
New law bans California employers from asking applicants their prior salary - ssaxena80
http://m.sfgate.com/business/networth/article/New-law-bans-California-employers-from-asking-12274431.php
======
chollida1
> 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.

Hmm, I'd never thought about that angle,but I guess it makes sense.

No word on if they are allowed to use Equifax, etc to pull salary data from?

EDIT: looking at the bill it looks like querying Equifax is probably also
prohibited

> (b) An employer shall not, orally or in writing, personally or through an
> agent, seek salary history information, including compensation and benefits,
> about an applicant for employment.

As a side note one of the biggest issues macro economists have is that its
very hard to prove their theories as you often can't run huge macro economic
experiments.....

> 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.

With the number of states introducing legislation like this it will be
interesting to see if you can tease out any state or city based GDP
growth/shrinking based on these laws.

~~~
civilian
Equifax has salary data? I hadn't heard that.

//edit: Well shit, TIL: [https://krebsonsecurity.com/2017/10/equifax-breach-
fallout-y...](https://krebsonsecurity.com/2017/10/equifax-breach-fallout-your-
salary-history/)

~~~
alexanderstears
They do - I'm not sure how they licence it though or what data sources they
use but I've seen that their data on high income households is the best in the
business and shockingly accurate.

However, I can't imagine the compliance nightmare that would exist around a
process that lets HR people look up people's equifax information. If they get
a full report, it could contain information about disabilities, national
origin, ethnicity, religion, and enough information to construct knowledge
about sexual orientation.

However, all that information is pretty worthless for most decisions. Aside
from it being illegal to use that information for hiring decisions (in most
situations), the equifax stuff isn't super accurate. I've looked myself up and
it gets a lot of information wrong, most other people I know who have looked
themselves up in have also found major inaccuracies.

~~~
CobrastanJorji
This makes me wonder. My employer has some customer data. We're very careful
about not just letting any random employee access it without careful
permission, auditing, logging, etc. Customer privacy is important to us.

At Equifax, though, information about random people isn't customer data. It's
the product. They give it to anyone who asks for money. Do they have any
motivation to say J random employee can't just look up everybody's data? Why?
Letting you have free access to what they charge everyone else for would just
be a perk, right?

~~~
wahern
I believe it's quid pro quo. Equifax sells analytics services to corporations,
and presumably you get a nice discount if you enter into an agreement to give
them your information.

Likewise for credit scores--why else would a lender report data to Equifax if
Equifax wasn't purchasing that data, either directly or as part of a larger
contractual arrangement.

------
pmoriarty
This is a ban on employers -- afaik, recruiters can still ask (and many
probably will ask). But, IANAL. (Correction: It looks like recruiters fall
under this prohibition too, if they are acting as agents of the employer.)

I personally never answer questions about my previous salary or my expected
salary. When HR has given me forms to fill out that have questions about
either I just leave them blank, and they've never made an issue out of it.

Some recruiters tend to be a lot more pushy about it, but I just stick to my
guns, and refuse to budge on the issue, telling them that I cosider that
information confidential. A couple recruiters have refused to work with me
because of this, but most are much more understanding. There's certainly no
shortage of recruiters out there, so I really don't feel deprived of many
opportunities just because a couple have walked away.

I've had one recruiter insist on it because they said they were paid by
employers to get that number. They're basically insisting that I participate
in a free salary survey for them, for which they'll get paid. Maybe if they
shared their cut of what they were getting for that information, I'd consider
giving it to them, but otherwise naming a number first will put me in a weaker
bargaining position, so I don't.

There's a flip side to this, however -- whether to share salary information
together with other employees. In the US it's frowned upon, but I hear it's
quite common in Europe. I've also heard it argued that employees knowing each
other's salaries makes it harder for employees to get taken advantage of by
their employers -- which is probably why some employers have tried to forbid
their employees from talking about their salaries with other employees, and
why I've considered doing so myself, though I haven't yet. It's just such a
taboo subject at work. Nobody talks about what they make.

~~~
nicolashahn
Kind of off topic but should one always hide their current salary, even if
it's _above_ market rate (given their experience on paper)? It seems as though
if an employer were only looking to spend so much on a hire, then if you're
already likely above that number, wouldn't it save both you and the employer's
time?

I can see the obvious downside of sharing a relatively low salary, but it
seems like there could be benefit to sharing a high salary (again, relative to
your on-paper experience and value).

~~~
ciro_langone
No, there isn't, unless you're okay with short-selling yourself.

If you share and your amount is > the employers, you have no job. Bad
situation. If you share and your amount is < the employers, you'll be
underpaid. Bad situation. If you share and your amount = the employers, you
may have a job, but you'll never know if you left money on the table because
you offered first. Bad situation.

