
Massachusetts Bans Employers from Asking Applicants About Previous Pay - OhHeyItsE
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/08/03/business/dealbook/wage-gap-massachusetts-law-salary-history.html
======
markonthewall
I love the US and California, the tech scene is amazing and I was lucky to met
such talented and friendly people in about every place I worked... from very
large tech cos to "garage" startups.

Which is why it pains me to see that so many engineers get stuck with such
ridiculous salaries (relative to the value and wealth they provide and
create). Problem is that some salaries are seemingly high compared to what the
average worker does in the country but ridiculously to what they would look
like if engineers were allowed to capture a greater (that is a >0.01%)
percentage of the added value they CREATE.

Most, from the freshly out-of-school to the senior engineer with glowing
reviews are getting scammed because they get paid just enough to live a
comfortable life but not nearly enough to what they are worth and what they
would need to consolidate their place in the upper middle class.

I had one company acquired by a large tech co. Probably going to start another
one soon, I won't commit the same mistake twice... engineers need their fair
share. They are the one creating things, they are the one on the front line
and we should not get satiated by the crumbles we are left with.

~~~
slg
I am a developer, so I am all for higher developer salaries, but your posts
shows a common misunderstanding about economics. The value someone creates has
nothing to do with their salary. Their salary is dictated by how many people
need to hire developers and how many developers exist to fill those jobs or in
simple terms, supply and demand. I might create millions of dollars in value
with my code, but there might be another developer that will accept $5k less
that can still create millions of dollars with their code. Similarly, the job
that 95% of us do really isn't that unique. Sure, each development job has its
own challenges and there certainly are a handful of 10Xers out there, but the
truth is that once you get to the point of "competent developer" and the meaty
part of the bell curve, we are all pretty much interchangeable. It then
becomes a question of who will do the same work for less.

~~~
matthewowen
Your answer also shows a common misunderstanding about economics, because it
takes too narrow a focus.

If there exist jobs that produce $1MM in value but that have a going rate of
200k, then there should be more of those jobs: either the company doing the
work should expand, or it should have competitors. This will lead to increased
competition to hire, which means higher wages. The increased number of jobs
might generate downward pressure on the value produced by those jobs (since
the output is now less scarce), and the increase in salary should increase the
number of people who want to work in the field (which would dampen the salary
increase), but we should ultimately reach some sort of equilibrium. The fact
that tech companies bemoan how hard it is to find employees suggests that we
aren't at this equilibrium.

To give an analogy, your explanation is akin to when people observe that the
price of a good is based on the competitive market, and that the cost to
produce merely provides (in most cases) a floor to that price. However, that's
only part of the story: in a well functioning market large spreads between
cost to produce and price encourages competitors to enter the space, which
leads to lower prices. There may be delays, and there may be exceptions, but
generally the function of competition is to reduce these spreads. Likewise, we
should expect competition to reduce the spreads between job value and job
salary, generally by increasing salaries and lowering values.

~~~
gozur88
>If there exist jobs that produce $1MM in value but that have a going rate of
200k, then there should be more of those jobs: either the company doing the
work should expand, or it should have competitors.

How could you possibly determine how much value your efforts are producing?
How much value are you assigning to the risk the founder and investors are
taking? Maybe your $200k job is producing $200k in value. Or even less.

>The fact that tech companies bemoan how hard it is to find employees suggests
that we aren't at this equilibrium.

Tech companies always pretend it's impossible to find employees. That's not
reality, though. That's a political strategy.

~~~
matthewowen
> How could you possibly determine how much value your efforts are producing?
> How much value are you assigning to the risk the founder and investors are
> taking? Maybe your $200k job is producing $200k in value. Or even less.

I'm not disputing that there's difficulty, and that it might not always be
possible (although we can often estimate and assign a confidence level). But
the parent comment claimed that even if we did know, value shouldn't pull
salaries up: that's what I'm responding to (side note: the parent also implied
that we can know what values are, since he acknowledged their use as a floor
for salaries).

~~~
hinkley
In college I spent a couple summers doing repair work in the shop of a family
friend. I got stuck with a boondoggle repair and when it got into day 2 that I
was still working on it, and the manager got pissed off and tried to take over
for half an hour before he figured out why it was taking me so long. Then we
had a shocking conversation about the fact that while he was paying me $x/hr,
I needed to be booking at least $10x/hr in repairs, so I needed to work
faster. It seemed so unfair to me until I spent a lot more time working in
small companies.

The repairs were a profit center, and the labor I was billing was keeping the
utilities turned on, buying replacement tools, consumables, paying for my
lunch break, covering rework, a hedge against me injuring myself, paying for
the shop van I used to run inventory between stores, paying taxes, business
licenses, my manager's salary, the owner's salary, paying for Bob to wander
over and consult on a repair I wasn't sure about, paying the interest payments
on the loans, and covering the loss leaders that got us repeat customers who
needed repairs in the first place. Things like trade-ins and entry level
equipment.

At your programming job, every manager above you in the chain, every support
team that you use to get your work done are all being paid out of the money
billed for you. Yes you may be writing $1M in software a year, but the company
wouldn't exist and you wouldn't have any sales without those other people, so
all of that overhead gets subtracted from your value. Ironically and possibly
painfully, a company can exist for months without a single programmer, but it
can't exist long without a management chain.

