20 ms·
Companies excluding Coloradans from remote jobs to avoid sharing salary ranges
- auslegung 5y agoWhat is the likelihood someone in Colorado sues for discrimination? I think 100% at some point in the next 5 years.
- eplanit 5y agoI think it's legal to discriminate based on geographic location.
- croes 5y agoSo it's legal to discriminate people living in certain neighborhoods?
- kspacewalk2 5y agoWhy not? Neighbourhood is not a protected status like race, gender, national origin, age, disability, etc.
- tguedes 5y agoExcept in America our neighborhoods are heavily influenced by race so I doubt you could legally ban against hiring from a neighborhood made up 90%+ African Americans.
- swashboon 5y agoWell, you wouldn't be sued because you banned hiring from the neighborhood. You would be sued for discriminating against a protected class under a paper thin veil of banning a location.
- bombcar 5y agoRequiring that employees live at within X minutes of the job site - likely legal. Forbidding employees from certain locations as a proxy for a protected class - likely illegal. An example: during the sales tax wars many companies would refuse to hire from a state that would could the employee as a tax nexus. This is mostly gone now as the sales tax fight seems mostly over.
- lostcolony 5y agoIs it? Even outside of sales tax, it's additional accounting overhead to handle the withholding and filing for states you aren't in. No idea how much, I would imagine it's dependent on the systems in use, but the organizational incentives for allowing and enabling it are probably horribly misaligned for many companies.
- bombcar 5y agoIt's a hassle but not an huge one, and any company that is in a population center that straddles a state border already deals with this (think New York, Chicago, Portland, Minneapolis/St Paul) - once you can handle two states handling additional isn't that painful. More importantly the COST associated is fixed per employee roughly - having an employee in another state doesn't usually change the amount of tax paid, etc - just who it's paid to. This won't be entirely true, but it's close enough - and for companies with outsourced HR (think: ADP) it's even easier. Any company big enough to have a significant number of employees that this applies to would be big enough to eat the cost (and probably already has offices/etc in multiple states as is).
- vageli 5y agoIt seems in some cases, yes. For instance many police and fire departments require you to live within X miles of the station. It also wouldn't seem odd if a company decided to exclude remote workers from places in which the company does not have a nexus, to avoid further complicating taxes.
- KMag 5y agoPresumably that's legal, as long as there isn't a clear correlation between excluded neighborhoods and protected classes. I'm not a lawyer. This is not legal advice.
- lmkg 5y agoThe thing you're looking for is the legal doctrine of "Disparate Impact." Discrimination against a protected class (like race) is illegal. Geography is not a protected class, and discrimination based on geography is not inherently illegal. But under the doctrine of Disparate Impact, a particular policy of geographic exclusion is illegal if it happens to have outsized effect on a protected class (and has no business justification). Note that Disparate Impact does not require intention!
- bob33212 5y agoNot if the woke crowd gets their way. They got a guy fired from AAPL because they felt "unsafe" due to a book he wrote 6 years ago where he called some SF women useless in a zombie apocalypse. Feeling "threatened" or "violated" by not being able to apply to a job seems just as reasonable.
- hasmolo 5y agothis feels a little disingenuous. the dude is a public facing exec that said shitty stuff about women, working at a company that heavily signals it won’t be like that. it seems like a lower level employee with the same views wouldn’t write a book including them or be liable for those views. context is important
- waheoo 5y agoIt shouldn't matter what his role is. Saying some off the cuff stuff a few years ago in an obscure book doesn't make a workplace unsafe. That is disingenuous. I've seen people fired for similar "unsafe" bullshit. Literally anything can trigger these deranged individuals. They're just out to play victim and get attention. And no, I don't think all toxic workplace behaviour is like this, many places have narcissists and similar types roaming the halls making things extremely traumatic for many people. That stuff is real and I feel for the people that get out through the ringer by these environments. But a book? 6 years ago? In the context of a zombie apocalypse hypothetical? Get the fuck outa here.
