3 ms·

>There are some comments in here that verge on assuming bad faith on the part of the companies involved Not disclosing pay is illegal in three states in the US

>There are some comments in here that verge on assuming bad faith on the part of the companies involved Not disclosing pay is illegal in three states in the US, and has the practical effect of reducing the number of applicants to the advertised job by 14%, so it's self-harming for the employer anyway. Bonus: a lot of job boards will just plug an "estimated salary" in for you to max their CTR and revenue on syndication. > people are figuring out and it’s easier to forget about if you’re in the habit of re-using old listings. Some companies don't hire very often, so yes. But for startups and venture funded, high growth companies to be unaware after two years is not cool. We need to do better... and you can see from the people posting here, some of them would rather report employers to the AG than get a job at that company. I'm not sure how productive that is, but I do think it shows why a law was required to get a minimal level of disclosure.

kuboble 4y ago
Are the companies indeed inflicting self harm? They might get less applications that way, but posting salary ranges for new employees has other downsides - e.g. it might tilt existing employees. Another downside is that it's easy to scrap and collect this data and companies might not like candidates or employees easily accessing historical data. Sharing salary range basically reduces the knowledge advantage of a company in many ways. It's surely great for candidates and existing employees.
- indymike 4y ago
  > Are the companies indeed inflicting self harm? They are spending 14% more on recruitment advertising than they would have to if they just put a range in the salary box. So, yes, financial self harm. 14% is substantial for many companies. > ther downsides - e.g. it might tilt existing employees. People have access to wage data and job boards in their pocket. If they answer that unknown caller, it's as likely to be a recruiter as a car warranty hustle. It's amazing how many business leaders think that their people are not going to look.
  - robocat 4y ago
    > They are spending 14% more on recruitment advertising Oh boy, huge assumptions there, so bad that I would associate that thinking with HR recruiters. What matters is what selects/filters for desirable employees. Getting 14% more applicants is a terrible metric to be measuring - https://wikipedia.org/wiki/Goodhart%27s_law https://wikipedia.org/wiki/Goodhart%27s_law which is obvious since one can increase applications by advertising in irrelevant places to get more irrelevant applicants. Alternatively 14% more could be extremely important, if a lack of salary indication filtered for bad candidates, and salary indication brought in good candidates. > A single day of delay in response causes 28% of candidates to become unresponsive to recruiters (this is from our company's research). It drops to 51% become unresponsive 48 hours later. [your top level comment]. That’s an interesting metric, since anecdotally the best candidates get snapped up extremely quickly. It is obviously very difficult to find good factual correlations: a lack of good data just produces opinions.
    - indymike 4y ago
      > Oh boy, huge assumptions there, so bad that I would associate that thinking with HR recruiters. HR and recruiting is not legendary for financial acumen, but they do spend in aggregate, billions on advertising, and they do in many cases have very good analyitcs on that spend. > Alternatively 14% more could be extremely important, if a lack of salary indication filtered for bad candidates, and salary indication brought in good candidates. We've not seen a change in quality of candidate in either direction. It does reduce the cost per applicant significantly.
  - HideousKojima 4y ago
    >They are spending 14% more on recruitment advertising than they would have to if they just put a range in the salary box. Mind you I prefer when companies post salaries, but 14% greater/fewer applicants does not directly equate to 14% greater/lesser spend on listings. A company only needs one qualified applicant. More applicants means you might find better candidates faster/more easily, but by itself listing salaries isn't necessarily going to save the company money.
  - lalopalota 4y ago
- anigbrowl 4y ago
  reduces the knowledge advantage of a company Defaulting to an adversarial relationship with its own staff is not the sign of a good company.
- stemlord 4y ago
  >and existing employees. Oh wow, true. Now I'll know exactly when to negotiate a raise or leave.
- Sohcahtoa82 4y ago
  > but posting salary ranges for new employees has other downsides - e.g. it might tilt existing employees. Fucking good. It's absolutely scummy to secretly pay new hires more than your experienced existing employees. It's also extremely short-sighted. You'd rather deal with attrition costs of losing a trained, experienced employee and having to find new candidates and train someone new, than to just give your current employees the pay raise they obviously deserve? > Sharing salary range basically reduces the knowledge advantage of a company in many ways. That's the fucking point.
  - badpun 4y ago
    > You'd rather deal with attrition costs of losing a trained, experienced employee and having to find new candidates and train someone new, than to just give your current employees the pay raise they obviously deserve? The job market is a market, meaning it's a game between buyers and sellers. "Deserve" does not exist there. The companies are obviously counting on the fact that majority of people will prefer to stay put instead of risk jumping ship for a salary increase - which is in fact what happens in practice.
jamiequint 4y ago
> It has the effect of reducing the number of applicants by 14% (if you believe the study) only if at market rate or higher. Most startups are paying the lower end of market rate to below market rate salaries and compensating more with equity, so it's not necessarily irrational on the part of the startups. > But for startups and venture funded, high growth companies to be unaware after two years is not cool There are a million more important things to worry about at most startups than being in regulatory compliance with every silly law. I would venture to guess that the more a startup is in regulatory compliance with every little thing the less likely it is to succeed.
- indymike 4y ago
  > There are a million more important things to worry about at most startups than being in regulatory compliance with every silly law. Being a scofflaw does not increase your company's valuation.

