It is now illegal to ask for previous salary in California 2018

I don't know if this has been brought up but it is now illegal for employers to ask for previous salary in California starting in 2018. It is called AB168 Labor Code 432.5. I'm not sure what the consequences would be against the employer but if you experience this question in 2018 than report the employer to the labor board immediately. I'm also not sure if it applies to the private sector. Upon request from the candidate the employer MUST disclose the salary range, YES!!! I hope these recruiters/employers are well informed because if they try to ask me about my previous salary, I'll kindly remind them of AB168.

Any of guys excited about this like I am? What do you guys think of AB168? Thanks in advance!!!

Find more posts tagged with

Free for TechExams community: Cybersecurity salary guide

Compare cert salaries and plan your next career move

Button

Comments

ITSec14

As much as I support what this law is trying to do, I have to agree with @gespenstern. This law could very well end up costing California many high skilled jobs by outsourcing outside the US or jobs relocating to states that are more pro-employer.

Iristheangel

So the high business taxes, cost of living, and real estate wasn't going to cause all the businesses to leave and high skill jobs to dry up but dear God... If an employer has to advertise the actual budgeted salary for a job and they can't low-ball someone based on how much their previous company ripped them off, that's going to be the straw that breaks the camel's back.

Iristheangel

Honestly, I've gotten screwed by the whole "you got paid this much at your last employer so you are getting paid this here" crap that I think this law is awesome. When I got hired at my current job, I got $10K more base than I got before and better bonuses. About a year in to the job, I found out that people were getting hired after me with less experience for $30K more. I took that to my managers and they pretty much told me that my salary was determined based on previous salary and they could never get approval for what I was asking for (a level playing field). I kept going up and it took me about a year and a half more, some strong arming, and a bit of an act of god to get a $50K bump and a BIG bump in bonus. It was in such a way that could not be easily repeated easily for others.

My wife was facing a similar problem before this law. She was making well over 6 figures a job ago but took a BIG cut to work from home for a couple years. She is at that point where she was going to look for a new gig and in her field she should be making $150K easily with her skills and experience but w prior to this new law, she would be lowballed since she's making under six figures at her current gig. Thankfully, that's not going to be a worry anymore for our family.

Paying someone a salary SHOULD be based on two factors: 1) the budget range the company has for that opening and 2) the skills that the candidate brings to the table. If a company wants to keep an employee, it shouldn't be about how much they made at their previous employer - this really isn't their business and it doesn't affect the kind of job they will be providing for the employer. As far as disclosing the range of salary they are hiring for, this is a good thing for them as well. As it is, most employers list benefits, perks, etc as part of their job advertisements to attract the best candidates and it costs money and time to interview. Companies can give a low ball range and probably save money on interviewing candidates who don't want to get paid that much but they'll definitely have less competition for that job. Likewise, those who want to attract a high number of quality candidates will give a higher range and get their pick of the best candidates. If a company wants to move to BFE to avoid this law or outsource to <insert random poverty-stricken country>, well... you get what you paid for and you won't necessarily have the best candidate pool there for high skilled jobs. We've seen how that's worked out in the past and well... lots of companies had to bring their operations back after having huge business impacting issues so I'm not worried about it.

At this point, California continues to be a big market with a LOT of high skilled tech and executive jobs. It's still making money for the rest of the country with the highest GDP of all the states and still going up every year. It's not the end of the world and the sky isn't falling because a random person in another state doesn't like that law.

JoJoCal19

Iristheangel wrote: »

So the high business taxes, cost of living, and real estate wasn't going to cause all the businesses to leave and high skill jobs to dry up but dear God... If an employee has to advertise the actual budgeted salary for a job and they can't low-ball someone based on how much their previous company ripped them off, that's going to be the straw that breaks the camel's back.