- hasmolo 5y ago“ They have their self-regarding entitlement feminism, and ceaselessly vaunt their independence, but the reality is, come the epidemic plague or foreign invasion, they’d become precisely the sort of useless baggage you’d trade for a box of shotgun shells or a jerry can of diesel.” so this is ok because he’s saying they’re only useless in an apocalyptic scenario? he’s literally saying that the core of women is useless in the “real world”. i understand that it can feel like there’s a group of anonymous “woke thugs” wondering the internet trying to get people. if you feel that way it might be useful for you to try and empathize with why someone would feel that way.
- ethbr0 5y agoIt is. Afaict, protected classes and characteristics as of 2021 are: Sex, race, color, religion, national origin, pregnancy and childbirth (and related medical conditions), age (including mandatory retirement), disability (including requiring reasonable accommodation), black lung disease (mine operators), bankruptcy and bad debt, citizenship status, & genetic information. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Employment_discrimination_law_in_the_United_States#History_of_federal_laws https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Employment_discrimination_la...
- ghaff 5y ago>citizenship status It's a little more complicated. The person needs to have the legal right to work in the country of course. And, if there are any legal restrictions related to e.g. Federal contracts such as defense contractors often have, a job may be restricted to US citizens.
- ummonk 5y ago"e.g. Federal contracts such as defense contractors often have, a job may be restricted to US citizens." While true, that seems like a rare occurrence. Most jobs I've seen just require US Persons (e.g. to work on space / defense technology) which includes permanent residents.
- swashboon 5y agoIs being a Coloradoan a protected class?
- panzagl 5y agoAbout half the state thinks so. The rest thinks being former Texans or Californians makes them a protected class.
- refurb 5y agoGeographic location is not a protected class.
- mmillin 5y agoIs discrimination based on current location illegal? I’m curious what case they would have given that many companies require certain time zones for remote employees.
- MattGaiser 5y agoCould California contractors sue when the job postings came out banning them from applying? I doubt it.
- rsj_hn 5y agoYou mean, sue an employer in another state who doesn't want to be subject to Colorado laws? Good luck with that. When CA passed AB5, lots of employers refused to hire people in CA because they didn't want to be subject to AB 5. This is how it works, employers choose whether the hassle of dealing with the state's regulations is worth the benefit of hiring employees in that state.
- javert 5y agoYeah, they should sue the state of Colorado. Or just leave and go to another state.
- eplanit 5y agoMy sympathy is with the employers. Colorado did this to itself with such an anticompetitive law. Beyond this effect, it also encourages sending the work offshore altogether.
- zachrose 5y agoWhat competition is being hampered by this law?
- bo1024 5y agoI would think more information about the jobs improves competition and efficiency of the labor market. Unfortunately politics uses the term anticompetitive to mean bad for big businesses, which is almost the opposite meaning.
- eplanit 5y agoColoradoans looking for remote work will now be competing in a smaller pool (with each other), and for fewer positions, than if the whole country were open to them. If other states start this then more will go to India and China.
- woeirua 5y agoLOL. What? If other states do this, then employers will just have to comply. The only problem right now is that CO is kind of by itself. If a company is going to outsource they were going to do it anyways.
- theandrewbailey 5y agoCompanies hiring remotely that avoid Colorado forfeit the good talent there. I'm skeptical that this law scares every company, as plenty put salary ranges on job postings.
- deleted 5y ago[deleted]
- dominotw 5y ago
- fennecfoxen 5y agoReminds me of the outrage™ when US newspapers blocked connections from Europe over the GDPR. Regulations have consequences. Not all those consequences are the consequences you want. Sometimes exiting a small market looks like a better option than compliance. Sometimes HN downvotes posts for challenging a political crusade by pointing out what it did to those who promoted it. ;)
- frankbreetz 5y agoIs Europe a small market?
- fennecfoxen 5y ago"European readers of American newspapers" is.
