31 ms·

this 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 employe

this 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 ago
  is that in the legislation? Good move if they did, they saw the most obvious workaround
  - flir 5y ago
    Doubt it, but it should be.
    - freedomben 5y ago
      It 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 ago
        That was a good suggestion, but I think I missed the window, sorry.
- phailhaus 5y ago
  > Lower number cannot be less than 90% of upper number. Thus 72k-80k or 27k-30k. This doesn't seem to be in the bill today. [1] https://app.leg.wa.gov/billsummary?BillNumber=5761&Initiative=false&Year=2021 https://app.leg.wa.gov/billsummary?BillNumber=5761&Initiativ...
- sokoloff 5y ago
  That’s an absurdly narrow range, IMO, even for a company advertising entirely in good faith. Most companies internal ranges are at least twice as wide as that for a given track/level.
  - flir 5y ago
    Sure, change the percentage, not a problem. The principle's sound.
beeboop 5y ago
This same law exists in Colorado, and I'm frequently seeing job postings that just list $60k to $190k. Anyone who sees that obviously knows they're not listing that range in good faith and takes nothing from it other than that it will be at least $60k. The ones I've seen I'd probably estimate to actually around $80 to 90k
- hunglee2 5y ago
  they might eventually evolve to be hyper specific, numbers calculated to formulae. This will be an evolutionary response to these bad faith bands!
hwers 5y ago
I wonder if there's a way to cheat it by like giving a raise within like 3 months for high performance talents.
- hunglee2 5y ago
  yeah there will definitely be all sorts of ways to do it, a lot of which will need to be 'off the record', which obviously then becomes corruption. I remember supplying candidates (was once a recruitment agent for the public sector in the UK) and off the top of my head, two such work arounds were a) a promise of guaranteed promotion at first bat and b) fail the interview, hire back as even more expensive contractor. Well meaning legislation always produces outcomes like this
  - voakbasda 5y ago
    Corruption is endemic everywhere. This kind of law just plays whack-a-mole, shifting the corruption elsewhere, but not actually eliminating it. Since the fish rots from the head, we are unlikely to ever see changes that eliminate corruption at its true source, imprisoning the people in power that profit from it.
    - hunglee2 5y ago
      no truer words. could be we need to rethink 'corruption', seeing as it is endemic in any system we make. It could be considered a form of hacking, which most ppl here wouldn't bat an eyelid at. Perhaps we need to 'build in' expected corrupt behaviours in systems design, seeing as we cannot eliminate we might as well manage it, maybe even make it work in the systems favour
- shagie 5y ago
  I worked at a company that kept all the employees as non-exempt. This meant for computer programmers, we had an hourly wage of not more than $27.63 ( https://www.dol.gov/agencies/whd/fact-sheets/17e-overtime-computer https://www.dol.gov/agencies/whd/fact-sheets/17e-overtime-co... ). However, there was also profit sharing which was based on your W2 earnings (side bit, the profit sharing went into your W2 earnings for next year and became a sort of compound interest growth). Additionally, there were "goals" and "bonuses" which could, again, give a substantial boost to the total pay but wasn't part of the stated compensation. So, yes, there are certainly ways to work around the posted salaries.
whimsicalism 5y ago
> See UK public sector for evidence of this; salaries must be published, maximum is always significantly lower than equivalent job in private sector. I'm not the only one who sees the obvious lurking variable here, no?
NikolaNovak 5y ago
I've posted my fears in a past thread: I'm concerned it will push down salaries to lowest common denominator. Very few of us wake up and think "I'm not a top performer; I should be paid less than some of my colleagues". So once a bell curve of salary is published, everybody will demand to be paid the same, and it'll very unlikely be the top performer's salary. Or maybe we'll have massive reshuffle until all teams are equally performing - so we have a team of slackers in company A, team of solid performers at company B, and team of fantastic rock stars at company C. Maybe I'm cynical and pessimistic in my old age; maybe we can employ coaching techniques and use the transparency to say "Fatima is getting $15k more than you because of this, that and the other thing. If you do those you'll be awarded the same". Maybe the person will accept that and be motivated. Maybe we'll even be accurate and honest about the reasons. Maybe those reasons won't include "because that person is 20 years younger with no family, responsibilities and life and works 90hr weeks on average" etc. Maybe it won't all backfire horribly.
- diob 5y ago
  I think this is too cynical, yes. To me, this is just the free market. If folks can see Bob gets paid way more and see he doesn't do anything, they can leave. Right now they just keep trucking with blinders on. The thing is, even if someone demands to get paid more, it won't necessarily happen. It's still going to be a negotiation. This is basically a shift to give workers power again, since most unions are gone. It's a lot easier for me to point to a stellar performance review AND salary band then negotiate blind.
  - sokoloff 5y ago
    If folks can see Bob doesn’t do anything, why wouldn’t they walk already? Whatever money Bob is siphoning away from the company is hurting them whether it’s more, less, or exactly the same as what they make.
