Earlier quoted context omitted.
Can I use it to find out what my co-workers make and negotiate a better salary,
Wouldn't you need their social security number?
Luckily you can just download those from the internet.
New law bans California employers from asking applicants their prior salary
531–540 of 680 posts
Re: New law bans California employers from asking applicants their prior salary
#532Earlier 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 it really makes no sense If you have jealous and spiteful family you might feel differently. Unless you like hearing sob stories or being blamed for other people's problems.
> If you have jealous and spiteful family you might feel differently.
You can choose to distance yourself from these people you know?
Blood is no reason to keep these kinds of emotional vampires in your life.
Re: New law bans California employers from asking applicants their prior salary
#533Earlier 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. 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…
It's no good to share your salary. My reasoning goes like this. Information is better used by those in power. If I a share my salary data with other workers, we will avoid some to be screwed. But the employers will be able to screw us all in slight, imperceptible ways.
Re: New law bans California employers from asking applicants their prior salary
#534This 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…
My answer is : i'll tell if you tell me what your salary is. In france people tend to be very uncomfortable with it and that settles it or reveal quickly the real person in front of me.
Re: New law bans California employers from asking applicants their prior salary
#535Earlier quoted context omitted.
Agents of the employer, such as recruiters, are also prohibited from seeking for this information. https://www.natlawreview.com/article/california-latest-state...
About to get a hell of a lot harder for contract recruiters to match candidates with expected salary, and match companies with candidates that fall within the salary bounds. Only solution is probably to stress to their clients to just set a max salary and expect to pay it.
It doesn't seem to say that you can't ask a person what they wish to be paid, right? A recruiter can ask the company their range, ask the employee what they're looking for (not what they were paid before) and match the two.
Re: New law bans California employers from asking applicants their prior salary
#536Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yes, and excellence is not rewarded in such societies. Edit: Look at how pay works in countries where such information is public (i.e. Scandinavia). My understanding is that within a given line of work, everyone makes just about the same amount, adjusted for seniority, regardless of performance.
This happens also in germany and spain and europe in general. Its just america that pays so damn much for developers, because of the competing capital. Price transparency is definitely not harming employees, and its also not harming companies in the long run.
And doctors and lawyers, and everyone else on average too.
And while average pay is higher in America than in any other large (i.e. necessarily general purpose) economy, I'm specifically pointing out that performance/merit reward is greater in America.
Re: New law bans California employers from asking applicants their prior salary
#537Earlier quoted context omitted.
This happens also in germany and spain and europe in general. Its just america that pays so damn much for developers, because of the competing capital. Price transparency is definitely not harming employees, and its also not harming companies in the long run.
And doctors and lawyers, and everyone else on average too. And while average pay is higher in America than in any other large (i.e. necessarily general purpose) economy, I'm specifically pointing out that performance/merit reward is greater in America.
I'll disregard the use of merit, but how do you measure performance to make this claim?
Im sure there are less performant lawyers in america that have a higher pay than performant lawyers in europe. AFAIK high salaries in the U.S. dont come at the expense of low salaries of the low performing.
Doctors have constrained supply. Lawyers have a sort of costrained supply (your degree will determine your employment). U.S. has a peculiar law system and company sizes that allow payouts not possible in other countries which affect pay(corporate lawyers make the most money).
But again, almost surely, this is not due to information asymmetry in favor of the employer. Public wage data would almost unequivocally increase wages. The question would be how much.
Greenspan talks about how in a desire to punish high salary CEO's, they forced their salaries to be public, and they ended up exploding up because of it.
Re: New law bans California employers from asking applicants their prior salary
#538Earlier 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. 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…
Jealousy is a thing. The quickest way to lose friends is to tell them you're a lot richer than they are.
Re: New law bans California employers from asking applicants their prior salary
#539Earlier quoted context omitted.
And doctors and lawyers, and everyone else on average too. And while average pay is higher in America than in any other large (i.e. necessarily general purpose) economy, I'm specifically pointing out that performance/merit reward is greater in America.
I'll disregard the use of merit, but how do you measure performance to make this claim? Im sure there are less performant lawyers in america that have a higher pay than performant lawyers in europe. AFAIK high salaries in the U.S. dont come at the expense of low salaries of the low performing. Doctors have constrained supply. Lawyers have a sort of costrained supply (your degree will determine your employment). U.S.…
I think people would find disparate outcomes among gender/race/etc. and claim discrimination. This will lead to more uniformity as employers try to avoid legal and political liability, however unfounded the claims of discrimination are. The not-so-subtle point that unequal outcomes don't mean discrimination seems to be totally lost in political discourse.
You're right that doctors and lawyers are not great examples for the reasons you state.
If everyone knows what everyone makes, it becomes much harder to give an excellent employee more money. Everyone thinks they deserve a raise, so now a manager has to confront the rest of the team when he gives one person a raise. Envy is a very powerful force.
Performance for this purpose doesn't need to be measured in OneTrueWay, the market provides a better solution: at what point your employer is willing to see you walk to another job instead of paying you more. (They may have their own formal performance ranking system, but if it's not very good they'll lose the battle for talent.) This has the side effect that assertive people are at an advantage, but I don't think that's a bad thing.
As for CEOs, that's a very interesting point. My intuition is that it's a totally different kind of market. The CEO is the boss, not one among many equals. And you can't deny that the information has stirred up animosity and resentment toward the CEO class, however ill- or well-founded that sentiment is.
Re: New law bans California employers from asking applicants their prior salary
#540Earlier quoted context omitted.
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%?
>>You have already decided to not pay for extra security by being in a poorer neihborhood I mean, that's not really true. I live in a poor(er) neighborhood but have cameras, an alarm, and home defense weapons. I still don't want my house being broken into. >>What if wage transparency increased your salary 10%? As my other comments (or my bio) will illustrate, these examples aren't too good. I am the founder of a smal…
I dont think they are "stupid" on this, just prejudiced. People dont intelectually know that there is a tax for this privacy.
Its like when people think that the tax incidence is always paid by the one that writes the check to the IRS, even though economists categorically say thats not how it is.
I am confident that if people had the choice at hand of a 10% increase or privacy, the majority would sell their privacy. We are used to sell it for a lot less than that! Even for a virtually free credit score.
Its an implementational challenge. The IRS can always just disclose everything, so the state can nuke this issue. A lighter approach might be making it opt-out in the future when you are employed: a lot of people would not care, and if you have 30% salary transparency, im sure everyone gets most of the benefit. And a private market approach might be for a site like glassdoor to only show real salary data when people send verified wage documentation.