5 ms·

I am curious what prevents companies from including a "range" such as: "From $1 to $10,000,000 annually."

by joegahona 5y ago

1270018080 5y ago
At least that would keep Tim Cook from applying
sfe22 5y ago
More bureaucracy probably
hammock 5y ago
The law
- joegahona 5y ago
  I read through the bill and didn't see this mentioned. Can you share what the proposed law is on salary ranges?
  - hammock 5y ago
    The 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 ago
      Related: > 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...
breakpointalpha 5y ago
I've seen this comment many times before, in Colorado and more recently in New York City. Laws can be passed to make this painful for companies. Department of Labor, either at the state or federal level, can enforce companies trying to play a game with their numbers. Also the collective pressure of the market would have a mitigating effect. Game theory comes to mind, would you apply to a job listing like that? Would you apply if every other job listing has a more "honest" range posted, or would you spend your time applying to companies that are cooperating with the state government?
- sharkweek 5y ago
  Yep, I would 100% look at a company trying to skirt a true range like that and think "absolutely no way I want to work there."
  - datavirtue 5y ago
    Same here. In business you learn to stay away from price sensitive people (cheap asses) real quick. It signals many bad things. They are going to be difficult to please. Perhaps litigious. They probably feel entitled and are willing to exploit. Totally unprofessional. Perhaps the business is on the rocks. In any case, they are oblivious to the signal they are sending...which is a clear indicator that the above mentioned possibilities are more likely.
- joegahona 5y ago
  Agreed, the example I gave was absurd, but finding a threshold will be interesting. What's _not_ absurd? $50K? $75K?
  - runako 5y ago
    Even the tighter bound of $75k-$250k is not a job posting where you will get a good quality applicant pool. It reads as "this job is worth $75k, but if you really impress the interviewer, you could earn $250k." You will get a lot of people currently earning $60k in your applicant pool, which might be fine if you think the job is really worth $80k. But if you think it's worth (say) $200k, you will not get a good view into the labor pool at that level because your posting looks like you don't value the job at $200k, so $200k-worthy applicants will not apply. Either way, you will get too many applicants who are not a fit and take longer to fill the opening. Plus, your firm will build a reputation for dishonesty.
gigel82 5y ago
I suspect this is mostly useless for tech folks as you said; but it might be interesting for lower wage jobs that bait people with "Mcdonalds hiring for $20 / hour" and a tiny asterisk hidden there etc.
madamelic 5y ago
Prospective employees balking. If I see a company that specifically excludes Colorado residents, I already know the company is going to be doing all kinds of unethical shenanigans to employees and is likely a bunch of fools not worth bothering with.
- htrp 5y ago
  I've actually seen that as well....
kelseyfrog 5y ago
No one will take them seriously. They are unwittingly now participating in a reputation market. Granted, status and prestige are intangible assets. The hiring manager will find themselves in the position of spending brand status for financial flexibility. I can see a handful of companies getting rolled on social media for this as the game gets started and then less of it as things settle down. Long term, I'm more interested in seeing how companies optimally size spreads in order to signal to the labor market "you should" or "you shouldn't" work for us. Job search toolmakers are in a fun position bc they can set the stakes on metrics like 10% spread and influence the labor markets in powerful ways.
llbeansandrice 5y ago
Socially: No one will take it seriously. Regulatory-wise: Colorado's equivalent law has language about "good-faith" and "reasonable" ranges and you can report companies that do this sort of thing to Colorado's state government to face fines and such.

I am curious what prevents companies from including a "range" such as: "From $1 to $10,000,000 annually."

1270018080 5y ago

At least that would keep Tim Cook from applying

sfe22 5y ago

More bureaucracy probably

hammock 5y ago

The law

joegahona 5y ago
I read through the bill and didn't see this mentioned. Can you share what the proposed law is on salary ranges?
- hammock 5y ago
  The 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 ago
    Related: > 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...

breakpointalpha 5y ago

I've seen this comment many times before, in Colorado and more recently in New York City. Laws can be passed to make this painful for companies. Department of Labor, either at the state or federal level, can enforce companies trying to play a game with their numbers. Also the collective pressure of the market would have a mitigating effect. Game theory comes to mind, would you apply to a job listing like that? Would you apply if every other job listing has a more "honest" range posted, or would you spend your time applying to companies that are cooperating with the state government?

sharkweek 5y ago
Yep, I would 100% look at a company trying to skirt a true range like that and think "absolutely no way I want to work there."
- datavirtue 5y ago
  Same here. In business you learn to stay away from price sensitive people (cheap asses) real quick. It signals many bad things. They are going to be difficult to please. Perhaps litigious. They probably feel entitled and are willing to exploit. Totally unprofessional. Perhaps the business is on the rocks. In any case, they are oblivious to the signal they are sending...which is a clear indicator that the above mentioned possibilities are more likely.
joegahona 5y ago
Agreed, the example I gave was absurd, but finding a threshold will be interesting. What's _not_ absurd? $50K? $75K?
- runako 5y ago
  Even the tighter bound of $75k-$250k is not a job posting where you will get a good quality applicant pool. It reads as "this job is worth $75k, but if you really impress the interviewer, you could earn $250k." You will get a lot of people currently earning $60k in your applicant pool, which might be fine if you think the job is really worth $80k. But if you think it's worth (say) $200k, you will not get a good view into the labor pool at that level because your posting looks like you don't value the job at $200k, so $200k-worthy applicants will not apply. Either way, you will get too many applicants who are not a fit and take longer to fill the opening. Plus, your firm will build a reputation for dishonesty.

gigel82 5y ago

I suspect this is mostly useless for tech folks as you said; but it might be interesting for lower wage jobs that bait people with "Mcdonalds hiring for $20 / hour" and a tiny asterisk hidden there etc.

madamelic 5y ago

Prospective employees balking. If I see a company that specifically excludes Colorado residents, I already know the company is going to be doing all kinds of unethical shenanigans to employees and is likely a bunch of fools not worth bothering with.

htrp 5y ago
I've actually seen that as well....

kelseyfrog 5y ago

No one will take them seriously. They are unwittingly now participating in a reputation market. Granted, status and prestige are intangible assets. The hiring manager will find themselves in the position of spending brand status for financial flexibility. I can see a handful of companies getting rolled on social media for this as the game gets started and then less of it as things settle down. Long term, I'm more interested in seeing how companies optimally size spreads in order to signal to the labor market "you should" or "you shouldn't" work for us. Job search toolmakers are in a fun position bc they can set the stakes on metrics like 10% spread and influence the labor markets in powerful ways.

llbeansandrice 5y ago

Socially: No one will take it seriously. Regulatory-wise: Colorado's equivalent law has language about "good-faith" and "reasonable" ranges and you can report companies that do this sort of thing to Colorado's state government to face fines and such.