If you offer the number first, the employer becomes the customer - and the
customer is always right. If you wait for them to make you an offer, they have
to make an offer that is compelling, in the same way sales people go above-
and-beyond to close their deal.

Literally the only way sharing your salary first is advantageous is if you
need a job immediately. If you can wait, it's best to hold onto your number.
If they cared so much about "saving time" they would have put the salary range
in the posting - the reason they don't is because it's disadvantageous to do
so!

~~~
benji-york
I think that holds only if your time is worth nothing. I don't want to go
through weeks of interviews just to find out that my salary demands are $50K
more than they're willing to pay.

~~~
nicolashahn
This is exactly why I made the comment. Recently went through 4 calls and a
full day on site just to be met with an offer they wouldn't budge on that's
20% lower than what I currently make.

~~~
basseq
I've been through a similar situation: big mistake. They key is to validate
you are in range on salary before committing to an interview process.
Companies should have the same goal, but many will waste their own time—as you
experienced.

This doesn't mean you should share current salary information, but _does_ mean
you should be prepared to state your salary expectations. This can be a good
thing, as you can anchor high.

If you're in demand and are taking phone screens on a whim, you can always ask
the recruiter to share their range. Odds are good they won't, and you can have
some "fun" by expressing concern that they don't know what they're hiring for.

------
geebee
I'd prefer to see this go in the other direction and make all salary
information public.

Right now, employers have far more information than employees, and I don't
think this law will do much to change that. To me, it's similar to real estate
- imagine if only sellers had access to the database of exactly what every
house sold for and when, but buyers had to go with unsubstantiated, scattered
rumors. Or vise versa. The side with information would have a monumental
advantage.

This law won't do much, if anything, to change the basic dynamic. For what
it's worth, I work for a public institution and my salary, and the salary of
all my coworkers, is public. The sky hasn't fallen.

If tech companies balk, one approach would be to say that any company using
the H1B or other work visas must make all salary information public as a
condition of using the visa. After all, if you're experiencing a desperate
shortage of workers, it's reasonable for the public to know what salaries
you're paying these desperately needed workers in short supply.

~~~
cracell
No thank you.

My salary is private. I do not want my family and friends to know how much I
make.

I also have never told a potential employer my salary. I believe it stopped
things from going on to the interview stage but the way they took my refusal
made me assume they paid under market rate.

~~~
Sangermaine
>No thank you.

>My salary is private. I do not want my family and friends to know how much I
make.

But have you thought about why you feel this way? I assume you are American,
as am I, and so I understand we've been socialized by our culture to feel this
way, but it really makes no sense. It's just a way to harm workers by keeping
us from seeing when we're being screwed. I'd even go so far as to wager that
this entire concept of salary being private was fostered and encouraged by
employers for that very reason, because it gives them enormous leverage.

~~~
icelancer
>>But have you thought about why you feel this way?

Yes. I don't want to increase my attractiveness regarding a house robbery, as
I live well below my means in a developing neighborhood, amongst other
reasons.

I very much understand the concept of leverage and have no problems privately
discussing my salary amongst groups that I trust. That doesn't include the
entire Internet.

~~~
Khelavaster
>> Yes. I don't want to increase my attractiveness regarding a house robbery,
as I live well below my means in a developing neighborhood, amongst other
reasons.

The entire point is that it's deeply screwed up for you to need to hide your
wealth from your neighbors--or from some set of neighbors but not others--for
fear of being robbed.

~~~
dsacco
_> The entire point is that it's deeply screwed up for you to need to hide
your wealth from your neighbors--or from some set of neighbors but not others
--for fear of being robbed._

That's a normative statement, not a positive one. I don't consider it at all
screwed up or intrinsically wrong to want to hide my income from my neighbors.

~~~
conanbatt
The positive statement is that transparent pricing is going to raise wages.
There's little doubt about that. I dont know what magintude it could be, but
it might end up being significant.

And if it is significant, it would probably be worth a lot more than the
security cost. Its economically senseless to reject a better job position for
the fear that someone might notice your increased income and rob you. For the
vast majority of people that would be utterly ridicolous.

------
smallnamespace
This is not going to be nearly as helpful as people think, as long as it's
still legal for employers to verify salary once it's been revealed.

People who know or suspect that their salary is above the average applicant's
will volunteer it to the prospective employer. Other people will choose not to
disclose.

We will reach an equilibrium where non-disclosure will be an honest signal of
lower current salary.

The main difference from the current state is that employers won't know the
exactly salary of the lower non-disclosing applicants -- this helps people at
the absolutely bottom of the 'non-disclosure' range, but hurts those who are
just below the average salary. It should have no strong effect on people with
above-average salaries who choose to disclose.

Of course, if employers aren't allowed to verify voluntarily disclosed salary,
then many people will just lie.

