
California employers prohibited from relying on an applicant's salary history - Thespian2
https://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:YNX4W-8AI-cJ:https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billTextClient.xhtml%3Fbill_id%3D201720180AB168+
======
Amorymeltzer
Here's an article from October:
[http://www.sfgate.com/business/networth/article/New-law-
bans...](http://www.sfgate.com/business/networth/article/New-law-bans-
California-employers-from-asking-12274431.php)

 _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.”_

 _Delaware, Massachusetts and Oregon have passed similar laws that take effect
later this year or next, said attorney Ben Ebbink of Fisher & Phillips in
Sacramento. Philadelphia passed one that was supposed to take effect in May
but is being challenged in court. New York City and San Francisco have similar
ordinances that take effect Oct. 31 and July 1, respectively._

~~~
kelukelugames
I wonder if this is the strongest deterrent the government can pass to prevent
paying women differently.

~~~
perl4ever
I would not be against all salaries being public, like with public employees
or in some European country that I forget. I've been paid from the high $30s
to the low $80s for the exact same responsibilities. It can be a bad thing, in
my mind, to be overpaid as well, because someone who is willing to overpay is
possibly (a) incompetent, (b) compensating for a bad environment, and/or (c)
has unrealistic/impossible expectations. So even if you have been or expect to
be overpaid, I think there could be benefits to transparency.

------
amasad
I'm generally skeptical of regulations but in this case I think it's warranted
because companies were basically "price fixing" by asking candidates about
their previous salary and then matching or nudging up a bit.

This piece of regulation will make the market more efficient, dynamic, and
fair too. Companies already have information asymmetry working to their
advantage. Asking about salary history only increased that. And that's why
it's unfair.

~~~
pkaye
I think thought this change will hurt those who are perform well but not good
at negotiating a salary. Maybe they gained a high salary at their previous
employer and it used to be a signal of their value. Should we also hide where
they graduated from and the name of their previous employer too because a
prestigious university or employer will definitely give an advantage.

~~~
amasad
Apply some game theory thinking here: companies will now have to lead with an
honest offer -- an offer that correctly values the candidates skills and
experience -- because that's their best option. They don't have an anchor and
getting it wrong means the candidate walks away.

If anything this will be more fair for those who can't or don't want to
negotiate.

~~~
rhizome
The way I see it, it orients the salary to the position rather than the
person.

------
yandrypozo
Just last month I had to search and present all my W-2s and last paychecks of
my previous jobs in order to enter my new job. I cannot think on something
more annoying and invasive than that. This regulation must be a national law.

~~~
mmagin
Wow, I didn't realize some people were not only asked salary history but
expected to document it. A privileged bubble in which I live.

~~~
Domenic_S
It is common practice in financial services industry, presumably because your
commission proves how good you were at your job.

------
dang
Major discussions at
[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15502142](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15502142)
and
[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15846852](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15846852).

It's good to look up such threads before reposting. You can do so like this:

[https://hn.algolia.com/?query=california%20salary&sort=byDat...](https://hn.algolia.com/?query=california%20salary&sort=byDate&dateRange=all&type=story&storyText=false&prefix=false&page=0)

~~~
Thespian2
Thanks. Will try to do so in the future. Forgot to this time.

------
godelski
If you want to get rid of equality, shouldn't salaries of positions public?
I'm not saying an exact number, but a range. This asymmetric information gives
the employer a much larger edge in wage negotiation.

~~~
LoSboccacc
They are secret only to potential employers in the context of salary
negotiation, you can still willingly divulge the information

That said, the balance of leverage for a totally fair sistem would make salary
range on job listing binding and prohibit public job offer without role and
range

~~~
godelski
I'm not talking about previous salaries.

I'm saying that if you see a job posting, it should say "Pays $50-$60k/yr".
Employee knows where to begin and end negotiation.

------
dsp1234
Oregon also had this as of Oct 1st, 2017.

