5 ms·
Colorado Requires Disclosure of Compensation and Benefits with All Job Postings
- Gortal278 5y agoThis seems well intended but all I see now is more remote job postings requiring candidates to not be located on Colorado.
- soganess 5y agoHopefully it starts a snowball. Plus, as a non-Coloradoan, it gives me a quick canary. If the remote job list "no Colorado applicants", I know to ignore it.
- addicted 5y agoI’m curious why you think revealing all employee salaries and benefits publicly makes a company a better place to work at.
- soganess 5y agoAs I understand it, the disclosure is actually just for new job _postings_ ? I'm sure sites could collect that data and make estimations, but I'm not opposed to that either. Really anything that helps with the SNR when looking through job postings is a welcomed change in my book.
- errantmind 5y agoHaving worked at a fully salary-transparent company: it is one less aspect about employment that can be gamified by employers. You know if your title is the same as someone, their pay matches. You also know how much senior executives are making and can judge for yourself if they are justifying their value. Often, at nontransparent companies, employers will play games with salaries, but this only works if employees pretend there is some shame to sharing salaries, or if employees convince themselves they are justifiably making more than their colleagues. Having worked at both I definitely prefer transparent salaries. Hiding them mostly only benefits employers
- causehealth101 5y agoIf you search, you'll find that many are not disclosing numbers. And among those that are, a decent number are finding ways to sidestep the requirement. For example: I saw a bizarre post for a single senior-level tech role. The range was outrageously broad, but the specific numbers were exact, something like $112,899 - $242,782 base salary.