4 ms·

>> The fact is that many employers don't actually know what they would be willing to pay someone. > Then they need better data. A great way to get that would b

>> The fact is that many employers don't actually know what they would be willing to pay someone. > Then they need better data. A great way to get that would be looking at all the other job listings with salary ranges if they don't already have access to back channel data. You're missing the point: the variable is the candidate, not the role. I know the market rate for a candidate that is just over-the-bar for my role, and I know that market rate for a super-star who can not only do this role, but is probably already capable of doing the next one. > Then it should be multiple listings with different requirements, even if the only difference is years of experience. So, what if you apply for a role that turns out to be wrong for you based on my assessment of you then I should reject you so you can re-apply for the other role? That's ridiculous.

jedberg 4y ago
> So, what if you apply for a role that turns out to be wrong for you based on my assessment of you then I should reject you so you can re-apply for the other role? That's ridiculous. No of course not. You simply offer the better role at the higher salary. Or if they turn out to not be good, you tell them that you are going to deny them this role because they are not qualified, but you'd be happy to offer the lower role if they are interested. In fact, I'll bet this will happen a lot as a workaround for this law.
- NovemberWhiskey 4y ago
  If the only way to operate realistically is to engage in some form of borderline-compliant workaround then I suggest the entire exercise is ill-conceived.
  - bradleyjg 4y ago
    At least in that case I can read the job descriptions of low, medium, and high before applying. If I don’t know where my salary expectations line up with the company’s job requirements at all there’s a higher chance of wasting my time.
showerst 4y ago
> I know the market rate for a candidate that is just over-the-bar for my role, and I know that market rate for a super-star Great, then you know the good faith range and you're good to go. > then I should reject you so you can re-apply for the other role In my experience this happens all the time at big corps and the government. Except it's not a rejection, just an "oh actually we have this other open job on the books that would be a better fit - let's transfer you over to that"
joe5150 4y ago
The law doesn't say you can't offer someone a different job than they applied for.
- NovemberWhiskey 4y ago
  If I make up the job after meeting the candidate, is that OK?
  - joe5150 4y ago
    The question was specifically about hiring for multiple positions at different levels of seniority. If your company is hiring for positions with differentiated responsibilities and expectations for pay, you can advertise multiple jobs and shouldn't have to make anything up.
  - alistairSH 4y ago
    Sure, if you can talk your boss/executive that a candidate is a true super-star and you should pay over the published range, why not? The goal of this law, and others like it, is fixing the bottom end of the range to prevent low ball offers from employers that know women and minorities (and others) frequently undervalue themselves.
jameshart 4y ago
> I know the market rate for a candidate that is just over-the-bar for my role, and I know that market rate for a super-star who can not only do this role, but is probably already capable of doing the next one. Those are going to be two vastly different numbers. Which one are you looking to pay for? If you have budget for a superstar, why would you settle for just-over-the-bar talent? I kind of find myself suspecting that what you're really hoping for is that you'll find someone who has superstar talent, but doesn't know their market rate, so you can hire them at just-over-the-bar money.
- testACCT321 4y ago
- im3w1l 4y ago
  Well maybe the goal is increase features / month, and they want to hire a few people to do that. A just-over-the-bar will be a small increase, and a superstar will be a big increase. They don't particularly care about the mix as long as the total is big enough.
- ebiester 4y ago
  It's so rare for a superstar not to know their market rate as to be unlikely. What I can see happening is that more corporations start doing SDE 1/2/3/4/5/6/7/8/9/10/11/12, with different ranges, and most of the interviews are at 7-10 and are "releveled" at 3-5. We will end up in the same place we started but with more games.
  - jameshart 4y ago
    > It's so rare for a superstar not to know their market rate as to be unlikely You're no-true-scotsmanning 'superstar' here to assume, I suspect, that one of the attributes of a superstar is being in the know, and so on top of the industry and job market that they are aware how much their skills are worth. For a certain class of superstar that may be true, but there are many, many very strong developers who are working in backwater job markets and have not looked for jobs in a while who literally have no idea what typical total comp offers from serious tech companies in hot markets are like. There are plenty of high skilled people who have been blown away by an offer they thought was incredibly generous, only to discover they were actually lowballed.
bradleyjg 4y ago
If you tell me the salary range is $200-300k and you offer me $400k I’m not going to be upset. If you offer me $125k, I will be. If I knew up front you had three roles, one paying $75-$125k, one $200-300k, and one $400-500k I could judge for myself what the chances were of the one I’m interested in (or higher). If you refuse to make ranges or publish $75k-$500k I have no idea if we are wasting each other’s time. It’s used car sales tactics.
- colinmhayes 4y ago
  Adding a different listing for every job instead of role just means applicants can’t find the listing that fits them. So we end up with “senior” listings that are looking to hire engineers for 100k but would be willing to pay 300 for the perfect fit. Adding putting a range of 100-300 probably just pisses people off, especially since almost all of the offers are going to be in the 100 area since most employees are necessarily average. If you just say the range is 100-150 then the people you offer 300 probably just won’t apply.
  - bradleyjg 4y ago
    I’m not sure if you meant to disagree with me, but I’m perfectly okay with having three roles each with a salary range, job description, and required experience / skills. That allows the applicant to know what bar he needs to hit to get the salary he’s interested in.
  - JAlexoid 4y ago
    "perfect fit" because interviews are crap at identifying perfect fit.

