4 ms·

> All that means is the candidate won't get the offer if he's not worth the bottom end of the range. How is this different from the status quo? If you don’t ge

> All that means is the candidate won't get the offer if he's not worth the bottom end of the range. How is this different from the status quo? If you don’t get hired for a specific position, it means the company didn’t think you were worth the salary for that position, whatever that might be. > Some people are simply more productive in the same job as other people. Why shouldn't they get paid more? They absolutely should, and I didn’t mean to imply otherwise. I meant “pay discrepancies that would foster resentment,” i.e. undeserved discrepancies.

WalterBright 5y ago
> How is this different from the status quo? The company will not be able to adjust the salary to one more appropriate for the employee, so both parties lose. > undeserved discrepancies People in the same company will always have different views on what is deserved and what isn't. This is not fixable.
- MontyCarloHall 5y ago
  > The company will not be able to adjust the salary to one more appropriate for the employee, so both parties lose. Got it, you are concerned that this wouldn’t allow the company to hire someone as the lowest paid member for a given role. This is easily solved by either (a) forcing the company to publish two ranges: the range they’re willing to pay, and the actual range of current employees, or (b) making the published range nonbinding. If the company decides to lowball the job candidate, it is up to the candidate to take or leave the offer, knowing that it is indeed a lowball, which without a salary transparency law a candidate currently has limited-to-no way of knowing. BTW, I prefer the latter approach: the law ought to be focused on mitigating salary information asymmetry between the company and candidate, not heavy-handedly enforcing a specific salary range. > People in the same company will always have different views on what is deserved and what isn't. Of course, but this has no bearing on whether salary information ought to be transparent or not.
  - WalterBright 5y ago
    > forcing Always with the force. What happened to free choices? > limited-to-no way of knowing Google is a very useful resource to researching pay.

WalterBright 5y ago

> How is this different from the status quo? The company will not be able to adjust the salary to one more appropriate for the employee, so both parties lose. > undeserved discrepancies People in the same company will always have different views on what is deserved and what isn't. This is not fixable.

MontyCarloHall 5y ago
> The company will not be able to adjust the salary to one more appropriate for the employee, so both parties lose. Got it, you are concerned that this wouldn’t allow the company to hire someone as the lowest paid member for a given role. This is easily solved by either (a) forcing the company to publish two ranges: the range they’re willing to pay, and the actual range of current employees, or (b) making the published range nonbinding. If the company decides to lowball the job candidate, it is up to the candidate to take or leave the offer, knowing that it is indeed a lowball, which without a salary transparency law a candidate currently has limited-to-no way of knowing. BTW, I prefer the latter approach: the law ought to be focused on mitigating salary information asymmetry between the company and candidate, not heavy-handedly enforcing a specific salary range. > People in the same company will always have different views on what is deserved and what isn't. Of course, but this has no bearing on whether salary information ought to be transparent or not.
- WalterBright 5y ago
  > forcing Always with the force. What happened to free choices? > limited-to-no way of knowing Google is a very useful resource to researching pay.