To: CodeToad
A Calif law I can AGREE with..?
Weird.
2 posted on
10/28/2017 6:05:46 PM PDT by
gaijin
(Basically Obama lawyers would blatantly make up some totally groundless allegation against a fat cas)
To: gaijin
I do not agree with this. A potential employer needs all the info it can get to avoid hiring a turkey:
Under AB 168, no employer may rely on an applicants prior salary history as a factor in determining whether to offer employment . . . or what salary to offer an applicant. Salary history information includes both an individuals rate of compensation as well as other benefits. Moreover, an employer cannotorally or in writing, directly or indirectlyseek this type of information about an applicant.
7 posted on
10/28/2017 6:10:34 PM PDT by
BenLurkin
(The above is not a statement of fact. It is either satire or opinion. Or both.)
To: gaijin
I know. Seems not right somehow.
13 posted on
10/28/2017 6:13:16 PM PDT by
CodeToad
(CWII is coming. Arm Up! They Are!)
To: gaijin
How many jobs have you created for other people?
30 posted on
10/28/2017 7:17:00 PM PDT by
E. Pluribus Unum
(<img src="http://i.imgur.com/WukZwJP.gif" width=800>)
To: gaijin
Actually the new law might backfire on you. I've been involved in hiring at my company for years and in many cases, we actually increased our standard offer to a candidate based on what they are currently making in their present job. That's because we typically do not want to bring a new hire on board making less than what they were making on their old job. (We want the new hire to be happy and to focus on his/her new position as opposed to immediately seeking another job to make up for the lost income).
It's very rare for us to make an offer to somebody for less than what they are currently making. But if we have no way of finding out what they are making, I see this happening much more often.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson