9 ms·

> Microsoft said it would disclose salary ranges in all internal and external U.S. job postings no later than January 2023. That date is when Washington state,

by epwr 4y ago

> Microsoft said it would disclose salary ranges in all internal and external U.S. job postings no later than January 2023. That date is when Washington state, where Microsoft’s headquarters are located, will start requiring employers with at least 15 employees to disclose salary ranges for each position. In other news, Microsoft to comply with a new law.

JumpCrisscross 4y ago
> In other news, Microsoft to comply with a new law Microsoft is under no obligation to comply with Washington law outside Washington. That's what they're doing here.
- wing-_-nuts 4y ago
  Probably easier to just do it for everybody than have two separate listings for WA and the rest of the US. I wonder if this is TC or just salary?
  - sgerenser 4y ago
    Everything I’ve seen so far is just salary. Which is kind of a huge loophole for tech companies where 20-60% of compensation is often in the form of stock and bonuses.
    - lotsofpulp 4y ago
      I am curious what level of details the text of the law requires: https://app.leg.wa.gov/billsummary?billnumber=5761&year=2021#documentSection https://app.leg.wa.gov/billsummary?billnumber=5761&year=2021... https://lawfilesext.leg.wa.gov/biennium/2021-22/Pdf/Bills/Senate%20Passed%20Legislature/5761-S.PL.pdf?q=20220610100849 https://lawfilesext.leg.wa.gov/biennium/2021-22/Pdf/Bills/Se... >disclose in each posting for each job opening the wage scale or salary range, and a general description of all of the benefits and other compensation to be offered to the hired applicant. What is general description? Is that how many RSUs? Does it require showing what metal level health insurance is offered and specific the employer paid proportion?
      - sgerenser 4y ago
        Doubt it, assuming the law is similar to Colorado’s. A Colorado job listing for a FAANG that eventually offered approximately $270k in total compensation was roughly worded like this: “Colorado residents: Pay for this job starts at at $100,000/year commensurate with experience, plus additional compensation through bonuses, restricted stock units and a comprehensive benefit plan.”
- epwr 4y ago
  This article [1] seems to state pretty clearly that the law applies to all job posting by a company in Washington state. Any sources saying it's only about jobs open to Washington residents? [1] https://www.dwt.com/blogs/employment-labor-and-benefits/2022/04/washington-state-salary-disclosure-law https://www.dwt.com/blogs/employment-labor-and-benefits/2022...
  - JumpCrisscross 4y ago
    > sources saying it's only about jobs open to Washington residents? Washington state can't regulate how Microsoft hires people in Texas. Microsoft Corp. isn't even a Washington legal entity. (EDIT: Never mind, I stand corrected [1]. In any case, the broader point stands. Delaware doesn't get to regulate how its entities hire outside Delaware. This is well-settled employment/interstate commerce law.) [1] https://www.sec.gov/ix?doc=/Archives/edgar/data/789019/000156459022015675/msft-10q_20220331.htm https://www.sec.gov/ix?doc=/Archives/edgar/data/789019/00015...
    - hef19898 4y ago
      If you do that only for jobs in Washington state it is only a question of time until the first discrimibation law suites are filed. Plus it is easy good press.
      - JumpCrisscross 4y ago
        > you do that only for jobs in Washington state it is only a question of time until the first discrimibation law suites are filed Discriminating based on an employee's state of residence is totally fine. Californians get different disclosures and rights compared with say Nevadans. Nevadans can't sue for those benefits; they're not entitled to them.
      - DannyBee 4y ago
        and then the law would get struck down because, as said, washington state isn't allowed to regulate interstate commerce.
- bena 4y ago
  It's probably a move just to make it easier on themselves. They want to streamline the job posting portion of HR. They don't want to have to worry about whether or not they have to post the salary range, so they just do what the most demanding law they deal with requires. Now they only really have to deal with areas that have laws that contradict with laws in other areas. Then you'd default to the law that benefits you the most and deal with the contradictory areas explicitly. Since you have to do the work anyway. For example, let's pretend that California had a really stupid law that forbid salary ranges from being posted on job listings. Now Microsoft has to be careful about how and where they post jobs. And since it's beneficial for them to hide the information, they'd likely only post the salary ranges where they were required to. But absent that, don't do work you don't have to do.
  - bombcar 4y ago
    It also makes sense when you realize more and more jobs are "Location, or remote" and "or remote" would cover Washington and Colorado.
- TulliusCicero 4y ago
  Since their largest workforce is in Washington state, it's probably just less risky to make this their overall US policy. Making a different policy for HQ vs everywhere else could easily lead to mistakes and accidentally breaking the law.
  - Dylan16807 4y ago
    It can't be that hard to follow this law in specific places. This is a meaningful policy decision, not just following risk.
    - TulliusCicero 4y ago
