Equal Pay For Comparable Work Becomes Law In Massachusetts

August 2, 2016 9:40 AM

As of 2018, Massachusetts will bar employers from asking for salary history before making a job offer as part of a law mandating equal pay for comparable work.

The law passed the state Legislature unanimously and was signed into effect by Republican Governor Charlie Baker. It also bars employers from punishing employees who discuss their pay with co-workers.

The law is aimed at closing the wage gap between men and women -- salary history is an obvious way to discriminate against people with a break in employment (e.g., women who took time off to raise children) as well as a way to compound initial salary discrepancies across the arc of a person's career. Professor Randy Albelda of the University of Massachusetts Boston noted last year "where you start determines where you end up" in a story about the U.S. Office of Personnel Management issuing guidelines that de-emphasized salary history in setting pay for new hires.

posted by Etrigan (67 comments total)

This is awesome and I'm going to write my state senator and representative today to ask them to sponsor a similar bill in Colorado in our next legislative session. (Well, I guess just the representative. The senator's term-limited and won't be there come January.)
posted by asperity at 9:50 AM on August 2, 2016 [9 favorites]

Nice!! Hope California follows suit asap.
posted by Hermione Granger at 9:50 AM on August 2, 2016 [14 favorites]

This is SO good. It's gotten very weird in the US where it's considered rude to ask how much someone makes to the point where people seldom even know how much they're worth. I'd rather we got to a point where more of us knew how much we're worth, but at the very least, let's go to the negotiation table with no one knowing, instead of the employer having the advantage.
posted by explosion at 9:50 AM on August 2, 2016 [21 favorites]

Won't anybody think of the companies??
posted by radicalawyer at 9:51 AM on August 2, 2016 [10 favorites]

This is great news, and an example of the kind thing that helps everyone but the oligarchs.
posted by Strange_Robinson at 9:55 AM on August 2, 2016 [15 favorites]

It's worth noting that punishing employees for discussing their wages was already unlawful under federal law, but it's nice to see additional protections against this widespread abuse. I wonder how long it'll take for employers to catch up? I expect to get asked about this for many years to come.
posted by 1adam12 at 9:58 AM on August 2, 2016 [11 favorites]

I've always lied about my wage when applying for new positions. But this is awesome. It Is so awkward to be well this is what xyz thinks I'm worth versus what new company thinks I'm worth
posted by AlexiaSky at 9:59 AM on August 2, 2016 [1 favorite]

This is great for helping move towards gender pay equality, but also great for everyone that is interested in getting paid "what the market will bear".
posted by mcstayinskool at 10:00 AM on August 2, 2016 [4 favorites]

Thank you for leading the way again Massachusetts! I hope this catches on.
posted by bleep at 10:03 AM on August 2, 2016 [7 favorites]

I'm absolutely thrilled that my state once again is at the beginning of something really decent. I suspect there will be a million ways around asking about salary history that will show up immediately, but it's great to know that we're trying to even things out.
posted by xingcat at 10:10 AM on August 2, 2016 [3 favorites]

Across the land a great cry arose, and there was wailing and gnashing of teeth in the boardrooms.
posted by BlueHorse at 10:11 AM on August 2, 2016 [3 favorites]

I've always lied about my wage when applying for new positions. But this is awesome. It Is so awkward to be well this is what xyz thinks I'm worth versus what new company thinks I'm worth

Even more disheartening: interviewing for a position only to learn at the interview that the most they're willing to pay is less than half your current salary. "Thanks for your time but the Starbucks down the block is also hiring."
posted by nathan_teske at 10:26 AM on August 2, 2016 [17 favorites]

The great thing as well is that equal pay is required for comparable work, not identical jobs.

This eliminates 'well, Bob is a Global Accounts Manager but Rita is a Global Accounts Coordinator, even though everything they do is identical' loophole.
posted by winna at 10:30 AM on August 2, 2016 [22 favorites]

A measure strongly advocated for by Democratic AG Maura Healey. Support your local activist AG!
posted by praemunire at 10:42 AM on August 2, 2016 [8 favorites]

This is fantastic! What I currently make or what I previously made only lets someone continue to under pay me. Everyone should discuss salaries, and people should jump ship if they're under paid.

