5 ms·
The analogy is not perfect, but all the time people like to know how much a house or car sold for in the past, or how much a stock traded for the in past, etc.
by mbroshi 10y ago
The analogy is not perfect, but all the time people like to know how much a house or car sold for in the past, or how much a stock traded for the in past, etc. Seems like useful data.
Now, I'm not advocating for or against this particular question, but I sure do hope there is data collected and studied on the effect this has in NY before anyone jumps to conclusions. I feel it's too easy to have a knee-jerk reaction on this one.
There is no way to know whether this helps/hurts/is neutral for any particular class of people without studying its effects.
- CJefferson 10y agoThe problem is the one way communication. I would personally have no problem giving out my past salary, in return for the current salaries if all comparable current employees at the company.
- mbroshi 10y agoYou can refuse to answer their question. You can also ask them how much others are making at your position (and they can refuse to answer that, too). I don't see where the asymmetry is.
- ryandrake 10y agoIt's often more a power asymmetry. You need the job, they have a line of candidates out the door.
- burkaman 10y agoIt doesn't go that far, but this bill does specify that asking about salary history is allowed if at the same time you communicate a proposed salary range.
- z0r 10y agoThe analogy is completely broken. People aren't houses, cars, or stock certificates. The information that is pertinent might be references from former coworkers - can they do the job you are hiring them for? Asking for the previous value of the person as if they were any other commodity is nonsensical. There's not an inherent price to the person, and a higher or lower salary says more about where they have worked (which you can see on the resume or ask about) than how well they have worked (very generally).
- Meegul 10y agoKnowing a candidate's compensation history can save an employer a significant amount of money which they otherwise might've spent on the same candidate. This gives them an unfair advantage, and the way I see it, it's unavoidable to remove this advantage. By restricting employers from asking about previous compensation, we're just shifting this advantage to the employees, for better or worse.
- throwaway_374 10y agoCan you actually rationalise your argument a little further? Why on earth should your salary for a new role be benchmarked to your previous compensation? Do you realise how ridiculous that sounds? Ultimately, the market sets some value for a role - largely based on competitor analysis - and that is a fair value. Your previous pay is irrelevant.