discrimination based on gender. If the issue isn't being solved, while being hands off, it seems natural to try something different. > It feels like they treating us like children incapable of tying our own shoes or something Well it does seem employers are incapable of eliminating the gender wage gap so perh…

Except for the fact that male and female pay for the same job, and experience level are statistically the same and there is no actual pay gap. The $0.79 on the $1 shit has been debunked a million times yet is still persists for some reason. The last good study I read showed a gap of something like 5% which was in the statistical margin and was largely accounted for by negotiation tactics. For an anecdote I (a male) e…

> The $0.79 on the $1 shit has been debunked a million times yet is still persists for some reason.

Because a certain group of people insists that the original $0.77 on the $1 statistic DID control for career choice and the like...even though it didn't. Any claims to the contrary are obviously misogynistic lies continuing the patriarchy. \eyeroll\

I've always said...if the pay gap really WAS that big, then why would employers bother to hire men?

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

#433

Post by thoekn230eo »

alphonsegaston wrote: post #66
Gargoyle wrote: post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you gather this information in any way from an applicant, you are opening yourself up to a lawsuit that will cost you many multiples of whatever you were hoping to save. Even if you win, which you won't. Also, "and — if applicants ask — must give them a pay range for the job they are seeking" So start offering what the job is worth.

Considering that companies like Google and Apple went to illegal extremes to prevent competition for labor and depress employee wages, I find it unlikely that they’re not going to do the same thing here. They’ll probably invent some cryptic, convoluted means to launder the data, and if they ever get caught, pay whatever slap on the wrist fine is the cost of doing this kind of stuff.

I'm as cynical as you are, and even won an award in that lawsuit. However, aren't both companies under different management now? (Tim vs. Steve, etc.)

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

#434

Post by kartan »

hota_mazi wrote: post #302
kartan wrote: post #272

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> As someone running a large organization, this is also a logistical nightmare since I usually have very good reasons to compensate X more than Y even if Y might think they should be paid the same amount. That's the key. I want to know what reasons. It is the best possible feedback for me. If you want to earn X more, you need to do this and that like this colleague does. It will force management to have better salary…

> It is the best possible feedback for me. See the little role play I offered in my other answer. It's not always the best possible feedback for you. First, because you might think the feedback is not justified. Your manager will tell you that other person is better than you according to some metric and you are very likely to disagree. And then what? Anguish, stress on your end. Resentment of your manager, your peers…

> First, because you might think the feedback is not justified.

That is a clear signal that there is a misalignment between my expectations and company expectations. It is important to clarify the point. And to see how it can be resolved so I can offer to the company what it's expected from me.

> Your manager will tell you that other person is better than you according to some metric and you are very likely to disagree.

Maybe it is because "Sweden". But I have had really interesting discussions with my direct reports about this topic when I was a manager. And it was my job to explain what they could improve and to do it in a way that they will understand. You are right that I didn't always manage at the first attempt. But, usually, I was at fault for not giving clear enough metrics.

That's why transparency can improve a company so much. It forces management to be more data-driven and to have better metrics. When a company doesn't know how to set salaries they need to improve.

> But assuming the feedback is warranted and you are mature enough to take it as a positive criticism that you're going to work on.

Do you hire people knowing that they are not able to react positively to feedback? That's a mistake. A non-blaming feedback culture will help the company and employees to improve drastically their skills and output.

> You will then probably expect to get that raise that evens out your salary with that other person, but what if you never do? Again anguish, resentment, etc...

Of course, I will expect to get the same salary if I improve to the point that I'm seen as someone as good as my colleague. Isn't that fair? Isn't that the correct point where the company pays for what it gets, and I get paid for my productivity? What is the reason to not get a salary accordingly to my seniority, expertise and work output?

> There's really hardly any chance anything positive comes out of this kind of transparency.

If the company wants to underpay people and lie to get away with it. It may be seen bad by the company. But it will still be a good thing, because it will force it to improve.

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

#435

Post by kingnothing »

komali2 wrote: post #118
kingnothing wrote: post #97

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you have a California office, you have to be incorporated in California, which means you're a California employer.

Ok cool, that makes sense. In that case, does CA law apply when you do a hire for your Texas office? Being both a Texan and California employer?

State laws apply to that state.

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

#436

Post by tathougies »

cracell wrote: post #114
geebee wrote: post #60

I'd prefer to see this go in the other direction and make all salary information public. Right now, employers have far more information than employees, and I don't think this law will do much to change that. To me, it's similar to real estate - imagine if only sellers had access to the database of exactly what every house sold for and when, but buyers had to go with unsubstantiated, scattered rumors. Or vise versa. T…

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.

Some American culture is really weird.

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

#437

Post by 0xC0DECAFE2020 »

CodeWriter23 wrote: post #393
ryandrake wrote: post #252

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Would you be OK with the prospective employee quoting you a salary 20% above what he's currently making if you asked?

Sure. I can ask for salary history once the individual is no longer an applicant and if I can’t confirm they told the truth, I can fire them on the spot without cause. California is an at will employment state.

See how long you last playing those games. Who in their right mind, other than the desperate among us, would work for a company that would do such a thing?

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

#438

Post by ch4s3 »

lr4444lr wrote: post #362
ch4s3 wrote: post #294

Earlier quoted context omitted.

ah yes, the booming American kidnapping business. /s Seriously though, it's not hard to find targets for this sort of thing by looking at census data and sales records for nice homes, yet it really never happens in the US. WHen was the last time you heard of some random lawyer, ceo, or banker getting kidnapped in the US?

How about service providers like car repairmen and house contractors ripping people off? How about gold-diggers pursuing people on false romantic pretenses? How about just people gossiping about you out of envy?

Doesn't that already happen? And what evidence do you have to suggest that known income would make it worse on average? What about cases where a contractor would presume a client is wealthy and try to rip them off, but income data would show that they are actually not as well off as appearances suggest?

But I haven't really bothered to think through any of that, because my point was about kidnapping, which almost never happens in the US. Fewer than 100 people are kidnapped for ransom in the US every year.

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

#439

Post by [deleted] »

basseq wrote: post #181
nicolashahn wrote: post #62

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is exactly why I made the comment. Recently went through 4 calls and a full day on site just to be met with an offer they wouldn't budge on that's 20% lower than what I currently make.

I've been through a similar situation: big mistake. They key is to validate you are in range on salary before committing to an interview process. Companies should have the same goal, but many will waste their own time—as you experienced. This doesn't mean you should share current salary information, but does mean you should be prepared to state your salary expectations. This can be a good thing, as you can anchor hig…

[deleted]

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

#440

Post by throwaway76543 »

whipoodle wrote: post #408
smallnamespace wrote: post #46

This is not going to be nearly as helpful as people think, as long as it's still legal for employers to verify salary once it's been revealed. People who know or suspect that their salary is above the average applicant's will volunteer it to the prospective employer. Other people will choose not to disclose. We will reach an equilibrium where non-disclosure will be an honest signal of lower current salary. The main d…

Oh, I didn’t know they verified it. I’ve never disclosed, but if I was pressed I figured I’d lie because it’s none of their business anyway. I can’t see why your current employer would verify that, though. Plus it’s a dead giveaway that you’re looking to leave... this just seems sort of crazy to me.

They can't really verify, because many have large non-salary compensation structures, comprising somewhere from 10% to 1000% (or even much more) of their base salary.

Repeat after me: "Well, taking into account my current schedule for divestiture and estimated market positions I would need X to match my total compensation package."

Post reply on HN