- throwaways885 5y agoWhen America asserts itself as the dominant power, international readers American newspapers is not a small market. At the very least, it doesn't match the spirit of the web to have region locked content.
- MattGaiser 5y agoYeah, but international readers of the Lacrosse Tribune are probably few and far between.
- fogihujy 5y agoFor many U.S. businesses I'm sure it's pretty much irrelevant. For others, not so much. That's why you see some U.S. businesses complying with EU directives, while others simply block visitors from the EU.
- MattGaiser 5y agoYes, if you are a local US newspaper.
- cma 5y agoDon't all companies have to share it for H1B listings anyway, as federal law, which legally are supposed to be commensurate with non-H1Bs (not that they necessarily are in practice)? https://h1bdata.info/ https://h1bdata.info/
- toast0 5y agoOnly companies that hire H1B have to do those filings, AFAIK. Lots of companies don't hire H1B because it's a lot of work.
- rodonn 5y agoBut these numbers can be very deceptive, since they don't include RSUs or bonuses. e.g. when you look at Amazon you won't see any salaries about $200k even though total compensation goes much higher than that.
- frankbreetz 5y agoI would hope this would work itself out. People (me at least) are more likely to apply to jobs that have the salary listed, so companies that try this would have a smaller pool of talent.
- privacylawthrow 5y agoThe law also requires that Colorado employees be informed of all promotional opportunities. A promotional opportunity is "a vacancy in an existing or new position that could be considered a promotion for one or more employees in terms of compensation, benefits, status, duties, or access to further advancement." If a company doesn't already have Colorado employees, they may not be interested in having a remote employee in CO that requires special treatment.
- refurb 5y agoWow. I could see companies excluding CO just due to the regulatory burden alone, even if they agree with the spirit of the law. I mean why create new HR processes when you have 49 other states to hire from?
- deleted 5y ago[deleted]
- ClumsyPilot 5y agoMy curent company shares an email about open promotional opportunities every 6 months. I am continously amazon how on hackernews expecting basic decensy from corporates is a 'terrible burden'
- weird-eye-issue 5y agoIs 6 months enough? Can't spots get filled between that time?
- privacylawthrow 5y ago6 months is not compliant. Employees have to be made aware of the posting on the same calendar day the job is posted. For jobs that are in constant demand, the company has to either send a daily email or have some kind of banner on its corporate intranet. There is also no geographic restriction so if a company has any offshore service centers, it would need to post any promotional jobs to its Colorado employees as well.
- eecc 5y agoSo it' s basically a corporate boycott against labor laws favorable to employees?! I guess this will be first time a boycott won't be broken by a police charge and perhaps even becoming successful! /s
- commandlinefan 5y ago> favorable to employees Is it really though? Complete transparency in salary ranges also means that every other employer can see exactly what their competition is offering. I can't help but worry that this will lead to a sort of "price fixing" that will actually drive wages _down_.
- xtracto 5y agoInsightful to see DigitalOcean as the example company here.
- NCFZ 5y agoI was surprised. I wasn't expecting a major tech company who's website is plastered with things about "valuing diversity" to be one to pick a fight over a such a minor requirement in a gender equality law.
- tssva 5y agoI have a couple of droplets that I use to play around with things. Part of this weekend will be spent moving to a different provider.
- nulladdr 5y agoI live in Colorado and received an offer from DigitalOcean a couple of years ago for a remote position. The pay was okay--roughly the same as the job I had at the time. But they insisted on keeping a non-compete clause in the employment contract, which can prevent an employee from joining a competitor for up to a year after their last day at DigitalOcean. Think about that for a second. You get a job at DO, working on cloud infrastructure. If you leave that job, you can't join another cloud provider for a year. Your options are A) ask DO for explicit permission to take a new role anyway, leaving it to their discretion, B) live in CA where these clauses are invalid, C) change industries with your next job, or D) take a year off between jobs without pay. Apparently these contracts are not uncommon in NY, MA, WA. But it was the only time I've personally encountered one, and I was not okay with limiting my future job options like that, so I turned it down.