~~~
matthewowen
I don't disagree with any of this. I'm not saying that if an engineer writes
software that increases profits by $1MM then they have realized $1MM in value:
it's a team sport. But I don't think that prevents us talking at all about the
value of the work that is done in a job.

------
bargl
I hate this question. I frequently dodge or outright deny answering it. I
won't lie about it, I just say, no you don't get that information.

To dodge this question I say the following: "I'm looking for compensation in
the range of xxxx to XXXX. This obviously depends on the benefits packages,
for an awesome benefits package you may be closer to xxxx, if your benefits
are bad then you'll need to be closer to XXXX."

If they persist I follow up with, "I gave you my range if that isn't enough
for you then I'm sorry but I'll have to pass, I don't disclose my current
salary to any recruiters."

This has worked really well for me in the past.

~~~
lukejduncan
I've followed this advice in the past with mixed results. Some companies do a
great job of either respecting this or not asking in the first place. When I
interviewed at Uber (a little more than a year back), the recruiter was super
persistent. I told them "I understand why you're interested, but it's my
personal preference at the advice of personal mentors, not to disclose that
information. If we both like each other I'm confident we can find an
arrangement that is mutually beneficial." To which the recruiter replied, in
person face-to-face, after the 5th time asking: "OK, we can do that. But we
have a policy of always making the lowest possible offer to candidates who
won't share their compensation information. I just want the best for you." In
the end, they very clearly made the lowest possible offer they could and
weren't willing to negotiate. It was a cool team, and regardless of if you
think they're over-valued a cool company, but it was a very easy "no thank
you" for me. That's probably the hardest part of the advice -- you need to be
comfortable saying "no" if the negotiation doesn't work out.

~~~
rev_bird
> "OK, we can do that. But we have a policy of always making the lowest
> possible offer to candidates who won't share their compensation information.
> I just want the best for you."

This makes absolutely no sense to me. "Oh, we can't use previous compensation
to effectively lowball this candidate we like, so we'll ineffectively lowball
them instead."

~~~
pluma
It makes perfect sense. If an applicant doesn't want to disclose their
previous salary and disclosing it is the cultural norm, that indicates a)
they're troublemakers (very privacy conscious or what have you), or b) their
previous salary was very low.

You probably don't want troublemakers so there's no point in making them a
generous offer. And if the previous salary was very low the lowest possible
offer is probably not too far off.

It actually incentivises disclosing your previous salary because unless it was
lower or as low as the lowest offer, you'll have a better bargaining position.

I'm not saying the reasoning is particularly ethical or nice, just that it is
entirely rational.

~~~
rev_bird
That's interesting, I hadn't considered it that way. I was looking at it as,
"We want this person to work here because they passed our tests, now we wreck
the deal for no reason." You're saying the salary disclosure is just _one of
the tests_. Makes sense.

~~~
pluma
If it's penalised, I'd say it's likely a "test" (or more of a checkmark). But
I wouldn't go so far as to say every employer that asks for your previous
salary is testing you.

That said, even if you disclose your previous salary that could affect how you
are perceived:

* disclosing it at all without hesitation might mark you as either very open (positive) or untrustworthy (negative)

* if the salary is much lower than expected it might indicate you're not as good as you claim (negative) or that you're bad at negotiating (positive?) or that you left because you wanted a bigger salary (negative)

* if the salary is much higher than expected it might indicate you'll make unreasonable demands (negative) or that you're a strong negotiator (negative?) or that you are underselling yourself (positive?)

Again, it entirely depends on the employer and sometimes a cigar is just a
cigar.

------
siculars
This. Negotiating a compensation package, in general, is asymmetric
information warfare. Having to reveal your salary history you may as well not
even negotiate.

I know so many women who are constantly bit by this and negotiating in
general. Here's an idea: compensation agents who negotiate the compensation
package on your behalf. Athletes and actors have them, why not everyone else?

~~~
tombert
Isn't that basically what a recruiter does? Every time I've dealt with a
recruiter, they've done the salary haggling for me.