Can we start having companies give better raises now too? It's a completely perverted incentive when staying somewhere long-term makes you worse off financially then changing jobs would. There's people in my department that have been here 10+ years getting tiny annual raises each year while the starting salary for a new candidate is very close to what the 10+ year employee is making, since the market salary for these rolls has increased more than an annual cost of living raise. The experienced employee is worth way more than a new person, but the only way they'll get a decent salary increase is if they leave for a competitor.
posted by Arbac at 10:46 AM on August 2, 2016 [15 favorites]

At my small business, I do ask for a salary history as part of the hiring process. It's not so much to take advantage as it is to know if I can actually afford this person, since it's a field where salaries and expectations vary wildly. Although I generally ask more about salary expectations than about history, really. I'm more interested in what people's expectations are than what they used to make.
posted by Joakim Ziegler at 10:46 AM on August 2, 2016 [1 favorite]

one's expectations are - of course - also set by your work history, unless employers - or workers - start making average salaries more transparent.

I recently just realised that a position at my work very similar to my own pays $10k more per year. I didn't know that going in, so when they offered me an hourly more than I had before, I happily accepted.
posted by jb at 10:50 AM on August 2, 2016 [3 favorites]

The way to know if you can afford people is to tell them up front what you are willing to pay and let them decide.
posted by winna at 10:51 AM on August 2, 2016 [51 favorites]

Yeah. If there's anything I hate most, it's "interview for the job, and then we'll tell you if it's worth your time."
posted by corb at 11:05 AM on August 2, 2016 [37 favorites]

Something that is unclear to me (maybe I missed it):

Say you have two plumbers that both solve plumbing problems as their job description. Plumber #1, newly hired, just graduated from plumber school. Plumber #2 has been doing plumbing for 30 years, can solve a lot more problems, better, in the same amount of time. Does Plumber #2 necessarily make the same as Plumber #1 because the "work is comparable?"

I would argue that Plumber #2 should be making considerably more than Plumber #1 because of experience and the value contributed per unit of time to the employer. If Plumber #2 changed jobs, wouldn't salary negotiation still be possible, reasonable, and necessary because of the individual's experience? Does this law preclude that, or does it simply prevent bias based on salary history?
posted by tempestuoso at 11:16 AM on August 2, 2016 [3 favorites]

You're allowed to take seniority into account as long as parental leave time is not included:

...variations in wages shall not be prohibited if based upon: (i) a system that rewards seniority with the employer; provided, however, that time spent on leave due to a pregnancy-related condition and protected parental, family and medical leave, shall not reduce seniority

Plus other exemptions like merit/measured performance: full text of the bill.
posted by nev at 11:29 AM on August 2, 2016 [3 favorites]

I don't think this at all prevents salary negotiation, it just keeps the employee from being hamstrung by their salary history because the employer would use that as the floor for negotiating rather than whatever number the employee considers appropriate.
posted by griphus at 11:31 AM on August 2, 2016 [6 favorites]

Won't anybody think of the companies??

I think the problem is that too many for too long have only thought of the companies.
posted by MikeKD at 11:43 AM on August 2, 2016 [6 favorites]

This is great news. I'm frankly amazed it passed unanimously. It's funny...I just finished-up typesetting an employee manual for a local employer, and it included this line...

We require you to keep information concerning your wage confidential and avoid discussing it with anyone. Failure to do so can lead to disciplinary action including termination.

Note that it says you must avoid discussing your wages with anyone. Not just fellow employees. Anyone. Like, I dunno..maybe a lawyer?
posted by Thorzdad at 11:53 AM on August 2, 2016 [7 favorites]

Even more disheartening: interviewing for a position only to learn at the interview that the most they're willing to pay is less than half your current salary. "Thanks for your time but the Starbucks down the block is also hiring."

I had an interview like that once. It played out like the Cloud City scene from Empire Strikes Back with me thinking, "This [offer] gets worse all the time" as they threw out bits like, "It's not in the job posting, but..." and "Would you mind instead working these hours?" Once they got to my hourly rate and I threw out a fairly low number, they tried countering with "you could make close to that with overtime." I stood up, wished them luck, and left.
posted by dances with hamsters at 11:55 AM on August 2, 2016 [3 favorites]

We require you to keep information concerning your wage confidential and avoid discussing it with anyone. Failure to do so can lead to disciplinary action including termination.

