Biden to prohibit use of salary history for federal employee hires

[Anonymous]

Why can’t he advocate to fix the pay cap?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Do agencies do this? My first agency started everyone at step 1 regardless of prior salary. My current agency uses a formula based on years of relevant experience.

+1 I have the same question, what agencies are starting people at higher than step 1 regularly?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Do agencies do this? My first agency started everyone at step 1 regardless of prior salary. My current agency uses a formula based on years of relevant experience.

+1 I have the same question, what agencies are starting people at higher than step 1 regularly?

I started as a GS-10 having come from biglaw. I’m a woman. Would not have been able to afford to come if a GS 1 given the hours meant I missed day care pick up and had to choose a more expensive child care option. Race to the bottom.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Do agencies do this? My first agency started everyone at step 1 regardless of prior salary. My current agency uses a formula based on years of relevant experience.

+1 I have the same question, what agencies are starting people at higher than step 1 regularly?

I started as a GS-10 having come from biglaw. I’m a woman. Would not have been able to afford to come if a GS 1 given the hours meant I missed day care pick up and had to choose a more expensive child care option. Race to the bottom.

This isn't a priblem it is a situation. Many of us have passed over jobs because we can't afford to take them. If you had not taken the job, someone else would have.

[Anonymous]

Ughhh. Not good.

[Anonymous]

All still allowed as a basis to offer higher than a step 1:

- The level, type, or quality of the candidate’s skills or competencies;

- Significant disparities between Federal and non-Federal salaries for the skills and competencies required in the position to be filled;

- Existing labor market conditions and employment trends, including the availability and quality of candidates for the same or similar positions;

- The success of recent efforts to recruit candidates for the same or similar positions;
Recent turnover in the same or similar positions;

- The importance/criticality of the position to be filled and the effect on the agency if it is not filled or if there is a delay in filling it;
The desirability of the geographic location, duties, and/or work environment associated with the position;

- Agency workforce needs, as documented in the agency’s strategic human capital plan; or
Other relevant factors.**

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Do agencies do this? My first agency started everyone at step 1 regardless of prior salary. My current agency uses a formula based on years of relevant experience.

+1 I have the same question, what agencies are starting people at higher than step 1 regularly?

I started as a GS-10 having come from biglaw. I’m a woman. Would not have been able to afford to come if a GS 1 given the hours meant I missed day care pick up and had to choose a more expensive child care option. Race to the bottom.

This isn't a priblem it is a situation. Many of us have passed over jobs because we can't afford to take them. If you had not taken the job, someone else would have.

The problem is the person who would have taken the job would not be as good as me, and the public interest would suffer.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Do agencies do this? My first agency started everyone at step 1 regardless of prior salary. My current agency uses a formula based on years of relevant experience.

+1 I have the same question, what agencies are starting people at higher than step 1 regularly?

I started as a GS-10 having come from biglaw. I’m a woman. Would not have been able to afford to come if a GS 1 given the hours meant I missed day care pick up and had to choose a more expensive child care option. Race to the bottom.

This isn't a priblem it is a situation. Many of us have passed over jobs because we can't afford to take them. If you had not taken the job, someone else would have.

The problem is the person who would have taken the job would not be as good as me, and the public interest would suffer.

You believe this?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Do agencies do this? My first agency started everyone at step 1 regardless of prior salary. My current agency uses a formula based on years of relevant experience.

+1 I have the same question, what agencies are starting people at higher than step 1 regularly?

I started as a GS-10 having come from biglaw. I’m a woman. Would not have been able to afford to come if a GS 1 given the hours meant I missed day care pick up and had to choose a more expensive child care option. Race to the bottom.

This isn't a priblem it is a situation. Many of us have passed over jobs because we can't afford to take them. If you had not taken the job, someone else would have.

The problem is the person who would have taken the job would not be as good as me, and the public interest would suffer.

You believe this?

I do think that brain drain in recruiting is a real risk of this policy, yes.

And also that those who are more affluent can afford to work these jobs rather than others, which doesn’t seem very equitable to me.

[Anonymous]

I'm a white male without a progressive bone in my body, and I think this in an excellent move.

As a fed, I've seen a boatload of formerly overpaid washouts land high fed salaries just because they were highly paid in the private sector.

If you want to pay for experience and talent, cool. But you have to understand that those things are often decoupled from prior salary.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I disagree. I’m a minority woman who has been underpaid in the nonprofit sector my entire career. This benefits lots of underpaid workers and is a HUGE step forward towards pay equity. It’s not about saving the feds money, it’s about valuing the job and work experience above salary history. It’s about time!

It’s equity in terms of dragging everyone lower. Is that really a benefit to you?

Absolutely

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Wow those biglaw burnouts are going to really have to take a pay cut to join now.

Seriously! I took a haircut 7 years ago but it would be so much worse if the agency hadn’t accounted for my prior salary. Woof.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I disagree. I’m a minority woman who has been underpaid in the nonprofit sector my entire career. This benefits lots of underpaid workers and is a HUGE step forward towards pay equity. It’s not about saving the feds money, it’s about valuing the job and work experience above salary history. It’s about time!

It’s equity in terms of dragging everyone lower. Is that really a benefit to you?

Absolutely

And this isn't dragging everyone lower; that is an illogical statement

[Anonymous]

Of course there won't be any effort to advance equity by recalibrating existing salaries for people that got lowballed due to prior salary.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Wow those biglaw burnouts are going to really have to take a pay cut to join now.

Seriously! I took a haircut 7 years ago but it would be so much worse if the agency hadn’t accounted for my prior salary. Woof.

Why does the fact you were overpaid in your previous job mean that you should be paid more than your peer who was underpaid in their previous job?