20 ms·
Bill to require job postings to include salaries passes Washington Senate
- jll29 5y agoThe European Commission has recently announced mandatory salary transparency in a similar vein: https://ec.europa.eu/info/policies/justice-and-fundamental-rights/gender-equality/equal-pay/eu-action-equal-pay_en https://ec.europa.eu/info/policies/justice-and-fundamental-r...
- MaxMoney 5y ago
- endisneigh 5y agoI’m very curious what the net effect on culture and salaries would be if everyone knew everyone’s total compensation. On one hand, it’s already possible to know how much most people bought their house for and what their rent is, on the other hand, the data is relatively obsfucated and not directly relevant since most people bought their house in the past and aren’t new homeowners) Would all businesses simply price discriminate if there were a very easy way to determine someone’s salary? I feel most of modern personal finance is basically just taking advantage of information asymmetry.
- brianwawok 5y agoThere is no reason to guess, this is already the law in at least 1 western country. Haven't heard stories in a while, but I think it made some interactions awkward and in general lead to more equality. One wrinkle is that it's not anonoymous in Norway to search, which skews it a little See https://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-40669239 https://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-40669239
- subpixel 5y ago> "Since 2014 it has been possible to find out who has been doing searches on your information," explains Hans Christian Holte, the head of Norway's tax authority. > "We saw a significant drop to about a 10th of the volume that was before. I think it has taken out the Peeping Tom mentality." This is just genius. And yet I'm imagining some simple ways around this that would inevitably pop up were this a thing in my country.
- divbzero 5y agoI wish the not anonymous to search feature were applied to home addresses and home purchases too. I see the benefit of the data being publicly available but wouldn’t want it abused by the wrong parties.
- hemloc_io 5y agoFunctionally in tech that already exists with levels.fyi (At least for larger companies.) Generally I find that younger people I meet with are very open to talking about salary, assuming you're working in the same industry. Definitely a sharp contrast to HR policy on the subject. Just try asking what salary bands are at companies and you'll get shifty bullshit.
- vmception 5y ago> Functionally in tech that already exists with levels.fyi (At least for larger companies.) Note, the data there is getting better but it is not perfect. As they accept both offer letters and W-2's, which can be wildly different as share prices move.
- hammock 5y agoKnowing the salary of a job posting is not the same as knowing the salary that is eventually offered to whoever fills it.
- henrydark 5y agoHow do you know rent?
- whyenot 5y agoBecause I am a public employee, anyone can go online and look up my salary. I've often wondered who might be doing that. Of course, where you live and if you own your own home are both publicly available and already pretty good proxy measures for income. I know for a fact that I pay more for certain things like help with gardening, an electrician, plumber, etc. based on where I live.
- kidfiji 5y agoAmazing. I wonder what the implications are as I'm aware of jobs many jobs intentionally avoid posting in Colorado due to the same issue; but the sheer size of tech talent in the greater Seattle area is unavoidable.
- bradleyjg 5y agoAlso NYC now. I imagine we are either at or near a tipping point where it will be pointless to try to avoid.
- windows2020 5y agoOr, it will become another reason to exit New York.
- glerk 5y agoA similar bill passed in Colorado and resulted in many employers stopping hiring in Colorado to avoid having to comply. I hope this won’t have the same outcome.
- Victerius 5y agoAmazon and Microsoft are both headquartered in Washington. This law could transform the industry, or Microsoft and Amazon might move out of Washington.
- beembeem 5y ago> Microsoft and Amazon might move out of Washington. I highly doubt Microsoft would up and leave over this one piece of legislation. See multi-year spending on new campus which isn't open yet: https://news.microsoft.com/modern-campus/ https://news.microsoft.com/modern-campus/
- beeboop 5y agoI think I've only seen a single job ad that explicitly stated no colorado in the past few months of my job search. Most just have a link you can click that buries "$60k to 190k" somewhere in fine print.
- Victerius 5y ago"$25k to $999k"
- Osiris 5y agoIt doesn't work like that. The law requires that the ranges to be sane. I don't remember the exact details but I believe it has to include existing employees with the same job and can only be some band above or below that.
- llbeansandrice 5y agoColorado's law has language about "good-faith" and "reasonable" ranges. I forget what the penalties are but it's fairly easy to report companies/listings to the state that do this.