Iristheangel wrote: »

Honestly, I've gotten screwed by the whole "you got paid this much at your last employer so you are getting paid this here" crap that I think this law is awesome. When I got hired at my current job, I got $10K more base than I got before and better bonuses. About a year in to the job, I found out that people were getting hired after me with less experience for $30K more. I took that to my managers and they pretty much told me that my salary was determined based on previous salary and they could never get approval for what I was asking for (a level playing field). I kept going up and it took me about a year and a half more, some strong arming, and a bit of an act of god to get a $50K bump and a BIG bump in bonus. It was in such a way that could not be easily repeated easily for others.

Quoted for truth, and same here. Even at my current job they did the same thing. Thankfully the HR rep was (surprisingly) willing and able to use some creativity to get me at least at the bottom of what I had in mind, because the hiring managers really really liked me and she was willing to go to bat for me. But I would be at least $30k or so more than I'm at now if I didn't have to face this artificial salary limitations at my last two employers.

There are certain type of people who are anti-anything gov or anti-any reg at all. They should find Somalia to their liking.

bhcs2014

Does anyone think it's asinine for a law that makes it illegal to ask someone a specific question? Like if someone wants to ask a question shouldn't they at least be allowed to ask it without breaking a law? Maybe I'm missing something here?

thomas_

There are plenty of other questions employers aren’t legally allowed to ask candidates during the interview. I really don’t have an issue with them not being allowed to ask about past salary history. The employer already holds more cards when it comes to negotiating salary and often demand that prospective employees give away their only leverage(past salary history) during salary negotiations. In my mind, a law like this helps preserve what little negotiation power an employee has left.

Legacy User

bhcs2014 wrote: »

Does anyone think it's asinine for a law that makes it illegal to ask someone a specific question? Like if someone wants to ask a question shouldn't they at least be allowed to ask it without breaking a law? Maybe I'm missing something here?

Its not about asking a question its about employers using your previous salary information as a bargaining chip against you. To many employers use the tactic we can't proceed until we know your previous salary information as if makes a difference because each company is different, the budget is different so you can't compare one salary to another because the variables are always different. If for example someone was making 55k at a smaller company or took a pay cut just to get experience and they apply at a large company which pays 95k for the same type of work. Some companies would say oh since you make 55k we can only offer you 65k but then again if someone was at a higher bracket making 83k they would offer 95k for the same job since its an "adequate raise".

That whole approach is asinine. We are all paid to do a job it isnt for charity. If a company needs a certain set of skills they have to pay for those skills.

ITSec14

I don't think anyone here ACTUALLY supports the practice of obtaining someone's prior salary history to determine job offers. I certainly don't. I just expect politicians to understand the cause and effect of these laws before pushing them through. It has nothing to do with being anti government.

N7Valiant

ITSec14 wrote: »

As much as I support what this law is trying to do, I have to agree with @gespenstern. This law could very well end up costing California many high skilled jobs by outsourcing outside the US or jobs relocating to states that are more pro-employer.

I don't see that as a bad thing. I was never a fan of the tech jobs all being concentrated in Silicon Valley since I would never move there due to the State looking like a legislative hellhole.

NHStudent

CA wants to be their own country and why they are being so weird. If that ever happened, they would be the worst country on the planet.

While I think that there are some laws that they have that help, there are an equal amount that clearly show their arrogance at being a united state. I'm going to go watch superman now.

BlackBeret

I agree, it's asinine that some took the time to make this a law. The way bills get passed it's such a long, involved, ridiculous process that I feel like the time could have been spent better. The answer is simple, just decline to answer the question. Or lie and give them some ridiculous amount if they want to play that game.

When you get to a point in your career where you can negotiate your salary, you go in to an interview knowing what you want to make, what benefits you want, and what's important to you. When recruiters call, when I interview, etc. salary is going to come up, and I tell them what I want. Either it works or it doesn't. It's business, not a personal attack.

Iristheangel

BlackBeret wrote: »

I agree, it's asinine that some took the time to make this a law. The way bills get passed it's such a long, involved, ridiculous process that I feel like the time could have been spent better. The answer is simple, just decline to answer the question. Or lie and give them some ridiculous amount if they want to play that game.

