24 ms·
NYC to require salary ranges be included in job postings
- angmarsbane 4y agoI don’t understand the obsession with ranges, shouldn’t posting a minimum be sufficient? Posting a minimum allows job seekers to rule out roles that can’t pay their bills/expenses without putting a ceiling on how high a job seeker can negotiate.
- spamizbad 4y agoI get why employers would hate this, but overall, wouldn't greater transparency in the labor market drive economic growth by virtue of making the labor market more efficient by doing a better job of connecting skilled, hard-working and motivated employees with employers who can pay more?
- gsk22 4y agoI suspect employers are more interested in attracting talent by _appearing_ to pay highly than by actually doing so.
- robertlagrant 4y agoI don't think they'll hate it. If they know what a prospective employee is making, they can offer a minimal increment on that within their (wide) salary range. Currently, only the employer knows their real budget (and that may change if they get the right candidate) and only the employee knows what they'll move for. Salary negotiation is based on those two secrets. This legislation makes the latter secret public knowledge.
- m-ee 4y agoThe latter was already public knowledge, your entire salary history is probably available via The Work Number. This makes the former secret public knowledge.
- robertlagrant 4y agoBlimey, if your current salary is available at salary negotiation time then that's a much bigger problem then advertising salaries. To your point: companies can advertise a big range, or create a new job title, for a job, or level you based on undecided job levels according to what they want to pay you. I don't think this legislation adds anything.
- ThunderSizzle 4y ago> only the employee knows what they'll move for ... This legislation makes [that] secret public knowledge. Not everyone's motives is the same on this, so it's still secret. Some people will require more than a small bump to move into the risk of an unknown new employer. Also, some people value flexibility (or rigidity), autonomy, etc. more than money - to the point where some people will pass substantial amounts of money if it means sacrificing real time with the fam.
- robertlagrant 4y agoI totally agree, but the new employer doesn't have to know any of that.
- jstx1 4y agoBy what mechanism does legally enforced transparency make the labor market more efficient?
- loeg 4y agoIn general, pricing transparency increases market efficiency (and vice versa).
- woodruffw 4y agoPricing transparency eliminates economic triage and uncertainly: if you want to make $XXX, you don't have to apply to 10 different jobs and spend everyone's time determining whether they'll pay you $XXX.
- sokoloff 4y agoYou still don't know if they'll pay you $XXX. You only know that they claim that there exists some hypothetical employee to whom they'd in good faith imagine paying $XXX.
- joshuamorton 4y agoRanges have lower bounds. There is some subset of people for which this reduces the uncertainty to zero.
- lotsofpulp 4y agoBy the same mechanism that makes it work for commodities and public equity markets.
- sokoloff 4y agoUm, that mechanism is the printing of the actual trades and an open-outcry (now electronic) market-making process for definitionally fungible assets.
- joshuamorton 4y ago
- woodruffw 4y agoMost won't directly voice this, but I believe the primary objection from many employers is that there kinds of salary transparency laws raise the floor, since you know (roughly) what all of your colleagues are making. In other words: software (like most other industries) relies in part on employees low-balling themselves (and stigma around sharing salary information), which is harder to do when you know what the actual salary band is.
- boole1854 4y agoIn my opinion -- and I have no hard data to back this up, merely some limited personal experience -- the biggest issue employers will have about salary transparency is that it makes paying high performers high salaries more difficult. Typically having a high performer on staff is a huge win for the employer. E.g., at one previous company, the top couple sales people were 10X performers compared to the median sales person. And they were compensated maybe 5X the median. A disgruntled employee found and leaked a document that listed everyone's compensation -- and the negative feelings that were generated towards the company and towards the highly paid sales people was profound. Part of the issue is that the 10X sales people did not necessarily work 10X harder, they just had the right set of personality traits, industry experience, and je ne sais quoi that made them able to bring in more and bigger clients. But many people feel intrinsically that compensation should be tied to effort and to those people it was upsetting to see coworkers who did not necessarily put in 5X more effort get 5X more money. Edited to add: to be clear, I do not personally have a problem with pay being tied to results instead of to effort, but I saw first hand that many people have a different opinion about this.
