SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
Here in California, our government has passed a strange new law.
Although intended to force employers to stop offering different pay rates to men and women, the new law has the strange side effect of forcing recruiters to play fair - and recruiters aren't liking it. The law also forbids asking candidates for their prior compensation history. Again, recruiters and hiring managers aren't liking the new shift in the balance of power:
Assembly Bill No. 168
SECTION 1. Section 432.3 is added to the Labor Code, to read:432.3. (a) An employer shall not rely on the salary history information of an applicant for employment as a factor in determining whether to offer employment to an applicant or what salary to offer an applicant.
(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.
(c) An employer, upon reasonable request, shall provide the pay scale for a position to an applicant applying for employment.
(d) Section 433 does not apply to this section.
(e) This section shall not apply to salary history information disclosable to the public pursuant to federal or state law, including the California Public Records Act (Chapter 3.5 (commencing with Section 6250) of Division 7 of Title 1 of the Government Code) or the federal Freedom of Information Act (Section 552 of Title 5 of the United States Code).
(f) This section applies to all employers, including state and local government employers and the Legislature.
(g) Nothing in this section shall prohibit an applicant from voluntarily and without prompting disclosing salary history information to a prospective employer.
(h) If an applicant voluntarily and without prompting discloses salary history information to a prospective employer, nothing in this section shall prohibit that employer from considering or relying on that voluntarily disclosed salary history information in determining the salary for that applicant.
(i) Consistent with Section 1197.5, nothing in this section shall be construed to allow prior salary, by itself, to justify any disparity in compensation.
(emphasis added)
To drive salaries and wages down, Silicon Valley has for many years outsourced their recruiting efforts to other states, where the cost of living is much lower and recruiting agency employees were less likely to respect the inevitable protests from candidates over the low wages being offered, because the wages being offered were comparable to the wages being offered in the state where the recruiter was located.
Now Silicon Valley's employers have the unpleasant duty of educating their remote, far-flung, outsourced networks of workers of the new law.
If you're a job-seeker, here in California, how has this new law affected your ability to seek employment and your experience with recruiters?
If you're a recruiter - inside or outside California - how is this affecting your business? How are you treating candidates who inform you of this new law?
If you're a hiring manager, are you informing recruiters of this law? Are they informing you of this law?
Violation of the law is a misdemeanor.
The California Legislature is interested in receiving feedback from employees and candidates, also.
Obviously, the Legislature has already heard, and is hearing, from employers. But they need to hear BOTH sides in order to make (and defend) their decisions.
It's tempting to badmouth the California Legislature - but I was pleasantly surprised to discover legislative information was available, via Archie (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Archie_search_engine), from the leginfo.legislature.ca.gov website, two decades ago.
(Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Friday January 26 2018, @07:05PM (6 children)
This story (which happened this second-to-last week of January, 2018) starts with a recruiter begging me to add him to my network so that he can access all the engineers I know and leverage my social relationships to make money for himself:
I'd like to join your LinkedIn network.
A few minutes later I get another email:
We are looking for an Engineering Manager who can join the team, lead Engineers, grow the team, and be a hands-on engineer that will share in the Mission.
This is a permanent role in the San Francisco, CA office.
Open to US Citizens or GC Holders but will transfer or sponsor an H1B Visa candidate.
This is a great opportunity for an experienced leader who knows how to get things done and understands the value of Equity.
Responsibilities and Duties
Ubuntu, MySQL, Apache, PHP, Python, Javascript, Java, Android, Angular, AWS Responsibilities, Write code as a key individual contributor
Qualifications and Skills
* Bachelor's or Master's degree in Computer Science from a Top CS university
* 1+ years leadership experience
* 5+ years work and experience
If your interested please let me know your availability so we can set-up a time to speak.
I had a few concerns. I asked:
What sort of pay is being discussed for this manager role?
What's the company?
I'm kind of concerned, with the threshold to management being so low ('1+ years leadership experience, 5+ years work and experience') that management is filled with people in their late 20s and early 30s and I would encounter resentment (technically, age bias) and a hostile work environment.
Also: how many other people did your email go to? It would be useful to know if I am competing against 200 others ... 20 others ... or 2 others.
Says the recruiter:
Hi, you raised some very valid concerns. I can tell you that you are 1 of just a few people I sent this out to as I'm looking for specific skills and experience.
When would be a good time to have a brief conversation about the specifics?
I replied:
Some of my questions can be answered in writing.
Also, it's a misdemeanor to withhold pay information, per CA AB 168, effective January 1st.
