10 ms·

Many companies want remote workers, except from Colorado

99 points by KoftaBob 5y ago

KoftaBob 5y ago
"Major companies have said in recent job postings that Colorado residents are ineligible to apply for certain remote positions because a new state law requires businesses to disclose the expected salary or pay range for positions, according to the Wall Street Journal. The law, which went into effect in January, is meant to help close the gender wage gap and to promote wage transparency for employees, but companies have said Coloradans need not apply to avoid disclosing the information. Johnson & Johnson, CBRE, McKesson and Cardinal Health are among businesses that have added such caveats in recent online listings for remote positions, according to the Journal. The big picture: Businesses have argued that the wage disclosure law is overly burdensome for employers, while the state's labor department is investigating complaints of postings excluding Coloradans. Colorado residents can still apply for the positions, but it's unknown if companies would actually consider them as candidates."
- celticninja 5y ago
  "Overly burdensome" It's a line of text to show a range, "$95,000 to $145,000" They are all welcome to copy and paste the above and amend the figures as necessary. I hereby forgo all rights associated with being the creator of the above line of text.
  - Dumblydorr 5y ago
    Very generous of you, to relieve this massive burden upon these impoverished companies. /s
    - celticninja 5y ago
      Just doing my bit for Amazon et al.
  - deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]
  - fennecfoxen 5y ago
    Do note that the law does not simply require a line of text to show a range, but other process changes were legislated. The one where you have to advertise positions internally (before you are permitted to advertise them externally) is probably the most likely to do burdensome things to a large company's recruiting processes.
    - celticninja 5y ago
      Having worked somewhere where that is a requirement, it doesn't introduce that much of a burden. Usually if someone internal gets the position their position is then open, so whilst it requires some shuffling it isn't overly burdensome.
- markus_zhang 5y ago
  This shows how difficult it is to regulate companies when they grow big enough.
  - benque 5y ago
    In a liberal country that is. I am sure certain single party dictatorships can regulate any company of any size within a day.
    - markus_zhang 5y ago
      In reality it's still difficult because companies need to have support from top level politicians to grow big. So essentially it's a political problem.
    - throwaway9980 5y ago
      I think the most underappreciated story of the last year is the humbling of Jack Ma and Alibaba by the CCP. Imagine the same thing happening to Jeff Bezos or Mark Zuckerberg or heck even Mark Cuban.
      - bsenftner 5y ago
        What happened to Jack Ma is one of the few things that scares this class of wealth.
      - markus_zhang 5y ago
        In China people like Jack Ma are essentially the "white glove" of someone else or something else that have access to power if the company grows big enough.
        throwaway9980 5y ago
        Could you explain this in a bit more detail? Are you suggesting that there are powerful stakeholders who gain greater power outside the company through the success of the company?
- lr1970 5y ago
  Can these companies still claim that they are "Equal Opportunities Employer" if they openly discriminate against residents of one state?
  - humanistbot 5y ago
    As defined by US law, equal opportunity protections are only for the following classes: age, disability, sex, sexual orientation, national origin, race/color, and religion.
    - fallingknife 5y ago
      And on race "equal opportunity" means we can discriminate at will as long as it is against Asians or white people.
      - umanwizard 5y ago
        No it doesn’t. Discriminating against any racial group — not just disadvantaged groups — in hiring is illegal
        fallingknife 5y ago
        Then how do companies have DEI policies for hiring and promotion?
        umanwizard 5y ago
        Programs to increase diversity at the top of the hiring funnel (e.g., outreach to universities whose students are mostly from underrepresented groups) are legal, but taking race (or gender) into account for the actual hiring decision is not.
    - dylan604 5y ago
      My religion is of an open and free society. They practice said religion by passing laws that allow for data to be public, protecting what one does at home as private, etc.
- chapium 5y ago
  Of course its healthcare companies. Sigh.
imchillyb 5y ago