- chadash 5y agoAs a candidate, I hate applying to jobs only to get a lowball offer at the end. So I appreciate bills like this. As a hiring manager, I see that this is actually not so simple. You give someone a range, say $100-150k. I ASSURE you that they are thinking they are closer to 150k than 100. So good luck giving an offer for $100k, even though that might be what that particular candidate is worth to you. It's never gonna happen, but what i'd rather see is an option to instead give current median total comp on the team i'm interviewing for, plus maybe the 25-75 percentile range. That gives me a sense of what I should expect, plus what the salary growth path might be.
- brianwawok 5y agoRight, totally see both sides. Every single time I have ever given a range as a hiring manage, the candidate pictured themselves at the top end. But like you could have self taught 2 years of experience vs PhD and 12 years of experience for a similar position - there is no way everyone is at the same spot comp wise.
- learc83 5y ago>2 years of experience vs PhD and 12 years of experience for a similar position Why would you hire those 2 people for the same position? If the PhD with 12 years of experience is worth 50% more, then why not give them a better title?
- deleted 5y ago[deleted]
- jjav 5y agoWhen you initially post the job listing you can't predict you'll get a reponse from these two people, so you need to be flexible. Sure, they wouldn't ultimately get hired into the same job level.
- learc83 5y agoThen you post 2 different job listings. It’s not hard. You’d write 2 very different descriptions for someone those 2 hypothetical candidates anyway. You also don’t need put $50k-$5,000,000 just in case John Carmack applies. If he does happen to apply to your junior engineer position, you instead interview him for another position with a higher salary band.
- hunglee2 5y agothis is one of those ostensibly good ideas that has some downsides which are often not discussed - the main one of which, is salary depression. Forcing employers to publish salaries on job ads will inevitably lead to wide salary bands (lets see how absurd they get) with a low ceiling on the upper tier. Employers know that if they publish a high number, job candidates are naturally going to want to shoot for it, and would be disappointed if they got significantly less than the maximum advertised, compromising offer acceptance rates. Hence employers will set a lower 'maximum' salary than they might actually pay if the salary was hidden. See UK public sector for evidence of this; salaries must be published, maximum is always significantly lower than equivalent job in private sector.
- flir 5y ago> Forcing employers to publish salaries on job ads will inevitably lead to wide salary bands Lower number cannot be less than 90% of upper number. Thus 72k-80k or 27k-30k. If you want a wider range than that, advertise two jobs.
- hunglee2 5y agois that in the legislation? Good move if they did, they saw the most obvious workaround
- flir 5y agoDoubt it, but it should be.
- freedomben 5y agoIt would be nice if you edit your original comment to note that you are not talking about what is in the bill, merely what ought to be. It's misleading as is.
- flir 5y agoThat was a good suggestion, but I think I missed the window, sorry.
- imwillofficial 5y agoI dig this, more transparency is sorely needed. I recently asked the pay band for an upcoming promotion and was treated by HR like I had just shot their dog in front of them.
- MontyCarloHall 5y ago> Additionally, for internal transfers to a new position or promotion, the employer must provide the wage scale or salary range. Nice. To the best of my knowledge, this is the first bill to mandate this; all other bills simply mandated that external job postings include a salary range. I hope this bill includes language that forces the advertised salary range to reflect the actual range. Otherwise, companies will just say that the range is $50-$500k. I would still like to see a bill go one step further and mandate that everyone’s salary be public knowledge to everyone else within the same company. If this generates resentment, it means the company is poorly managed. The company would therefore either be compelled to fix their pay discrepancies (thereby allaying the resentment) or risk losing resentful employees to other companies.
- sokoloff 5y agoI think many people would rather be paid fairly but invisibly less than a higher-performing colleague than to be paid that exact same amount and know that a higher-performing employee was making 25% more than them. Even if “fair”, it’s likely to generate resentment.
- MontyCarloHall 5y agoThat’s fair, although I think way more people would rather know that a lower-performing colleague is making 25% more than them and use this as leverage to ask the boss for a raise. While some people might resent others’ well-deserved successes, far more people resent others’ undeserved successes.
- WalterBright 5y ago> forces the advertised salary range to reflect the actual range All that means is the candidate won't get the offer if he's not worth the bottom end of the range. > pay discrepancies Some people are simply more productive in the same job as other people. Why shouldn't they get paid more?