EDIT: I should point out that that's what they do in regards to full-time W2
work, not contract.

~~~
cheriot
Be careful about that. The recruiter's incentive is stronger to get more
people into jobs that to get one person a little bit more money. It's much
like the situation with real estate agents that freakonomics covered in
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=17jO_w6f8Ck](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=17jO_w6f8Ck)

~~~
hibikir
A high quality third party recruiter has different incentives than a real
estate agent, because they expect repeat business: Few people buy more than
two houses in their life, but having a good relationship with a stable of good
developers that change jobs every couple of years leads to a far easier and
lucrative job in the long run.

There are plenty of awful recruiters who will undervalue you, send you to gigs
that don't fit you and such. But it's precisely how bad the field is that
makes being a good recruiter such a strategically smart play. Being the rare
recruiter that does their job well lands you top talent, that top talent means
you can start asking for higher wages for people than the salary bands posted,
which leads to more people coming to see you, because you can actually get
higher rates than what someone could if they asked up front.

I often ask recruiters what the salary is for the positions they offer. The
right recruiter in my town, who I have a work relationship with, will often
talk about a 20/hr premium. When compared to the worst (consulting firms that
tell you a rate that has nothing to do with what they'll ask the employer, and
will hide this) the difference can be huge. I have worked on the same team
with another very comparable coworker, and I was getting paid almost triple!
and he is an American, not an H1-B.

------
Animats
_" Companies will not be allowed to prohibit their workers from telling others
how much they are paid."_

Companies are not allowed to do that now. That's Federal labor law, and it's
been prohibited since 1935.[1] This only applies to employees, not
contractors.

[1]
[https://www.dol.gov/wb/media/pay_secrecy.pdf](https://www.dol.gov/wb/media/pay_secrecy.pdf)

~~~
elicash
This adds additional penalties at the state level. I'm not a lawyer, but it
appears to me to give a $1000 fine.

------
r0m4n0
I applied and soon after worked as an engineer for a large company that not
only asked for my previous compensation but part of the application process
involved my employer validating that I actually made what I told them. They
worked with a third party to match my figures with W2 statements and/or pay
stubs.

It was really intrusive. Pay should equate to value, not some silly ladder
climb

~~~
stygiansonic
I'm sorry that you had to go through this. I agree that it's intrusive and
really shouldn't be tolerated.

A while ago, I was in the middle of the job interview process for a company.
Having read some rudimentary background on salary negotiation, I was somewhat
prepared for how to deflect the "how much are you making?" question.

The next interview was a technical interview, so I wasn't too focused on this
aspect of the interview process since I hadn't received a verbal offer. The
technical interview went well, but suddenly the interviewer asked "what are
you making right now?". Completely clueless, I started talking about the
projects I was working on and various technical aspects. The interviewer
nodded, and then replied "No, what I meant was what is your current salary?"

I was completely unprepared, fumbled and after some resistance gave up my
salary after being told, "this process cannot continue until you tell us your
salary". (They also subsequently asked for W2s as proof) I handled this
extremely poorly and basically backed myself into that corner. Basically, they
negotiated much better than I did, even if it meant resorting to heavy-handed
tactics like that. Later on, HR explained this line of questioning to me by
saying, "we ask for this information... not to draw a box around you, or
anything like that, but so that we can give you an offer that matches
everyone's needs".

Long story short, the offer came in at almost exactly $PREVIOUS_SALARY * 1.05.
I politely declined.

While this process was painful, I learned a lot from it - always be ready to
handle the salary question, even if the interview is supposedly a technical
one. If you willingly give up your previous salary, in most cases, you're
looking at an offer 5-10% higher at most. (Unless you're an outlier making
several standard deviations above the mean) Don't let people box you in.

~~~
mistaken
The correct answer to "how much are you making?" is I guess "how much are you
willing to pay?"

~~~
imsofuture
Or "How much are _you_ making? That's just as relevant..."

------
inlined
Candidates "may" offer this information upfront? I feel like I'm watching
Office Space

"Am I supposed to tell you my salary before even hearing your initial offer?"
"Some employees choose to offer salary information, and we encourage that"

~~~
dudul
"We want you to join us for the mission, not for the money. Be a team player
and share your salary with us!"

~~~
theorique
"We're into changing the world - we don't care about petty things like _money_
" (CEO who owns 25% of the company)

------
up_and_up
Feel free to tell them what you make just add 15-40% to that number. This has
worked well for me. Employers seem happy as well.

Example:

Assuming your current salary is X. "So I currently make (X * 1.20), but in
order to make the jump I need at least (X * 1.40)."

That way they get to feel out immediately whether they can afford you, you get
the salary that would motivate you, and no one is wasting time in the hiring
process.

Keep in mind many employers wont want to pay you more than 8-10% more than
what you "currently make" unless they are incredibly motivated to hire you and
you alone.

~~~
skolos
Works well until an employer does due diligence (ask for proof of your
number). In my experience many (not all) do due diligence.

