Related Posts
Do PEs offer singing bonus or relocation fee?
Bowl Leader
More Posts
Bowl Leader
Conversation Starter
Best high yield savings products?
Bowl Leader
What is a data lake in basic terms?
Chief
Additional Posts in Finance
Opinions on headshots? Should I get one?
male fishies: where do you guys buy your ties?
New to Fishbowl?
Download the Fishbowl app to
unlock all discussions on Fishbowl.
unlock all discussions on Fishbowl.
Ha. Saw this already. They will still ask... they still ask my age almost every time I interview regardless of the law
"So, you're 23?" "😡 that's illegal" "uh" "so do I get the job??? 🤑🙃"
This is so irrelevant anyway. "I make x, but in order to justify taking this role I would need to make y. I really want the role, but to justify the hours and the risk of switching firms, it doesn't make sense to switch for less than y". Squanders the need for this idiotic law passed so that someone could win the support of some women voters
What the?! How is this a feminist issue? Every person should have the right to independently negotiate they're worth. And that negotiating line doesn't work if potential employers are able to use previously suppressed wages against you. How is this law bad for anyone? Is it the shareholders you're concerned about? Because they've been doing ok (generally speaking).
^*their. And the stated purpose of this bill was to target the gender pay gap...
Why is it idiotic? When you run an M&A process are you compelled to tell the bidders everyone else's price in the auction? No. So why should corporates / investors have more rights than individuals?
^I really don't get some of you SJW. I recognize how hard it might be to actually earn your privileges and not receive special treatment. But if you spent time learning about the issues, the law and the impact of legislation you become better equipped to make sound informed, rational decisions rather than serve as liberal mind slaves.
This law is poorly written. In principle, it fails and at best is "highly speculative " . It "benefits All workers with No cost to the taxpayers "? That wild assertion is false. There is no evidence it benefits all workers. We do know that it will increase the cost of compliance and personnel for the firms. (There are a whole host of other possible constitutional infringements as well). The cost will be greater for firms operating in multiple states. Increase costs impact firms profitability which in turn limits firms hiring, competitiveness, and growth capacity . All workers and taxpayers stand to lose.
You see, suppression of wage history is not the solution, in principle or practice. In fact, it can be argued that past wage history is a useful tool for both firms and applicants. Firms may elect to use the data (or not) to inform and ensure their pay is commensurate with the applicants current skills. A successful candidate can negotiate a higher salary by focusing the wage discussions on their skill set and why it commands the market rate for the job. A candidate who can sell themselves and negotiate is sought after. He/she can command the local market rate and separate themselves from other applicants.
Well said and we'll done JPMC1. #winningnegotiations
More like the gap between white Caucasian male and everyone else..no one including OP should hold their breath though.. employers will figure out another way to discriminate..you need to fight your own battles at the time you have to
Op- this law is idiotic. It is widely speculative whether this law will actual ameliorate the pay gap caused by gender discrimination. It is currently being challenged in the Philadelphia courts. Plaintiff alleges it violates commerce clause of US constitution, the First Amendment, and Due Process of the 24th amendment.
....I really don't get some of you SWMs. I understand how hard it must be all this chat about diversity as a positive ambition and the fear that that means competing for jobs will be more difficult / some of your privilege will be lost...but when a law comes around which, in principle, is correct and benefits all workers with no cost to the taxpayer....why do you get so bent out of shape?!
If the firms are "oh so fair" and there for everyone's economic well being apart from the tiny profit they make and want to pay fairly based on my skills and experience they can negotiate with me based on what I demand. Why do they need to know how much I earned in my last job? Or, if transparency is good then it should go both ways and I should know how much they were paying the person who could not deal with their BS and quit.
^thank you VP2. If you're good, it doesn't matter what you made before. I commanded a 30% increase when I switched firms recently, and they paid it because I was the best candidate and I stood up for myself.
Doesn't it really depend on your bonus cycle? Realistically if you wait til November, no one will be hiring til at least February.
Thanks big guy for the typo correction. I was worried the meaning would have otherwise been lost.
Straight White male here.... Just wanted to first apologize for causing this mess and most of the other problems in this world. Second, i would like to give my support for this law, which should help all those 5'2" Mexican transgender eskimos who don't like negotiating salary close the actual and/or perceived pay gap.
^ I still don't understand how this bill does anything other than improve every individual's ability to negotiate the best outcome? It's also naive to think that every role is negotiable. Outside of front office investment banking and the buyside, this is highly rare. Most jobs (as opposed to careers) are non-negotiable.
Saying you've won and actually winning are two very different things. #Trumpiandebatetactics