New Law Bans California Employers From Asking Applicants Their Prior Salary (sfgate.com) 374
An anonymous reader shares a report: California employers can no longer ask job applicants about their prior salary and -- if applicants ask -- must give them a pay range for the job they are seeking, under a new state law that takes effect Jan. 1. AB168, signed Thursday by Gov. Jerry Brown, applies to all public- and private-sector California employers of any size. The goal is to narrow the gender wage gap. If a woman is paid less than a man doing the same job and a new employer bases her pay on her prior salary, gender discrimination can be perpetuated, the bill's backers say. Last year, the state passed a weaker law that said prior compensation, by itself, cannot justify any disparity in compensation. The new bill goes further by prohibiting employers, "orally or in writing, personally or through an agent," from asking about an applicant's previous pay. However, if the applicant "voluntarily and without prompting" provides this information, the employer may use it "in determining the salary for that applicant."
Nobody has any business knowing how much I earned (Score:5, Interesting)
I used to have spitting matches with recruiters because they wanted to know how much I'm earning, because my ask wasn't getting many hits on their job portfolio. Sometimes I gave in and told them, only for them to reply that I shouldn't be asking for as much as I was, because the jump is too high. They were making the decision of how much I'm worth for me. But I did push back and got what I wanted in the end, every time. I'm sure they were happy with the commission afterwards.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
They were making the decision of how much I'm worth for me.
They already have that number figured out, their bonuses are determined based on how far they can widdle you down below that. Headhunters are fucking deplorable (and not in the happy-go-lucky MAGA way) - they tend to take 15% minimum (so if you get in the door at 85k you can bet the company you end up working for is paying 100k - which makes them expect more while you don't actually see it all.) At the same time they work for companies which are just as bad, and they might make $1k as a one-time bonus if
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Voluntary disclosure (Score:5, Insightful)
I foresee a lot of voluntary disclosure. :(
Re: (Score:2)
Any time. My salary at $employer was $what_employer_paid+$x
With $x being dependent on how much you actually piss me off asking that question, but rest assured, it will be positive.
California seems like a parallel dimension to me (Score:3)
Re:California seems like a parallel dimension to m (Score:4, Insightful)
The Obama administration did push through an update to the Federal overtime regulations to make the majority of blue collar workers, especially retail/restaurant managers eligible for OT again, because they mostly get salaries around $24k/yr whereas a $12/hr worker would get OT without question, but its been blocked in court and the Trump administration is trying to kill it.
Re: (Score:2)
And this is why salary amounts shouldn't be verbotten but embraced. It keeps everyone involved real.
Re: (Score:2)
We were regularly told that we couldn't discuss how much we made.
I hope somebody pointed out that this violates federal labor laws.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Broken clock is correct twice a day.. (Score:5, Insightful)
Gotta give the progressive morons in Sacramento credit for this one..This should be the law everywhere...
The question will change (Score:2)
From "how much did you earn at X" to "how much do you expect to earn here?"
And you can't outlaw the latter question. After all, your employer needs to know what you expect to get in return for your work. So be prepared for the negotiation game.
The question should change (Score:2)
And you can't outlaw the latter question. After all, your employer needs to know what you expect to get in return for your work. So be prepared for the negotiation game.
It's fine to ask how much an applicant hopes to make. That's a reasonable question based on future expectations. What they made at a previous job has precisely zero relevance and pretty much never benefits the prospective employee.
Re: (Score:2)
In the end, what he or she expects to make is based on what he or she made at the former job, so the whole point is kinda moot.
Re:The question will change (Score:5, Insightful)
That's still better than telling them your previous salary.
I mean, let's say you're interviewing for a position that pays $65k - $80k (and it was advertised as such), depending on experience. If you tell them that at your last job, you were making $60k, they're going to start negotiating at $65k.
