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: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday January 26 2018, @05:29PM (10 children)

    by Anonymous Coward on Friday January 26 2018, @05:29PM (#628350)

    It's right there in the AC's comment.

    Whence does the government derive its power to coerce one private individual to divulge information to another private individual?

  • (Score: 2) by tangomargarine on Friday January 26 2018, @06:06PM (8 children)

    by tangomargarine (667) on Friday January 26 2018, @06:06PM (#628374)

    If they had a more accurate term to use, they should've just done so. Of course namedropping freedom of speech is going to be mocked, because it absolutely doesn't cover this case.

    --
    "Is that really true?" "I just spent the last hour telling you to think for yourself! Didn't you hear anything I said?"
    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday January 26 2018, @06:09PM (7 children)

      by Anonymous Coward on Friday January 26 2018, @06:09PM (#628378)

      To not speak is to exercise your freedom of speech.

      To lie about salaries is also to exercise your freedom of speech. Of course, if an employment contract is based on that lie, then it would probably make sense to prosecute the employer for fraud.

      • (Score: 3, Insightful) by tangomargarine on Friday January 26 2018, @06:27PM (4 children)

        by tangomargarine (667) on Friday January 26 2018, @06:27PM (#628389)

        To not speak is to exercise your freedom of speech.

        No, it's not exercising anything. IF this were a criminal investigation--which it isn't--it would be exercising your right to avoid self-incrimination.

        You have the right to remain silent in a criminal investigation...which is not what we're talking about. Ergo a law compelling you to divulge information isn't covered by your weird category that doesn't have a name. Laws that punish you for fraud also set limits on what you can say in a business context, which *is* what we're talking about here.

        Freedom of speech only applies in citizens' dealings with the government anyway. The concept doesn't apply to situations where the government is involved.

        Now I want to mod you Troll myself because you're arguing from a position of misleading terminology.

        --
        "Is that really true?" "I just spent the last hour telling you to think for yourself! Didn't you hear anything I said?"
        • (Score: 2) by tangomargarine on Friday January 26 2018, @06:30PM (3 children)

          by tangomargarine (667) on Friday January 26 2018, @06:30PM (#628390)

          The concept doesn't apply to situations where the government *isn't involved.

          No country has a concept of being punishable by private organizations for saying things in public, AFAIK. You just walk down the street, say something "wrong", and a private citizen is legally allowed to punch you? Even with states with secret police, when they deal with you they're doing so on behalf of the government. So what you're talking about can't be contrasted with anything so it's pointless to talk about.

          --
          "Is that really true?" "I just spent the last hour telling you to think for yourself! Didn't you hear anything I said?"
          • (Score: 2) by VLM on Friday January 26 2018, @09:47PM (2 children)

            by VLM (445) Subscriber Badge on Friday January 26 2018, @09:47PM (#628553)

            No country has a concept of being punishable by private organizations for saying things in public, AFAIK.

            Sir I'm sorry to inform you, you're banned from the mall property for one year for being loud and disruptive.

            There's an interesting side issue the local TV news claims where in practice being "loud and disruptive" seems to correlate a lot stronger with skin color than with actual decibel levels. Or more realistically, shocking expose news coverage correlates incredibly strongly with not signing a large enough advertising contract with that station. But, whatevs, anyway.

            • (Score: 2) by tangomargarine on Friday January 26 2018, @09:57PM (1 child)

              by tangomargarine (667) on Friday January 26 2018, @09:57PM (#628562)

              for saying things in public

              you're banned from the mall

              Aren't malls considered private property? In which case you're at the mercy of their private security or whatever, yes. I'm talking about just standing in the street.

              --
              "Is that really true?" "I just spent the last hour telling you to think for yourself! Didn't you hear anything I said?"
              • (Score: 2) by VLM on Friday January 26 2018, @10:33PM

                by VLM (445) Subscriber Badge on Friday January 26 2018, @10:33PM (#628594)

                Hmm how about being banned from twitter/facebook for thought crime?

      • (Score: 2) by meustrus on Friday January 26 2018, @08:21PM (1 child)

        by meustrus (4961) on Friday January 26 2018, @08:21PM (#628485)

        In what way does it not unreasonably infringe on free speech to "prosecute the employer for fraud"? That sounds like certain kinds of speech might be a prosecutable offense. The very concept of criminal fraud seems to infringe upon this ideal you call "freedom of speech".

        --
        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, @09:05PM

          by Anonymous Coward on Friday January 26 2018, @09:05PM (#628528)

          As in this case [soylentnews.org], the employer and employee are agreeing that if any of the foundational facts of the contract are breached, then some kind of enforcement mechanism will kick in.

          In this case, that enforcement mechanism could be some kind of compensation; it wouldn't be a matter of criminal fraud, but rather civil fraud.

          However, if the contract stipulates that the Courts of California are to be the enforcers of the contract, then I suppose it would be totally acceptable for the Courts to define this fraud as being also "criminal" (e.g., a slight against not just the individual employee, but against the Government), for which there could be a "criminal" penalty, too.

  • (Score: 2) by r1348 on Sunday January 28 2018, @01:55AM

    by r1348 (5988) on Sunday January 28 2018, @01:55AM (#629275)

    It's called "Rule of Law", which is the power a democratic government has to regulate the relationships between citizens. I't the same reason a phone company is forced to divulge how much they're charging you for your mobile plan.