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

Philadelphia Poised to Ban Employers from Asking Hires About Salary History

wsj.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

51–60 of 244 posts

Re: Philadelphia Poised to Ban Employers from Asking Hires About Salary History

#51

Post by madeofpalk »

_m8fo wrote: post #13
winter_blue wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> A society truly run by the people, ala individuals, would have banned this I'm libertarian-leaning, and statements like these bother me deeply. If I'm an employer, why ban me from asking some question to a prospective employee? It's a restriction on the employer's freedom. The job applicant has a right to decline to answer my question (and I have a right to decline to offer a job). Regulating what questions I can a…

You're asking the wrong question. Why allow it? Employers and people are not equivalent in my mind, even if they are the same, legally. Your story is nice, but I've also heard stories where people are rejected immediately because they didn't share. Sure, you could say that people shouldn't work for those companies (and they shouldn't), but not everyone has the luxury of being able to interview anywhere, nor the abili…

> You're asking the wrong question. Why allow it?

No, this is definitely the wrong question. Things shouldn't be banned by default and then we debate about why to unban (allow) it.

Re: Philadelphia Poised to Ban Employers from Asking Hires About Salary History

#52

Post by phkahler »

lend000 wrote: post #41
ch4s3 wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Probably because there is a very large disparity in power and information. A few points: 1. You will always need the job more than Comcast will need you (unless you're unusually skilled, most workers aren't) 2. Comcast knows how much the pay every one of their employees, you the job seeker do not. 3. Comcast is only asking so they can figure out the lowest pay you'll accept. You have no way to figure out how high the…

> You will always need the job more than Comcast will need you Where is the evidence for this? This is by no means an obvious claim. No one in the world needs "the job," even though most people need "a job." Do companies exist that are more moral/popular/friendly than others? Of course. And some of them are successful in part because people want them to succeed due to their aforementioned characteristics. That is fre…

Most companies have multiple employees, where most employees only have one employer. You are 1/n to them and they are everything to you. The power differential is staggering particularly for a cable company.

Re: Philadelphia Poised to Ban Employers from Asking Hires About Salary History

#53

Post by _m8fo »

lend000 wrote: post #50
_m8fo wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> You can choose not to answer it; you can lie; you can choose not to work for employers that ask the question in the first place, especially if they coerce you into providing records. >> you can choose not to work for employers that ask the question in the first place >>> you can choose not to work And here is the disconnect. Not everyone has the ability to simply "choose not to work...". Hence, laws. Your reasoning…

Not that I agree with the logical leaps here, but you skipped a step: > you can choose not to work for employers You don't have to work for any particular employer, and you also don't have to work for any employer at all. You can consult, contract, start a company, etc. But of course this is not necessary even if you're basing your entire career around avoiding that question, because it's not like every single employ…

I skipped that step because it leads to the same conclusion. Or do you think a regular person in this country is capable of consulting, contracting, starting a company, etc?

Re: Philadelphia Poised to Ban Employers from Asking Hires About Salary History

#54

Post by lend000 »

pasquinelli wrote: post #44
lend000 wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Are all employers corporations? And even as such, this is just outlawing information. I do not understand how so many on the left support such a measure. It's a question -- outlawing questions, especially between private parties in a consensual relationship (applicant and employer), is backwards. You can choose not to answer it; you can lie; you can choose not to work for employers that ask the question in the first…

sure, i agree, so in the spirit of free exchange of information, let's require employers to list their salary range in all job listings, and let's require employers to give salary statistics to prospective employees before salary negotiations. if an employer doesn't want to disclose that information, then they are free to not hire anyone.

Coercion is not freedom my friend -- anything with the word "Require" is a safe bet to be a confused argument for freedom.

