Philadelphia bans employers from asking salary history

[Judi Lynn]

Source: Associated Press

Philadelphia bans employers from asking salary history
Updated 3:59 pm, Monday, January 23, 2017

PHILADELPHIA (AP) — Philadelphia is banning employers from asking potential hires to provide their salary history, a move supporters say is a step toward closing the wage gap between men and women.

Mayor Jim Kenney signed the bill Monday, saying, "What is good for the people of Philadelphia is good for business, too."

Comcast has vowed to challenge the measure in court, and the city's Chamber of Commerce is backing the cable giant. They say the law goes too far in dictating how employers can interact with potential workers.

Advocates contend that since women have historically been paid less than men, the practice of asking for a salary history can help perpetuate a cycle of lower salaries.

Read more: http://www.chron.com/news/us/article/Philadelphia-bans-employers-from-asking-salary-10877887.php

[Wellstone ruled]

1. Believe Aramark is one

of Philly's largest Employers and they will be P.Oed bigtime on this one.

[bucolic_frolic]

2. Companies miss out on some great employees

with all their silly rules on applications. One hoop after another.
I pass on all companies that require salary history as well as those
that require minimum salary requirements because the former lowballs
you into no salary progress and the latter there is no good answer.
Wouldn't you rather meet an employee and interview before you
decide what (s)he's worth?

But maybe it's just me. The authoritarian control freaks don't give me
creative license and make me fearful of underperformance. Devaluing
in any manner only adds to that problem.

[BumRushDaShow]

3. From what I heard in the local news here last week

the big issue is that employers have routinely used previous salary histories, which were often lower for women and minorities, to set a lower "initial" salary at an offering company for a specific position that might garner a higher salary for a white male in the same initial position (given his potential/history of having had a higher salary in a previous position).

Doing what they are proposing forces companies to negotiate a little harder & in good faith (although they would probably still pay women & minorities less anyway) - the assumption having always been that incoming higher paid employees were paid that due to merit, when that was not always the case.

[Bayard]

4. Eh, not so much

I'm a headhunter/recruiter. I ask a person what they are currently making to make sure we aren't comparing apples and oranges. If they are already making 100K, it wastes both our time to talk to them about a job paying $80K. People that are working on a contract/consultant basis, are usually making far more on a 1099 hourly rate, then they would expect in a full time salary with benefits. I ask what their last salaried position paid, and what they want to make in one now, so we have a place to start.

From an employer perspective, they usually ask for salary history to see if there is a history of career progression. They want to see that in both title, and compensation. As an example, if a person has been a programmer for 30 years, they are seen as not being ambitious or promotable. Sometimes that's all a company wants--a heads-down geek. But if they are looking for someone who can grow to be MIS Director, they are looking for a person who has moved up the food chain. I have never seen that tied to gender in 25 years in this business. I can't recall ever getting a lowball offer for a candidate, male or female, that wasn't simply because the company was stingy. Maybe that's because I only work with technical or scientific positions.