But if the question is, how much do you expect to earn here, it puts you in a better position for negotiation. Maybe you have enough experience to flat out say "$80k". Or maybe, you want to give them a little wiggle room for negotiation so you don't come across as a hard-ass, and you say "$75k".
But you still have a better starting point for the salary negotiation.
Re: (Score:3)
I admire the honesty of people. I'd simply lie to their face.
Re: (Score:2)
From "how much did you earn at X" to "how much do you expect to earn here?"
"What salary do you want?" is an entirely legitimate question, though.
"What did your last employer pay you?" is not.
Well fuck (Score:2)
How the hell am I supposed to control a potential employer's starting offer?
Seems fundamentally flawed to me (Score:2)
If the fundamental problem is that in starting jobs with no salary information, women get paid less than men, and that follows them through a career, how will having no salary information at every turn be better? Seems to me it may just as easily be worse. Is the idea that the starting salary problem has gone away and this is only following older, experienced women?
Are there other controls in place like a limit on how big the potential salary range can be?
Re: (Score:2)
If the fundamental problem is that in starting jobs with no salary information, women get paid less than men, and that follows them through a career, how will having no salary information at every turn be better?
The theory is that this makes negotiating more equal - employers can still ask what you made, but if they do they also have to disclose the salary range of the position. Say I am making 25K, but their range for the position is 33K to 45K - if they lowball me at 33K, I can counter that my experience should put me at 40K.
But in the old world, they don't tell you the range, but instead say "great news, we can increase your salary to 30K - that's a 20% bump!". And you don't have enough information to know tha
Interesting twist in recruiting (Score:4, Insightful)
Anything that prevents companies from playing HR compensation games when they hire new employees or promote from within is a good thing. Most big company HR departments absolutely will not entertain offers if the salary is over x% of what the person says they were previously making. Almost all companies enforce this rule when promoting someone too -- they want to pay as little as possible, not how much the job is worth.
I imagine this rule comes from California due to the extremely distorted labor market that SF/SV has now. I know the official reason is gender equality, which does need to be addressed, but the side effect is a more level playing field for all job applicants. If you can convince an employer that you're worth $250K as a rockstar Rust developer, but you're making $100K doing JavaScript, then companies will just have to do a better job figuring out whether the candidates are lying.
Just Lie? Wait until the background check (Score:2)
I've seen a few comments that say just lie, or inflate the number etc.
Almost all companies do background checks for white collar jobs. One disturbing trend I've noticed recently is for them to require IRS income statements as part of the background check. They can pull that or have you pull from the IRS website.
Sucks, but it's part of the background check, and if you're at that stage, there's already an offer that you've accepted with all that entails (better than current job, want to take it, etc).
Not qu
Re: (Score:2)
Then just don't provide an answer to the question. Instead, say something like "I'm looking for a salary of $X".
Re: (Score:2)
Technically it's a lie, but the hiring manager does want you, and is comfortable with the offer they've made,
Which means that prior salary is pretty much useless as a factor in hiring. If they like you, to the point of overlooking a lie, then why even ask?
Seems kind of stupid to me ... but whatever .... (Score:3)
Leave it to California to come up with yet another piece of legislation that the other 49 states didn't feel a need for.... Hope they're all happy with themselves.
My experience in the job market (both in the midwest and now on the east coast) is pretty much the same. SOME employers will ask your previous salary. Others won't. It's always been the case that you're free to fudge the numbers if you think it's to your advantage to do so, when they ask for this information. (For example ... your previous salary may well have been X number of dollars, but did you receive any bonuses like a Christmas bonus perhaps? You can add all of that in to the total you give them and you're not lying -- and it wouldn't be a big deal if you rounded that estimated number up a bit, because of an assumption you'd get higher bonuses in following years if you stayed where you were instead of taking this new job.)