~~~
whipoodle
Oh, I didn’t know they verified it. I’ve never disclosed, but if I was pressed
I figured I’d lie because it’s none of their business anyway. I can’t see why
your current employer would verify that, though. Plus it’s a dead giveaway
that you’re looking to leave... this just seems sort of crazy to me.

~~~
throwaway76543
They can't really verify, because many have large non-salary compensation
structures, comprising somewhere from 10% to 1000% (or even much more) of
their base salary.

Repeat after me: "Well, taking into account my current schedule for
divestiture and estimated market positions I would need X to match my total
compensation package."

------
rpowers
Really wish this would extend to apartment rent applications. I'm fine with a
credit check, but they don't need to know how high they can increase my rent
before I'll need to move.

 _edit_ I am referring to my experience renting apartments from Property
Management run communities. (Think Essex or Prometheus) Rent increases every
year with them.

~~~
mamon
They really do that in America? I rented a lot of apartments in my country and
was never asked about my income, or had a credit check. The usual way of
avoiding not paying renters is requiring first rent plus guarantee deposit
(usually equal to the one month rent) in advance. No further proofs of
financial credibility required.

~~~
astura
There's strong landlord-tenant laws in most parts of the United States that
make renting to a stranger a risky venture. You can't just show up and move
all their stuff to the curb and change the locks if your tenant stops paying
rent - you have to go through a court process which can take a while.
Landlords are looking for tenants who are likely to pay rent, it makes sense
they want to rent to people who actually have the means to pay rent. We are in
the age of Big Data where background information is widely available for a
small fee, it makes sense they want to get as much information as possible on
prospective tenants.

I've never rented where I wasn't required to pay first month's rent and a
security deposit as well.

Though it would have to be an insanely hot market for this practice to work -
vacancy is extremely expensive for a landlord and the margins on being a
landlord are fairly low (despite what the guy giving the "I'll teach you to be
rich" presentation at the Holiday Inn will tell you). In fact, I've heard of
landlords keeping rents to long term tenants a bit under market price just to
keep them, I rented for six years without a single rent increase.

~~~
emodendroket
The money in renting is if you own a gazillion apartments and can easily
weather losses in one or two properties. It's hard to see the appeal of being
a small-time landlord.

------
lr
There is a simple solution to the salary problem... Make salaries public. “You
can’t make private firms publish salary data,” you may say. True, but local,
state, and the federal government can say that any business that does business
with them must publish all salaries. The only way to make wages fair is to
expose them to the light of day.

~~~
CamelCaseName
I suspect that any medium-large company would simply spin off a tiny firm that
solely works with the government.

They could then contract out as much as possible, including some of the
development, back to the parent company.

The net effect would be that you have a handful of project manager salaries in
the public eye at the cost of an additional step in the procurement process.

~~~
lr
Salaries are public in Finland. Fines are based on your salary, which is how
it should be. Making a lot of money affords you many things. Getting out of
feeling the pain of wrongdoing should not be one of them. Just one of the many
benefits of public salary data.

------
sefpfi12
I don't think this is a right way to go about trying to narrow the gender wage
gap.

Half of the reason we have one (a wage gap) is because it's taboo in America
to reveal how much you get paid with your co-workers. It makes no sense to me
why that is the case, all it does it allow the company to screw you over more.

The solutions should be to have each company come up with there own publicly
available pay scale that says you make this much and every year it will go up
by X as you gain experience. AKA how to government does things, I'm not saying
it's the best system, but you know if they are a gs13 step 5 they get paid X
dollars regardless of anything.

~~~
rajeshp1986
It is a good step towards that. Although top management in companies wants to
bridge the gender gap but when it comes to hiring, the HR & recruiters get
biased and tend to be biased towards candidates with lower salary
expectations. They want to check how much the candidate was getting paid,
which gives them more room to bargain with salary expectations.

IMHO, the salary of a job should be based on how much the company is willing
to pay to get the job done. It should not be dependent on how much the
candidate was getting paid by previous company. What if the previous employer
was harassing or taking advantage? how does it matter if I was in my previous
job working at McDonald's and getting paid peanuts? Selection of a candidate
should be purely based on talent, skills & Merit.

~~~
sefpfi12
why I suggested each company have there own pay scale, like google will pay
60k for a programer, microsoft 65k and maybe they scale different, but it
should be searchable. (numbers made up)

------
defen
Possibly a dumb question, but can any lawyers here speculate as to whether
this law will pass constitutional muster? Is this a form of prior restraint
that violates the first amendment? Comparing to things like protected
categories (age, gender, religion, marital status, etc) my understanding is
that it's not _illegal_ for employers to ask these things, but doing so
potentially opens them up to discrimination lawsuits if the person is not
hired.

