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: 5, Interesting) by looorg on Friday January 26 2018, @04:56PM (66 children)
I'm not in California but I assume this is a global and common issue all around. I seriously hate companies that won't divulge the pay or at least a pay-range. It becomes a stupid guessing game where I want to maximize and they want to minimize. It always ends up being the same stupid guessing game since I always want as much as I can possibly get and now I have to try and guess how much they want to pay and how much I can get away with. If I go to high I might scare them off, if I go to low they might believe I'm an idiot, perhaps I went low and they took me anyway and quite soon I'll figure out that I took the low bid cause all my co-workers are making more then me -- so I'm going to get pissed, demand a raise to their level or I'll quit and go someplace else and they have to start the recruitment process again (so we all lose out really).
I recon it might have shifted over the years, when I was new, younger or just more desperate for a job I played their little guessing game. But as I grew older I just gave up on that game. When they ask me how much I want I ask how much they are offering or are willing to pay me and if I believe they are trying to low ball me I tell them I couldn't possibly do the job they are asking for such a low sum and then I wish them good luck in their recruitment effort and then I'm out of there.
How much I made previously isn't really all that interesting since they probably are not asking me to do the same thing, in the same place etc. So current salary is a really bad comparison, not to mention I could just tweak that on demand.
There is probably only one thing I detest more then the salary guessing game and that is companies that are recruiting and calling people to interviews but have not set aside money to cover travel expenses to bring the people they want to interview to them. If they are not compensating or covering those expenses they can just fuck right off. I'm not paying to be interviewed.
(Score: 3, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Friday January 26 2018, @05:23PM (54 children)
There is this strange notion (especially among socialists) that everyone knows the "correct" price for something, and that evil people (especially capitalists) try to obscure that calculation not only to benefit themselves but also to dominate others just for the pleasure of it.
Nobody knows what something should cost today until a deal is struck (in fact, until many deals are struck). That is the whole point of the market: To find these values—this is called the Price Mechanism.
That is the reason that socialist regimes always decay into black markets and poorly run bread lines; they do not respect the price mechanism; they do not respect the fact that the economy (that is, society, which is one and the same) is a complex system that is totally and utterly intractable to machinations of any particular person or group. The only thing you can do is find a workable organization of society's resources through evolution by variation and selection, where variation takes the form of supplier competition, and selection takes the form of consumer choice.
It has to be a guessing game. The world is stumbling around in search of the answer, and that answer changes from day to day.
(Score: 5, Touché) by Nerdfest on Friday January 26 2018, @05:28PM (20 children)
Socialist regimes? Like Norway, Finland, Canada? I think they're doing pretty well. Calling the current or former Russia a socialist country would be a bit of a stretch.
(Score: 0, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Friday January 26 2018, @05:35PM (18 children)
Besides the fact that the socialist regimes in those places are indeed hemorrhaging resources, and thereby destroying the people's wealth, it is also the case that those countries have tiny, homogeneous populations.
According to Google, the population of Finland is slightly under 5.5 million people, and every one of them is basically a copy of the same person. They are no model for anything else in the world—hell, the core City of New York has 8.5 million people, and several orders of magnitude more diversity.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday January 26 2018, @06:57PM (16 children)
what about Canada
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday January 26 2018, @07:13PM (15 children)
So, Canada is mostly Europeans and the "model" minority.
Also, they're hemorrhaging resources; in 2013, the Canadian government owed $1.2 trillion to holders of treasury securities.
(Score: 5, Touché) by Anonymous Coward on Friday January 26 2018, @07:28PM (11 children)
Tell me good sir, what is the current state of US debt? I mean the US is the bastion of unfettered capitalism so we MUST be awash in cash right? Is your only defense that these functional pseudo-socialist countries are smaller? Less diverse? In that case your bigotry seems to be showing.
(Score: 2) by frojack on Friday January 26 2018, @07:39PM
Chuckle.
No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.
(Score: 0, Flamebait) by Anonymous Coward on Friday January 26 2018, @07:53PM (8 children)
The other AC never claimed that the U.S. is a bastion of capitalism; only you brought up such an assertion.
Indeed, it's clear from your derision that you agree the U.S. Government is not a bastion for the philosophy capitalism; how can it be? Like every other government, the U.S. Government is founded on the principle of non-capitalist "do-as-I-say" coercion rather than capitalist "do-as-we-previously-agreed" cooperation.
The other AC never claimed that being less diverse is better. Rather, he claimed that being less diverse means it is a dubious model for the general question.
Also, as with all attempts at Intelligent Design, socialism works better the simpler and dumber you make society; that means that socialism works better as you limit the complexity of the population. Remove genetic differences, and value-system differences (including religious differences), etc., and you have a much more tractable system on your hands.
In the general, most complex case, you need a philosophy that leverages the Universe's process of Evolution by Variation and Selection; that philosophy is Capitalism.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday January 26 2018, @07:59PM
Wooooeeeee, that is some serious assuming you're doing there. I'm gonna check out of this bullshit thread so you can just continue with your "assme" statements.
(Score: 2) by meustrus on Friday January 26 2018, @08:27PM (4 children)
That statement applies to all types of government, not just the ones you think can't deal with more complexity. Except fascism, I guess, since that system only works when there's a plausible scapegoat for all your problems.
If there isn't at least one reference or primary source, it's not +1 Informative. Maybe the underused +1 Interesting?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday January 26 2018, @09:19PM (3 children)
The AC is saying 2 things:
Capitalism is the necessary foundation for society (hence why socialism always decays into black markets).
Any government is inherently anti-Capitalism; a government is an organization defined around a principle that isn't allowed under Capitalism.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday January 26 2018, @09:33PM
You don't understand what socialism is and are obviously conflating it with communism.
Stop sucking the capitalist teat, that milk is poisoned.
(Score: 2) by meustrus on Friday January 26 2018, @09:45PM (1 child)
And I'll say again what I said last time this philosophy was summarized as such, this time in simpler terms: "do-as-we-previously-agreed" cooperation is enforced by the government, by force. If it weren't, there'd be nothing to stop the capitalists from changing the terms of the "agreement" whenever they feel like it. Kind of like the mafia and other black market groups get to do because government regulation can't reach them.
If there isn't at least one reference or primary source, it's not +1 Informative. Maybe the underused +1 Interesting?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday January 26 2018, @10:02PM
You are making the erroneous deduction that a violently imposed, culturally revered monopoly is the only way to implement the service of contract enforcement.
Clearly, that's not the case, as there has never been and there never will be One World Government; clearly, not even the governments of the world agree with you.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday January 27 2018, @12:28AM (1 child)
Yeesh! Take your pseudo-Libertarian talking points and go find a deserted island to live on. If you really do believe that is what the U.S. Government is all about then you clearly don't belong here.
???? I'm not even sure where to begin with this one. What the fucking blue blazes are you talking about? And, who the hell modded this "Interesting"? Would somebody care to explain that upmod?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday January 27 2018, @01:45AM
It reaches a level so out there I'm starting to believe it is a troll and not a legit libertarian nutcase.
However, to explain that last chunk and modded "interesting" you just have to realize that it takes a shot at socialism cause socialism BAAAD, does a back handed compliment of it "working" when people are all morons, and throws in some bigotry / eugenics type shit. It is a stone hitting four birds, the last one being capitalism is great and only it can possibly handle the complexities of human society.
Wild guess time. Aristarchus is so bent out of shape about his stories being denied that he is doing a parody of the libertarian viewpoint. Although, given VLM's more reasonable posts perhaps this is his AC blowing off steam phase.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday January 29 2018, @05:19PM
That the GOVERNMENT is in so deep in debt and bailing out companies should tell you that holding it as a bastion is stupid. It isn't unrestrained. Try starting a business and then you can report on the level of restraint the market really is.
(Score: 2) by vux984 on Saturday January 27 2018, @10:32AM (2 children)
5.8% *chinese*; closer to 20% 'asian'. And it was 2% black in 96. Its closer to 3.5% now. Its down to about 70% caucasion, still substantial, but far below the 92% you implied.
As for hemorrhaging resources, America WISHES it could hemorrhage resources like Canada.
Canada's per capita debt is around 17,600 CAD.
America's per capita debt is 63,000 USD.
Doing things only as bad as Canada would be a pretty wild improvement.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday January 27 2018, @05:30PM (1 child)
According to Wikipedia, the other AC is right with regard to demographics.
Also, the U.S. controls the world's reserve currency, which means it can tax everybody on the planet (through printing money).
Also, the U.S. GDP is $20.199 trillion, eleven times larger than Canada's $1.836 trillion.
(Score: 2) by NotSanguine on Saturday January 27 2018, @08:09PM
Given that the population of the US is ~10 times that of Canada [diffen.com], that makes sense, no?
No, no, you're not thinking; you're just being logical. --Niels Bohr
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday January 26 2018, @07:00PM
Walking talking propaganda replicator. If only it could be harnessed for good purposes!
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday January 26 2018, @05:48PM
Socialism and a market economy with a welfare state aren't the same thing, go ask Bernie Sanders about the scolding he got from Denmark about it.
Either way those countries are running on stored wealth.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday January 26 2018, @06:24PM (14 children)
"the fact that the economy (that is, society, which is one and the same)"
NO! Humans developed society before economics. Yet another fool who worships at the altar of Mammon and is trying to convert others. I do wish you'd stop appropriating the idea of natural selection, it is the most base application of the theory and is an insult to science.
"It has to be a guessing game. The world is stumbling around in search of the answer, and that answer changes from day to day."
You really think it is just a stumbling game of an evolving system? Yeah probably, no way any individuals have enough power and influence to affect monetary markets, it is all based on consumers at the store and manufacturers trying to min/max their production chain. Yup, that's what it is! Nice, simple, neat. Just leave the system alone and everything will work itself out! No way no how any jerk is gonna ruin this party!!
I now take off my hat and request that others do the same. For years we have tried to improve our society, and in these final days it becomes clear that we are simply at the mercy of market forces. Nothing is to be done, so please remove your hats and join me in a moment of silence as we mourn the passing of our dear friend Freedom.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday January 26 2018, @06:46PM (13 children)
Sentience is the question How should this or that resource be allocated? There was economics before humans.
Brains are every bit as much part of this universe as everything else; they are just another factor in evolution by variation and selection—sorry, but your "humanity" does not mean you transcend this universe.
The whole point is that not only is "Intelligent Design" unnecessary, but every attempt at being the Dear Leader fails pretty hard to achieve intended outcomes.
The evolutionary process indeed does involve minds (after all, humans are participating in it), but it does not require them, and it does not necessarily improve with their presence—many of the problems in society are not even known to exist, and many of the solutions to problems in society come about without people even realizing that they are emerging from the seemingly unrelated activities of human interaction.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday January 26 2018, @07:03PM (10 children)
Ewww, someone smart enough to defend their own stupidity. Take your materialist worldview and shove it. Anyone invoking "the universe" to justify their politics is an arrogant fool. Trying to fall back on "that is science" or "that is how physics works" is the worst sort of justification when talking politics. But that won't stop you, keep feeling superior, one day you'll learn better.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday January 26 2018, @07:19PM (9 children)
You have neither attacked the other poster's points, nor added any of your own.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday January 26 2018, @07:26PM (8 children)
Reading comprehension isn't your strong point I see.
- Anyone invoking "the universe" to justify their politics is an arrogant fool.
- can't comprehend the point? Applying the laws of physics to human political systems is DUMB! I pointed out the fallacy behind the poster's appeal to authority of science.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday January 26 2018, @07:28PM (7 children)
Got it.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday January 26 2018, @07:36PM (6 children)
I was directly refuting the appeal to science, there is no straw man. Some people may be swayed by crap like: "Sentience is the question How should this or that resource be allocated? There was economics before humans." It is still crap, conflating a human construct with physics in the most basic way in an appeal to authority, "It is SCIENCE therefore I am right!!"
It is sad, you are sad, take a decade to get some real experience and wisdom. You sound like some college kid trying to push your personal "revelations" on the world without realizing your own limitations. Woops, I assumed that you're the AC making the argument, but still feels like a safe bet as who would bother to call out my response repeatedly? lol
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday January 26 2018, @08:18PM (5 children)
Why can you make a statement like "Humans developed society before economics."?
That is in dispute; you have not defended that statement, while the other AC has built a much richer and more fundamental framework for discussing it.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday January 26 2018, @08:33PM (4 children)
Incorrect. Economics is a modern construct and humanity. There are currently still tribes of humans that have no conception of money or private property. That you cling to the idea that economics is some base function of the universe is weird. As to how I can make such a statement, it is because I have a brain and learned a bit about human history. Comparing the incredibly convoluted modern human economics system to any sort of reductionist framework is a dumb exercise. Our current economy includes lots of quirky mechanisms, and a good portion of the economy is literally based on faith. Faith that the value will remain stable. The greedy actions of one individual can literally topple small nations, so unless you want to bring God into your "fundamental framework" then get a freakin clue!
