[HN Gopher] Microsoft Announces It Will Include Pay Ranges in Al...
___________________________________________________________________
Microsoft Announces It Will Include Pay Ranges in All U.S. Job
Postings
Author : blue_box
Score : 530 points
Date : 2022-06-10 13:24 UTC (9 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (www.forbes.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (www.forbes.com)
| Fargoan wrote:
| I wonder if this applies to contractors working at their
| campuses. From what I've heard, here in Fargo most of the people
| working at the Microsoft campus work for Archway
| indymike wrote:
| Job posts with a pay rate get about 28% more applications than
| those without. Some job boards that syndicate jobs from other job
| boards will insert an "estimated salary" or "industry salary"
| just to get more clicks if you don't include a salary.
|
| Source: my company does recruitment advertising for many other
| companies, and including salary is something we coach our
| customers to do.
| ComputerGuru wrote:
| Microsoft already posts salaries for remote or potentially remote
| positions to comply with Colorado law - but I have not seen Meta,
| Netflix, etc doing the same under similar circumstances.
| ENOTTY wrote:
| Given that most big tech companies' base salary tends to plateau
| and total comp begins to be dominated by stock grants and
| performance bonuses, just how much real transparency is actually
| going to be provided?
| wing-_-nuts wrote:
| Yeah without TC this isn't really all that useful.
| InefficientRed wrote:
| Agreed 100%. At big tech salary is close to useless and rarely
| the primary number that changes during negotiations. My highest
| paying job -- a 3.5x raise -- came with a $75K salary cut
| compared to my previous job.
|
| This should be, by far, the top voted comment. I don't think
| MSFT sharing salary ranges is consequential in any way.
| JamesSwift wrote:
| Sure it is.
|
| If more start to do it, it becomes an arms race. If a company
| is loading the compensation in other ways and coming in light
| on salary then their job posting becomes much less compelling
| for job seekers. So they have a choice: disclose the other
| compensation (in order to compete with the salary numbers of
| the other companies) or adjust their compensation to be
| heavier on salary so their numbers are in line with others.
| bluGill wrote:
| That depends on what the other things are. Most years I get
| half of my take home pay in December because of my bonus
| (some of that is my 401k maxing out in November), there
| have been a couple bad years where the bonus was less, but
| at least I was able to keep my job. Keeping my job is a
| factor as well, since I have a family to support, if I'm
| laid off (like most companies do all the time) that means
| I'm scrambling to figure out how to get cash, while I can
| live off of the smaller paychecks I get.
|
| That is me - what is the above worth to you? If you are
| risk adverse like me, then you like that plan. Others want
| the cash now but can accept the risk of losing their jobs.
| Some have a high risk tolerance and like getting their
| money in stocks - in the best case this is the most money,
| but in the worst case it is the least. There is no right
| answer.
|
| In the end you need a certain amount of money to live. That
| is different from your actual value.
| r00fus wrote:
| This would be included in total compensation (which
| should include non-renumerative benefits as well). In
| sales, where total comp could be mostly commission (I've
| seen a 25/75% split in some cases) the company should
| have some idea of what the bonus/commission range is.
| tshaddox wrote:
| Out of curiosity, why does your 401k max out in November?
| If your employee does matching then wouldn't you want to
| spread it as evenly as possible throughout the entire
| year?
| InefficientRed wrote:
| November is pretty close to the whole year. If you choose
| a fixed % per paycheck and have a bonus that's not
| perfectly amortized then being off by a month is actually
| pretty good.
| tshaddox wrote:
| I assumed that employer contribution matching is
| generally a fixed percentage of the employee's salary
| each pay period, which means that if you don't contribute
| in one month you forfeit that percentage of your salary
| and thus about 8% of your total possible employer
| matching.
| endianswap wrote:
| At least in my case as an engineer at a smaller tech
| company my 401k (and corresponding match) maxes out each
| January because that's when bonuses are granted.
| InefficientRed wrote:
| Note: you can set your contribution % to 0 in January and
| then change it in February. This can be worthwhile
| because you then DCA throughout the rest of the year. On
| the other hand, by contributing everything in January,
| you get the employer match earlier. And over a 30 year
| career it's likely a rounding error.
| InefficientRed wrote:
| I've seen it work different ways and different companies.
| It's either a % of salary or a % of your gross paycheck.
| In the latter case, bonuses can mess things up.
| bluGill wrote:
| Every company I've worked for accounts for that. I get my
| full match no matter when I max my 401k out. Of course
| different companies work differently.
| com2kid wrote:
| I'm sad more companies don't up their 401k contributions,
| most people don't realize their employer can put in 40k a
| year (!!!) into an employee's 401k. Due to the wonders of
| tax law, that is equiv to 60k cash, and that isn't counting
| the earnings or the flexibility to reallocate 401k
| investments w/o having to pay taxes on earnings when
| changing where the money is invested.
| snuxoll wrote:
| One benefit of not working for Big Tech and instead for a
| privately held company, instead of stock grants I get
| 120% match up to 6% of my salary and an annual 4% profit
| sharing bonus into my 401(k). Sure, my actual salary
| could be higher working for a "proper" tech company, but
| I get more employer contributions into my retirement
| savings than the Google's, Microsoft's, and Amazon's of
| the world will give to an employee capping their
| contributions.
| pnw wrote:
| If Microsoft put 40k a year into everyone's 401k they
| would immediately trip the Highly Compensated Employee
| test and have the IRS breathing down their necks.
| joshuamorton wrote:
| If microsoft put 40K a year into everyone's 401k it would
| be impossible for them to violate the HCE test, as every
| you'd have non-HCEs with a 401k contribution of 30% or
| higher, something which HCEs are literally unable to
| match.
| tshaddox wrote:
| > Due to the wonders of tax law, that is equiv to 60k
| cash
|
| And equivalent to 0 cash for paying the rent. I suspect
| that's why it doesn't seem to be a prominent concern in
| discussions about tech compensation.
| deelowe wrote:
| BS. There's nothing stopping you from maxing your 401k
| and then pulling it back out taking the penalty. This
| applies to a ton of benefits people naively don't take
| advantage of from HSAs to employee stock purchase plans
| to 401k. It's almost always beneficial to maximize your
| tax advantaged accounts even if you're paying penalties
| on the back end.
| afrodc_ wrote:
| I don't know about you, but with tech salaries, rent is
| the least for my concern. I think that's true for most
| people that don't live in ridiculously high cost of
| living areas.
| tshaddox wrote:
| Perhaps, although until COVID (and we'll see what happens
| with remote work compensation in the long term) nearly
| all people with huge big tech compensation packages lived
| in ridiculously high cost of living areas. I suspect a
| very large portion still do. In the Bay Area I've heard
| no shortage of stories of couples/families with _two_ big
| tech salaries still spending very large portions of their
| paychecks on rent /mortgage.
| nfriedly wrote:
| Seriously! I've considered going back to contracting just
| so that I could fully fund a 401k account.
| sokoloff wrote:
| For the longest time, Amazon's cash salary cap was well-
| known to be in the middle $150K range. I don't see any
| evidence that hampered their ability to attract job
| seekers.
| Solstinox wrote:
| Arms race (which will lead to bigger salaries) or price
| collusion (salaries stay the same)?
| rsanek wrote:
| Wouldn't be the first time
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High-
| Tech_Employee_Antitrust_L...
| JamesSwift wrote:
| I think its more likely to be an arms race now that the
| "remote work" dam has broken and work location is not as
| important as during the time of the previous well-known
| collusions.
| gigel82 wrote:
| Not for Microsoft though; their stock grants are :peanut_emoji:
| compared with other top tier companies (Source: levels.fyi); so
| this probably a good thing overall...
|
| EDIT: just found out HackerNews is stripping out unicode emoji
| characters from comments.
| [deleted]
| r00fus wrote:
| The side effects of this move are probably bigger than the move
| itself. Hopefully this induces other companies to advertise
| their salary ranges as candidates (it's still a candidate's
| market out there) use Microsoft's ranges as reference for
| negotiating salaries on other non-MS jobs.
|
| Essentially this will push salaries up to match the massive
| inflation we've seen recently. Likely this will result in a
| homeostasis at some future point.
| llbeansandrice wrote:
| More people work for Microsoft than just engineers. This
| applies to all of their US job postings. Just because you
| specifically don't get much benefit doesn't mean it's not a
| good thing.
| Victerius wrote:
| Can a company make an offer outside its stated range?
|
| E.g. What if Microsoft has a job opening with a range of $110k -
| $170k, and the candidate they selected used to make $180k and
| would like $200k? Will Microsoft offer him or her the 200k they
| seek or offer 170k and lose their candidate?
|
| If salary ranges can be bypassed, then they are not really
| useful, and if they can't, by law, companies could skirt the law
| by offering higher bonuses and more stock, or else lose on
| talent. Or the company could close the job opening, and create a
| new posting with an updated range for the sole purpose of being
| legally able to hire their candidate. Which would still
| invalidate the spirit of the law.
|
| I'm not sure these salary transparency laws are good for workers
| or companies alike.
| Gustomaximus wrote:
| > If salary ranges can be bypassed, then they are not really
| useful
|
| Sure they are. With common sense and fines for clear ongoing
| breaches it will do as planned.
|
| There are always exceptions so if occasionally a salary is
| bypassed to match the candidate, higher or lower this is going
| to happen and be reasonable.
|
| If 30%+ of candidates get paid less than the advertised role
| there is a clear case of bait and switch for authorities to
| show a court type deal.
|
| I feel you need to approach this from altitude rather than
| individual cases.
| grimjack00 wrote:
| > E.g. What if Microsoft has a job opening with a range of
| $110k - $170k, and the candidate they selected used to make
| $180k and would like $200k?
|
| If I was reviewing job descriptions, and the max of the posted
| range is less than my current salary, I'm probably not going to
| apply.