~~~
dopamean
I've never had a company ask for proof of income and I wouldn't work at one
that did. That's an insane requirement that should have nothing to do with
whether or not I'm fit for the job and they're willing to pay what I ask for
someone to do the job.

~~~
skolos
I am at a higher end of market salary range and when I tell potential
recruiters my expectations and my previous salary they take my desires into
account but ask for documentation.

There was a discussion here on HN a couple months ago that this approach is
common in such cases.

------
bcheung
I started off with a really low salary because I was working as a developer
outside the SF bay area and in an industry that paid really low. Then moved to
the bay area. Every company or recruiter tries to place you at maybe 5% to 10%
more than your current job.

There was a time when I was just hopping from job to job to increase my
salary. If there wasn't this convention of paying someone the same I wouldn't
have switched so many jobs. There are plenty of places I wanted to stick
around but got a much higher offer somewhere else so I pretty much had to
switch.

My salary is more than 400% what it was 10 years ago. I feel that I have
finally reached market value and have a salary I am happy with. It would have
been nice if it was based on supply / demand and how well I interviewed.

That being said, I'm not sure I agree with this law. I like the outcome but
not the implementation.

Having a law that says you can't ask someone something seems to violate
Freedom of Speech and it sets a dangerous precedent.

~~~
ohitsdom
"Having a law that says you can't ask someone something seems to violate
Freedom of Speech and it sets a dangerous precedent."

Like your age, religion, sexual orientation, or if you're planning on getting
pregnant?

~~~
bcheung
I'm fine with the not discriminating part, it's the asking part I'm concerned
with. It seems like censorship and going against Freedom of Speech to me.

A better law would be that employers may not discriminate or refuse to hire
someone if they refuse to tell them their previous salary.

Specificity is key, just saying you can't ask feels too overreaching. The
intent is to prevent discrimination, not speech.

~~~
hx87
We can't effectively legislate thought yet, although that hasn't stopped
legislatures from trying and lawyers from making loads of money arguing over
intent. It's incredibly difficult, inefficient and expensive to determine
whether an asked question led to a discriminatory decision, so asking is
prohibited instead.

~~~
yuhong
This is why I dislike anti-discrimination laws too. The way they were enforced
probably worked well with manual labor jobs and the like where labor is a
commodity for example. Of course, this is why I am willing to compromise and
limit the laws to these kinds of jobs.

------
drawkbox
Massachusetts is doing some good steps to better the work environment and
entrepreneurship. This is a nice to have in negotiations and MA challenging
non-competes are great things to change[1].

Non-competes are extremely anti-innovation, anti-worker, anti-business and
really anti-American. Workers that are skilled cannot be owned. Good
knowledgable workers should be compensated to keep them around, not fear of
legal threat of using skills they developed.

Non-competes need to go away everywhere.

[1] [http://fortune.com/2016/06/30/massachusetts-non-compete-
pass...](http://fortune.com/2016/06/30/massachusetts-non-compete-passes/)

~~~
lsllc
Sadly, the MA house & senate couldn't reconcile their two versions of the non-
compete bill and it died in committee:

[https://www.bostonglobe.com/business/2016/07/31/noncompete-c...](https://www.bostonglobe.com/business/2016/07/31/noncompete-
changes-founder-legislature-frantic-end/W0rbVNv2Cqe0dCScOVD5SI/story.html)

These reform attempts have been going on for years in MA and never make it
into law.

~~~
exhilaration
California's Chamber of Commerce should buy billboard space outside of MIT and
Harvard highlighting this, it's a huge incentive for new grads to move to
California instead of taking jobs in Massachusetts.

~~~
dragonwriter
> California's Chamber of Commerce should buy billboard space outside of MIT
> and Harvard highlighting this

Since employers (who make up the CoC) in California often try to get people to
sign non-competes that are unenforceable in California, and to restrain their
behavior after having signed them based on the misperception that the
agreement _is_ enforceable, its unlikely that the CoC would trumpet publicly
the fact that such agremeents are not enforceable in CA as a positive thing.

------
euphoria83
This is so needed in California. My past personal experience and my friends'
experience in the Bay Area shows how hard the recruiters can push for the
current salary. What they are saying is that we will give you a 10% raise from
your current salary, but not what you and we can agree on is your market
price. This is so against letting the markets figure it out.

~~~
paulddraper
This is _precisely_ letting the markets figuring it out.

Those who offer at most 10% increase when a person's value is 50% higher will
find themselves missing the good employees and ultimately, failing.

\---

An example:

How much do I offer for this house? I have have no friggin' clue. But I can
look at previous sale prices to get an rough idea. Naturally, I if trust my
decision to that 100%, I'll risk making a poor decision. But the previous
sales are a piece of information about the market that I ought not ignore.

~~~
nkurz
> How much do I offer for this house?