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday January 26 2018, @09:23PM (3 children)
The AC isn't endorsing or basing his argument on what you seem to be calling humans' "current" "economic system".
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday January 26 2018, @09:36PM (2 children)
And how would you know what the OTHER AC is endorsing? Or that it is a he? Could you and he be THE SAME PERSON??? wooo wee wooo weee ooooo
"current" "economic system"
extra quotes why? actually, why any quotes? I think you are just incapable of admitting when you're wrong and you'll have to do more than give opinions full of holes.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday January 26 2018, @10:05PM (1 child)
Only special, precious, or exotic things (such as boats, or females) are referenced with feminine forms; the word "he" is neutral, and says nothing about gender.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday January 26 2018, @10:22PM
I get it already, you're working on your journalism degree and this is your master's project; examining a real world experiment in online trolling. Nice choice, you get to have fun trolling a forum while billing it as authentic research. *clap clap*
(Score: 2) by unauthorized on Friday January 26 2018, @09:10PM
Are you saying we should eat fat capitalists?
(Score: 2) by NotSanguine on Saturday January 27 2018, @08:13PM
What are you blathering on about? Sentience [wikipedia.org] has nothing to do with resource allocation, except in the sense that the ability to reason is necessary to make conscious decisions about *anything*:
No, no, you're not thinking; you're just being logical. --Niels Bohr
(Score: 4, Insightful) by tfried on Friday January 26 2018, @07:39PM (4 children)
Yes, prices are changing. But lack of a reference is not the hallmark of an efficient market.Of course stock traders - allegory for capitalism(TM) - have ample access to current and historical data of price bids, asks, and trade volume. Of course supermarkets - allegory of western lifestyle - have price stickers on their wares. Of course even a used car dealer - allegory of murky market niches - will put a price sticker on their offers. You are well advised to negotiate from there, and just how far you push the price is a guessing game, indeed. But not offering a reference is downright ridiculous.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday January 26 2018, @09:55PM (3 children)
The employer has an idea of what he's willing to pay, and the employee has an idea of what he's willing to accept.
People talk to their friends and coworkers, and take interviews to put out feelers.
Those supermarkets have prices on their wares because their margins are large enough that fluctuations in costs don't matter, and it's currently logistically cheaper not to change those prices throughout even 1 store, let alone hundreds or thousands.
Seriously, do you people even have a modicum of imagination?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday January 27 2018, @01:47AM
You people? What do you mean by YOU people? Don't make me get my nunchuks!
(Score: 2) by tfried on Saturday January 27 2018, @08:49AM (1 child)
So what you're saying is, it does not matter either way, because the information in question is already available?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday January 27 2018, @05:32PM
The government is asserting that it has the right to force once private individual to say something to another private individual.
That is disgusting.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Friday January 26 2018, @07:52PM (2 children)
This "price mechanism" only works when information is freely available to ensure a well-working competition.
So if you want to argue for that angle, you would have to argue that all companies should publish complete reports on what every single person in the company earns, maybe not by name but at least by qualifications and job descriptions.
In practice, this is a much easier approximation of that: The companies generally have a good idea of an approximate market value (since they check what other companies offer for example), so they can just make that information available.
More openness and information very much is in line with capitalism!
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday January 26 2018, @09:40PM
It doesn't matter whether information is hidden now; the evolutionary selection process (e.g., consumer choice) can be totally retrospective.
It is an obvious and pernicious canard, spread by would-be Intelligent Designers, that the market requires 100% knowledge; only an Intelligent Designer needs omniscience, and evolution by variation and selection does not require an Intelligent Designer.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday January 27 2018, @12:45AM
That would work just fine for me.
That information is already generally available. For example, you can easily look up what an Electrical Engineer with an advanced degree and 5 - 10 years experience can rightly expect to be paid. But that only gives you a very rough approximation for what you can rightly ask for at a job interview at a specific company. In that respect, the company has a distinct advantage over the prospective new hire.
Yes, indeed! So, then, we are in agreement that companies should publish complete reports of what every single person in the company earns?
