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

351–360 of 680 posts

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

#351

Post by s73ver_ »

benji-york wrote: post #57
ciro_langone wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, there isn't, unless you're okay with short-selling yourself. If you share and your amount is > the employers, you have no job. Bad situation. If you share and your amount is If you offer the number first, the employer becomes the customer - and the customer is always right. If you wait for them to make you an offer, they have to make an offer that is compelling, in the same way sales people go above-and-beyond to…

I think that holds only if your time is worth nothing. I don't want to go through weeks of interviews just to find out that my salary demands are $50K more than they're willing to pay.

That's why part of this law states that the employer has to provide the salary range upon request.

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

#352

Post by krupan »

falcolas wrote: post #171
taurath wrote: post #135

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

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

Why not?

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

#353

Post by s73ver_ »

bdamm wrote: post #48
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…

When asked about my salary, I always answer with the salary I wished I had. There's no requirement to tell the truth.

I had a company I was talking to ask, and say up front that they would need pay stubs as proof.

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

#354

Post by surfmike »

goialoq wrote: post #314
icelancer wrote: post #182

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Correct. Look at lottery winners and see how their lives are ruined when it becomes public knowledge that they are suddenly worth a lot of money.

this problem can be easily solved by removing the absurdity of a multi-million dollar lottery.

But you'll create this problem for a lot of new people by making salaries public. You don't need to be a multimillionaire for money to cause problems.

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

#355

Post by DoofusOfDeath »

gcb0 wrote: post #260
icelancer wrote: post #164

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.

so you would outright reject any job in the government, even in a subsidised University?

When I worked for the DoD, our salaries where not published.

Not that it mattered that much, thanks to the hacking of the OPM.

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

#356

Post by danso »

rangersanger wrote: post #287
danso wrote: post #250

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> All Americans have a right to privacy. Their reason for privacy doesn't matter and doesn't need to make sense to you. Seeing how the right to privacy is not specifically enshrined, I would argue that the reasons for keeping some things private is very much at the heart of the matter. For instance, why does the government not think the benefits of transparency outweigh the disadvantages when it comes to individual r…

It's not specifically enshrined because it doesn't need to be. It's implied under the bill of rights: "no state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law ... nor deny any person the equal protection of the laws," (Amendment 14 Section 1). https://en.wi…

Again, then it is a worthwhile argument to ask why certain things are enshrined when others are not, if it is indeed possible to base a legal system upon what reasonable minds agree is "implied". For example, most people today would agree that not enslaving humans is implied under the equal protection clause., and yet, we have a specific amendment that had to be ratified, stating "No person can hold another as a slave..."

Like most implied rights, the right to privacy is weak specifically because it is not enshrined. Even the explicitly stated rights have limits, particularly when they butt into the other explicitly stated rights.

When the implied "right to privacy" butts into the 1st Amendment rights of freedom of expression and a free press, on which side do you think the courts will err on, on a consistent basis?

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

#357

Post by icelancer »

goialoq wrote: post #314
icelancer wrote: post #182

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Correct. Look at lottery winners and see how their lives are ruined when it becomes public knowledge that they are suddenly worth a lot of money.

this problem can be easily solved by removing the absurdity of a multi-million dollar lottery.

How does removing a multi-million dollar lottery solve the issue of making everyone's salaries public and having the same issue there?

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

#358

Post by icelancer »

vilmosi wrote: post #280
icelancer wrote: post #223

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Living below my means doesn't mean I live like my neighbors. My house is roughly the same as everyone around me. The contents of the house are not (and they are private), and yet I still live well below my means. I have a semi-nice TV, and more importantly, expensive computers like pretty much everyone on HN to do my job.

[deleted]

If my (relatively high) salary is published, they'll be able to make inferences - crucially, it doesn't matter if they are correct or not.

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

#359

Post by icelancer »

ch4s3 wrote: post #294
lr4444lr wrote: post #246

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How about kidnapping your loved ones for ransom?

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?

A few years ago the townhome next to me was broken into and a woman was kidnapped.

So, I guess a few years ago, I'd say.

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

#360

Post by s73ver_ »

otakucode wrote: post #31

I've never once answered such a question and never understood why anyone would. When they ask, you tell them you don't give out that information. I've never even had someone question that or ask twice.

Unfortunately not everyone is in the position where they can just say no like that.
Post reply on HN