I get that nobody likes that uncertainty of trying to figure out how much to demand, without pricing yourself out of the range of what the person hiring wants to pay. But come on! Pretending employers hold ALL the cards here just isn't reality in the Internet age. You have web sites like GlassDoor you can use to get all sorts of info in advance about what an employer was paying other people, as well as how they liked it there. You can scope out the average salaries paid for your job title in your area by browsing listings on sites like Monster or Dice. I never felt like I need the LAW to force employers to stop asking the previous salary question in order to get a fair interview.
Re:Seems kind of stupid to me ... but whatever ... (Score:5, Informative)
49 other states didn't want it? And yet the article says this is following Delaware, Massachusetts and Oregon who passed similar laws recently. Do you want to revise your opinion after reading the article or persist in your ignorance?
Re: (Score:2)
I read a similar article on this on a different web site and didn't read the specific Slashdot-linked one. So sure, if this one makes a point that Delaware, Massachusetts and Oregon ALSO supported the legislation, I'll happily revise my number to say 46 states instead of 49. Whatever .... Massachusetts is one of the most liberal states in the Union, so certainly doesn't shock me they'd be behind this one.
I stand behind everything else I said.
Just because you CAN make another law doesn't mean you SHOULD.
Reading comprehension FAIL (Score:2)
I never suggested lying about anything! I suggested using a bit of creativity, just like pretty much ALL job applicants do with everything else surrounding interviews.
When you study all those ways to "properly answer interview questions", you're lying too, technically. You're not just having a regular conversation with the interviewer, giving the actual answers you'd naturally give. Instead, you've memorized canned answers you think they'd rather hear.
Do you show up wearing the clothes you'd normally wear
Re: (Score:3)
If you show up in a suit for tech position in CA, you'll be asked to leave.
Just ask Equifax (Score:5, Insightful)
Who needs to ask the employee when you can ask Equifax or Transunion the same question?
--
"Ask me once, you a fool. Ask me twice, wait, What?" -- J. Muamma
Re: (Score:3)
Ironic (Score:2)
Ironic that they're basing it on the non-existent gender wage gap. But, you know, "party of science" and all that.
Look in the mirror idiots (Score:2)
California government employee salaries are a (mostly) matter of public record and are freaking posted for everyone to see.
http://transparentcalifornia.c... [transparen...fornia.com]
However, CA state employee... (Score:3)
...salaries are public information by law. Curious what your professor or government-employed neighbor makes? Just look it up [sacbee.com].
LinkedIn (Score:2)
There's a post that has been circulating on LinkedIn lately that I've seen a couple of mindless recruiters send out (I won't link directly to their profiles, but it should be pretty easy to find). It opens with this:
"Have you ever been asked by a recruiter, what's your current salary or what are you looking to make?
What is it about this question that is SO difficult to answer? Why do I hear story after story of people who simply FAIL to answer this question appropriately? "
The responses to these recruiters
what if you don't? (Score:2)
Won't solve a thing... (Score:3, Insightful)
So yes, if you look at a man and a woman who are both 35 years old and say "oh, there's a $20k difference in their pay", but then...
- failed to account for work experience differences
- failed to account for time-off differences
Oh, and pretty much every employer - especially large employers - are pushed to have all people (regardless of age, sex, etc) at a given position level to be within a certain spread. If you're in the upper end of the spread, then HR pushes for a promotion so they can keep the numbers relatively close together. If you're at the bottom of the spread, then HR pushes for pay raises. Essentially, the position might have a spread of $20k, but HR pushes to keep folks within $5-10k of each other.
Still thing there's a gender pay gap? Take a look at the demographics of HR departments (it's highly skewed - opposite the general tech field).
Great news! (Score:2)
California resident here. I have worked in the high tech industry for about 20 years and I applaud the new law.
This is great news. I have always hated this question when coming to the negotiation (or even starting a job application) as it puts the applicant in an awkward position. Obviously a "job offer" is a mutually beneficial affair, yet the employer's agent is always in a position of power while the applicant always comes around as asking.
