New law Wage Transparency SB 1162

Working hours? Yes posted
-Retirement fund? Yes
Vacation? Yes
Sick time? Yes
Remote work? Yes
Travel? Yes
relocation pay? Yes
Responsibilities? Yes
Qualifications? Yes

Pay? NO! Waste your time applying and then you discover the salary is not enough. Both sides lose valuable time.

At the least salary expectations should be known prior to investing time in a relationship. I would do that when buying a used fishing pole on Facebook. All this dancing around the subject is a time waste for everyone. I would want it certainly for spending 30% of my life there if I expect it for a used fishing pole. (but wait until you see this fishing pole! Its amazing and fish are drawn to it!)

Ed Panek said:

Pay? NO! Waste your time applying and then you discover the salary is not enough. Both sides lose valuable time

Click to expand...

Currently, there are at least two different California-based companies looking to fill a specific position:

1. The job requires very well-defined, specific and narrow job qualifications (that happen to precisely align with my own)
2. Require relocation
3. Oddly (to my mind) happen to have the job title "wrong", almost certainly because of internal corporate policies but who can say? One is a "manager" position with no direct reports, the other is an "Engineer" with a team of 4-6 direct reports. Seriously? I asked if the first would change the title to "monoger", but I was told title was not negotiable! Lack of both pay and humor obviously.

I've enough cold calls from many different recruiters about these specific positions that my first question is now "Is this about the position in _____ that pays _____? If so I am not interested." I found that the second job also pays far too little to relocate in a much shorter amount of time because of lessons learned on that initial call.... i.e. let's not waste both our time. It's somewhat as a shame, as each of the two companies is working on something I find very interesting, but the pay is so bad!

Ed Panek said:

Working hours? Yes posted
-Retirement fund? Yes
Vacation? Yes
Sick time? Yes
Remote work? Yes
Travel? Yes
relocation pay? Yes
Responsibilities? Yes
Qualifications? Yes

Pay? NO! Waste your time applying and then you discover the salary is not enough. Both sides lose valuable time.

At the least salary expectations should be known prior to investing time in a relationship. I would do that when buying a used fishing pole on Facebook. All this dancing around the subject is a time waste for everyone. I would want it certainly for spending 30% of my life there if I expect it for a used fishing pole. (but wait until you see this fishing pole! Its amazing and fish are drawn to it!)

Click to expand...

The simple solution is don't "waste your time" and apply for the job if you are offended by the lack of salary being listed. See - no government intrusion required!

And posting salary range is different than posting actual salaries for individuals which is what the OP was about.

Miner said:

I think there would need to be two categories. In one category would be jobs that are entirely standard work where the outcomes do not depend on the talent of the employee. This category should have standard wages/salaries based on the type/difficulty of work that are entirely transparent. The second category would be jobs where the outcomes are highly dependent on the talents/skills of the employee. This category should have salaries that reflect the relative skill of the employee. I have mixed feelings about the transparency of these.

Click to expand...

Please give specific examples of these 2 categories of jobs.

Sidney Vianna said:

Of course it is. When you don’t understand the point. IMO.

Click to expand...

Sidney Vianna said:

Of course it is. When you don’t understand the point. IMO.

Click to expand...

Yes, of course, your points are way over my head.

There's also no reason that everyone has to be paid the same - just that employees are allowed to talk about salary (already federally protected) and that employers have to post salaries when hiring.

Nobody is saying that Bob fresh off the street and Joe who's the top performer in the position for 10 years running have to be paid the same. However, if the company posts a new position for $70,000 a year, and Joe's been striving for a decade to make $60,000 a year, that lets Joe know what he's worth and gives him leverage in asking for it. Alternately, maybe Jenny is making $50,000 a year doing a similar job elsewhere and Sally is already making $80,000 a year doing a similar job elsewhere - Jenny knows to apply, and Sally knows not to bother applying for the position. Additionally, if Bob walks in making $60,000 a year and Joe makes $70,000 a year, that gives Bob the knowledge of what he can expect if he stays as a high performer for a sustained period of time. It's better for workers when salaries are transparent.

In the real world, the issue is usually Erin is making $50,000 a year and Sam is making $70,000 a year for doing the same work with roughly the same amount of experience and education. Sam just knows the boss, argued better during salary negotiations, got grandfathered into some program, etc. The $20,000 difference is essentially unpaid wages pocketed by the business. Then they (illegally) threaten to fire people who talk about salaries so their inconsistencies, low pay, and/or nepotism don't get revealed.

Mike S. said:

Please give specific examples of these 2 categories of jobs.

Click to expand...

The first would encompass jobs like factory floor associates, call center employees, material planners, accounting, etc. The second category would include design engineers, architects, etc.

Miner said:

The first would encompass jobs like factory floor associates, call center employees, material planners, accounting, etc. The second category would include design engineers, architects, etc.

Click to expand...

I have most certainly experienced factory floor associates, call center employees, and material planners where the outcomes DID depend on the talent of the employee - talent plus desire, personality, work ethic, etc.

Hasn't everyone???

Today i interviewed a new inspector and he wanted $$ per hour, if i hire him i will need to pay the rest of my inspectors the same wage as the new guy.

Sam.F said:

Today i interviewed a new inspector and he wanted $$ per hour, if i hire him i will need to pay the rest of my inspectors the same wage as the new guy.

Click to expand...

This law seems to mostly address pay discrepancies stemming from "race, ethnicity, and sex" as stated multiple times in the bill text. There's nothing prohibiting you from paying inspector A more than inspector B based on productivity/negotiations/whatever, or am I missing something?

The law also defines the "pay scale" to be disclosed to applicants/employees as a reasonably expected range, which I interpret as not being inflexible and in turn meaning that it isn't illegal for an employer to go above or under it depending on the specific situation, granted it isn't based on racial, ethnical and gender discrimination.

I'm genuinely curious and would like to hear more about what everyone thinks (I also think I might be missing something big here lol).