6 ms·

A society truly run by the people, ala individuals, would have banned this long ago. Just think about it: for an average person, what benefit do they receive by

by tabeth 10y ago

A society truly run by the people, ala individuals, would have banned this long ago. Just think about it: for an average person, what benefit do they receive by allowing employers to ask about past or current salary information? None. Wouldn't be surprised if there have been measures to ban this that were ultimately struck down by business people. The less information that's shared with employers, the more employers will have to refine their actual process for vetting people. Whether this means more accurate metrics, that correlate to actual employee performance, or something else, who knows. Either way, I believe it's good for the people. However, we will have to be careful, if we go this route, to not slip into nepotism (well, more than we already have).

winter_blue 10y ago
> A society truly run by the people, ala individuals, would have banned this I'm libertarian-leaning, and statements like these bother me deeply. If I'm an employer, why ban me from asking some question to a prospective employee? It's a restriction on the employer's freedom. The job applicant has a right to decline to answer my question (and I have a right to decline to offer a job). Regulating what questions I can ask (i.e. my speech) is a restriction on my freedom. I recently interviewed for a job, and they asked me what (minimum) base salary I was looking for, and I didn't answer their question, and said that I wanted them to make an offer based on what they thought I was worth. As a result, I ended up getting a higher base salary than I'd expected. But that detracts from the main point. The reason I oppose such laws and regulations is that I feel like it's an infringement on personal freedom. Employers are made up of people, and regulating their speech and their actions is a limitation on their personal freedom.
- tabeth 10y ago
  You're asking the wrong question. Why allow it? Employers and people are not equivalent in my mind, even if they are the same, legally. Your story is nice, but I've also heard stories where people are rejected immediately because they didn't share. Sure, you could say that people shouldn't work for those companies (and they shouldn't), but not everyone has the luxury of being able to interview anywhere, nor the ability to be accepted anywhere.
  - madeofpalk 10y ago
    > You're asking the wrong question. Why allow it? No, this is definitely the wrong question. Things shouldn't be banned by default and then we debate about why to unban (allow) it.
    - tabeth 10y ago
      Not sure what you're getting at. No one said things should be banned by default. Now that it is up for debate, as you mention, the question still is: why allow it? What benefits does it serve?
      - madeofpalk 10y ago
        I'm rather indifferent on the issue - I guess by default that means I'm in favour of the current status quo But if you're going to ban something you have to have a good reason to ban it, not lack of a reason to keep it.
        tabeth 10y ago
        Ah, well, I'm more of a "ban by default" kind of person. As for the answer to implicit question: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13452727 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13452727
- gkop 10y ago
  In this specific instance, though, doesn't it seems like a good trade for society to take away the rights of employers in exchange for making it more difficult for Comcast to do business? https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13452618 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13452618
- ch4s3 10y ago
  > Regulating what questions I can ask (i.e. my speech) is a restriction on my freedom. I don't believe this type of question has ever been held to be political speech, so the government isn't bound to protect it. Allowing employers extra power to depress wages isn't in the interest of the government, or the employees. There are more parties interested in opposing this type of power imbalance than maintaining it, so it's being banned. Democracy isn't meant to protect you money.
  - winter_blue 10y ago
    > held to be political speech Freedom of Speech extends well beyond just political speech. It protects all forms of speech. Where did you get the idea that only political speech ought to be protected? Under your theory, who gets to determine what constitutes political speech? Is my freedom to criticize a religion protected? Or is that kind of speech not protected as it does not fall under your definition of "political speech"?
- czep 10y ago
