Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by martyb on Friday January 26 2018, @04:24PM   Printer-friendly
from the shift-in-the-balance-of-power dept.

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.


Original Submission

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 5, Touché) by Nerdfest on Friday January 26 2018, @05:28PM (20 children)

    by Nerdfest (80) on Friday January 26 2018, @05:28PM (#628349)

    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.

    Starting Score:    1  point
    Moderation   +4  
       Insightful=1, Interesting=1, Touché=2, Total=4
    Extra 'Touché' Modifier   0  
    Karma-Bonus Modifier   +1  

    Total Score:   5  
  • (Score: 0, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Friday January 26 2018, @05:35PM (18 children)

    by Anonymous Coward on Friday January 26 2018, @05:35PM (#628352)

    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)

      by Anonymous Coward on Friday January 26 2018, @06:57PM (#628417)

      what about Canada

      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday January 26 2018, @07:13PM (15 children)

        by Anonymous Coward on Friday January 26 2018, @07:13PM (#628429)

        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)

          by Anonymous Coward on Friday January 26 2018, @07:28PM (#628443)

          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

            by frojack (1554) on Friday January 26 2018, @07:39PM (#628451) Journal

            bastion of unfettered capitalism

            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)

            by Anonymous Coward on Friday January 26 2018, @07:53PM (#628468)

            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

              by Anonymous Coward on Friday January 26 2018, @07:59PM (#628472)

              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)

              by meustrus (4961) on Friday January 26 2018, @08:27PM (#628493)

              ...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.

              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)

                by Anonymous Coward on Friday January 26 2018, @09:19PM (#628534)

                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 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

                  by Anonymous Coward on Friday January 26 2018, @09:33PM (#628541)

                  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)

                  by meustrus (4961) on Friday January 26 2018, @09:45PM (#628550)

                  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

                    by Anonymous Coward on Friday January 26 2018, @10:02PM (#628571)

                    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)

              by Anonymous Coward on Saturday January 27 2018, @12:28AM (#628654)

              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.

              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.

              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.

              ???? 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

                by Anonymous Coward on Saturday January 27 2018, @01:45AM (#628673)

                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

            by Anonymous Coward on Monday January 29 2018, @05:19PM (#629882)

            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)

          by vux984 (5045) on Saturday January 27 2018, @10:32AM (#628788)

          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)

            by Anonymous Coward on Saturday January 27 2018, @05:30PM (#628979)

            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: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday January 26 2018, @07:00PM

      by Anonymous Coward on Friday January 26 2018, @07:00PM (#628418)

      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

    by Anonymous Coward on Friday January 26 2018, @05:48PM (#628359)

    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.