But this would be a moot point regardless, because: https://www.glassdoor.com/index.htm

Re: Philadelphia Poised to Ban Employers from Asking Hires About Salary History

#55

Post by FullMtlAlcoholc »

lend000 wrote: post #41
ch4s3 wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Probably because there is a very large disparity in power and information. A few points: 1. You will always need the job more than Comcast will need you (unless you're unusually skilled, most workers aren't) 2. Comcast knows how much the pay every one of their employees, you the job seeker do not. 3. Comcast is only asking so they can figure out the lowest pay you'll accept. You have no way to figure out how high the…

> You will always need the job more than Comcast will need you Where is the evidence for this? This is by no means an obvious claim. No one in the world needs "the job," even though most people need "a job." Do companies exist that are more moral/popular/friendly than others? Of course. And some of them are successful in part because people want them to succeed due to their aforementioned characteristics. That is fre…

You have a very naive, non-nuanced, and absolutist view of the world.

> Actually, this is completely false. You have a pretty good understanding of what they pay employees in similar positions (if you've ever heard of Glassdoor),

Are you serious? Do you really think Glassdoor is a legitimate authority for salary at companies? They do zero verification and are mostly dependent on people's honesty. Personally, I've signed up for no less than 10 Glassdoor accounts with companies I've never worked for with salaries way above and below my pay grade. Contrast that with Comcast, who, by law, knows exactly how much each employee makes down to the penny.

> Sounds really speculative -- you think it's common to go back in time and try to find old salaries?

No, it's not speculative. If a company finds out that you misrepresented yourself, they will in all likelihood fire you. I've seen it happen a few times, they don't just pretend like you didn't lie.

And your earlier posts left me a bit puzzled

> you can choose not to work for employers that ask the question in the first place, especially if they coerce you into providing records

This is not a meeting between just two private parties. It is the meeting of a large organization with vastly superior resources with (usually) a citizen. We, as people, are given certain rights enshrined in various legal documents. Corporations are fictitious entities created to limit risk and thus do not possess certain rights.

> Where is the evidence for this? This is by no means an obvious claim. No one in the world needs "the job," even though most people need "a job."

This is simple math. Generally, 100% of your income will come from Comcast if you work for them. Your impact on the financial fortune of a billion dollar company is negligible.

> Are all employers corporations? And even as such, this is just outlawing information. I do not understand how so many on the left support such a measure.

I don't mean to disparage you, but are you an adult? Information is the most vital and valuable resource in this, the Information Age. Visuals are information, yet I am not allowed to watch or record you having intercourse. Juries are not allowed access to media during a trial. Although I agree with their actions, Chelsea Manning and Snowden released outlawed information. In terms of hiring, there are a number of questions that are outlawed for good reason Here are a few:

How old are you?

Are you married?

Are you pregnant?

Are you a US Citizen?

Do you have any disabilities?

What religion do you practice?

What is your race?

> Why is free choice so difficult to understand?

This is why I question your age/maturity. You do not possess absolute freedom. You can't do whatever you want, you live in a society with other people and we have rules. I don't agree with it, but you are not free to make crystal methamphetamine even if it is 100% for personal use. You are not free to walk around naked. The canonical example is you are not free to yell fire in a crowded building. I just don't understand how you've lived long enough to know the english language yet don't understand that there are limits on your behavior. 3 year olds know they don't have absolute freedom.

Re: Philadelphia Poised to Ban Employers from Asking Hires About Salary History

#56

Post by _m8fo »

madeofpalk wrote: post #51
_m8fo wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You're asking the wrong question. Why allow it? Employers and people are not equivalent in my mind, even if they are the same, legally. Your story is nice, but I've also heard stories where people are rejected immediately because they didn't share. Sure, you could say that people shouldn't work for those companies (and they shouldn't), but not everyone has the luxury of being able to interview anywhere, nor the abili…

> You're asking the wrong question. Why allow it? No, this is definitely the wrong question. Things shouldn't be banned by default and then we debate about why to unban (allow) it.

Not sure what you're getting at. No one said things should be banned by default. Now that it is up for debate, as you mention, the question still is: why allow it? What benefits does it serve?

