8 ms·
California passes law requiring companies to post salary ranges on job listings
- ChrisMarshallNY 4y agoI'm curious. We hear a lot about gender pay gaps, but I suspect that H1B pay gaps may be more extreme. Will this expose that, or do you think that companies will find a way around that?
- bennysomething 4y agoTo (probabl mis) quote the Economist magazine, when adjusted for other variables the gender pay gap disappears.
- nulbyte 4y agoWhat are those other variables? They could point to other problems. For example, if adjusting for experience eliminates the gap, wages might be driven down for a group of folks due to a lack of opportunities to gain that experience.
- schemester 4y agoHours worked, career selection. In short there is no arbitrage to be found and employers aren’t leaving money on the table.
- nopenopenopeno 4y agoHow would this expose that? Regardless, I think the biggest benefit to companies hiring H1Bs is the leverage of the employee’s citizenship status.
- zhengyi13 4y agoI'm not confident it would, but just spitballing here, if Company X consistently posts a bunch of below-market salaries, and then/also hires an awful lot of H1B folk for the same positions, you could probably do an analysis a la opensecrets that could show a trend. I expect this would depend on H1B visa counts at least be public information. I'm not sure that's the case, and I'm not sure if it should be.
- skwirl 4y agoI thought companies already had to make H1B salaries public -- you can see them at https://h1bdata.info/ https://h1bdata.info/.
- citilife 4y ago> I'm curious. We hear a lot about gender pay gaps, but I suspect that H1B pay gaps may be more extreme. How much is a visa worth to you? A lot, so yes they'll pay people less; that's the way it works.
- conanbatt 4y agoImmigration policy is national, so states can't do much about policy that affects us immigrants. H1B income is capped by the inability to have secondary income sources and the inability for spouses to work.
- actually_a_dog 4y agohttps://archive.ph/Tap0a https://archive.ph/Tap0a
- egberts1 4y agoKentucky, Wisconsin, Nevada and Vermont all achieved better gender-pay equality than California, Colorado, and New York without the need to enforce private sector from revealing the salary offer. Is this the more depriving by state governments of the common workers’ privacy through needless encroaching laws? Who gains by this loss of privacy?
- joshstrange 4y ago> Meanwhile West Virginia, Michigan, Colorado, and Utah all achieved gender-pay equality as well as privacy without any pay transparency. Proof? > Makes me wonder why California and New York are exposing the privacy part for through their state victims’ paychecks? What on earth are you talking about? How does posting a salary range "expose the privacy" of people? Also this isn't just about pay equity, it's about knowing what you are applying for before going through the process.
- yardie 4y agoAre you looking at the chart correctly? Those states have the widest pay gaps with Utah ranked the highest.
- gwright 4y agoThat chart is useless. It apparently only corrects for hours worked. What about years in the workforce, year in the job, occupational mix, job level?
- threatofrain 4y agoIsn't California following Colorado's lead? > Meanwhile West Virginia, Michigan, Colorado, and Utah all achieved gender-pay equality as well as privacy without any pay transparency. Also, how do you know that gender-pay equality has been achieved?
- the_jeremy 4y agoI can't tell what you're arguing. No one is saying that any of those states have "achieved gender-pay equality". And CA isn't requiring your pay to be public knowledge, just salary ranges on job listings.
- crftr 4y agoFor anyone who wants to read the bill, it's SB-1162. https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billTextClient.xhtml?bill_id=202120220SB1162 https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billTextClient.xhtm...
- splonk 4y agoI took a look to see if there were any requirements for the range of the pay scale to be posted, and it looks like this is all that's said: > “Pay scale” means the salary or hourly wage range that the employer reasonably expects to pay for the position. Also, apparently you can already ask for the pay scale, but this law would require it to be on any job posting. > Existing law requires an employer, upon reasonable request, to provide the pay scale for a position to an applicant applying for employment. And you would be able to get the pay range for your current job. > This bill would also require an employer, upon request, to provide to an employee the pay scale for the position in which the employee is currently employed.
- PenguinCoder 4y ago> this law would require it to be on any job posting. And companies will still avoid listing a salary, and just say 'Not accepting applicants in Colorado or California' as they do now[1] to get around the Colorado law. 1. https://www.coloradoexcluded.com/ https://www.coloradoexcluded.com/
- showerst 4y agoUntil we hit a critical mass of states with this legislation.
- toomuchtodo 4y agoCall your representative if you live in a state that hasn’t passed such legislation yet.
- bee_rider 4y ago
- lotsofpulp 4y agoNot mentioned somehow was that Washington state also passed a pay range on job listings law and it goes into effect Jan 1, 2023.
- xenago 4y ago> California joins Colorado, New York City, and Washington state in adopting the job-posting tactic. Only Colorado’s law is currently in effect From the article...
