Posted on 08/11/2016 6:13:52 AM PDT by reaganaut1
In a groundbreaking effort to close the wage gap between men and women, Massachusetts has become the first state to bar employers from asking about applicants’ salaries before offering them a job.
The new law will require hiring managers to state a compensation figure upfront — based on what an applicant’s worth is to the company, rather than on what he or she made in a previous position.
The bipartisan legislation, signed into law on Monday by Gov. Charlie Baker, a Republican, is being pushed as a model for other states, as the issue of men historically outearning women who do the same job has leapt onto the national political scene.
Nationally, there have been repeated efforts to strengthen equal pay laws — which are already on the books but tend to lack teeth — but none have succeeded so far. Hillary Clinton has tried to make equal pay a signature issue of her campaign, while Donald J. Trump’s daughter Ivanka praised her father for his actions on this issue when she spoke at the Republican National Convention.
By barring companies from asking prospective employees how much they earned at their last jobs, Massachusetts will ensure that the historically lower wages and salaries assigned to women and minorities do not follow them for their entire careers. Companies tend to set salaries for new hires using their previous pay as a base line.
“I think very few businesses consciously discriminate, but they need to become aware of it,” said State Senator Pat Jehlen, a Democrat and one of the bill’s co-sponsors. “These are things that don’t just affect one job; it keeps women’s wages down over their entire lifetime.”
(Excerpt) Read more at nytimes.com ...
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.
The salary negotiations between an employer and prospective employee are none of the state’s business.
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.
That is correct.
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.
This a good law. I am for it. The salary range should be made up front so everyone knows BEFORE an interview even takes place.
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.
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.
Yeah really, if they’re asking for a pay stub, it indicates that they don’t trust you even before making an offer.
Run, don’t walk from those places.
Thank you. I'm not terribly familiar with the Massachusetts State Constitution, so I can only wonder whether their legislature has the legitimate authority to pass this legislation. The US Congress certainly lacks such authority. In any case, government (whether local, state or federal) is already too powerful, and interferes too much in the private interactions of citizens. This is bad law, an example of the sort of government meddling that needs to be reduced.
It was a fortune 500 company too. I work for a comepetitor now and have to deal with them occasioanlly. Their leadership is still dishonest and suspect.
This kind of comment makes me embarrassed to be a Freeper.
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.
Companies doing short-sighted knuckleheaded things = growing mobs of angry people = pressure on politicians = bad laws getting passed.
Unfortunately most of our business community never seems to figure out Step 1.
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.
I can see the next step being laws that force employers to post the salaries of all employees online for all to see.
Except this is a good law.
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..
Ha ha HR POS can stuff it!
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.