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

Skip to comments.

New California Law Prohibits Salary History Inquiries
Littler ^ | 13 october 2017 | Bruce Sarchet

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 ...


TOPICS: Business/Economy; Government; News/Current Events; US: California
KEYWORDS: california; equalpaylaw; governormoonbeam; govmoonbeam; lofan; salary; salaryhistories
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-80 ... 141 next last
To: gaijin

You still refuse to answer my question: How many jobs have you created for other human beings?

And I can tell I’m right about you’re being a union thug.


41 posted on 10/28/2017 7:54:38 PM PDT by E. Pluribus Unum (<img src="http://i.imgur.com/WukZwJP.gif" width=800>)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: E. Pluribus Unum

You crack yourself up as this genius job creator, yet you can’t even manage basic grammar.

You sell Amway and you work in Payday loans.

You’re a cross-eyed, wet-trousered slubberdegullion and I won’t be at YOUR beck and call, questions or not, that’s for sure.


42 posted on 10/28/2017 7:58:24 PM PDT by gaijin (Basically Obama lawyers would blatantly make up some totally groundless allegation against a fat cas)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: CodeToad
That’s price fixing, an illegal monopolistic practice.

I don't think so, not when every one of these requests goes through our legal people over at human resources. It also looks like you assume that we would look at previous salary and then lower what we would otherwise offer, which is not the case at all. The situation is that prospective new employees want to be paid more coming in the door, and one piece of evidence they provide to support that is their salary at their current employer. I look at several factors before I make a recommendation.

43 posted on 10/28/2017 7:59:26 PM PDT by exDemMom (Current visual of the hole the US continues to dig itself into: http://www.usdebtclock.org/)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: gaijin

I knew I was right. Making a big deal out of typos is the last refuge of the union thug.


44 posted on 10/28/2017 8:23:01 PM PDT by E. Pluribus Unum (<img src="http://i.imgur.com/WukZwJP.gif" width=800>)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: BenLurkin

Unless you know something that I don’t, Ben, I am
not so sure that salary history is among the questions
prospective employers ask of former employers anyway.
Checking on employment history is a little dicey today
compared to what it used to be. I think one of the
few safe questions to ask is “Would you hire Mr SoAndSo
again?”. There are legal issues. That is what I’ve been
told by HR people, at least.

Off the subject a little is how reality TV bosses like
those on The Deadliest Catch often fire employees on
camera. That stuff really touches on legal issues and
I wonder how they get away with it except that all
of those employees who appear on the programs may have
to sign a waiver that protects the employers and TV
program officials.


45 posted on 10/28/2017 8:28:50 PM PDT by Sivad (NorCal red turf)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: E. Pluribus Unum

I didn’t say typos I said grammar.

see..?

You can’t see it can you.

The much-ballyhooed kingpin can’t see it:

go back and look again, it won’t matter.

Go back to 5th grade, Kingpin.


46 posted on 10/28/2017 8:55:40 PM PDT by gaijin (Basically Obama lawyers would blatantly make up some totally groundless allegation against a fat cas)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

To: gaijin

Point it out, union thug.


47 posted on 10/28/2017 8:56:25 PM PDT by E. Pluribus Unum (<img src="http://i.imgur.com/WukZwJP.gif" width=800>)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 46 | View Replies]

To: E. Pluribus Unum

Call me Sir and I’ll think about it.


48 posted on 10/28/2017 8:58:11 PM PDT by gaijin (Basically Obama lawyers would blatantly make up some totally groundless allegation against a fat cas)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 47 | View Replies]

To: gaijin

Typical lying union thug.


49 posted on 10/28/2017 8:59:54 PM PDT by E. Pluribus Unum (<img src="http://i.imgur.com/WukZwJP.gif" width=800>)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 48 | View Replies]

To: E. Pluribus Unum

Since you’re slobbering fool I’ll let you know it’s in your last line of post 41.

but that’s not the only one you made, boy.


50 posted on 10/28/2017 9:08:19 PM PDT by gaijin (Basically Obama lawyers would blatantly make up some totally groundless allegation against a fat cas)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 49 | View Replies]

To: E. Pluribus Unum

It’s very disappointing to me to see so many Freepers supporting more regulation on business. They have every right to ask, and you have every right to refuse to answer, after which each side can go their separate ways. No laws required.


51 posted on 10/29/2017 4:30:35 AM PDT by suthener
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: exDemMom

“I don’t think so, not when every one of these requests goes through our legal people over at human resources.”