- MontyCarloHall 5y ago
- joegahona 5y agoI am curious what prevents companies from including a "range" such as: "From $1 to $10,000,000 annually."
- 1270018080 5y agoAt least that would keep Tim Cook from applying
- sfe22 5y agoMore bureaucracy probably
- hammock 5y agoThe law
- joegahona 5y agoI read through the bill and didn't see this mentioned. Can you share what the proposed law is on salary ranges?
- hammock 5y agoThe bill will be passed, then the state department of labor will issue rules regarding its enforcement. That's how government works. When Colorado did the same thing, the Colorado department of labor issued rules that required employers to use a "good-faith and reasonable* estimate" of the salary range. You can expect the same of Washington. *"good faith" and "reasonable" are legal terms with specific tests and judicial precedent around them
- joegahona 5y agoRelated: > Other companies have disclosed pay information in ways that make it difficult to draw comparisons. For instance, some firms are setting pay ranges that are specific to Colorado, hinting that the pay might not be the same elsewhere. Others are posting salaries with ranges of as much as $100,000 or more between the low and high ends. A pharmacist job posting at Walmart said applicants can make anywhere from $52,416 to $153,920 annually for the same job. https://www.wsj.com/articles/not-sure-how-much-you-should-be-paid-colorado-could-offer-some-clues-11638354601 https://www.wsj.com/articles/not-sure-how-much-you-should-be...
- aaronbrethorst 5y agoYou can read the bill text and find its current status here: https://app.leg.wa.gov/billsummary?BillNumber=5761&Initiative=false&Year=2021 https://app.leg.wa.gov/billsummary?BillNumber=5761&Initiativ... Note that one of the bill's sponsors, Sen. Joe Nguyen, coincidentally my state Senator, is a Program Manager at Microsoft.
- tr33house 5y agoI had no ideas state senators could hold an additional job. Good work!
- aaronbrethorst 5y agoThey don't have a choice. Washington's legislature only meets for 2-3 months per year[1], and they're paid about $56,000 per year[2], which sounds pretty good for 2-3 months of work...except that they're actually working behind the scenes all year long to get legislation lined up, and then falling over each other to get things done in a short time window every January. It's not an efficient or particularly effective system. [1] https://leg.wa.gov/legislature/Pages/Overview.aspx https://leg.wa.gov/legislature/Pages/Overview.aspx [2] https://lmtribune.com/northwest/washington-senator-per-diem-rate-jumps-54-percent/article_c9a773b8-e4ce-5fa4-8947-e668e020a8b1.html https://lmtribune.com/northwest/washington-senator-per-diem-...
- warmwaffles 5y agoTexas does the same thing but every 2 years.
- Izikiel43 5y agoThe state legislature in WA works part time of the year, from Jan to later March I believe.
- pie_flavor 5y agoIn some states, like New Hampshire, state legislators' paychecks are a token amount like $100/year or nothing at all, and must hold an additional job.
- naruvimama 5y agoThis might actually depress tech salaries in non-tech companies. As is the discrepancy in titles is significant.
- whimsicalism 5y agoNo it won't, because companies are paying what they need to pay for talent.
- ChicagoBoy11 5y agoEh, but it will at the margin though. Like, you are undoubtedly correct, but part of the effect of this is piss off people in the rest of your org when they see the tech person you hired makes more than people think they should. This essentially causes the value of the high-performing tech person to decrease for you, since along with their wonderful skills you are now also hiring a tiny amount of resentment in your firm. At equilibrium, if you believe this effect, it would cause the worth of tech talent to be lower for your firm, and the equilibrium salary would reflect that.
- asdff 5y agoIts good for employees to know the salaries in their org. Why is this only a consideration for private orgs too? I worked at a public org where you could look up each and every salaried person's compensation. It doesn't breed resentment to see your boss is compensated exactly $437k this year, it sets a target for yourself and your career. The sky isn't falling at that org because salaries are public.
- whimsicalism 5y agoFair enough, but very small difference. Maybe at the margin it'll lower the salary of non-tech employees, since they are also bringing resentment with them.
- datavirtue 5y agoDo people resent doctor and lawyer salaries?
- jsiaajdsdaa 5y agoMost meaningful compensation comes from stock and discretionary bonuses.