- badpun 4y agoIt can be dealt by creating high-paying higher rungs on career ladder and then promoting the 10x people there. So, regular SE position can have a salary range of say $120k-$150k, but principal senior staff ninja can have say $400k-$600k. That's how FAANGs do it basically.
- boole1854 4y ago
- mathattack 4y agoCompanies get a huge financial lift by underpaying some percentage of their employee base. Consider any company whose main cost is people, and revenue is roughly proportional to headcount. (Consultancy, school, security, etc) Let’s say they can utilize an information asymmetry to underpay half their workforce by 10%. That cuts their cost by 5%, and it’s all to the bottom line. If they were a 10% net margin business, now they’re 15%. This is why they fight transparency. It’s a form of price discrimination. A libertarian might say “It’s a free market, and everyone enters the contract willingly.” I am sympathetic to that, though markets tend to work most efficiently when there is more information. The one downside is some remote jobs might not be available in New York any more. NYC wage levels make remote work more difficult from a cost arbitrage anyway.
- wnevets 4y agoNo, you have gotten it all backwards. You are only allowed to use the more efficient market rationale when are you defending low wages and higher prices for regular people. Regular people getting higher wages is seen as a disease that must be stopped at all cost. [1] [1] https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2022-03-17/powell-treads-tricky-path-in-saying-wages-are-rising-too-fast https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2022-03-17/powell-tr...
- ramraj07 4y agoAn example is when companies have to increase their offers due to changing market conditions; currently they can just silently do that without telling existing employees. But with the new law existing employees have a way of finding it out so they will then go ask for a raise to match this range. Of course employeees are free to discuss salaries themselves but in America that’s still not normal and common.
- pixl97 4y agoOf course this is why current employees seem to leave all the time for other opportunities rather than getting raises and keeping knowledge inside the company. HR: "Why do we have retention problems" Also HR: "Pay the new people 1.5x, but don't tell anyone"
- patrickthebold 4y agoExactly, I'm a bit surprised that this needs to be legislated. Many people will not apply/respond to recruiters if the salary isn't posted. I'd think employers would be doing this simply because it makes things easier for them.
- heavyset_go 4y agoCompanies profit from information asymmetry. Efficiency comes from reducing that asymmetry, but efficiency also means less ability to profit.
- diceduckmonk 4y agoFor finance and tech jobs the compensation will be tied up in performance bonuses and equity, so salary ranges aren't the most meaningful for these roles, except when there is no non-salary pay.
- throwaway1777 4y agoExactly. And the base comp is largely the same everywhere. It’s the equity that matters.
- habosa 4y agoThis would probably drive increased base compensation and decreased variable compensation in order to stand out on job boards. I’m among the people who would like that !
- willio58 4y agoFor tech jobs I'd wager the vast majority operate on a simple salary plus retirement set up. HN is definitely in a bubble where seemingly everyone works at the top tech companies and gets like 175k base + 90k in bonuses and equity.
- coryrc 4y agoI don't think most of us working in top tech companies are making that little.
- llbeansandrice 4y agoSo?
- gsk22 4y agoWhile I am supportive of this, I expect a lot (majority?) of listings with ranges like "$40k-200k based on experience". (Or the example from the article, "$17-50/hr")
- willio58 4y agoThis is still a good thing because you know the true limit. So instead of thinking "maybe I can get 60k for this job", you can think "maybe I can get 120k for this job".
- CompleteWalker 4y agoNYC's Fact sheet about the new law notes that minimum and maximum stated salaries must be in "good faith". Not a lawyer, but maybe this is space for class action lawsuits or something... Salary Transparency Fact Sheet: https://www1.nyc.gov/assets/cchr/downloads/pdf/publications/Salary-Transparency-Factsheet.pdf https://www1.nyc.gov/assets/cchr/downloads/pdf/publications/...