As noted by 1adam12 above, The National Labor Relations Board, says [law professor Cynthia Estlund], "has long held that these pay secrecy policies that many employers have in writing violate the National Labor Relations Act."
posted by Etrigan at 11:56 AM on August 2, 2016 [8 favorites]

I once lowballed myself really bad for about 3 years

motherfucker even slid a piece of paper to me with "$10/hr" on it like it was the Germans buying the power plant from Mr. Burns
posted by griphus at 11:57 AM on August 2, 2016 [19 favorites]

Employers playing coy with their own numbers is demonstrably harmful: StackOverflow listings with salary ranges advertised get 75 percent more clicks. This is a pretty clear application of the Market for Lemons; if your salary range was any good you'd advertise it.
posted by pwnguin at 12:08 PM on August 2, 2016 [6 favorites]

Note that it says you must avoid discussing your wages with anyone. Not just fellow employees. Anyone. Like, I dunno..maybe a lawyer?

"Honey, good news! I got a raise today!"

"Really? How much?"

"Ssh! You trying to get me fired?"
posted by No-sword at 12:09 PM on August 2, 2016 [2 favorites]

Please bring it to academia.
posted by effluvia at 12:20 PM on August 2, 2016 [1 favorite]

Too bad that they didn't manage to get rid of non-competes.
posted by zeikka at 12:52 PM on August 2, 2016 [8 favorites]

This is fabulous news, and not just for women and minorities and people who are intimidated by negotiation. I worked in K12 and higher ed several times in my career, and boy howdy if you think that my salary wasn't held back by that, have I got news for you. Why should Corporate Entity X get a special discount on Employee Y just because Employee Y has a soft spot for the NFP sector but eventually realized "oh crap, I have student loans"?

I hope this catches on wide-scale, and I hope it brings salary parity throughout.
posted by sldownard at 1:09 PM on August 2, 2016 [2 favorites]

method for determining the average wage in a group without any member of that group revealing their wage:

1. everyone participating thinks of a number. this number can be as large or as small as they want. They write down this number on one slip of paper and keep it secret. They then add that number to their annual pay, write the new number on a separate strip of paper, and put it in a box.
2. Someone opens the box and adds up all the slips. They write the sum down on a piece of paper.
3. Everyone, in turn, subtracts their original secret number from the sum.
4. Divide the resulting number by the number of people participating. This is the average salary of the group.

posted by You Can't Tip a Buick at 1:31 PM on August 2, 2016 [17 favorites]

God I hate that salary history question. Just tell me how much you want to pay me based on my experience and let me decide if that's worth my while. I've worked in academia for a long time, which has low salaries (and no promotions) but great perks. The times I've tried to move to private sector, I've been heinously lowballed because of my salary history. I hung up on a recruiter once because they blatantly just added $1/hour to my stated previous salary (full time at a university with full benefits including tuition remission for dependents) for a contract job with no benefits whatsoever. Hahaha yeah no. Get out.
posted by soren_lorensen at 1:37 PM on August 2, 2016 [1 favorite]

okay for reals question: is there any reason to treat statements given at that point in the offer process about compensation history as being necessarily related to any underlying reality? Is there any reason not to give whatever number best strengthens your negotiating position in the present, rather than a number that accurately reflects the past?
posted by You Can't Tip a Buick at 1:44 PM on August 2, 2016

They can fire you or rescind the offer if you lie, if they check with your former employer and that is information they give.
posted by winna at 1:51 PM on August 2, 2016 [1 favorite]

Is there any reason not to give whatever number best strengthens your negotiating position in the present, rather than a number that accurately reflects the past?

I'm terrible at any sort of misdirection, mostly.

And a decent number of companies check up on it through third-party services like Equifax's The Work Number (Since they have access to your credit history, and all).
posted by CrystalDave at 1:54 PM on August 2, 2016 [3 favorites]

Do employers actually give out that info, though? in states I've lived, companies tend just to confirm job title and length of employment.
posted by You Can't Tip a Buick at 1:54 PM on August 2, 2016

That is primarily to avoid possible litigation - it's not illegal for them to do it, and you can't be sure they won't. See CrystalDave's comment for how they can do it very simply.
posted by winna at 1:57 PM on August 2, 2016 [1 favorite]

Every single ~millennial~ young person i know who entered the professional workforce in any way, or even any kind of skilled labor sort of job has been fucked on this. Invariably they find out their the lowest paid person at the shop, starting below even what other people started at, or that everyone doing X job anywhere else is making double or something.