  > If I'm an employer, why ban me from asking some question to a prospective employee? It's a restriction on the employer's freedom. Please see ch4s3's excellent itemized response to an earlier thread for a concise summary of the reasons why this can't be framed simply as an issue of free speech. The key point is the power differential. While you may be lucky enough to be highly skilled and have enough cultural capital to refuse intrusive questions like this and still find suitable employment on your own terms, many people in our society simply are not in that position. Allowing large powerful corporations to insist that prospective employees disclose their earnings history will simply place downward pressure on wages. I sympathize with the sentiment, and it is always important to question any limits on speech. But once you factor in the issue of power, pure libertarian ideals will cause greater exploitation of those who have less power to begin with.
  - witty_username 10y ago
    There is a power differential but it is not high. You can find another employer (just don't apply to employers that ask these questions). Indeed, if most people refuse such employers, the employers will have to raise their wages or stop asking that question. They're only able to ask this question because some employees are fine with it. So let both voluntarily discuss that question.
- cmdrfred 10y ago
  Perhaps this can be countered by more free speech? Perhaps we should allow union representatives to visit workplaces and speak to employees in the parking lot without employer interference?
  - JoshTriplett 10y ago
    That isn't speech, that's trespassing. Or would you like people to be able to freely visit your home without your "interference"? On the other hand, union representatives are free to speak to employees outside the workplace; that's speech. (And freedom of association, for that matter.)
    - cmdrfred 10y ago
      It isn't trespassing when a OSHA inspector visits a faculty. So it does appear that exceptions exist. Why not in this case?
      - JoshTriplett 10y ago
        An OSHA inspector is a government official, performing inspections in the course of their duties to ensure compliance with health and safety regulations; they can only do so as precisely prescribed by said regulations. Along the same lines, it isn't trespassing if the police come to your home with a warrant in accordance with due process to investigate a possible crime. Neither of those serves as precedent to allow a random non-governmental person access to private property for any other reason.
        cmdrfred 10y ago
        So its just a matter of phrasing. If I were to create a governmental body responsible in assisting labor unions in communicating with workers. Then such a representative could be granted that power?
        JoshTriplett 10y ago
- afastow 10y ago
  > If I'm an employer, why ban me from asking some question to a prospective employee? The reason to ban employers from asking this specific question is because it makes it easier to perpetuate a cycle where a person who is underpaid at one point in their career continues to be underpaid in the future. Note that I am only saying it makes it easier to perpetuate that cycle. I am not arguing that it guarantees that cycle for everyone. > It's a restriction on the employer's freedom. It absolutely is. Why is that a problem in this specific case? It is not being restricted arbitrarily. I just described the clear and rational reason to want to restrict employers' freedom to ask for a candidate's salary history. At that point simply stating that it violates a freedom isn't good enough. You need to either: A) Argue that I am wrong and asking for a salary history doesn't make it easier to perpetuate a cycle of someone being underpaid. Note that saying "They could refuse to answer" or "They could lie" or "They could find a different employer who doesn't ask" is not arguing that I am wrong. I agree that all of those things are possible. I agree that some people will actually do them and sometimes that will cause them to stop being underpaid. But I also know that some people will not do those things and will tell the employer their previous salary and are more likely to continue to be underpaid as a result. B) Argue that someone being underpaid relative to others with the same skills and responsibilities is not a negative thing and so there is no need to try to prevent it. C) Argue that restricting the specific freedom of employers to ask for a candidate's salary history causes more harm than it prevents. It is definitely a good rule of thumb that restricting freedom is normally bad, but that does not mean it is inherently bad to restrict any freedom. For any specific freedom there will be specific reasons why it is a problem to restrict it. If you ask me why it's a problem to restrict the freedom of the press to report negative things about world leaders, I can give you specific reasons. If you ask me why it's a problem to restrict the freedom of a gay couple to marry, I can give you specific reasons. But if you ask me why it's a problem to restrict the freedom of employers to ask for salary histories, I honestly can't think of a specific reason.