Consider. You are just starting the usual song and dance with the
You still have the right to negotiate (Score:3)
Re:Employers do that? (Score:5, Informative)
I must have been lucky -- I've never been asked that. I get asked what soft of salary I'm looking for instead.
Virtually every employment application I've ever filled out has asked me for my start & end salary at previous work places, along with start & end date of employment, plus why I left that position. I think those questions are pretty standard.
I never provide salary info (Score:4, Interesting)
Virtually every employment application I've ever filled out has asked me for my start & end salary at previous work places, along with start & end date of employment, plus why I left that position. I think those questions are pretty standard.
Yes many places ask for that information. I almost never provide any salary information (not usually relevant) as there is no upside to me in providing that information. Where I worked and when is fair game to ask but what I made at my last job really has no relevance in almost every case and providing that data really can only hurt me in most cases.
Re: (Score:3)
Yep, that's just part of negotiating skills....
In most cases, the first person that gives a number is the one that loses....
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
In most cases, the first person that gives a number is the one that loses....
I don't think that's necessarily true. I know what I'm worth, and I tell them that number. If they were thinking significantly less then we aren't going to come to a deal anyway, if it's significantly more then I probably didn't want that job anyway (too much responsibility/management, lots of travel etc.)
I find that they usually don't haggle if it is near what they had in mind, they just offer that, or close but with some incentives. Often they offer a bit more just to sweeten the deal, like relocation cos
some people will take a pay cut to work some where (Score:3)
some people will take a pay cut to work some where for more then a few different thinks.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Employers do that? (Score:5, Insightful)
I've been asked the question by recruiters at major tech companies. It's been pretty quickly shut down by "I'm not in the Bay Area currently, I don't think what I'm on just now is in any way relevant to how much I should be paid over there".
Re: (Score:2)
Now that you mention it, I do remember such questions from a couple of lifetimes ago when I was applying for unskilled jobs. That was so long ago that I forgot. Those questions stopped when I started in engineering, though.
Wow.....
Ok, so Yeah, I've also been in similar gigs for 17 years now and pretty much every single new job I take asks about my formers.
Re:Employers do that? (Score:5, Insightful)
Now that you mention it, I do remember such questions from a couple of lifetimes ago when I was applying for unskilled jobs. That was so long ago that I forgot. Those questions stopped when I started in engineering, though.
I've worked as an engineer for 20 years in the very best companies out there. All of them asked that. Some require a drug test, others don't. It's silly, I am not going to be operating a bus, I'm going to be driving a keyboard and mouse, maybe an oscilloscope if I get suckered into lab work. All ask for your previous salary on the job application.
These days I leave it blank, but often HR will ask directly. I give them a number that is defensible but misleading, and what I want them to beat to work there. So far nobody has ever called me on it.
They should not ask though. First, it is usually considered confidential information from current employers. Second, the should be paying me what they think I'm worth, not based on what the other guy thought I was worth, or via some fixing scheme where everyone agrees this is what we pay engineers, and when they get pissed we give them a few % more.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
I've been an engineer for 35+ years, and managing and hiring engineers for about half that time. Your opinion on the drug testing being silly is fine, but I guarantee that many people disagree, and would prefer not working next to someone who's using. Sure, it's one thing if you're doing pot at home, nobody should give a damn...other stuff, maybe not so much. As far as lying on the application, that's flat out fire able. Do you really think companies can make a logical decision to pay someone based sole
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
a) Progressive companies generally have a 90-day probation period for new hires. If their performance is not commensurate with what your offer is then let them go or make them renegotiate.
b) Asking for previous salaries unilaterally removes a lot of leverage from candidates' salary negotiations. HR departments use this with salary bands to great effect to depress wages of workers in the US. It's part of the reason why real average hourly wages have stagnated since 1980.
Re: (Score:3)
I've been an engineer for 35+ years, and managing and hiring engineers for about half that time. Your opinion on the drug testing being silly is fine, but I guarantee that many people disagree, and would prefer not working next to someone who's using.
