Comcast is simply the example here. Yes you can look for another employer, but if they are doing the same thing -- requiring disclosure of salary history -- then in aggregate this will put more negotiating power in the hands of employers and thus reduce workers' incomes.

Do you think market will forget this ? Govts seem to forget that despite being big, they are market actors themselves. And it wont be the Comcasts but many SMBs.

In todays volatile world, noones existence is certain. And govts need to realize this soon before they spend all of their capitals like this.

I'm not sure I understand what side of things you're coming down on, but personally I'm in favor of tilting things somewhat more in favor of labor than they are now.

Partly this is because I don't think a market can function justly on a principle of enforced asymmetry and imbalance. As I see it, if we allow people to pool capital together to gain greater collective leverage than any of them would have individually, and reap greater returns as a result (also known as a corporation), we must also allow people to pool their labor together to gain collective leverage and reap greater returns (also known as labor unions, worker protections, etc.). Having one without the other does not appear ethically justifiable to me, and rigging laws to strengthen one significantly at the expense of the other is similarly unjustifiable.

Partly this is because of the relevant history. Much of what people have convinced themselves constitutes a "free market" was in fact deliberately rigged to artificially preserve and benefit one side (capital) at the expense of the other (labor). Look into employment law from the 1800s, for example, and it's very clearly designed to prevent competition between companies in the market and ensure they each can comfortably remain immune to several important market forces. But somehow we've idealized that period as one of "laissez-faire" and "free markets" despite it being nothing of the sort, and then whenever an attempt is made to un-rig the system we hear that it's bad for business, will kill business, will hurt business, is anti-business, etc. -- being in business for business' sake is not an end worth pursuing in itself, and if a business can't survive without the market rigged in its favor, well, the true free-market position is that that business shouldn't survive.

> we must also allow people to pool their labor together to gain collective leverage and reap greater returns (also known as labor unions, worker protections, etc.). Having one without the other does not appear ethically justifiable to me, and rigging laws to strengthen one significantly at the expense of the other is similarly unjustifiable.

And free-market does not stop them in any way. In fact FM give them most freedom. So FM favours/disfavours none.

On the other hand, if your salary history shows you were paid well, the company will realize you are likely more competent than your job history otherwise suggests, and that they should offer you more.

And this law does nothing to prevent interviewees voluntarily disclosing their previous salary.

That's right. And the employer will likely infer that the salary is low if it is not disclosed.

Why? It's not normal practice for interviewees to volunteer their previous salaries.

> Is Comcast the only company hiring people? If you don't get a job with Comcast you get a job with a different company

The reality is, the job market is not that liquid. That's why people are terrified of losing their job.

True, but shouldn't we be working on a more general solution to that problem rather than playing whack-a-mole with every possible way employers can abuse the power that comes from that illiquidity?

I agree that would be better, but I'm eager to hear the politically feasible, general solution that will help these people.

Unions and collective bargaining are one general solution, but those are under great threat now.

IME, Congress seems to play whack-a-mole with most issues; I've often wondered what about Congress causes that outcome.

You are missing the point. Companies are offering jobs and thus in a position of power.

I've been on both sides - employer and employee. As an employer, the notion I had all this power over people is pretty eyebrow raising. If an employee didn't like something, he was out the door and there was nothing I could do about it. As an employee, if I didn't like something, I was out the door and there was nothing the employer could do about it.

Given you are posting on hacker news there is a high chance you are in the tech industry. What you are describing is far easier for tech employees than it is for employees in most other fields.

I am in the tech industry but have several friends in various non-tech fields and sometimes the stuff they put up with at their jobs amazes me. But when I ask why they don't just leave the answer is that they don't want to start a potentially lengthy job search right then or that they aren't sure they can find a significantly better one.

I've hired non-tech people, and have been a non-tech employee, too. Same story.

If I had to guess, the discrepancy in your and afastow's experiences is largely dependent on the relevant field and the market for jobs

An individual's tolerance to go into the job search experience is also a factor, likely dependent on their financial situation

I'm not free market shlop, but do note in extremely idealized conditions buyer and seller is symmetric, and that includes the job market. Though with the realities of what a job is, yes that's mostly true.