(Score: 4, Informative) by sjames on Friday January 26 2018, @08:25PM (4 children)
You should look up the difference between Socialism and Communism. Also the difference between obscuring the price and obscuring the "correct price". Many price confusion tactics exist simply to muddy the market so it won't settle on the natural market price, but rather at some other price based on deliberate confusion.
Markets thrive on information. Perfect markets require perfect information.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday January 26 2018, @09:51PM (3 children)
If markets thrive on information, then they'll naturally make information as widespread as possible; there's absolutely no reason to force it at the point of a gun—in fact, forcing it suggests that there's something wrong with your ideas.
Also, perfect markets are neither required [soylentnews.org], nor desired; a perfect market would require people to give up their individual identities and become The Borg.
This seems to be veering towards the fundamental dispute:
Collectivism vs Individualism
Authoritarianism vs Libertarianism
Intelligent Design vs Evolution by Variation and Selection
(Score: 2) by sjames on Saturday January 27 2018, @05:09AM (2 children)
You assume, for some reason that I cannot fathom, that all players in a market prefer a healthy and efficient market over one that favors them in particular. Sometimes it is necessary for society to enforce the spread of market information so it doesn't become too unhealthy. You need to go back to the basics. Start with Smith.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday January 27 2018, @05:34PM (1 child)
It doesn't have to be perfect NOW.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by sjames on Sunday January 28 2018, @04:03AM
But the iterations do need to be converging on a fair market value. If they aren't convergent, it will never be optimal or even close.
So what would you call soon enough? After everyone reading this is dead of old age? Just before the heat death of the universe?
Sometimes the free market uber alles people remind me of Linus waiting in the pumpkin patch, certain that THIS time it's so unregulated that the Great Pumpkin will surely appear.
REALLY, read Smith. Markets must be regulated if they are to function.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by DannyB on Friday January 26 2018, @08:46PM (2 children)
No Thanks!
I want price information published.
When I walk into Target to buy more Diet Coke, I don't want to negotiate. I don't want to haggle. I want to see what the price is, and if Walmart is cheaper I might go there instead. My choice.
And make no mistake, that IS a market.
If I'm looking for a job (something I've never done for over 35 years), I would like to be able to use the offered salaries to weed out places I don't want to waste my time with. Just like I want to weed out which store I might visit. Why is one okay but the other is not? Or do you think it unfair that I am able to choose where I make purchases based on price?
The lower I set my standards the more accomplishments I have.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday January 26 2018, @11:23PM (1 child)
From the employer perspective:
If I'm looking for an employee (something I've never done for over 35 years), I would like to be able to use the offered salaries to weed out people I don't want to waste my time with. Just like I want to weed out which store I might visit. Why is one okay but the other is not? Or do you think it unfair that I am able to choose where I make purchases based on price?
So... what is your price?
(Score: 2) by YeaWhatevs on Saturday January 27 2018, @07:46PM
Meh, fuck that motherfucker. I want the negotiating advantage, fuck what the employer wants.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by unauthorized on Friday January 26 2018, @09:03PM
And that reason is they are regimes. There is no such thing as an authoritarian regime that's a good place to live, the best you can hope for is one or two generations of competent dictators, followed by the inevitable decline.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday January 27 2018, @06:31AM
Except that in things like shopping or stocks, you can actually see the currently going price by looking at the listed price or the current rating. Nobody needs to guess what the price is because the range is known publicly. (though the price may change later to your benefit or detriment in the latter case)
With employment, there is no such rating. You're simply guessing within a very large range. Since an employer or recruiter interacts with many employees in the same position and you are negotiating with relatively few employers, there is a massive information asymmetry in favor of the employer. Personally I feel that trying to decrease this imbalance to allow the market to operate more fairly is a good thing.
One way is to achieve this is to disallow recruiters and employers from informing about an applicant's previous salary. Another way is to list all salaries publicly. Both have their pros and cons.
Worded differently to appeal to people in the US; it increases the efficiency of the market to determine the actual current price which is what markets and capitalism is supposedly all about.
(Score: 1) by nitehawk214 on Friday January 26 2018, @06:39PM (4 children)
Thank you for being the only person that could stick to the fucking topic here. This isn't a socialist or feminist conspiracy, you fucktards.