    - diob 5y ago
      I mean, walk away to where? Everything needs context or it's hard to answer why. It could be a matter of needing insurance, obligations to taking care of family members, to cost of living, to lack of knowledge of where is better. By showing salaries, folks could have the knowledge to see other positions that match their current job but pay better (or at the least have the possibility of paying better given the range).
ska 5y ago
> See UK public sector for evidence of this I don't know about the UK situation specifically, but in other areas I'm more familiar with public sector salaries lag private sector for lots of reasons (job stability, pensions, old tech, etc.) which have little or nothing to do with the posting of ranges.
- hunglee2 5y ago
  yes fair enough, multi-causal of course
diob 5y ago
On the other hand, I actually always see folks claim the downsides are greater than the upsides, so it's strange you feel the opposite. Honestly, I'd rather we try it and see what happens. In the case of the UK public sector anecdote you've shared, I'm guessing it hasn't actually depressed salaries at all. It's likely lifted the bottom, and perhaps squeezed some high positioned "high ceiling" folks down. But I'd need to see evidence of an actual drop compared to the "hidden" times. Otherwise it's just speculation. Also, while you say the maximum is always significantly lower than the equivalent job in the private sector, I would then ask "Is the median higher than the equivalent job in the private sector?" because if so, that's a win. It's not much good to folks if a single individual can make boatloads of cash.
- hunglee2 5y ago
  Thanks for your reply. I must say, I did not say 'not try it' - in fact, I'm pretty much pro salary transparency. The point I am making is that there 'are downsides to ostensibly good ideas', which are worth pointing out and discussing. This bill will likely pass regardless of any chat we have here, so this is all in the spirit of exploring the topic. That candidate salary expectations will be elevated by transparent pricing is valid speculation given that it comports with what we know about pricing psychology - we see two numbers and typically go for something in between and to the right. It does not take a huge leap of empathy to understand that a candidate who knew the top salary and ended up being offered half that would be more disappointed than if that candidate never knew what the numbers were until the offer was made. Another reason why salary suppression will occur is simply a lack of agility compared to employers who don't have to declare. Once you publicly state a salary band, you probably wouldn't be able to go above the maximum or below the minimum. This constraint won't apply to employers who don't need to declare and hence they will inflate overall market rate, leaving the public salary employers behind. I think this is basically what is going to happen. Good things will too - but I trust these have already been made in the bill about to be passed
- _3u10 5y ago
  Public sector salaries are about the bennies / low pressure work environment, like startups are about the equity. No one is working there for the wages.
ekanes 5y ago
You might be right, but the UK public sector isn't evidence, private sector almost always pays more, everywhere and no matter what industry. One could make a case the other way - that companies won't lower public salaries, because they need to hire people, often desperately. In my experience, the lower the salary, the less response you get to your role, and certainly from people who are in-demand.
- hunglee2 5y ago
  > UK public sector isn't evidence kind of is some sort of evidence, but yes not absolute proof of causality.
rodgerd 5y ago
> salary depression. You mean like the salary depression when Google and Apple illegally co-ordinated the supression of worker salaries?
- hunglee2 5y ago
  no I don't mean this. Suppression is probably the better word.
- whiplash451 5y ago
  Do you have evidence for this?
  - rodgerd 5y ago
    There was quite a big court case about it, you know.
mitchdoogle 5y ago
There is still competition for labor. Companies can post lower salaries at the risk of attracting less desirable candidates.
- hunglee2 5y ago
  yes, this is exactly what will happen. Very top tier candidates will migrate to employers that do not declare salary. Plenty of talent left to do the job in most case for those that publicly declare
cryptonector 5y ago
These kinds of laws tend to come with severe unintended consequences. Or, perhaps, they might be intended, just not ostensibly. Either way, from the public's perspective, there are unintended consequences. We must always be mindful of those. Unintended consequences aren't always easy to predict, so we have to see how it's gone elsewhere. Consider https://www.coloradoexcluded.com/ https://www.coloradoexcluded.com/ .
whiplash451 5y ago
Agree with you overall, except for the public/private sector differences. The difference is due mostly to the job security in the public sector, which has a price.
ryathal 5y ago
Wide salary bands will only lead to people applying that qualify for around the low end. If you advertise for 100k-150k, the 150k candidate will skip you for a 130k-180k posting. I'm not going to waste time applying for a job that has a range where 20%-50% of the range is below my minimum expectations. Public sector isn't a great thing to base conclusions on, while the published ranges are lower, so are the expectations. As someone with public sector experience, they absolutely get what they pay for.