| Victerius wrote:
| Another situation: You make 160k, the max range is 170k, but
| you'd like more than the max range. In the old world, this
| would work. You would gain more comp, and your new employer
| would acquire your talent. It's the free market at work. In
| the new world, neither of those will happen. I'm concerned
| about the consequences of that on economic growth and
| innovation.
| kirillbobyrev wrote:
| Are you saying that the employers won't give 170k+ if the
| disclosed max range is 170k? I highly doubt that, the only
| change here is that the range that was previously only
| visible to the hiring managers within the company is now
| also visible to the candidates. If they could go beyond the
| internally visible range before, they would surely be able
| to do it now. The only difference is that before the
| candidates would have no idea whether they're already maxed
| out on the given range or if there's still plenty of room
| to negotiate.
| BuckRogers wrote:
| I don't buy it either. I think overall more people will
| be lifted up, than some guy that wants 200K and the
| highest paid employee is currently 160K, will be held
| down. In fact, I think that's blatantly obvious.
| Companies are going to lose with this because this
| industry has so much exploitation going on, that San
| Francisco alone isn't counterbalancing it or even close.
| snowwrestler wrote:
| Salary bands are tied to title. If the max range of the
| listed position is $160k, and the company wants to hire you
| for $200k, they will just hire you into a more senior title
| (which has a higher range).
|
| This is how it happens now, and how it will still happen.
| Disclosing the initial range target does not prevent it.
| throwaway0a5e wrote:
| Probably easier to have multiple reqs for the same job under
| different titles to cover a broader range or throw perks of
| hard to define monetary value at the wall until something
| sticks than to go through whatever process would be required to
| offer outside the range.
| ghaff wrote:
| Or $170K is the most they're willing to offer for a
| particular position. And, if someone wants significantly
| more, they'll just pass. Companies will find ways to make
| exceptions for someone they really want--including creating a
| new position for them. But companies won't always salary
| match.
| RcouF1uZ4gsC wrote:
| > E.g. What if Microsoft has a job opening with a range of
| $110k - $170k, and the candidate they selected used to make
| $180k and would like $200k? Will Microsoft offer him or her the
| 200k they seek or offer 170k and lose their candidate?
|
| They can also negotiate seniority/level. So if they really
| wanted that person, and they were originally planning on hiring
| as a Level N Engineer, they could negotiate to hire at a Level
| N+1 engineer that has the desired salary.
| DeathArrow wrote:
| About salaries at Microsoft. I interviewed with them this year.
|
| I did a Codility test, followed by four interviews with four US
| based teams.
|
| I got an offer which is 5 to 6 times what they pay in US.
|
| I live in a country in Eastern Europe, and prices are a bit
| lower. I would have expected a lower offer, but not that much
| lower. It was less than I already make so I had to wish them good
| luck in finding another person and was feeling sorry that I lost
| so much time in the interviewing process and also invested a lot
| of energy.
| cjbgkagh wrote:
| I presume you mean 1/5 to 1/6th.
| brianwawok wrote:
| Maybe the low offer was due to an off by order of magnitude
| math mistake?
| masterof0 wrote:
| Microsoft is known and memed on the "big tech community" for
| paying "peanuts" (less than other tech companies). Is the rest-
| and-vest kinda of place, or so they say. I'm sure there are
| some teams that work pretty hard, is a big company.
| TrackerFF wrote:
| Interestingly enough, I know MS (engineering) managers in other
| European satellite offices that make absolute bank. Easily 4-5
| times more than comparable jobs at domestic companies.
| zeroonetwothree wrote:
| Now you know to ask for compensation up front.
| BuckRogers wrote:
| Everyone always says this is a RED FLAG, so I've hesitated to
| do this myself. But I value my time more than I care about
| being "flagged" as a dissident against company interests. So
| I do that now with the initial HR interview. The energy put
| into this can be completely insane as per the GP's
| experience.
|
| What we need is just a certificate that proves competency, so
| we can remove all these exams, quizzes and foolishness.
| Typically, that was a computer science degree, but there
| wouldn't be enough degree holders to fill all the roles, and
| wages would skyrocket. So some sort of interview meatgrinder
| it is I suppose.
|
| As a result of all this, I wouldn't do this career path over
| again, and won't be recommending it to my kids. Companies
| will have to reap the rewards for their downward pressure on
| wages by going to India. They will continue to have to hire
| there for the next 20 to 100 years. And once the Americans
| are out of the industry, I think the Indians won't always
| take things lying down like we do in the US. I suspect
| they'll unionize and make life hell for these corporations. I
| hope the Indians become insanely wealthy from it, and US
| corporations will deserve it.
| ChicagoBoy11 wrote:
| This is going do to absolutely nothing. Most of this legislation
| does nothing to really address the potential for folks to just
| advertise incredibly wide potential salary ranges, to say nothing
| of alternative ways that they can change total compensation "for
| the right candidate," if you catch my drift. I would suspect that
| the biggest effect of this is to actually lead to overall greater
| distrusts, as folks will make all sorts of assumptions based on
| the ranges they see for jobs at their companies, based on their
| own biases. True transparency which would require something like
| disclosure of average/median total compensation at the company
| for that role, for instance, would be incredibly meaningful, but
| it will never come.
| _fat_santa wrote:
| I live in CO and we recently had a similar law pass that
| required companies to disclose salary ranges. Like you said it
| does absolutely nothing, companies will list "Senior Software
| Engineer" with a salary of "$70k - $240k". This often times
| isn't even the range for the current position, but the "entire
| range" of offers they extend to any level of SWE.
| bfung wrote:
| Even so, the bright side is that the applicant's expectation
| of the low end has been set.
|
| Without this broad range, someone new to the industry, like a
| college grad, has no idea what the low range is. This at
| least prevents those people from getting lowballed and
| finding out later.
|
| I've seen smart techies who are bad or oblivious to money
| subjects get way under paid, only to learn later, huge
| discrepancies in pay with the same or lower grade position
| due to other factors like gender, race, etc.
| athorax wrote:
| That is explicitly called out as not being allowed:
|
| "An employer cannot post a $70,000-$100,000 range for a
| junior accountant position just because it pays senior
| accountants at the high end of that range. But it can post
| $70,000-$100,000 for an accountant if it does not limit the
| posting to junior or senior accountants, and genuinely might
| offer as low as $70,000 for a junior accountant, or as much
| as $100,000 for a senior one."
|
| https://cdle.colorado.gov/equalpaytransparency https://cdle.c
| olorado.gov/sites/cdle/files/INFO%20%239_%20Eq...
| zeroonetwothree wrote:
| Seems impossible to enforce in practice
| kimbernator wrote:
| Due to my recent job search for remote positions in the
| US, I've seen a lot of postings in CO which include the
| salary ranges. While some do use stupidly wide ranges,
| most companies post more reasonable ones. I'm able to
| filter out those in the former group because this law
| they have has effectively exposed their dishonest hiring
| practices, and the companies that aren't trying to
| obfuscate their pay have also been exposed.
| rednerrus wrote:
| Can they just audit the actual salaries paid vs the range
| listed at the end of every year?
| nfriedly wrote:
| That sounds like an incredible amount of work. Who is
| "they" and who is paying them to do all of this auditing?
| jjav wrote:
| One "they" is the state government, who happens to
| already have the info sitting in their databases due to
| W-2s being reported.
| nomilk wrote:
| Not only are the salary bands meaninglessly wide, but I'd bet
| that if someone was really great and justified more than the
| upper bound, the company (Microsoft, but any other rational
| company too) would, of course, pay that higher amount since
| it's in their interest to do so.
| lotsofpulp wrote:
| They are not meaninglessly wide. These laws are of great
| benefit to those earning the least in society. They get to
| easily see which occupations and businesses pay more and
| where their labor should be allocated.
| KingMachiavelli wrote:
| Even if the range is too large it is still extremely useful;
| it shows the company _doesn 't_ want to post a meaningful
| salary range which means salaries offered will be in the
| lower portion. Companies that are prepared to offer a
| competitive salary have every incentive to make the lower
| number higher than their competitor's listings.
| naikrovek wrote:
| I want to be snarky and compliment you on your clairvoyance
| while pointing out that you are only guessing, and instead I'll
| just ask why you think this kind of thing is never coming,
| given that some companies already do this.
| rootusrootus wrote:
| I tend to assume that, at best, a company advertising a range
| of X-Y is going to offer something around (X+Y)/2. So if you
| tell me some ridiculous range, I'm going to assume your offer
| will suck, and I'll just skip it.
|
| Everyone is better served by accurate ranges, it avoids both
| sides wasting time because of mismatched expectations.
| xhkkffbf wrote:
| I can see some heartache if they advertise the range as between
| $X to $Y and then they make an offer that is much closer to $X.
| Broken_Hippo wrote:
| Possibly, but that's basically the applicants choice to go
| ahead and apply (within the normal confines of "choice" in
| work). At lest there is a bottom they can expect. This won't
| even be that often if the company is actually upfront about
| how it determines pay: Higher for x qualification, lower
| without the optional qualifications/experience.
|
| On the other hand, some folks will be happy about that bottom
| since it will be either more than they expected or more than
| they are making now.
| ironlake wrote:
| All regulations have limited effectiveness. This one is a step
| in the right direction. The tech industry tends to dismiss
| government action as misguided, unenforceable, or watered down.
| Meanwhile, the free market gives us Ring cameras where the data
| is fed directly to the state for illegal surveillance.
|
| Regulations are an integral part of a free society.
| psyc wrote:
| Internally, salary ranges at MS are quite narrow by job and
| level. Particularly since they're more compressed toward zero
| than at the FAANGs and Unicorns. Why would they invite trouble
| by not simply publishing those?
| brianwawok wrote:
| Is this for like a level 6 dev?
|
| Will someone applyling know if they are a level 4 or a level
| 7 dev? How?
| Chinjut wrote:
| It's incredible in these comments that so many of you who work in
| the industry on the employee side are arguing against having more
| transparency for the employee, and for having more leverage in
| the negotiating process for the employer instead. I want all the
| advantage as an employee that I can get. Any secret withheld from
| me is not to my advantage.