I know more than one person who has flat out lied in their next interview just to get paid market rate for the position. A lot of people have also ended up quitting over being grossly underpaid once they figured out it was occurring, including myself.

And i mean, what else do you do in that situation? No one is ever going to give you a 100% raise. They were fucking you, and they're going to try to keep fucking you and wonder how you found out.

I've also known people, who either don't have the confidence to lie(when you shouldn't have to god dammit) or are afraid of being caught out who take one job because it's a job and they needed it, and end up stuck in a string of jobs that are underpaying them every stage of the way.

I'll also add that the only people i know who flat out lied and commanded big job to job salary increases were... cocky white guys. No one else i've known is benefiting from that unofficial "system", just being crushed by it.

Yeah. If there's anything I hate most, it's "interview for the job, and then we'll tell you if it's worth your time."

The number of fucking times i've sat through an interview at a company that's obviously doing well, where the people interviewing me seem to be too(nice clothes, etc) just to offered an almost totally bottom of the barrel salary at the end is laughable.

This got reallll depressing when i last was constructively out of work from getting all my hours/projects cut at my old job. "Oh, you'll pay me half of what i was just making? Maybe i should go work in the grocery store deli"
posted by emptythought at 2:21 PM on August 2, 2016 [10 favorites]

Too bad that they didn't manage to get rid of non-competes.

This doesn't get brought up enough.

Want to know why it's easy to attract high-quality talent in Silicon Valley? Non-competes are prohibited in California, and both workers and corporations are better off for it.

Yes. California has ISSUES, but "engineers being paid well" is emphatically not the root cause.
posted by schmod at 2:21 PM on August 2, 2016 [4 favorites]

The new law takes effect July 1, 2018.

Why in the world does this change take almost two years to implement?
posted by saeculorum at 3:45 PM on August 2, 2016 [1 favorite]

Everyone is focussing on the salary history question, but the equal pay for comparable work seems much bigger to me and there are no details on that in the article. Ontario used to have equal pay for comparable work legislation, but it was repealed by a government (sounds like Harris, but I don't remember). We're back to equal pay for equal work now.

How will equal pay for comparable work be implemented? Is it not in the articles because the details will be determined by regulation instead of legislation so it's not known yet?

Oh it's taking two years to implement? that's probably because they haven't figured out how to implement it yet. Especially if massachusetts is the first to do it, they may not have a model to work with.
posted by If only I had a penguin... at 3:48 PM on August 2, 2016 [1 favorite]

The delay seems reasonable to me. Compensation budgets for 2017 are already in the planning or final stages for many organizations, and compliance means retraining a lot of hiring managers and anyone responsible for interviewing. I want to see it happen ASAP too, but two years doesn't seem like foot-dragging for organizations with potentially tens of thousands of staff.
posted by nev at 4:05 PM on August 2, 2016 [5 favorites]

The "can't ask about previous wages" thing could start right away, though, couldn't it? In theory. (I'm sure there are plenty of employers who only budgeted fuck-you wages for new hires in 2017 and would be inconvenienced by not having this useful tool to implement them, but, well, not much sympathy for that.)
posted by No-sword at 4:52 PM on August 2, 2016 [2 favorites]

I'm wondering how enforcement is going to work. I also wonder if the "prospective employees could voluntarily offer salary information" clause is going to be a backdoor toward giving salary information being in effect required...
posted by You Can't Tip a Buick at 4:58 PM on August 2, 2016 [1 favorite]

Has anyone else (states, provinces, countries) had laws like this? How did they work out in practice? I'm genuinely curious and I haven't heard of similar cases.
posted by Triplanetary at 5:06 PM on August 2, 2016

This eliminates 'well, Bob is a Global Accounts Manager but Rita is a Global Accounts Coordinator, even though everything they do is identical' loophole.

Better. It eliminates "Bob is Global Accounts Manager" but Rita is "Regional HR Coordinator." or Bob is "Special Projects Manager" and Rita is "Conference Coordinator." or "Bob is a landscaper" and "Rita works in the produce warehouse." That's where the money(gap) is.
posted by If only I had a penguin... at 5:07 PM on August 2, 2016 [2 favorites]

Every single ~millennial~ young person i know who entered the professional workforce in any way, or even any kind of skilled labor sort of job has been fucked on this.