- ender341341 4y agoYeah, in the cases where they're like "looking for someone anywhere between college hire & sr engineer inclusive" it'd be nice if it was breaking it out by level/pay band, then people could have a much better idea if it was worth their time
- deltree7 4y agoA knowledge worker's productivity can easily (and provably ) range from -10x to +1000x. So, it's much easier to prove in the court of law that the ranges are justified. Dude who created the React Framework is always 100x valuable to the company than an average Javascript developer. A couple of brilliant dudes is all that is required for a company to be a mere $100 Million company vs $1 Billion company. It's ridiculous to pay the same $100,000 for each of them
- jedberg 4y agoThe dude who created the react framework (who I happen to know) already knows his worth, and is not getting jobs through public listings. This law isn't for him. Also he is getting higher level jobs. And that's true even further down the line -- if your experience can mean $200K more per year, then those should be two different job listings. One senior and one junior.
- cronix 4y agoThis will make it a lot easier to gather financial data on individuals and target ads to people who make $x. If the job and salary are posted, it will be scraped, and compared to job titles in profiles at places like LinkedIn.
- Y_Y 4y agoCan't you already estimate this pretty well from e.g glassdoor?
- deleted 4y ago[deleted]
- Carrok 4y agoIt has been this way in Colorado for some time, and it has been nothing but fantastic.
- drewpc 4y agoCan you please expand on this a bit more? I live in Colorado and saw virtually no change when looking for a new job inside and outside of the state last year. I did run across a few "no job applications from CO" as was mentioned in other comment threads, but most job postings I saw did not post salary information.
- Carrok 4y agoWhen you are working for a company in CO, they are required to post all new job postings both internally and externally, with salary info. So you can see what new people coming in are getting for what roles, and know if you're in the right range.
- lotsofpulp 4y agoIt was effective Jan 1, 2021. This is the complaint form if you find an employer not following the law: https://cdle.colorado.gov/sites/cdle/files/Equal%20Pay%20Complaint%20F https://cdle.colorado.gov/sites/cdle/files/Equal%20Pay%20Com... orm%20Dec%202020_Distributed.pdf Fact sheet: https://cdle.colorado.gov/sites/cdle/files/documents/Equal_Pay_for_Equal_Work_Fact_Sheet_Web_0.pdf https://cdle.colorado.gov/sites/cdle/files/documents/Equal_P... Actual Law: https://cdle.colorado.gov/sites/cdle/files/7%20CCR%201103-13%20Equal%20Pay%20Transparency%20Rules_0.pdf https://cdle.colorado.gov/sites/cdle/files/7%20CCR%201103-13... Other links: https://cdle.colorado.gov/laws-regulations-guidance https://cdle.colorado.gov/laws-regulations-guidance
- pastor_bob 4y agoI've seen remote places have a 'if you're applying from CO' link that links out to a pdf of salary ranges.
- llbeansandrice 4y agoThere was a ton of push-back online when that law went into effect despite CA having a similar law already on the books and obviously other dominoes (like NYC) getting ready to fall. It was fantastic in my last job search. Even recruiters that tried to "not talk numbers" until the end of the process I could just point to the relevant laws or just not continue on in the process. Plenty of companies were playing by the rules so no need to waste my time.
- tptacek 4y agoFor our industry, it's effectively already required, right? Because of other jurisdictions that require it?
- neaden 4y agoNo, even for a remote position they can simply say "Not open to people living in CO etc."
- tptacek 4y agoWould you apply to a company that posted a job that said "not open to Colorado residents" just so they could avoid posting a salary range? I sure as shit wouldn't.
- llbeansandrice 4y agoReminder that if that's the case the company cannot have any employees in that state. Otherwise they have to have a real reason for limiting the geography i.e. the position isn't remote.
- henryfjordan 4y agoThere were a lot of WFH job postings from the past few years that said "No applicants from Colorado" because of their similar law. CA and a few other states have recently enacted this same law though so it'll become a lot harder to avoid posting the salary if you want good candidates.
- joncp 4y agoI haven't seen those postings, but I imagine that would make a terrible first impression to potential candidates, effectively signalling that the company is committed to playing games with salaries.