| kccqzy wrote:
| I think for most people external tools like levels.fyi are
| already good enough in that they provide a salary range with
| sufficient accuracy. Of course these same people would hope
| that the other candidates haven't heard of levels.fyi so that
| companies can lowball them to have more budget for the salaries
| of those who have heard of levels.fyi.
|
| It's just selfishness, not collective action.
| rat9988 wrote:
| It's misguided selfishness because other people raising their
| price would raise yours too.
| hcnews wrote:
| In 2022, you have to assume a fair amount of activity on
| popular boards/forums/subreddits/twitter etc. has been
| purposefully influenced by nefarious parties.
|
| In more concrete terms, I do think there are a fair amount of
| bots/paid-commenters on HN who push for anti-progressive agenda
| which helps maintain status quo.
| ketzo wrote:
| I mean, you don't even need to reach that far.
|
| Many commenters here are either currently on the employer
| side of a salary negotiation, or imagine that they will be
| some day.
| WalterBright wrote:
| I would have been paid less in companies I worked for under this
| system.
|
| Be careful what you wish for.
| logicalmonster wrote:
| Just to play Devil's Advocate: being explicit about salaries is
| the kind of practice that sounds amazingly good on the surface,
| but might have some unintended real-world consequences.
|
| For instance, whereas before when salaries weren't explicit, a
| weaker candidate with some good qualities who was on the bubble
| for consideration might be able to get a job if the salary was
| more favorable than the company was initially planning. With
| explicit salary ranges, if the candidate isn't deemed good enough
| to warrant hitting that predefined range, they might be
| unemployable in that field and not gain the experience needed to
| progress. In the past, a weaker candidate might have been able to
| go for a lesser salary range, get the job and gain more
| experience, and maybe make it up down the line. Maybe that's no
| longer a path forward for a lot of people on the bubble.
|
| And stronger candidates who are perfect fits and world-class
| performers might be lost for a lot of companies because the
| company has the excuse of a pre-defined salary range. So maybe
| firms miss out on some genius, perfect fits, because the bean
| counters can't be bothered to assess everybody's merits
| individually.
| pjbeam wrote:
| Salary is just one component of total comp, and in my (tech)
| experience not generally the biggest one.
| bena wrote:
| What do you think happens now?
|
| Because that is pretty much what happens now, except now the
| applicant doesn't know the range.
|
| The only thing that can happen with this is that people who
| think they're worth outside the range won't apply. And this
| isn't that much of a problem.
|
| If the employer finds they aren't getting the quality of
| applicant they desire, they have an option: increase or change
| the range.
|
| There is a lot of information asymmetry in hiring and most of
| it benefits employers.
| s1mon wrote:
| Yes, these are both real risks.
|
| There are potential solutions. There are so many job levels at
| big companies like Microsoft. A candidate who is weaker could
| interview for software engineer 3 (made up title for example)
| and be offered a software engineer 2 position with the
| understanding that the company sees potential, but wants to
| start the person at what they see as an appropriate level.
|
| The high performing candidate may ignore a job listing for a
| position which doesn't have a high enough top end to the range,
| but perhaps if they are being recruited rather than approaching
| the company, the recruiter could recognize the value of the
| candidate and find a higher role which would have a more
| competitive salary range.
|
| Some companies can only hire specific advertised roles, but in
| many cases they advertise for one role/level and end up hiring
| candidates for others. Big companies could also have open reqs
| for more levels than they think they need, and then slot the
| candidates in to the level which makes sense.
|
| Another approach they could take is to make the published
| salary ranges more broad than the are in practice. Hotels in
| many places have to publish the room rate, but typically this
| is an insanely high number which only happens when there's a
| special event or something.
| tcskeptic wrote:
| Most companies have explicit and firm salary ranges for
| positions already -- I would bet MS is one of them. They just
| didn't put them in the job postings until now.
| bluGill wrote:
| We just made an offer to someone that was far more than
| asked, our salary range doesn't go that low. It is to our
| benefit to give a fair offer as we will train this person and
| want them to stick around not leave in a year when they get a
| better offer.
| thebean11 wrote:
| Most companies the size of MS, yeah
| wfhordie wrote:
| The problem you mentioned is already solved using the
| contracting system.
| mywittyname wrote:
| I feel like most places would be open to hiring a senior in
| place of a principle if they felt either, the senior could do
| the job well enough.
|
| At some places I've worked, level was determined after the
| decision to hire. A position would be open to levels I, II, &
| III, and a panel of people would determine which level they
| felt the candidate would come it at.
| [deleted]
| matwood wrote:
| I don't think any of these ranges are binding. They simply give
| the candidate more information to negotiate with. So a company
| could end up offering more or less than the range, but they
| need to be ready for a conversation as to why.
| sokoloff wrote:
| Job postings with a range use the term range in a much looser
| than the mathematical sense. In mathematics, if I say the range
| is 100-200, I'm telling you that 95 and 205 are not possible.
| In job postings, if I say the range is 100-200, 95 and 205 are
| still possible. 100-200 was just a (hopefully) good-faith
| estimate of the range.
| willcipriano wrote:
| It's really the low number I want. What is the least you
| would offer someone who can fill this role? Jobs can have
| dramatically different expectations depending on the company
| and that number helps me understand what your level of
| expectations are.
| BlargMcLarg wrote:
| >they might be unemployable in that field and not gain the
| experience needed to progress
|
| This is why we have different types of skill levels. If you
| can't hire the person as a medior but you have a junior
| position open, surely you can tell them with the associated
| benefits. If its a problem, surely you can justify given the
| requirements.
|
| Hiding information only to waste people's time upfront isn't
| helpful when society expects job searching to a part-time job
| on the side of another job. Maybe this is too aggressive a
| measure, but getting "competitive" as an answer sure isn't
| helpful either.
|
| >And stronger candidates who are perfect fits and world-class
| performers might be lost for a lot of companies because the
| company has the excuse of a pre-defined salary range.
|
| I doubt you're going to pass a great candidate because they
| exceed your mentioned range when internal budget can still be
| stretched. At worst you could argue the high earners aren't
| going to pick your job because your range is too low, which can
| be solved by simply adjusting your range. If budget can't be
| stretched, odds are you weren't going to hire them anyway.
| stardude900 wrote:
| I can only speak for when I was a hiring manager and we called
| them bands, but it was essentially the same thing. We attached
| a band to every job posting and we would occasionally interview
| promising candidates and offer them the top end of a lower band
| or we'd offer them a more junior position with a promise of an
| early promotion review. Some took it, some didn't.
| nomilk wrote:
| What's the actual problem that including salaries tries to solve?
| IMO if used strictly, it could only _limit_ the talent pool
| (consider if someone more skilled than expected applies, but won
| 't accept at or below the stated upper salary bound; the company
| won't be able to pivot and hire them).
|
| Including salary _could_ let applicants avoid underpaying
| companies _before_ they embark on a lengthy application process,
| which is beneficial, but don 't companies already have strong
| incentives _not_ to exploit people in this way since they 'll
| only leave shortly afterward and those onboarding costs would be
| false economy.
| nvr219 wrote:
| > What's the actual problem that including salaries tries to
| solve?
|
| It tries to solve pay equity problems.
| https://hr.uw.edu/comp/pay-equity/salary-setting-guidance/
| nomilk wrote:
| > Employers must provide equal compensation to similarly
| employed workers
|
| The kicker is "similarly employed". I've seen people with the
| same job title earn a differential of 3x, but that's simply
| because one negotiated better and was more economically
| valuable (had about 1.5 more decades' experience) than the
| other, yet they had the same job title. I guess we could
| argue to control for years' experience, but I've seen people
| who were better at a job after 6 months than those in the
| same job were after 10 years. There are even jobs where
| people get _worse_ over time, which isn 't intuitive but easy
| to find examples (e.g. you forget documentation if life gets
| busy for a year or two, and you're less effective because of
| that).
|
| I suspect "similarly employed" is indefinable in any
| realistic sense. I'm not against trying, just very sober
| about the probability of crafting a policy that outperforms
| the imperfect but free-ish market.
| lotsofpulp wrote:
| Beginner microeconomics courses teach that for the best
| allocation of resources, a market must have price
| transparency. How else are market participants supposed to
| ascertain the movements of supply and demand curves?
| nomilk wrote:
| > How else are market participants supposed to ascertain
| the movements of supply and demand curves?
|
| The problem is jobs aren't homogenous, so comparing
| salaries is meaningless, not only for applicants but also
| for the company itself. Imagine you find 10 people whose
| resumes look similar on paper, but after you interview
| all ten you realise there are some you'd hire in an
| instant, others you think are just okay, and some you
| think are awful. It's so obvious why their salaries would
| differ, and I find it very challenging to make any good
| argument otherwise.
|
| So, how can market participants ascertain supply and
| demand (and hence, price)? The answer is they can't, but
| they're no worse than companies, academics, government or
| anyone else - without assessing the _individual_ , I
| don't think it's possible for anyone to know.
| lotsofpulp wrote:
| Hence a salary range. No one is forcing anyone to pay
| everyone the same, even if it is the same job title. The
| most important part of these laws is actually just the
| minimum. People need to know which business and employers
| to avoid and which to go towards. Sorting job listings by
| bottom of the pay range can help them save time.
|
| In any case, for any marker, the more real time
| information, the better.
| gigatexal wrote:
| Awesome. I love this. This just granted +100 goodwill to MSFT.
| givemeethekeys wrote:
| Does this include executive roles and total compensation or just
| the base salary?
| rsanek wrote:
| I see many concerns here mentioning how this may not be a useful
| law because the company may create very wide ranges. It sounds
| like there are some restrictions in the law that try to prevent
| that, but I wonder if we should be looking at it a different way
| -- provide both the salary range for the position _and also_ the
| range of the salaries of the existing employees in that same
| position.