------
_raoulcousins
I've been confused about how this law (and/or similar laws in other states)
applies when the applicant is not in the state. I'll be interviewing someone
who currently lives in North Carolina, for a job in Washington, another
interviewer is in South Carolina, and if hired the employee will report to
someone in New York. Looks like none of these states have a law like this, but
if any of them did, how does it work?

------
otakucode
I've never once answered such a question and never understood why anyone
would. When they ask, you tell them you don't give out that information. I've
never even had someone question that or ask twice.

~~~
dclowd9901
I once had a recruiter (contracted) get angry and berate me when I refused to
answer, then finally gave in and gave him my full compensation figure from
when I worked at Google. He said I was lying and nobody would hire me at that
rate. Needless to say I let him know what I thought of him and ended that
contact, letting the HR department at the company for whom he was recruiting
know what a jackass he was.

~~~
ryandrake
I also had a recruiter (in-house, working for the company) become difficult
when I refused to provide current salary. She tried several times to suss it
out of me and when it didn't work, discontinued the engagement, at which point
the interviews stopped. I think I may have dodged a bullet.

------
WalterBright
I doubt this will work as intended. Candidates who have been well paid and
know it will volunteer this information. Candidates who do not, one could
assume, have a lower salary history.

Not having salary history increases the risk of a bad hire. Hence, I expect
offers in general to be lower under such a law to compensate for the extra
risk.

------
jdblair
For comparison, in Finland all salaries are made public by the tax authority.
Annual salaries are printed in the newspaper annually and traffic ticket fines
are proportionate with your income.

~~~
lr
Before the tax info was public, they still fined people based on their income;
they just expected people to tell the truth. They have even gone back and re-
fined rich people who they found to have lied (back before officers could look
up the info in real-time).

------
ssaxena80
Finally. I always wondered why wasn't it illegal in the first place.

~~~
bentruyman
Probably because it's always been legal for you to refuse to give that
information.

~~~
duskwuff
And it was equally legal for companies to drop you from consideration for a
job if you refused. :/

~~~
alexanderstears
That's how price discovery can work in markets.

"How much is that tomato?"

"$5"

"Yikes. Too much for me. Thanks for your time"

~~~
duskwuff
And that's exactly how salary negotiations work _now_ \-- the applicant can
name an expected salary, and the employer can respond accordingly. The only
thing that's changed is that what you've been paid in the past doesn't have to
be a part of that discussion.

~~~
woolvalley
It's a bit more like:

"What did you pay your previous supplier for those tomatoes?"

"$4"

"I will charge you $3.95 and nothing less."

------
thrden
I'd be interested to see if this ends up playing out like ban the box (banning
employers from asking about former convictions), where it ends up hurting the
applicants the law intends to help.

ban the box source: [https://www.brookings.edu/opinions/ban-the-box-does-more-
har...](https://www.brookings.edu/opinions/ban-the-box-does-more-harm-than-
good/)

~~~
iandev
Although banning the box unintentionally hurt those that it attempted to help,
it may ultimately be the right move if the problem of the resultant
discrimination can be tackled also. A one step back, two steps forward
situation.

------
hildaman
I don't think this will fix anything. Consider the following scenario.

Employer to (theoretically) underpaid/under-represented minority: I offer you
x.

Underpaid minority: accepted.

Employer to market-rate perspective employee: I offer you x.

market-rate perspective employee: nope.

Employer to market-rate perspective employee: how about X+25K?

market-rate perspective employee: sounds good.

This bill tries to fix a symptom of the problem - but the underlying dynamics
causing the pay disparity will remain.

~~~
mamon
So, the moral of your story is: minority employees are underpaid because they
never say "no" to low salary they are offered? Or maybe you are saying that
possessing some basic negotiation skills you don't have makes me evil? I don't
follow your logic here.

------
lr
Every single state employee’s salary in the state of California is public.
Look it up yourself: sacbee.com/statepay (warning, horrible search mechanism).

The UC system alone has 250,000 people. Student salary data is the only data
anonymized.

Making salary data public is the only way to go. Anything else is a poor half
measure that will probably not solve the problem they are trying to address.

------
notyourwork
I don't see this is a big deal. You don't have to answer this question, I
regularly deflect the question and tell potential employers that I'll be happy
to give feedback at the offer point.

The question is asked initially before interviews in most cases and therefore
I tell them my expectation is to remain competitive based on what I bring to
the table.

Why is it so hard to be a grown up?

------
make3
I always lie when they do that anyways. it's confidential information, it's
not like they can go and verify with my previous employer.

if you do the sketchy thing of asking for unverifiable confidential
information just to give yourself a negotiation leg-up, be ready to get lied
to.

