A year has gone by, setting some new trends, breaking a few records, and presenting new challenges for us to tackle this year. A new year signifies fresh beginnings and new goals. The past year leaves us with much to work on, making the entire year seem very engaging and challenging.
Ban the Box
Mr. X applies for a job and encounters a checkbox for criminal history on the form. Unfortunately, he has a record from fifteen years ago, for which he has already served his time. However, this question reappears every time he applies for a job. Checking that box results in no further calls, leaving him with little choice. Regardless of how much one repents for past wrongdoings, they do not get a fair chance for employment. This checkbox should be banned. It gained significant attention last year, and we hope this year we continue to advance this important initiative.
Credit Report History
Mr. X was to be hired for a technical advisor position, a role focused on core technical work with no relation to financial transactions. His credit score was checked, revealing poor scores. Despite the importance of credit scores, in this case, we might avoid hiring him to be cautious, even if he is the best candidate for the position. Should we consider credit score history discrimination based on the job position? Are we going to check credit score history for all levels and platforms? This is a question we need to address this year.
Salary Exemption
Mr. X applies for a job where the company offers a salary range for the position. However, having worked in smaller companies, his previous salary was lower than the minimum range of the new company. Despite his capabilities, he is offered a salary below the minimum range, although higher than his last salary. Another common case of salary discrimination occurs when a woman leaves a job and wants to return after a year or two. Even if she proves to be the best fit for the job, her salary is negotiated based on her last drawn salary, not the applicable range for the position. This is a typical case of pay inequality. An employee's financial start might not be great, or they might have taken a break, but they should not suffer from pay disparity throughout their employment journey. Isn't it?
California was the first to implement a rule prohibiting employers from asking about an employee's salary history. Others are following suit. This sounds like a great start for the new year. Old trends have given us new goals. Let's all work on it. What do you say?
From India, New Delhi
Acknowledge(1)
Amend(0)
23Ban the Box
Mr. X applies for a job and encounters a checkbox for criminal history on the form. Unfortunately, he has a record from fifteen years ago, for which he has already served his time. However, this question reappears every time he applies for a job. Checking that box results in no further calls, leaving him with little choice. Regardless of how much one repents for past wrongdoings, they do not get a fair chance for employment. This checkbox should be banned. It gained significant attention last year, and we hope this year we continue to advance this important initiative.
Credit Report History
Mr. X was to be hired for a technical advisor position, a role focused on core technical work with no relation to financial transactions. His credit score was checked, revealing poor scores. Despite the importance of credit scores, in this case, we might avoid hiring him to be cautious, even if he is the best candidate for the position. Should we consider credit score history discrimination based on the job position? Are we going to check credit score history for all levels and platforms? This is a question we need to address this year.
Salary Exemption
Mr. X applies for a job where the company offers a salary range for the position. However, having worked in smaller companies, his previous salary was lower than the minimum range of the new company. Despite his capabilities, he is offered a salary below the minimum range, although higher than his last salary. Another common case of salary discrimination occurs when a woman leaves a job and wants to return after a year or two. Even if she proves to be the best fit for the job, her salary is negotiated based on her last drawn salary, not the applicable range for the position. This is a typical case of pay inequality. An employee's financial start might not be great, or they might have taken a break, but they should not suffer from pay disparity throughout their employment journey. Isn't it?
California was the first to implement a rule prohibiting employers from asking about an employee's salary history. Others are following suit. This sounds like a great start for the new year. Old trends have given us new goals. Let's all work on it. What do you say?
From India, New Delhi
Acknowledge(1)Amend(0)
All three cases that you have mentioned are worth pondering. One common thread connecting all three is rejecting someone for a past deed, which is not likely to have any impact on the new assignment. The logic that seems to govern appears to be to locate reasons for rejection rather than viewing the points that matter for selection. Perhaps the demand-supply situation also influences one to reject. In the absence of any better candidate, in my view, all three would have been selected in the respective companies.
From India
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
From India
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)CiteHR is an AI-augmented HR knowledge and collaboration platform, enabling HR professionals to solve real-world challenges, validate decisions, and stay ahead through collective intelligence and machine-enhanced guidance. Join Our Platform.
HR Manual (Employee Hand Book).doc
Trends in HR.ppt