- zuhayeer 5y agoCurious how wide the salary ranges can be. Are there ways companies can just provide a wide range and get away?
- LargeWu 5y agoMight be counterproductive. If I, as an applicant, see a wide range and think there's a good chance that it's in bad faith, I might just skip them altogether in my search.
- lotsofpulp 5y agoThis law mainly benefits the lower end who are trying to find out if the fast food place will pay a dollar more than the hotel. People that already had the option of switching high paying jobs don’t need this law, they can simply shop around themselves. Although they are also helped.
- jcomis 5y agoThis is exactly what's happening and how a few companies are getting around it, specifically big consulting companies.
- WaitWaitWha 5y agoI understand the public reasoning why the law was passed. I am not sure it is the right solution. As a business I would be very concerned that the cost/compensation for those few individuals with the qualification in Colorado will become very expensive as my competitors outbid each other to the sky (CO pop. 5.759mm US Census 2019). I remember the pre-dot com boom. IT was "rolling in money"... As an employee, I am now concerned that I will be targeted because of the job I have. The criminal elements can now pretend to be "Robin Hood". As an employee, how will this "race to the top" salary battle backfire? Will I be stuck in Colorado? Are there loopholes (and there always are) where CO companies can hire outsiders cheaper? And, so on...
- deleted 5y ago[deleted]
- jorgemf 5y agoCompensation doesn't have to be only the salary. The company can offer you other non-tangible things that might be worth work with them even for a lower salary. Maybe more free time, or more flexibility in your life it is worth less money in the salary.
- WaitWaitWha 5y agoAgree & I understand regarding creative compensation. Is this true for most jobs, or just for above a certain level? What percentage of CO workers fall below that threshold? I do not know. The average annual salary in CO in 2019 was $61,819 according to Statista. It will be interesting to see how this law impacts it over time.
- the_only_law 5y agoHuh I didn’t realize that Colorado had passed this law. I was looking at various remote jobs the other day and kept seeing notes about the pay range for people if they worked in Colorado. The first time, I figured it must be a Colorado based company providing information on what they would normally pay for workers in the state, but I kept seeing it more and more.
- ClumsyPilot 5y agoA competitive market would enable me to sort by salary and benefits and apply for the best job. However companies don't want to compete on salary, and potentialy drive them up - they want maximum leverage. They get more leverage if process is obscure, so that you only agree salary late in the process and for the applicant, pulling out is risky. The market is not really free - its being manipulated by one side. Similarly with healthcare you don't know how much you will be charged upfront, so there is no competition on price. With housing (in UK) there is no competition on quality because the seller doesn't have to disclose any problems with the house. If it falls of a cliff the minute you sign on the dotted line, it's your problem. You have to pay for the surveyor to find out any issues the house might have, and that means you can only view a few houses before you've paid the house price in survey fees.
- nairboon 5y agoThere should be a job board exactly like that, with base salary x + y% per year specific experience for 1-10y, z% 11-20y etc. and u% per year for general industry experience.
- Finnucane 5y agoIn the US, real estate sellers have to disclose known problems, but they can claim they didn't know, and then you might have to fight it out in court. It's still in your interest to get an inspection before closing.
- deleted 5y ago[deleted]
- ensignavenger 5y agoThis varies somewhat by state, as I understand. Some states only require disclosure for specific classes of problems.
- sidlls 5y agoThat's why people include inspection clauses in their offer contracts. If the inspection reveals an issue it must then be disclosed by the seller going forward, if the buyer can back out due to the clause.
- aynyc 5y agoI remember when NY/NJ came out with law preventing employers asking your previous wages (they used to ask for W2!!!). People were saying, oh, employers just won't hire in NY/NJ anymore! Guess what, job market is still hot as the sun and salary range went up across all my job searches and I don't have to deal with bullshit recruiters trying to play with comps.