"Don't you ever miss the days when you used to be nostalgic?" -Loiosh
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday January 26 2018, @06:51PM (3 children)
Whence comes the authority of the government in this case? [soylentnews.org]
Where is the acceptance for how our Universe actually works? [soylentnews.org]
This law is touching upon philosophical and political disputes; it absolutely is one group of thinkers trying to impose its will on another group of thinkers.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday January 26 2018, @07:06PM (1 child)
I ask, HOW OLD ARE YOU? HOW OLD??? We all have our guesses, the pool needs to know!
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday January 27 2018, @12:50AM
My guess is that he is about 15 years old. What? Did I win? What's my prize? Just asking.
(Score: 3, Funny) by DannyB on Friday January 26 2018, @08:49PM
I want you to know that there is no problem so great that it cannot be fixed with more government regulation!
The lower I set my standards the more accomplishments I have.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday January 26 2018, @07:46PM
"There is probably only one thing I detest more then the salary guessing game and that is companies that are recruiting and calling people to interviews but have not set aside money to cover travel expenses to bring the people they want to interview to them. If they are not compensating or covering those expenses they can just fuck right off. I'm not paying to be interviewed."
I've refused to travel for an interview the small number of times I was asked to. I figure if you aren't serious enough about hiring me to pay for my flight, then why should I spend time and money flying for an interview? They lose nothing by "carpet bombing" and having dozens of people fly to them, maybe most of them not even serious considerations. So yeah, they can fuck right off.
(Score: 2) by MichaelDavidCrawford on Friday January 26 2018, @07:48PM (3 children)
There were a couple years in which I only asked for what I felt I needed and no more. I did this because I had the idea it would enable others to get jobs too.
Not. One. Offer.
The last time I applied for a job I requested $130k and they offered $135.
Next time I'm going to ask for $150k.
I have been contract programming [soggywizards.com] for just one client for a little over a year now. Last year's gross income wast $21k.
I'm doing just fine.
Yes I Have No Bananas. [gofundme.com]
(Score: 2, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Friday January 26 2018, @08:32PM (1 child)
Mike,
You should usually ask for the "going rate."
If you deviate too much from that, things get difficult for everyone.
I assume you finally learned what "the going rate" is by your last post.
Offering to work for less than that does not help you or gain you respect, as you stated.
Demanding more than that makes it harder to find work--although it is not impossible. Just harder to pull off.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday January 27 2018, @01:19AM
Actually, what you really should ask first is "are you offering me the job?" If they say no, that is a bad sign. A very bad sign. More than likely, what they really want is to have a good documented reason for not making you an offer. If, on the other hand, they say that they are offering you the job, then you can start salary negotiations. Instead of asking for the "going rate", it is much better to ask them what they are prepared to offer their best applicant. Depending on how hardball you want to play it, you could then make a counter offer that is about 5 to 10 percent higher. That's the way to maximize any potential salary offer. And, depending on what position you are interviewing for, they may actually be quite impressed with your negotiating skills.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by VLM on Friday January 26 2018, @10:00PM
Empathy, buddy, empathy.
Think about it from their point of view not yours. They have no idea what you want or need, but they "know" they need $135 worth of something (per hour, I assume?) to accomplish what they want based on market experience. So if you offer something that does not gel with their opinion of what they want.., no contract.
Bad SN car analogy, lets say they want to buy a nice Cadillac and are willing to pay $48K MSRP. It doesn't matter if you're an engineer expert who can scientifically prove they actually need a nice $20K Yaris to do the job, because they already decided they want the caddy. If you offer them the Yaris they're gonna be pissed off.
Now if you want to work like a rented mule for less than minimum wage mostly to do rich kids homework assignments, let me introduce you to the Upwork website. Thats the other empathy side, don't ask real companies for joke pay, you're essentially insulting the company. The real company probably isn't a Stanford rich kid who just wants an "A" in java 101 class.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday January 27 2018, @12:16AM
I suspect what they are really doing is conducting what, for lack of a better term, might be called "market research". They call you out for an interview; during the interview they ask about your salary requirements. If they do that with a few people they get a good idea of what they can "reasonably" offer a prospective new hire. In any case, yes, it's just plain shitty and you have every right to tell them to fuck right off if they expect you to cover the costs of your "interview". Even if they do cover the costs of your interview, you should still tell them to fuck right off. Seriously. Just tell them to fuck off. What I find just as annoying was when I would get calls from a company but it became clear pretty quickly that they did not have any job on offer at all and no intention of opening up a position either! I hated playing the "guess what job we may have for you to fill" game; that one was annoying too.