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

Comments

Iristheangel

It's awesome but I suspect it's going to take awhile for the message to get through to every HR department.

cyberguypr

This bill states that it applies to all employers including state and local government. We did discuss this earlier this year, although it might’ve been for another state. I am also glad to see this pass becuase I am sick and tired of the crap that employers pull. “Oh, you make $60k? We will gladly take you for $62k.”

Nope!

Danielm7

cyberguypr wrote: »

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

Nope!

Then eight months later... I can't believe you're leaving for another company, and for only 4K! Employees are only out for themselves now and company loyalty is a thing of the past!!

But yeah, good bill, I like that they have to give a range, it really does save everyone a lot of wasted time.

EANx

The text for anyone interested: https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billNavClient.xhtml?bill_id=201720180AB168

I think the first thing will be trying to game the system. For instance, how does the law apply to firms incorporated outside of CA that place an ad for several locations, including CA and don't interview someone specifically for a CA job? I also did a little digging and found that if a misdemeanor penalty is prescribed but not specified what that penalty is, it is a max of $1000 and/or up to 180 days in jail. Now there's no way someone is going to jail for asking salary history so the question becomes if it's worth the potential penalty for asking and if a job posting required it, would that be a single instance (writing) or would it be as many instances as people applied?

Then there's the fact that one part of the bill says "A violation of those restrictions is a misdemeanor." and another part says "The bill would specify that a violation of its provisions would not be subject to the misdemeanor provision." So is there a penalty or not?

I think it's a good thing in the long run but will be interesting to see how it's applied and the effect.

tedjames

cyberguypr wrote: »

This bill states that it applies to all employers including state and local government. We did discuss this earlier this year, although it might’ve been for another state. I am also glad to see this pass becuase I am sick and tired of the crap that employers pull. “Oh, you make $60k? We will gladly take you for $62k.”

Nope!

In Texas, state government, university, and city salaries are published. Also, state applications require a salary history.

TechGromit

Well since I'm not in California, How much do you make?

TechGromit

tedjames wrote: »

In Texas, state government, university, and city salaries are published. Also, state applications require a salary history.

It's the same way for Federal employee positions (but not federal contractors) all salary information is public record.

JDMurray

Iristheangel wrote: »

It's awesome but I suspect it's going to take awhile for the message to get through to every HR department.

It depends on how connected HR is to the company's legal department. Where I work, HR was probably made aware of this new requirement the day after CA Gov. Moonbeam approved it (October 12, 2017). However, my employer is not based in CA, so I'm not sure if there is any legal obligation to heed it--although we probably already do.

EANx

TechGromit wrote: »

It's the same way for Federal employee positions (but not federal contractors) all salary information is public record.

Public record is not the same as being published. Some states (including VA) have a public website where you can plug in the name of any current employee and out pops their salary history with the state. That's not the case with the U.S. government.

tedjames

TechGromit wrote: »

Well since I'm not in California, How much do you make?

Use your Google-fu skills to find out!

TechGromit

EANx wrote: »

Some states (including VA) have a public website where you can plug in the name of any current employee and out pops their salary history with the state.

I don't know about salary history, but I know for a fact you can look up the current salary for any federal government employee.

https://www.fedsdatacenter.com/federal-pay-rates/

EANx

Good stuff, wasn't aware someone was publishing the data. Seems to be some holes but looks like the GS are there and they're the largest block.

YuckTheFankees

I really hope other states start adapting this labor code...great find and thread.

snokerpoker

That is awesome!

McxRisley

I have never told a possible employer my actual salary, in fact I have always given them a number higher than what I made so that when they low ball me the number will actually be close to what I'm looking for if they can afford it. From my personal experience, this has always worked out in my favor. I've been hired for the same job as a coworker and came out making much more than them because of this tactic.

gespenstern

This country is doomed for not understanding economics 101, starting with California. And New York.

xxxkaliboyxxx

Would this fall under California residents living out of the state?

JDMurray

This is a requirement of California employers regardless of where their employees are located.

636-555-3226

This is a worthless law. There are private organizations HRs can contract with that collect a lot of this data. The employer has to provide it to the company they contract with, but almost every company in my area (NOT California) contracts with these types of companies & the info is out there. Don't need to ask the candidate when I can just ask the 3rd-party company that already has the data I need.

Priston

Hopefully since a lot of tech companies and staffing companies have offices in CA they'll stop requiring salary info on their job applications nationwide.

Legacy User

636-555-3226 wrote: »

This is a worthless law. There are private organizations HRs can contract with that collect a lot of this data. The employer has to provide it to the company they contract with, but almost every company in my area (NOT California) contracts with these types of companies & the info is out there. Don't need to ask the candidate when I can just ask the 3rd-party company that already has the data I need.

Yea the info is out there but wouldnt you have to pay per inquiry to get someones salary info from a 3rd party? If what I said was true wouldnt it add up since you are inquiring per candidate. I know when I applied for a job for a big company they said they only do the background check salary/etc once they give an offer to a candidate because it is hundreds of dollars per inquiry.

