3 ms·

We just shot ourselves in the foot pretty badly with this bill. Software engineers are not meat packers. There is huge variance in productivity between two pe

We just shot ourselves in the foot pretty badly with this bill. Software engineers are not meat packers. There is huge variance in productivity between two people at the same level in the same role. Here is what will happen now: - candidates who get an offer at the bottom of the range will take it personally and keep hunting for a job elsewhere - candidates who get an offer at the top of the range will (rightfully) assume that the next significant pay rise is far away (basically, only upon promotion) - the hiring managers will have to shoot a salary range first without having seen a candidate, so the range will have to be astronomical, else they will miss on top performers on the market Well done!

UnpossibleJim 5y ago
A candidate with less expertise/experience in the role should expect to be on the bottom end of the pay range and a candidate who has seniority/expertise in an area should expect to be on the upper end of the pay range. I know for a fact that I've been on the low end of the pay range when my area of expertise didn't quite overlap and expected as much, but I got to learn a new technology and expand my field of knowledge.
noahtallen 5y ago
I don’t understand what you’re trying to say. 1. The difference here is that previously (currently), you still decline the job if you know the market, or you accept a low offer because you don’t know the market well. So the difference with the new approach is better: at least you know to decline or negotiate. 2. This isn’t really different from the status quo. Companies can have internal bands of where they expect comp to be for different positions, and then they stay within it when giving raises. Either they do that, which is the same as before, or they give great raises, which they also would have already been doing. Not sure how the law changes how raises work in the cases where you negotiate a higher salary up front. In either case, it’s always better to get paid more up front and then find a new gig if you aren’t getting raises as expected. 3. The status quo is already this, but no one knows. Clearly a great applicant will have a lot of room to negotiate upwards. If you know up front the job won’t meet your requirements, you’ll pass. And if you weren’t expecting a lot but see the big range, you’ll think, “ok, how do I get that?” So I don’t really understand why any of that is bad. Doesn’t seem like any of the things you suggested suppress wages.
- whiplash451 5y ago
  What I am trying to say is that this will induce salary depression, because companies will never post the (very) high salaries that they pay for their (few) top performers. Companies will post their 0% - 80% quantiles (in fact, the lower number will be slightly lower than the lowest salary they give for that level, if only to give comfort to people starting at the bottom of the range), so they will post something like -10% - 80%.

UnpossibleJim 5y ago

A candidate with less expertise/experience in the role should expect to be on the bottom end of the pay range and a candidate who has seniority/expertise in an area should expect to be on the upper end of the pay range. I know for a fact that I've been on the low end of the pay range when my area of expertise didn't quite overlap and expected as much, but I got to learn a new technology and expand my field of knowledge.

noahtallen 5y ago

I don’t understand what you’re trying to say. 1. The difference here is that previously (currently), you still decline the job if you know the market, or you accept a low offer because you don’t know the market well. So the difference with the new approach is better: at least you know to decline or negotiate. 2. This isn’t really different from the status quo. Companies can have internal bands of where they expect comp to be for different positions, and then they stay within it when giving raises. Either they do that, which is the same as before, or they give great raises, which they also would have already been doing. Not sure how the law changes how raises work in the cases where you negotiate a higher salary up front. In either case, it’s always better to get paid more up front and then find a new gig if you aren’t getting raises as expected. 3. The status quo is already this, but no one knows. Clearly a great applicant will have a lot of room to negotiate upwards. If you know up front the job won’t meet your requirements, you’ll pass. And if you weren’t expecting a lot but see the big range, you’ll think, “ok, how do I get that?” So I don’t really understand why any of that is bad. Doesn’t seem like any of the things you suggested suppress wages.

whiplash451 5y ago
What I am trying to say is that this will induce salary depression, because companies will never post the (very) high salaries that they pay for their (few) top performers. Companies will post their 0% - 80% quantiles (in fact, the lower number will be slightly lower than the lowest salary they give for that level, if only to give comfort to people starting at the bottom of the range), so they will post something like -10% - 80%.