If you suspect your employee is using anything on the job and it is hurting his performance or causing disruption, that is fireable. Performance firing is slower I admit, but if he's outright being disruptive, you can fire him on the spot. Based on what I've
Re: (Score:2)
Some require a drug test, others don't. It's silly, I am not going to be operating a bus, I'm going to be driving a keyboard and mouse, maybe an oscilloscope if I get suckered into lab work. All ask for your previous salary on the job application.
I would suspect that it's more about you being a soft target for extortion. Drug addicts can get themselves into precarious positions of having to find a way to repay large sums of money.
LK
Re: (Score:2)
Some require a drug test, others don't. It's silly, I am not going to be operating a bus, I'm going to be driving a keyboard and mouse, maybe an oscilloscope if I get suckered into lab work. All ask for your previous salary on the job application.
I would suspect that it's more about you being a soft target for extortion. Drug addicts can get themselves into precarious positions of having to find a way to repay large sums of money.
LK
I would bet that in most cases it is mostly a defensive reaction to potential bad publicity. Nobody wants to see a news story along the lines of "Initrode, which unlike many of its peers does not require pre-employment drug screens, was unable to provide an answer as to why the drug abuse went undetected for so long". And the potentially perfectly accurate response of "because for many years their was no evidence of drug abuse in their work output" doesn't help once the mob gets warmed up.
Re: (Score:2)
"Initrode, which unlike many of its peers does not require pre-employment drug screens, was unable to provide an answer as to why the drug abuse went undetected for so long"
Um, maybe it's not the place of a company to worry about whether or not someone is doing drugs? I get tired of everybody thinking that companies need to take care of every aspect of an employee's life.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
I was in no way intending to imply that. I was only relating my personal experience.
Further, in no way do I consider unskilled jobs to be lesser or inferior things that "peons" have. A person's worth has nothing to do with the sort of work that they do.
Re: (Score:3)
I would have voted for Johnson, too. I mean, we liked our Presidents to be real men, and not be afraid of whipping out their, um, Johnsons. Nowadays you get crucified for saying that women would let you "grab them". In the good old days, our Presidents were horn dogs, gettin' it on with mobster's girlfriends and we liked it that way.
Wait, which Johnson?
Re: (Score:2)
Blame me, I voted Johnson!
But did you vote Johnson in a state that was already guaranteed to go to one of the primary lizards, or did you vote Johnson in a swing state? If the former, then you cannot be to blame. If anything, you should be commended for trying to usurp the guaranteed runner-up.
More people need to realize, that voting for lizard 2 because you are trying to vote against lizard 1, in a non-swing state that is solidly lizard 1, is the real "throwing your vote away".
Just had a conversation last night about which candidate we voted for. It was interesting.
Re: (Score:2)
Same -- never been asked for previous salary.
I know at one point Blizzard [blizzard.com] used to -- which was an instant fail.
Re:Employers do that? (Score:5, Insightful)
I'm job-seeking right now and they always ask. ALWAYS.
I love how this was passed thru (the law) because of male/female pay issues.
the REAL issue is that it makes negotiating a one-way street, with the company having all the power and you have nearly none.
'the first one to mention a number, loses'
that's how the old saying goes when you are haggling.
and yet, there's few ways out of this game, especially since you can't just mark 'market rate' on the online hr forms.
its all about keeping you in your place. the god damned 'job creators' that we have been worshipping really don't have our needs in mind; they could not care less if we all starved and died on the streets. lots of indians to come over and work for a fraction of what a US person needs to live on.
good that this passed thru; but sad that it had to be couched as a male/female thing instead of 'strong company/weak worker' negotiation balancing.
either way, I expect companies to find loopholes to work around this 'unpleasent' rebalance of power.
Re: (Score:3)
Why not just make up a number?
For example, when I'm applying for a position, I've already computed a salary that I want to get (yes, I have a formula for this). You could do the same, and tell them that was what you made in your last position.