| awsrocks wrote:
| epwr wrote:
| > Microsoft said it would disclose salary ranges in all internal
| and external U.S. job postings no later than January 2023. That
| date is when Washington state, where Microsoft's headquarters are
| located, will start requiring employers with at least 15
| employees to disclose salary ranges for each position.
|
| In other news, Microsoft to comply with a new law.
| chrismeller wrote:
| "Software Engineer I - 40-250k"
| ekianjo wrote:
| anything preventing them from doing very large ranges like
| that?
| treis wrote:
| It says you have to post "the" salary range. So you can't
| have an actual salary range and then post something
| different. Most corps will have realistic salary bands and
| when they create job reqs it will be for a specific level.
| It's possible that some will call everyone engineers and
| have a band like that when you include interns. But that's
| not how most of them operate.
| llbeansandrice wrote:
| FWIW the similar Colorado law prevents this
| PragmaticPulp wrote:
| Yes, it would discourage some candidates from applying if
| they see the average within that range is lower than the
| average they could get anywhere else. Dirty tricks are also
| a red flag for candidates.
|
| However, while that range is an exaggeration, the truth is
| that salary ranges for positions are actually much wider
| than candidates may expect. There's a misconception that
| open positions have a single "correct" salary and that the
| negotiation process is all about getting the company to
| reveal that maximum number. It's not true, though. Ranges
| exist because even within a certain title, candidates have
| a wide range of skills and locations (especially when
| hiring remote/international) really do matter, whether or
| not you think they should.
|
| More broadly, the salary range isn't even necessarily the
| only range they'd be willing to pay you. It's actually not
| uncommon to interview someone and realize that their career
| level is either above or below the position they're
| interviewing for. In that case, you "decline" the candidate
| for the position/title/pay range they applied for but
| continue the interview for a different position.
|
| For example, if someone applies for SW ENG II but their
| compensation ask is in the range of SW ENG III (and their
| talents match) then you just bump them up. Conversely, if
| someone applies for SW ENG II but they're interviewing
| below the level of your SW ENG II candidates, you offer to
| continue the interview at the lower SW ENG I title/salary
| if they're willing.
|
| So the ranges are still just a starting point. There is no
| magic trick to force a company to reveal the maximum number
| they'd pay _you_ specifically. It 's still a negotiation,
| but at least you can order job postings somewhat.
|
| I actually think the bigger problem we're going to see is
| companies bait-and-switching candidates by putting a huge
| upper range number in the job posting but then offering
| them the bottom end of range while claiming that they can
| work their way up the range later. A lot of eager
| candidates are going to be pulled into companies who claim
| to have high upper limits, but who tell them they need to
| start at the bottom of the range and move up.
| russellendicott wrote:
| Yeah, I expect it will turn into a game and companies
| will just explode the number of positions so "Software
| Engineer 1" will become
|
| Software Engineer 1a (60k-70k) Software Engineer 1b
| (70k-80k) Etc...
| coding123 wrote:
| If someone is a III and applied for a II, the company
| would likely hire them as a II.
| bombcar wrote:
| They'd likely _offer_ at a II but _reoffer_ at a III if
| there were competing offers, or really wanted the
| employee.
|
| Or, sometimes, the fight was already done internally for
| a III and the manager wouldn't want to lose that, and so
| will hire at a low III.
| yjftsjthsd-h wrote:
| I am _told_ that judges tend to be unimpressed with
| technically following a law in a way that blatantly ignores
| the intent; I suspect that if you tried to claim a larger
| range than actually exists in salaries you actually pay
| then they 'd still find you to have broken the law. But
| IANAL and know nothing of the specifics; take with large
| grain of salt.
| chrismeller wrote:
| Nothing I see in the bill [1] says what an acceptable range
| is.
|
| 1: https://app.leg.wa.gov/billsummary?BillNumber=5761&Year=
| 2021...
| pulse7 wrote:
| "Any Job ... 0-1B"
| JumpCrisscross wrote:
| > _In other news, Microsoft to comply with a new law_
|
| Microsoft is under no obligation to comply with Washington law
| outside Washington. That's what they're doing here.
| TulliusCicero wrote:
| Since their largest workforce is in Washington state, it's
| probably just less risky to make this their overall US
| policy. Making a different policy for HQ vs everywhere else
| could easily lead to mistakes and accidentally breaking the
| law.
| Dylan16807 wrote:
| It can't be _that_ hard to follow this law in specific
| places. This is a meaningful policy decision, not just
| following risk.
| TulliusCicero wrote:
| I think you'd be surprised. Though the problem isn't that
| it's hard to follow in the general case, but that things
| could potentially slip through the cracks.
|
| Corporations are risk averse, they don't want to have to
| deal with potentially getting sued if a job opening
| starts out in one area and then moves to another one
| where suddenly the way the opening is described is
| illegal.
|
| It's just easier to do it the same everywhere if the
| advantage they're giving up is small.
| InitialBP wrote:
| > It can't be that hard to follow this law in specific
| places.
|
| Directly from the article: "Pay experts have long
| predicted companies would not want to mess with different
| practices in different states. Doing so not only
| complicates hiring practices for human resources
| departments, ..."
|
| There is probably a lot more nuance and qualifications of
| when it's necessary to disclose and from a company that
| employs more than 150k employees (according to a quick
| google) there's probably even more complexity and chaos.
| pnw wrote:
| There will be an army of lawyers trying to monetize any
| errors by companies, since the WA bill 5761 allows a job
| applicant to sue for potential lost wages plus interest.
| Microsoft is just getting ahead of the lawsuit curve.
| sangnoir wrote:
| > It can't be that hard to follow this law in specific
| places
|
| The problem is that 'specific places' very dynamic, and
| is hard to pin down when it comes to employment. A
| candidate/employee may move to/from jurisdictions where
| this is a requirement, and job postings may or may not be
| shown across different jurisdictions.
|
| Does Microsoft want to invest time wrangling in court
| concerning a Colorado resident not seeing the pay range
| when they are using a VPN? Or when a candidate becomes a
| Colorado resident some time between the phone-screen and
| the first interview? Should Microsoft recruiters stop
| using external job-boards, and instead wait for a salary
| geo-fencing feature to be implemented in their internal
| jobs tool? What is the case law for out-of-staters who
| will be moving into a state with such a law for
| employment? How about remote candidate in Texas, working
| for a team based in Washington - and the reverse? There
| are dozens of edge cases, and for a company the size of
| Microsoft, can easily result in hundreds to thousands of
| infractions per year - the juice may not be worth the
| squeeze.
| wing-_-nuts wrote:
| Probably easier to just do it for everybody than have two
| separate listings for WA and the rest of the US. I wonder if
| this is TC or just salary?
| sgerenser wrote:
| Everything I've seen so far is just salary. Which is kind
| of a huge loophole for tech companies where 20-60% of
| compensation is often in the form of stock and bonuses.
| lotsofpulp wrote:
| I am curious what level of details the text of the law
| requires:
|
| https://app.leg.wa.gov/billsummary?billnumber=5761&year=2
| 021...
|
| https://lawfilesext.leg.wa.gov/biennium/2021-22/Pdf/Bills
| /Se...
|
| >disclose in each posting for each job opening the wage
| scale or salary range, and a general description of all
| of the benefits and other compensation to be offered to
| the hired applicant.
|
| What is general description? Is that how many RSUs? Does
| it require showing what metal level health insurance is
| offered and specific the employer paid proportion?
| superfrank wrote:
| My guess is they see the writing on the wall with this one.
| Colorado and Washington both have laws about this now. I
| wouldn't be surprised to see California and New York
| implement something similar in the next year or two.
| dragonwriter wrote:
| > I wouldn't be surprised to see California and New York
| implement something similar in the next year or two.
|
| California started the trend with its "on reasonable
| request" pay range disclosure law, and has an proactive
| disclosure bill that has passed the Senate and is pending
| in the Assembly this session (DB 1162). But even without a
| proactive disclosure law, voluntary proactive disclosure
| reduces the request load for on-reequest disclosure, and
| consistency is cheaper to implement internally.
| bena wrote:
| It's probably a move just to make it easier on themselves.
|
| They want to streamline the job posting portion of HR. They
| don't want to have to worry about whether or not they have to
| post the salary range, so they just do what the most
| demanding law they deal with requires.
|
| Now they only really have to deal with areas that have laws
| that contradict with laws in other areas. Then you'd default
| to the law that benefits you the most and deal with the
| contradictory areas explicitly. Since you have to do the work
| anyway.
|
| For example, let's pretend that California had a really
| stupid law that forbid salary ranges from being posted on job
| listings. _Now_ Microsoft has to be careful about how and
| where they post jobs. And since it 's beneficial for them to
| hide the information, they'd likely only post the salary
| ranges where they were required to.
|
| But absent that, don't do work you don't have to do.
| bombcar wrote:
| It also makes sense when you realize more and more jobs are
| "Location, or remote" and "or remote" would cover
| Washington and Colorado.
| NaturalPhallacy wrote:
| It's simpler and easier to do it this way. Which is what
| they're doing here.
| epwr wrote:
| This article [1] seems to state pretty clearly that the law
| applies to all job posting by a company in Washington state.
| Any sources saying it's only about jobs open to Washington
| residents?
|
| [1] https://www.dwt.com/blogs/employment-labor-and-
| benefits/2022...
| JumpCrisscross wrote:
| > _sources saying it 's only about jobs open to Washington
| residents?_
|
| Washington state can't regulate how Microsoft hires people
| in Texas.
|
| Microsoft Corp. isn't even a Washington legal entity.
| (EDIT: Never mind, I stand corrected [1]. In any case, the
| broader point stands. Delaware doesn't get to regulate how
| its entities hire outside Delaware. This is well-settled
| employment/interstate commerce law.)
|
| [1] https://www.sec.gov/ix?doc=/Archives/edgar/data/789019/
| 00015...