- fennecfoxen 5y agoAre the labor markets in New York and New Jersey substantially similar to the labor markets in Colorado? (And should we expect the specific regulations in NY/NJ (forbidding certain questions) and those in Colorado (requiring disclosure of information, and, requiring certain notifications of existing employees) to have the same effect?)
- aynyc 5y agoIn terms of overall job market, no idea. In technology, I would imagine yes. I work in NYC, every job except capital market type I got reached out by recruiters have CO listed.
- ncallaway 5y agoAs a small business owner and someone who is currently hiring for remote positions, I will say the CO law will not in any way dissuade me from considering candidates from CO. Every jurisdiction has laws and compliance regulations specific to that jurisdiction. These requirements seem in no way onerous or out of line to me. I think the companies that will avoid CO applicants for jobs will be doing so because they want to avoid the wage transparency more than they want to avoid the regulatory burden.
- 908B64B197 5y agoHow does that even work? Do they actually check that the data is real?
- aynyc 5y agoHow does what work? Asking for previous salary? I've been asked to provide W2s to prove my salary prior to the law. You can probably fake W2s but I just think that's too much work for 99.9% of job applicants.
- kwdc 5y agoCompanies are using salary secrecy to benefit themselves and to lower salaries/competition/transparency. This is clear evidence.
- pmoriarty 5y agoWould this have the effect of revitalizing local Colorado businesses as Colorado employees would no longer have the option of outsourcing their own talent out of state?
- Robotbeat 5y agoIt’s all about maintaining a monopsony-like advantage in bargaining position by maintaining information asymmetry with (current and potential) employees.
- kolbe 5y agoReminder: people respond to (dis)incentives. You should really think about the rational response to a disincentive whenever you make a law. But we have politicians who neither care to, nor have the intellectual capacity to bother researching how these “feel good” laws will actually be reacted to in real life. I have a friend who calls SF “the city of unintended consequences” for this exact reason, and now Colorado is importing their attitude.
- pessimizer 5y agoThe way to fix this is by enacting similar laws everywhere else, not to go for the lowest common denominator on workers rights (or "feel good laws" as you refer to them here.) Somebody has always got to be the first to outlaw slavery.
- kolbe 5y agoI can’t even argue with someone who thinks so highly of some half-baked piece of local legislation that they’re comparing it to the 13th Amendment. Lol.
- seoaeu 5y agoThe 13th Amendment decidedly wasn't the first law banning slavery. In fact, it was preceded was a rather notable war between states that already had laws banning it and those that didn't.
- rswail 5y agoIn the meantime, those looking for work in Colorado, particularly for low paid work, will be able to find out whether they can make more per hour at one place than another. This is the "intended consequences" and the slight impact on remote IT workers in Colorado is an unfortunate side-effect that is likely to be allieviated when the power of labor vs capital swings back towards labor, after 40 years of swinging in the other direction.
- MattGaiser 5y agoI get why companies are increasingly focusing on referral hiring. it lets you sidestep so much compliance.
- sbarre 5y agoCompliance is one thing but if you trust your employees, then a referral hire also potentially lets you skip a ton of vetting.
- m3kw9 5y agoWhile that’s employee friendly..
- jcomis 5y agoAs a Coloradan another thing that's happening is companies are listing their jobs as Remote, only advertising in CO, and just mentioning it's a CO only job verbally. They do the thing where they sit in the gray area due to pandemic "Oh, it's remote, FOR NOW, but it's a CO job" Or listing the job as Denver and a few other cities, but it's really just Denver/Boulder (Twitter currently doing this). Another pattern is listing the range as 40-250k so the disclosure is effectively nothing. Consulting companies Accenture, PwC, Deloitte are doing that one. A few companies are completely rejecting this whole law too. I've spoken with a few that still won't disclose (usually "We aren't CO based and it doesn't apply") or they just straight up aren't doing it with no comment. Experienced many recruiters completely flustered by it.
