Live data from Hacker News

New law bans California employers from asking applicants their prior salary

m.sfgate.com

551–560 of 680 posts

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

#551
post #421

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Moving jobs is the best way to get a large pay increase, especially if you're underpaid in your current job. Once you tell them how much you currently make, you've screwed yourself. This is a negotiating tactic used by employers to know how much they'll set as their upper bound for pay. Your employer may have strict pay bounds set, but a lot of places don't. The pay can vary highly between candidates, especially if t…

I dont disagree with much of what you said, I am mainly speaking out against the pay gap myth. As far as disclosing pay, I alway deflect it and treat the question as them asking me what my salary expectations are, which likely ends up doing the same thing, but I dont think I have ever told a company what my salary was at a previous job My current employer never asked, they said "this job pays X per year" did get a sm…

> I am mainly speaking out against the pay gap myth

I'm sure you're very smart and know better than all[1] the current[2] research[3].

[1] https://www.equalityhumanrights.com/en/publication-download/...

[2] https://www.accenture.com/gb-en/gender-equality-research-201...

[3] https://www.strath.ac.uk/business/research/research/highligh...

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

#552

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They can ask, legally. Maybe it would be used as evidence they wanted to discriminate but it's not a violation of the law simply to ask.

Unless the protected characteristic is in some material way relevant to the role, asking such questions is likely to contravene the law or laws establishing the protection. It's not a criminal act, but it is unlawful; to do so, without a very clear and compelling argument for why it's relevant to the candidate's ability to perform the job, places the organization at the mercy of any candidate who cares to file a clai…

This is false, it is generally not illegal to ask about protected characteristics, it's only illegal to use them in hiring decisions. The distinction is important.

The reason people avoid asking (and tell others to avoid the same) is to avoid accusations or the appearance of using that sort of information in their hiring decision. You really have no defense if you ask about ethnicity and then decide not to hire that person, it's logical that you were asking about ethnicity because you wanted to use that information in your decision.

"Don't ask don't tell" is a good policy.

Once you actually have the job it's STILL just as illegal to use this information in promotions/firing decisions. However, it comes up in casual conversation all the time. People don't fret about asking a subordinate where they were born in casual conversation.

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

#553

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They (The work Number/Equifax) don't license it at all. Company's pay for the privilege in fact. It's sold as outsourcing the "costly" HR task of providing salary data themselves. Other companys or individuals then pay Equifax $35 to make a single enquiry or subscribe at a monthly rate. Users include 82% of all F500 companies and they have 225 employment records. My company uses it :( http://redtape.nbcnews.com/_news…

Shameless plug for something I wrote today, in case you’re wondering what companies use it for and what you can do about that “Developer employee cheatsheet: WTF is Salary Benchmarking?“ https://codeformore.com/developer-employee-cheatsheet-wtf-sa...

Interesting read, thanks. How does one go from "senior engineer" to "architect"? Any tips?

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

#554

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They (The work Number/Equifax) don't license it at all. Company's pay for the privilege in fact. It's sold as outsourcing the "costly" HR task of providing salary data themselves. Other companys or individuals then pay Equifax $35 to make a single enquiry or subscribe at a monthly rate. Users include 82% of all F500 companies and they have 225 employment records. My company uses it :( http://redtape.nbcnews.com/_news…

Can I use it to find out what my co-workers make and negotiate a better salary,

No. The FCRA makes you obtain premission from your coworker first.

You give permission to your employer to query those sorts of databases when agreeing to a "background check" as a condition of being hired.

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

#555
post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Equifax has salary data? I hadn't heard that. //edit: Well shit, TIL: https://krebsonsecurity.com/2017/10/equifax-breach-fallout-y...

They do - I'm not sure how they licence it though or what data sources they use but I've seen that their data on high income households is the best in the business and shockingly accurate. However, I can't imagine the compliance nightmare that would exist around a process that lets HR people look up people's equifax information. If they get a full report, it could contain information about disabilities, national orig…

There is nothing wrong with HR having that information. It's only illegal to base hiring/firing decisions on protected information, it's not illegal to have it.

Obviously it gets really tricky to prove someone did or did not use protected information in their hiring/firing decision, so it's clearly safest for HR to avoid having any of that.

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

#556
Can't wait to hear every right-winger I know say how this isn't fair capitalism and not free market, completely ignoring past-wage discrimination and any gender gap... Just like they're instructed to do from Fox News and their opulent pastors.

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

#557
post #109

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

> 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. That is exactly why I refuse to negotiate over compensation: I don't want to work with people who have that kind of cheapskate attitude. If they want me, they can express that by making a good offer. If the offer is low, none of the possible reasons are good for me. Why waste time haggli…

But why take their first good offer when they're almost surely prepared to pay you + $5-10K/yr?

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

#558
post #474

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is consistent with my experience. Was making 175k in a lower cost of living area. Google wanted to pay 190k and require relocation to Mountain View. Had an offer in hand from another company for 240k. Google refused to negotiate. What a waste of my time. Never again. The two people I know who came to Google as juniors are forever typecast as such and are also not being paid well. Not Google continued to treat me…

Ok.. for what role? That's pretty high pay!

Individual contributor, Software Engineer.

At Google the recruiter put me in the SRE/SWE track which I was skeptical of and communicated to them. I also communicated about the compensation issues in advance saying if I got a bad offer it wasn't going to happen. Still wasted my time.

It's high for the industry if you consider the entire US or the world. The solution there is pick the right employer. The right ones are not that much harder to get into than the wrong ones especially if you play the interview game. You also need to not get caught location based comp schemes.

It's not high for a big corporation that is doing well. They just want you to think it's high so they don't have to pay and the small fry want you to think it's high because they can't afford it. These are all just line items in a budget.

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

#559

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Putting aside the household income for a moment: "Many" being able to report 6 figure incomes seems quiiiiite a stretch to me, 7 seems insane. Do you have a source for this? Or can you define "many" some more?

A million or more 18-20 year olds could no doubt truthfully report 6-figure household income. To me, that's "many". (Slightly over a quarter of households in the US have a household income over $100K as reported on tax returns. Household income for the purposes of credit application can be meaningfully higher than for adjusted gross income tax return concerns.)

That's actually an interesting stat. If there are ~115 million US households and 20% have > $100,000 income, that is ~23 million households. If 18-24 year olds make up ~9.5% of the population, and we 'assume' they are evenly distributed in these households, then this statement (well 18-24) could be true.

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

#560

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.)

Apple, maybe. Google, not so much. Still skeptical either way.

The head changes - the process stays the same. Without monetary damages, companys would just continue to hire CEOs to take the blame, like a ablative hull.
Post reply on HN