Seconding. All of my highschool classmates who managed to get UAW jobs were second tier. And both my husband and I have graduate degrees and experienced this as well. You can prove yourself to be more efficient, more competent, and thus more profitable, but you'll need to move to another company to have any hope of getting paid anywhere near what you're worth and hope they don't ask what you're previous salary was.

It was especially grating in my case because I started with a higher degree and more experience than what my co-workers had at the beginning of their careers, but made less than they did on their day one. And that was before you realize that I couldn't take advantage of the tuition reimbursement (and time off for that!) that had been provided to them (and of course, they got another bump in pay when they completed their degree that was mostly paid for by work).

My coworkers thought is was BS. But corporate wouldn't budge. And I didn't feel like I could push back too much, because we too had the "don't talk about your salary, or else!" and I didn't want to drag anyone else in. So I left. And two years later they still ask why things is aren't as profitable as they were when I was there.
posted by ghost phoneme at 5:12 PM on August 2, 2016 [1 favorite]

Triplanetary: Ontario had a law like this. How it worked: Employers over a certain size had to look at any job that had at least 60% male and 60% female and rate it on things like the amount of education required, the working conditions (e.g. heavy lifting? shift work? out in the weather? chemical or biohazard exposure?), skill required, responsibility etc. How many "points" a job got for each category was something employers could decide.

If jobs are comparable in their worth based on those ratings and the lower-paid job or the burden was on them to explain why they should not: Acceptable reasons for arguing that the pay should not be the same would be market scarcity in a particular occupation and place, or that the pay was higher because of a seniority system (i.e. people on one job had more experience). There are other reasons too. But the point is, they had to rate the worth of jobs and raise the pay if those of comparable worth were not paid the same.

Here is an article explaining it.
posted by If only I had a penguin... at 5:16 PM on August 2, 2016 [1 favorite]

There are companies that make it all transparent. See Stackoverflow and Buffer
posted by 922257033c4a0f3cecdbd819a46d626999d1af4a at 5:51 PM on August 2, 2016 [2 favorites]

I have to, in Quebec, do essentially just that to check for salary equity, then post the results. I think we do it every three or five years.

It is very easy to game, though we did not need to do so.
posted by jeather at 6:04 PM on August 2, 2016

I don't think this at all prevents salary negotiation

I am curious how this works after reading the bill. Literally read 'comparable pay' as applied to individuals would mean if I really like a candidate and they ask for $10k more than I offered, and I think they're worth it rather than continuing the search for another month, I'd have to give all my existing employees a $10k raise.

What I suspect is actually the case though is that I can negotiate individual salaries, but I do have to keep an eye on whether this is leading to systematic problems when I break things down by gender. If males as a group are consistently asking for more an I'm consistently willing to pay it I need to start making equity adjustments on the female salaries. Which actually seems fair.

The "merit" exception for pay differences is potentially a big loophole but it's better than no standards at all.
posted by mark k at 7:11 PM on August 2, 2016

Too bad that they didn't manage to get rid of non-competes.

Want to know why it's easy to attract high-quality talent in Silicon Valley? Non-competes are prohibited in California, and both workers and corporations are better off for it.

That's a bummer, I really thought the non-compete ban in MA was going to pass. Fortunately for me, my company is CA-based, so they haven't used non-competes in a while anyway. But it'd be a really nice thing for all the other tech workers in the state.
posted by tobascodagama at 7:20 PM on August 2, 2016

Potential employees should be able to ask potential employers anything they want, and vice-versa.
posted by king walnut at 8:56 PM on August 2, 2016

Potential employees should be able to ask potential employers anything they want, and vice-versa.

