Posted on 10/28/2017 6:02:42 PM PDT by CodeToad
On October 12, 2017, Governor Jerry Brown of California signed into law a state-wide ban on employer inquiries into an individual’s salary history. The new law (AB 168) will apply to all employers, including state and local governments, and will take effect on January 1, 2018.
The new law continues the expansion of equal pay protection in California. California’s Equal Pay law has been on the books since 1949, requiring equal pay, regardless of gender, for equal work. It remained largely unchanged until 2016, when it was amended to require equal pay for “substantially similar” work.
(Excerpt) Read more at littler.com ...
I know maybe you could install microphones in the parking lot and spy on your employees. After all they could be discussing salaries and we couldn't have that. Or corporate spies to try to get an employee to discuss the taboo subject of salaries. Then you could can them.
That has been my experience as well. Most applicants I deal with are very eager to tell me what they are currently making - as they want to ensure they do not receive an offer for less. Also, if we feel that we have a good candidate, we make our best effort to bring them onboard for at least as much if not more money than what they were making before. Remember, we are not only looking for good employees but we are also looking to take good employees from our competitors! But we are going to pay more than the going rate, we do need to verify.
So I am to put my current employment at risk by divulging that I am in negotiations with another employer(competitor) by letting call them and asking them how much I make? ARE YOU OUT OF YOUT MIND?
Actually if you read my post, you would find that I accept the fact that some employees talk about their salaries with other employees and that I'm not afraid of it - nor am I able to shut it down, even if I wanted to. So either you did not read my post or you are misrepresenting what I said.
How nice to "accept" their right to free speech. Truth be told it infuriates you and you'd can them or ruin their career if you found out they were doing that.
Actually that is not the case. We would never contact the current employer of an applicant unless that applicant gave us permission to do so - which is not very often.
BTW, verification is through the paystub that the applicant provides us - I doubt that any companies out there would provide salary information on their employees! That's a rather silly notion, by the way.
You have obviously never been in a management position. Why don't you listen to some that have and learn something instead of jumping to conclusions and lashing out.
Actually that is not true at all. I respect their free speech and would never infringe upon it. As I mentioned, I have an average tenure in my department of close to 25 years. You don't obtain that kind of tenure by "ruining careers". You have almost a cartoonish opinion of management. I think you've read too many Dilbert cartoons.
I use business and executive-level strategies to determine salaries. I am not a brain dead HR bimbo that believes someone’s prior company dictates what I should pay them.
I sense a lot of outright sexism here. After disparaging me as an "entry level supervisor of minimum wage workers," you go on to call me a "brain dead HR bimbo." Clearly, you know nothing about me and seem to have some poor reading comprehension skills on top of that. Is it really that difficult for you to accept that some women happen to be ambitious enough to climb the ladder into mid-level and upper management?
I wouldn't expect you to tell me what your company is, but I really would like to know because when I retire a couple of years from now, I do not want to make the mistake of dropping my CV at your company.
I am able to ascertain value against market wages and pay accordingly. I do not rely upon inaccurate self-disclosures by candidates of their prior wages to determine what I should pay them. You do, but thinking professionals do not. We have more intelligent and accurate strategies.
Well, you got me there--I rarely look at market values, and the salaries we pay are a matter of public law. I work within a fairly rigid framework, and I am unaware of private sector wage practices.
What someone else paid a candidate is useless information to me. When I am looking to pay someone $140k, I don’t look at an implied worth statement that if they were only making $85k at their prior company that they couldn’t possibly be qualified. I see it that the prior company is losing a great individual and I can land them with my higher salary. I don’t want to pay them a maximum of 10% more than their prior salary as they will continue to look for higher salaries from someone else.
With that large of a disparity, I would have all kinds of questions. A salary of $140k is the salary of someone who has a few years of experience as a PhD level scientist. A salary of $85k is either a Master's level technician with several years of experience, or a post-doc. The only way it would make sense for someone to be jumping from an $85k job to a $140k job is if that person has been jumping from post-doc to post-doc and finally found a permanent scientist level position.
You obviously do not understand such concepts and try to be the person paying no more than 10% over their prior salary. Doom on you. I get the better employees, you can keep the low paid underperformers.
You make a lot of assumptions there. Where did I say that I'm trying to pay them no more than 10% over their prior salary? What I said is that prospective employees sometimes want to negotiate the terms of their compensation, and that one piece of evidence they provide is proof of their former or current salary. If, for example, they want to make the case that I should pay at least $65k because their current employer is paying them that much, why should I not have the right to ask for validation of that claim? Oh, and FYI--my employees are the best of the best at what they do.
I'm typically hiring at a specific GS level. The GS pay schedule is a matter of public law. If the prospective employee wants to make a counteroffer based on the fact that they earn more with their current employer, then I absolutely have to be able to verify that claim.
When I hire a plumber I don't ask "What did you charge the last guy to install a toilet". Or even better, the plumber doesn't ask " What did you pay the last plumber to install a toilet for you"?
So, you never shop around? You never ask what various plumbers will charge? You just pay the first plumber who answers the phone and agrees to show up whatever he asks? You have never negotiated a price on anything? That is not very wise money management.
There you go, belittling women again. If there are any women in your department, I really feel for them if you have any kind of position of authority over them.
Oddly, when I was going to PhD school many years ago, I never dreamed that I would end up having to become an expert in contract and finance law, labor law, OSHA law, etc. I think I have enough credits there to get another degree--not that I want one, the PhD is enough.
In September 2017, about 127.24 million people were employed on a full-time basis.
BLS numbers for total FULL TIME workers. Yes, 4.5 million out of well over 127 million is relatively minuscule.
Besides we are talking about hiring in the free market not in the socilist governmant market. Your opinion is worthless.
My best screwing over the "man" was when I job hopped and took five guys with me and I got a $5K finders fee for each one. That $25K was nice. The late 80s and 90s was awesome. $25K was serious jack in '90.
“There you go, belittling women again.”
Can’t take it then don’t dish it out. Typical woman: Always swinging at people but cries “I’m a woman” when the blows come back to her.
“dropping my CV”
You don’t have a CV. You have a resume. CVs are reserved for academics and medicine. Don’t bluster, we’re not that stupid.
“If the prospective employee wants to make a counteroffer based on the fact that they earn more with their current employer, then I absolutely have to be able to verify that claim.”
No, you do not. You’re nosey like that, but there is no public law that requires it outside of highly skilled persons and only on an as-need basis where the pay exceeds expectations of the position. Sorry, but you act like no on else has ever worked in government. We have.
You’re wrong about the CV versus resume. CVs are not just for academics and medicine. Science people, post-docs, fellows, they all have CVs, not resumes.
That falls under academics.
Perhaps you consider it academics.
Some people who work for drug companies and bio research companies wouldn’t like being considered academics. Plus they’re making a lot more money. ;-)
The minute I saw his resume, I kicked myself for not doing the same thing from my first job up.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.