The reason for this isn't to hide information but to give candidates a fair chance when trying to get paid competitve market rates. To many people took lower paying jobs (myself included) to get the experience which is always encouraged. But some have a hard time to make the appropriate jump at the next job because for example some employers "don't feel you should get 75k raise since you were originally making 50k" but market pays really pays 75k-85k.

Just wanted to add I stay away from companies and recommend people to stay away from those companies who try to play that game with you because that speaks volumes on how they value their employees. I was hit with the "oh we can't give you that kind of raise". I never settled since I was already employed and had a lot of marketable skills. I later got offered a 40k increase from my previous salary. It was a hurdle at first when applying for jobs since I was hit with bs but I knew my worth and held out for the right company that gave me my worth.

tedjames

A few years ago, I interviewed for the information security officer position at another agency. The outgoing ISO was making $110k+. Since our salaries are published, they knew what I was making and offered me only $66k (a joke), thinking I would jump at the chance for a raise. I told them I would take the job for $80k, but they argued that I couldn't come in new making more than people who had been there for years (BS). That's their own fault for not looking for better work. I knew that having my salary published was not helping me at all. I politely declined the offer and got an even better offer that I accepted a couple of months later.

Iristheangel

It actually shouldn't matter if the company it out-of-state. If they are hiring for operations in California, they still have to adhere to stay laws, regulations and taxes. That's normal. So even if the company's HQ is in Virginia, if they have an office in California and they're hiring for positions in that office, they still have to adhere to the laws of that state that they are doing business in if the positions are in that state.

Iristheangel

Here's a decent breakdown on a legal blog: https://www.ebglaw.com/news/californias-ban-on-salary-history-inquiries-new-law-brings-changes-to-the-job-application-and-hiring-process/

And I quote:

"[FONT=&quot]Beginning on January 1, 2018, all private and public-sector California employers—including national and international companies operating in California with California employees—can no longer request an applicant’s “salary history information.” Salary history information includes both “compensation and benefits” (but is not defined further under the statute)."[/FONT]

Legacy User

gespenstern wrote: »

This country is doomed for not understanding economics 101, starting with California. And New York.

Why do you feel this way? If a mid-size company has a set budget for a position lets say 55k-67k depending on experience and the candidate asks for 80k. Don't think that this law means they have to take the person for 80k. Well either they need to be more transparent on the range so the interested candidates can apply or have their recruiting team ask what the person is looking for to see if the numbers work.

Iristheangel

dmarcisco wrote: »

Why do you feel this way? If a mid-size company has a set budget for a position lets say 55k-67k depending on experience and the candidate asks for 80k. Don't think that this law means they have to take the person for 80k. Well either they need to be more transparent on the range so the interested candidates can apply or have their recruiting team ask what the person is looking for to see if the numbers work.

Bingo. If anything, it saves the potential employee time as well as the employer to find out if the pay will be suitable and it prevents the employee from getting ripped off by getting lowballed just because they happened to get paid less at their previous gig.

Priston

Iristheangel wrote: »

It actually shouldn't matter if the company it out-of-state. If they are hiring for operations in California, they still have to adhere to stay laws, regulations and taxes. That's normal. So even if the company's HQ is in Virginia, if they have an office in California and they're hiring for positions in that office, they still have to adhere to the laws of that state that they are doing business in if the positions are in that state.

What I'm hoping for is if the HQ is in Virginia and they have an office in California and a position opens up in Virginia, they use the same job application system online in both Virginia and California making the salary history fields optional (with maybe a legal disclaimer about positions in CA) or the salary history fields completely removed from the application.

Iristheangel

Priston wrote: »

What I'm hoping for is if the HQ is in Virginia and they have an office in California and a position opens up in Virginia, they use the same job application system online in both Virginia and California making the salary history fields optional (with maybe a legal disclaimer about positions in CA) or the salary history fields completely removed from the application.

They won't. If the job is located in California, they follow the laws in that state. If the job is in another state, they don't have to

JDMurray

Yes, the employer must follows the laws of the state where the employee resides regardless of where the employer is based.

However, as it has been pointed out, there are other ways to find the salary history of a person besides explicitly asking the person (e.g., the information is already in the public record, the person willfully discloses information without being asked, etc.). Using those methods are not forbidden by AB168.

gespenstern

dmarcisco wrote: »

Why do you feel this way? If a mid-size company has a set budget for a position lets say 55k-67k depending on experience and the candidate asks for 80k. Don't think that this law means they have to take the person for 80k. Well either they need to be more transparent on the range so the interested candidates can apply or have their recruiting team ask what the person is looking for to see if the numbers work.

Because like it or not, but it's a competition game, both between candidates and candidates vs employers. What do you think the employers are going to do? You think that they, unable to ask about the salary history, will use the candidate's skillset as a sole determinant of the pay?

This law attempts to cripple the natural order and as many similar initiatives, such as minimal wage law, or non-discrimination laws, will end up hurting those it intends to protect, will advance outsourcing of all remotable jobs to 3rd world countries even more, same with automation with robots and algorithms replacing whiny humans everywhere where it's not outsourcable.

Check out analyses/researches on this that will, I'm sure, pop up in several years, that will show, similarly to minimal wage laws effects, that life will become harder for skilled people with low wages history. That's my prediction and I'm pretty confident in this outcome.