Re: Philadelphia Poised to Ban Employers from Asking Hires About Salary History

#57

Post by lend000 »

phkahler wrote: post #52
lend000 wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> You will always need the job more than Comcast will need you Where is the evidence for this? This is by no means an obvious claim. No one in the world needs "the job," even though most people need "a job." Do companies exist that are more moral/popular/friendly than others? Of course. And some of them are successful in part because people want them to succeed due to their aforementioned characteristics. That is fre…

Most companies have multiple employees, where most employees only have one employer. You are 1/n to them and they are everything to you. The power differential is staggering particularly for a cable company.

> You are 1/n to them and they are everything to you

This is false! You are 1/n to them and they are 1/m to you. Where n=number of job seekers and m=number of employers. Both numbers are very high.

EDIT: You can have many employers over your lifetime, and you are not bound to any one during your job search. m does not equal 1.

Re: Philadelphia Poised to Ban Employers from Asking Hires About Salary History

#58

Post by madeofpalk »

_m8fo wrote: post #56
madeofpalk wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> You're asking the wrong question. Why allow it? No, this is definitely the wrong question. Things shouldn't be banned by default and then we debate about why to unban (allow) it.

Not sure what you're getting at. No one said things should be banned by default. Now that it is up for debate, as you mention, the question still is: why allow it? What benefits does it serve?

I'm rather indifferent on the issue - I guess by default that means I'm in favour of the current status quo

But if you're going to ban something you have to have a good reason to ban it, not lack of a reason to keep it.

Re: Philadelphia Poised to Ban Employers from Asking Hires About Salary History

#59

Post by lend000 »

_m8fo wrote: post #53
lend000 wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not that I agree with the logical leaps here, but you skipped a step: > you can choose not to work for employers You don't have to work for any particular employer, and you also don't have to work for any employer at all. You can consult, contract, start a company, etc. But of course this is not necessary even if you're basing your entire career around avoiding that question, because it's not like every single employ…

I skipped that step because it leads to the same conclusion. Or do you think a regular person in this country is capable of consulting, contracting, starting a company, etc?

Contracting? Yes...

Starting a company? Sure. There sure are a lot of restaurants, food trucks, and dry cleaners out there. Although it's not easy with all the legal barriers to entry created by well-intentioned regulators like yourself :)

This is a tangent, but the whole nanny-state ideology advocated by many of the people arguing with me here is the reason people are so dependent on employers instead of having freedom to easily create their own enterprises.

But this is not necessary regardless, as I addressed in my previous closing statement.

Edit: curious if HN users are downvoting based on opinion versus content. Feels a bit like a hive mind whenever I post against a generally left-leaning argument.

Re: Philadelphia Poised to Ban Employers from Asking Hires About Salary History

#60

Post by czep »

lend000 wrote: post #41
ch4s3 wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Probably because there is a very large disparity in power and information. A few points: 1. You will always need the job more than Comcast will need you (unless you're unusually skilled, most workers aren't) 2. Comcast knows how much the pay every one of their employees, you the job seeker do not. 3. Comcast is only asking so they can figure out the lowest pay you'll accept. You have no way to figure out how high the…

> You will always need the job more than Comcast will need you Where is the evidence for this? This is by no means an obvious claim. No one in the world needs "the job," even though most people need "a job." Do companies exist that are more moral/popular/friendly than others? Of course. And some of them are successful in part because people want them to succeed due to their aforementioned characteristics. That is fre…

>> > You will always need the job more than Comcast will need you > Where is the evidence for this?

It does not require a great deal of imagination to understand that a large corporation and single prospective employee are not equal parties. If you fail to get a job, you will starve. If Comcast fails to hire you, they most clearly will not face an existential crisis.

This is most certainly not a free market at work. Comcast wants this power because it will give them a significant negotiating advantage and result in lower wages. Eliminating this advantage is one small step in leveling the playing field between the two unequal parties.

Post reply on HN