- sokoloff 4y agoOr one which is committed to not kowtowing to every jurisdiction that comes up with their own custom laws.
- jakear 4y agoThe place I’m applying simply lists: “Software Development (all levels)” and is an open call for engineers. Salary obviously will depend on experience and interview performance. I don’t see why that’s an issue, a corporatized version of this where each company has to split their postings into 8 different categories or risk excluding complete novices/interns that might join for near free or heavy hitters that would need big cash but provide significant return… doesn’t seem better in any way.
- ilikehurdles 4y agoThe last startup I worked at ranged developers from 100k to 150k on paper but “senior devs” landed at around 125, while the current startup I work at didn’t list numbers but puts senior devs at around $200k plus generous bonuses. Where you land always depends on performance and experience, sure, but knowing both ends of the range for any given title is still critically important to making a decision (and negotiating). If someone comes from a below-market rate company, they may not know what to even ask for or negotiate around because important information is obscured from them, and they’ll end up short-changing themselves.
- squeaky-clean 4y ago> split their postings into 8 different categories or risk excluding complete novices/interns that might join for near free I've been helping a friend who's just out of school and going through the interview ringer. They've already gone through one round of interviews for a posting like that only to be told after 2 interviews (for an internship) "by all experience levels we actually meant a minimum of 2 years industry experience for the lowest level". So now she completely avoids anything that is phrased this way.
- robocat 4y agoI recently read a study that found most women give up trying when applying for jobs and promotions, so they miss out. Similarly, lack of assertiveness: https://medium.com/the-pink/why-women-give-up-their-power-d92e35af0f9a https://medium.com/the-pink/why-women-give-up-their-power-d9... I hope you can help your friend learn to be more stubborn against failure. I wish I knew what a good training technique might be: I have friends that need help with the same issue (both male and female).
- filoleg 4y agoI genuinely wonder how this would work for non-cash portions of the total comp. Would they have to declare the dollar value of the shares issued? What about non-public companies that offer a significant chunk of the comp in illiquid stock options?Would they have to be included as a part of the salary range? Disclaimer: I am neither opposed nor in support of this. I don't mind taking that route and seeing how it works out. I see the potential downsides and upsides, and neither seem to be extremely impactful. So it feels like there is little harm in testing it out, even if it ends up being a nothingburger.
- bberenberg 4y agoI have a hard time believing this will meaningfully help workers. It's a way for large companies to crush smaller competitors who offer anything other than base salary. Small co that offers more flexibility in location / hours? You will get filtered out because adding a salary filter is the easiest thing possible. Getting someone to read the JD that explains why working for you makes sense is hard.
- joe5150 4y agoSmaller companies have always had to compete on non-salary benefits like flexibility, and jobseekers who actually value those things above a higher salary will presumably be motivated to look into them, as they have always done as well. It's still helpful to know if your actual paycheck is going to be in range of your expectations or not before you waste your time applying to jobs.
- ghaff 4y agoPresumably stock--and perhaps variable comp bonuses--would not be part of a listed salary range.
- filoleg 4y agoIf that's truly the case, then it is gonna be a complete nothingburger for most devs. Same for finance, where a large (and, a lot of times, the largest) chunk of the total comp is in the annual bonus. In that case, I don't understand the celebrations and arguments people keep having about how it is gonna affect "big tech". I guess it might end up being good for non-tech/only-cash-comped employees, so we will see.
- ianpurton 4y agoI actually think this benefits the employers. I rarely apply for jobs that don't post a salary range just because it's not worth the hassle of trying to figure out what they will pay.
- matteotom 4y agoMy biggest annoyance with most salary transparency law compliance is companies pretend they'll accept anyone in any location at levels between 1 and 5, resulting in ranges like "$85k" (lowest paid location, level 1) to "$250k" (highest paid location, level 5) - when they're (internally) looking for "level 3 or 4".
- elromulous 4y agoDoes salary==total comp for these purposes? For large enough companies, posting total comp distribution by position would be way more useful.