by tabeth 10y ago

winter_blue 10y ago

> A society truly run by the people, ala individuals, would have banned this I'm libertarian-leaning, and statements like these bother me deeply. If I'm an employer, why ban me from asking some question to a prospective employee? It's a restriction on the employer's freedom. The job applicant has a right to decline to answer my question (and I have a right to decline to offer a job). Regulating what questions I can ask (i.e. my speech) is a restriction on my freedom. I recently interviewed for a job, and they asked me what (minimum) base salary I was looking for, and I didn't answer their question, and said that I wanted them to make an offer based on what they thought I was worth. As a result, I ended up getting a higher base salary than I'd expected. But that detracts from the main point. The reason I oppose such laws and regulations is that I feel like it's an infringement on personal freedom. Employers are made up of people, and regulating their speech and their actions is a limitation on their personal freedom.

tabeth 10y ago
You're asking the wrong question. Why allow it? Employers and people are not equivalent in my mind, even if they are the same, legally. Your story is nice, but I've also heard stories where people are rejected immediately because they didn't share. Sure, you could say that people shouldn't work for those companies (and they shouldn't), but not everyone has the luxury of being able to interview anywhere, nor the ability to be accepted anywhere.
- madeofpalk 10y ago
  > You're asking the wrong question. Why allow it? No, this is definitely the wrong question. Things shouldn't be banned by default and then we debate about why to unban (allow) it.
  - tabeth 10y ago
    Not sure what you're getting at. No one said things should be banned by default. Now that it is up for debate, as you mention, the question still is: why allow it? What benefits does it serve?
    - madeofpalk 10y ago
      I'm rather indifferent on the issue - I guess by default that means I'm in favour of the current status quo But if you're going to ban something you have to have a good reason to ban it, not lack of a reason to keep it.
      - tabeth 10y ago
        Ah, well, I'm more of a "ban by default" kind of person. As for the answer to implicit question: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13452727 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13452727
gkop 10y ago
In this specific instance, though, doesn't it seems like a good trade for society to take away the rights of employers in exchange for making it more difficult for Comcast to do business? https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13452618 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13452618
ch4s3 10y ago
> Regulating what questions I can ask (i.e. my speech) is a restriction on my freedom. I don't believe this type of question has ever been held to be political speech, so the government isn't bound to protect it. Allowing employers extra power to depress wages isn't in the interest of the government, or the employees. There are more parties interested in opposing this type of power imbalance than maintaining it, so it's being banned. Democracy isn't meant to protect you money.
- winter_blue 10y ago
  > held to be political speech Freedom of Speech extends well beyond just political speech. It protects all forms of speech. Where did you get the idea that only political speech ought to be protected? Under your theory, who gets to determine what constitutes political speech? Is my freedom to criticize a religion protected? Or is that kind of speech not protected as it does not fall under your definition of "political speech"?
czep 10y ago
> If I'm an employer, why ban me from asking some question to a prospective employee? It's a restriction on the employer's freedom. Please see ch4s3's excellent itemized response to an earlier thread for a concise summary of the reasons why this can't be framed simply as an issue of free speech. The key point is the power differential. While you may be lucky enough to be highly skilled and have enough cultural capital to refuse intrusive questions like this and still find suitable employment on your own terms, many people in our society simply are not in that position. Allowing large powerful corporations to insist that prospective employees disclose their earnings history will simply place downward pressure on wages. I sympathize with the sentiment, and it is always important to question any limits on speech. But once you factor in the issue of power, pure libertarian ideals will cause greater exploitation of those who have less power to begin with.
- witty_username 10y ago
  There is a power differential but it is not high. You can find another employer (just don't apply to employers that ask these questions). Indeed, if most people refuse such employers, the employers will have to raise their wages or stop asking that question. They're only able to ask this question because some employees are fine with it. So let both voluntarily discuss that question.
cmdrfred 10y ago
Perhaps this can be countered by more free speech? Perhaps we should allow union representatives to visit workplaces and speak to employees in the parking lot without employer interference?
- JoshTriplett 10y ago
  That isn't speech, that's trespassing. Or would you like people to be able to freely visit your home without your "interference"? On the other hand, union representatives are free to speak to employees outside the workplace; that's speech. (And freedom of association, for that matter.)
  - cmdrfred 10y ago
    It isn't trespassing when a OSHA inspector visits a faculty. So it does appear that exceptions exist. Why not in this case?
    - JoshTriplett 10y ago
      An OSHA inspector is a government official, performing inspections in the course of their duties to ensure compliance with health and safety regulations; they can only do so as precisely prescribed by said regulations. Along the same lines, it isn't trespassing if the police come to your home with a warrant in accordance with due process to investigate a possible crime. Neither of those serves as precedent to allow a random non-governmental person access to private property for any other reason.
      - cmdrfred 10y ago
        So its just a matter of phrasing. If I were to create a governmental body responsible in assisting labor unions in communicating with workers. Then such a representative could be granted that power?
        JoshTriplett 10y ago
afastow 10y ago
> If I'm an employer, why ban me from asking some question to a prospective employee? The reason to ban employers from asking this specific question is because it makes it easier to perpetuate a cycle where a person who is underpaid at one point in their career continues to be underpaid in the future. Note that I am only saying it makes it easier to perpetuate that cycle. I am not arguing that it guarantees that cycle for everyone. > It's a restriction on the employer's freedom. It absolutely is. Why is that a problem in this specific case? It is not being restricted arbitrarily. I just described the clear and rational reason to want to restrict employers' freedom to ask for a candidate's salary history. At that point simply stating that it violates a freedom isn't good enough. You need to either: A) Argue that I am wrong and asking for a salary history doesn't make it easier to perpetuate a cycle of someone being underpaid. Note that saying "They could refuse to answer" or "They could lie" or "They could find a different employer who doesn't ask" is not arguing that I am wrong. I agree that all of those things are possible. I agree that some people will actually do them and sometimes that will cause them to stop being underpaid. But I also know that some people will not do those things and will tell the employer their previous salary and are more likely to continue to be underpaid as a result. B) Argue that someone being underpaid relative to others with the same skills and responsibilities is not a negative thing and so there is no need to try to prevent it. C) Argue that restricting the specific freedom of employers to ask for a candidate's salary history causes more harm than it prevents. It is definitely a good rule of thumb that restricting freedom is normally bad, but that does not mean it is inherently bad to restrict any freedom. For any specific freedom there will be specific reasons why it is a problem to restrict it. If you ask me why it's a problem to restrict the freedom of the press to report negative things about world leaders, I can give you specific reasons. If you ask me why it's a problem to restrict the freedom of a gay couple to marry, I can give you specific reasons. But if you ask me why it's a problem to restrict the freedom of employers to ask for salary histories, I honestly can't think of a specific reason.