[HN Gopher] Rising pay transparency causing an employer compensa... ___________________________________________________________________ Rising pay transparency causing an employer compensation information 'arms race' Author : rustoo Score : 53 points Date : 2023-11-06 19:54 UTC (1 hours ago) (HTM) web link (www.cnbc.com) (TXT) w3m dump (www.cnbc.com) | ghaff wrote: | So there's an _information_ arms race. | | But the story seems to suggest that the net effect isn't | especially pronounced. For the candidate, more information is | good I guess if it keeps you from wasting your time. On the other | hand, the story also seems to suggest that it's maybe leading to | more "take it or leave it" offers. (Though probably hard to | factor out from overall hiring levels.) | monero-xmr wrote: | Need to pay someone more in order to hire them? New job title - | "Staff Software Engineer, Algorithm Design". Wow I just created a | new pay band that's no longer bound by whatever was set for | "Staff Software Engineer". | rc_mob wrote: | Is this why companies have such weird job titles these day? | karaterobot wrote: | I applaud pay transparency, but reading the text of my state's | legislation regarding it (RCW 49.58.110), all I see is that it | says most employers must have a pay scale that is known to | candidates. My initial adversarial response as an imaginary | business would be to say "okay, the pay scale for this position | is between $0-$10000000, depending on qualifications". Now we're | back where we started, with the candidate having no valuable | information, and the company seemingly in compliance with the | law. Why wouldn't this work? | | Anyway, with regards to the actual article, I was wondering just | what mechanism supposedly made jobs with pay transparency harder | to negotiate from a recruiter's perspective. Is the implication | that there were _no_ hard salary bands before this, so recruiters | could sometimes offer 2x or 10x the salary? I 'm sure it happened | for exceptional candidates, even though it certainly never came | up when I negotiated my salary... | | But I'm wondering: did it happen so often that it affects the | overall statistics? That would be a moderate surprise to me. | rafaelmn wrote: | Because stating your pay range like that makes you sound like a | scammer ? | karaterobot wrote: | That's an absurd example, but you see what I mean. Change it | to $150-275k if that makes more sense. That's still a huge | range: it probably fits 75% of software jobs in the U.S. The | point is that you could still comply with the letter of the | law without giving candidates very much actual information. | ghaff wrote: | Which actually seems pretty reasonable assuming a median | somewhere around the middle. That's +/- ~$60K which is a | fair bit of money but seems like rational range for a given | role. | bee_rider wrote: | I'd expect (hope at least) that the courts would see listing | $0-$1000000 as an obviously bad faith tactic to subvert the | law. If it became a real thing that companies did, I guess the | legislature would just pass another law. | chongli wrote: | Then make it less obvious? Pay scale for this position: | Grade | Pay Range E | 40k-50k D | | 50k-60k C | 60k-70k B | 70k-80k | A | 80k-90k A+ | 90k-150k | | Grade will be determined by qualifications. Doesn't this | sound more like a good faith pay scale? | bee_rider wrote: | As long as it is possible to apply specifically for a grade | that seems fine, right? | Obscurity4340 wrote: | They should have to produce and justify it on the basis of the | previous salary the position required to fill. And I mean this | is the sense of them being forced to err on the side of | disclosure, I'm sick of this shit where companies always get | the discretionary aspect when they need cold, hard, regulation | and absolute liabillity. The burden needs to start shiftingto | the more facile and natural starting point: the business/hirer. | They're running the ship, they need to start charting a legal | and practicable course that respects the dignity of the sea of | jobseekers. | | This whole "based on qualifications" is stupid because there's | obviously a base level of competency required for candidates | and successfull candidates and at the end of the day, its more | reasonable to make the previous salary the baseline unless the | position has radically altered. If they lie, charge 'em with | wire fraud and swoop in as a lesson to the next jerk who wants | to play games with hiring and payroll | | Hell crowdsource it and turn the panopticon back on the abyss | where it belongs. | | Edit: just have a simple test like how much does the least | qualified yet acceptable candidate demand and work your way up | from there if they have your "special magic abillities"/quals. | olddustytrail wrote: | As mentioned, such an approach is an immediate red flag to | anyone applying. | | But also, judges and courts really aren't impressed with the | "but technically" argument. You will get locked up if you try | to play the smartarse. | contravariant wrote: | I'm guessing it wouldn't work because it is quite a lot easier | to tell when a company is being hostile when they're disclosing | information, as opposed to a company being reluctant to | disclose information. I mean, given the choice between a job | listing stating a pay scale of $0-$10000000 or $75000-$125000 | it'd be very optimistic to assume the former will actually lead | to a higher offer. | | Basically by forcing employers to state _a_ scale you force | them to bid against each other not only on the total amount but | also the specificity. When there 's only a few companies | disclosing any information at all this competition has little | effect, but this changes when they're supposed to say | _something_ (and I think courts will rule that $0-$10000000 is | not a real pay grade, one end is below minimum wage and the | other is probably higher than can fit in the budget). | | Of course is there's no enforcement at all it can still devolve | in the same meaningless pay scale everywhere. | karatinversion wrote: | But then you need to run your business with that salary range - | if you put it in writing to your hr people or hiring managers | that the maximum they can actually offer is $less_than_that, | those emails will come out in discovery. | yowzadave wrote: | And if the floor of your salary range is lower than that of | all your competitors, it will make it harder to attract good | applicants to the position; I definitely notice the bottom | end of the range when looking at job postings. | slg wrote: | >Now we're back where we started, with the candidate having no | valuable information, and the company seemingly in compliance | with the law. Why wouldn't this work? | | Maybe that doesn't tell a candidate the actual pay range of the | job, but it definitely is valuable information that tells you | about how the company operates. I wouldn't want to work | anywhere that does that because it shows a contempt for both | the law and prospective employees. | blibble wrote: | > I applaud pay transparency, but reading the text of my | state's legislation regarding it (RCW 49.58.110), all I see is | that it says most employers must have a pay scale that is known | to candidates. My initial adversarial response as an imaginary | business would be to say "okay, the pay scale for this position | is between $0-$10000000, depending on qualifications". Now | we're back where we started, with the candidate having no | valuable information, and the company seemingly in compliance | with the law. Why wouldn't this work? | | tighten up the disclosure requirements | | example: produce the distribution, at 5% resolution with a | range 2 SDs around the median | jdwithit wrote: | Netflix literally does (or at least did) this. It's not even a | hypothetical. | | https://finance.yahoo.com/news/90000-to-900000-pay-transpare... | seattle_spring wrote: | Netflix actually does pay $900k to a non-trivial amount of | employees though. | johnny99k wrote: | Pay transparency only helps the employer in the long-run. It | essentially allows every employer to collude on how much they | will pay a candidate. It also allows the employer to take most of | your negotiating power away. | | It might work right now because not every company is transparent, | but if these laws were in place everywhere, it will be a | different story. | | "Pay transparency in some ways moves the competition away from | salaries, away from wages and toward non cash benefits, or toward | equity comp, toward flexibility," | | This puts more of the risk on the employee with very little | control over how the company is run. Equity often forces you to | stay at a poorly-run company or with a terrible manager because | you won't be able to cash-out for at least a couple of years (if | at all). | | I would much rather have the money up front and invest as I | please. | programmarchy wrote: | I doubt this take. How is every employer going to collude? | johnny99k wrote: | It will be public information, hence 'transparency'. | Kirby64 wrote: | Employers already can pay for this data through companies | that literally provide this. Employees do not have access | to the same data due to cost (unless you count stuff like | levels.fyi or Glassdoor). How would making this info more | public help employers more than employees? | cjensen wrote: | Employers already had a form of pay transparency in market | research. Typically business pay to receive compensation ranges | in return for money and for data. | jghn wrote: | Why would this reduce negotiating power outside of cases where | one *shouldn't* have leverage in the first place? | | Someone who just happens to be a smooth talker shouldn't be | earning more than someone else. If they actually bring more to | the table, that is why they should earn more. | | In a company with transparent compensation you have access to | what everyone else is making so you can demonstrate you bring | more value to the company than other people making $X. | chrismorgan wrote: | I looked at some job listings in last week's whoishiring thread | out of curiosity. Saw one company listing a salary range of | $1K-1M on one job and $10-100K on another. | phendrenad2 wrote: | This kind of malicious compliance is what everyone said would | happen, but to be fair most companies with any sense are too | risk-averse to give that wide a range, and they actually give | you a realistic idea of what the role will pay, with the low | end being their lowest CoL location and the high end being | SF/NYC/etc. YMMV of course... | Etheryte wrote: | I mean, that's a good signal, they're actively letting you know | you should avoid them at all costs. | airstrike wrote: | You also sort of know it's definitely not a $1M or $100K pay | for either of those | alwaysrunning wrote: | The problem with the added benefits is that you don't get their | true value until after you have started working. To say that the | employer covers your cost for health care might sound great until | you see the level of HC they offer, or we cover PPO but not HSA. | We offer 401K but no matching, or 1% matching, or ...you get the | idea. So these perks can be misleading and you may turn down a | higher base thinking you are getting a better overall package | when in fact the opposite is true. | jghn wrote: | 100% of job offers I've had over the last few decades has come | with access to information like "we cover PPO but not HSA" and | "but no matching, or 1% matching". | ghaff wrote: | Typically information about things like matching are available | up-front and pretty easy to value. | | Medical, including things like disability is the major benefit | that's hard to value. Even if you get all the information, it's | hard to know how good or bad a given plan is and the value of | various options for your specific situation. How do you even | value disability plans. ___________________________________________________________________ (page generated 2023-11-06 21:00 UTC)