Only if you ignore unintended consequences
Some people seem to think the hand-waved threat of "unintended consequences" should be enough to kill any policy they happen to dislike. It's not.
I'm tired of the broken record fearmongering about unintended consequences, especially when it's paired (as it always is) with no constructive alternative to address the problem in question. It's an unpersuasive attempt at preventing improvement to the status quo.
If you don't have the courage to ask how much the job pays on the first call that's your problem. If you agree to a certain wage that's what you agreed to.
So? The kind of information asymmetry that this regulation addresses is an actual issue, whether you want to acknowledge it or not.
> If you don't have the courage to ask how much the job pays on the first call that's your problem.
That's not the problem something like this is meant to solve. Rather, it's probably meant to deal with situations like when an employer low-balls someone who doesn't know what they're worth, and they take the offer because they don't know any better. Eventually someone like that will probably get wise, but this gives them a much cheaper shortcut to that knowledge.
By the way, your whole story makes no sense. If you weren't qualified why did you even get an interview?
There's plenty of opportunity in this country if you're willing to work for it.
The question is: how do you get an interview _for a position_ where you don't meet the requirements _for that position_?
So if it's a startup, then you don't meet the lowered requirements of that startup.
It doesn't make sense. They wouldn't interview you if you didn't meet their requirements.
That job changed my life, I'd rather just accept some people are going to make more and some are going to make less then create a dystopia where you need 10 pages of documentation to justify every hiring. There's no way this law is going to work out the way people think it well, if anything it encourages less full-time work. If you run the risk of being audited by a fairness officer, why not just outsource it instead?
Why not lean on consultants more?
As discussed elsewhere, many companies are just not hiring people from Colorado, which has a similar law. I can't find a better example of this not working.
They demonstrably didn't, since they interviewed/followed up. That's why your story doesn't add up.
Not doubting whatever you say happened, just your interpretation doesn't make sense.
The other path to Hell is to not act on good intentions.
> With misguided laws like this I wouldn't of been offered a job.
No, you're just making that assumption.