Articles Tagged with Salary History

Do you currently have a hiring policy for your company?

If you don’t, it’s always a good idea to have one for a couple of reasons. First, you can have that policy reviewed by your attorney and make sure that it fits within the legal framework of your state. Second, it will serve as a protocol for the personnel department to follow and to make sure that. during the hiring process, they all follow the same guidelines even if different staff are involved in the hiring.

If you currently have one, you should be prepared to redraft the policy once the Assembly Bill 168 passes. I talked about this before. Assembly Bill 168, if it passes, would prohibit employers from asking the salary history of job applicants, directly or indirectly, even when the information is asked to serve other legitimate purposes. I gave my opinion in the last video. I think the intention of this proposed law is good; I’m just not so sure about the viability of this bill. Regardless, whether or not this is a good bill we won’t know until it’s implemented for about a year or two, but you need to be prepared. Once this bill is passed and implemented, you need to comply and incorporate it into your hiring process.

So, again, you cannot ask for a salary history- directly or indirectly. However, if a job applicants provide the information voluntarily then you are not in violation of the law. So, what do you do need to do? Well if job applicants offer that information, I would recommend that you document the process so that you can show, in the event that there is a dispute, that the information was not requested by you, and that it was provided by the job applicants voluntarily. So, document the process.

Continue reading

Good morning!  I was reading this article written by Gina Rikonova in the L.A. Daily Journal, and she talks about Assembly Bill 168 that was introduced earlier this year which will prohibit California employers from requesting information about a job applicant’s salary history or benefits  The spirit of the bill, according to her, is really to combat the gender disparity of pay between men and women. She also talks about how a lot of states that are moving toward this trend. Then she circles back and introduces what’s pretty much a federal court ruling for this year in April that seems to go opposite direction. That particular ruling in federal court “that federal equal pay act salary history may be considered a qualified factor other than sex so long as it effectuated some business policy and was used reasonably in light of the stated purpose as well as its other policy or practices, and the court further states that on the salary history standing alone may constitute a qualified reason for pay disparity other than sex so long as it serves a legitimate business purpose”.
Continue reading