      I think you'd be surprised. Though the problem isn't that it's hard to follow in the general case, but that things could potentially slip through the cracks. Corporations are risk averse, they don't want to have to deal with potentially getting sued if a job opening starts out in one area and then moves to another one where suddenly the way the opening is described is illegal. It's just easier to do it the same everywhere if the advantage they're giving up is small.
    - InitialBP 4y ago
      > It can't be that hard to follow this law in specific places. Directly from the article: "Pay experts have long predicted companies would not want to mess with different practices in different states. Doing so not only complicates hiring practices for human resources departments, ..." There is probably a lot more nuance and qualifications of when it's necessary to disclose and from a company that employs more than 150k employees (according to a quick google) there's probably even more complexity and chaos.
    - sangnoir 4y ago
      > It can't be that hard to follow this law in specific places The problem is that 'specific places' very dynamic, and is hard to pin down when it comes to employment. A candidate/employee may move to/from jurisdictions where this is a requirement, and job postings may or may not be shown across different jurisdictions. Does Microsoft want to invest time wrangling in court concerning a Colorado resident not seeing the pay range when they are using a VPN? Or when a candidate becomes a Colorado resident some time between the phone-screen and the first interview? Should Microsoft recruiters stop using external job-boards, and instead wait for a salary geo-fencing feature to be implemented in their internal jobs tool? What is the case law for out-of-staters who will be moving into a state with such a law for employment? How about remote candidate in Texas, working for a team based in Washington - and the reverse? There are dozens of edge cases, and for a company the size of Microsoft, can easily result in hundreds to thousands of infractions per year - the juice may not be worth the squeeze.
- superfrank 4y ago
  My guess is they see the writing on the wall with this one. Colorado and Washington both have laws about this now. I wouldn't be surprised to see California and New York implement something similar in the next year or two.
  - dragonwriter 4y ago
    > I wouldn't be surprised to see California and New York implement something similar in the next year or two. California started the trend with its “on reasonable request” pay range disclosure law, and has an proactive disclosure bill that has passed the Senate and is pending in the Assembly this session (DB 1162). But even without a proactive disclosure law, voluntary proactive disclosure reduces the request load for on-reequest disclosure, and consistency is cheaper to implement internally.
- NaturalPhallacy 4y ago
  It's simpler and easier to do it this way. Which is what they're doing here.
chrismeller 4y ago
“Software Engineer I - 40-250k”
- pulse7 4y ago
  "Any Job ... 0-1B"
- ekianjo 4y ago
  anything preventing them from doing very large ranges like that?
  - chrismeller 4y ago
    Nothing I see in the bill [1] says what an acceptable range is. 1: https://app.leg.wa.gov/billsummary?BillNumber=5761&Year=2021&Initiative=false https://app.leg.wa.gov/billsummary?BillNumber=5761&Year=2021...
  - llbeansandrice 4y ago
    FWIW the similar Colorado law prevents this
    - ekianjo 4y ago
      How do they prevent it?
  - PragmaticPulp 4y ago
    Yes, it would discourage some candidates from applying if they see the average within that range is lower than the average they could get anywhere else. Dirty tricks are also a red flag for candidates. However, while that range is an exaggeration, the truth is that salary ranges for positions are actually much wider than candidates may expect. There's a misconception that open positions have a single "correct" salary and that the negotiation process is all about getting the company to reveal that maximum number. It's not true, though. Ranges exist because even within a certain title, candidates have a wide range of skills and locations (especially when hiring remote/international) really do matter, whether or not you think they should. More broadly, the salary range isn't even necessarily the only range they'd be willing to pay you. It's actually not uncommon to interview someone and realize that their career level is either above or below the position they're interviewing for. In that case, you "decline" the candidate for the position/title/pay range they applied for but continue the interview for a different position. For example, if someone applies for SW ENG II but their compensation ask is in the range of SW ENG III (and their talents match) then you just bump them up. Conversely, if someone applies for SW ENG II but they're interviewing below the level of your SW ENG II candidates, you offer to continue the interview at the lower SW ENG I title/salary if they're willing. So the ranges are still just a starting point. There is no magic trick to force a company to reveal the maximum number they'd pay you specifically. It's still a negotiation, but at least you can order job postings somewhat. I actually think the bigger problem we're going to see is companies bait-and-switching candidates by putting a huge upper range number in the job posting but then offering them the bottom end of range while claiming that they can work their way up the range later. A lot of eager candidates are going to be pulled into companies who claim to have high upper limits, but who tell them they need to start at the bottom of the range and move up.

