For those of you unfamiliar with California's obsession with creating the most complex employment environment EVER, consider yourself fortunate. It seems like every few minutes a new workplace related law gets enacted to dictate what employers can and can't do and how they can and can't do things. 

Just recently, California's Governor Brown signed a new wage equality measure into law. Essentially, it's intended to ensure that women and men working in the same/similar jobs earn the same/similar pay. Sounds reasonable enough, right?

After all we keep reading and hearing about alleged institutionalized inequalities causing women to earn substantially less than men in the same jobs. In aggregate, the statistics sure seem to agree with that premise. And, of course with or without any additional context, many people tend to believe those statistics reflect reality. 

But, moving on to something potentially equally controversial... 

Throughout my career I've noticed that in general most recruiters feel obligated to ask job candidates about their current/previous earnings and feel ENTITLED to that information. Presumably the mindset behind those inquiries is that there would be no way on earth to continue the conversation without the candidate divulging those figures. 

To some recruiters, it makes no difference at all that the hiring company most likely has a budgeted pay range in mind and is already expecting to compensate the selected individual based on the value placed on that role, combined with the perceived level of contribution that candidate would make. That being the case, wouldn't it be more expedient (dare I suggest a more positive candidate experience) to just explain the company's pay structure and find out if the candidate is interested in further discussion regardless of his/her current or recent direct deposit amount? 

I realize I may be in the minority, but I've never really considered what a person (especially me) is currently earning or previously earned an accurate reflection of what s/he should earn in a different position, at a different time, at a different company. Without additional context of that information and the situation involved, how can it be THAT relevant? 

Not that I'd ever be able to convince anyone to change her/his mind about any of the above matters, nor do I care to try...

However, related to the intro about CA wanting to earn the "most complicated regulatory atmosphere for employers" trophy, I was amused to see the following "pending" legislation: State Assembly Bill 1017

LINK: http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/pub/15-16/bill/asm/ab_1001-1050/ab_1017_b...

EXCERPT: 

432.3. An employer shall not do any of the following:

Orally or in writing, personally or through an agent, seek salary history information, including, but not limited to, compensation and benefits, from an applicant for employment for an interview or as a condition of employment. 

So, as the title implies... what would you do if you could no longer ask your candidates about their $$$$? Would you go around like Flo from Progressive Insurance handing them a "name your price tool?" Or would you label him/her a "tool" for not supplying information to satisfy your intrusive line of questions?