| andjd wrote:
| Legally, a company is subject to state laws of their
| state of incorporation (usually Delaware, for various
| reasons) _and_ their state of 'domicile', usually where
| they are headquartered. They are also subject to state
| laws in states where they operate.
|
| So yes, in this situation, even if MS were incorporated
| in Delaware, Washington state could pass laws that bind
| how the company acts anywhere in the world.
|
| Washington also isn't the only state passing this style
| of law. Putting up the systems and processes to comply
| with this law only for Washington-based positions would
| probably not be worth it.
| JumpCrisscross wrote:
| > _even if MS were incorporated in Delaware, Washington
| state could pass laws that bind how the company acts
| anywhere in the world_
|
| This is not true [1]. It's especially untrue with respect
| to employment, a domain in which federal statute has a
| lot to say about who can regulate whom.
|
| [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dormant_Commerce_Clause
| LargeWu wrote:
| You are misreading this. The Dormant Commerce Clause is
| relevant when talking about applying laws unequally for
| the purpose of protecting in-state commercial entities.
| For instance, if companies based out of state were
| subject to salary disclosure laws, but Washington based
| companies were not.
|
| In this case, Dormant Commerce does not apply since the
| salary disclosure laws apply to any company operating in
| the state, regardless of where they're headquartered or
| incorporated. It applies equally to all.
| lozenge wrote:
| That's specific to state protectionism though. The law
| applies equally to jobs posted inside and outside the
| state so the Dormant Commerce Clause is not relevant.
| paulmd wrote:
| What are your qualifications to be dispensing legal
| advice in this area, if any?
|
| Yes, a company headquartered in california is (in many
| cases) still bound by california law even if the employee
| is located in another state. The obvious example is non-
| compete clauses, a california company still usually
| cannot enforce a non-compete even if the law permits it
| in the employee's state.
|
| However, this situation is what's called a "conflict-of-
| law" and it basically comes down to the way the court
| interprets it.
|
| Take it from the actual lawyers:
|
| > The circumstances that present the strongest case
| against enforcement of such an agreement involves a
| noncompete agreement between a California-based employer
| and a California-based employee. But not all cases are
| that simple; whether California law applies depends upon
| the application of "conflict of law" rules.
|
| > "Conflict of law" rules allow courts to determine what
| state's laws apply when the laws of more than one state
| might apply to a dispute but would produce different
| results. For example, a noncompete agreement between a
| California-based employer and a Nevada-based employee
| that was signed in Nevada could be construed under Nevada
| or California law, depending on the circumstances. If
| Nevada law applies, the restrictive covenant might be
| enforceable against the employee. If California law
| applies, it will not be enforceable.
|
| > Because of these issues, parties often include choice-
| of-law provisions telling a court to apply a particular
| state's law rather than determine what state's
| substantive laws apply under a conflict-of-law analysis.
| In most cases a court will readily accept a choice-of-law
| provision and apply it as the parties intended. But
| that's not necessarily so in the case of a noncompete
| agreement.
|
| > Like other common law doctrines, conflict-of-law rules
| vary from state to state. Most states will not enforce a
| choice-of-law provision that would violate the public
| policy of a state with a "materially greater interest" in
| the dispute or where the parties do not have a
| "substantial relationship" with the chosen state. In
| other words, a California employer cannot get around
| California's prohibition against employee restrictive
| covenants by requiring his California employee to sign an
| agreement that includes a Nevada choice-of-law clause.
|
| https://www.bonalaw.com/insights/legal-resources/is-my-
| out-o...
|
| So yes, employment law in state X usually does bind a
| company headquartered in state X even if the employee is
| working in a completely different state. Doesn't matter
| where you live, you are employed by an entity in state X.
|
| (or rather, it _does_ matter, you still have to pay taxes
| in state Y and state Y also gets to pass rules of its own
| governing work in that state... practically speaking what
| you get is the union of the two sets of rules, you get
| the combination of both. In the event of a full-on
| "state X requires A, state Y forbids it"... then the
| lawyers get paid.)
| hef19898 wrote:
| If you do that only for jobs in Washington state it is
| only a question of time until the first discrimibation
| law suites are filed. Plus it is easy good press.
| DannyBee wrote:
| and then the law would get struck down because, as said,
| washington state isn't allowed to regulate interstate
| commerce.
| bmelton wrote:
| Nit to pick: States can and do regulate interstate
| commerce all the time. California once banned the import
| of foie gras into the state, and IIRC are planning a law
| banning the import of foreign oil. Some states ban the
| import of firearms they don't wish to exist.
|
| Whether they should be allowed to engage in the
| regulation of interstate commerce for activities that
| occur entirely extra-state is probably more along what
| you intended, but even that you could probably find
| allowed or as-yet-indeterminate exceptions to.
| DannyBee wrote:
| Yes, that is fair.
|
| They can even regulate interstate commerce in ways that
| discriminate between in and out of state companies (IE
| something that seems a very clear commerce clause
| violation), though this is historically limited mostly to
| alcohol shipment :)
|
| Honestly, though, the current SC seems much more likely
| to strike that all down than they have in the past, and
| give much brighter lines.
| dragonwriter wrote:
| > California once banned the import of foie gras into the
| state
|
| No, it banned sale of foie gras _entirely_ (it did not
| single out importation), and even so the ban, to the
| extent that it prohibited individual consumers from
| buying it for import from out-of-state vendors, was
| struck down by a federal trial court in 2020 as a
| violation of the dormant commerce clause, a decision this
| year upheld by the Ninth Circuit, so it 's probably not a
| law you want to point to as an example of the state being
| free to regulate interstate commerce.
|
| https://www.theguardian.com/us-
| news/2022/may/07/california-f...
|
| > and IIRC are planning a law banning the import of
| foreign oil.
|
| Even if it was true that someone in California was
| planning on trying to pass such a law, it would be an
| even more clear, bright-line dormant commerce clause
| violation than the _foie gras_ law.
| JumpCrisscross wrote:
| > _States can and do regulate interstate commerce all the
| time. California once banned the import of foie gras into
| the state, and IIRC are planning a law banning the import
| of foreign oil._
|
| This is fine. Sacramento can regulate what's coming into
| California. It cannot set food labeling requirements for
| Michigan.
| [deleted]
| dragonwriter wrote:
| > Sacramento can regulate what's coming into California.
|
| It can regulated what is sold or produced in California,
| but, because of the Commerce Clause, it's more limited in
| regulating what comes in to California.
|
| > It cannot set food labeling requirements for Michigan.
|
| It absolutely can set food labelling requirements for
| food commercially produced in California, except to the
| extent such regulations are preempted by federal law,
| whether or not it will later be shipped to Michigan.
| connicpu wrote:
| Washington has actually successfully enforced some of its
| worker protection rules on a national scale in the past.
| As a condition of having the harsh penalties for their
| in-state violations dropped, they got fast food companies
| to agree to drop non-compete agreements from all
| franchise agreements nationwide[1]
|
| Whether it happens as a direct consequence of the word of
| the law feels less relevant than the fact they made it
| happen in practice via a settlement.
|
| [1]: https://table.skift.com/2018/07/12/some-fast-food-
| chains-dro...
| dragonwriter wrote:
| > and then the law would get struck down because, as
| said, washington state isn't allowed to regulate
| interstate commerce.
|
| It isn't allowed to discriminate against or unduly burden
| interstate commerce; it can generally regulate the
| behavior of Washington persons (including corporations)
| in interstate commerce where such regulation does not
| discriminate against such commerce (which is clearly the
| case where the rule is identical to that for in-state
| commerce of the same type.)
|
| The exception would be if the federal government
| preempted the kind of regulation Washington sought to
| make by exercise of federal commerce powers.
| JumpCrisscross wrote:
| > _you do that only for jobs in Washington state it is
| only a question of time until the first discrimibation
| law suites are filed_
|
| Discriminating based on an employee's state of residence
| is totally fine. Californians get different disclosures
| and rights compared with say Nevadans. Nevadans can't sue
| for those benefits; they're not entitled to them.
| willcipriano wrote:
| I pretty sure if you headquartered your marijuana company
| in a state where it's illegal you'd run into problems,
| even if you didn't grow or sell it in that state.
| oneoff786 wrote:
| I don't think that's true?
| willcipriano wrote:
| "Conspiracy to commit drug trafficking" would probably
| fit the bill. I think they could just call in the feds
| because from the state and federal perspective you are
| running a drug empire from that office.
| zeroonetwothree wrote:
| The feds don't seem very concerned with marijuana lately
| fartcannon wrote:
| That's hardly the point.
| oneoff786 wrote:
| But it's not trafficking if you don't move it across
| state lines?
| brewdad wrote:
| But your state of domicile would happily seize your ill-
| gotten gains the minute you try to bring the money home.
| You may not be moving the drug across state lines but the
| money certainly would.
| oneoff786 wrote:
| Pretty sure you're just making that up. That doesn't make
| any sense. State laws don't declare something is illegal
| anywhere. They declare they're illegal within that state.
| It's perfectly fine to do such things in other states.
| yieldcrv wrote:
| Nah, state level would have no jurisdiction over the
| criminal action and feds arent caring right now, but
| focusing on the state level you can also just form a
| branch
|
| So you go online and fill out an LLC for another state,
| and just say you are licensing your brand name to that
| LLC in another state that is doing all the sales in that
| state
| willcipriano wrote:
| "Your honor, this man, doing business as "weed.com",
| collected the proceeds from four thousand individual
| sales of marijuana from his office at 123 Fake Street."
|
| It's illegal to do that. What's the defense, it's legal
| to do that somewhere else?
|
| That part of the justice system doesn't play around.
| There are people in jail for felony murder for selling
| the baggies to the guy who sold the drugs to the guy who
| overdosed.
| yieldcrv wrote:
| It's legal to license a brand name to an organization in
| another state
|
| Thats the only action that occurred in the state
| [deleted]
| lanstein wrote:
| I believe it is a WA corp.