- MattGaiser 5y agoA lot of the problem is what the job pays is highly dependent on who is chosen for the role, especially for those catch all job postings that are just Software Engineer -- All Levels. So it genuinely could be anywhere between 40-250K.
- jcomis 5y agoThe law only requires a minimum for the specific title. So it does fail if a company is just looking generically and they don't wish to follow the law in spirit by listing the minimums per level. And once you are in discussion and land at a level the recruiter is essentially obligated to tell you, so it's not just job listings.
- sidlls 5y agoThat's either a defect in the law or it's HR people thinking they're more clever than the legal system and violating the rule in a spirit which a court could easily find actionable.
- mxcrossr 5y ago> Another pattern is listing the range as 40-250k so the disclosure is effectively nothing. This feels like a losing strategy as other employers will be posting tighter ranges which will get more applications. Especially if the lower bounds is too low. Hopefully this sorts itself out.
- hash872 5y agoI think one reason why this is difficult for companies that are hiring software engineers, is that they can hire at multiple levels of experience. They just need good developers! A company that needs, say, a Golang developer, or Scala, or React, might be willing to hire a junior, mid-level or senior developer- they'll take whatever experience level they can get. Remember, saying that you don't want to hire someone too experienced is pushing the envelope on age discrimination laws.... So if they're willing to hire someone with 2-20 years of experience, the salary range may be so broad as to be meaningless. $80-180k doesn't really tell anyone anything, and I'd imagine regulators can't do much if that's what companies put down as their range. I find that a lot of people imagine an open job & job description to be Very Rigid Categories, whereas in practice companies hiring in high-demand fields have to be flexible to find people. From the employer's point of view, that's why we find demands for the salary range to be frustrating- lots of companies really don't have a specific range in mind! If you mandate that companies use a tight salary band, they'll simply say OK, our Software Developer 1 pays $70-90k, Software Developer 2 pays $90-11k, etc. However- we haven't decided which level of software developer we're going to hire you for. Tough for regulators to beat that approach too
- tshaddox 5y agoI find it very difficult to believe that an employer that would be happy to fill a certain position at $80k would also be willing to fill that same position at $180k.
- hash872 5y agoDid you happen to see the part where I explained that a company could hire someone at a relatively junior, mid-level or senior opening- in an extremely competitive market for software developers? Like, let's say you're X Startup, you desperately need a Golang developer, not having another good Golang developer on your team is costing you Y amounts of money per month, and you just can't find one in your preferred experience range. Do you A) do nothing and just continue to lose money each month for lack of a good developer, or B) hire someone who knows Golang, regardless of whether they're more junior or more senior than you were hoping? Does that kinda make sense?
- whiddershins 5y agoI used to think keeping salaries secret was a racket. And maybe it is. But I also think there might be people you work with who try hard, do decent work slowly, and are compensated accordingly. (Fairly) And who are delighted with their job and salary. How would it benefit that person to be confronted with the fact that someone else makes double or triple what they do?
- garettmd 5y agoWell, I think there's a difference transparency with salaries of existing employees, and transparency with the salary being offered to new employees. And it would benefit that person by giving them the information they need to decide whether to pursue a higher salary or not.
- ryandrake 5y agoMaybe it could serve as a much needed wake-up call to that person. I was him long ago, and finding out someone made 50% more than me for doing essentially the same job provided exactly the kick in the ass I needed to start job hunting again.
- lostcolony 5y agoCEO salaries are made public. We object to them, but most of us don't intentionally avoid working for companies that have that outsized pay discrepancy. Likewise, if I'm making more than I could at any other company, but then found out a coworker was making twice as much as me, I'd still not leave. How much coworkers are paid doesn't affect whether or not we leave the company; it's how we're paid compared to the rest of the market that does. Just taking that off the table. What it DOES affect is our morale and our own performance. To that end, it benefits companies to either keep it secret, or to try and ensure that pay discrepancies within the same role match the actual performance. If that person making double or triple what you do is actually delivering 2x or 3x what you are, and you know that if your own performance increases, your comp will too, that seems like solid incentive. If it's completely disconnected, your morale will drop, and your performance likely -will- drop to be half or a third of what that person's is, and it becomes self-fulfilling. I think the main benefit to making compensation transparent is that it also forces the company to be very mindful about how compensation and performance are tied. They're supposed to be anyway; that's already a goal. It just raises the stakes for getting it right.