[0] -
[http://www.oregon.gov/boli/TA/Pages/Equal%20Pay%20Law.aspx](http://www.oregon.gov/boli/TA/Pages/Equal%20Pay%20Law.aspx)

 _" Effective October 6, 2017 employers are prohibited from seeking the pay
history of an applicant or employee from the applicant or employee or a
current or former employer of the applicant or employee before the employer
makes an offer of employment to the prospective employee that includes an
amount of compensation;"_

~~~
comicjk
NYC has it too:

"Effective Oct. 31, 2017, it will be illegal for public and private employers
of any size in New York City to ask about applicant's salary history..."

[https://www1.nyc.gov/site/cchr/media/salary-
history.page](https://www1.nyc.gov/site/cchr/media/salary-history.page)

------
alex_young
Also required: potential employers have to supply a pay range for the position
if requested.

~~~
SamReidHughes
This means as an applicant, if you ask for a salary range, you're creating a
legal compulsion on them to give you one. This is an act of aggression and
immoral. First you should ask if they would have been willing to give a salary
range if asked and if it wasn't legally required. Then, only if they say yes,
is it moral to ask for the salary range.

~~~
perl4ever
If that's an act of aggression and thus immoral, what is it when an online job
application form requires you to enter your salary expectation before
submitting (outside California)?

~~~
SamReidHughes
You don't have to answer it. You're free to leave that field blank or not
apply for the job.

~~~
derekp7
And if an employer doesn't want to provide a salary range, they are free not
to hire any candidates. The same sauce is equally tasty for both the goose and
the gander.

~~~
SamReidHughes
You're just choosing a different set of moral rules. That's OK -- I'm not
expecting everybody to have the same I follow. You could just state that
outright instead of making a clever twist of words about it.

~~~
perl4ever
Levering a set of moral rules inherently leads to immorality. You can do what
is right whether or not it is according to the rules, so the only thing that
rules enable you to justify that you couldn't otherwise, are the things that
are in fact wrong.

I am not a Christian, but the bit about "Ye shall know them by their fruits" I
think is genuine wisdom.

------
danjoc
We learned from the Equifax breach that salary is part of the information
collected.

"So, it's illegal to ask? Who cares, that guy's just going to lie anyway.
Let's make him give us permission to check his credit report on the job
application and get the exact number. Like we always did."

~~~
joshuamorton
This law also forbids using third party agencies to get salary data of an
applicant.

------
Thespian2
Link to google cache of document, as current .gov website down for
maintenance.

------
tapatio
Now it'll just be based off of years of experience, which is probably better.

------
ep103
How does this apply to recruiters?

~~~
teej
Recruiters are covered by this regulation and cannot ask. They are considered
“agents” of the employer.

------
twostorytower
"What are your salary expectations?" is a much more useful question.

------
zaidf
Are they allowed to get salary history from data brokers like Experian?

------
matte_black
What do you do if you are asked anyway?

~~~
paulcole
If you need the job, answer and lie. If you really really need the job, answer
honestly. If you don’t need the job, decline.

~~~
matte_black
So business as usual.

------
jwilk
Most people are not familiar with US state codes.

I, for one, assumed that this is about Canada.

~~~
LoSboccacc
That’d be CAN

~~~
jwilk
In ISO 3166-1, each territory is assigned 3 codes: a two-letter code, a three-
letter code, and a three-digit code.

Canada's codes are: CA, CAN, and 124.

Source:
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ISO_3166-1](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ISO_3166-1)

------
tengbretson
How could this possibly be constitutional?

~~~
jdavis703
Because it's designed around a protected group. It's the same reason why
asking someone's immigration status or country of birth is illegal. The equal
protection clause of the Constitution can trump free speech when they
conflict.

~~~
SamReidHughes
Asking about those is legal.

> The equal protection clause of the Constitution can trump free speech when
> they conflict.

They never conflict.

~~~
jdavis703
Well in anti-harrasment training they definitely tell you not to ask those
questions. Search on Google for illegal interview questions and you'll get
similar advice (0). Hell, I just saw an HR sign warning that asking for the
name of someone's spouse is discouraged because it can be used to discover
gender identity and sexual orientation. You can certainly ask these questions
in an interview, but you run the risk of being sued.

0: [https://www.monster.com/career-advice/article/illegal-
interv...](https://www.monster.com/career-advice/article/illegal-interview-
questions)

~~~
SamReidHughes
The points I'm making are, it's not actually illegal. And there's nothing
involving the equal protection amendment here.