- ChicagoBoy11 5y agoFor a very select few in the managerial class, yes. I think a lot of legislation like that is written with jobs that don't have that kind of comp in mind. However, I do think that an outcome of legislation like this is to simply create more compensation of this sort that doesn't have to be figured into "salary." There will be a greater incentive to use those instruments to the extent that you still want to keep total compensation less transparent.
- manuelabeledo 5y agoOnly if you live in the bubble that is the tech world.
- jsiaajdsdaa 5y agoPretty soon every job will be a tech job.
- manuelabeledo 5y agoI've been hearing this for the past decades. Where are all those robots who would have replaced people flipping burgers ten or fifteen years ago?
- pessimizer 5y agoYes. That fantasy is really closer to 75 years old than 15, and there are as many burger-flippers now as there ever were.
- jsiaajdsdaa 5y agoDon't say it too loudly or I might go actually do it ;) Surely you've heard of flippy the robot though, yes?
- lr4444lr 5y agoI dunno the specifics of this bill, but my former HR person said in most cases, this is easily bypassed by giving some absurd range.
- hemloc_io 5y agoGood, this should be standard. I don't understand how you can have a labor market where only one side has information on what the salaries are for an industry through a team that does market research. It depresses wages, mostly for internal employees who aren't paying attention bc they're content with their jobs. Price transparency leads to more efficient markets, no reason the labor market is any different. A company hiring an employee under market rate, because the employee doesn't know what market rate is, is a failure. EDIT: Wanted to add that this hits closer to home for me b/c I've personally experienced this. Went out and jumped companies and got a 300% raise b/c I was underpaid at the prev, only know that thanks to levels.fyi. New hires at my level were making almost double what I was. When other engineers at my current company talk about salary, or total comp more generally, they vastly underestimate the state of the market.
- rapind 5y agoYes, the biggest impact will be on cheap companies who relied on a candidate’s ignorance of their worth. We don’t even need most states to pass bills like this (would be nice though). We just need some of them and the cat’s out of the bag.
- WalterBright 5y ago
- mattnewton 5y agoGoogling crowdsourced data like levels.fyi or Glassdoor has way more noise and sampling bias than the data companies can buy from places like TWN by Equifax. Even if you had access to the same data, you don't have access to their business information so you have no good way of understanding what you would be worth or the value you are expected to generate.
- WalterBright 5y ago> you don't have access to their business information And they don't have access to accurate information on what value you can generate, either. It's a crapshoot for both parties.
- ChicagoBoy11 5y agoI don't believe this will be meaningful at all. Supposedly the same thing is going into effect in NY, and I've seen plenty of postings with ranges then all sorts of caveats about "experience," or flexibility in the role, or whatever else, that make it clear that the real range and the published range may be quite different. This, of course, to speak nothing of the distinction between salary and total compensation, which can be quite different.
- jonjon10002 5y agoIn case anyone's curious about California's law on this: https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displaySection.xhtml?sectionNum=432.3.&nodeTreePath=3.1.3.3&lawCode=LAB https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displaySectio... This was changed in 2019. Employers must provide a salary band, but it can be after an initial interview, and is not required in job postings. The same code prevents employers from directly asking a candidate about their salary history, or relying on salary history to make a hiring decision. (Employers can ask about a candidate's salary expectation, though. And the law doesn't say anything about benefits or non-salary compensation.)
- llbeansandrice 5y agoI personally think the ideal is combining WA's and CO's requirements about salary bands in job-listings and CA's law about excluding previous compensation in hiring decisions. Previous compensation matters to the employee, it's only a wage-suppression technique from the employer's side.
- dustractor 5y agoNow we need laws restricting a specific job-posting tactic where a few employers spam their same jobs over and over, multiple times daily, so you have to scroll past or filter out redundant listings. DoorDash is a prime example. Truck-driving jobs belong in a separate category altogether, but they are also prime offenders.
- BHSPitMonkey 5y agoHow would this be applied/enforced for remote positions?
- Osiris 5y agoIf the job is available to people in the state then the law applies. So if I'm based in Texas but advertise a job publicly to remote workers, then I have to comply with (in my case Colorado) law about wage transparency. I've also read that just including the line, "not available in Colorado" is not a valid legal recourse to skirting the law. Law makers are generally pretty good at estimating people's willingness to try to get around laws like this and include all kinds of gotchas.
- golemotron 5y agoWhat keeps an employer from posting that each of their jobs is in the band of 10K-1M/yr?