- matteotom 4y agoI think every salary transparency law I've seen (including this one) only includes base salary, and not bonus, stock, etc. Realistically the laws probably cover 90+% of available jobs by only requiring base salary/hourly rate.
- TrackerFF 4y agoI remember seeing this ad for a (direct) sales position. The headline was something like: “Do you want to earn up to $150000 a year?” and then a bit down with the caveat that the position was 100% commission based, with salaries ranging between $10k-$150k/year.
- jedberg 4y agoThese laws are a great idea, but I really wish they would require that the bottom and top of the range be within X% of each other, were X is like 20 or 30 or even 50 or 100. But no more than the top being double the bottom. If the range is bigger than that, it sounds like you have two different jobs, a junior and senior, or senior and principle, etc. It would at least force them to be slightly more transparent about what they're actually looking for.
- andrewstuart 4y agoI'm a recruiter. I've known for a long time it drives people nuts that job ads don't have salary, or have a wide salary range. The fact is that many employers don't actually know what they would be willing to pay someone. Until they have met them, assessed them, heard what they salary target is and weighed it up against their skills and experience and calibrated it against the team. The conversation almost always goes like this: Employers come to me and say "we want a great senior C# .NET developer". I say "what do you want to pay?". They say "don't know, we just want someone great, what do you think we need to pay to get the right person?". I say "I think it will be about $X, but lets put a job ad up and indicate it's top of range $ and see who we get." It is also true that a single job ad might be aiming to employ a number of people at various positions of seniority and experience. Government agencies are required to carefully define salary ranges because that is the way they work. So it does not surprise me that governments would legislate to require job ads to do the same - essentially because of ignorance about how the world works. If it makes you mad that job ads do not list salary, then there are good reasons and you will just have to get over or it not apply for that job. It's that easy - if the ad doesn't specify salary and that is a key requirement for you, don't get angry, just don't apply. Being angry about it or feeling that employers/recruiters are playing some sort of manipulative game is ignoring the reality set out above. And when you come into a position that requires recruiting, likely you'll speak to your recruiter and say "what do you think we'll need to pay for someone like this?". Far more important is to know the salary target that you are aiming for. EDIT: lots of unhappy responses to this, but don't shoot the messenger. Go ask your team lead/CEO/CTO how recruiting works.
- e12e 4y agoI suppose if employers don't know what employees are worth - they certainly don't know what recruiters are worth? And I suppose that information assymetry works out in favour of the recruiters?
- nathan_compton 4y ago"This is convenient for corporations so suck it up." isn't a very compelling argument. The purpose of the government is to represent the interests of the people in situations where there is sufficient agreement to pass legislation. If your company doesn't like complying with local laws, its easy, just don't look for people in this country. The people have a right to set the terms of exchanges in the marketplace.
- slt2021 4y agothis wont impact tech jobs as much, because there is some transparency, but I can imagine it will bring transparency to all other non-tech jobs, like Sales, HR, Marketing, Operations, etc.
- anonu 4y agoWhats to stop people saying: $45,000-$500,000
- joshuamorton 4y agoThe "good faith" clause of the law.
- zerr 4y agoOne common method for low-bailing is telling a prospective employee that what he or she asks is way above the rest of the team/peers and it would be "fair" if he or she accepts e.g. 20% less. I wonder how often do they lie?
- robocat 4y agoWhat's wrong with just needing the minimum? Why do they need a band with the maximum?
- danijelb 4y agoBecause one of the main issues with negotiation is that people have different idea on what's a good salary depending on their educational and cultural background, the environment they grew up in, etc. For example a company might be willing to pay up to $175k for a certain dev position. This amount of money seems completely crazy to a developer who comes from a poor family and is the first one to have a skill that can pay so much. It will never occur to them to attempt to negotiate for this amount, because even $90k seems like a great salary compared to what their parents had. $175k would seem unreal, especially in a country where talking about money is taboo. But if this number can be seen often in ads as an upper range, it becomes normalized in the eyes of everyone who is applying for jobs, no matter their educational and cultural background.