When you get to a point in your career where you can negotiate your salary, you go in to an interview knowing what you want to make, what benefits you want, and what's important to you. When recruiters call, when I interview, etc. salary is going to come up, and I tell them what I want. Either it works or it doesn't. It's business, not a personal attack.

Sounds like a great idea until you come across a job that tells you that your salary history needs to be on the resume in order to be seriously considered or you lie and then sign a background request form that let's them inquire the validity of the information with your previous employers - like I've had to do for the last 3 jobs.

Also... Given your position, why does it matter if there is a law to you given that you're either refusing to disclose or lying anyways?

ITSec14

@Iris - Not saying I agree with that practice at all, but what about those who DO routinely lie about their previous salaries just to get a big bump? While interviewing for my current job, I was asked to provide my salary information as well to which I declined unless they agreed that my asking price was acceptable. Did I have to provide it? Nope. I could have politely declined and moved on. Got an offer for what I asked for + yearly bonus. Was it a pretty process? Nope, but I got the job and my desired salary.

Iristheangel

ITSec14 wrote: »

@Iris - Not saying I agree with that practice at all, but what about those who DO routinely lie about their previous salaries just to get a big bump? While interviewing for my current job, I was asked to provide my salary information as well to which I declined unless they agreed that my asking price was acceptable. Did I have to provide it? Nope. I could have politely declined and moved on. Got an offer for what I asked for + yearly bonus. Was it a pretty process? Nope, but I got the job and my desired salary.

What about them? Go look on Indeed, Dice, etc. There are many jobs that won't even consider your resume and they plainly state it unless you agree to disclose your salary history on the resume. You don't get an interview or even a chance to decline this information if you don't provide it for many of these jobs. There are some jobs that let you get away with not stating it but not every one will and essentially it's a race to the bottom if you're forced to disclose it.

Again, if your input is that you're not going to disclose it anyways or you will just lie, why do you care if there's a law stating you don't have to? It won't affect these people - it'll just make life easier for them as it's one less obstacle to have or lie to make to an employer in your eyes

MitM

It should be a law in all states. No company should be asking for your salary history to "seriously consider you". That's ridiculous. Now, asking for your salary requirements, is acceptable. If they are willing to pay $200,000 for a position and your salary requirement says $150k, then too bad if they only offer you $150k. You should have known your worth

JDMurray

ITSec14 wrote: »

... but what about those who DO routinely lie about their previous salaries just to get a big bump?

If the HR people you are dealing with are not amateurs then they know the likely salary ranges for the types of jobs in the types of industries in a specific geographical area. It's part of the recruiter's job to know what people make everywhere. Giving an inflated (i.e., untruthful) salary history may get you removed from consideration for a first-round interview for being dis-reputable. That decision also goes in their file in case you decide to re-apply to the same org at a future date. Best to decline giving your salary history and, if you get an offer, negotiate your starting rate.

bhcs2014

I know employers that ask prospects previous salary. I don't think they should be fined or go to jail for that. My current employer and recruiters I have worked with ask salary history. My current job I make 50% more than my last because I know my value and how to negotiate. If I was hiring someone I would ask previous salary just to get an idea about their value.

Don't think we need more tax money going to stupid laws like this and more bureaucrats enforcing them. This is the type of law you might see in Soviet Russia not a capitalist system.

Additionally, all arguments for this law ITT fail basic logic tests.

N7Valiant

bhcs2014 wrote: »

I know employers that ask prospects previous salary. I don't think they should be fined or go to jail for that. My current employer and recruiters I have worked with ask salary history. My current job I make 50% more than my last because I know my value and how to negotiate. If I was hiring someone I would ask previous salary just to get an idea about their value.

Don't think we need more tax money going to stupid laws like this and more bureaucrats enforcing them. This is the type of law you might see in Soviet Russia not a capitalist system.

Additionally, all arguments for this law ITT fail basic logic tests.

Well it is California.

