5 ms·

> 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
  > 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. Wait this doesn't make sense. If you think that employers would get better applicants if they put more accurate ranges... then they'd be putting accurate ranges right now, as nothing's stopping them. Why does the government need to step if it's it's obviously such a good deal for the employers right now? And why would I ignore a company with a wide range? I don't care if the range is wide, as long as I get the upper end of it.
  - lotsofpulp 4y ago
    > Why does the government need to step if it's it's obviously such a good deal for the employers right now? Because employers have had disproportionate power over labor for a very long time. Might not be so much for engineers/doctors/lawyers/etc, but 80%+ of people are walking into a negotiation in a weaker spot with less info than the employer. That is why in the past couple years, we are finally seeing signs outside Taco Bell and signs on bus driving advertising pay rates. Until now, they have enjoyed a better negotiating position than the employees. > And why would I ignore a company with a wide range? I don't care if the range is wide, as long as I get the upper end of it. Because if I am capable of getting the upper end, and another employer is offering the upper end, but with a higher lower end also, I am not going to waste my time risking getting a lower offer. Applying to a job and interviewing have costs.
    - chrisseaton 4y ago
      Sorry I'm still confused. You think it's an advantage to companies to post more accurate pay bands - right? You said "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." But they can post narrow bands right now if they want to - they don't need to wait for the law to tell them do it. If it's an advantage to them, then why aren't they doing it anyway? I would guess that the answer is it's not an advantage, because most of the time their pay is bad, and telling people up front does not help them. I've seen this with companies like ThoughtBot and GitLab that make a big deal out of pay transparency... problem is they're being transparent about how bad their pay is.

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
> 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. Wait this doesn't make sense. If you think that employers would get better applicants if they put more accurate ranges... then they'd be putting accurate ranges right now, as nothing's stopping them. Why does the government need to step if it's it's obviously such a good deal for the employers right now? And why would I ignore a company with a wide range? I don't care if the range is wide, as long as I get the upper end of it.
- lotsofpulp 4y ago
  > Why does the government need to step if it's it's obviously such a good deal for the employers right now? Because employers have had disproportionate power over labor for a very long time. Might not be so much for engineers/doctors/lawyers/etc, but 80%+ of people are walking into a negotiation in a weaker spot with less info than the employer. That is why in the past couple years, we are finally seeing signs outside Taco Bell and signs on bus driving advertising pay rates. Until now, they have enjoyed a better negotiating position than the employees. > And why would I ignore a company with a wide range? I don't care if the range is wide, as long as I get the upper end of it. Because if I am capable of getting the upper end, and another employer is offering the upper end, but with a higher lower end also, I am not going to waste my time risking getting a lower offer. Applying to a job and interviewing have costs.
  - chrisseaton 4y ago
    Sorry I'm still confused. You think it's an advantage to companies to post more accurate pay bands - right? You said "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." But they can post narrow bands right now if they want to - they don't need to wait for the law to tell them do it. If it's an advantage to them, then why aren't they doing it anyway? I would guess that the answer is it's not an advantage, because most of the time their pay is bad, and telling people up front does not help them. I've seen this with companies like ThoughtBot and GitLab that make a big deal out of pay transparency... problem is they're being transparent about how bad their pay is.