- NovemberWhiskey 5y agoHow is this expected to work in the real world? When I'm hiring, which I always am for software engineering roles, I am looking for talent at levels between college intern and multi-decade veteran. I don't necessarily have a roster of specific positions I need to fill; I have an idea of what kind of skills and experience mix I would like to see over time, but there's always going to be turnover at every level. Talent acquisition is multi-modal through campus programs, referrals, recruiters (both for targeted skill needs and passive candidates), and I guess probably some advertised positions.
- gumby 5y agoThose companies should be named and shamed. I say this as an employer BTW.
- aynyc 5y agoFrom the post, it's Digital Ocean.
- gumby 5y agoThanks, but as a general rule (as the headline is "companies").
- personaenon 5y agoSherwin Williams https://www.linkedin.com/jobs/view/2553879764/ https://www.linkedin.com/jobs/view/2553879764/
- the_lonely_road 5y agoMy favorite comment on that Reddit post is one where the guy says his company is on Digital Ocean and this news about how the company engages in antiworker practices is enough to push him into migrating to AWS. I have no dog or pony in the show on either side but if I was writing a fiction story I wouldn't be able to include something like that because no one would believe that decision making...of that caliber...actually exists out in the wild.
- Bishop_ 5y agoMy current employer migrated from AWS to GCP (Before my employment with them) because they don't like Jeff Bezos, things are sometimes... odd when dealing with very small businesses.
- offtop5 5y agoI'm actually not a fan of this law. My first salary position was for job which advertised a range of something like 80 to 90k a year. The highest I had made previously was $10 an hour, the CEO of the company was a nice guy who brought me in for an interview anyway. I took an offer at 40K or so, and within 3 years I was at 100k. With laws like this in play I'm not sure if that would still be legal. A lot of these ideas sound great on paper, but in reality you've completely eliminated any room to negotiate salaries downward in case an applicant isn't all that experienced. I imagine what's going to happen is you'll see companies become much stricter with documentable requirements. Such as a bachelor's degree, which I also lacked back then. Saying please I need a job, I'll take 50% less since I don't have a bachelor's will open up companies to lawsuits
- Taylor_OD 5y agoDoes this law say that you cant offer someone below the salary posted in the job? I thought it was just a referance point more than anything.
- offtop5 5y agoI'd imagine companies wouldn't want to do that, because you could come up with an argument that you're being discriminated against. The road to hell is paved with good intentions
- thealfreds 5y agoYou could always hire the person for a different role. Say its a SE position in the company but then the person doesn't meet the requirements. The company can offer a jr position. Especially in your situation it would make sense to have a separate title at the start.
- sidlls 5y agoThe company is free to offer you a different job with the lower salary: that is, nothing requires a person to be offered the job to which they applied.
- 5y ago
- injb 5y ago>> Some companies however have decided that excluding all Colorado residents for a remote job that can be filled by someone in any of the other 49 US states is better than sharing how much they're willing to pay. Well, yes obviously that is better. If 2% of all poker games required you to hold your cards the other way around, would it be better to just avoid those games? Yes, it would.
- langitbiru 5y agoI'm making PredictSalary (https://predictsalary.com https://predictsalary.com). It's a tool to predict the salary ranges from job opportunities. I collect job opportunities with salaries and create a Deep Learning model. Right now, it only supports three job opportunities websites. Soon I will create a tool to share the salaries. I'm inspired by the story below. https://www.axios.com/salaries-game-developers-break-silence-8f03c4aa-216e-4043-80dc-0376c606b926.html https://www.axios.com/salaries-game-developers-break-silence...