I'm perfectly fine with it so long as it remains a State-imposed measure and not a one-size-fits-all Federal thing. At least when it's just individual States employers have the option of moving to someplace more business friendly.

thomas_

bhcs2014 wrote: »

I know employers that ask prospects previous salary. I don't think they should be fined or go to jail for that. My current employer and recruiters I have worked with ask salary history. My current job I make 50% more than my last because I know my value and how to negotiate. If I was hiring someone I would ask previous salary just to get an idea about their value.

Don't think we need more tax money going to stupid laws like this and more bureaucrats enforcing them. This is the type of law you might see in Soviet Russia not a capitalist system.

Additionally, all arguments for this law ITT fail basic logic tests.

How would you feel if you made 25-50% less than your coworkers despite them being less knowledeable or skilled than you? Suddenly, making 50% more than what you did at your previous job doesn’t sound so great.

N7Valiant

thomas_ wrote: »

How would you feel if you made 25-50% less than your coworkers despite them being less knowledeable or skilled than you? Suddenly, making 50% more than what you did at your previous job doesn’t sound so great.

Well, if I'm confident that I really am more knowledgeable or skilled, I'd look for another job.

crimsonavenger

thomas_ wrote: »

How would you feel if you made 25-50% less than your coworkers despite them being less knowledeable or skilled than you? Suddenly, making 50% more than what you did at your previous job doesn’t sound so great.

This law doesn't necessarily fix that. There are several other factors that can come into play that still produce such a scenario. The law does help to stop wasting time for the employers that like to kick tires, but at the same time you still need to learn how evaluate your skills against the marketplace and negotiate accordingly.

thomas_

@N7Valient - Valid point, but then let’s say all of the jobs you apply to ask for your salary history and are only offering you a few grand above what you were previously paid despite all indications pointing to similar positions getting paid tens of thousands or multiple tens of thosands of dollars above what they’re offering you.

@crimsonavenger - Also a valid point. However, sometimes you don’t even get the opportunity to negotiate. Information disparity is a huge part of negotiating. Employees have two major points of leverage in salary negotiation which are keeping their past salary history unknown to the employer and being willing to walk away from the table. A lot of employers try to take the first one away by requiring the employee to disclose their salary history even before they are interviewed. At that point you are fighting an uphill battle to get paid market rate and not what the prospective employer deems to be a “fair” increase from your previous salary which was in all likelyhood negotiated at the beginning of your previous job before you acquired additional skills and experience that drastically increased your market value.

Unfortunately, unless you have a sufficiently large “f*ck you” fund, walking away from the negotiating table may not be a viable option. Let’s face it, an employer leaving a position unfilled for months or years is probably going to do less financial damage to a business than a person who is unemployed for months or years. Granted, if you are already employed looking for a job this isn’t as much of an issue, but it’s not unheard of for employees to find themselves suddenly unemployed for one reason or another. This all sets the stage for someone to get chronically underpaid relative to their knowledge and experience just because potential employers are forcing them to disclose their salary history and basing their offer on that person’s previous salary.

Please note, I have nothing against being asked about the salary I would like to be paid for a position. I do take issue with people asking about my salary history.

MitM

bhcs2014 wrote: »

If I was hiring someone I would ask previous salary just to get an idea about their value.

Value should not based on prior salary. It should be based on the knowledge/skills that they bring to the position that you are trying to fill.

Iristheangel

MitM wrote: »

Value should not based on prior salary. It should be based on the knowledge/skills that they bring to the position that you are trying to fill.

100% agree. If a hiring manager needs to know the previous salary to get an idea of the value of a certain skillset that they are hiring for, thats pretty piss poor leadership. They should already have a budgeted pay range and a list of qualifications and experience they are looking for. If the candidate meets those qualifications or a partial list of them, they can decide how much of that budgeted range those skills they do have are worth

EANx

MitM wrote: »

Value should not based on prior salary. It should be based on the knowledge/skills that they bring to the position that you are trying to fill.

