Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

The more you hassle employers, the fewer people they will hire.

Men and women who do the same work are paid about the same, since profit-maximizing businesses don't want to overpay men. Women take breaks in their careers to raise families and differ from men in the kinds of jobs they want, which largely explains the pay differentials that do exist.

1 posted on 08/11/2016 6:13:52 AM PDT by reaganaut1
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies ]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-24 next last
To: reaganaut1

The salary negotiations between an employer and prospective employee are none of the state’s business.


2 posted on 08/11/2016 6:17:42 AM PDT by E. Pluribus Unum (If you are not prepared to use force to defend civilization, then be prepared to accept barbarism.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: reaganaut1

And what about when the applicant says: “Sorry, that’s less than I’m making at my current job”? Is the company not allowed to counter?

If the answer is no, than that’s unfairly shackling the company. If the answer is yes, then that pretty much nullifies the intent of the law.

Either way, it’s just silly.


3 posted on 08/11/2016 6:19:52 AM PDT by rbg81 (Truth is stranger than fiction)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: reaganaut1

Believe it or not I’m in favor of this law. If an employer knows what you’re making, they will typically offer you no more than 10 percent more than that. If you’re under paid in your current job, yiu may have to change jobs a couple of times in order to make up the difference. This law makes the employer offer you market wages instead of just 10 percent more than you’re making now.


5 posted on 08/11/2016 6:22:26 AM PDT by Hardastarboard (This is the legacy of Hillary Clinton: Death, destruction, terrorism and weakness.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: reaganaut1

I remember the last minure a company asked for my pay stub from a previous employer after already making an offer. I told them to stuff it and took an even higher paying job. This was however during the good Bush years.


7 posted on 08/11/2016 6:23:40 AM PDT by KC_Conspirator
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: reaganaut1

I think this is a great idea—your salary history is none of a new or prospective employer’s business. You are negotiating your future salary, not explaining your past salary. Fantastic.


8 posted on 08/11/2016 6:24:06 AM PDT by Reno89519 (It is very simple, Trump/Pence or Clinton/Kaine. Good riddance Lyn' Ted, we regret ever knowing you)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: reaganaut1

In principle I have no problem with being upfront about the compensation range for a position. However, making such transparency a legal requirement simply discloses that the proponents have never been involved in hiring people. In 30 years as a business owner, I hired a hundred or so people. In numerous instances some candidates were interviewed because they appeared to have “potential” rather than a proven track record or the required qualifications. Any salary offer reflected that shortfall and risk.
Since employers are pretty savvy, I suspect they will simply widen the range of their salaries to reflect the possible range of candidate’s market value given their qualifications.


14 posted on 08/11/2016 6:32:37 AM PDT by bjc (Show me the data!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: reaganaut1

This law certainly would make job hopping less frequent. Low ball offers create high turnover. Sure I’ll take your crap offer and then use you for a paycheck and look for other employment full time on your dime.


16 posted on 08/11/2016 6:33:25 AM PDT by central_va (I won't be reconstructed and I do not give a damn.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: reaganaut1

You’re not wrong, but people don’t want to hear that, they’d like to have their cake and eat it too. I make less than the men I work with - but I have flexible hours and I can take time off whenever I want, and they cannot. Having that freedom is worth more than a few $ to me, and a lot of other women out there, and that’s what they don’t factor in..


19 posted on 08/11/2016 6:35:39 AM PDT by same old song
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: reaganaut1

When asked what my current salary is or what salary I am expecting I respond with “What were you expecting to pay?” That shuts them up.


22 posted on 08/11/2016 6:36:19 AM PDT by MNnice
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: reaganaut1

Should be a national law.


23 posted on 08/11/2016 6:36:32 AM PDT by central_va (I won't be reconstructed and I do not give a damn.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: reaganaut1
One would think that this could be challenged in Federal court.Private,commercial negotiations are none of government's business.That means Federal *and* state government.
29 posted on 08/11/2016 6:45:04 AM PDT by Gay State Conservative (The Rat Party,try as it might,just isn't very good at hiding what it *truly* is.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: reaganaut1; All
"The more you hassle employers, the fewer people they will hire."