- alex_young 5y agoAlthough not exactly the same thing, California already requires employers to give pay scales for jobs when requested by an applicant and bars asking about their salary history: https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billTextClient.xhtml?bill_id=201720180AB168 https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billTextClient.xhtm...
- lostcolony 5y agoAsking for pay scales is a problem though. Do it at the start of the interview and you're flying in the face of all interview advice (i.e., don't ask about pay during the initial phone screen; the companies smart enough to save their own time will mention it upfront, and the companies that want to negotiate you as low as possible by hiding information will take it as a red flag), and at the end I don't care what the range for the position is; I want to know what they're going to offer -me-. I guess if at the end I felt especially lowballed, but at that point I don't really care what their scale is; it's too low for me to want to take it. I guess if I didn't have a job, felt like I had to take it, it provides some extra information at that point to try and negotiate with?
- alex_young 5y agoSeems pretty straightforward to me. "For alignment, can you provide the salary range for this position?" If they hedge, just tell them you want to make sure we're not waisting time.
- ChrisMarshallNY 5y agoHmm...looks like a good way to filter out companies not worth applying to. That's easy for me to say, though. I am not looking for work; especially not with corporations that want to begin our relationship on a platform of dishonesty. I'm fairly big on that whole "Integrity" thing. I know it's not in fashion, these days, but I'm a bit "old-skool."
- darth_avocado 5y agoThis is why you need to organize and self report salaries. Like the game devs from a few days back or leverage sites like levels.fyi
- molsongolden 5y agoMost of this act seems pretty similar to what already exists in CA where employers are required to provide a salary range to applicants who ask and employers aren't allowed to ask candidates for salary history. The "salary range in job posting" is new but, as others have noted, ranges cam be broad and based on experience. The recent "no CO" disclaimers feel like a short-term reaction to uncertainty and they'll probably be phased out as companies/recruiters/HR providers verify their processes and policies are compliant.
- Der_Einzige 5y agoYeah, I was looking for this reply in this thread and I'm shocked that it took this long to find it and that it's not upvoted to the top. CA has a similar law (and in fact I link it to every recruiter who tries to play coy about salary bands). The actual text of the CA law doesn't hold all that much teeth - but just linking the relevant legal code is helpful https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displaySection.xhtml?lawCode=LAB§ionNum=432.3 https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displaySectio.... "An employer, upon reasonable request, shall provide the pay scale for a position to an applicant applying for employment. For purposes of this section, “pay scale” means a salary or hourly wage range. For purposes of this section “reasonable request” means a request made after an applicant has completed an initial interview with the employer."
- 627467 5y agoI also would prefer to know salaries (while not minding letting other know mine) but I certainly don't think this should be mandated. And, unless regulations force all my competitors to disclose this information (even those outside of these regulations jurisdictios) I don't see the point of these regulations at all.
- ummonk 5y agoWe should build a blacklist of companies that do this.
- alaxsxaq 5y agoInteresting since this coincides with a different issue I am facing. I had an employee move to California (we are a single-site business on the east coast) and everything was fine during covid. Now I'm being told that there are concerns about California's employment laws since they are out of sync with the laws in our state and might require HR to do some additional work and the organization to incur added expenses. Currently, we are awaiting a decision from HR. Our mitigation plan centers around moving this person from employee to contractor. It might be the only option for us - the employee has plenty of other opportunities.
- DTrejo 5y agoIf you'd like some talking points to help you start this conversation with your HR team, here's an article I wrote: https://dtrejo.com/why-share-salary https://dtrejo.com/why-share-salary
- jeofken 5y ago“Man plans, God laughs”. Centrally planned well meaning ideas seem to invariably fail.
- bdibs 5y agoIt looks like DigitalOcean changed their policies, I can’t find the same messaging on the linked job post.
- juancn 5y agoCouldn’t you could hack it and put a ridiculously large range of salaries? For example: $1 to $10M just to comply.