[antihero]

Yeah I've not understood this approach. People who are willing to negotiate should get a higher salary.

Preventing negotiation seems like a bandaid approach to equality that should be fixed by teaching female candidates (or other candidates who are less likely to negotiate) to negotiate and feel confident in their worth much earlier in their careers and education.

Preventing negotiation seems like it gives less freedom to the candidate.

[BeetleB]

> People who are willing to negotiate should get a higher salary.

Most people's take is that people who perform better should get a higher salary. While negotiation helps prevent you from being underpaid, it very often[1] is the reason people who perform poorer are getting a higher salary.

[1] As in, every single place I've worked.

[the_gipsy]

> People who are willing to negotiate should get a higher salary.

Why? What is the merit? Do you infer they will perform better because they are good negotiators?

[antihero]

Because everyone should have the right to try and extract as much wealth as they can from a company who is extracting as much value as they can from an employee.

[chrisseaton]

Because they won’t take the job otherwise.

If you want them to work there, then you need to match their requirements.

You could also give everyone else a pay rise every time you struggle to fill a position I suppose.

[the_gipsy]

They are just upfront about how much "requirements" can be met. They don't waste anybody's time if someone seeks hidden salary ranges.

[chrisseaton]

> They are just upfront about how much "requirements" can be met.

Right... but if you just refuse to meet people's requirements then you won't be able to hire them, or you're only be able to hire desperate people with no other options. Surely this is damaging to your business, and the careers and equity of everyone working there.

[_y5hn]

Because it benefits themselves.

[afthonos]

Whenever there’s a pot of money that people of a special group inexplicably fail to pick up, it’s worth wondering if teaching them to pick it up is the solution. I am no expert in gender discrimination, for instance, but even I have come across research that suggests that (1) people are less impressed with a resume if the name attached to it isn’t the right kind (by gender or other characteristics) and (2) people interpret identical behavior differently when coming from people of different characteristics (e.g. a male negotiator is viewed as “tough”, where a female negotiator might be viewed as “overly demanding”).

The approach in the parent article may not be ideal, but from where I stand, it’s as valid as waiting for someone (who?) to teach groups of interest to negotiate, and having the problem fix itself.

[lghh]

It's not that women candidates (or anyone) are necessarily less adept at negotiations, it's that those that they are negotiating with could potentially be less apt to pay more to that specific person due to their identification or any other reason. This gets rid of that bias.

[joshuamorton]

> People who are willing to negotiate should get a higher salary.

Why? You seem to be saying that willingness to negotiate is something an employer should value and therefore remunerate more. Why should they value that particular skill?

[antihero]

After talking to some friends about this, I'm not so sure about my opinion. Take it with a grain of salt.