4 ms·

Thanks. It's a difficult topic to broach on HN because most commenters here are coming from an IC perspective, not a hiring manager or even startup perspective.

Thanks. It's a difficult topic to broach on HN because most commenters here are coming from an IC perspective, not a hiring manager or even startup perspective. Big companies posting official job listings can make sure they comply with all of the relevant laws simply because they have HR and legal teams to do all of the legwork. If you're a startup who really just wants a wide range of enthusiastic candidates to apply, you either: 1) Don't participate at all, lest you accidentally violate the rules or, worse, the law. 2) Post a huge range of salaries (This position pays $80K to $500K) so you don't exclude any candidates, but then your risk angering the readers. 3) Break every listing into multiple positions with different salary bands (Software Engineer I: $100K - $150K, Software Engineer II: $150K - $200K, Software Engineer III: $200K - $300K and so on). This barely provides any more signal to the reader, but it complies with the rules and laws. Personally, I'd be most afraid of making it complicated enough that HR has to get involved. I'd rather allow engineers to post up generic invitations to apply to a company, not change the rules to require highly specific job postings or nothing.

lotsofpulp 5y ago
Violating the law is not a concern. You can simply put $50k/year to $1B/year and you comply with the law. Hiring managers / business owners simply do not want sellers of labor to know the minimum they are willing to pay. Naming the minimum is a loss of negotiating position for the purchaser of labor, and that is why employers do not like the idea. Employers also do not like the idea of having to increase their current employees' pay if market prices are rising. I know, because I have benefited greatly from paying different people different amounts simply because they do not know what I am willing to offer other employees.
- PragmaticPulp 5y ago
  > Violating the law is not a concern. You can simply put $50k/year to $1B/year and you comply with the law. Right! Which is completely useless and would just clutter the thread.
  - lotsofpulp 5y ago
    No, it is not useless. The lower bound is most of the information that sellers of labors are interested in, and that buyers of labor want to hide. The proof is employers excluding Colorado residents from their job listings. If buyers of labor were not going to lose anything by putting $50k/year to $1B/year, then they would be doing just that. But they correctly calculate that they would lose big time if existing employees are easily able to find out what the real time minimum market prices for labor are.
    - PragmaticPulp 5y ago
      > The proof is employers excluding Colorado residents from their job listings. FYI this happens because they don't want to risk legal action in a remote state that contains less than 1% of the workforce anyone. Excluding CO from the job listing is the quick and easy way to ensure you don't violate Colorado law. It really doesn't make sense to add another state's entire legal requirements to your startup unless you have to. It may seem simple, but it's actually a pain to bring in yet another legal code you have to understand and check just to do anything.
      - lotsofpulp 5y ago
        That is true, it would unnecessarily open one up to legal costs from CO, and is a good reason to exclude CO residents from job listings. It would have been better if the CO pay disclosure laws were simpler and only came into play if applicants are bamboozled, i.e. if they apply for a job and then are offered lower than the minimum advertised.
- freedomben 5y ago
  I don't think you should use the same brush to paint giant 100,000+ employee companies and 4 person startups.
  - scarface74 5y ago
    Every for profit company wants to decrease the cost of goods and labor and increase profit - or at least sucker enough money out of investors by giving the illusion of profitability whether they are a four person startup or a 100,000 person company.
- pilom 5y ago
  No Colorado has explicitly called out this practice as illegal. You have to be actually willing to hire someone for that role at that salary.
  - deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]
  - lotsofpulp 5y ago
    True, I did not notice that CO required a "good faith" range for the job. Ideally, the law would be that the employer simply has to state a range and then let the market forces dictate the ranges employers advertise. In competitive labor markets, the bottom of the range will naturally rise, and if they do not, then sellers of labor know that it is not a business worth going into.
  - dataflow 5y ago
    How do they prove "willingness"? Like if you put $100K-$700K, but you just don't have any employees that are good enough for $700K, how would you prove you're nevertheless willing to hire someone (the right person) at that salary? Also, what about the converse - what if the range is actually wider? Does anything prevent them from putting something narrower?
scarface74 5y ago
I go to work to exchange labor for money to support my addiction to food and shelter. Knowing how much money my labor is worth to you is the primary filter. As a hiring manager, I wouldn’t want to waste my time interviewing a candidate when our salary expectations are completely misaligned.
freeopinion 5y ago
> Personally, I'd be most afraid of making it complicated enough that HR has to get involved. That doesn't sound like a little company that doesn't have an HR and legal department. That sounds like a bureaucratic headache of a big company. You seem to want to have your cake and eat it, too. Why do you try so hard to make it sound so complicated? If you can't explain the job responsibilities in one paragraph with a salary range, you are broken. Admit that you are broken. You aren't afraid of HR. You are afraid of looking like you don't know what you are doing because you don't know what you are doing.
michaelmcdonald 5y ago
I feel like you're making it more difficult than it has to be. If your company is hiring a software engineer, but doesn't know: A) what salary you can afford B) what skills level you need (SE I, SE II, SE III) I would be worried about your company. If you feel you could pay up to $300,000 for someone with the right qualifications the problem is easily solved: > Software Engineer - Salary range: $100,000 - $300,000 dependent upon skills and work experience. BOOM! Super simple! If for some reason you have a posting for a position with the salary range moving between $80k - $500k, I would think you don't know what it is you're looking for in a candidate or what type of position you're trying to fill. That would really lead me to question the leadership of a company and wonder about the longevity of it as well.