I like the example, but wouldn't it be more parallel to ask "How much have you
offered for other houses?" or "How much did your previous house sell for?".
The seller would love to know that you are capable of offering more, but you
are (properly?) reluctant to give this information.

> But the previous sales are a piece of information about the market that I
> ought not ignore.

I don't think there is any dispute that this is valuable information to the
person doing the hiring. The question is whether it is fair to the person
being hired to be asked this question.

Despite the theoretical disadvantage to the business, the current result seems
to be that those who are historically disadvantaged will remain disadvantaged,
while those who started out with an advantage will be disproportionally
rewarded.

~~~
paulddraper
Your proposed parallel is backwards. The house is for sale to the buyer; the
employee's time and skills are for sale to the employer.

So those question would be more like "How much do you pay other employees?" or
"How much have you offered other candidates?"

You can ask those questions. Some employers are upfront, even posting salary
ranges in the job ad itself. Other employers will decline to share that
information.

Either side can reveal as much or as little information about their employment
history as they choose. Curtailing freedoms is a heavy-handed act, despite the
theoretical advantage to candidates.

------
xiaoma
The part of this that looks more important than forbidding recruiters from
asking about previous pay is this:

> _" And the law will require equal pay not just for workers whose jobs are
> alike, but also for those whose work is of “comparable character” or who
> work in “comparable operations.” Workers with more seniority will still be
> permitted to earn higher pay, but the law effectively broadens the
> definition of what is equal work."_

I suspect the result will be to flatten wages everywhere except the most
easily quantifiable, thus legally defensible, cases. Sales people will still
make a commission on what they sell and have a huge gap in their earnings, but
it will become _much_ harder to reward rare engineering talents or even people
who work on their craft recreationally.

~~~
WalterBright
It also means that pay will be determined by judges, not markets, as it is an
impossible to define concept. More of the economy will get sucked up into
litigation.

Comparable Worth is another incarnation of the Labor Theory of Value, which
has long been discredited.

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Labor_theory_of_value](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Labor_theory_of_value)

------
ktRolster
I never tell people anyway. I slightly evade the question and say, (in a
somewhat annoyed tone), "I'm looking for something in the $X range," where $X
is higher than what I actually want. So far, that's worked out fine, since
that is the information they actually want to know.

~~~
paulddraper
Exactly. This should get you a long way.

If it's _really_ a deal-breaker (maybe standard red tape or other BS), I say
"My previous/current salary is $W, but I'm looking for $X."

After all, there _is_ a reason you're leaving your current employer, right?

------
WalterBright
I suspect this law may backfire. It's hard enough determining what a
prospective employee may be worth to a company, and the salary history is used
as a proxy. Take that out of play, and the risk is higher in hiring the
candidate. Higher risk means lower pay offers, not higher.

~~~
twblalock
In a similar vein, there is evidence that laws which forbid employers from
asking about applicants' criminal records on job applications significantly
increase hiring discrimination toward blacks:

[http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2795795](http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2795795)

This happens because many employers assume blacks have a criminal record, and
asking the question tends to exonerate those who do not, rather than penalize
those who do. The default assumption means that things can't get worse if the
question is asked, but they can get better.

This law only banned asking the question, not running a background check. But
employers don't even get that far, because they presumably do not want to pay
for a background check on an applicant they assume has a criminal record.

Of course, this law was intended to have the opposite of its actual effect.

------
pauljaworski
I've never understood why this question is such a big deal for people. When
asked what you made at your last job, you should just give the number you
would like to make at this new job.

~~~
nkurz
Some people place an intrinsic value on honesty, and dislike being forced into
situations where the advantage is given to brazen liars. I upvoted you since I
think this is a topic worth discussing, and probably many others share your
view, but I personally find your lack of compunction reprehensible.

~~~
pauljaworski
I appreciate your honesty!

I say that's what you "should" do, because I think it's the most logical way
to respond to that question. That doesn't mean I wouldn't feel guilty about
lying, and I've never actually had to do it, so I'm not sure how I would
realistically respond in the situation.

In my case, my total compensation at my last job is far more than I could
expect to earn at a new job anyway, ha!

------
dudul
Excellent measure. I remember interviewing at a very large corpo (think one of
the main phone carriers), their application process online required applicants
to reveal their salaries for the past 10 years. And before making an offer,
they were asking for a W2 to make sure you were currently making what you
claimed. Needless to say, I laughed at their face and walked.

I assume this law won't apply to questions like "how much are you expecting to
make?".

~~~
wavefunction
There is a lot of salary data available for people through services offered by
the credit bureaus. If they want to find out, they will.

