4 ms·
This is bad for the free market and freedom of speech. I hope it gets challenged on First Amendment grounds.
by xyzzy4 10y ago
This is bad for the free market and freedom of speech. I hope it gets challenged on First Amendment grounds.
- davexunit 10y agoThe free market is trash. Employers must be regulated.
- Double_a_92 10y agoWorker Unions should do that, not the state.
- ydt 10y agoWhy?
- splawn 10y agoMy guess is that political ideology demands it.
- davexunit 10y agoUnions are part of the solution, but so is the state. Unfortunately, the state has been destroying union power for years with things like "right to work" laws. I happen to think that all workers should have protections, not just those in unions.
- literallycancer 10y agoJust think of the state as a more inclusive union.
- maxxxxx 10y agoI see my past salaries as trade secret of my business. So it's good that I can protect this secret.
- eru 10y agoPeople can ask about trade secrets just fine. It's just that you don't have to answer.
- maxxxxx 10y agoThe balance of power during an interview is often very much on the side of the employer. So I am happy if that balance gets shifted the other way a little.
- eru 10y agoSure, that's a valid preference to have. It just doesn't have anything to do with not being legally allowed to ask about trade secrets.
- mdb333 10y ago...yeah but imagine you're trying to hire a contractor to do some job. Of course you're going to ask, "how much does it cost?" Generally you will shop this job around to get an idea of the range of prices for similar work from qualified contractors and then make an informed decision. If you go at it the opposite, "I'm willing to pay X for this job Y" then you've skewed your capability to make an informed decision unless you already have an accurate basis for what the job should cost. In the employment world, folks use Radford and similar as guidance which of course can steer them of course from where the local talent market actually is.
- maxxxxx 10y agoThey are asking for past salaries not the salary an employee wants for this particular job. You aren't demanding a full list of past work and its price from a contractor either.
- matthewmacleod 10y agoWhat does this have to do with freedom of speech?
- xyzzy4 10y agoMaking a law that says "Employers can't say or ask X" goes directly against freedom of speech.
- matthewmacleod 10y agoNo it doesn't, any more than "employers can't lie to you" does.
- jawns 10y agoThat sort of concept of freedom of speech is so broad that if actually enforced, it would effectively prevent any laws that regulate businesses. While it's true that businesses can assert First Amendment rights, as with this recent Supreme Court case https://www.nytimes.com/2017/03/29/business/supreme-court-credit-card-fees.html https://www.nytimes.com/2017/03/29/business/supreme-court-cr..., that doesn't mean that laws that make it illegal to inquire about or take into account past salary history, marital status, pregnancy status, etc. are all unconstitutional simply because spoken communication might take place during the process of flouting the law. Or to put it another way, it's not the words, "So, are you pregnant?" themselves that are the problem. The problem is the implicit idea that an interviewee's answer to this question will affect the employer's hiring decision, and the law says it should not.
- del82 10y agoDo laws against fraud violate freedom of speech?
- mdb333 10y agoit has nothing to do with freedom of speech. This is fitting into the same category of not being able to ask candidates; what's your sexual preference? what's your religion? do you smoke? are you planning on having children? etc. as part of the hiring process. They are rules that help avoid discriminatory hiring practices. At the end of the day they help companies more than the individual. The individuals are already protected from discrimination and could sue if these questions came up during an interview and they didn't get the job. Banning these questions ensures companies and their interviewers avoid situations where they could become legally liable. Whether salary info helps the company or individual more is debatable since this does not represent a protected class, but obviously the goal is to support the individual.
- mbillie1 10y agoHow is this bad for "freedom of speech"? Please elaborate on this ludicrous claim.
- xyzzy4 10y agoLet's say they make a law saying you can't ask your coworkers what their salary is - wouldn't you agree that is against freedom of speech?
- mbillie1 10y agoNo, I would not. Freedom of speech pertains to legislation from congress preventing political speech. Most companies already prohibit employees from discussing salaries, under penalty of termination. Any business can ask you to leave, as a patron, for using profane speech in their establishment, or any number of other reasons. Please stop participating in this absurd and obnoxious fallacy wherein you decry anything you dislike as violating your "free speech"
- xyzzy4 10y ago>Most companies already prohibit employees from discussing salaries, under penalty of termination. This is actually illegal in many states. Workers have a legal right to discuss salaries. >Freedom of speech pertains to legislation from congress preventing political speech. Not correct. Free speech is about any freedom of expression, not just political speech. There is endless amounts of case law to back this up.
- s73ver 10y agoHow on earth is this a free market problem? Someone who does not feel they have a strong bargaining position will not be able to fend off this question. That's about as anti-free market as you can get.