5 ms·

Companies usually exclude Colorado from remote job listings so they can post a separate Colorado-specific job posting that complies with the laws in that state.

Companies usually exclude Colorado from remote job listings so they can post a separate Colorado-specific job posting that complies with the laws in that state. It doesn’t make sense to post the Colorado-specific pay range and job posting to every other state, especially when salaries vary so much between locations. In my (limited) experience hiring Colorado employees remotely, we had to make several different job postings with various ranges to make sure we didn’t exclude any possible applicants for having too high or too low salary bands. If someone applied for the $200-$300K job description but didn’t have the right experience or performance during the interview, we could offer for them to “reapply” to the $150K-$200K job title and pick up there. It felt like a lot of formality with no real benefit to either side. The Colorado law also doesn’t stop at the job listing. You have to follow specific procedures for various things after the employee is hired, too. I could see companies excluding Colorado just to simplify their operations and avoid opening themselves up to another state’s different employment laws.

dfxm12 5y ago
I'm glad CO passed this law, but this post really shows how hostile employers are to job seekers and employees. It also highlights why we really need federal action on this to provide the intended benefits to them.
- sokoloff 5y ago
  Which part(s) were showing hostility towards job seekers and employees? If an employer has a need for a level 3 software engineer (whatever that is for them), should they post in Colorado the salary range for that role in Colorado? Or the range for that role in Elbonia on the low end and Palo Alto on the high end? Would the latter pass muster with CO? If someone aspirationally applies for that role and the interview process places them as a promising level 2 software engineer, what should the company’s answer be? “We regret to inform you that we will not be making a level 3 offer.” Or is the candidate better off if they then continue to say “we invite you to apply for consideration for a level 2 role by clicking this link: xxxx”?
throwvirtever 5y ago
> It felt like a lot of formality with no real benefit to either side. Isn't the intent to benefit third parties though? I thought the point of pay transparency is to provide information to people who don't have the connections to know what the "real deal" generally is, so they can negotiate on an equal footing as other applicants when they have the opportunity.
mitchdoogle 5y ago
Why would you have such a wide pay range of $150k-300k for a single position? Seems like such a range enables the kind of thing these laws are trying to prevent, i.e. underpaying employees, or gender/racial gaps in pay. That, or just a massive bait and switch. Surely there has to be a limit on the ranges for salaries posted, otherwise what's stopping an employer from just posting a range of $10k - $1M, at which point the salary information becomes as worthless as having no information.
- notreallyserio 5y ago
  Further, why is pay tied to location anyway? Just because I chose to live in a cheaper region doesn't mean I can't produce the same value to the organization as someone in, say, SF. Are we to believe that employers are paying more in HCOL areas out of the goodness of their hearts?
  - bennysomething 5y ago
    The company is paying you the market rate, i.e as little as they can get away with, not how much value you create. Your location is one of the variables in calculating your market rate. Who knows , with remote work this may disappear, but I doubt it's what workers in the USA would want. I live in the UK, salaries in the USA are way higher. Then look at India. My feeling is when people say location shouldn't matter then mean as long as the location is in their country.
    - notreallyserio 5y ago
      By all means, if my employer can find someone in another country that they think can do as well as I do for less money, they ought to hire them. It would be foolish and (frankly) shitty to feel otherwise, especially for folks like me that are in the US purely by luck of birth. If they're from a real poor country, maybe this practice will help their economy (not that that's a reason to do it necessarily).
    - musicale 5y ago
      > The company is paying you the market rate, i.e as little as they can get away with, not how much value you create "As little as they can get away with, not how much value you create" sounds like a recipe for exploitation and dissatisfied employees. Which I suppose is exactly what we have. It would also seem to create a strange incentive for people to move to places where the cost of living is higher.
mitchdoogle 5y ago
Why not just make one post, say "salary range $150k-$300k, dependent on location, experience, and interview performance"? Seems like you're making multiple posts in an effort to have your cake and eat it too, and then blaming the laws for the extra effort required for the deliberate choice you made. Which, let's be honest, is a very anti-employee choice.

dfxm12 5y ago

I'm glad CO passed this law, but this post really shows how hostile employers are to job seekers and employees. It also highlights why we really need federal action on this to provide the intended benefits to them.

sokoloff 5y ago
Which part(s) were showing hostility towards job seekers and employees? If an employer has a need for a level 3 software engineer (whatever that is for them), should they post in Colorado the salary range for that role in Colorado? Or the range for that role in Elbonia on the low end and Palo Alto on the high end? Would the latter pass muster with CO? If someone aspirationally applies for that role and the interview process places them as a promising level 2 software engineer, what should the company’s answer be? “We regret to inform you that we will not be making a level 3 offer.” Or is the candidate better off if they then continue to say “we invite you to apply for consideration for a level 2 role by clicking this link: xxxx”?

throwvirtever 5y ago

> It felt like a lot of formality with no real benefit to either side. Isn't the intent to benefit third parties though? I thought the point of pay transparency is to provide information to people who don't have the connections to know what the "real deal" generally is, so they can negotiate on an equal footing as other applicants when they have the opportunity.

mitchdoogle 5y ago

Why would you have such a wide pay range of $150k-300k for a single position? Seems like such a range enables the kind of thing these laws are trying to prevent, i.e. underpaying employees, or gender/racial gaps in pay. That, or just a massive bait and switch. Surely there has to be a limit on the ranges for salaries posted, otherwise what's stopping an employer from just posting a range of $10k - $1M, at which point the salary information becomes as worthless as having no information.

notreallyserio 5y ago
Further, why is pay tied to location anyway? Just because I chose to live in a cheaper region doesn't mean I can't produce the same value to the organization as someone in, say, SF. Are we to believe that employers are paying more in HCOL areas out of the goodness of their hearts?
- bennysomething 5y ago
  The company is paying you the market rate, i.e as little as they can get away with, not how much value you create. Your location is one of the variables in calculating your market rate. Who knows , with remote work this may disappear, but I doubt it's what workers in the USA would want. I live in the UK, salaries in the USA are way higher. Then look at India. My feeling is when people say location shouldn't matter then mean as long as the location is in their country.
  - notreallyserio 5y ago
    By all means, if my employer can find someone in another country that they think can do as well as I do for less money, they ought to hire them. It would be foolish and (frankly) shitty to feel otherwise, especially for folks like me that are in the US purely by luck of birth. If they're from a real poor country, maybe this practice will help their economy (not that that's a reason to do it necessarily).
  - musicale 5y ago
    > The company is paying you the market rate, i.e as little as they can get away with, not how much value you create "As little as they can get away with, not how much value you create" sounds like a recipe for exploitation and dissatisfied employees. Which I suppose is exactly what we have. It would also seem to create a strange incentive for people to move to places where the cost of living is higher.

mitchdoogle 5y ago

Why not just make one post, say "salary range $150k-$300k, dependent on location, experience, and interview performance"? Seems like you're making multiple posts in an effort to have your cake and eat it too, and then blaming the laws for the extra effort required for the deliberate choice you made. Which, let's be honest, is a very anti-employee choice.