~~~
Spivak
Well duh, this law isn't trying to keep companies from knowing what the salary
range for an industry is, they're trying to keep companies from taking
advantage of (usually young) professionals who don't have the power to
negotiate fair compensation.

~~~
wavefunction
I mean they know what your individual salaries have been at previous work-
places.

[http://www.nbcnews.com/technology/exclusive-your-employer-
ma...](http://www.nbcnews.com/technology/exclusive-your-employer-may-share-
your-salary-equifax-might-sell-1B8173066)

------
kc10
What's the use?

Employer: We are willing to make an offer to you. We will offer a base pay of
$125k.

Employee: what? I am already making $150k with my current employer.

Employer: Oh..we can't ask your current salary..so we just threw a number at
the lower end to see if you would accept.

------
rajeshp1986
I think is a great step. I work for a big company and has been around for 4
years. when I joined this company, my salary was on par (also justified as per
my previous salary). We saw a tremendous amount of growth in the technology
and the team has grown by 20X. The people joining now are getting far better
salary because either their current salary is high and they negotiate on that
OR the company is ready to pay more for filling up the positions. But I feel
very bad when I think of it, the employees who laid the foundations got very
small hike over the years and I feel underpaid now. Also, I was the member who
laid the foundation of the team and created the initial reputation which was
required.

Salary negotiations based on previous salaries are just plain idiocracy. I
have co-workers who are excellent in terms of the skillset and the value they
create but they come from either smaller cities where the pay was not great or
from startups which didn't pay very well in the early days. These people
suffer a lot even though they know that their counterparts who come from large
companies and had good salaries get paid almost 1.5-2X.

------
marme
this wont really help much because they will still ask how much do you expect
to make and people who have low salaries currently will say a low number that
is just slightly higher than their current salary. They need to make it
illegal to ask any salary questions prior to the company making an initial
offer. I cant even understand why they would not just make it mandatory to
reveal the salary range of the position at the beginning of the interview
process. No company can make a valid argument for why they cant reveal a
salary range to prospective employees other than we can pay them less if they
dont know the range.

~~~
bsilvereagle
> I cant even understand why they would not just make it mandatory to reveal
> the salary range of the position at the beginning of the interview process.

Something of this nature would lead to the 'bait and switch' by companies with
shady interview practices. Interview a candidate for a position with a $150k
posted salary, then make an offer for a different position that is $100k and
the company has deemed a better fit for the skill set.

------
throwAway295
Here's a question I've wondered for a long time -- replies appreciated!:

Is there any legal risk in lying about your current/past salary? I'm not
talking ethically. That's a different discussion.

~~~
hellogoodbyeeee
I have seen that some employers ask for documentation of past salary. I don't
think you will have any legal ramifications. Only they might rescind their
offer or later fire you if they find out you lied

------
ajeet_dhaliwal
This is desperately needed in the UK, the recruiters (external) here won't
even let you proceed if you don't reveal it.

~~~
crdoconnor
This wasn't my experience. Only a few recruiters asked and when told "no" they
didn't ask why or ask again.

Generally you don't want to work for the companies that demand it either.

~~~
ajeet_dhaliwal
Where are you based? I'm in London and it's gotten so bad for me I only apply
direct now so I can ask for a specific number that I would like. I no longer
take calls or reply to external recruiters because so far they all tell me
they won't proceed unless I tell them my precious salary despite myselr having
told them what I want to make in the new role. Even if the company is willing
to pay what I want they insist on knowing. I just say thanks but no thanks.

~~~
crdoconnor
London also. I'm not a recent graduate though, and I only do contract roles.

~~~
ajeet_dhaliwal
I'm experienced/senior too but I usually look for permanents so may be that is
the why we have been treated differently.

------
josh_fyi
If asked, say "My previous contract prohibits sharing compensation details [as
it probably does], and I take my commitments very seriously."

~~~
ionised
Is that actually a thing that can exist in employment contracts?

Because it would be a great way to shut down anyone asking about your salary.

If it's not then they're going know you're just trying to avoid answering the
question.

~~~
josh_fyi
As far as I know it is quite common.

------
maxxxxx
One of my coworkers just got hired by one of the big Silicon Valley companies
and he said that the company knew his salary down to the cent without him
disclosing it. Does anybody know how they could have found out? Could this be
part of the background check?

------
nkrisc
This is good legislation. Hopefully this is legislation that we will no longer
need in the future. Good government doesn't always mean smaller government. It
gets smaller when it needs to and sometimes larger when it needs to.

------
astoellis
No one mentions that this isn't officially implemented until 2018. Don't go
into interviews expecting this to be law, and definitely use the strategies
that other users have pointed out.

------
brodo
Any change to the bargaining process will not fix the gender pay gap, as it is
no significant factor. There is an excellent Freakonomics episode about it:
[http://freakonomics.com/podcast/the-true-story-of-the-
gender...](http://freakonomics.com/podcast/the-true-story-of-the-gender-pay-
gap-a-new-freakonomics-radio-podcast/)

~~~
pluma
Of course not.