jedberg 4y ago

> So, what if you apply for a role that turns out to be wrong for you based on my assessment of you then I should reject you so you can re-apply for the other role? That's ridiculous. No of course not. You simply offer the better role at the higher salary. Or if they turn out to not be good, you tell them that you are going to deny them this role because they are not qualified, but you'd be happy to offer the lower role if they are interested. In fact, I'll bet this will happen a lot as a workaround for this law.

NovemberWhiskey 4y ago
If the only way to operate realistically is to engage in some form of borderline-compliant workaround then I suggest the entire exercise is ill-conceived.
- bradleyjg 4y ago
  At least in that case I can read the job descriptions of low, medium, and high before applying. If I don’t know where my salary expectations line up with the company’s job requirements at all there’s a higher chance of wasting my time.

showerst 4y ago

> I know the market rate for a candidate that is just over-the-bar for my role, and I know that market rate for a super-star Great, then you know the good faith range and you're good to go. > then I should reject you so you can re-apply for the other role In my experience this happens all the time at big corps and the government. Except it's not a rejection, just an "oh actually we have this other open job on the books that would be a better fit - let's transfer you over to that"

joe5150 4y ago

The law doesn't say you can't offer someone a different job than they applied for.

NovemberWhiskey 4y ago
If I make up the job after meeting the candidate, is that OK?
- joe5150 4y ago
  The question was specifically about hiring for multiple positions at different levels of seniority. If your company is hiring for positions with differentiated responsibilities and expectations for pay, you can advertise multiple jobs and shouldn't have to make anything up.
- alistairSH 4y ago
  Sure, if you can talk your boss/executive that a candidate is a true super-star and you should pay over the published range, why not? The goal of this law, and others like it, is fixing the bottom end of the range to prevent low ball offers from employers that know women and minorities (and others) frequently undervalue themselves.

jameshart 4y ago

> I know the market rate for a candidate that is just over-the-bar for my role, and I know that market rate for a super-star who can not only do this role, but is probably already capable of doing the next one. Those are going to be two vastly different numbers. Which one are you looking to pay for? If you have budget for a superstar, why would you settle for just-over-the-bar talent? I kind of find myself suspecting that what you're really hoping for is that you'll find someone who has superstar talent, but doesn't know their market rate, so you can hire them at just-over-the-bar money.

testACCT321 4y ago
im3w1l 4y ago
Well maybe the goal is increase features / month, and they want to hire a few people to do that. A just-over-the-bar will be a small increase, and a superstar will be a big increase. They don't particularly care about the mix as long as the total is big enough.
ebiester 4y ago
It's so rare for a superstar not to know their market rate as to be unlikely. What I can see happening is that more corporations start doing SDE 1/2/3/4/5/6/7/8/9/10/11/12, with different ranges, and most of the interviews are at 7-10 and are "releveled" at 3-5. We will end up in the same place we started but with more games.
- jameshart 4y ago
  > It's so rare for a superstar not to know their market rate as to be unlikely You're no-true-scotsmanning 'superstar' here to assume, I suspect, that one of the attributes of a superstar is being in the know, and so on top of the industry and job market that they are aware how much their skills are worth. For a certain class of superstar that may be true, but there are many, many very strong developers who are working in backwater job markets and have not looked for jobs in a while who literally have no idea what typical total comp offers from serious tech companies in hot markets are like. There are plenty of high skilled people who have been blown away by an offer they thought was incredibly generous, only to discover they were actually lowballed.

bradleyjg 4y ago

If you tell me the salary range is $200-300k and you offer me $400k I’m not going to be upset. If you offer me $125k, I will be. If I knew up front you had three roles, one paying $75-$125k, one $200-300k, and one $400-500k I could judge for myself what the chances were of the one I’m interested in (or higher). If you refuse to make ranges or publish $75k-$500k I have no idea if we are wasting each other’s time. It’s used car sales tactics.

colinmhayes 4y ago
Adding a different listing for every job instead of role just means applicants can’t find the listing that fits them. So we end up with “senior” listings that are looking to hire engineers for 100k but would be willing to pay 300 for the perfect fit. Adding putting a range of 100-300 probably just pisses people off, especially since almost all of the offers are going to be in the 100 area since most employees are necessarily average. If you just say the range is 100-150 then the people you offer 300 probably just won’t apply.
- bradleyjg 4y ago
  I’m not sure if you meant to disagree with me, but I’m perfectly okay with having three roles each with a salary range, job description, and required experience / skills. That allows the applicant to know what bar he needs to hit to get the salary he’s interested in.
- JAlexoid 4y ago
  "perfect fit" because interviews are crap at identifying perfect fit.