------
euphoria83
This is a great move! Many a times, a company will set your salary by
incrementing your current salary by 10% (say). This is demeaning. The future
employer is basically saying that we want you to work for us at as low a wage
as we can possibly pay, while not being stupid. Any negotiation comes back to
why your existing salary is so low, implying that there must be something
wrong with you.

The new law forces an open discussion where both sides can decide what they
want to pay/earn and start the negotiation from there. The negotiation then
follows the track of who has better opportunities. That is a better market
dynamic. It will be interesting to see how this plays out when I look for my
next job. :)

------
jackfoxy
> if applicants ask — must give them a pay range for the job they are seeking

I find this a much bigger deal. This gives applicants much more leverage and
wastes less of their time. No non-competes in California, and now this.

~~~
manfredo
Is it really? Couldn't company's just conceal the real range by giving an
immense range (e.g. $20,000 to $300,000)

------
vultour
Not an American, couldn't you just tell them a made up number?

~~~
buryat
Better yet telling them what salary you want and not disclose your previous
salary. Don't start you work relationship with a lie.

~~~
binarymax
But then you lose the chance to negotiate up. Any number you state can be
interpreted as the highest you will get offered. In salary negotiation, make
it so the employer presents the first offer, and then negotiate up.

~~~
buryat
Give them some range and do due diligence, the market figures are usually
known

~~~
bradlys
I've never found a range to work. They will immediately go to the bottom of
your range or even below. So, the range you give better start at the top of
your ideal range. Or, more preferably, don't name a number.

------
yeukhon
NY has this in effect, but quite a few companies whose headquarters are based
in NYC still ask applicants for their prior salary range on their
applications. I hope this is just a lag, not ignoring the law deliberately.

Also, we should outlaw employers from asking applications their desired salary
range; the negotiation should happen after interviews. Employers should either
specify a range or give a figure in the job description to save time.

~~~
CodeWriter23
So as an employer, I should just waste mine and the applicant’s time and then
find out they want more than I can possibly pay them? No thanks.

~~~
s73ver_
No, you should be up front with your salary range.

------
komali2
So how does this work for larger companies with multiple offices? Some cases
I'm curious about (and have always been for laws like this):

My company's headquarters are registered in Texas, but we have an office in CA
that is doing hiring for that office.

Same as above, but hiring someone residing in CA to move to Texas.

Same as above, but hiring someone residing in CA to remote work (in CA or
wherever they please).

Then, all three cases, but with a company headquartered Int'l.

~~~
kingnothing
If you have a California office, you have to be incorporated in California,
which means you're a California employer.

~~~
komali2
Ok cool, that makes sense. In that case, does CA law apply when you do a hire
for your Texas office? Being both a Texan _and_ California employer?

~~~
kingnothing
State laws apply to that state.

------
fictionfuture
As a relatively success California (SF) based software entrepreneur, I have to
say that new companies would have to be crazy to move to California to start a
business.

Raise money here, then leave if you know what’s good for you. #protip

(These type of policies may be good for employees but are a nightmare for
management..)

------
conanbatt
Any economist can weigh in on this?

I understand that this would reduce the benefit on the employer on assymetry
of information, but wouldn't it be the best to go the exact opposite direction
and try to get all salaries to be public?

------
usaar333
I'd love a deeper analysis of how this law will help.

Someone's target salary is dependent on their current. Non-savvy negotiators
will expose this number.. in which case they aren't going to end up any
better.

If you are significantly underpaid, the solution today is just to get two
offers to ensure your BATNA is based on an alternative offer, not your current
situation.

I suppose this gives more negotiation leverage to the employee, but I don't
see it helping Silicon Valley based devs much. It seems the beneficiaries are
mainly lower earnings who lack time/ability to source multiple offers.

------
dudul
Nobody seems to comment about this part of the law : "if applicants ask — must
give them a pay range for the job they are seeking"

That's pretty interesting. I wonder how companies are gonna try to circumvent
this.

~~~
dragonwriter
By disclosing _really wide_ ranges (which, IME, companies with internal salary
ranges that are not disclosed to employees often have to start with, because
they want _some_ controls, but also to give management flexibility in
recruiting and retention, so it's not even dishonest.)

------
benji-york
> 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.

Is it also banned for an applicant to inform the employer of their prior
salary? If not, it would appear advantageous for non-below-average-salaried
employees to being doing so, negating the effects of this intervention.(And
for employers to silently discard applicants which do not voluntarily reveal
salary history.)

~~~
eridius
If only above-average-salaried employees reveal salary, and companies discard
applicants that don't voluntarily reveal salary history, then that just means
that companies end up paying more because they'll only hire people that got
paid more than average in the past.