Customary practices do not negate illegal monopolistic practices. In fact, all those losses in court concerning monopolies went through legal departments.

Lawyers are not holier than thou, not are they the smartest people, nor the most correct.


52 posted on 10/29/2017 7:39:28 AM PDT by CodeToad (CWII is coming. Arm Up! They Are!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

To: gaijin
And I can tell I’m right about you’re being a union thug.

Eight years of diagramming sentences under Dominican nuns tells me you're the one with a deficient knowledge of grammar and not enough intelligence to comprehend a complex sentence structure.

My bet is you are a union thug for SEIU.

I'm right, aren't I?

53 posted on 10/29/2017 9:32:43 AM PDT by E. Pluribus Unum (<img src="http://i.imgur.com/WukZwJP.gif" width=800>)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 50 | View Replies]

To: CodeToad
Customary practices do not negate illegal monopolistic practices. In fact, all those losses in court concerning monopolies went through legal departments.

I actually know the laws and regulations that govern everything I do. The HR people are very good about sending them. And if I am ever in doubt, the CFR (code of federal regulation) is available on the internet, as well as the OPM (office of personnel management). I absolutely have to know the labor laws, because I have employees who will file legal complaints at the drop of a hat if I do not demonstrate up front that I have the law on my side. And even then, they will file complaints.

I really don't know what you think is going on, or that you are actually aware of all of the regulations? I'm going to guess that you don't supervise people? But what I can tell you is that every new hire, in my experience, asks for a "better" package than the original offer. And, regardless of your feelings about it, they very often trot out their current salary with their current employer as a bargaining point. We need employees, and we need the best we can get--do you seriously think we won't negotiate with them on the basis that you feel their salary is a confidential matter which they should be prohibited from divulging and we should be prohibited from seeing?

Also, I really don't get where you get this "monopolistic practices" stuff from.

54 posted on 10/29/2017 9:41:08 AM PDT by exDemMom (Current visual of the hole the US continues to dig itself into: http://www.usdebtclock.org/)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 52 | View Replies]

To: exDemMom

“I really don’t know what you think is going on, or that you are actually aware of all of the regulations?”

Expert at these laws. Expert. Unlike you, I don’t just follow corporate policy and think that is the law. I read the law, not just follow corporate memos.


55 posted on 10/29/2017 11:25:06 AM PDT by CodeToad (CWII is coming. Arm Up! They Are!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 54 | View Replies]

To: CodeToad
You can ask but you are in no position to demand, unlike an employer.

So applicants are forced to apply? Employers trap them in a room if they do not share the salary history? If you don't like the questions that an employers asks, you are not free to apply elsewhere?

Who the hell made it public perception that employers are monsters that trap and condemn all employees and applicants?!?!?

56 posted on 10/29/2017 11:29:22 AM PDT by Teacher317 (We have now sunk to a depth at which restatement of the obvious is the first duty of intelligent men)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: CodeToad
You can ask but you are in no position to demand, unlike an employer.

Most employers do post the expected starting salary for an open position. Further, in case you haven't heard, there is this internet thing, where such searches as "average starting salary for a _____" are rather common. SMH

57 posted on 10/29/2017 11:31:22 AM PDT by Teacher317 (We have now sunk to a depth at which restatement of the obvious is the first duty of intelligent men)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: CodeToad
So, conversely, a candidate needs to know they are not signing on with a turkey, so the salaries of all similar employees of that company need to be known by the candidate.

This was the quote I was responding to in 57...

58 posted on 10/29/2017 11:32:30 AM PDT by Teacher317 (We have now sunk to a depth at which restatement of the obvious is the first duty of intelligent men)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: CodeToad

Yeah I’m sayin Mickey D’s paid me $20 an hour!


59 posted on 10/29/2017 11:34:26 AM PDT by Yaelle
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: CodeToad
Further, when you do an internet search (or God forbid actual research by calling those in that line of work), the results NEVER come up as "men get X, women get Y". It is EQUAL EXPECTED STARTING SALARY REGARDLESS OF GENDER!!!! YAY!!

Isn't it magical how the problem is already resolved without morons begging government to control the situation?

60 posted on 10/29/2017 11:34:53 AM PDT by Teacher317 (We have now sunk to a depth at which restatement of the obvious is the first duty of intelligent men)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-80 ... 141 next last

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.

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