| dnissley wrote:
| Just to take this a bit farther... if Washington state
| can regulate Washington incorporated entities, can it
| regulate them to act in a way that would violate laws in
| other states?
| malwarebytess wrote:
| Here's an example.
|
| California passes a law, and because doing business in
| California is good for the bottom line they will comply
| with the law, and in so doing set a new defacto national
| standard. But, if this burden becomes too onerous, the
| business can simply not do business with California or
| move out of California. But, California is such a large
| market it's quite a high burden to reach.
| CountSessine wrote:
| This isn't epwr's claim. His claim is that Washington has
| written and passed a law that binds Microsoft's
| operations outside Washington state, which I'm pretty
| sure would violate the commerce clause.
| dragonwriter wrote:
| > His claim is that Washington has written and passed a
| law that binds Microsoft's operations outside Washington
| state, which I'm pretty sure would violate the commerce
| clause.
|
| The commerce clause does not prevent states from having
| laws which impact interstate commerce unless:
|
| (1) They are preempted by federal exercise of commerce
| clause powers (though that's really a _supremacy_ clause
| issue), or
|
| (2) they discriminate against or excessively burden
| interstate commerce (the dormant commerce clause
| doctrine).
| [deleted]
| zeroonetwothree wrote:
| They cannot just like they can't regulate activities of
| private individual when outside their state of residence.
| [deleted]
| AdrianB1 wrote:
| California does regulate private individuals that lived
| in California in the past. It also does regulate private
| individuals with residence in California and working in a
| different state. Just saying.
| decebalus1 wrote:
| What are you even talking about?
|
| > Microsoft was incorporated in the state of Washington
| on June 25, 1981; reincorporated in the state of Delaware
| on September 19, 1986; and reincorporated in the state of
| Washington on September 22, 1993.
|
| https://app.quotemedia.com/data/downloadFiling?webmasterI
| d=9...
|
| Washington (State or Other Jurisdiction of Incorporation)
| nrclark wrote:
| How do the Washington/Colorado salary disclosure laws interact
| with bonus structures and stock grants? A staff engineer might
| make $250k/year in base salary, but their total comp could be
| much higher.
| 0daystock wrote:
| "250/year with bonus and equity options" is what I'd seen - not
| very helpful.
| llbeansandrice wrote:
| These laws apply to all jobs, not just tech jobs.
| billfruit wrote:
| Why only in the US? Why not everywhere?
| outside1234 wrote:
| But will it include stock ranges too? This is where the huge
| discrepancy occurs between candidates.
|
| Salary is almost always in a tight range at Microsoft at a given
| level -- but external candidates can get anywhere from peanuts (a
| so called "tier 1" offer) to jumbo stock allocations (a so called
| "tier 3" offer).
| ramesh31 wrote:
| Any tips for landing a MS interview?
| [deleted]
| avgDev wrote:
| This is the way. We need more of this.
|
| I'm at a point where if a recruiter messages me "about an
| exciting opportunity" without any salary information, he/she will
| not get a response.
|
| While there are some jobs that maybe I would consider a pay cut
| for, I generally want to make more money because that allows me
| to invest more so I can be free one day.
| wonderwonder wrote:
| I get ~4 recruiter emails a day and I don't think I have ever
| seen the salary in the initial job description. If the job
| looks interesting I will just reply asking what the salary is.
| Usually they immediately call me rather than respond via email
| which is pretty annoying.
| silicon2401 wrote:
| This is why I stopped putting personal info in my resume. I
| once had a particularly aggressive recruiter try and recruit
| me for a contracting position (I only consider full time
| roles), and when I repeatedly declined his offer, he actually
| found my resume somewhere and just called my phone. Needless
| to say it was incredibly annoying and ever since then I've
| kept all contact info out of my resume.
| r00fus wrote:
| I put my Google Voice on my resume (and other places like
| my .sig) and I generally just forward all GV calls to VM.
|
| If they care to leave a message or send a text, I may read
| it. If they don't then I ignore (unless I'm expecting a
| call from that number in which case I'll call back in a day
| or two).
|
| Sometimes (like when we were looking for a nanny a few
| years ago) I may let GV actually ring on my main line.
| bluGill wrote:
| Of course, they already know what they will get, it is a
| fixed price. Anything they don't pay whoever they hire is
| money they get to keep. (they can't hire a junior engineer to
| a senior position - if the contract allowed that they would
| though). I've seen cases where someone doesn't know their
| value and thus accepts a very low offer.
| avgDev wrote:
| Pretty common sales tactic. They want you to invest as much
| time as possible because generally the more time you invest
| the more likely they are going to make a "sale".
|
| I'm not sure if this even works for devs as there is so many
| opportunities.
| BlargMcLarg wrote:
| The whole prudish / secretive attitude around salaries has got
| to be one of the most annoying parts. Just get the formalities
| over with instead of wasting time, please.
| xtracto wrote:
| I just reply to everyone with my expected salary, which is 30%
| increase of my current salary. If they are not close to that
| number, then it is better to not waste our time.
|
| I've been in the employer position (as a hiring manager) and in
| the Employee position. I know how much I am worth (or what I
| _want_ to be worth), so I don 't really care about playing
| games and haggling. I'ts ok, my value might become lower in a
| recession, or when trying to get into new verticals. When that
| happens, I'll adjust my expectations.
| cfcfcf wrote:
| Do you reveal your current salary? Or give a ballpark?
| xtracto wrote:
| I'll respond with a slightly different answer: In my
| country, not only it is NOT illegal for a company to ask
| you for your current salary. They can actually ask you to
| provide a pay slip!!
|
| So, I give CURRENT_SALARY*30% and tell them it's that.
| itqwertz wrote:
| If you do follow up and eventually ask for a salary range,
| expect vague terms like "competitive" or "market rate".
| 908B64B197 wrote:
| The correct way to interpret this is "Silicon Valley
| competitive/market rate".
|
| The reaction you'll get is hilarious in some cases.
| collegeburner wrote:
| No not necessarily. Let me go over some scenarios:
|
| Bob contributes 1. I contribute 1.25. Units don't matter, I
| contribute 25% more.
|
| It used to be maybe the salary band is $100k to $130k. Bob gets
| $100k. I get $125k. My employer gets a total value of 2.25 for
| $225k.
|
| Now my employer has to disclose salaries and has 2 options:
|
| 1) Don't make out salaries the same, Bob quits, now the
| employer has only 1.25 when they need 2.25 and have to go re-
| hire ($50k or more in a lot of times).
|
| 2) Make our salaries the same, so now Bob also gets $125k and
| employer pays $250k for 2.25. This is what will happen in the
| short term and what attracts people, but in the long term what
| will happen is
|
| 3) Make our salaries the same but slow raises so gradually they
| go to the inflation indexed amount of about the average, so
| $112.5k more or less. Now employer still pays $225k for 2.25.
| But now I am subsidizing Bob the less productive worker for
| $12.5k every year.
|
| A lot like unions, making things more uniform often comes at
| some expense to the top performers. I always sit near that top
| so I say no this is stupid and I hate it. I don't give a shit
| what Bob is paid and I give even less if it costs me money for
| him to get more.
| marlowe221 wrote:
| If your job posting doesn't give some indication as to the
| possible salary range, I'm just not going to apply.
|
| What? I'm going to go through some bullshit interview process
| that includes some esoteric algorithm problem that has nothing to
| do with the actual position in question and, even if it did, I
| could "npm install"/google my way out of only to find out later
| on that the job pays the same (or less) than what I make right
| now?
|
| That's just a waste of everyone's time.
| dubcanada wrote:
| There are a ton of people here who probably make 6 figures
| complaining about pay ranges in job postings.
|
| I am not sure I fully see how this is a problem, any minimum wage
| job says pay range (or a specific rate), any job for dish washers
| or line cooks say $18 a hour or what not, a tech job with a six
| figure salary should at least say a range, since it varies based
| on skill and department.
|
| I haven't read a single response that I agree with as to why this
| is a negative? Can someone provide some insight in to why people
| seem to be against this? Also the silly comments about well $5 to
| $5 million is a range are just silly. They are going to provide a
| range like $42k to $55k. Because it is based on skill to some
| degree (7 years in the industry should pay more you more than 2).
| kansface wrote:
| > I haven't read a single response that I agree with as to why
| this is a negative? ...They are going to provide a range like
| $42k to $55k
|
| Why? Its like prop 65 cancer warnings being on 100% of the
| products and buildings in CA. Its just a thing you do so as to
| avoid liability. Now, we have these useless warnings pasted
| everywhere that have no meaning beyond compliance. Is CA better
| off with these warnings? I can't imagine so. Will companies
| post very broad salary ranges? With certainty, whats the
| downside? Will the ranges correspond to reality? Probably not.
| Are we better off forcing companies to do this? I'm not sure.
| Broken_Hippo wrote:
| I'm sorry, I don't see how this is the same. Will you explain
| why you think they are similar?
| kansface wrote:
| What is the incentive for companies to put down
| meaningful/useful information? If that incentive exists,
| why weren't they doing it before the law was enacted?
| Alternatively, they weren't doing it before, so a priori
| I'd wager that the opposite incentive exists (to hide
| information from candidates). This law isn't changing
| incentives so behavior won't change beyond nominal
| compliance with the law.
| twblalock wrote:
| At some point as a high achiever you end up worrying about the
| ceiling rather than the floor.
|
| For example, let's say a software job is listed with a range of
| $200k to $250k comp. And you want more than that. But will the
| employer be willing, or allowed, to negotiate with you an
| amount over $250k? After all, the job posting says $250k is the
| top of the range. Maybe it would be illegal to pay you more!
| But at a company that does not list salary ranges, maybe there
| is more wiggle room.
|
| Transparency is good for people who are average at their jobs
| and get average pay. For other people, the benefits are
| unclear.
| disiplus wrote:
| i don't think the salary has to be in the range, its just
| that the range is based on current salaries.