Re:Employers do that? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Employers do that? (Score:5, Insightful)
How can they verify it?
The best they could do is tax records, but that's sufficiently imprecise to cover you. They could do a credit check, but that only gives them a general range, not an exact salary.
But, if you don't want to lie, then just don't answer the question.
There's exactly no chance that I'm going to tell potential employers what previous employers paid me. That's very personal information that they have no legitimate need to know.
If that means I won't get hired for the position, that's fine -- if the information is that important to them, that's an excellent indication that I wouldn't fit in well in that company anyway.
Re: (Score:2)
This is ONE of the things Equifax, TransUnion and Experian keep track of and make money at. A simple credit check and they have your whole life.
Re: (Score:2)
Because then they will verify this as a condition of your job offer,...
Why? They have already agreed to your price, so why would they go BACK and try to verify something that no longer has any bearing on your job?
Re:Employers do that? (Score:4, Informative)
A few years ago, I worked at a job that I absolutely hated. The hours were bad, management was brutal and oppressive, etc. One day I got a call out of the blue from a recruiter about a job at AIG. I interviewed, they liked me, we progressed to the offer stage. Part of AIG's offer process, and I've heard a number of other companies require this, involves you providing their HR rep with a recent paystub. I'm sure there's some perfect excuse one could offer to get out of this requirement, but for most people the options are submit the paystub or lose the opportunity. Or maybe there's a third option of mocking up a fake paystub, but there's the risk of eventually being found out and getting fired or accused of fraud. It is incredibly one sided, and laws like the one recently passed in California are a good start to making the negotiations a bit more equal.
Re: (Score:3)
My answer would be ... "I'll provide my pay stub the moment you provide me with a genuine offer. If this unacceptable, would you be willing to propose an alternative that is fair to both sides?"
There is no way for them to answer the question without giving up something. If they don't propose something, they are admitting that they are being unfair. If they do offer something, that is just a continuation of the negotiation. The moment they refuse to be "fair" then you don't want to work for them anyways.
Ass
Re: (Score:3)
Why not just make up a number?
Giving them a fake number might not work out the way you expect it to. With the recent disclosure of the Experian compromise, there are reports that the data contains salary history. Perspective employers don't need to ask you what you made, they already have those numbers from credit reporting agencies. The company I retired from after 33 years viewed any discrepancy between what they knew and found out (via various reporting entities) vs. what they were told by applicants as 'lies', and in most cases ref
Re: (Score:2)
I've done numerous 3 agency reports and never seen salary info provided. And in most every credit application, they ask about household income, which can be much more than just salary.
Re: (Score:2)
Perspective employers...
Are these the ones that look good from a distance, but the closer you get the worse the job appears?
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Employers do that? (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3)
if they found out they would actually be impressed
He was just being honest. Your compensation is usually more than the amount written on the paycheck.
But, how would they find out? No employer is going to tell how much they paid any employees, as that opens them up to lawsuits.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
But, how would they find out? No employer is going to tell how much they paid any employees, as that opens them up to lawsuits.
You're not very imaginative. They find out by requiring you to provide a copy of a recent paycheck stub as a condition for employment.
Re: (Score:2)
Would you really do that?? It seems better to pass on the job if that's really a requirement.
Re: (Score:2)
When I have had to do that in the past I just blacked out all the salary/tax information.
Re: (Score:2)
I did the same. My base pay was only 3/5 of my total compensation.
Re: (Score:2)
the REAL issue is that it makes negotiating a one-way street, with the company having all the power and you have nearly none.
Welcome to fascist America.
Re: (Score:2)
do you not understand what fascism actually is
I do but apparently you don't, having vastly oversimplified it and left out important bits.
Re: (Score:2)
Came here to say this. Great law, wrong rationale.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm job-seeking right now and they always ask. ALWAYS.
I love how this was passed thru (the law) because of male/female pay issues.
the REAL issue is that it makes negotiating a one-way street, with the company having all the power and you have nearly none.