by epwr 4y ago

JumpCrisscross 4y ago

> In other news, Microsoft to comply with a new law Microsoft is under no obligation to comply with Washington law outside Washington. That's what they're doing here.

wing-_-nuts 4y ago
Probably easier to just do it for everybody than have two separate listings for WA and the rest of the US. I wonder if this is TC or just salary?
- sgerenser 4y ago
  Everything I’ve seen so far is just salary. Which is kind of a huge loophole for tech companies where 20-60% of compensation is often in the form of stock and bonuses.
  - lotsofpulp 4y ago
    I am curious what level of details the text of the law requires: https://app.leg.wa.gov/billsummary?billnumber=5761&year=2021#documentSection https://app.leg.wa.gov/billsummary?billnumber=5761&year=2021... https://lawfilesext.leg.wa.gov/biennium/2021-22/Pdf/Bills/Senate%20Passed%20Legislature/5761-S.PL.pdf?q=20220610100849 https://lawfilesext.leg.wa.gov/biennium/2021-22/Pdf/Bills/Se... >disclose in each posting for each job opening the wage scale or salary range, and a general description of all of the benefits and other compensation to be offered to the hired applicant. What is general description? Is that how many RSUs? Does it require showing what metal level health insurance is offered and specific the employer paid proportion?
    - sgerenser 4y ago
      Doubt it, assuming the law is similar to Colorado’s. A Colorado job listing for a FAANG that eventually offered approximately $270k in total compensation was roughly worded like this: “Colorado residents: Pay for this job starts at at $100,000/year commensurate with experience, plus additional compensation through bonuses, restricted stock units and a comprehensive benefit plan.”
epwr 4y ago
This article [1] seems to state pretty clearly that the law applies to all job posting by a company in Washington state. Any sources saying it's only about jobs open to Washington residents? [1] https://www.dwt.com/blogs/employment-labor-and-benefits/2022/04/washington-state-salary-disclosure-law https://www.dwt.com/blogs/employment-labor-and-benefits/2022...
- JumpCrisscross 4y ago
  > sources saying it's only about jobs open to Washington residents? Washington state can't regulate how Microsoft hires people in Texas. Microsoft Corp. isn't even a Washington legal entity. (EDIT: Never mind, I stand corrected [1]. In any case, the broader point stands. Delaware doesn't get to regulate how its entities hire outside Delaware. This is well-settled employment/interstate commerce law.) [1] https://www.sec.gov/ix?doc=/Archives/edgar/data/789019/000156459022015675/msft-10q_20220331.htm https://www.sec.gov/ix?doc=/Archives/edgar/data/789019/00015...
  - hef19898 4y ago
    If you do that only for jobs in Washington state it is only a question of time until the first discrimibation law suites are filed. Plus it is easy good press.
    - JumpCrisscross 4y ago
      > you do that only for jobs in Washington state it is only a question of time until the first discrimibation law suites are filed Discriminating based on an employee's state of residence is totally fine. Californians get different disclosures and rights compared with say Nevadans. Nevadans can't sue for those benefits; they're not entitled to them.
    - DannyBee 4y ago
      and then the law would get struck down because, as said, washington state isn't allowed to regulate interstate commerce.
bena 4y ago
It's probably a move just to make it easier on themselves. They want to streamline the job posting portion of HR. They don't want to have to worry about whether or not they have to post the salary range, so they just do what the most demanding law they deal with requires. Now they only really have to deal with areas that have laws that contradict with laws in other areas. Then you'd default to the law that benefits you the most and deal with the contradictory areas explicitly. Since you have to do the work anyway. For example, let's pretend that California had a really stupid law that forbid salary ranges from being posted on job listings. Now Microsoft has to be careful about how and where they post jobs. And since it's beneficial for them to hide the information, they'd likely only post the salary ranges where they were required to. But absent that, don't do work you don't have to do.
- bombcar 4y ago
  It also makes sense when you realize more and more jobs are "Location, or remote" and "or remote" would cover Washington and Colorado.
TulliusCicero 4y ago
Since their largest workforce is in Washington state, it's probably just less risky to make this their overall US policy. Making a different policy for HQ vs everywhere else could easily lead to mistakes and accidentally breaking the law.
- Dylan16807 4y ago
  It can't be that hard to follow this law in specific places. This is a meaningful policy decision, not just following risk.
  - TulliusCicero 4y ago
    I think you'd be surprised. Though the problem isn't that it's hard to follow in the general case, but that things could potentially slip through the cracks. Corporations are risk averse, they don't want to have to deal with potentially getting sued if a job opening starts out in one area and then moves to another one where suddenly the way the opening is described is illegal. It's just easier to do it the same everywhere if the advantage they're giving up is small.
  - InitialBP 4y ago
    > It can't be that hard to follow this law in specific places. Directly from the article: "Pay experts have long predicted companies would not want to mess with different practices in different states. Doing so not only complicates hiring practices for human resources departments, ..." There is probably a lot more nuance and qualifications of when it's necessary to disclose and from a company that employs more than 150k employees (according to a quick google) there's probably even more complexity and chaos.
  - sangnoir 4y ago
    > It can't be that hard to follow this law in specific places The problem is that 'specific places' very dynamic, and is hard to pin down when it comes to employment. A candidate/employee may move to/from jurisdictions where this is a requirement, and job postings may or may not be shown across different jurisdictions. Does Microsoft want to invest time wrangling in court concerning a Colorado resident not seeing the pay range when they are using a VPN? Or when a candidate becomes a Colorado resident some time between the phone-screen and the first interview? Should Microsoft recruiters stop using external job-boards, and instead wait for a salary geo-fencing feature to be implemented in their internal jobs tool? What is the case law for out-of-staters who will be moving into a state with such a law for employment? How about remote candidate in Texas, working for a team based in Washington - and the reverse? There are dozens of edge cases, and for a company the size of Microsoft, can easily result in hundreds to thousands of infractions per year - the juice may not be worth the squeeze.
superfrank 4y ago
My guess is they see the writing on the wall with this one. Colorado and Washington both have laws about this now. I wouldn't be surprised to see California and New York implement something similar in the next year or two.
- dragonwriter 4y ago
  > I wouldn't be surprised to see California and New York implement something similar in the next year or two. California started the trend with its “on reasonable request” pay range disclosure law, and has an proactive disclosure bill that has passed the Senate and is pending in the Assembly this session (DB 1162). But even without a proactive disclosure law, voluntary proactive disclosure reduces the request load for on-reequest disclosure, and consistency is cheaper to implement internally.
NaturalPhallacy 4y ago
It's simpler and easier to do it this way. Which is what they're doing here.