Major companies are so used to screwing employees on their wages, they'll do anything to shut people up about how much compensation is received. Can't screw the employee out of those benefits if they're unaware that %40 of all hires received them. Can't negotiate paid time off if postings are unavailable for the range of acceptability or what's offered. Can't negotiate salary if the salary range is not posted. Fuck these companies, and their hostile anti-Citizen agendas. We belong here, it's our country; they don't, and our country is not their plaything. If it were up to me, I'd make it a Federal Law that any company not willing to post their wages or their wage ranges -this goes for international companies as well- they cannot trade on US Markets. That's right. No more stock market, financial industry; nada.
watertom 5y ago
Simple we just need more states passing the same law, time to start the Internet campaign.
- TigeriusKirk 5y ago
  Just get California to pass it and resistance becomes untenable.
  - novok 5y ago
    california already has had a salary range law for a while, dont know the details but if youre applying locally it definitely applies.
    - sgarland 5y ago
      When I applied to my CA-based company remotely, I asked for the range, and they gave it to me. Not sure if that's the law, or was just a courtesy.
      - novok 5y ago
        From what I've seen after research, they have to give it to you if your reporting into the California part of the company. Also if something becomes law in a significant place of the company, they often just make it a general company policy unless they really don't like the law.
- sneak 5y ago
  Why do you wish to enshrine compelled speech into law?
  - groby_b 5y ago
    Because markets are distorted by unequal access to information.
  - ethbr0 5y ago
williesleg 5y ago
Good! Colorado sucks. Too many soy boys.
lordnacho 5y ago
Real question here, how do people know whether to bother applying for a position if they don't know the pay range? Why would I put myself through a weeks long process if I thought there was a chance the pay was too low? As an employer won't you get a really mixed bag of candidates if you don't give a number? Why would you want new grads mixed with 20 year veterans in a pile of CVs? I interviewed recently and the recruiters all gave a number, or at least OKed that what I wanted was possible.
- bradleyjg 5y ago
  It’s not so much about hiding the numbers from candidates, though there’s some of that too. The main thing is desperately keeping new hire offer numbers away from existing employees.
  - deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]
  - lordnacho 5y ago
    Unless you've been seriously underpaying your existing employees, it's gonna be ballpark plus negotiation, isn't it? In any case the new guy is gonna try to make some friends over a beer, isn't he?
    - bradleyjg 5y ago
      In many companies employees are hired at market and then given as few raises as humanly possible regardless of changes in the larger market, their own skills, or responsibilities. Employees know this in the back of their mind, but seeing it play out with a concrete new hire is dangerous for employers. In terms of discussions over beer, many companies successfully create taboos around comp. Larger cultures that are squeamish about talking about money, which includes many of those prevalent in the US, make that even easier for those companies.
      - bigwavedave 5y ago
foolmeonce 5y ago
I'm happy if employers need to disclose upfront; this is a powerful signal that I don't want to work for them. Being able to avoid the disclosure by throwing out applications is more problematic.
anothernewdude 5y ago
And if the company doesn't have a pay range?
stickfigure 5y ago
What's the penalty for putting "range $0 to $1MM" on everything?
- corytheboyd 5y ago
  There is wording about the range being “reasonable” in the law IIRC. This is also to cover, for example, negotiations if the potential hire wants a higher salary and the business is willing to agree. It’s still obviously grey area, but I think making the range obviously meaningless would be shot down.
  - dalbasal 5y ago
    Actually using a 0 to $1MM range is asking to be shot down. OTOH, "$80k-$160k, experience dependant" is probably defensible and achieves almost the same thing... especially if the range is generic for the company.
  - bell-cot 5y ago
    IANAL (and certainly have not read the text of the law), but "reasonable" sounds fairly easy to game in many situations. "Your honor, our job listing made things quite clear. If qualified candidates were scarce, we could go as low as 1/4 time. Or if a candidate who was highly over-qualified wanted to get a foot in the door with us, to then apply internally for a higher position when one opened up, his or her starting salary could reflect his over-qualification...". (Note that they already seem to be getting away with the "overly burdensome" argument. The plausibility standards applied to legal arguments made on behalf of large corporations are, ah, minimal.)
- chii 5y ago
  could easily specify to have accuracy at least within 1 standard deviation of the final outcome salary.
