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

511–520 of 680 posts

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

#511

Post by tomrod »

jldugger wrote: post #500
seattle_spring wrote: post #495

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, it's a real average that proves that a female teacher makes less than a male mechanical engineer. How does that help anyone, other than pushing a false narrative?

Well, it might tell us the shape of discrimination is less overt and more structural. Why exactly was it that out of my CS graduating class of 100 there was 1 woman?

Given the supplied anecdote, it is because 99 men and 1 woman completed the requirements for a CS degree, for whatever reasons the individuals decided go do so.

Let's step aside the point of generalizing one anecdote to be representative, however. Can we really assign the disparity solely to microaggressions against women? Would we feel the same if the split were 75/25,or 51/49? What is the threshold of equality with respect to noise?

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

#512

Post by ronilan »

jpttsn wrote: post #509
ronilan wrote: post #150

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Employers don't buy employees. That's already the law. So... No. It is toatally not like that and hopefully such a law will help clarify the point to any who miss it. Such a law will also provide balances in an unbalanced power situation and enforce economic efficiencies on an inefficient process. I'm not a lawmaker nor an employer, though, so I'll leave the suggestion for someone else to pick up.

Employers do buy the labor of employees. Think of the employee as the store and the labor as the clothes.

I've taken economics in university. I understand this line of thinking. It's wrong.

(twice, btw, once because the negative externalities of "the interview process" are not negligible, and second because the power dynamics of said process are just wrong)

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

#513

Post by jxramos »

Sohcahtoa82 wrote: post #432
syshum wrote: post #374

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

That questioning of the gap being that big makes me think about this exchange Milton Friedman had with some college students in like the 70s or something regarding equal pay for equal work. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hsIpQ7YguGE

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

#514

Post by jxramos »

pmoriarty wrote: post #4

This is a ban on employers -- afaik, recruiters can still ask (and many probably will ask). But, IANAL. (Correction: It looks like recruiters fall under this prohibition too, if they are acting as agents of the employer.) I personally never answer questions about my previous salary or my expected salary. When HR has given me forms to fill out that have questions about either I just leave them blank, and they've never…

Just to clarify in understanding why recruiters are so adamant about this information. For said job they are trying to fill the budget pays $X dollars, if you're asking for $0.85X then they have a 0.15X margin to work with. Depending on how much that is reveals how lucrative filling you into that role would assume and whether it would cover their costs and what not. It's not uncommon for recruiters to retain 25-30% of the billing rate the company dishes out.

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

#516

Post by disiplus »

komali2 wrote: post #111
disiplus wrote: post #105

Earlier quoted context omitted.

how about telling the candidates in front that the expected salary is in the range of x-y.

Because every time I told a candidate a range, I'd hear back "ok so the salary is {{max_salary}}, cool." Nobody in the contracting world wants to undersell themselves. If somebody on the team is getting 75/hr, everybody better get 75/hr or hell gets raised. This is why the O&G industry out in Houston pushes back hard against any salary-sharing.

i was on both sides, if somebody does not have a lot experience or does not know how much they are worth, its easy to exploit, you ask them what they currently earn and what they expected salary is, and on that you can judge the new salary. the last candidate that i hired said something even under the lover range that i expected, so i offered him a decent bump (20%) on that as i did not want to underpay him.

if i end on the other side again i will ask for the upper range for myself and see where it gets me.

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

#517

Post by Yizahi »

komali2 wrote: post #111
disiplus wrote: post #105

Earlier quoted context omitted.

how about telling the candidates in front that the expected salary is in the range of x-y.

Because every time I told a candidate a range, I'd hear back "ok so the salary is {{max_salary}}, cool." Nobody in the contracting world wants to undersell themselves. If somebody on the team is getting 75/hr, everybody better get 75/hr or hell gets raised. This is why the O&G industry out in Houston pushes back hard against any salary-sharing.

Salary range x-y for a position is basically a fixed sum y allotted for doing this work with an ability to dock part of this sum if a worker is not doing all all his tasks, or doing mistakes. Using salary range even before hiring is essentially a possibility to penalize a worker for his future transgressions even before he is employed. Basically - blackmail.

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

#518

Post by jpttsn »

ronilan wrote: post #512
jpttsn wrote: post #509

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Employers do buy the labor of employees. Think of the employee as the store and the labor as the clothes.

I've taken economics in university. I understand this line of thinking. It's wrong. (twice, btw, once because the negative externalities of "the interview process" are not negligible, and second because the power dynamics of said process are just wrong)

I like my analogy; why not convince me it's wrong?

Are there no negative externalities of trying on clothes?

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

#519

Post by Yizahi »

icelancer wrote: post #164
Sangermaine wrote: post #154

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.

There is a big portion of people who declare their income publicly and nobody robs them based on this information. Robbers don't work that way, instead they try to find out and target who has unprotected stuff - unlocked home, locked home with owners on vacation (targeted by spotter), open car, car on unguarded parking with known vulnerability etc. etc.

There are tens of thousands very rich people in any country and nobody robs them specifically, despite only several percent of them using active guards or security. They are robbed with the same chance as anyone else.

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

#520

Post by _4570 »

kamaal wrote: post #484
Sohcahtoa82 wrote: post #430

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Once you tell them how much you currently make, you've screwed yourself. This is the truth. When I finished my CS degree and started looking for work, I had a recruiter tell me I shouldn't expect any pay over my previous job, and since my previous job was a software testing internship for $12.75/hr, I shouldn't expect more than $15/hr or so. I said "Yeah, no. I'm not taking a software engineering job for barely ove…

In India, your resume qualifies for interview only if you disclose your previous salary. I don't think its mandated by law, but thats's how the system works anyway.

I've been through 2 employers and working at my third. I've never disclosed my salary pre-interview. All three jobs at Bangalore, India. So no, that's not how the system works.
Post reply on HN