- lotsofpulp 4y agoI thought I did ctrl F for Washington. Guess I was mistaken.
- xenago 4y agoSeems like a really obvious move. Don't waste time, don't bait-and-switch.
- bluefirebrand 4y agoCompanies will still try and bait and switch. Post huge ranges and tell very qualified people that they only qualify for the low end, for instance.
- lotsofpulp 4y agoAssuming other employers are not posting more helpful pay range information. If you are trying to attract very qualified candidates but also signaling that you want to pay bottom dollar, that might not work so well for any market where very qualified labor supply is tight.
- CydeWeys 4y agoAnd many qualified applicants will simply ignore postings entirely with wide bands where the low end would be a pay cut for them.
- joshstrange 4y agoAny bets on how many states pass legislation like this before companies stop with the "except CO, CA, ...." (and the other states that have passed it)?
- deleted 4y ago[deleted]
- PaulDavisThe1st 4y agoWith CA (and WA) passing it, I predict it will stop in 3, ... 2, ...
- dandandan 4y agoIt’ll keep going as long as people tolerate it and continue to work for these exploitative organizations.
- teeray 4y agoHow does the law prevent the obvious loophole of listing the salary range as $1-$1bn for all positions? What are the permissible error bars?
- lotsofpulp 4y agoThat is not a loophole. It still solves the problem of information not being transmitted quickly enough through the marketplace about which jobs/types of labor have too much supply or insufficient demand if the bottom of the pay range is too low. Easily searchable and sortable price transparency will help allocate labor resources in a more timely manner.
- nickff 4y agoYou're not describing problems that the laws were intended to solve, at least from public statements. I'm also unsure as to whether the issues you describe are more than 'nuisance' problems, in that they don't cause long-term instability or inequity.
- lotsofpulp 4y agoPrice transparency underpins proper allocation of resources in an economy. This is from microeconomics 101. It would be greatly beneficial in the long term for a society to allocate resources (including labor) to where it is needed.
- gwright 4y agoDon't disagree, but the challenge in this area is that no two people are alike and so the market price for developer-a is not the same as the market price for developer-b. Related, it depends on what job you are applying for as the same person applying for two different jobs isn't going to automatically end up with the same compensation. I'm not saying that some transparency wouldn't help, just that market pricing for labor doesn't work the same way it does for a commodity.
- endisneigh 4y agoIt’s a start but it’s not enough. They should post the inter-quartile range, median and median, but obviously that becomes cluttered. Take Netflix for example who famously only had a single “Software Engineer” role regardless of skill level. You’d see something like $75K-$1M which is not super helpful.
- lotsofpulp 4y agoIt is very helpful because any half competent software engineer will know to stay away from Netflix, because demand for competent software engineers means they can filter out pay ranges that will waste their time. For others, they will know that the bottom of the pay range for software engineers is $75k so if they want to earn that much, they should acquire those skills.
- endisneigh 4y agoThat’s not what it means because Netflix also pays a lot on the high end. There’s no way to map your particular skills to the range without first getting an offer if the range is large. For those who aspire to the low end that’s fine but there’s still no guarantee you’d get an offer. Though I support this move whole heartedly it still doesn’t change the fact that you have to interview and get an offer to know the particulars. The impossible ideal would be a company preemptively giving you an offer before interviewing given predetermined interview performance. That way you can only interview at places that will pay you want, guaranteed. This is basically the same as applying to places with a very tight range.
- lotsofpulp 4y agoAnd that is the applicant’s choice if they want to spend their time on finding that out. Otherwise they can apply with Apple, Alphabet, Microsoft, and Facebook who might be hiring within a narrower, but higher pay band.
- chrisseaton 4y ago
- hayst4ck 4y agoInterestingly enough, many salaries are public, specifically H1B salaries: https://h1bdata.info/ https://h1bdata.info/ Many Washington state employees salary info is public, including full name: https://fiscal.wa.gov/DVK12Salaries.aspx https://fiscal.wa.gov/DVK12Salaries.aspx
- maerF0x0 4y agoThe lie here is that many companies have as much as 75% of compensation in non-salary items (like equity, bonus). So folks who do not know any better could still work for 1/4 the market rate.
- lotsofpulp 4y agoThe people who will benefit most from these price transparency laws will be at the low end of the pay scale, like fast food workers and drivers and retail and hotel employees. They may not address price transparency for people who receive equity compensation, but it is still a great start to help those at the bottom.
- conanbatt 4y agoI disagree - in economic terms the information asymmetry is hardest where there is less competition. You have companies paying 100k and 600k for same-roles in the industry. But alas making it mandatory is not the way to go.
- pseudalopex 4y agoWhy not?
- conanbatt 4y agoMost good ideas don't require guns to enforce them.