  - dllthomas 5y ago
    Standard deviation of what group?
bell-cot 5y ago
Given the massive data breaches in recent years - especially First American Financial, Experian, and other troves of in-depth personal financial data - how easily could the pay ranges be deduced & disclosed by any determined grey hat? At least for most of the positions at very large companies. Which I'd bet is where 90% of the benefits of the current situation (huge information asymmetries in hiring and employment relationships) lie for those organizations.
- anitil 5y ago
  For Australian jobs on Seek some enterprising redditor wrote a script to binary search over salary for a given position. So, you give it a job ad, and it repeatedly changes the search criteria to give you an upper and lower bound on the ad. I've never needed to use it but thought it was neat.
robin_reala 5y ago
This is a good first step, but just forcing companies to publish their gender pay gap is another approach. The UK does this: https://gender-pay-gap.service.gov.uk/ https://gender-pay-gap.service.gov.uk/ Johnson & Johnson pay women 80% compared to men: https://gender-pay-gap.service.gov.uk/Employer/ZQsnGdUe/2020 https://gender-pay-gap.service.gov.uk/Employer/ZQsnGdUe/2020 Johnson & Johnson Medical pay women 89% compared to men: https://gender-pay-gap.service.gov.uk/Employer/QnG4UNkf/2020 https://gender-pay-gap.service.gov.uk/Employer/QnG4UNkf/2020 CBRE pay women 64%(!) compared to men: https://gender-pay-gap.service.gov.uk/Employer/CDD1g2Vb/2019 https://gender-pay-gap.service.gov.uk/Employer/CDD1g2Vb/2019
- arcturus17 5y ago
  For Johnson & Johnson, there are more women in the top best-paying quartiles. It seems that what’s dragging pay down is the fact that there is a lot more women than men in the bottom quartiles. So I guess a solution to this problem could be to greatly increase the proportion of men in the bottom pay quartiles?
  - charrondev 5y ago
    Or fire some women in the bottom quartile and hire men instead. Clearly this is necessary to achieve fairness.
    - arcturus17 5y ago
      That's where I was getting at.
- hallway_monitor 5y ago
  Since apparently they employ way more women than men they should balance that first. Simply fire enough women in each income bracket to end up with an equal number of men and women. Sure a lot of people lose their jobs for no reason but hey it makes some numbers look better to some people!
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
merricksb 5y ago
Major discussion about this issue a month ago: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27233073 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27233073 (446 points/30 days ago/395 comments)
- kleinsch 5y ago
  This isn’t a dupe. WSJ coverage this week is totally different than a Reddit thread a month ago and story has developed.
PragmaticPulp 5y ago
This super-short article leaves out the real issue. It's not just about disclosing salary ranges on job listings, which is easy to work around by listing wide ranges. The Colorado law has many more smaller provisions that companies need to follow for their internal operations. The problem is that by opening the remote job to Colorado residents, the company now has to navigate the entire new Colorado employment law, not just the bit about posting salary ranges. For small employers especially, it's daunting to have to let a different state's employment laws and procedural requirements for various things infect your company's operational requirements just to advertise a remote job to a state with less than 2% of the US population. Even the salary range listing is more of a burden than it sounds for certain jobs. When we hire for many positions, we're open to a wide range of experiences from junior employees through seasoned veterans with decades of experience. This can translate to salaries ranging from $80K to $300K. Do we just put $80-300K on the form and be done with it? Or do we have to split the job listing into separate salary ranges and experience levels? Do we have to make a separate job listing for Colorado and one for everyone else? Do we have to overhaul our other internal processes to match Colorado law just to list a job in the state, or can we wait until we hire someone from Colorado to invest that time and effort? Then at each step I need to involve the lawyers to make sure we're not violating Colorado law in not only the listing, but now our internal business practices. We're not located in Colorado, so I either need to work with a Colorado lawyer who is familiar with the law or pay my legal team to come up to speed on Colorado law and then work with us to make sure various HR practices comply. It very quickly costs mid 5 figures or more just to post that Colorado job listing, along with countless hours of making sure we've checked all the boxes of the law. When you're a small company, it's easier to just exclude the <2% residents in Colorado and play it safe.