(If this recruiting agency plans on doing business in California, it's their responsibility to keep up to date on the laws that apply to them, not mine.)
Says Josh:
There's no withholding, just trying to get a few minutes of your time for a conversation to go over some things like pay and company name.
I appreciate your time .
Says I:
This will be the third time I have asked you, in writing, what the compensation range is. I call that withholding information.
May I have the name of your direct manager?
Says Josh:
I have found enough qualified candidates for consideration.
Have a nice day.
Just between you and me and the Internet, I'm pretty sure the recruiter mailed more than just "a few" people.
What the recruiter doesn't get, is that it's not worth my time to talk to someone who's trying to recruit for a position that pays 20th century wages for 21st century skills, AND wants me to manage, TOO.
I'm curious ... how does the California Legislature intend to enforce their law against recruiters located on the East Coast, in, for instance, New Hampshire - where this fellow was located?
'Cuz it looks like nobody gives a shit what California law is any more, and it seems like anyone who attempts to raise the topic is retaliated against.
THIS is why I don't accept recruiters into my pristine engineer-only social networks. Today's recruiters have more in common with liars and pimps and criminals than they do with engineering. Their primary goal is to acquire your information.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday January 26 2018, @07:20PM (1 child)
Sounds like your reaction is exactly the kind of giving a shit that is needed. Next time string them along, record all communications, and report them for violating the law once you find out who they are. Same sorta deal with cell phone spammers, hard to control but at least the measures we have do some good.
(Score: 2) by frojack on Friday January 26 2018, @08:10PM
Either sue them yourself or move on. No prosecutor is going to go after a misdemeanor conviction with complainant provided documentation. De minimis non curat lex. Neque accusatores.
No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.
(Score: 2) by MichaelDavidCrawford on Friday January 26 2018, @07:45PM
I once demanded that a recruiter give me the contact info for her company's legal counsel. She repeatedly blew me off.
The last such mail I copied one of her coworkers. I said something like "If the first time your attorney hears from me is when my complaint is served, it's not going to look good for you."
I got a phone call from her company's chief legal counsel and board of directors secretary.
I was previously unaware of just how huge her company had become. I remember very well when everyone who worked for Oxford and Associates fit into a single floor of a small office building. By the time I decided to drag them into the courtroom they had changed their name to Oxford Global Resources.
In the end I decided to drop the lawsuit. For me it was enough to have written such essays as The Ethical Engineer [warplife.com]:
That and other essays on the same topic prompted that chief legal counsel to very expensively have an overnight courier hand-deliver TO MY LANDLORD a totally baseless eighteen page legal manifesto.
The best that he could come up with was that I had been "unprofessional".
I told him to get bent. Those essays are STILL online.
Yes I Have No Bananas. [gofundme.com]
(Score: 3, Interesting) by frojack on Friday January 26 2018, @08:00PM (2 children)
Part of the problem here is that a misdemeanor, at best, carries a tiny fine, that these recruiters can pay out of their office coffee money.
You won't scare them with that line.
Even if you had it documented 5 ways to sunday, with fingerprints and dna evidence, what prosecutor is going to go after a misdemeanor prosecution. The cost of the pre-prosecution investigation leg work itself would exceed the possible fine.
Second of course, is merely mentioning a "theoretically possible" misdemeanor puts the potential employee (you in this case) strongly in the trouble maker camp.
I wouldn't hire anyone who mentions such things in an interview. If I was crooked, I certainly wouldn't consider such a person, and even if I was completely legit it would go down on that persons file as an utter lack of tact, likely to cause conflict in the work place, etc, etc. (Or maybe just those little dots encoded after the date or what ever deniable encoding the company HR secretly uses).
I get it that by this point you were highly suspicious and you knew you wouldn't want this job if it were offered. But that shit follows you around.
The smart play would be to say, "Josh, I've just received a better offer, and I don't want to take up any more of your valuable time, thanks for all your help, and please keep me in mind for future positions." Then quietly add Josh to your plonk file.
No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.
(Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Friday January 26 2018, @09:00PM
We'll never get anywhere if we all keep lying to one another and putting off the difficult bits for someone else to do.
Man up and seize the bull by the horns, frojack. It's not someone else's problem. You're a wimp.
(Score: 2) by fritsd on Friday January 26 2018, @09:48PM
Maybe the purpose of the law is not to punish dodgy recruiters, as much as make them stand out compared to compliant recruiters, so that careful jobseekers can distinguish them and avoid the rotten apples.