- Kalanos 4y agoAfter reading the Road to Serfdom - this gov mandate feels like it trends toward communism, not a free-market meritocracy. The next thing you know the gov will start assigning $ranges to positions, and qualifications for those positions.
- Infinitesimus 4y agoThat seems like a big leap but I'll bite. How do you see a connection between "Let people know what salary they're in the running for" and "You must not pay more than XYZ for this job"? I get that it is possible but I'd be interested if you have reasons for believing it is a real risk beyond a slim chance.
- Kalanos 4y agoThey already demand equal pay by gender. Government involvement only grows. Did excise tax and annual inspections exist when cars were first introduced?
- chrisdbanks 4y agoAs an employer, I am reticent to name a salary range because the fact is that the return on investment of employees is not normally distributed; it follows a power law where the top people return many times the amount of an average person. This may be because of connections, experience, intelligence, or a mixture. When I recruit I always want to hire a top person for whom I'm happy to pay 50% more than an average person, but realistically that's not always possible for me. If I state a salary range then I have to extend it to the amount I'd be willing to play for a top person which would mean if I'd have to settle for an average person then I'd probably set their expectations too high. My advice is that if you're worried about going through multiple rounds of interviews to get a low offer then the solution is just to be very clear of your expectations up front before you interview. The worst case is that I say I can't afford you. Candidates should know their value too and shouldn't be afraid of letting employers know what they're worth.
- throwaway292939 4y agoEh I'm not sure this argument holds up. You can post a job ad targeting the top people and list the top of market salary band. If you can't find such a candidate, you can delete the job ad and post the ad targeting the "average person". You may even be able to post the two ads simultaneously.
- BeefySwain 4y agoAnd what, everyone who encounters both of them will conveniently silo themselves into the appropriate bin?
- edmundsauto 4y agoIf the roles and expectations are actually thought through before posting, perhaps. If not, the first contact can gently nudge them towards the appropriate slot. If an employer can't write a concrete job description that communicates the difference between junior and senior and staff/supersenior, that's on them. Get better at it before you waste the employee's time (or pay people for interviewing).
- sithlord 4y agoI saw a posting the other day that had something like, applicable only in Colorado the range is 150,000 - 200,000 - 250,000. A range with 3 numbers is new to me.
- elliottcarlson 4y agoLow - Mid - High range isn't uncommon, it's just not as common to see it on a job-listing. Generally you expect someone who is solid in their level to have a compa ratio of 100%, which puts you near the mid part of the band. When you are newer to the level, you would be aligned closer to the low end of the band, and as you progress and near a promotion, you would be edging towards the higher end.
- endorphine 4y agoDunno why but I laughed with this one.
- tbrownaw 4y agoHow does this sort of thing interact with the business cycle and nominal wages being sticky?
- minraws 4y agoGood. Applying and then knowing the person on the otherside can't pay shit is a PITA
- Wowfunhappy 4y ago> The sweeping New York City rules will apply to almost all companies except for the smallest firms. Any business with at least four workers, assuming at least one of them is based in the city, must include the lowest and highest salaries for any job it posts. ...so, uh, question, because I'm getting increasingly confused about how jurisdiction works. Let's say Houston passes a law which makes it illegal for companies to disclose salary ranges. I have no idea why Houston would do that, but stupider laws exist. BigCorp has employees in both Houston and New York City. Heck, BigCorp probably has at least one job which requires alternating between NYC and Houston to meet with different teams. How does BigCorp avoid breaking the law?
- covidiot5 4y ago
- ipaddr 4y agoHave them work from the Florida office and bypass this
- Wowfunhappy 4y agoDoes even that work? They're saying if the company has any jobs that could be performed in the NYC—even fully remote jobs—they have to post salary ranges for all jobs, as I understood it.
- bombcar 4y agoWe could test this pretty easily by getting a state to pass a privacy law that salaries cannot be disclosed, even indirectly. In reality most tiny businesses wouldn't be affected, and most larger ones would just split into two legal entities closely allied, until finally someone like Google takes it to court, where the Interstate Commerce Clause would actually be used for regulating interstate commerce. Before that, however, the states would probably work to negotiate something so they don't get slapped federally.