Which is to say, no, I don't think it'll work out that way.

~~~
benji-york
That's a good point as far as the employer's behavior goes. It still seems
beneficial to the above-average applicant to reveal their salary.

I guess that means employers will assume you're below average unless you
reveal your salary. That would tend to lump all the below-average people into
the same salary class as far as the potential employer is concerned.

~~~
eridius
It's still not really in the employee's interest to reveal their above-average
salary history until they've gotten a salary range from the employer first.
After they get that range, they can choose to reveal their salary history if
they think it'll give them leverage in negotiations (e.g. if they want more
than the high end of the range), but anyone who's happy with the offer they
get won't have a reason to reveal their salary history even if it's above-
average.

------
kirykl
I was asked once at an interview for my current salary, since I barely wanted
the new job I gave them a number $20k less than true.

The recruiter immediately said the job pays $10k less than that.

~~~
s73ver_
So wait, you said a number, and the recruiter said that the job paid less than
what they believed you were currently making?

~~~
kirykl
Yes she immediately came back with a number 10k lower. Which in reality was
30k lower than current for a very similar job

------
PatientTrades
This is a bad law. This will perpetuate the wage gap between men and women
employees. These kind of laws will continue the "don't ask, don't tell" aura
around salary information. Instead of making this information secret, salary
information needs to be pushed more public, so that when someone is paid less
for equal work, there is absolutely no doubt about the salary that each
employee receives.

~~~
wpietri
I think it's just the opposite. Allowing employers to ask wage history helps
maintain the wage gap. If women are underpaid at their first job, then that
will propagate forward to future offers. If they can't ask, then they'll have
a harder time knowing whether they can continue to underpay a woman. Having a
stated salary range also makes it a little harder for them to play games.

~~~
cisanti
What stops people lying about the wage? I suspect men do it more often and
negotiate bigger salaries this way.

~~~
wpietri
Ethics? Morals? Not knowing exactly what sort of lie they can get away with?
Years of training and practice in not lying? Fear of getting caught and not
getting the job? Fear of getting caught later and losing the job?

------
thecrazyone
I think there is systematic bias in such rules because employees outnumber
employers and corporations can't vote. For example:

1) In such scenarios, I wonder how is it okay for an applicant to use all
tactics they want (note: there is minimal if not no regulation on applicants
to a position. Okay, let's make this concrete, this new law bans Cali
employers from asking applicants their prior salary. There are more laws which
ban or force an employer to do something. BUT an applicant is NOT banned from
asking any question. This next sentence I might be going out on a limb here,
the applicant is NOT forced to do something either (as opposed to a ban on
something). This is systematic bias.

2) It's NOT okay for a corporation to discriminate on race or sex, etc. But it
IS OKAY for an applicant to discriminate on race or sex, i.e. if an employer
is black, I can choose not to work for him just on that basis, or if it's a
woman, I can choose not to work on that basis.

You might say the positions of power are asymmetric and in favor of the
employer. I'd say you're correct about the former (asymmetricity) but not
about the latter. The employer has power by having more money and applicant
has power by having more skills. Employers usually respond to such laws as
this by coming up with new ways to accomplish what they want, then govt
responds with even more regulation. Compliance is a cost which takes away from
the pie which any of the stakeholders could've benefited from.

A voluntary unregulated hiring market would benefit all parties involved.

------
bargl
I've recently been on both ends of the table here. I don't share my previous
salary but I'm always willing to share a pay range. The range being higher
than I'd ever expect to get paid. I find this to be important when discussing
salary with an employer because it gives me a baseline to continue
discussions. If they can't meet my bottom line then I'm not interested. The
reason I give a range is because salary is only a SMALL part of your
compensation package. If there is a yearly bonus program, great medical, 401k
matching, vacation, etc. Each of these things need to be considered when
accepting a position. Hence the range.

I've also come to expect that I'm going to give a candidate a pay range as
well. It is one of the first things I do when trying to on board because if
they can't afford to live on the range I'm telling them then I don't want to
waste either of our time on discussing a position they can't live on. I'm
pretty upfront about this because the worst thing an employee working for me
can do is have to start budgeting a lot and be resentful about it.

In my mind this law can really hinder that conversation. I like giving a range
and asking a candidate if they can deal with that, but it's really nice when a
candidate is secure enough to tell me what they are worth up front as well. I
would also recommend against giving anyone a fixed value always always give a
range.

~~~
hyperionos
"I don't share my previous salary but I'm always willing to share a pay range.
The range being higher than I'd ever expect to get paid."

