4 ms·

I don’t understand the logic around transparency not giving an advantage to talent, could you expand? Certainly seems like there are counter examples in many pl

by 121789 4y ago

I don’t understand the logic around transparency not giving an advantage to talent, could you expand? Certainly seems like there are counter examples in many places where compensation is public

aikinai 4y ago
I'm not sure if I completely follow the parent, but I would also be concerned since it means it'll be far more difficult to negotiate above the range. In the obfuscated market, if you are good at proving your value and negotiating, then the usual range people have in mind for that type of job becomes less relevant. But if the range is explicit and paying one person above that range will disadvantage the company (since they now have to increase the range and give more leverage to everyone else), they will be less flexible. It should be good for the middle and low ends, but I expect pretty bad for the high-end of any given job type.
- usrusr 4y ago
  > It should be good for the middle and low ends, but I expect pretty bad for the high-end of any given job type. The high end are doing good by definition. The exceptionally talented are winning anyways, if they win a little less outlyingly they will still be winning. It's not as if this would be a project of "pay everybody exactly the same". Who might in theory consider this regulation a problem is companies who like to hire a mix of bottom of the barrel cheap and gold plated rockstars, but in reality those would already have separate roles for these opposites and are therefore not affected are all.
- makeitdouble 4y ago
  The "open" system was already a semi-defacto practice for many job boards, where you'd have the field present at input when creating the offer (I don't think it was mandatory, but many candidates won't look at an offer without a number) That said, I personally negociated and had offers negociated for above the offering. Think of it more as anchoring than hard bounds: a company details what they expect and how much they'd pay for it, and if on interview you don't fit the bill they could offer you a different job at a lower price instead of just refusing you, or you can ask a higher price for bringing a lot more skills than what they are requiring. At the end of the day it's still negotiations.

by 121789 4y ago

I don’t understand the logic around transparency not giving an advantage to talent, could you expand? Certainly seems like there are counter examples in many places where compensation is public

aikinai 4y ago

I'm not sure if I completely follow the parent, but I would also be concerned since it means it'll be far more difficult to negotiate above the range. In the obfuscated market, if you are good at proving your value and negotiating, then the usual range people have in mind for that type of job becomes less relevant. But if the range is explicit and paying one person above that range will disadvantage the company (since they now have to increase the range and give more leverage to everyone else), they will be less flexible. It should be good for the middle and low ends, but I expect pretty bad for the high-end of any given job type.

usrusr 4y ago
> It should be good for the middle and low ends, but I expect pretty bad for the high-end of any given job type. The high end are doing good by definition. The exceptionally talented are winning anyways, if they win a little less outlyingly they will still be winning. It's not as if this would be a project of "pay everybody exactly the same". Who might in theory consider this regulation a problem is companies who like to hire a mix of bottom of the barrel cheap and gold plated rockstars, but in reality those would already have separate roles for these opposites and are therefore not affected are all.
makeitdouble 4y ago
The "open" system was already a semi-defacto practice for many job boards, where you'd have the field present at input when creating the offer (I don't think it was mandatory, but many candidates won't look at an offer without a number) That said, I personally negociated and had offers negociated for above the offering. Think of it more as anchoring than hard bounds: a company details what they expect and how much they'd pay for it, and if on interview you don't fit the bill they could offer you a different job at a lower price instead of just refusing you, or you can ask a higher price for bringing a lot more skills than what they are requiring. At the end of the day it's still negotiations.