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

561–570 of 680 posts

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

#561

Post by sokoloff »

mmcclellan wrote: post #559
sokoloff wrote: post #544

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Per this: https://dqydj.com/household-income-percentile-calculator-201...

it's 26.3% of households with incomes over $100K. I saw another estimate of 125 million households, so it could well be ~33 million households with >=$100K household income.

(I'm not so much quibbling with numbers as trying to get across that "it's a lot of people")

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

#562

Post by emodendroket »

civilian wrote: post #6
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…

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

Yeah, at one place I worked they were able to use that to determine whether people were qualified for means-tested aid in seconds. Which obviously made things faster but it gives you pause to know it's so easy to find out.

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

#563

Post by Sacho »

whostolemyhat wrote: post #551
syshum wrote: post #421

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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...

[1] - this is a good report, but it uses a different definition of "gender pay gap" than parent - it does not analyze a "pay gap" for the same position/same experience(i.e. gender discrimination), but rather the aggregated difference in payments men and women receive for their work, which are affected by a multitude of factors(referenced in the study) - men working more, full-time, longer careers, different types of jobs, etc..

[2] - there are no sources or data analysis in their report, it's just infographics. Even then, their definition of the gender pay gap is similar to [1]:

"The report flags a clear risk, however: the choices that young women undergrads are making now are setting them up to enter the workforce with fewer digital skills, less mentoring advice and lower interest in pursuing high-paying jobs, compared with their male peers. "

"Adding to this imbalance is the fact that women are much less likely than men to have paid work (50 percent and 76 percent, respectively). This contributes to a hidden pay gap that increases the economic inequities between women and men. Based on the hidden pay gap, our research shows that for every $100 a woman earns, a man earns $258. Since women are usually responsible for the bulk of unpaid work, such as child care and housekeeping, the effects of the hidden pay gap for them are immense."

[3] - link to report is dead

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

#564

Post by emodendroket »

throwanem wrote: post #548
SamReidHughes wrote: post #494

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…

It's more unwise than unlawful.

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

#565

Post by emodendroket »

pravda wrote: post #407
ryguytilidie wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Any time you apply for a credit card or other form of credit, you generally have to give your income.

>you generally have to give your income. Well, you certainly don't have to give your "real" income. Aspirational income is fine.

You'll be in a lot of trouble if you ever default and provided "aspirational" income, or at least that is the impression I get from the text that accompanies such inquiries.

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

#566

Post by narag »

jakeogh wrote: post #491
milcron wrote: post #85

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Gargoyle is responding to "No word on if they are allowed to use Equifax, etc to pull salary data from?"

This is so dumb. Employers can research candidate history without any chance of getting caught, and it's an obvious goal of most ethical (1st amendment respecting) hackers to make sure it stays that way.

...without any chance of getting caught...

Never take that for granted.

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

#567

Post by notfromhere »

dangero wrote: post #205
notfromhere wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not fraud. Employer's aren't allowed to give it out either. So you really have no incentive not to fib

Fraud - wrongful or criminal deception intended to result in financial or personal gain.

lying about your salary is not fraud. it has no impact on your performance or ability to do the work. your employer has no right to know your previous salary and your previous salary has no impact on what you're worth at a new position.

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

#568

Post by astura »

pravda wrote: post #510
chc wrote: post #424

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Wouldn't applying for credit based on "aspirational" finances be fraud?

Well, if you phoney up some W2s on your laser printer to apply for a mortgage, that might be a problem. But (on credit card applications) I've always put a 6-figure income in when asked. Even as a college student with an income of $0.

FFS, that's called "fraud." Providing false information on a credit application is a criminal offense. Are you going to go to jail for it? Probably not, as long as you pay your bills. But it's 100% fraud and illegal and you can go to jail for it and people have.

Also, your accounts would be closed if they found out that you lied on your application. American Express, in particular, is known to conduct financial reviews and shut down accounts who can't prove their income.

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

#569

Post by astura »

ada1981 wrote: post #456
chc wrote: post #424

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Wouldn't applying for credit based on "aspirational" finances be fraud?

It generally asked your household income. This means many 18 year olds can report 6 or even 7 figure household incomes.

No you can't. The CARD Act of 2009 explicitly forbids this. You can't include anyone else's income if you are under 21.

Even after you're 21 you're supposed to only include someone else's income if you have access to it. If your parents don't give you a stipend then you aren't supposed to include their income.

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

#570

Post by snarf21 »

dogma1138 wrote: post #32
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…

Recruiters need to find candidates for a given range. Considering the breath of paygrades for even similar experience level jobs across the tech sector it’s not that surprising. If a company looks for some one for say 100-120K you are wasting your time and the recruiters time if you won’t take any offers below 180. Whilst you might find an employer who’ll be willing and able to go 5-10% over the max it’s not likely t…

Isn't there a risk here to just post a job as 100K-195K? Then they just offer 100K, then 120K, then 130K......
Post reply on HN