chrismeller 4y ago

“Software Engineer I - 40-250k”

pulse7 4y ago
"Any Job ... 0-1B"
ekianjo 4y ago
anything preventing them from doing very large ranges like that?
- chrismeller 4y ago
  Nothing I see in the bill [1] says what an acceptable range is. 1: https://app.leg.wa.gov/billsummary?BillNumber=5761&Year=2021&Initiative=false https://app.leg.wa.gov/billsummary?BillNumber=5761&Year=2021...
- llbeansandrice 4y ago
  FWIW the similar Colorado law prevents this
  - ekianjo 4y ago
    How do they prevent it?
- PragmaticPulp 4y ago
  Yes, it would discourage some candidates from applying if they see the average within that range is lower than the average they could get anywhere else. Dirty tricks are also a red flag for candidates. However, while that range is an exaggeration, the truth is that salary ranges for positions are actually much wider than candidates may expect. There's a misconception that open positions have a single "correct" salary and that the negotiation process is all about getting the company to reveal that maximum number. It's not true, though. Ranges exist because even within a certain title, candidates have a wide range of skills and locations (especially when hiring remote/international) really do matter, whether or not you think they should. More broadly, the salary range isn't even necessarily the only range they'd be willing to pay you. It's actually not uncommon to interview someone and realize that their career level is either above or below the position they're interviewing for. In that case, you "decline" the candidate for the position/title/pay range they applied for but continue the interview for a different position. For example, if someone applies for SW ENG II but their compensation ask is in the range of SW ENG III (and their talents match) then you just bump them up. Conversely, if someone applies for SW ENG II but they're interviewing below the level of your SW ENG II candidates, you offer to continue the interview at the lower SW ENG I title/salary if they're willing. So the ranges are still just a starting point. There is no magic trick to force a company to reveal the maximum number they'd pay you specifically. It's still a negotiation, but at least you can order job postings somewhat. I actually think the bigger problem we're going to see is companies bait-and-switching candidates by putting a huge upper range number in the job posting but then offering them the bottom end of range while claiming that they can work their way up the range later. A lot of eager candidates are going to be pulled into companies who claim to have high upper limits, but who tell them they need to start at the bottom of the range and move up.