I think they should stick to questions that elicit information for deciding whether or not to hire someone. Since there are many things you can't take into account when deciding whether or not to hire someone, there's no reason you need to ask those questions. If you do ask them, you're opening the question of why you're asking and creating the appearance and possibility that you are taking those things into account. This is why it's illegal in many places and inadvisable everywhere to ask people questions related to prohibited grounds for discrimination. Asking someone where they were born, or if they have kids, or what religion they are is useless in the hiring decision and can harm you be giving someone grounds to argue illegal discrimination. Why would you do it?
posted by If only I had a penguin... at 9:25 PM on August 2, 2016 [3 favorites]

The employee and employer are entering into an agreement to trade physical or mental labor for money. It's a trade. Both parties should be able to decide their own criteria for accepting the deal. As an employee, can you refuse to accept a job because you don't like that they invest in fracking or some other distasteful practice? Of course. Or if you don't like the way your potential new boss stutters? Yep, it's your call. It's called the adult world, where people are assumed to have agency. It's the same principal that's at the core of all freedoms. If you don't want to tell them how much you made before, don't tell them. If that's a deal breaker for them, too bad. I've turned down many jobs because I refuse to piss in a cup for them. That's free will.
posted by king walnut at 10:59 PM on August 2, 2016

California has an similar law regarding equal pay for substantially similar work—minus the prohibition on asking about salary history (although the law does not allow for pay differences due to salary history.)

It is interesting that it was signed into law last October and was effective January 1st.
posted by rai at 11:11 PM on August 2, 2016 [1 favorite]

king walnut, so a-okay with no coloreds allowed? I mean if the government did force them to get hired, they would be a bad fit for the job anyways, so why would would minorities want to work there anyways?
posted by Iax at 11:48 PM on August 2, 2016 [5 favorites]

Potential employees should be able to ask potential employers anything they want, and vice-versa.

"Who do you sleep with on a regular basis?"
"Which church do you go to?"
"Who are you going to vote for?"
"Do you plan on getting pregnant any time soon?"

You're wrong. You're dangerously wrong.
posted by Etrigan at 3:19 AM on August 3, 2016 [16 favorites]

There are decades of research telling us why it's dumb and counter-productive for the employers to be able to ask anything they want, including that hiring a less diverse workforce leads to poorer performance in general.
posted by winna at 4:36 AM on August 3, 2016 [6 favorites]

I used to work in HR (and now work HR-adjacent) and absolutely hated the 'salary dance' I had to perform when interviewing candidates.

Lower level positions were almost always advertised the hourly rate, but any salaried positions were not.

It will significantly cut down on wasted time (by companies and by candidates) to have this info upfront.

And technically, companies can ask whatever questions they want of a candidate. They are very, very stupid when they ask non-job related questions like marital status and political affiliation, but there's nothing illegal about asking; only in if they use that info to make the decision on a candidate. I've coached enough managers to know that the "I was just trying to get to know them" line is usually horseshit.

Candidates are best playing dumb and asking why the employer wants to know rather than directly answering.
posted by Twicketface at 10:19 AM on August 3, 2016 [2 favorites]

"Who do you sleep with on a regular basis?"
   None of your business.

"Which church do you go to?"
   I don't go to church.

"Who are you going to vote for?"
   Not sure yet. How about you?

"Do you plan on getting pregnant any time soon?"
   Ha, ha, I am King Walnut.
posted by king walnut at 5:02 PM on August 3, 2016

Refusing to play the game doesn't get you anywhere as long as one other person tells them what they (think) they want.
posted by ghost phoneme at 5:42 PM on August 3, 2016 [2 favorites]

Must be nice to be in such high demand that you could tell someone with the power to hire you that you don't want to answer their questions. The remaining 90-plus percent of us don't mind a little top cover.
posted by Etrigan at 5:45 PM on August 3, 2016 [14 favorites]

king walnut: "If you don't want to tell them how much you made before, don't tell them. If that's a deal breaker for them, too bad. I've turned down many jobs because I refuse to piss in a cup for them. That's free will."

I'm sure that works well for high value employees. The people who are basically interchangeable cogs in the machine of capitalism don't have that power.
posted by Mitheral at 10:26 PM on August 3, 2016 [4 favorites]

>> king walnut: "If you don't want to tell them how much you made before, don't tell them. If that's a deal breaker for them, too bad. I've turned down many jobs because I refuse to piss in a cup for them. That's free will."

> I'm sure that works well for high value employees. The people who are basically interchangeable cogs in the machine of capitalism don't have that power.

I'm not sure I've ever seen a clearer statement of pro-market ideology, nor a clearer refutation of same.
posted by You Can't Tip a Buick at 1:20 PM on August 4, 2016 [3 favorites]