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

461–470 of 680 posts

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

#461

Post by conanbatt »

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 definitely an increased risk of lawsuits or robbery. However it has to be weigh in to the expectancy of a wage increase.

You have already decided to not pay for extra security by being in a poorer neihborhood, so we know safety is negotiable. What is that price to you? What if wage transparency increased your salary 10%?

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

#462

Post by conanbatt »

dsacco wrote: post #401
Khelavaster wrote: post #322

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>> 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. The entire point is that it's deeply screwed up for you to need to hide your wealth from your neighbors--or from some set of neighbors but not others--for fear of being robbed.

> The entire point is that it's deeply screwed up for you to need to hide your wealth from your neighbors--or from some set of neighbors but not others--for fear of being robbed. That's a normative statement, not a positive one. I don't consider it at all screwed up or intrinsically wrong to want to hide my income from my neighbors.

The positive statement is that transparent pricing is going to raise wages. There's little doubt about that. I dont know what magintude it could be, but it might end up being significant.

And if it is significant, it would probably be worth a lot more than the security cost. Its economically senseless to reject a better job position for the fear that someone might notice your increased income and rob you. For the vast majority of people that would be utterly ridicolous.

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

#463

Post by conanbatt »

lr4444lr wrote: post #246
vilmosi wrote: post #221

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>>> Yes. I don't want to increase my attractiveness regarding a house robbery, as I live well below my means If you live below your means, why would robbers target you? They don't care how much you make, they care what TV you have.

How about kidnapping your loved ones for ransom?

I guess thats why executives need the big bucks, to compensate all that kidnapping risk.

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

#464

Post by TimPC »

nicolashahn wrote: post #5
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…

Kind of off topic but should one always hide their current salary, even if it's above market rate (given their experience on paper)? It seems as though if an employer were only looking to spend so much on a hire, then if you're already likely above that number, wouldn't it save both you and the employer's time? I can see the obvious downside of sharing a relatively low salary, but it seems like there could be benefit…

If you’re far above (outside the range of most positions) it can be useful to disclose but only from a time saving perspective. It’s generally a poor tactic for optimizing salary.

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

#465

Post by conanbatt »

icelancer wrote: post #241
grasshopperpurp wrote: post #219

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's a legit concern. Assuming it was possible, if only those in your company could see your salary (and you could see their salaries), would you be in favor of it? I'm also assuming that people in your company don't live in your neighborhood/wouldn't be burglary threats.

I am the founder of a company and I have told my employees my salary, so this isn't really a theoretical question I guess. So, yes. I have no problem disclosing it to those who matter. The reason behind me disclosing it was to show that I was not the highest paid person in the company per salary. I have asked my employees if they want their salaries shared, they have overwhelmingly voted against it, even when I bring…

This is such a culturally strong issue. I truly wonder how this should be implemented. As far as I know, its all prejudice from the public itself.

Yet everyone goes to glassdoor to check salaries.

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

#466

Post by conanbatt »

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…

But salaries are not really private. The company has salaries. The state often makes their salaries public. The IRS has that information. Credit agencies do, etc.

The state has gained an absolute right to know your wage, which one could argue that abolishes the private nature of that information, much like your gender, or your face.

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

#467

Post by conanbatt »

surfmike wrote: post #178
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…

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.

I don't think this is a leveled assessment of the risk. Would you pay 10% of your salary for the secrecy?

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

#468

Post by KirinDave »

TearsInTheRain wrote: post #176
chollida1 wrote: post #3

> 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

> It feels like they treating us like children incapable of tying our own shoes or something

Well if the objective assessment of the evidence didn't reveal a wage gap based on gender, then maybe we could agree.

But it seems, left to their own devices, many companies perpetuate the wage gap.

So what this does is further increase the cost of doing already shady and illegal business by making a practice that's almost universally bad for workers anyways and made that illegal to.

These laws don't result in jail, they result in fines. So it's the government engaging in it's population-mandated practice of making illegal practices more expensive.

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

#469

Post by conanbatt »

softwarefounder wrote: post #391
cracell wrote: post #114

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." Only on HN, would the same crowd that ferociously defends data privacy, decide to play devil's advocate on this comment. (Regarding the thread under the parent post)

The prize is so tempting. Wage increases galore.

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

#470

Post by KirinDave »

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.

It persists because it's a real average.

And uh, it's not the case that the pay gap has been disproven in many industries.

Post reply on HN