How much did you make in your previous job?

This dreaded interview question can sound like a trap. Your answer could be used to set your salary below someone else who is doing the same job.

And, critics say, the question can be used by employers to discriminate against women and minorities who earn less.

Employers are allowed to ask this salary question in most parts of the country. But, hoping to narrow racial and gender pay gaps, seven states and several cities and counties have banned employers from asking about prior pay.

Making matters more complex, courts have issued varying interpretations of what’s legal.

This week, for example, a federal district court struck down a Philadelphia law banning questions about prior pay, saying it impinged on free speech. But last month, the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals ruled in favor of Aileen Rizo, who sued her employer for paying her less than her male colleague because of her previous salary. (Still other circuits have ruled in different ways, allowing employers to ask the question.)

Some companies aren’t waiting for the legal questions to settle: Amazon, Wells Fargo, American Express, Cisco, Google and Bank of America all recently changed hiring policies to eliminate questions about pay history.

Part of the appeal is ease and uniformity, says Tom McMullen, a partner at executive advisory firm Korn Ferry. Last year, a survey by his firm found 46 percent of employers said they would adopt policies to comply with the strictest laws in their region.

“We’re seeing a tipping point with more and more of these states and cities coming on board with the ban … ” McMullen says.

He argues the question isn’t necessary; an employer can always ask what a candidate expects to earn, for example. In fact companies eliminating the question can adapt by improving their internal processes and doing more research before making an offer, he says.

That is exactly what has happened at CareHere, a Nashville-based health care provider with 1,000 employees.

Jeremy Tolley, CareHere’s chief people officer, says he hated probing someone’s salary history, because it always felt intrusive and awkward. Ten months ago, the company eliminated that question in response to some of the regulatory changes. Now it sets salary ranges for each job, then shares that information with candidates up front.

“Our recruiters say that it’s easier now because we’re showing our hand to the candidate,” Tolley says. “We’re telling them what our pay range is, right out of the gate. And it’s really improved candidate relations, that’s for sure.”

He says there is another benefit: A bigger, more diverse pool of candidates. For example, job candidates aren’t automatically turned down just because they earn more than the salary range.

“They’re interested in the company’s culture and they’re more interested in flexibility and remote work — all of those things factor in and not just straight compensation,” Tolley says. “So when you eliminate someone just based on simply what they expect to make then you could be eliminating a candidate without good reason.”

Tracey Diamond, a Philadelphia employment attorney, says many of her clients are taking prior pay questions out of their hiring process. But some are sticking to the practice, even as the law changes around them.

“It was important for them to know their applicant salary history coming in,” Diamond says. So those employers have taken the position that until it’s illegal in their jurisdiction, they will continue using it as a tool in assessing their candidates, she says.

It’s a risky policy, she says, and one that may have to change soon.

Let’s block ads! (Why?)

James Tufenkian loves everything about the 72-story glass tower where he lives on Manhattan’s East Side, near the United Nations. It has great views, a helpful and accommodating staff and is very well managed.

The only thing he doesn’t like is the name: Trump World Tower.

“I have to explain to everybody who comes to visit me that I’m sorry about the name on the building, that I live there doesn’t constitute any kind of endorsement,” says Tufenkian, who heads a New York carpet company.

New York may be the place Donald Trump calls home and made his fortune, but he remains distinctly unpopular in much of the city and lost the 2016 election to Hillary Clinton by a landslide there.

Now, there are signs the Trump name, emblazoned on high-end properties all over the city, is suffering the consequences.

Several buildings on the Upper West Side have already dropped the Trump name. The Trump Soho, a condo hotel launched with great fanfare a decade ago, is now known as the Dominick.

On Thursday, a condominium building at 200 Riverside Blvd. will ask a New York Supreme Court judge whether it has the right to drop Trump’s name if it chooses. A recent straw poll of building residents indicated that most want to do so.

The building, now known as Trump Place, is not owned by Trump, but it’s managed by the Trump Organization, which opposes the name change.

Elizabeth Holub, who owns an apartment there, says she has no complaints about the way the building, which has a highly desirable view of the Hudson River, is run.

“The reality is, it’s the best run building. It’s unbelievable. Every member of the staff. There’s no better place in the world to raise a family,” Holub says.

Still, she wishes it were named something other than Trump.

“Look, I can’t stand Donald Trump. I’m sorry he’s the president. I don’t support his policies,” she adds.

It’s not just politics that is making some buildings think about de-Trumping themselves. It’s also a matter of money.

While real estate prices have softened in much of New York over the past two years, especially at the high end, some evidence suggests that the Trump name can hurt sales.

One business official with deep knowledge of the real estate industry, who didn’t want his name used to protect his business relationships, said there’s no question Trump apartments are sitting on the market longer than they used to.

Even Trump Tower has recorded many fewer sales so far this year than it did during previous periods in 2016 and 2017, the official said.

As the home of the president, Trump Tower is guarded by the Secret Service, and residents have to endure intense security measures, which may have temporarily scared some buyers away.

But there are signs other Trump buildings in the city may also be losing value.

The online brokerage firm Zumper has studied rental prices at Trump buildings. Nathan Tondow, managing broker at the firm’s New York office, says in most cases, Trump buildings now fetch somewhat lower rents and sit on the market longer than they did two years ago.

More recently, the differences have narrowed, although Tondow says that may be due to seasonable factors.

This being New York, good apartments are always in short supply, and prospective tenants will always snatch up good deals, even when they’re named Trump, he says. But the Trump name does matter in some cases.

“We’ve had rental clients who didn’t want to see buildings, because they did have the Trump name on them. And we tried to explain that it is owned by someone else. It’s just the Trump name. And they say, “I know. But walking into that everyday just feels wrong.”

The Trump Organization did not respond to a request for comment. But the company has pushed back against the lawsuit by 200 Riverside Blvd., insisting that the building is obligated to use the Trump name.

The president’s son, Eric Trump, recently told David Fahrenthold of The Washington Post, “I will always fight vehemently against rogue individuals not only to protect our incredible owners but also to protect the legacy of a true visionary who did so much to shape the New York City skyline.”

Let’s block ads! (Why?)