But if feminism can be abused to improve workers' rights in the US, that's
good enough, isn't it?

------
VladKovac
What are the chances that in this particular case, enforcing noise in the data
actually leads to better economic results?

Technically less information can lead imperfect human reasoners to more
rational allocation of resources, but you'd have to do a lot more work to
prove that to me than some policymaker's "feeling".

------
WalterBright
> a group of female cafeteria workers who filed a lawsuit in 1991 seeking
> parity with male janitors, who did comparable work, the cafeteria workers
> said, but were paid significantly more.

You'd have to pay me more to do janitorial work than cafeteria work. Cleaning
bathrooms is dangerous, dirty work.

------
stevebmark
By the way, if a new employer asks this, you don't have to answer them. You
can politely say "I'd prefer not to share my previous salary with you." If
you're at this point in the discussion this isn't likely to hurt your chances
of being hired.

------
djb_hackernews
I'm from MA and I think this is a great piece of legislation.

I'd like to take it a step further and some day see a service where people can
submit _verified_ wage data to and access this wage data when they are
negotiating employment terms.

My employer uses wage data from a survey they buy for several thousands of
dollars when it comes negotiation time. The wage data is reported by other
employers and includes wage data from companies across the country. I think it
would help level the playing field when it comes to negotiations for anyone
that is in that position because as it is now, even with this piece of
legislation, employers have the upper hand.

------
tn13
I don't like bans but whenever people asked me about my current pay I told
them it is confidential and I should be judged based on what you are willing
to pay rather than what I am making.

My first job change gave me 2X the salary.

------
mixmastamyk
I've read a few anecdotes here about fumbling the question. Let me tell you
the magic words, "Sorry, that's confidential (it really is), I'm looking for
$X."

~~~
switch007
My contract states I'm not allowed to disclose such information. And I'm
pretty sure their contract will say the same.

------
__abc
I never ask the question, "what did you make", but "what do you want to make".
More often specifically preface with, "do not tell me what you make".

------
news_to_me
How weird, I just read a really interesting article about pay disclosure, esp.
regarding women's pay: [http://www.wired.com/2015/05/im-terrified-tell-people-
much-m...](http://www.wired.com/2015/05/im-terrified-tell-people-much-make/)

I'm a big advocate for salary transparency, but I share that author's struggle
- what's the best way to ethically disclose my salary to my coworkers, or
publicly?

------
shanacarp
First thought Finally! Jobs are worth what the market bears right then, not
what they were previously worth, so why do employers want to ask such
demeaning questions Second thought Boy, all of those recruiting/hr programs
are going to need to be re-written to comply. A lot require you to say what
you've been paid at every previous job. Since they are sold nationally, all of
those HR departments will need that one field stripped out to now comply to MA
law.

------
atom-morgan
If an employer asks for your previous salary decline and threaten to walk.
It's not that hard. Learning how to handle these situations is an acquired
skill. Learn it.

------
qaid
I got bit by this at my current job. I didn't remember telling them my salary
at my previous company (usually I decline to answer), but my manager brought
it up when I was trying to negotiate an extra 5k.

It's unfortunate that I must've told them my base salary when applying online
and that I didn't do a proper negotiation afterwards. My new company doesn't
give out stocks of any kind, so overall I'm making less.

~~~
adamio
I've run into quite a few applications that won't let you continue past the
salary history without entering something. Its definitely a dark pattern for
job applications

~~~
uremog
Might be able to get away with an improper input though. 0? 0000000?
999999999999? N/A?

~~~
brianwawok
Sure but they auto trash apps outside the range 50k to 100k...

------
nostromo
Might this be unconstitutional under the first amendment?

------
barnacs
It pains me to see that people can't apply common sense without law anymore.

If a potential employer asks about my previous salary, I refuse to answer.
Similarly, it never even occured to me to hide my salary from my coworkers
regardless of what my employer asked me to do.

Needless to say, if any employer has a problem with that, I definitely don't
want to spend 8+ hours of my day with them.

~~~
danielweber
Right now, it is an applicant's ballgame, because our skills are highly
valued.

What happens if that is no longer the situation?

~~~
barnacs
I'll try to keep my response short.

Ideally, everyone should be working for something they actually believe in and
everyone should work with people whose skillset is valuable to achieve their
common goal.

If there is no mutual respect and at least a minimum level of decency and each
party of the employment contract is just chasing their own gains then we end
up in this sad situation where laws are needed to lay out and enforce the
rules of even basic human interaction.

That's why it pains me to see this.

