Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

XediDC t1_iw5v9tw wrote

Reply to comment by MobiusCube in How NYC’s pay transparency law could help millions across the U.S. earn more money by strawberrykid_sg

That’s more reasonable, but I think your initial comment is being taken every way but that.

I still don’t agree, as the employer/employee relationship isn’t equitable in the first place. Likewise job postings are one sided, something done by the employer to the public — that is what is being regulated.

(And contractors and free-lancers holding out for hire generally disclose their rates/ranges, which as a “public for hire listing” would be the direct thing akin to the inverse of a job posting.)

1

MobiusCube t1_iw70pb1 wrote

>I still don’t agree, as the employer/employee relationship isn’t equitable in the first place. Likewise job postings are one sided, something done by the employer to the public — that is what is being regulated.

I think you're confusing "equitable" with "equal". Each side of hiring is certainly fair, both sides want something from the other as employment is a mutually beneficial agreement between the two parties. One side wants labor and the other wants money.

1

XediDC t1_iw7772b wrote

No, I meant what I said. There is no need for the legal requirement from employees, like is being done to regulate job postings.

1

MobiusCube t1_iw7uria wrote

Sure there is, employers don't want their time just as applicants don't want to waste theirs. Again, employment is a two way street.

2

XediDC t1_iwdv43h wrote

How is there a need for a legal requirement? What prevents any (US) employer from asking the question on their application and rejecting it if it isn't filled out?

As an employer, I have no need or want for that, especially for it to be required. It would actually make my life harder to get people paid what they should be in some roles, as many people undervalue themselves or their potential. Not to mention that at larger places you want to hire high to reduce turnover, as increases are much harder to get for someone later -- sucks, but you plan for it.

A job posting with a reasonable and narrow enough range to be useful is all that's needed...that someone is responding to it tells you what their range in, unless they tell you otherwise.

> Again, employment is a two way street.

Any how would a law like that even work...? When someone is holding out (the employer) what other laws even work the other way -- where the responder is required to provide certain information before any agreements are in place? Or would it be a law that makes it illegal to reply to a listing if you wouldn't accept it's range? Anything like that is non-sensical at best or downright evil in ways it could be implemented..

Employment in the US is very unbalanced in favor of the employer. I have almost all the power...the only real leverage an employee has is leaving, which hurts them too. I certainly don't need any more. Rules like this are part of making it a little closer to a two way street.

TL;DR: Nah.

1

MobiusCube t1_iwe5odk wrote

The same can be said for the employer's range. If an employee wants to know the pay range of the position, they can just ask. It's just as stupid and useless to require one as it is to require the other.

1

XediDC t1_iwe6hgl wrote

No, you're missing the "holding out" part I already mentioned in detail. The employer is making a public and regulated job posting asking for applicants. It's not the same, and it's not stupid or useless if it has enough teeth.

1

MobiusCube t1_iwe9y2o wrote

Holding out what? It's unbalanced if one party is required to reveal their price, but the other isn't.

1