kuboble 4y ago

Are the companies indeed inflicting self harm? They might get less applications that way, but posting salary ranges for new employees has other downsides - e.g. it might tilt existing employees. Another downside is that it's easy to scrap and collect this data and companies might not like candidates or employees easily accessing historical data. Sharing salary range basically reduces the knowledge advantage of a company in many ways. It's surely great for candidates and existing employees.

indymike 4y ago
> Are the companies indeed inflicting self harm? They are spending 14% more on recruitment advertising than they would have to if they just put a range in the salary box. So, yes, financial self harm. 14% is substantial for many companies. > ther downsides - e.g. it might tilt existing employees. People have access to wage data and job boards in their pocket. If they answer that unknown caller, it's as likely to be a recruiter as a car warranty hustle. It's amazing how many business leaders think that their people are not going to look.
- robocat 4y ago
  > They are spending 14% more on recruitment advertising Oh boy, huge assumptions there, so bad that I would associate that thinking with HR recruiters. What matters is what selects/filters for desirable employees. Getting 14% more applicants is a terrible metric to be measuring - https://wikipedia.org/wiki/Goodhart%27s_law https://wikipedia.org/wiki/Goodhart%27s_law which is obvious since one can increase applications by advertising in irrelevant places to get more irrelevant applicants. Alternatively 14% more could be extremely important, if a lack of salary indication filtered for bad candidates, and salary indication brought in good candidates. > A single day of delay in response causes 28% of candidates to become unresponsive to recruiters (this is from our company's research). It drops to 51% become unresponsive 48 hours later. [your top level comment]. That’s an interesting metric, since anecdotally the best candidates get snapped up extremely quickly. It is obviously very difficult to find good factual correlations: a lack of good data just produces opinions.
  - indymike 4y ago
    > Oh boy, huge assumptions there, so bad that I would associate that thinking with HR recruiters. HR and recruiting is not legendary for financial acumen, but they do spend in aggregate, billions on advertising, and they do in many cases have very good analyitcs on that spend. > Alternatively 14% more could be extremely important, if a lack of salary indication filtered for bad candidates, and salary indication brought in good candidates. We've not seen a change in quality of candidate in either direction. It does reduce the cost per applicant significantly.
- HideousKojima 4y ago
  >They are spending 14% more on recruitment advertising than they would have to if they just put a range in the salary box. Mind you I prefer when companies post salaries, but 14% greater/fewer applicants does not directly equate to 14% greater/lesser spend on listings. A company only needs one qualified applicant. More applicants means you might find better candidates faster/more easily, but by itself listing salaries isn't necessarily going to save the company money.
- lalopalota 4y ago
anigbrowl 4y ago
reduces the knowledge advantage of a company Defaulting to an adversarial relationship with its own staff is not the sign of a good company.
stemlord 4y ago
>and existing employees. Oh wow, true. Now I'll know exactly when to negotiate a raise or leave.
Sohcahtoa82 4y ago
> but posting salary ranges for new employees has other downsides - e.g. it might tilt existing employees. Fucking good. It's absolutely scummy to secretly pay new hires more than your experienced existing employees. It's also extremely short-sighted. You'd rather deal with attrition costs of losing a trained, experienced employee and having to find new candidates and train someone new, than to just give your current employees the pay raise they obviously deserve? > Sharing salary range basically reduces the knowledge advantage of a company in many ways. That's the fucking point.
- badpun 4y ago
  > You'd rather deal with attrition costs of losing a trained, experienced employee and having to find new candidates and train someone new, than to just give your current employees the pay raise they obviously deserve? The job market is a market, meaning it's a game between buyers and sellers. "Deserve" does not exist there. The companies are obviously counting on the fact that majority of people will prefer to stay put instead of risk jumping ship for a salary increase - which is in fact what happens in practice.

jamiequint 4y ago

> It has the effect of reducing the number of applicants by 14% (if you believe the study) only if at market rate or higher. Most startups are paying the lower end of market rate to below market rate salaries and compensating more with equity, so it's not necessarily irrational on the part of the startups. > But for startups and venture funded, high growth companies to be unaware after two years is not cool There are a million more important things to worry about at most startups than being in regulatory compliance with every silly law. I would venture to guess that the more a startup is in regulatory compliance with every little thing the less likely it is to succeed.

indymike 4y ago
> There are a million more important things to worry about at most startups than being in regulatory compliance with every silly law. Being a scofflaw does not increase your company's valuation.