I imagine it will be simpler to just higher a $10k/yr cheaper alternative than do this all the time, even if that alternative ends up being half as good as the more expensive alternative.
I can't imagine all the interpersonal issues caused by this being requested after every hire!
Alternatively, transparency could make things more fair and eliminate a lot of jealousy, etc. It's this weird not-very-transparent place we are that's unstable.
What do you mean, unstable? If someone will leave if they don't get a pay rise they should get one without management (who all need paying for, lowering the useful salaries) getting together to figure out if it's worth all of the cost of giving everyone that pay rise, or the hassle of uprisings and complaints if they only give that person one.
I mean, the lack of transparency and partial information makes the situation unstable. Employers enjoy an information advantage. Times that this information advantage are breached --- whether by people selectively sharing information, leaks, etc --- cause big disruptions to morale and big movements of people.
Partial information is known to distort markets and cause wide variability in outcomes (and to create less stable equilibria than markets with better information flow).
Employees have all the job market information too, and they have info personal to them that the employer doesn't know (e.g. "I would've taken the job for $20k/yr less"). There's no obvious asymmetry. Each side has different information, but not asymmetric.
This law will remove an aspect of the employee's secret information - what they're currently on - so their next employer will be able to calculate precisely how little to offer them.
Employees absolutely do not have the information that there are people in the same role earning 5x what they do. When they find out, it tends to get really messy, too.
Each side has different information, but not asymmetric.
This is a definition of asymmetry that I am not familiar with.
This law will remove an aspect of the employee's secret information - what they're currently on
Actually, the law explicitly prohibits employers seeking this information about employees-- their specific comp. In the past, employers would pay data brokers for this information.
In turn, the playing field was very tilted: you could see the person's current comp and know the entire set of comp you pay in that position and the total history of offers you've made and their acceptance rates... whereas employees know just what they've gathered through informal, unreliable means (glassdoor, friends, etc).
In turn, the playing field was very tilted: you could see the person's current comp
No, you'll be able to see that now by looking up their current employers pay bands for their role. Previously this wouldn't have been available, except anecdotally on Glassdoor.
No, you'll be able to see that now by looking up their current employers pay bands for their role. Previously this wouldn't have been available, except anecdotally on Glassdoor.
Actually, no, this is completely wrong.
Previously you'd use services like QuickConfirm, etc, and get that person's exact comp. Employers and payroll processors colluded to share this information. The law now prohibits doing that.
And you may not even be able to look up the pay band, because only people in that role are allowed to request it from the employer. It's only if you can find a corresponding job listing that you can get the entire band as of that date.
As a result, the information asymmetry is adjusted from favoring employers to be more neutral; employers only have very approximate information on an employee's past comp; comparable to employees' knowledge of the compensation for the role into which they're applying.
Comments
I imagine it will be simpler to just higher a $10k/yr cheaper alternative than do this all the time, even if that alternative ends up being half as good as the more expensive alternative.
I can't imagine all the interpersonal issues caused by this being requested after every hire!
Alternatively, transparency could make things more fair and eliminate a lot of jealousy, etc. It's this weird not-very-transparent place we are that's unstable.
What do you mean, unstable? If someone will leave if they don't get a pay rise they should get one without management (who all need paying for, lowering the useful salaries) getting together to figure out if it's worth all of the cost of giving everyone that pay rise, or the hassle of uprisings and complaints if they only give that person one.
I mean, the lack of transparency and partial information makes the situation unstable. Employers enjoy an information advantage. Times that this information advantage are breached --- whether by people selectively sharing information, leaks, etc --- cause big disruptions to morale and big movements of people.
Partial information is known to distort markets and cause wide variability in outcomes (and to create less stable equilibria than markets with better information flow).
Employees have all the job market information too, and they have info personal to them that the employer doesn't know (e.g. "I would've taken the job for $20k/yr less"). There's no obvious asymmetry. Each side has different information, but not asymmetric.
This law will remove an aspect of the employee's secret information - what they're currently on - so their next employer will be able to calculate precisely how little to offer them.
Employees absolutely do not have the information that there are people in the same role earning 5x what they do. When they find out, it tends to get really messy, too.
This is a definition of asymmetry that I am not familiar with.
Actually, the law explicitly prohibits employers seeking this information about employees-- their specific comp. In the past, employers would pay data brokers for this information.
In turn, the playing field was very tilted: you could see the person's current comp and know the entire set of comp you pay in that position and the total history of offers you've made and their acceptance rates... whereas employees know just what they've gathered through informal, unreliable means (glassdoor, friends, etc).
No, you'll be able to see that now by looking up their current employers pay bands for their role. Previously this wouldn't have been available, except anecdotally on Glassdoor.
Actually, no, this is completely wrong.
Previously you'd use services like QuickConfirm, etc, and get that person's exact comp. Employers and payroll processors colluded to share this information. The law now prohibits doing that.
And you may not even be able to look up the pay band, because only people in that role are allowed to request it from the employer. It's only if you can find a corresponding job listing that you can get the entire band as of that date.
As a result, the information asymmetry is adjusted from favoring employers to be more neutral; employers only have very approximate information on an employee's past comp; comparable to employees' knowledge of the compensation for the role into which they're applying.