- warmwaffles 5y agoApparently the low band of the pay can not be less than 90% of the top band. If you want that low band you have to make two job postings.
- snarfy 5y agoYou have to start somewhere. That said, I'm pretty sure they will just change to Software Engineer Comp: 50k-350k d/o experience
- nickpp 5y agoSalaries closer aligned with the productivity in our field will massively increase inequality.
- deleted 5y ago[deleted]
- deleted 5y ago[deleted]
- deleted 5y ago[deleted]
- deleted 5y ago[deleted]
- deleted 5y ago[deleted]
- lmilcin 5y agoThe trouble is, if you post salary range from X to Y, most candidates will expect getting Y and will be permanently unhappy with their new position if they get closer to X. It is simple psychology. Then what about the candidates that are so good that you want to pay them more? I fully expect that best candidates will still be able to negotiate better than the official salary range.
- TimPC 5y agoI'm curious if anyone else is concerned about the downside to this. Once they post a range they have to follow it because of the legal implications. Many companies are willing to bend the budget for an exceptional candidate at the very top end. I worry that some of the senior roles that could have negotiated above the top end of the range will now be hamstrung by it. I know of several situations where a company thought the top of their range was somewhere around $260K and went up to $275K after seeing a candidate they really liked. They aren't likely to post the role with the extra $15K in it since if they post a role from $200K-$275K then most people are going to want $250K+ which is near what they thought the top of their range was.
- deleted 5y ago[deleted]
- nightski 5y agoI went freelancer a while back and now just don't worry about it. Let those who enjoy being part of a system with ranks, levels, titles, and politics deal with it. It was rough going at first but I've found steady clients now which I've been able to work with for over a decade and they aren't going anywhere.
- jppope 5y agorock on. how do you find clients though?
- t-writescode 5y agoIf the candidate is as great as you're saying here, why not put them in the higher ranked position?
- MithrilTuxedo 5y agoI didn't know it either, but this bill mostly just moves forward when that information must be disclosed. Current law requires it to be disclosed upon request after a job offer has been made. The bill is really short. https://app.leg.wa.gov/billsummary?BillNumber=5761&Initiative=false&Year=2021 https://app.leg.wa.gov/billsummary?BillNumber=5761&Initiativ...
- golemiprague 5y ago[dead]
- twblalock 5y agoI assume it's not illegal to negotiate a salary that is higher than the range stated in the job posting. Hopefully companies don't start using the job posting as an excuse not to negotiate higher salaries, otherwise it could depress wages for highly qualified applicants.
- t-writescode 5y agoWhy not pay everyone correctly rather than forcing your future employees to fight hard to get their valid wage?
- twblalock 5y ago"Pay everyone correctly" is a loaded statement. So is "valid wage." These things are determined by the market and what a candidate brings to the table -- not just by the job itself.
- t-writescode 5y agoRealistically, companies try to pay their future employees as low as possible. Someone comes along that chooses to be a so-called "better negotiator" and they get paid more. Why should people have to play the negotiation game? "What a candidate brings to the table" is likely defined in a leveling guideline. If they bring more to the table, maybe they should be in a different bracket. If someone is so special (and 99.9% of the people aren't), then maybe give them their own special role with special titles; but we're not talking about exceptional people here, we're talking about an average developer at this company, which I hope has an average relative skill level. Sure, one person may be better at X or Y and worse at Z than another but that's why we have several people: distributing load and specialization.
- llbeansandrice 5y agoIf the applicant is highly qualified, wouldn't they be able to get offers from other companies that are higher? I see this as a personal issue: you gotta apply to jobs you don't think you're qualified for and be okay with being told "no" sometimes. If you don't test the upper-bound, you'll never find it.
- hintymad 5y agoDoes salary in this bill include RSU or stock options? If not, then it may not be that relevant to tech employees? For instance, anyone L6+ in Amazon received 160K in Seattle area and 180K in the bay area.
- txsoftwaredev 5y agoSo now all job postings are going to be "Salary range between 50-300k, depending on experience."
