3 ms·
I'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 compan
by TimPC 5y ago
I'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...
- cryptonector 5y agoThere was a story on HN recently about something like this in Colorado. This link stuck out: https://www.coloradoexcluded.com/ https://www.coloradoexcluded.com/ Unintended consequences suck.
- lotsofpulp 5y agoThe intended consequence is for more states to pass the same law.
- cryptonector 5y agoOk. So Colorado passed a law and it's now being excluded by employers. Why would I ask my state to pass a law that's going to get it excluded by employers?
- flir 5y agoHow badly do you want to work for an employer like that?
- cryptonector 5y agoI've never minded not knowing my colleagues' compensation. I've also never minded having to do some research before undertaking a job search or considering an offer.
- lotsofpulp 5y agoI am willing to accept some short term costs for long term gain. As long as the west coast and northeast coast and IL and CO pass the law, then it will effectively be nationwide since most of the higher paid employees are in those states anyway. Just need CA to WA/CO/IL/NJ to MA to fall in line with each other, and employers will not really have a choice.
- cryptonector 5y agoI don't consider pay equality a long term gain. I like negotiating for my compensation. I like that there's room to do so because different people have different needs and bring different value to the table, different employers have different resources available, etc.