« 8 Ways the Minneapolis Skyway is Like Incentive Compensation | Main | The Intersection of Ideas, Inspiration and Innovation »

05/26/2015

Comments

Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

In the short period between the writing of this article and its publication, the proposed law - California AB 1017 (Campos) - has already been amended. The original double-pronged issues have been reduced to only one. Still troubling to many, of course, and the threat of externally forced equity may still reappear here or in some other proposed law, somewhere, sometime.

The proposed law continues to advance towards passage in CA, now without the minimum floor provision that would have empowered compensation departments.

more govt intervention please

You don't even need to ask, Hugh, because they are taking the initiative fighting for you... depending on who "you" is.

Employers should take responsibility and do the right thing so these ideas are not even generated.

Companies who don't utilize salary structures have no formal written "minimum" and the "how low can we get them" mentality comes into play. Ironically, employers do have unwritten minimums and maximums based on what they are actually paying or willing to pay when they advertise.

It only makes sense to formalize it and create the basis for equity and consistent hiring. Even with a pay range, you have flexibility in what you can offer but at least you have a bottom threshold.

The salary structure we implemented brought clarity to the formerly unwritten hiring range, but I still fight the "they only asked for X" or "they were making x" even though they have experience that should place them at "y". Then there is the "they are currently making X so we need to match that" even though they are no more experienced than incumbents.

Education is also needed for managers about not starting everyone at minimum when the job only requires a couple of years to become proficient at which point they should be at or near midpoint. In some cases, if you start them at minimum it will take more years at the current increase levels to get them to midpoint so they need to see and use the range within the range.

This goes back to the no salary negotiation post, which advised about companies offering one fair and competitive rate with no room for negotiation. You don't need negotiation if you are offering a fair rate within a range per the candidate's level of experience and not looking at their past or present wages.

Karen makes excellent accurate points about the value of equitable and consistent hiring practices. Management abuse of discretion will remain an issue, absent extensive education and engagement, if not compulsion of some kind. Wish it could be just a desire to do things right, but some require top-down pressure from the C Suite or outside laws.

The TLNT site (where this article was picked up today) featured comments veering off into the problems with "rusing." (Some employment ads are ruses, fakes, falsified for various reasons.)

Note that it is the bad actors among us who create the pressure for government interference. If HR did things right, politicians would not be tempted to impose new and often inappropriate bureaucratic rules. Maybe if we slapped them upside the head, they might pay attention. The HR folks, not the politicians, of course. It wouldn't even register on the pols' sensors.

Great discussion and on-point with challenges faced by comp professionals on a daily basis. The paragraph below summarizes the constant struggle of our team:

The salary structure we implemented brought clarity to the formerly unwritten hiring range, but I still fight the "they only asked for X" or "they were making x" even though they have experience that should place them at "y". Then there is the "they are currently making X so we need to match that" even though they are no more experienced than incumbents.

This mindset is exacerbated in large/jumbo organizations where associated silo/inconsistent practices flourish. We train continuously but without management willingness to hold folks accountable for unsanctioned actions, we become the dog chasing its tail.

Reba Phillips smartly notes the current competing motives of the hiring manager: (1) expense control and (2) talent acquisition/engagement. They need another... (3) compliance with compensation policy. Won't happen until #3 is added as a Key Performance Indicator and there are consequences for the results. Thanks for the reminder!

The comments to this entry are closed.