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 ago
is that in the legislation? Good move if they did, they saw the most obvious workaround
- flir 5y ago
  Doubt it, but it should be.
  - freedomben 5y ago
    It 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 ago
      That was a good suggestion, but I think I missed the window, sorry.
phailhaus 5y ago
> Lower number cannot be less than 90% of upper number. Thus 72k-80k or 27k-30k. This doesn't seem to be in the bill today. [1] https://app.leg.wa.gov/billsummary?BillNumber=5761&Initiative=false&Year=2021 https://app.leg.wa.gov/billsummary?BillNumber=5761&Initiativ...
sokoloff 5y ago
That’s an absurdly narrow range, IMO, even for a company advertising entirely in good faith. Most companies internal ranges are at least twice as wide as that for a given track/level.
- flir 5y ago
  Sure, change the percentage, not a problem. The principle's sound.

beeboop 5y ago

This same law exists in Colorado, and I'm frequently seeing job postings that just list $60k to $190k. Anyone who sees that obviously knows they're not listing that range in good faith and takes nothing from it other than that it will be at least $60k. The ones I've seen I'd probably estimate to actually around $80 to 90k

hunglee2 5y ago
they might eventually evolve to be hyper specific, numbers calculated to formulae. This will be an evolutionary response to these bad faith bands!

hwers 5y ago

I wonder if there's a way to cheat it by like giving a raise within like 3 months for high performance talents.

hunglee2 5y ago
yeah there will definitely be all sorts of ways to do it, a lot of which will need to be 'off the record', which obviously then becomes corruption. I remember supplying candidates (was once a recruitment agent for the public sector in the UK) and off the top of my head, two such work arounds were a) a promise of guaranteed promotion at first bat and b) fail the interview, hire back as even more expensive contractor. Well meaning legislation always produces outcomes like this
- voakbasda 5y ago
  Corruption is endemic everywhere. This kind of law just plays whack-a-mole, shifting the corruption elsewhere, but not actually eliminating it. Since the fish rots from the head, we are unlikely to ever see changes that eliminate corruption at its true source, imprisoning the people in power that profit from it.
  - hunglee2 5y ago
    no truer words. could be we need to rethink 'corruption', seeing as it is endemic in any system we make. It could be considered a form of hacking, which most ppl here wouldn't bat an eyelid at. Perhaps we need to 'build in' expected corrupt behaviours in systems design, seeing as we cannot eliminate we might as well manage it, maybe even make it work in the systems favour
shagie 5y ago
I worked at a company that kept all the employees as non-exempt. This meant for computer programmers, we had an hourly wage of not more than $27.63 ( https://www.dol.gov/agencies/whd/fact-sheets/17e-overtime-computer https://www.dol.gov/agencies/whd/fact-sheets/17e-overtime-co... ). However, there was also profit sharing which was based on your W2 earnings (side bit, the profit sharing went into your W2 earnings for next year and became a sort of compound interest growth). Additionally, there were "goals" and "bonuses" which could, again, give a substantial boost to the total pay but wasn't part of the stated compensation. So, yes, there are certainly ways to work around the posted salaries.

whimsicalism 5y ago

> See UK public sector for evidence of this; salaries must be published, maximum is always significantly lower than equivalent job in private sector. I'm not the only one who sees the obvious lurking variable here, no?

NikolaNovak 5y ago

I've posted my fears in a past thread: I'm concerned it will push down salaries to lowest common denominator. Very few of us wake up and think "I'm not a top performer; I should be paid less than some of my colleagues". So once a bell curve of salary is published, everybody will demand to be paid the same, and it'll very unlikely be the top performer's salary. Or maybe we'll have massive reshuffle until all teams are equally performing - so we have a team of slackers in company A, team of solid performers at company B, and team of fantastic rock stars at company C. Maybe I'm cynical and pessimistic in my old age; maybe we can employ coaching techniques and use the transparency to say "Fatima is getting $15k more than you because of this, that and the other thing. If you do those you'll be awarded the same". Maybe the person will accept that and be motivated. Maybe we'll even be accurate and honest about the reasons. Maybe those reasons won't include "because that person is 20 years younger with no family, responsibilities and life and works 90hr weeks on average" etc. Maybe it won't all backfire horribly.