- ausbah 5y agowhy not require companies to post salary ranges of already employed workers in same or similar roles? seems like it could circumvent the absurd range issue
- cryptonector 5y agohttps://www.coloradoexcluded.com/ https://www.coloradoexcluded.com/
- joelbondurant2 5y ago
- whiplash451 5y agoWe just shot ourselves in the foot pretty badly with this bill. Software engineers are not meat packers. There is huge variance in productivity between two people at the same level in the same role. Here is what will happen now: - candidates who get an offer at the bottom of the range will take it personally and keep hunting for a job elsewhere - candidates who get an offer at the top of the range will (rightfully) assume that the next significant pay rise is far away (basically, only upon promotion) - the hiring managers will have to shoot a salary range first without having seen a candidate, so the range will have to be astronomical, else they will miss on top performers on the market Well done!
- UnpossibleJim 5y agoA candidate with less expertise/experience in the role should expect to be on the bottom end of the pay range and a candidate who has seniority/expertise in an area should expect to be on the upper end of the pay range. I know for a fact that I've been on the low end of the pay range when my area of expertise didn't quite overlap and expected as much, but I got to learn a new technology and expand my field of knowledge.
- noahtallen 5y agoI don’t understand what you’re trying to say. 1. The difference here is that previously (currently), you still decline the job if you know the market, or you accept a low offer because you don’t know the market well. So the difference with the new approach is better: at least you know to decline or negotiate. 2. This isn’t really different from the status quo. Companies can have internal bands of where they expect comp to be for different positions, and then they stay within it when giving raises. Either they do that, which is the same as before, or they give great raises, which they also would have already been doing. Not sure how the law changes how raises work in the cases where you negotiate a higher salary up front. In either case, it’s always better to get paid more up front and then find a new gig if you aren’t getting raises as expected. 3. The status quo is already this, but no one knows. Clearly a great applicant will have a lot of room to negotiate upwards. If you know up front the job won’t meet your requirements, you’ll pass. And if you weren’t expecting a lot but see the big range, you’ll think, “ok, how do I get that?” So I don’t really understand why any of that is bad. Doesn’t seem like any of the things you suggested suppress wages.
- throwawaygh 5y agoThese bills are mostly useless if they don't include bonus and stock compensation, and this bill only requires a "general description" of other benefits. Companies that don't want market transparency will simply restructure compensation packages -- "bonuses" doled on on a 24 pay period amortized schedule are an option even when equity isn't. In tech, salary being mostly useless as a measure of total comp is already the status quo... if someone tells you that their salary is $160,000 then could be making $160,000 or they could be making >$1M. Expect to see similar behavior but even at the $60K/yr jobs.
- Splendor 5y ago> These bills are mostly useless if they don't include bonus and stock compensation Most employees in Washington State receive neither. Step out of the tech bubble for a second.
- throwawaygh 5y agoYou missed the point. What stops non-tech employees who want to conceal salaries from restructuring compensation as salary + a bonus earned in biweekly installments? To repeat myself, > Expect to see similar behavior but even at the $60K/yr jobs.
- shetill 5y agoJust wished they did this in Europe
- awill 5y agoI think this is great. I've worked at several places that say 'we pay at the market rate', and it's very hard to verify. It leads to gossip, or interviewing and getting offers etc.. This should make it easy. If you work in an area with multiple competitors this is going to be great for employees. When is this likely to go live?
- humanwhosits 5y agoI imagine future 1-liner replies to recruiters: "salary range too low"
- nunez 5y agoHonestly I don't see what this will accomplish. Employer posts salary. Candidate interviews. Actual salary will be higher or lower than the salary dependent on perceived experience. Equity grants boost TC to the stratosphere.
- ozten 5y agoIt creates more transparency which may help reduce gender and racial pay gaps. https://www.morningbrew.com/emerging-tech/stories/2021/05/24/report-finds-tech-racial-gender-pay-disparities-narrowing-still-present https://www.morningbrew.com/emerging-tech/stories/2021/05/24...
- nunez 5y agoSee the comment about equity-based compensation altering the playing field. That's usually never public.
- captainredbeard 5y agoThese laws are bad for high earners.
- octoberfranklin 5y agoCompanies will just say "$1-$1,000,000,000". It will turn out just like California Proposition 65: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/1986_California_Proposition_65#Warning_label https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/1986_California_Proposition_... People who come up with these schemes need to consider the "spam response" and engineer in some kind of countervailing pressure, otherwise you just add noise.
- mk81 5y ago
- AcerbicZero 5y agoThe Washington senate will pass just aboutanything. I’m 99% sure they’re all just desperate political runner ups who don’t want to lose their free government cheese.