That sounds like you are actively exaggerating the amount you have been paid
previously to establish a "baseline" of what you are willing to accept as a
minimum salary in the job you're applying for. Anyways, from what I
understand, the new law does not seem to prohibit you from asking for a salary
(range) that the applicant would be willing to accept, just from asking for
how much specifically they made in the past.

~~~
bargl
> Anyways, from what I understand, the new law does not seem to prohibit you
> from asking for a salary (range) that the applicant would be willing to
> accept, just from asking for how much specifically they made in the past.

This is a very good point. It's a fine line but I appreciate the input.

I do give a rather large range. It's typically a 20-40% range based on how
much I want the job. And I tailor it to every employer.

------
ronilan
Next:

 _Employers should compensate interviewd candidates for their time at a rate
equivalent to the position for which they are interviewing._

~~~
jpttsn
That’s like a store charging you to try on the clothes you don’t buy. I
wouldn’t like that.

~~~
ronilan
Employers don't buy employees. That's already the law.

So...

No. It is toatally not like that and hopefully such a law will help clarify
the point to any who miss it.

Such a law will also provide balances in an unbalanced power situation and
enforce economic efficiencies on an inefficient process.

I'm not a lawmaker nor an employer, though, so I'll leave the suggestion for
someone else to pick up.

~~~
jpttsn
Employers do buy the labor of employees. Think of the employee as the store
and the labor as the clothes.

~~~
ronilan
I've taken economics in university. I understand this line of thinking. It's
wrong.

(twice, btw, once because the negative externalities of "the interview
process" are not negligible, and second because the power dynamics of said
process are just wrong)

~~~
jpttsn
I like my analogy; why not convince me it's wrong?

Are there no negative externalities of trying on clothes?

------
dman
This seems like a big change. I am always curious about what the current state
of the art is for modelling second order effects of such a big change. Would
appreciate any insights from people who have an insight into decision making
at this level (something that affects millions of people in a real and
meaningful way).

------
panda530
Most companies that I've worked at require an employee's signed consent before
releasing any sort of salary details. Otherwise the only info provided is hire
date, term date and position. I'm a Payroll Administrator in Oregon.

------
taurath
I wonder if over time this leads to people making more getting lowballed, and
wages actually dropping. The company could say well these people with these
qualifications (on paper) took this amount, so you're asking for way over
market rate.

------
trhway
Previous title and company will probably become one of the proxy to get a good
guesstimate of the candidate's salary. Writing this as the Senior Chief
Executive Architect (of that 10 lines bug fix that i just pushed).

------
ionised
Good.

The only reason to ask this question is to use it to determine a baseline of
how low you can pay the applicant, and unfortunately a lot of young job
seekers don't know that it is best to refuse to answer that question.

------
michel-slm
Also affecting those arriving on H-1B, I bet. If your previous job is in a
non-Western, non-Middle-Eastern country (plus Japan, Singapore etc.) your
previous salary is likely much lower.

------
fdr
Good. There is no principled reason why a job's value depends on previous
salary except insomuch as the previous salary was also a market-set price.

------
whyenot
At the same time, salary information for all California state employees, from
the governor to university groundskeepers is publicly available online for
anyone to use.

transparentcalifornia.com

~~~
komali2
That site has the most aggressive anti ad-blocker mechanism I have ever seen.

I understand why people do this but holy shit that is obnoxious.

EDIT: UC Coaches some of the highest paid people in the state... sigh.

~~~
r00fus
College sports is some of the best way for such institutions to make money. Is
it a corruptive influence?

~~~
komali2
I feel like it's disingenuous to the purpose of a "higher education"
institution. Would rather they not need to make the money that way - perhaps
it is a corruptive influence in that it changes the "goal" of the institution.

------
d--b
I've personally always lied about how much I was making... they think of you
as an easy employee, and you can get a nice multiplier on your current salary.

------
dzhiurgis
Why can't you just say "it's under NDA"?

~~~
monocasa
There are external services that'll go through documents like rental credit
check applications to figure out your salary even if you don't give an answer
to the hiring company. This law forbids those services as well.

------
jayess
Just another reason for the list I give clients to avoid California when they
are considering hiring California residents or having an office in California.

------
cwyers
So they'll buy it off Equifax. Or just get it free from whatever hacker stole
it off Equifax and posted it to a Torrent.

------
pfedigan
Does age have an effect on salary? I'm not getting paid as much as I should be
getting paid for my tech profession..

------
sjeanpierre
definitely a step in the right direction, but employees can still get this
info from Equifax and other data providers :-(

~~~
Stanleyc23
"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."

according to the language in the bill, employers don't seem to be allowed to
use those types of Equifax products anymore.

"However, if the applicant “voluntarily and without prompting” provides this
information, the employer may use it “in determining the salary for that
applicant.”"

...as long as you don't give it out yourself.