diob 5y ago
I think this is too cynical, yes. To me, this is just the free market. If folks can see Bob gets paid way more and see he doesn't do anything, they can leave. Right now they just keep trucking with blinders on. The thing is, even if someone demands to get paid more, it won't necessarily happen. It's still going to be a negotiation. This is basically a shift to give workers power again, since most unions are gone. It's a lot easier for me to point to a stellar performance review AND salary band then negotiate blind.
- sokoloff 5y ago
  If folks can see Bob doesn’t do anything, why wouldn’t they walk already? Whatever money Bob is siphoning away from the company is hurting them whether it’s more, less, or exactly the same as what they make.
  - diob 5y ago
    I mean, walk away to where? Everything needs context or it's hard to answer why. It could be a matter of needing insurance, obligations to taking care of family members, to cost of living, to lack of knowledge of where is better. By showing salaries, folks could have the knowledge to see other positions that match their current job but pay better (or at the least have the possibility of paying better given the range).

ska 5y ago

> See UK public sector for evidence of this I don't know about the UK situation specifically, but in other areas I'm more familiar with public sector salaries lag private sector for lots of reasons (job stability, pensions, old tech, etc.) which have little or nothing to do with the posting of ranges.

hunglee2 5y ago
yes fair enough, multi-causal of course

diob 5y ago

On the other hand, I actually always see folks claim the downsides are greater than the upsides, so it's strange you feel the opposite. Honestly, I'd rather we try it and see what happens. In the case of the UK public sector anecdote you've shared, I'm guessing it hasn't actually depressed salaries at all. It's likely lifted the bottom, and perhaps squeezed some high positioned "high ceiling" folks down. But I'd need to see evidence of an actual drop compared to the "hidden" times. Otherwise it's just speculation. Also, while you say the maximum is always significantly lower than the equivalent job in the private sector, I would then ask "Is the median higher than the equivalent job in the private sector?" because if so, that's a win. It's not much good to folks if a single individual can make boatloads of cash.

hunglee2 5y ago
Thanks for your reply. I must say, I did not say 'not try it' - in fact, I'm pretty much pro salary transparency. The point I am making is that there 'are downsides to ostensibly good ideas', which are worth pointing out and discussing. This bill will likely pass regardless of any chat we have here, so this is all in the spirit of exploring the topic. That candidate salary expectations will be elevated by transparent pricing is valid speculation given that it comports with what we know about pricing psychology - we see two numbers and typically go for something in between and to the right. It does not take a huge leap of empathy to understand that a candidate who knew the top salary and ended up being offered half that would be more disappointed than if that candidate never knew what the numbers were until the offer was made. Another reason why salary suppression will occur is simply a lack of agility compared to employers who don't have to declare. Once you publicly state a salary band, you probably wouldn't be able to go above the maximum or below the minimum. This constraint won't apply to employers who don't need to declare and hence they will inflate overall market rate, leaving the public salary employers behind. I think this is basically what is going to happen. Good things will too - but I trust these have already been made in the bill about to be passed
_3u10 5y ago
Public sector salaries are about the bennies / low pressure work environment, like startups are about the equity. No one is working there for the wages.

ekanes 5y ago

You might be right, but the UK public sector isn't evidence, private sector almost always pays more, everywhere and no matter what industry. One could make a case the other way - that companies won't lower public salaries, because they need to hire people, often desperately. In my experience, the lower the salary, the less response you get to your role, and certainly from people who are in-demand.

hunglee2 5y ago
> UK public sector isn't evidence kind of is some sort of evidence, but yes not absolute proof of causality.

rodgerd 5y ago

> salary depression. You mean like the salary depression when Google and Apple illegally co-ordinated the supression of worker salaries?

hunglee2 5y ago
no I don't mean this. Suppression is probably the better word.
whiplash451 5y ago
Do you have evidence for this?
- rodgerd 5y ago
  There was quite a big court case about it, you know.

mitchdoogle 5y ago

There is still competition for labor. Companies can post lower salaries at the risk of attracting less desirable candidates.

hunglee2 5y ago
yes, this is exactly what will happen. Very top tier candidates will migrate to employers that do not declare salary. Plenty of talent left to do the job in most case for those that publicly declare

cryptonector 5y ago

These kinds of laws tend to come with severe unintended consequences. Or, perhaps, they might be intended, just not ostensibly. Either way, from the public's perspective, there are unintended consequences. We must always be mindful of those. Unintended consequences aren't always easy to predict, so we have to see how it's gone elsewhere. Consider https://www.coloradoexcluded.com/ https://www.coloradoexcluded.com/ .

whiplash451 5y ago

Agree with you overall, except for the public/private sector differences. The difference is due mostly to the job security in the public sector, which has a price.

ryathal 5y ago

Wide salary bands will only lead to people applying that qualify for around the low end. If you advertise for 100k-150k, the 150k candidate will skip you for a 130k-180k posting. I'm not going to waste time applying for a job that has a range where 20%-50% of the range is below my minimum expectations. Public sector isn't a great thing to base conclusions on, while the published ranges are lower, so are the expectations. As someone with public sector experience, they absolutely get what they pay for.