3 ms·

> Or the situation where a company is very flexible on who they hire and thus would pay a lot more or a lot less depending on what the individual brings to the

> Or the situation where a company is very flexible on who they hire and thus would pay a lot more or a lot less depending on what the individual brings to the table. You're making it sound like the companies are being forced to pay the same salary for the same role - they are not, and this is a straw man argument. The companies should publish the salary range - they are free to adjust the offers within the range depending on skills & experience of the successful candidate. If the range is $20k - $180k to cater for the "rockstar" who brings a lot - then they ought to publish that range and be prepared to explain to a candidate why the company thinks a candidate deserves $20k/yr and see how that goes. An equivalent scenario to what's happening on the job market outside Colorado would be houses being sold without displaying the asking prices - all potential buyers would be expected to jump through all the hoops and be asked to "make an offer" without being able to make comparisons on how much other similar houses on the market are going for. Instead, they'd be asked "How much did you pay for the last house you bought?" or "How much are you currently paying in rent?"

vineyardmike 5y ago
My friend interviewed for an SDE 1 position but after interview, was then offered a role of SDE 2 on the team, since the team was hiring for both, and he was more qualified as a 2. I think this is an example of flexibility that people bring up. Not that they shouldn't publish the range, but my friend had no idea the other range was open to him. TO be clear, i agree that they should have to explain "why" if they chose the part of the range, like you say, but i think it misses some edge cases that are not uncommon.
- sangnoir 5y ago
  > [...]but my friend had no idea the other range was open to him. This asymmetric information is the intention of the employer, but sadly, in most cases it goes the other way: person gets hired as an SDE 2, but earns less than some/all SDE 1's because they are terrible at negotiating, or their salary history was always below market rate and they do not know it. I'm all for companies paying commensurate salaries and having the flexibility to do so - publishing salaries ranges when posting jobs is orthogonal to that. > i think it misses some edge cases that are not uncommon. In your friends case, I hope/wish the law covers that scenario whereby the employer is forced to disclose the range for the upgraded when asked - so that all your friend needed to do was ask.

vineyardmike 5y ago

My friend interviewed for an SDE 1 position but after interview, was then offered a role of SDE 2 on the team, since the team was hiring for both, and he was more qualified as a 2. I think this is an example of flexibility that people bring up. Not that they shouldn't publish the range, but my friend had no idea the other range was open to him. TO be clear, i agree that they should have to explain "why" if they chose the part of the range, like you say, but i think it misses some edge cases that are not uncommon.

sangnoir 5y ago
> [...]but my friend had no idea the other range was open to him. This asymmetric information is the intention of the employer, but sadly, in most cases it goes the other way: person gets hired as an SDE 2, but earns less than some/all SDE 1's because they are terrible at negotiating, or their salary history was always below market rate and they do not know it. I'm all for companies paying commensurate salaries and having the flexibility to do so - publishing salaries ranges when posting jobs is orthogonal to that. > i think it misses some edge cases that are not uncommon. In your friends case, I hope/wish the law covers that scenario whereby the employer is forced to disclose the range for the upgraded when asked - so that all your friend needed to do was ask.