3 ms·

It’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

It’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 ago
It 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 ago
  That’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 ago
    And 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
      > And that is the applicant’s choice if they want to spend their time on finding that out. So... what's the point of the law? Isn't this already the case?
      - lotsofpulp 4y ago
        No, because employers have an upper hand and more information (in most scenarios of buying and selling labor). The benefit of the law would be to give all market participants access to more information, but it is also important not to unnecessarily restrict any of the market participants. It will be obvious that if a labor buyer is putting out $min wage to $1B pay ranges, that they should be ignored and/or they will get the worst applicants. For a labor seller, they will know to avoid labor buyers that cannot provide a decent bottom pay for their job listing.
        robertlagrant 4y ago
        They don't have more information. They don't know: - what the prospective employee is currently paid - what the prospective employee would move job for - how serious the alternatives the prospective employee mentions are Those three are the things the prospective employee knows, that the prospective employer is trying to guess. This new law erodes (and will likely eradicate) the first one, as it's basically a statewide public salary banding system. Also, this probably isn't all just "labor" jobs. I think it's all jobs.
        lotsofpulp 4y ago
        An employer usually has more information about market prices than an employee because the employer is simply hiring or at least interviewing more often. Plus they might have access to things like https://theworknumber.com/ https://theworknumber.com/ which can show them accurate pricing nationwide and per applicant (although this CA law would outlaw that). It should never be relevant to an employer what a candidate is currently being paid. >Also, this probably isn't all just "labor" jobs. I think it's all jobs. I do not understand this. All jobs involve a worker selling labor to someone else.
- triceratops 4y ago
  Netflix's stated policy is to be the top payer for every role. Pay is the only reason to not stay away from Netflix.
  - lotsofpulp 4y ago
    Sure, so if that is true, you will see employers listing jobs for $200k to $500k, and Netflix listing jobs for $250k to $600k. This price transparency law will give applicants the ability to see if Netflix is bluffing when they say they offer top pay, without having to waste time actually applying.

lotsofpulp 4y ago

It 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 ago
That’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 ago
  And 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
    > And that is the applicant’s choice if they want to spend their time on finding that out. So... what's the point of the law? Isn't this already the case?
    - lotsofpulp 4y ago
      No, because employers have an upper hand and more information (in most scenarios of buying and selling labor). The benefit of the law would be to give all market participants access to more information, but it is also important not to unnecessarily restrict any of the market participants. It will be obvious that if a labor buyer is putting out $min wage to $1B pay ranges, that they should be ignored and/or they will get the worst applicants. For a labor seller, they will know to avoid labor buyers that cannot provide a decent bottom pay for their job listing.
      - robertlagrant 4y ago
        They don't have more information. They don't know: - what the prospective employee is currently paid - what the prospective employee would move job for - how serious the alternatives the prospective employee mentions are Those three are the things the prospective employee knows, that the prospective employer is trying to guess. This new law erodes (and will likely eradicate) the first one, as it's basically a statewide public salary banding system. Also, this probably isn't all just "labor" jobs. I think it's all jobs.
        lotsofpulp 4y ago
        An employer usually has more information about market prices than an employee because the employer is simply hiring or at least interviewing more often. Plus they might have access to things like https://theworknumber.com/ https://theworknumber.com/ which can show them accurate pricing nationwide and per applicant (although this CA law would outlaw that). It should never be relevant to an employer what a candidate is currently being paid. >Also, this probably isn't all just "labor" jobs. I think it's all jobs. I do not understand this. All jobs involve a worker selling labor to someone else.
triceratops 4y ago
Netflix's stated policy is to be the top payer for every role. Pay is the only reason to not stay away from Netflix.
- lotsofpulp 4y ago
  Sure, so if that is true, you will see employers listing jobs for $200k to $500k, and Netflix listing jobs for $250k to $600k. This price transparency law will give applicants the ability to see if Netflix is bluffing when they say they offer top pay, without having to waste time actually applying.