lotsofpulp 5y ago

Violating the law is not a concern. You can simply put $50k/year to $1B/year and you comply with the law. Hiring managers / business owners simply do not want sellers of labor to know the minimum they are willing to pay. Naming the minimum is a loss of negotiating position for the purchaser of labor, and that is why employers do not like the idea. Employers also do not like the idea of having to increase their current employees' pay if market prices are rising. I know, because I have benefited greatly from paying different people different amounts simply because they do not know what I am willing to offer other employees.

PragmaticPulp 5y ago
> Violating the law is not a concern. You can simply put $50k/year to $1B/year and you comply with the law. Right! Which is completely useless and would just clutter the thread.
- lotsofpulp 5y ago
  No, it is not useless. The lower bound is most of the information that sellers of labors are interested in, and that buyers of labor want to hide. The proof is employers excluding Colorado residents from their job listings. If buyers of labor were not going to lose anything by putting $50k/year to $1B/year, then they would be doing just that. But they correctly calculate that they would lose big time if existing employees are easily able to find out what the real time minimum market prices for labor are.
  - PragmaticPulp 5y ago
    > The proof is employers excluding Colorado residents from their job listings. FYI this happens because they don't want to risk legal action in a remote state that contains less than 1% of the workforce anyone. Excluding CO from the job listing is the quick and easy way to ensure you don't violate Colorado law. It really doesn't make sense to add another state's entire legal requirements to your startup unless you have to. It may seem simple, but it's actually a pain to bring in yet another legal code you have to understand and check just to do anything.
    - lotsofpulp 5y ago
      That is true, it would unnecessarily open one up to legal costs from CO, and is a good reason to exclude CO residents from job listings. It would have been better if the CO pay disclosure laws were simpler and only came into play if applicants are bamboozled, i.e. if they apply for a job and then are offered lower than the minimum advertised.
freedomben 5y ago
I don't think you should use the same brush to paint giant 100,000+ employee companies and 4 person startups.
- scarface74 5y ago
  Every for profit company wants to decrease the cost of goods and labor and increase profit - or at least sucker enough money out of investors by giving the illusion of profitability whether they are a four person startup or a 100,000 person company.
pilom 5y ago
No Colorado has explicitly called out this practice as illegal. You have to be actually willing to hire someone for that role at that salary.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
- lotsofpulp 5y ago
  True, I did not notice that CO required a "good faith" range for the job. Ideally, the law would be that the employer simply has to state a range and then let the market forces dictate the ranges employers advertise. In competitive labor markets, the bottom of the range will naturally rise, and if they do not, then sellers of labor know that it is not a business worth going into.
- dataflow 5y ago
  How do they prove "willingness"? Like if you put $100K-$700K, but you just don't have any employees that are good enough for $700K, how would you prove you're nevertheless willing to hire someone (the right person) at that salary? Also, what about the converse - what if the range is actually wider? Does anything prevent them from putting something narrower?

scarface74 5y ago

I go to work to exchange labor for money to support my addiction to food and shelter. Knowing how much money my labor is worth to you is the primary filter. As a hiring manager, I wouldn’t want to waste my time interviewing a candidate when our salary expectations are completely misaligned.

freeopinion 5y ago

> Personally, I'd be most afraid of making it complicated enough that HR has to get involved. That doesn't sound like a little company that doesn't have an HR and legal department. That sounds like a bureaucratic headache of a big company. You seem to want to have your cake and eat it, too. Why do you try so hard to make it sound so complicated? If you can't explain the job responsibilities in one paragraph with a salary range, you are broken. Admit that you are broken. You aren't afraid of HR. You are afraid of looking like you don't know what you are doing because you don't know what you are doing.

michaelmcdonald 5y ago

I feel like you're making it more difficult than it has to be. If your company is hiring a software engineer, but doesn't know: A) what salary you can afford B) what skills level you need (SE I, SE II, SE III) I would be worried about your company. If you feel you could pay up to $300,000 for someone with the right qualifications the problem is easily solved: > Software Engineer - Salary range: $100,000 - $300,000 dependent upon skills and work experience. BOOM! Super simple! If for some reason you have a posting for a position with the salary range moving between $80k - $500k, I would think you don't know what it is you're looking for in a candidate or what type of position you're trying to fill. That would really lead me to question the leadership of a company and wonder about the longevity of it as well.