- magicalist 5y ago
  > the company now has to navigate the entire new Colorado employment law, not just the bit about posting salary ranges You didn't point to anything specific except the salary listing, so it's difficult to respond, but it sounds like you're describing the exact situation of interstate remote hiring everywhere. Even big cities usually have lots of employment and tax hoops to jump through, and how many cities in the US have less than 2% of the US population?
whoknowswhat11 5y ago
As is common HN misleads on the reason why this is happening. Publishing pay range is not key issue - those are publically available for major cos. See Glassdoor etc The issue is the other parts of the law. Everybody for whom the position would be an upgrade has to be given an opportunity to apply first - so now when they want to post for a controller CPA position of an in house counsel job - they need to first spend time and documenting that they have their retail front line workers the advance opportunity to apply . With thousands of employee s and positions that's just one tricky situation
- Jochim 5y ago
  What's so difficult about having an internal jobs board? It seems like a fairly common thing at companies big enough to be bothered by this, and smaller companies can get by with an email of open positions.
  - whoknowswhat11 5y ago
    It's very very easy to run afoul of the rules. For example, if the position goes up on Sunday and you provide the required written notice (which is regardless of qualification - so you need to take your senior in house legal counsel role and send a notice to your front line non attorney retail staff about) on Monday - you are going down and are in violation of the law because you have to provide the formal written notice on the same calendar day. Similarly, if someone approves and posts the position at the end of a long day at 11PM, but the folks sending out the formal written notices are not awake then - bam, $10,000 penalty. Similarly, sometimes you get an incredible candidate and decide to hire above planned range in terms of comp. This requires a re-notification to ALL your staff (ie, 10,000 emails to all your employees) to allow them to apply for this higher comp position (even if they are not at all qualified - ie, retail staff get notices for software engineer roles etc). Finally - you have to maintain documentation in anticipation of litigation showing that you complied with the requirements. So now someone has to be logging and tracking all the various times of notice posting on a job board like indeed vs formal written notice to employees -> which then has to be fed into a records retention policy for larger employers etcetc. For a lot of companies dealing with all this is not worth it. A reminder - there are already tons of notices that have to be sent out. Most employers are not even following the rules here which are very specific. Here is an example requirement for one of these "You must hand the notice directly to the employee or send it by first-class mail to the employee’s last known address. You will not meet the notification requirements by posting the notice on an employee bulletin board or sending it through office mail." These notices are often for things like EITC etc - for some employers where starting salary if $60K+ - these notices are total noise, and insuring you send them out when required (which are all at different intervals), can't go through office mail but have to HAND DELIVER a printed notice or send via first class mail - it's just silly at some point.
mchusma 5y ago
This is not something where there is a market gap that needs to be addressed. If you make the risk of posting for employment higher, expect fewer people to post.
kleinsch 5y ago
Why is this flagged as dupe and dropped from the front page? The story has developed since that Reddit thread, story in the WSJ yesterday, more data about companies, etc Glad we got that out of the feed so we can get… books about Lisp, Amazon is a bad place to work, and everyone wants a four day workweek. Definitely haven’t discussed those before…
dang 5y ago
We've changed the url from https://www.axios.com/remote-jobs-colorado-salary-discloser-law-33ce8a79-1465-44c4-a311-dd1aebfe8921.html https://www.axios.com/remote-jobs-colorado-salary-discloser-..., which points to this. Previous related threads: Why Corporations Won’t Hire Remote Workers in Colorado - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27338931 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27338931 - May 2021 (63 comments) Companies excluding Coloradans from remote jobs to avoid sharing salary ranges - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27233073 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27233073 - May 2021 (394 comments)
neonate 5y ago
https://archive.is/cgcK9 https://archive.is/cgcK9
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]

99 points by KoftaBob 5y ago

"Major companies have said in recent job postings that Colorado residents are ineligible to apply for certain remote positions because a new state law requires businesses to disclose the expected salary or pay range for positions, according to the Wall Street Journal. The law, which went into effect in January, is meant to help close the gender wage gap and to promote wage transparency for employees, but companies have said Coloradans need not apply to avoid disclosing the information. Johnson & Johnson, CBRE, McKesson and Cardinal Health are among businesses that have added such caveats in recent online listings for remote positions, according to the Journal. The big picture: Businesses have argued that the wage disclosure law is overly burdensome for employers, while the state's labor department is investigating complaints of postings excluding Coloradans. Colorado residents can still apply for the positions, but it's unknown if companies would actually consider them as candidates."

celticninja 5y ago
"Overly burdensome" It's a line of text to show a range, "$95,000 to $145,000" They are all welcome to copy and paste the above and amend the figures as necessary. I hereby forgo all rights associated with being the creator of the above line of text.
- Dumblydorr 5y ago
  Very generous of you, to relieve this massive burden upon these impoverished companies. /s
  - celticninja 5y ago
    Just doing my bit for Amazon et al.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
- fennecfoxen 5y ago
  Do note that the law does not simply require a line of text to show a range, but other process changes were legislated. The one where you have to advertise positions internally (before you are permitted to advertise them externally) is probably the most likely to do burdensome things to a large company's recruiting processes.
  - celticninja 5y ago
    Having worked somewhere where that is a requirement, it doesn't introduce that much of a burden. Usually if someone internal gets the position their position is then open, so whilst it requires some shuffling it isn't overly burdensome.
markus_zhang 5y ago
This shows how difficult it is to regulate companies when they grow big enough.
- benque 5y ago
  In a liberal country that is. I am sure certain single party dictatorships can regulate any company of any size within a day.
  - markus_zhang 5y ago
    In reality it's still difficult because companies need to have support from top level politicians to grow big. So essentially it's a political problem.
  - throwaway9980 5y ago
    I think the most underappreciated story of the last year is the humbling of Jack Ma and Alibaba by the CCP. Imagine the same thing happening to Jeff Bezos or Mark Zuckerberg or heck even Mark Cuban.
    - bsenftner 5y ago
      What happened to Jack Ma is one of the few things that scares this class of wealth.
    - markus_zhang 5y ago
      In China people like Jack Ma are essentially the "white glove" of someone else or something else that have access to power if the company grows big enough.
      - throwaway9980 5y ago
        Could you explain this in a bit more detail? Are you suggesting that there are powerful stakeholders who gain greater power outside the company through the success of the company?
lr1970 5y ago
Can these companies still claim that they are "Equal Opportunities Employer" if they openly discriminate against residents of one state?
- humanistbot 5y ago
  As defined by US law, equal opportunity protections are only for the following classes: age, disability, sex, sexual orientation, national origin, race/color, and religion.
  - fallingknife 5y ago
    And on race "equal opportunity" means we can discriminate at will as long as it is against Asians or white people.
    - umanwizard 5y ago
      No it doesn’t. Discriminating against any racial group — not just disadvantaged groups — in hiring is illegal
      - fallingknife 5y ago
        Then how do companies have DEI policies for hiring and promotion?
        umanwizard 5y ago
        Programs to increase diversity at the top of the hiring funnel (e.g., outreach to universities whose students are mostly from underrepresented groups) are legal, but taking race (or gender) into account for the actual hiring decision is not.
  - dylan604 5y ago
    My religion is of an open and free society. They practice said religion by passing laws that allow for data to be public, protecting what one does at home as private, etc.
chapium 5y ago
Of course its healthcare companies. Sigh.

imchillyb 5y ago

Major companies are so used to screwing employees on their wages, they'll do anything to shut people up about how much compensation is received. Can't screw the employee out of those benefits if they're unaware that %40 of all hires received them. Can't negotiate paid time off if postings are unavailable for the range of acceptability or what's offered. Can't negotiate salary if the salary range is not posted. Fuck these companies, and their hostile anti-Citizen agendas. We belong here, it's our country; they don't, and our country is not their plaything. If it were up to me, I'd make it a Federal Law that any company not willing to post their wages or their wage ranges -this goes for international companies as well- they cannot trade on US Markets. That's right. No more stock market, financial industry; nada.

watertom 5y ago

Simple we just need more states passing the same law, time to start the Internet campaign.

TigeriusKirk 5y ago
Just get California to pass it and resistance becomes untenable.
- novok 5y ago
  california already has had a salary range law for a while, dont know the details but if youre applying locally it definitely applies.
  - sgarland 5y ago
    When I applied to my CA-based company remotely, I asked for the range, and they gave it to me. Not sure if that's the law, or was just a courtesy.
    - novok 5y ago
      From what I've seen after research, they have to give it to you if your reporting into the California part of the company. Also if something becomes law in a significant place of the company, they often just make it a general company policy unless they really don't like the law.
sneak 5y ago
Why do you wish to enshrine compelled speech into law?
- groby_b 5y ago
  Because markets are distorted by unequal access to information.
- ethbr0 5y ago

williesleg 5y ago

Good! Colorado sucks. Too many soy boys.

lordnacho 5y ago

Real question here, how do people know whether to bother applying for a position if they don't know the pay range? Why would I put myself through a weeks long process if I thought there was a chance the pay was too low? As an employer won't you get a really mixed bag of candidates if you don't give a number? Why would you want new grads mixed with 20 year veterans in a pile of CVs? I interviewed recently and the recruiters all gave a number, or at least OKed that what I wanted was possible.

bradleyjg 5y ago
It’s not so much about hiding the numbers from candidates, though there’s some of that too. The main thing is desperately keeping new hire offer numbers away from existing employees.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
- lordnacho 5y ago
  Unless you've been seriously underpaying your existing employees, it's gonna be ballpark plus negotiation, isn't it? In any case the new guy is gonna try to make some friends over a beer, isn't he?
  - bradleyjg 5y ago
    In many companies employees are hired at market and then given as few raises as humanly possible regardless of changes in the larger market, their own skills, or responsibilities. Employees know this in the back of their mind, but seeing it play out with a concrete new hire is dangerous for employers. In terms of discussions over beer, many companies successfully create taboos around comp. Larger cultures that are squeamish about talking about money, which includes many of those prevalent in the US, make that even easier for those companies.
    - bigwavedave 5y ago

foolmeonce 5y ago

I'm happy if employers need to disclose upfront; this is a powerful signal that I don't want to work for them. Being able to avoid the disclosure by throwing out applications is more problematic.

anothernewdude 5y ago

And if the company doesn't have a pay range?

stickfigure 5y ago

What's the penalty for putting "range $0 to $1MM" on everything?

corytheboyd 5y ago
There is wording about the range being “reasonable” in the law IIRC. This is also to cover, for example, negotiations if the potential hire wants a higher salary and the business is willing to agree. It’s still obviously grey area, but I think making the range obviously meaningless would be shot down.
- dalbasal 5y ago
  Actually using a 0 to $1MM range is asking to be shot down. OTOH, "$80k-$160k, experience dependant" is probably defensible and achieves almost the same thing... especially if the range is generic for the company.
- bell-cot 5y ago
  IANAL (and certainly have not read the text of the law), but "reasonable" sounds fairly easy to game in many situations. "Your honor, our job listing made things quite clear. If qualified candidates were scarce, we could go as low as 1/4 time. Or if a candidate who was highly over-qualified wanted to get a foot in the door with us, to then apply internally for a higher position when one opened up, his or her starting salary could reflect his over-qualification...". (Note that they already seem to be getting away with the "overly burdensome" argument. The plausibility standards applied to legal arguments made on behalf of large corporations are, ah, minimal.)
chii 5y ago
could easily specify to have accuracy at least within 1 standard deviation of the final outcome salary.
- dllthomas 5y ago
  Standard deviation of what group?

bell-cot 5y ago

Given the massive data breaches in recent years - especially First American Financial, Experian, and other troves of in-depth personal financial data - how easily could the pay ranges be deduced & disclosed by any determined grey hat? At least for most of the positions at very large companies. Which I'd bet is where 90% of the benefits of the current situation (huge information asymmetries in hiring and employment relationships) lie for those organizations.

anitil 5y ago
For Australian jobs on Seek some enterprising redditor wrote a script to binary search over salary for a given position. So, you give it a job ad, and it repeatedly changes the search criteria to give you an upper and lower bound on the ad. I've never needed to use it but thought it was neat.

robin_reala 5y ago

This is a good first step, but just forcing companies to publish their gender pay gap is another approach. The UK does this: https://gender-pay-gap.service.gov.uk/ https://gender-pay-gap.service.gov.uk/ Johnson & Johnson pay women 80% compared to men: https://gender-pay-gap.service.gov.uk/Employer/ZQsnGdUe/2020 https://gender-pay-gap.service.gov.uk/Employer/ZQsnGdUe/2020 Johnson & Johnson Medical pay women 89% compared to men: https://gender-pay-gap.service.gov.uk/Employer/QnG4UNkf/2020 https://gender-pay-gap.service.gov.uk/Employer/QnG4UNkf/2020 CBRE pay women 64%(!) compared to men: https://gender-pay-gap.service.gov.uk/Employer/CDD1g2Vb/2019 https://gender-pay-gap.service.gov.uk/Employer/CDD1g2Vb/2019

arcturus17 5y ago
For Johnson & Johnson, there are more women in the top best-paying quartiles. It seems that what’s dragging pay down is the fact that there is a lot more women than men in the bottom quartiles. So I guess a solution to this problem could be to greatly increase the proportion of men in the bottom pay quartiles?
- charrondev 5y ago
  Or fire some women in the bottom quartile and hire men instead. Clearly this is necessary to achieve fairness.
  - arcturus17 5y ago
    That's where I was getting at.
hallway_monitor 5y ago
Since apparently they employ way more women than men they should balance that first. Simply fire enough women in each income bracket to end up with an equal number of men and women. Sure a lot of people lose their jobs for no reason but hey it makes some numbers look better to some people!
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]

merricksb 5y ago

Major discussion about this issue a month ago: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27233073 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27233073 (446 points/30 days ago/395 comments)

kleinsch 5y ago
This isn’t a dupe. WSJ coverage this week is totally different than a Reddit thread a month ago and story has developed.

PragmaticPulp 5y ago

This super-short article leaves out the real issue. It's not just about disclosing salary ranges on job listings, which is easy to work around by listing wide ranges. The Colorado law has many more smaller provisions that companies need to follow for their internal operations. The problem is that by opening the remote job to Colorado residents, the company now has to navigate the entire new Colorado employment law, not just the bit about posting salary ranges. For small employers especially, it's daunting to have to let a different state's employment laws and procedural requirements for various things infect your company's operational requirements just to advertise a remote job to a state with less than 2% of the US population. Even the salary range listing is more of a burden than it sounds for certain jobs. When we hire for many positions, we're open to a wide range of experiences from junior employees through seasoned veterans with decades of experience. This can translate to salaries ranging from $80K to $300K. Do we just put $80-300K on the form and be done with it? Or do we have to split the job listing into separate salary ranges and experience levels? Do we have to make a separate job listing for Colorado and one for everyone else? Do we have to overhaul our other internal processes to match Colorado law just to list a job in the state, or can we wait until we hire someone from Colorado to invest that time and effort? Then at each step I need to involve the lawyers to make sure we're not violating Colorado law in not only the listing, but now our internal business practices. We're not located in Colorado, so I either need to work with a Colorado lawyer who is familiar with the law or pay my legal team to come up to speed on Colorado law and then work with us to make sure various HR practices comply. It very quickly costs mid 5 figures or more just to post that Colorado job listing, along with countless hours of making sure we've checked all the boxes of the law. When you're a small company, it's easier to just exclude the <2% residents in Colorado and play it safe.

