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

gespenstern

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.

Wrong.

Also, to CyberGuyPR on being lazy. Homo sapiens has a certain speed of perceiving the surroundings and processing the info. Resume is 2 pages. Your typical engineer position has tens if not hundreds of resumes in the first week. You don't expect people to drop everything and work on scrupulously reading all the resumes and conduct a full-blown test lab multi-hour interviews for the applicants?

The reality is people don't have time. They have to balance the energy and other resources spent on filtering the candidates and potential benefits of hiring the best. The free market establishes this balance. If an employer doesn't spend more resources on you as a candidate it means that they don't care enough about this and are okay with potentially hiring someone slightly worse than you. Or maybe better, but when you get dumped you tend to think that you were better, a well-known bias.

Check how much time HR specialists spend on reading a typical 2-page resume.

Now, in this situation, it totally makes sense to use salary history as a quick and dirty way to gauge someone's proficiency. It's dirty -- yes. But it's quick and not as bad.

Oh sorry that you being so unique got dumped and the employer wasn't interested in uncovering all the depths of your skillset and hired someone with better salary history, thus, relying on your previous employers opinion on your worth. Accept it and move on.

Iristheangel

gespenstern wrote: »

Wrong.

Also, to CyberGuyPR on being lazy. Homo sapiens has a certain speed of perceiving the surroundings and processing the info. Resume is 2 pages. Your typical engineer position has tens if not hundreds of resumes in the first week. You don't expect people to drop everything and work on scrupulously reading all the resumes and conduct a full-blown test lab multi-hour interviews for the applicants?

The reality is people don't have time. They have to balance the energy and other resources spent on filtering the candidates and potential benefits of hiring the best. The free market establishes this balance. If an employer doesn't spend more resources on you as a candidate it means that they don't care enough about this and are okay with potentially hiring someone slightly worse than you. Or maybe better, but when you get dumped you tend to think that you were better, a well-known bias.

Check how much time HR specialists spend on reading a typical 2-page resume.

Now, in this situation, it totally makes sense to use salary history as a quick and dirty way to gauge someone's proficiency. It's dirty -- yes. But it's quick and not as bad.

If they are looking for a candidate, I expect them to usually whittle through the resume pile using a keyword search. After they've eliminated the ones without the skills they need, then they start looking at years of experience, education, etc. Maybe a phone interview or two to whittle down the list a little further. By the time you get to a final selection of candidates, yes. I do expect there to be potentially a lab or whiteboarding session. At least for the jobs where I was making six figures and above. That's a good way also to weed out dumpers.

gespenstern wrote: »

Oh sorry that you being so unique got dumped and the employer wasn't interested in uncovering all the depths of your skillset and hired someone with better salary history, thus, relying on your previous employers opinion on your worth. Accept it and move on.

Actually, I don't have to "accept it and move on." I live in California. One of a few states (along with a few cities out there) that have made this question illegal to ask. California isn't even the trendsetter here. It's also illegal to ask about previous salaries in Oregon, Delaware, Massachusetts, New Orleans, New York City, Philadelphia, Pittsburgh and Puerto Rico. Now I have the choice to ask for the range of pay for the job being offered and if it doesn't meet my minimum, I can walk away without wasting PTO to interview with a company that never would have given me what I wanted. I hope this law eventually branches out to other states so my peers on this forum don't have to worry about it either.

Iristheangel

thomas_ wrote: »

@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.

Agreed. In terms of my current job, I was informed via offer letter what I would be paid originally. I was told by the hiring manager that it was computed by HR and there wasn't really much negotiating room. It took an act of congress to get myself outside of the box I was put in after getting hired and it's not easily repeatable.

To add to your point of a "f*** you" fund, I would say that most people who are interviewing usually have jobs and have to use PTO hours or sick days to go to the interviews. If they've taken multiple days off and only are offered a small bump, it's harder to walk away and repeat the process at a new company. That's why being able to ask the salary range they're offering upfront before you waste your days off is key. That way no one is forced into a situation where they only take a marginally better offer or walk away to stay at their current place until enough time has elapsed where they can some more time off of work to pursue another job lead.

N7Valiant

thomas_ wrote: »

@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.

Then it may be time to move if all the employers in your area are behaving that way. It might indicate that the area is saturated with enough qualified people that they can afford to pass up skilled individuals.

MitM

gespenstern wrote: »

Wrong.

No, I’m not wrong. Mentality like yours is the exact reason more states need have these laws.

When a company posts a job opening, they know the budget they have for that opening. The question should be what is your salary requirement, not salary history. Based on the VALUE they think I (as an employee of THEIR company) will bring, they can either meet my requirement or offer me something else.

TeKniques

The topic and content of this thread would make for a good argumentative school paper. We all have our strong opinions; personally I don't think we need any more regulation in our lives. That being said I do not believe prior employment salary history is much relevant when selecting a candidate. As a hiring manager I don't even look at it as there's a budget for positions and I only care about skills. The culture aspect is important too, I've hired candidates who were not as skilled as some others, but they were going to be a better fit culturally.

Let me pose an interesting question. Why can California enforce only the laws it wants to with no consequence but at the same time mandate its employers follow the ones it sets?

N7Valiant

TeKniques wrote: »

The topic and content of this thread would make for a good argumentative school paper. We all have our strong opinions; personally I don't think we need any more regulation in our lives. That being said I do not believe prior employment salary history is much relevant when selecting a candidate. As a hiring manager I don't even look at it as there's a budget for positions and I only care about skills. The culture aspect is important too, I've hired candidates who were not as skilled as some others, but they were going to be a better fit culturally.

Let me pose an interesting question. Why can California enforce only the laws it wants to with no consequence but at the same time mandate its employers follow the ones it sets?

Because California is willing to enforce its laws but the federal government isn't willing to enforce theirs(at least not those particular ones), very simple answer.

TeKniques

Indeed, the question was posed as a rhetorical one. My point was that California does not model the way for its employers to respect the law given the states own actions. I would not be surprised if this law, as good of intentions as it has to make no real difference in the end.

N7Valiant

TeKniques wrote: »

Indeed, the question was posed as a rhetorical one. My point was that California does not model the way for its employers to respect the law given the states own actions. I would not be surprised if this law, as good of intentions as it has to make no real difference in the end.

I don't think it matters as I suspect a lot of the big tech companies in California from the top down approve of what their State is doing most of the time. That aside, I doubt anyone would notice or care about the double standard so much as they care about California's specific ability and willingness to enforce that law. Sure California might want to flout some laws, but I doubt anyone is going to test say, not paying their federal taxes.

The only thing I care about is that this is only a State implemented measure. If it's really so bad, employers will move to other States. If it's implemented on a federal level from the top down, then you're screwed no matter what.

emek

So we are 9 days into 2018. Has anyone actually been called back for a job and ask for the salary range? If so, how large of a range did they provide?

Basic85

I've noticed that a lot more companies now are posting pay in there job descriptions, not all of them of course. I've been contacted by recruiters and couple of them have listed the pay without me asking. My guess is that they already know the law so why waste time fighting with someone about the pay. It would be interesting to see what would the employer say if I ask them for the range if it wasn't already listed.

Thank you everyone for replying, I truly feel this is a great law and has long been needed. There are difference of opinions on this and I knew that was going to happen, like it or not it's the law. It puts candidates in an even playing field. Happy New Year everyone!