- runevault 4y ago
- scarface74 4y agoDoes the law require including total compensation or just salary? For instance before last year, Amazon’s salary top out at $175K - $185K I believe in NYC with everything else being signing bonus/RSUs.
- game_the0ry 4y agoI am concerned that some employers might try some creative work-arounds to this law, like ranges that are way too wide so they can have some flexibility in making lower offers.
- tarentel 4y agoI don't know the legality of doing something like this is but as a worker in NY I just wouldn't apply. Going forward I'll likely only apply to a position where the low end is an acceptable amount and if I can get more that's great. How realistic this will be I have no idea.
- pyronik19 4y ago
- Eumenes 4y agoFrom a recruiter perspective, this will accomplish very little, outside of the firms trying to pay the least. They will still get around it. Take this example, which happens multiple times per day. Junior candidate applies to senior job. Thinks cause they are senior at X company, that means they are at Y. False. Every company has diff leveling and definition on what that means. Companies give away senior titles like candy. Go look at how many "engineers" with 2-3 years of experience are senior at a number of companies. How is giving away those titles good faith? Really? Is anyone SENIOR after that little on the job? I sure hope not. Anyway, back to my example. They still consider the candidate, but at a lower level. Salary on job posting doesn't match the candidates expectations. This is why its the recruiter AND the candidates responsibility to get within the ball park on the initial phone conversation. Its still difficult for the recruiter to confirm with the candidate that they'll get the range they want. Usually they need to be interviewed and have their skills/ability assessed first.
- BenFranklin100 4y agoThe people this will hurt the most is talented employees who can negotiate.
- BenFranklin100 4y agoSo what’s to stop employers from posting a range from $10K to $1M ‘depending on experience and skill set”?
- guitarsteve 4y agoIf a company offers a very low lower bound like $10k, job seekers won’t apply there and will go to competitors with a more reasonable lower bound. Similarly, when a highly qualified applicant gets an offer way below the upper bound they’ll be upset and ask “why don’t I get paid near the top of your band?” Unless all employers work together to make the bands useless, it’ll at least give some visibility into what employers are worth targeting as an applicant. My employer has Colorado jobs and gives some wide ranges (ex: 130-300k) and more narrow ranges (ex: 200-240k). The wide ones probably cover 3-4 levels and the narrow ones are for a specific level. They’re all missing RSUs or bonuses, but they should give you a rough idea if it’s worth applying or starting a discussion with a recruiter/hiring manager.
- Test0129 4y agoI'm not so much frustrated by a lack of salary ranges in ads as I am about two things: 1. Waiting to figure out salary until the final interview. 2. No mention of CoL adjustments. I don't know what employers expect to gain. Cynically people think that it's because employees are terrible negotiators. Maybe that's true. I always ask the top of the salary range based on other salary postings and let them explain to me why they have to work me down. Sometimes it makes sense, sometimes it's a CoL adjustment or other non-sense and I don't complete the paperwork. I'm not convinced that posting salary ranges will make pay more balanced. It's nice to see but I think what people want is a hard number - you will definitely make $X if you work here. Unfortunately, it's typically not that simple. At my company we have pay bands by seniority, and pay bands inside those pay bands (to provide for raises, etc - merit pay). This system works. What people should be doing in my opinion is talking about their salary. Force your employers to justify salaries. This is how I got a raise after I figured out I was paid 20k less than the new guy. However, I'm not sure people are ready to hear "you're bottom barrel" to a response on why your salary is at the lowest band. Unfortunately, humans are creatures that compare and you won't be able to guilt your employer into paying you more if you are actually just simply bad at your job. I think discussing salaries openly will help the merit worthy engineers get what they should be getting. It will, necessarily, cause a LOT of hurt feelings however because a lot more people think they are more merit-worthy than they are. Whether it's worth it to protect people's delicate sensibilities can only be figured out by doing it. Discuss your salaries!