| BlargMcLarg wrote:
| At the very least, MS is probably just "collateral damage" of a
| law which could help low earners gain more transparency. If
| you're already working at MS or any big tech, odds are you
| aren't part of the target audience. Doubly so since information
| from big corps is pretty readily shared and available already.
| [deleted]
| jorblumesea wrote:
| Are they going to take a look a TC? Their "highest we can go
| offer" was 100k below everyone else in my region (seattle)
| galkk wrote:
| Is it going to be salary or total comp?
| xtat wrote:
| Read this as "our initial offer"
| potamic wrote:
| I wonder why only the US. If they believe pay transparency is the
| right way forward, they should do it globally. Surely there's no
| legal hurdles in posting pay ranges for any country.
| troon-lover wrote:
| bombcar wrote:
| For the US it may be this is the easiest way to comply with
| Colorado's law. Worldwide may be rolled out later, but those
| are probably separate business entities that have to work it
| out.
|
| As with all negotiations, once you've stated a number you've
| put a lower (or upper, depending on the side you're on) bound.
| llbeansandrice wrote:
| I believe WA has a similar law going into effect. Since
| they're based/domiciled(?) in WA the state laws apply I
| believe. They're not doing it out of the goodness of their
| hearts.
| mobiuscog wrote:
| They don't believe pay transparency is the way forward -
| they're just fending off some US laws and trying to gain kudos
| for doing so.
|
| As you mention, if they really wanted to be transparent, it
| would be global, but I doubt they want to expose those
| differences.
| mywittyname wrote:
| Does anyone know if popular job platforms out there use your
| location to determine whether or not to show the salary
| information for a job posting? Or is it usually something that
| have to request once you can establish that you're a resident of
| Colorado?
| llbeansandrice wrote:
| Colorado's law is written so that it would apply to any job
| that can reasonably be done by someone residing in the state.
| So if you're hiring for a remote position, under CO law you
| have to provide a salary range. It doesn't technically matter
| where _you_ are located.
|
| As a result, some companies have started explicitly excluding
| CO from their job postings. I'm not a lawyer, but I think
| there's probably latent lawsuits there. Especially if they
| employ anyone in CO already.
| another_poster wrote:
| Individual states' pay transparency laws are already applying
| upwards pressure on salaries across the country.
|
| My company has multiple groups in different states including
| Colorado, and in anticipation of needing to post salary ranges
| for our open positions in Colorado, my group (with no positions
| in Colorado) preemptively bumped up everyone's salaries to the
| midpoint of their pay bands to avoid anyone becoming frustrated
| if they learned they were in the bottom half. Despite the
| preemptive adjustments, a colleague of mine became angry and quit
| when they found out their salary wasn't at the very top of their
| position's pay range.
|
| So pay transparency laws are having a big impact--not only in the
| obvious cases of candidates negotiating salaries in the states
| that passed the pay transparency laws, but also for average
| employees in other states who didn't even need to do anything
| except learn how much their labor was worth.
| zdragnar wrote:
| I think your example might be more of an exception than a rule;
| the last company I was in that introduced pay bands only bumped
| up people who were below the bottom of the band.
|
| The only people who were upset were those who found out some
| people were way over the new pay band and generated a bit of
| gossip over how those people were way overpaid for the quality
| of their work
| kodah wrote:
| I'm leaving my company because it took so much "upwards
| pressure" to make this happen. Literally hundreds of people
| screaming in a townhall that the companies wages were so low
| that housing was eating up most of their paycheck while
| mandating a return to work from the top. This is in the Bay
| Area. I do think there's something to be said about a company
| that does not tend to the needs of its flock proactively.
| anon291 wrote:
| Why not just leave the company? I understand in many
| industries jobs are hard to find, but tech jobs are a dime a
| dozen.
| lostlogin wrote:
| > Why not just leave the company?
|
| The first words were "I'm leaving my company". Am I missing
| something?
| jzawodn wrote:
| I see what you did there.
| drewcon wrote:
| I'm not sure why the company is responsible at an individual
| level for what's going on in the Bay Area. They can't tell
| you how to manage and interact with the expenses of your
| life.
|
| If you're mad at anyone, walk down to city hall and tell them
| to build more housing.
| chrsig wrote:
| Because the company chooses to have a policy that mandates
| employees live within a viable commute radius of an office
| located in the city. I don't know why companies can't just
| take responsibility for their decisions.
|
| Or the company can walk down to city hall and tell them to
| build more housing, because they're unable or unwilling to
| pay enough for people to live in a viable radius.
|
| Or the company can relocate or establish a satellite office
| in a lower cost of living area.
|
| Or the company can pay people commensurately with the cost
| of living in the area.
|
| Or the company can deal with the inevitable attrition of
| their workforce as it happens, all the while denying that
| they have any agency and deflect blame onto individuals.
| RexM wrote:
| The last one seems to be the most popular choice.
| fugalfervor wrote:
| If the people in the company want to be good (and they
| should, because being good makes you happy), they will
| ensure the financial success of their workers. If the
| people in the company want to be bad (and they shouldn't,
| because being bad makes you unhappy), then they will
| callously disregard the needs of their workers, and say
| it's someone else's fault.
| cogman10 wrote:
| You say this as if companies don't chose where to have
| their offices and their attendance policies.
|
| If a company places it's headquarters in a HCOL area and
| requires everyone come in 5 days a week, then yes, they
| have a responsibility to pay a salary high enough that
| their employees can survive there.
|
| If employers don't like the fact that COL is too high, THEY
| can go ahead and march on city hall to advocate for
| political action. Companies have a MUCH larger sway with
| local politicians than the average employee does. That, or
| they can increase the salary or change the attendance
| policies.
| WalterBright wrote:
| > they have a responsibility to pay a salary high enough
|
| No, they don't. The employee gets to decide if the salary
| is high enough to meet his needs. If it isn't, the
| employee can negotiate for more, or go elsewhere.
|
| Nobody is obliged to work for a company they find
| unacceptable.
| throw10920 wrote:
| This is correct. The most "obligation" that an employer
| _might_ have is to pay the employee for the _value_ of
| their work, and even that 's dubious. (show me the source
| for your moral argument) They certainly have no
| obligation to match CoL.
|
| If an employer doesn't pay their employees enough, those
| employees should leave, their employer will eventually
| die, and that'll add another data point to tell the
| shareholders to either elect CEOs that will pay more or
| to stop backing companies in high-CoL areas.
| kriops wrote:
| Supply and demand. COL is a downstream price signal as
| far as a rational employer is concerned. While they might
| try to influence it to alter the supply of potential
| workers in their favor, it is by no means their
| responsibility to do so.
|
| And saying companies choose where the highest
| concentration of available talent resides is dishonest.
| cogman10 wrote:
| > Supply and demand.
|
| Yup, there's a low supply of employees and a high demand
| for them. So guess what the absolute dumbest thing is an
| employer can do when employees start clamoring for COL
| adjustments?
| connicpu wrote:
| They don't have a responsibility to do so, but they
| shouldn't be surprised when employees are angry at them
| if they don't do one or the other
| jonas21 wrote:
| Companies may have more sway than an individual employee,
| but that sway is still close to zero. Why? Because
| everyone knows that once enough key employees live
| nearby, they can't just pick up and move the company
| somewhere else.
|
| Google, for example, has been trying for over a decade to
| build some medium-density housing near its campus. This
| goes beyond just advocating for political action (which
| they're also doing) -- they're actually offering to
| finance the project and assume all risk -- all the city
| has to do is stop saying no.
|
| But every time it comes up for approval, local residents
| show up to complain, and the city council finds some
| arbitrary reason to say no.
| cogman10 wrote:
| Google still has options (which, granted, they've
| exercised) including adding more remote offices.
|
| They don't want to do that because they've already spent
| a bunch of money on their fancy HQ and don't want to see
| it empty out.
|
| There are plenty of employers with < 1000 employees,
| however, crowding these downtown areas. They have way
| more flexibility in being able to move out of these city
| centers and into more affordable locations for everyone.
| They don't because part of the reason for their offices
| in these downtown location is rich people showing off to
| other rich people. You gotta "look" successful.
| aerosmile wrote:
| > They don't because part of the reason for their offices
| in these downtown location is rich people showing off to
| other rich people. You gotta "look" successful.
|
| If an office is moved to a less densely populated area,
| the average commute time of all employees collectively
| ends up increasing.
|
| The way rich people actually show off to other rich
| people is by doing what's right for their companies,
| thereby increasing the value of their equity - which then
| allows them to buy luxury goods and impress other rich
| people that way.
| phpisthebest wrote:
| >>Because everyone knows that once enough key employees
| live nearby
|
| It is almost like, in any context, centralization is bad.
| I am not sure why we has a civilization have to keep
| learning this lesson, over and over and over again
|
| Anytime you centralize anything it results in bad
| outcomes.
|
| Diversity, Diversification, Distributed Models, etc are
| ALWAYS preferable, I dont care if you are talking about
| Stocks, People, Housing, Power, Government, you name,
| Consolidation and centralization is always bad
| shrimp_emoji wrote:
| Centralization is just a tool (if methods of organization
| are tools).
|
| Sometimes, it's clearly the right choice (where are
| program settings settings? `~/.config`).
|
| It's also VERY simple. If all you want is client/server
| version control, and you don't mind the constraints,
| SVN's UX and learning curve beats git's by a long shot.
|
| Decentralization buys you flexibility, but entails tons
| of complexity.
| phpisthebest wrote:
| your case to prove centralization is sometimes good is
| SVN over git
|
| I can not envision any scenario in which I would choose
| SVN over git
| closeparen wrote:
| Decentralization of people and housing == suburban
| sprawl, car dependency, tens of thousands of fatal
| collisions, the climate crisis, etc. Decentralization
| shifts the difficulty into communication/coordination,
| which is sometimes more tractable but also sometimes not.
