2 ms·

That’s not what it means because Netflix also pays a lot on the high end. There’s no way to map your particular skills to the range without first getting an off

That’s not what it means because Netflix also pays a lot on the high end. There’s no way to map your particular skills to the range without first getting an offer if the range is large. For those who aspire to the low end that’s fine but there’s still no guarantee you’d get an offer. Though I support this move whole heartedly it still doesn’t change the fact that you have to interview and get an offer to know the particulars. The impossible ideal would be a company preemptively giving you an offer before interviewing given predetermined interview performance. That way you can only interview at places that will pay you want, guaranteed. This is basically the same as applying to places with a very tight range.

lotsofpulp 4y ago
And that is the applicant’s choice if they want to spend their time on finding that out. Otherwise they can apply with Apple, Alphabet, Microsoft, and Facebook who might be hiring within a narrower, but higher pay band.
- chrisseaton 4y ago
  > And that is the applicant’s choice if they want to spend their time on finding that out. So... what's the point of the law? Isn't this already the case?
  - lotsofpulp 4y ago
    No, because employers have an upper hand and more information (in most scenarios of buying and selling labor). The benefit of the law would be to give all market participants access to more information, but it is also important not to unnecessarily restrict any of the market participants. It will be obvious that if a labor buyer is putting out $min wage to $1B pay ranges, that they should be ignored and/or they will get the worst applicants. For a labor seller, they will know to avoid labor buyers that cannot provide a decent bottom pay for their job listing.
    - robertlagrant 4y ago
      They don't have more information. They don't know: - what the prospective employee is currently paid - what the prospective employee would move job for - how serious the alternatives the prospective employee mentions are Those three are the things the prospective employee knows, that the prospective employer is trying to guess. This new law erodes (and will likely eradicate) the first one, as it's basically a statewide public salary banding system. Also, this probably isn't all just "labor" jobs. I think it's all jobs.
      - lotsofpulp 4y ago
        An employer usually has more information about market prices than an employee because the employer is simply hiring or at least interviewing more often. Plus they might have access to things like https://theworknumber.com/ https://theworknumber.com/ which can show them accurate pricing nationwide and per applicant (although this CA law would outlaw that). It should never be relevant to an employer what a candidate is currently being paid. >Also, this probably isn't all just "labor" jobs. I think it's all jobs. I do not understand this. All jobs involve a worker selling labor to someone else.
        chrisseaton 4y ago
        > It should never be relevant to an employer what a candidate is currently being paid Well they aren't going to come and work for you unless you pay them more than what they're currently being paid (unless they're moving for something like life reasons) so I don't think there is any more relevant number than that.
        robertlagrant 4y ago
        > It should never be relevant to an employer what a candidate is currently being paid. Of course it's relevant - it helps them understand what can tempt an employee away from their current job. That's why it's worth hiding it. This law stops it being hidden.
    - chrisseaton 4y ago

lotsofpulp 4y ago

And that is the applicant’s choice if they want to spend their time on finding that out. Otherwise they can apply with Apple, Alphabet, Microsoft, and Facebook who might be hiring within a narrower, but higher pay band.

chrisseaton 4y ago
> And that is the applicant’s choice if they want to spend their time on finding that out. So... what's the point of the law? Isn't this already the case?
- lotsofpulp 4y ago
  No, because employers have an upper hand and more information (in most scenarios of buying and selling labor). The benefit of the law would be to give all market participants access to more information, but it is also important not to unnecessarily restrict any of the market participants. It will be obvious that if a labor buyer is putting out $min wage to $1B pay ranges, that they should be ignored and/or they will get the worst applicants. For a labor seller, they will know to avoid labor buyers that cannot provide a decent bottom pay for their job listing.
  - robertlagrant 4y ago
    They don't have more information. They don't know: - what the prospective employee is currently paid - what the prospective employee would move job for - how serious the alternatives the prospective employee mentions are Those three are the things the prospective employee knows, that the prospective employer is trying to guess. This new law erodes (and will likely eradicate) the first one, as it's basically a statewide public salary banding system. Also, this probably isn't all just "labor" jobs. I think it's all jobs.
    - lotsofpulp 4y ago
      An employer usually has more information about market prices than an employee because the employer is simply hiring or at least interviewing more often. Plus they might have access to things like https://theworknumber.com/ https://theworknumber.com/ which can show them accurate pricing nationwide and per applicant (although this CA law would outlaw that). It should never be relevant to an employer what a candidate is currently being paid. >Also, this probably isn't all just "labor" jobs. I think it's all jobs. I do not understand this. All jobs involve a worker selling labor to someone else.
      - chrisseaton 4y ago
        > It should never be relevant to an employer what a candidate is currently being paid Well they aren't going to come and work for you unless you pay them more than what they're currently being paid (unless they're moving for something like life reasons) so I don't think there is any more relevant number than that.
      - robertlagrant 4y ago
        > It should never be relevant to an employer what a candidate is currently being paid. Of course it's relevant - it helps them understand what can tempt an employee away from their current job. That's why it's worth hiding it. This law stops it being hidden.
  - chrisseaton 4y ago