> 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’

> 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.