3 ms·

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?
  - chii 5y ago
    of the same/similar job(s) that has been offered by this company (including the past).
    - dllthomas 5y ago
      For large N, that could make some sense. For a lot of (company, job) pairs, though, that'll be an N of 1. That seems unrealistic. Of course we can determine some threshold below which it doesn't apply, but then there are games to be played around how jobs are grouped, etc. I'm not saying there's no solution down that path, but I don't think it's "easy".
chrisseaton 5y ago
The legal system expects you to apply common sense. Do you think what you're proposing is a common sense interpretation? No. So you would not be compliant.
smsm42 5y ago
I'd imagine a lawsuit from a predatory plaintiff lawyer where you'd have to prove this is "reasonable" range, while paying through the nose for legal representation anyway.
muttled 5y ago
A lot of these come down to if you were standing in front of a judge, explaining the whole thing, would they agree with you? Or would they think you're gaming it?

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?
- chii 5y ago
  of the same/similar job(s) that has been offered by this company (including the past).
  - dllthomas 5y ago
    For large N, that could make some sense. For a lot of (company, job) pairs, though, that'll be an N of 1. That seems unrealistic. Of course we can determine some threshold below which it doesn't apply, but then there are games to be played around how jobs are grouped, etc. I'm not saying there's no solution down that path, but I don't think it's "easy".

chrisseaton 5y ago

The legal system expects you to apply common sense. Do you think what you're proposing is a common sense interpretation? No. So you would not be compliant.

smsm42 5y ago

I'd imagine a lawsuit from a predatory plaintiff lawyer where you'd have to prove this is "reasonable" range, while paying through the nose for legal representation anyway.

muttled 5y ago

A lot of these come down to if you were standing in front of a judge, explaining the whole thing, would they agree with you? Or would they think you're gaming it?