- eddiezane 4y agoColorado resident here. Maybe companies will start to take this seriously now that more states are passing similar laws. My go to response to recruiter spam for the past 1.5 years has been "Do you have Colorado Equal Pay for Equal Work Act compliant job listings" to which they usually don't reply. The majority of "US Remote" posts I see don't include this information but the ones that do are interesting data points.
- ec109685 4y agoThere are companies that refuse to hire from Colorado because of that. Hopefully if California passes this law, that exception will drop.
- Whatarethese 4y agoI cant think of a bigger red flag than that.
- vuln 4y agoI’m so tired of companies putting bullshit ranges like “80-190k DoE” and claim they’re compliant with the Colorado law. Is there anyway to report companies / job listings that are not in compliance?
- nickff 4y agoIs that range non-compliant?
- As_You_Wish 4y agoHi NickFF, if you work for me full time, I will pay you in the range of $1 per year to $40 billion dollars per year. Ranges can be non-compliant. A range like that sure is non-compliant. I don't know if it is technically, but surely it is in the spirit of the law.
- polski-g 4y agoSounds perfectly compliant to me.
- bennysomething 4y agoI'm not sure I agree with this type of legislation. Most of us have experienced that developer value add varies hugely. I think what bothers me most is that it seems to be a push for pay banding. We re individuals, I'd prefer to neogitate on my own terms.
- lotsofpulp 4y agoHow does it impede a labor seller’s ability to negotiate?
- polski-g 4y agoBecause they can't negotiate a price higher than what was listed on the posting.
- lotsofpulp 4y agoI do not see that stipulation in the text of the law.
- CydeWeys 4y agoIt will help me greatly when job hunting as I will be able to immediately filter out the 90+% of jobs which would be a pay downgrade for me. These laws don't outlaw negotiation. Not sure what you're talking about there.
- robertlagrant 4y agoIf someone is really good but it would take more money than is advertised to tempt them into the new role, what happens?
- lotsofpulp 4y agoI would guess not systemically doing it is covered under it not being a “reasonable” expectation. If you are, over the course of time, paying 70% of the candidates you hire more than your stated top range, that might be a problem. All the way at the bottom of: https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billTextClient.xhtml?bill_id=202120220SB1162 https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billTextClient.xhtm... >(1) “Pay scale” means the salary or hourly wage range that the employer reasonably expects to pay for the position.
- supernova87a 4y agoIs it required that the actual job pay adhere to the salary range posted, and no different? How about if companies pay more than the range quoted, so that they simply post low salaries and negotiate up? If it's not required, then how is it an improvement on the situation that everyone is still basically negotiating what he/she can justify? Also, what does it do about the situation when a job's compensation is largely not salary but stock?
- yed 4y agoNo, but if you low ball the numbers you put in the job ad then the people you actually want for the job won't apply.
- pseudalopex 4y agoThe Labor Commissioner must investigate complaints and may order fines. Companies can give more information if they want.
- maerF0x0 4y ago> (3) Within each job category, for each combination of race, ethnicity, and sex, the median and mean hourly rate. If we want to resolve pay disparities we also need to stop pretending that Salary means 40 hours and instead require accurate hours worked reporting regardless of "exempt" salary or not. Why? Because hours worked is not equal across the variables
- robertlagrant 4y agoWhat happens if they really want someone but to get them to move it would require breaching the maximum advertised?
- scrose 4y agoThe ranges aren’t a legal min/max. Just a reasonable range.
- mlyle 4y agoRoughly: You have to post the pay scale for the position. So, if current employees in that role make $100,000 to $120,000, and you expect to hire whomever responds at ~$116,000, you would post $100k-120k. Later, if you hire someone for $125k, the pay scale now includes $125k. You must provide this info to current employees on request, and would have to include it in subsequent listings.
- robertlagrant 4y agoI imagine it will be simpler to just higher a $10k/yr cheaper alternative than do this all the time, even if that alternative ends up being half as good as the more expensive alternative. I can't imagine all the interpersonal issues caused by this being requested after every hire!
- mlyle 4y agoAlternatively, transparency could make things more fair and eliminate a lot of jealousy, etc. It's this weird not-very-transparent place we are that's unstable.
- robertlagrant 4y agoWhat do you mean, unstable? If someone will leave if they don't get a pay rise they should get one without management (who all need paying for, lowering the useful salaries) getting together to figure out if it's worth all of the cost of giving everyone that pay rise, or the hassle of uprisings and complaints if they only give that person one.
- dang 4y agoThis title is a bit misleading because it isn't law yet. From the article: The bill will head to Governor Gavin Newsom, who has until Sept. 30 to sign or veto. He hasn’t yet expressed a position and didn’t immediately respond to a request for comment. If he signs it, [etc.]
- cyanydeez 4y agoCan't wait for some absurdly low COL state tries to follow
- deleted 4y ago[deleted]