So not to get all Howie Carr on everyone here on FR but I want to know who is going to enforce this.

You know, someone's brother inlaw gets a State Job and goes around checking into it.... And oh by the way gets a Full Sized Car or SUV with the Blue "Statee" Mass license plates. And they are all over the State for those of you that haven't ventured into the People's Republik, recently.

And oh yes, don't forget The State Pension....

37 posted on 08/11/2016 6:59:39 AM PDT by taildragger (Not my Monkey, not my Circus...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: reaganaut1

I find this story baffling. I’ve never been asked about my current salary in a job interview.


41 posted on 08/11/2016 7:04:16 AM PDT by Alberta's Child ("Sometimes I feel like I've been tied to the whipping post.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: reaganaut1

HR is right down there with the MSM for most hated.


42 posted on 08/11/2016 7:04:56 AM PDT by central_va (I won't be reconstructed and I do not give a damn.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: reaganaut1

I wanted to hire myself for my business but I was to expensive. My business can’t afford me so I will continue to work for free just like many other small business owners.


51 posted on 08/11/2016 7:14:32 AM PDT by certrtwngnut (Hey Snowflake, you want a safe space go to a gun range.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: reaganaut1

I never gave a specific answer to those kind of questions. I always said that pay would be negotiated when I was actually offered the job


55 posted on 08/11/2016 7:23:24 AM PDT by Nifster (Ignore all polls. Get Out The Vote)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: reaganaut1
I've been a hiring manager for a number of years. Most of that time in Massachusetts. More recently in NYC.

Yes, I know, from the frying pan into the fire!

Anyway, I can categorically state that there is no wage disparity between men and women. All our job titles come with a salary range (adjusted for geographical area) and make no distinction between gender, race or anything else.

Also, the contention that any reputable company would want to "lowball" a new hire by finding out what their current salary is and tying the offer to that is ridiculous when you think about it. The likely reason people apply to work at my company is that they want to better their current circumstances and further their career. The last thing we want to do is lowball our offers and bring people on board only to have them immediately seek higher paying work elsewhere once they find out what others are making in their position (and they will find out). The first 6 months of a typical new hire is mostly absorbed by training. We want these people to stay and make careers with us. So we pay competitive salaries commensurate with their skill levels.

Already our hiring practices are constrained by the government. We have to report on the amount of "minorities" we interview and then explain why we didn't hire them over some more qualified people. We want to be able to hire the best and brightest regardless of race and gender but government fights against that and tries to get us to take lesser qualified minorities at the expense of more qualified candidates. Once those minorities are hired, it is also much tougher to move them out if they don't work out.

I'm tired of the whole "minority" thing anyhow. Women are actually in the majority if you look at population statistics. I also think it's time to stop thinking of Asians, Hispanics and Blacks as "minorities" as they are well established in our nation and in very large numbers. In fact, Blacks have been here as long as White Europeans. Enough of the "minority" status already. Unless you personally came off the boat, you are an American. I don't care whether your parents, your grand-parents or your great-grandparents came off the boat.

If you were born here, you are an American and you are expected to speak good English and be just as qualified to obtain a job that you are qualified for as anybody else - and be paid the same salary range for that job as anybody else.

57 posted on 08/11/2016 7:26:05 AM PDT by SamAdams76 (It is a wise man who rules by the polls but it is a fool who is ruled by them)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: reaganaut1

HR is the real problem. . .

https://jebkinnison.com/2016/08/10/death-by-hr-who-staffs-hr-departments-mostly-women/


66 posted on 08/11/2016 8:02:00 AM PDT by Salgak (You're in Strange Hands with Tom Stranger. . . .)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: reaganaut1

This is one of those “toehold” laws that will inevitably be expanded with actual parameters around quantities and percentages. It’s a slippery-slope law. Ultimately, the government should have no say-so in a salary dealing between employer and employee.


67 posted on 08/11/2016 8:05:25 AM PDT by Lou L (Health "insurance" is NOT the same as health "care")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: reaganaut1

Most companies forbid telling salaries yet they demand candidates do just that.


72 posted on 08/11/2016 8:35:54 AM PDT by CodeToad (Islam should be banned and treated as a criminal enterprise!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-24 next last

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson