3 ms·
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 salar
by 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 agoActually 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 agoIANAL (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.)