magicalist 5y ago
> the company now has to navigate the entire new Colorado employment law, not just the bit about posting salary ranges You didn't point to anything specific except the salary listing, so it's difficult to respond, but it sounds like you're describing the exact situation of interstate remote hiring everywhere. Even big cities usually have lots of employment and tax hoops to jump through, and how many cities in the US have less than 2% of the US population?

whoknowswhat11 5y ago

As is common HN misleads on the reason why this is happening. Publishing pay range is not key issue - those are publically available for major cos. See Glassdoor etc The issue is the other parts of the law. Everybody for whom the position would be an upgrade has to be given an opportunity to apply first - so now when they want to post for a controller CPA position of an in house counsel job - they need to first spend time and documenting that they have their retail front line workers the advance opportunity to apply . With thousands of employee s and positions that's just one tricky situation

Jochim 5y ago
What's so difficult about having an internal jobs board? It seems like a fairly common thing at companies big enough to be bothered by this, and smaller companies can get by with an email of open positions.
- whoknowswhat11 5y ago
  It's very very easy to run afoul of the rules. For example, if the position goes up on Sunday and you provide the required written notice (which is regardless of qualification - so you need to take your senior in house legal counsel role and send a notice to your front line non attorney retail staff about) on Monday - you are going down and are in violation of the law because you have to provide the formal written notice on the same calendar day. Similarly, if someone approves and posts the position at the end of a long day at 11PM, but the folks sending out the formal written notices are not awake then - bam, $10,000 penalty. Similarly, sometimes you get an incredible candidate and decide to hire above planned range in terms of comp. This requires a re-notification to ALL your staff (ie, 10,000 emails to all your employees) to allow them to apply for this higher comp position (even if they are not at all qualified - ie, retail staff get notices for software engineer roles etc). Finally - you have to maintain documentation in anticipation of litigation showing that you complied with the requirements. So now someone has to be logging and tracking all the various times of notice posting on a job board like indeed vs formal written notice to employees -> which then has to be fed into a records retention policy for larger employers etcetc. For a lot of companies dealing with all this is not worth it. A reminder - there are already tons of notices that have to be sent out. Most employers are not even following the rules here which are very specific. Here is an example requirement for one of these "You must hand the notice directly to the employee or send it by first-class mail to the employee’s last known address. You will not meet the notification requirements by posting the notice on an employee bulletin board or sending it through office mail." These notices are often for things like EITC etc - for some employers where starting salary if $60K+ - these notices are total noise, and insuring you send them out when required (which are all at different intervals), can't go through office mail but have to HAND DELIVER a printed notice or send via first class mail - it's just silly at some point.

mchusma 5y ago

This is not something where there is a market gap that needs to be addressed. If you make the risk of posting for employment higher, expect fewer people to post.

kleinsch 5y ago

Why is this flagged as dupe and dropped from the front page? The story has developed since that Reddit thread, story in the WSJ yesterday, more data about companies, etc Glad we got that out of the feed so we can get… books about Lisp, Amazon is a bad place to work, and everyone wants a four day workweek. Definitely haven’t discussed those before…

dang 5y ago

We've changed the url from https://www.axios.com/remote-jobs-colorado-salary-discloser-law-33ce8a79-1465-44c4-a311-dd1aebfe8921.html https://www.axios.com/remote-jobs-colorado-salary-discloser-..., which points to this. Previous related threads: Why Corporations Won’t Hire Remote Workers in Colorado - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27338931 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27338931 - May 2021 (63 comments) Companies excluding Coloradans from remote jobs to avoid sharing salary ranges - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27233073 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27233073 - May 2021 (394 comments)

neonate 5y ago

https://archive.is/cgcK9 https://archive.is/cgcK9

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]