| donthellbanme wrote:
| pnemonic wrote:
| Companies are responsible at an individual level for
| understanding the state of the environment they chose to do
| business in. You seem to be implying that people in the Bay
| Area are just bad with money and if they weren't, this
| wouldn't be a problem.
|
| Some day soon, hopefully, companies that fail to do this
| will fail to stay in business.
| [deleted]
| vkou wrote:
| > I'm not sure why the company is responsible at an
| individual level for what's going on in the Bay Area.
|
| No, but it's responsible for not paying well, while
| mandating that everyone working for it must live in the
| most expensive region in the country.
|
| > If you're mad at anyone, walk down to city hall and tell
| them to build more housing.
|
| Or walk across the street to a competitor. It is the Bay
| area, after all.
| kelseyfrog wrote:
| Why artificially constrain the action landscape? In the
| realpolitik world of getting desirable outcomes, if forcing
| companies gets the results, then it gets the results.
| anigbrowl wrote:
| It isn't. Nor should the company expect people to keep
| showing up if they are not being paid enough to live in the
| area where their offices are.
|
| This is just suppliers (of labor) advising that their costs
| are going up, and thus so is the price of their economic
| input. It's just business.
| [deleted]
| alistairSH wrote:
| _They can't tell you how to manage and interact with the
| expenses of your life._
|
| No, but they can move to a lower cost area, allow WFH, or
| _gasp_ pay a fair wage for the region. Employers don 't
| have a right to cheap labor
| sneak wrote:
| It's the employee's job to remind an employer that they
| don't have the right to cheap labor by leaving. The
| market is two-sided.
| TulliusCicero wrote:
| > my group (with no positions in Colorado) preemptively bumped
| up everyone's salaries to the midpoint of their pay bands
|
| Uhh, surely I'm not the only one seeing the obvious flaw here,
| right? Is the inevitable outcome here that pay bands will now
| cover a range where nobody is _actually_ in the lower half,
| ever? That lower half of the range will just be there as a sort
| of psychological buffer?
| marricks wrote:
| So the pay bands go up. Everyone gets paid more, board salary
| go down a bit, and things hopefully become a bit more event.
| Sounds good? Things have been going the other direction far
| too long.
| TulliusCicero wrote:
| > So the pay bands go up.
|
| They can't, though; if you do that, now there are people in
| the bottom half, and they're upset that they're 'below
| average'.
|
| You basically need a vanity range for pay.
| sangnoir wrote:
| It's not a vanity range if it's leading to real-life
| salary adjustments.
| TulliusCicero wrote:
| Vanity clothing sizing leads to real life changes in
| clothes measurements too.
| shmatt wrote:
| More like: Pay bands go up. Company cuts 15% of workforce
| "to achieve better numbers"
|
| Every time you read that headline, the company could have
| just cut pay by 15% and gotten the same profitability.
| Higher pay will force medium-small companies to hire less
| people
|
| Some SV companies make Billions in profits per quarter.
| Some don't. I've seen far too many employees try to justify
| why they should be making Meta compensation elsewhere. It
| doesn't and shouldn't work that way
| jeremyjh wrote:
| How does that follow? They will just lower the bottom of
| the pay bands, and now people who in the bottom third are
| at the midpoint without another dollar being spent.
| eropple wrote:
| And then, because law is not code and being technically
| correct is frequently not the best kind of correct, the
| question becomes "OK, are there actually any employees at
| that point in the pay band?" and folks start tugging
| their collars and going "well..." until that activity
| becomes disallowed, either via judicial interpretation or
| legislative amendment.
| throwaway09223 wrote:
| Board retainers aren't significant expense anywhere as far
| as I'm aware. Often their stipends are less than an
| employee's pay.
|
| For example, Google's board stipend is $100k, which is
| about half the median total comp of an average employee
| (less, counting benefits). Walmart I think pays their board
| $60k.
|
| You may be thinking of executive comp, but even then it is
| generally not significant amount. You could completely
| eliminate and redistribute executive compensation at Wal-
| Mart and it wouldn't really make a measurable difference in
| employee hourly salaries.
| showerst wrote:
| Walmart is a bad comparison there; they have an enormous
| headcount of low-paid staff. Many tech companies are far
| lower headcount, but with high executive pay.
|
| Looking at some other companies, Activision-Blizzard's
| CEO alone makes enough to pay every employee a $15,000
| bonus. Reed Hastings at Netflix makes enough to pay every
| employee $3800. And that's not counting any of the rest
| of the executive staff, or all the other ways money flows
| out of a company to non-employees, like dividends and
| stock buybacks.
|
| https://www.equilar.com/reports/83-equilar-associated-
| press-...
|
| I think there's certainly a lot of room for wages to go
| up, though i'm skeptical that it will come at the expense
| of things like executive pay or share buybacks.
| TulliusCicero wrote:
| The comment referred to specifically said "board
| salaries", not executive pay more broadly.
| throwaway09223 wrote:
| Activision-Blizzard's board get 350k. If they earned $0
| instead, this would only give each employee an extra $35
| per year. That's including their stock compensation.
|
| As you say, most goes to investors. Which makes sense as
| they actually own the company.
| jeromegv wrote:
| OP was talking about executives (CEO, VPs), not board.
| throwaway09223 wrote:
| I am OP's OP and I was talking about the board.
| TulliusCicero wrote:
| > board salary go down a bit
| vlovich123 wrote:
| That's not accurate. The board meets maybe 4 times a
| year. Let's be generous and say they work one full
| calendar month of the year. That means their pro-rated
| stipend is actually 1.2 M/year. Google employees who only
| choose to work one month of the year can do so, but the
| median salary would be 16k dollars. AFAIK board members
| don't put in a month's worth of work so that 1.2 M/year
| is an underestimate. They also can sit on multiple boards
| simultaneously whereas moonlighting in multiple companies
| is not generally possible in the same way.
| TulliusCicero wrote:
| The pro-rated version is irrelevant, since the comment
| was talking about board salaries going down in order to
| fund higher salaries elsewhere.
| throwaway09223 wrote:
| We're discussing whether redistributing the board
| stipends would change individual salaries and the clear
| answer is it will not, even in the most extreme
| situations.
|
| But, to your point regarding prorated comp: I've been a
| salaried employee at a company like Google. I've also
| been a board member.
|
| First, like many senior tech employees my total comp
| market rate is in the seven figures. A pro-rated 1.2M
| stipend would be appropriate to compensate me for my
| time. The average board retainer for less profitable
| companies is closer to $30k/yr. These are not entry level
| positions and the retainers are shockingly low in the
| vast majority of cases. (In my case, I'm on the board of
| a non-profit and I actually pay them)
|
| Second, I think you are underestimating how little some
| salaried workers actually work. I think if you try you
| can find more than a few Google employees who only work
| one month a year ;) Conversely: I work far harder in my
| role as a board member than I used to in my salaried
| role. It's different for everyone of course, but I assure
| you no one is seeking out board seat retainers as a way
| to get rich. It's just not worth it.
| lmkg wrote:
| I read somewhere that this is exactly what happened when
| (publicly-traded?) companies were required to publicize
| executive compensation. And it's a major reason why exec
| salaries have increased while regular salaries have not
| over the past few decades.
|
| So... seems fair to me. Maybe salaries will actually
| increase enough that people won't have to switch jobs every
| three years to get a raise.
| bombcar wrote:
| That's very common in anything that has a range. The pay
| bands will shift to compensate for it.
| collegeburner wrote:
| We all now work at Lake Wobegon. Which means salaries will be
| set to average value of the position and lazy people will be
| subsidized by hard workers and better contributors. Not
| everybody contributes the same value.
| itronitron wrote:
| >> quit when they found out their salary wasn't at the very top
|
| Such an elegant implementation of the 'no assholes' policy.
| foobiekr wrote:
| The noncompete thing is actually a much, much bigger deal than
| the pay transparency thing. I have a friend who is waiting out
| a 2Y noncompete that he foolishly agreed to in Texas.
| social_quotient wrote:
| It's a right to work state, so maybe there is more to it than
| a vanilla NC?
| lthornberry wrote:
| I don't know anything about Texas non-compete law, but
| "right to work state" refers to restrictions on unionizing.
| It has nothing to do with non-compete clauses.
| mkl95 wrote:
| I wish all companies included pay ranges. When I was a junior /
| mid level dev I was lowballed more times than I care to admit.
| Nowadays if some recruiter messages me I ask for the range
| immediately, and I end the conversation if I don't get a straight
| answer.
| DisjointedHunt wrote:
| $100k - $5 Million is a valid range
| mywittyname wrote:
| Pay bands are the minimum and maximum that employees at a
| specific level are paid. So this only works if a company is
| legitimately going to hire people for $5MM a year and/or have
| existing employees at that level paid that amount.
|
| Also, such large pay bands will raise eyebrows, as they are
| indicative of discrimination. Why such wildly different wages
| for the same role?
| zeroonetwothree wrote:
| Because humans aren't interchangeable cogs?
|
| Let's consider the range of compensation for the "CEO" role.
| llbeansandrice wrote:
| These laws are not intended to help CEOs or people in tech
| already making 6-figure salaries before other compensation.
|
| These ludicrous edge cases are not a "gotcha" for a type of
| law that greatly helps pay transparency for the vast
| majority of the population.
|
| Even in tech this is helpful. What's the going rate for a
| new-grad SWE in Nashville TN? I certainly didn't know when
| I graduated. I had to get all the way to the offer stage
| before any numbers were discussed at all. Also no equity
| was involved anyway.
| killjoywashere wrote:
| This will work for a while, but have a look at how this has
| played out in other situations: 1) college tuition cost of
| attendance calculators (shit goes up every year), 2) federal pay
| scales (completely immobile), 3) healthcare standard charges
| mandate. This will eventually become oppressive as the powerful
| learn to communicate with this new node in the network.
|
| edit: not sure why the downvotes. Making information public
| increases market efficiencies, but market efficiencies don't
| always transfer to the workers. See: the last 30 years.
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2022-06-10 23:01 UTC)