------
throwaway201607
I love the new law, sad to see it based on a false premise:

[http://www.forbes.com/sites/karinagness/2016/04/12/dont-
buy-...](http://www.forbes.com/sites/karinagness/2016/04/12/dont-buy-into-the-
gender-pay-gap-myth)

~~~
chug
I think at most it's an exaggerated premise, not false. There's tons of
evidence that it does exist, though there is much debate over what exactly the
percentage of the gap is. It's hard to find "the gap doesn't exist at all"
evidence outside of certain think tanks or opinion pieces.

------
seehafer
Would love to hear the opinions of founders who hated this practice as
employees now they're on the other side of the table.

Personally I've always had a strict salary/comp band in place for each
position, but having never had a company with > 25 people, I wonder at what
point that breaks down.

------
kevin_b_er
At will employment. The company may change the salary at any time. They can
just employ them, then immediately seek their salary history, then _alter_
their salary based on it. If a whole lot of companies coordinate to do it
together, then the system is bypassed rather easily.

------
squozzer
I am not sure of the utility of asking the salary question anyway. A credit
check which is usually part of the pre-offer paper chase will provide an
employer with plenty of info for determining your current burn rate.

~~~
Artlav
Interesting, i thought this sort of research was done after the offer, when
you are in process of doing the paperwork to get in?

And AFAIK a lot of people don't have any credit history, so this does not
sound useful anyway.

------
Artlav
How common is this question?

Over here in Russia asking how much you make is often considered a taboo, or a
bad tone. I've never been or heard about this being asked at the interviews.

~~~
brianwawok
In the us between 98 and 99% of interviews.

Salary is very taboo w friends and family. But when interviewing it nearly
always comes up.

~~~
romanovcode
Not sure about friends and family. In Europe AFAIK it's not taboo at all and
people are completely normal and open about it.

------
dnautics
This may have the opposite effect as intended, as men are more likely to apply
to a job that has a lower upfront compensation and try to negotiate the price
upward.

------
mancerayder
Where does the law sit on recruiters asking that question? Because they're the
ones who've loved asking me that one.

I see a loophole forming before my eyes.

------
devishard
This is interesting, especially given that many people lie about previous pay
in order to get a higher pay. It's an extremely effective strategy.

------
martin1975
If Hillary wins, you'll also be able to ask about your peers' salary, legally
- not sure to what extent of course, probably won't apply if you're asking for
a level higher than yours - so that the "glass ceiling" might be broken,
meaning women in the same job w/the same quals/experience should make the same
as men. My wife found out through a colleague who's a friend of hers as well
that he made 10k over her, same experience/qualifications/title....

~~~
pluma
If Obama wins, Guantanamo and CIA blacksites will be shut down.

Oh, wait, presidential candidates' promises aren't worth anything.

------
jxramos
Does this sort of information get revealed in background checks for previous
places of employment or is that a privacy thing?

Also is it really necessary for a state to dictate such things? Is it too much
pressure for someone to respectfully decline to answer such a question and
practice some negotiation skills? What exactly is the state's interest in this
sort of thing precisely?

~~~
tastynacho
No it doesn't come back in a background check. The only thing that comes back
is your title and employment dates.

That is actually how I've avoided all those annoying salary negotiations. Lie
about how much I make, let them offer me slightly above that and gladly
accept.

------
tmaly
how would this prevent an external recruiter from asking?

What if the company has an office just over the MA border where they hire then
later relocate the employee to MA?

------
known
Can an employee ask employer's debt details?

------
horsehidebag
This law goes in effect in two years?!

------
horsehidebag
This law goes in effect in two years!?

------
blazespin
non compete is far more valuable.

~~~
emodendroket
I don't disagree, but that doesn't necessarily mean this is a bad idea. The
difficult part is enforcement, of course.

------
justinlardinois
Good. To be honest asking about previous salary is offensive, and only helps
employers take advantage of employees who aren't tactful enough to refuse to
answer.

------
intrasight
Are you a star? If not, then you have very little leverage in negotiating
compensation. That is true across professions: Rock Star, Sports Star, Sales
Star, Surgical Star, you name it. Next ask if stars are made or born. If born,
then you're out of luck again - until you are reincarnate. If made, then learn
from how others made themselves stars. Like many things in life, it helps to
start young, and it often comes down to luck.

If your plan is not to achieve fame and fortune via stardom, then pursue it
through more accessible means like being a doctor or lawyer or banker or
businessperson. Being an engineer or scientist can be a stepping-stone, but if
you stay on that stone then there is a slim chance of achieving star power.

~~~
Tideflat
Not all markets are superstar markets. Some places the 100th best worker is
about just as good as the best worker, like for janitors.

~~~
intrasight
First, I beg to differ your "like for janitors" statement. In almost every
profession there is a large difference between the top performers and the
average. But your statement "Not all markets are superstar markets" is exactly
the point of my post - engineering is not a superstar market, and hence
engineers will never have much compensation leverage.

