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 ...
Excellent. So when the HR Dept calls your employer to verify that fact, and they find out you cannot be trusted, then they can move on to the next, better candidate.
The good news is, in CA if you intentionally give your Employer or Employee AIDS, you get a Misdemeanor Ticket instead of being charged with a Felony.
Some people have an overwhelming need to pretend that evil capitalists are eager to discriminate by gender so as to open themselves up to multi-billion dollar lawsuits for no actual tangible gain. Some of them post on FR.
That is damn cool, and of course you’d hire him. I hired people with similar strong and accurate self promotion evidence too.
Ya mean they’re still allowed to call my old boss? So then they’ll hear why I got fired, and about the stealing and all the drug use? Dayum. There needs to be a law that you can’t check at all about employment history. At least now they can’t ask about our felonies any more. Whew. Still got a chance.
” I’m going to guess that you don’t supervise people”
I manage executives, engineers, and scientists. Unlike you, I’m not an entry level supervisor of minimum wage workers.
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 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.
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.
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.
Can’t go along with this. Luckily, I’m not in California and don’t have to.
Yes, when making hiring decisions, my dad/boss/co-owner and I, in an ideal world, would know exactly what a position is worth, be able to easily identify a person that fits pretty close, and efficiently deal with hiring the right person at the right salary.
We live in a far from ideal world, though. Especially in our small, complicated engineering company, every single person is different and most don’t ever fit. A chemical engineer coming a big firm like Bechtel will both be too expensive and likely too pigeonholed in their focus to do what we do. Knowing what they were previously getting paid lets us know whether we should even spend any time on them trying to come up with a more realistic offer given their apparent skillset or if they were just banking it at their old place during good times and our offer is not going to sit well with them. Even if they do seem open to a reduced offer, you can pretty much tell how quickly they’ll jump ship as soon the market picks up and the big boys have tons of money to wastefully throw around again. It’s a game, and you need to know what the playing field looks like.
But, to just strip things down to brass tacks, obviously, the premise of this law—leveling the playing field between men and women—is based on a complete myth. No one I’ve seen has more perfectly tackled this than Maddox in this video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BDj_bN0L8XM Five minute mandatory watching to know how to argue against this crap.
Also, this is just another regulation and hassle companies do not need. HR is already a terrifying minefield. And I live in Texas which you’d think wouldn’t be that bad. Nominally, we’re allowed to terminate for almost any reason at any time. Practically, however, it’s the worst scenario of walking on eggshells, where you have to pick every word you say perfectly to avoid the potential specter of a lawsuit. It’s so draining, and this would just be another thing to play chess about when you just want to get things done. It’s awful. Stay the hell out of my business ESPECIALLY when you’re using fiction to justify your further incursion.
Great law. Even loony libs have good idea every now and then.
“It is EQUAL EXPECTED STARTING SALARY REGARDLESS OF GENDER!!!!”
I am all for you don’t get what you deserve, you get what you negotiate. That said, it is unfair to demand someone’s baseline. It is a lopsided negotiation. Two business negotiating don’t require one of them to disclose everything and the other keep things secret.
That is what happens in salary negotiations: Companies won’t tell what they can pay but demand from the candidate what they have been paid.
This is a majority rule country. This law benefits the majority and it is WAY over due.
“Great law. Even loony libs have good idea every now and then.”
Let’s just make sure we don’t give them too much credit! :)
HR departments can suck sh!t.
“evil capitalists are eager to discriminate by gender”
I don’t think there is a discrimination by gender, but there is an indirect consequence of allowing companies to have lopsided negotiations whereby the candidate must include their prior salaries. Woman are typically not strong negotiators and will tell the truth about their prior salaries. Companies who demand proof by W-2 or paystub also use women’s salaries against them and keep them low paid.
“Also, I really don’t get where you get this “monopolistic practices” stuff from. “
Of course you don’t. Law is not a subject you have studied. brain dead HR bimbo type only know what corporate memos tell them. They have no brain to discern ethics and moral values. If someone else tells them they can do something they do it. Rare is it they ever have ethics or morals.
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"?
Worth repeating!
I'm doubting you've been part of a salary negotiation in a long time. But let's cover the 4 possibilities, just to show how empty your assertion is...
1. Applicant shares demand, Employer does not give a counter - The employer is free to reject the demand, and the applicant, are they not? Or in your world, must Employers cave in to all applicant demands?
2. Applicant does not share demand, Employer does not share the starting salary - The employer is thus left to assign the salary, and failing to give what it gives to others opens them up to discrimination lawsuits. What business will open itself up to that risk for no actual gain?
3. Employer gives salary offer, applicant does not counter - Hiring is done.
4. Both give a number, and they freely decide whether to counter, meet in the middle, or part ways due to unmet expectations. No Hire made, both parties have equal power.
Which one is the one that you wish to whine about?
You want your cake and eat it too. Man you are one f—ked up fascist.
They have no right to know.
You clearly have never owned a business or hired an employee. If I'm hiring a manager, and 2 applicants respond... one who has no experience, and one who has a long record of exceptional growth and budgets... and you expect me to make the same offer to each? And do fail to do so means that I must lose the better potential hire, because you're terrified of freedom and capitalism? No thanks. I'll trust employers long before I'll trust idiots like you who are eager to have government control business.
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.