The question saves time if an applicant’s salary needs are out of line with what the employer can offer.
Banning discussion of salary history is wrongheaded, counterproductive and wasteful. The exchange of such information promotes transparency in the hiring process and helps manage candidates’ expectations. Most important, it saves recruiting time. If both an employer and prospective employee keep salary details hidden until the end of the interview process, an applicant’s salary requirements may turn out to be out of line with what the employer is prepared to offer—so the entire process was a waste of time.
.. When it comes to matching employees with employers, more information is always better. The more employers know about potential employees, and the more job seekers know about potential employers, the more likely there will be a successful match. Previous pay indicates employees’ value to their past employers. Often, pay is more telling than education or experience. For the same reason that potential employees should be able to ask the pay of positions they apply for, employers should also be able to ask potential hires about their previous pay.
Why the Trump administration has enraged flyers across America
The president wants to withdraw a sensible regulation about displaying baggage fees
FOR a president elected on a populist campaign message, Donald Trump is not doing much to make himself popular with flyers in America. On December 7th, the Trump administration announced that it was withdrawing a regulation proposed under Barack Obama to require airlines and other plane-ticket sellers to disclose baggage fees when customers begin the process of buying tickets. Airlines already have to display checked baggage fees on their websites. But the Obama administration’s proposal would have forced them to do so up front in the shopping process, so that travellers could compare the fees for various airlines and routes when choosing their itineraries.
The White House said in its announcement that the rules being scrapped had “limited public benefit.” In a statement, Elaine Chao, Mr Trump’s Transportation Secretary, said:
The department is committed to protecting consumers from hidden fees and to ensuring transparency. However, we do not believe that departmental action is necessary to meet this objective at this time.
Let Mueller Keep Digging
If the president fires Mr. Mueller now, it will look as though he has something to hide; if another special counsel is appointed, it will further diminish the proper investigative authority here—i.e., Congress. There are better ways forward.
.. If it’s true that there is no obstruction or Russian collusion, his overriding interest lies in full transparency. In a recent piece for National Review, former federal prosecutor Andrew McCarthy asks why Mr. Trump doesn’t just order the declassification of material such as the FBI’s application for Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court warrants to wiretap Trump associates, so Americans can see for themselves whether the FBI used or misused information from the infamous Steele dossier. Good question.
.. During the IRS scandal, Lois Lerner rode off into the sunset without testifying because Congress allowed the Obama Justice Department to determine her fate. Ditto for John Koskinen, the IRS commissioner who happily served out his time when Congress should have impeached him for his falsehoods and obstructionism.
.. If executive branch officials continue to play games with subpoenas, Congress needs to give them a taste of the legislature’s powers, whether by cutting agency budgets, impeaching directors or holding uncooperative officials in contempt. In this regard it’s good to know Devin Nunes, chairman of the House Intelligence Committee, is still pursuing contempt citations for Mr. Wray and Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein. A contempt vote by the full House would of course depend on Speaker Paul Ryan, who complained in October about FBI “stonewalling.”
.. So forget firings and new special prosecutors. Let the president use his executive authority to make public the evidence that would tell the American people what really happened.
If Hollywood stars really want to fight harassment, here’s how they can start
Gadot, whose Wonder Woman is the lone real breakout superhero of the DC movie franchise, reportedly declared that she wouldn’t sign for future installments unless the movies were no longer financed by RatPac-Dune Entertainment. RatPac is co-founded by director and producer Brett Ratner, who has been accused of sexual harassment and sexual assault by a number of women.
.. Actors in Hollywood work on contract. Often, that makes them vulnerable: By preventing a woman from getting cast in new projects, super-producers such as Harvey Weinstein can start a slide that derails her entire career. But the reverse is also true.
.. So for those with power in Hollywood who want to make a difference, here are some places to get started:
1. Transparency around sexual harassment cases and settlements:
.. his behavior stayed a secret because of the non-disclosure agreements his lawyers wrote into those settlement contracts. If Weinstein hadn’t been able to do that, maybe his alleged victims wouldn’t have received financial compensation. But his misconduct also might have come to light much sooner.
.. what if actors asked that productions provide a full accounting of whether anyone in a supervisory position on a production has been charged with, sued for or paid a settlement involving sexual misconduct? That wouldn’t just protect people at the top of a production; it would let folks in every department on set know whom they’re working with.
..
2. A reverse “key man clause”: Roger Ailes, the former chief executive officer of Fox News, tried to entrench himself at the network with something called a key man clause in his stars’ contracts. That legal language meant that if Ailes left the company, other people who worked at Fox News would have an opportunity to renegotiate their contracts, and it was intended to create a disincentive for the network to force Ailes out.
.. But maybe stars could negotiate clauses that, rather than protecting them from being fired, allow them to walk off a production without penalty if one of their colleagues reports being harassed or assaulted, or if an independent outside monitoring group says that harassment is happening on set and victims are being blocked from making reports.
..
3. An end to arbitration and confidentiality clauses
.. Big stars such as Gadot could not only refuse to sign contracts that force them into arbitration and require them to keep silent about anything that happens to them on the job. They could also refuse to work on any project that requires any employee at any level to abide by such provisions. By doing so, they’d preserve their co-workers’ right to sue if they were harassed and make it harder for studios and directors to hush up misconduct.
.. If an actress can progressively raise her salary, that gives her more leverage in future situations, more financial independence from a director, producer or studio head who might try to sexually harass her, and more ability to sign with a new agent should hers misbehave.