'the first one to mention a number, loses'
that's how the old saying goes when you are haggling.
You're confusing two different questions. What you are referring to is your desired salary, and that is a bargaining point. What the summary is referring to is your current/previous salary.
They are not the same thing. Eventually you need to discuss the former, and you want to delay bringing that up as long as possible, preferably until after it's clear that you're the candidate they want. They have no right to know the latter number and if they won't allow you to proceed without disclosing it then I sugges
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
How does that make it a one-way street? All you have to do is ask "how much does this position pay?" And demand an answer to that question before you'll reveal your current pay. Then you both know where the other stands and can negotiate from there. Heck, most job listings already tell you that before you even apply for the job, so if anything the employer has already showed you
Re: (Score:2)
its all about keeping you in your place. the god damned 'job creators' that we have been worshipping really don't have our needs in mind; they could not care less if we all starved and died on the...BLAH, BLAH, BLAH
If you believe this, you've never been in the position to actually hire someone, and are clearly clueless about how budgets work...come out of your echo chamber. I have a multimillion dollar program that I have about fifty people working on. A portion of that money is carved out for compensation. I have to lay out the tasks, and the amount of staffing I'll need to accomplish those tasks within the time and quality constraints necessary. I have to track individuals hours against that budget weekly...it's
Re: (Score:3)
If not caring for others is a flaw in the morality of 'job creators', then it's a flaw in 99% of humanity. In practically any given question (automotive or workplace safety; educational quality be it primary, secondary or post-secondary; health services; commute times; etc) the only time people actually think about the problem and seek the "best"
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
You just admitted to illegal age discrimination in a permanent public forum.
Re: (Score:2)
AC to another AC:
You just admitted to illegal age discrimination in a permanent public forum.
And it got modded Insightful.
Re: (Score:2)
I guarantee this will have unintended consequences. Interviews will be much longer. We'll hear stories of people who BS their way through interviews to much higher positions than they're actually qualified for. It's going to be a learning process for companies. I know I've already shared this with other managers on my team...many of us hire folks in CA.
Re:Employers do that? (Score:4, Insightful)
I guarantee this will have unintended consequences. Interviews will be much longer. We'll hear stories of people who BS their way through interviews to much higher positions than they're actually qualified for. It's going to be a learning process for companies. I know I've already shared this with other managers on my team...many of us hire folks in CA.
Or.... how about you offer the salary that you think is reasonable for the position? Interview the skill-level of the candidate? Rather than trying to judge it based on what someone else previously thought they were worth. You've no idea how good the previous employer was at judging their worth.
Re:Employers do that? (Score:5, Insightful)
You mean the fact that Single Women just out of college earn more than their male counterparts, but an average of 8%?
"Census data from 2008 show that single, childless women in their 20s now earn 8 percent more on average than their male counterparts in metropolitan areas."
http://www.politifact.com/pund... [politifact.com]
The wage gap myth is based on the idea that men and women make equal choices, and doesn't account for career choices, family choices, and other meaningful criteria. But hey, it fits the narrative.
Don't lie (Score:3)
There's a company called The Work Number that collected detailed salary info from employers. Freescale supplied them, and when I requested the consumer report from TWN, it had every detail.
So don't lie, perhaps just put a range, or show it as approximately: $90k - $100k, or ~$100k.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
It's a one way street.
Its not a one way street. That is a myth of people without the skills to negotiate properly. They negotiated your wage by getting you to set the bar artificially low, and countered your desire with a comparison with what you make.
Had you, instead, said "are you offering me the position? I'll provide you with my pay history immediately upon receipt of a fair offer." presents option for them to be "fair". The "be reasonable" counter was aggressive but predictable.
This is an age old technique to get people to
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Congratulations, with your awesome strategy, you can now not succeed in hiring anyone in the highly competitive market for software engineers in CA.
Re: (Score:2)