Agreed but with people rejecting unions and then not learning not how to negotiate for themselves, they have to depend on the government to do it for them. Each side of a deal wants the best it can get. Back-in-the-day, if you wanted a qualified plumber/electrician/etc, you went to the union and paid union rates and got someone that was vetted and qualified. "Right to work" laws have benefited employers more than employees.

crimsonavenger

EANx wrote: »

Agreed but with people rejecting unions and then not learning not how to negotiate for themselves, they have to depend on the government to do it for them. Each side of a deal wants the best it can get. Back-in-the-day, if you wanted a qualified plumber/electrician/etc, you went to the union and paid union rates and got someone that was vetted and qualified. "Right to work" laws have benefited employers more than employees.

I would disagree with that. Maybe that was the optimal choice back in the day for quality, but not in my recent experience. Every time I have to deal with a union employee or union backed company, they give me half the amount of work done and generally take twice as long with not much to show for in terms of quality.

bhcs2014

Hiring managers want to know previous salary to know the value provided to the previous company. Value is determined by a lot of factors other than just skillset. It's just extra information used in the hiring process to gauge the person's value. It makes hiring more efficient. It's not some vast conspiracy against the employee. I have asked recruiters about this. They do this kind of stuff for a living.

greg9891

cyberguypr wrote: »

“Oh, you make $60k? We will gladly take you for $62k.”

Nope!

Wish we had a law like this in the Bahamas. I am constantly having to tell prospective employers that ''I don't discuss my current salary, but I will however give you a salary range I'm looking for.''

Excellent Law!

cyberguypr

bhcs2014 wrote: »

Hiring managers want to know previous salary to know the value provided to the previous company. Value is determined by a lot of factors other than just skillset. It's just extra information used in the hiring process to gauge the person's value. It makes hiring more efficient. It's not some vast conspiracy against the employee. I have asked recruiters about this. They do this kind of stuff for a living.

Whoever is a manager and relies on knowing a person's current/previous salary to gauge value delivered to another employer is just an extremely lazy human being or has no idea what they are doing. An employee can show value in many ways that have nothing to do with disclosing compensation. Heck, there are lazy employees who make big bucks and deliver minimal value. Salary knowledge says nothing that will make or break a deal.

As a hiring manager I care about what you have brought to the table before, not at what specific cost. Tell me about projects, technologies, inefficiencies, cost reduction, etc. That is enough for me to make an informed decision. It is my responsibility to determine your value to ME and the company. Even if you volunteer salary data that just tells me a figure you and your previous employer thought was fair compensation. Says nothing about what value you will bring to us. Having worked for cheap as hell companies before, to me there's ZERO value in disclosing this info and the only thing it can do is hurt me if I come across another cheap employer.

I am one of those that doesn't reveal salary on principle and has always gotten double digits increase when moving companies, up to 45%. The other two options are reveal your salary and stand strong on getting $X amount, or get the usual and more likely scenario of "well, we are authorized to only give you 5-6% on to of your last salary". I love this law because, as I said before, it takes that power away from the employer and puts it on the employee.

MitM

bhcs2014 wrote: »

Hiring managers want to know previous salary to know the value provided to the previous company. Value is determined by a lot of factors other than just skillset. It's just extra information used in the hiring process to gauge the person's value. It makes hiring more efficient. It's not some vast conspiracy against the employee. I have asked recruiters about this. They do this kind of stuff for a living.

Looking at my own situation, I can't really agree. My salary really has nothing to do with what value I bring to my company. I've been with my company for over 12 years, multiple promotions and awards, but the longer you stay with a company, you get smaller raises. It's politics. I know I can make a lot more with my current skillset somewhere else. At the current time, I choose my current salary along with my 5 mile commute and 5 week vacation time.

I've told this story before on here, but I was called about a position with a firewall vendor. I was asked my salary history and then was told without even interviewing me first, this position pays X amount, but we'd only be able to offer you $30,000 less because of your current salary.

I never proceeded with the interview, but what if I was the absolute best candidate they met with? They'd offer someone with less skills more money, just because they happened to make more than me at their current company?

Sorry, whoever wants to disagree can disagree, but to me, that's called bullshit