~~~
xenihn
How do you prove that employers did or didn't use Equifax or an equivalent
service?

~~~
Gargoyle
You sue them and use discovery to find out.

Any employer in California that does this will get taken to the cleaners.

It's possible Equifax would too now, so they probably won't give this
information to CA employers.

------
leyth
Why ask when you can just find out during background check. If anything, they
should ban background checks completely.

~~~
dragonwriter
They are prohibited from seeking the information by any means (including
background checks), except information which is legally public, such as when
the prospective employee is a previous/current public employee.

------
gordon_freeman
Just to be a devil's advocate here : in a hypothetical scenario wouldn't this
allow a candidate to give a fake inflated salary of his past job being well
aware that it's illegal for recruiter or employer to investigate if this
number is true?

Edit: I think I misunderstood the new law proposed here. It is not even legal
for employer to ask the salary of past job. In that case this situation would
not even occur.

~~~
joneil
The candidate wouldn't need to give a fake inflated salary... the company
isn't allowed to ask about salary history at all.

Even if they weren't, I don't see any real trouble with your scenario (other
than that I think establishing a pattern of lying in a relationship so early
probably isn't great). But if my last job underpaid me, and now I want to earn
market rate... I'd be grateful to not have to answer questions about my
previous salary.

------
hippich
Why every small thing has to become a law?... Just say "no, thank you" to
question about salary.

~~~
blazespin
Lack of wage growth? Gender disparity?

------
oh-kumudo
Isn't that you need to provide 3 recent paystubs prior to your joining?

------
daveheq
Can't wait to hear every right-winger I know say how this isn't fair
capitalism and not free market, completely ignoring past-wage discrimination
and any gender gap... Just like they're instructed to do from Fox News and
their opulent pastors.

------
johnthomas00
Employers will just ask employees expectations.

------
lostmsu
Now Washington state please.

~~~
Jach
We don't even have non-compete protection, good luck...

------
jonaphin
Employers still get the data via background checks.

------
zghst
YAY!

------
jakeogh
That's what CA needs... more laws.

Lawyers: what are the chances this goes to the Supreme Court? I suspect next
to none, since it's just CA, and employers don't care enough about free speech
to fight it.

Silver lining: Another straw in the pile to split CA.

------
randyrand
Well... there goes your expectation of an increased salary without
negotiation.

And they did this to _improve_ the gender wage gap? People who don't negotiate
will be stuck with their same salary year over year, while those that
negotiate will have steadily increasing salaries.

~~~
kelnos
Salary negotiation is a part of life. People need to learn to at least do the
minimum amount of negotiation. If you're making $X and a new potential
employer offers you $(0.9X), and you just accept it without countering, that's
on you.

People need to get over the fear that they'll lose their offer if they
negotiate. The potential employer has already put in a lot of time (and money)
to get to the offer stage; they're not going to rescind the offer just because
you ask for more ("That amount isn't going to work for me; I was looking for
something more like $(1.1X)"). At worst they'll tell you that they can't go
any higher than the original offer, and then the decision is entirely up to
you.

~~~
ryandrake
Salary negotiation is like black magic, and simplistic advice of "oh, just
negotiate" reminds me of the "Draw the rest of the fucking owl" meme [1].
Every job offer I've ever gotten has been Accept Or GTFO. Asking for more
always results in "That's the offer--take it or leave it!" Whoever you
captains of industry are who regularly negotiate your salary, let me subscribe
to your newsletter, please!

1: [https://imgur.com/RadSf](https://imgur.com/RadSf)

~~~
kelnos
That's somewhat ironic, as the "draw the rest of the fucking owl meme" is one
of my employer's values (which I actually agree with, as long as it's not
taken to a ridiculous extreme).

"Accept or GTFO" is a risk you run when negotiating. But it's better than just
saying nothing and accepting whatever low-ball offer they give you first, and
it costs you nothing to at least do a bare minimum of negotiating.

It really is as simple as saying "I don't think that amount will work for me;
I was looking for something more like $X". I mean it: just that sentence
alone. Don't demand or be a dick about it, and don't appear meek as if you're
asking for a handout, and don't try to justify it with a "I have mouths to
feed" or "I'm saving for a house" or whatever. Just state it, and see what
happens. That, or something similar, has gotten me a better offer literally
every time I've tried it, and I'm honestly probably an average negotiator, at
best. It might not get you exactly $X, but that's what a compromise is:
meeting somewhere in the middle.

------
sigzero
California...doing it wrong again. You can refuse to give it. You can also get
better at negotiating. Dumb law.

~~~
rconti
But most people don't. Tell me who this law is HURTING, and why it's a bad
idea, rather than just why you think everyone should just act differently.

