4 ms·
"minimum salary of". So $212 isn't the top of the range. It is the top of the bottom. Bonus and equity are also not specified. So this is easily a $100,000+ ran
by jacobsenscott 4y ago
"minimum salary of". So $212 isn't the top of the range. It is the top of the bottom. Bonus and equity are also not specified. So this is easily a $100,000+ range.
- monocasa 4y agoThey law only requires the salary portion of total comp when it comes to ranges, and a judge needs to think the range is reasonable if it comes to that. Everything else can just be a "general description", so "equity" in the description probably suffices for RSUs. And AFAIUI, they don't really have that much of a problem with actually hiring people a little above the range. It's thought that the labor market pressures of stating too low of a salary range cutting into your talent pool is an appropriate counteraction.
- jacobsenscott 4y agoSure - I know only salary needs to be specified. My point is, while the CO law (I live in CO) is a step in the right direction it doesn't have a lot of bite. There is still plenty of room for significant pay discrimination - like $100,000 of room.
- monocasa 4y agoI also live in CO, and know of specific cases where someone got popped for obviously too broad of a range covering most of the income percentiles. I agree that there's still room for discrimination, but it's a step up from what it was, particularly on the lower end of the scale. I know of a lot of people in the 50k-60k range that were able to increase their salary because of this law.