Comments

You must log in or register to comment.

cote112 t1_iz5pi0y wrote

Will they make it so companies can't just put "40-200k" and consider that as being transparent with potential employees?

459

TTT_2k3 t1_iz5rbpf wrote

I was thinking “$1-$100,000,000”

123

joeyboii23 t1_iz6s949 wrote

I live in Colorado where this is already a law. Generally when looking for a job if I see a very high band I immediately know that it’s going to be on the lowest end of that and it’s probably not a smart idea to apply for that job. If I see a reasonable pay band I know it’s probably for real and I should apply.

1 - 10000000 would make me immediately skip to the next job post.

93

8urnMeTwice t1_iz6x8fs wrote

I saw a Palantir ad that claimed $30k for a developer, why bother?

Many people have suggested CEO pay rose after transparency rules were enacted. If it's good enough for your boss, it's good enough for you

26

MtFuzzmore t1_iz76ual wrote

If it’s a remote position and you’re in the US then you’re not their target candidate anyway. They’re shopping for somebody in South America who will do that job for that rate.

15

Fenastus t1_iz7613c wrote

Also in Colorado the range has to be reasonable

Not sure of the specifics of that though

11

hammonjj t1_iz76de8 wrote

It has to be a “good faith estimate”. I report any job listing I see without a range. Not sure how much good it does but there are supposed to be fines for it

18

Fenastus t1_iz76tit wrote

That's all well and good, but there needs to be specific language defining what a good faith estimate is. That's far too broad and open to interpretation to actually be effective. Enforcement would be a logistical nightmare as every company would end up trying to fight it, and companies that actually meant well might get flagged as well

4

joeyboii23 t1_iz7pnhk wrote

Yeah I’m not sure what’s defined as reasonable though, because I have definitely seen jobs in range of 50k - 150k. That’s a huge difference for the same job.

5

porcelainvacation t1_iz8sfxm wrote

That’s not unusual in engineering, the $50k is entry level and the $150k is 10+ year’s experience.

2

joeyboii23 t1_izag52v wrote

Makes sense for some jobs I suppose, but if it’s like a call center you better run.

1

vrenak t1_iz5tppu wrote

And to get into the last bracket from the 100k/yr to the 100M/year, you just need to have worked there for 80 years.

25

T-Wrex_13 t1_iz746mp wrote

Or you could just waste their time, go through the rounds, and then ask for the top end when you get to the end

7

p-d-ball t1_iz749a1 wrote

"I'll take the higher number, please."

7

SereneDreams03 t1_iz6sbbg wrote

Possibly, but as a job seeker at least you know what the low end of their offer is. Personally, whenever I am looking for a job that is the number I care about, because that is what I am going to assume they will pay me.

80

TheConboy22 t1_iz899iv wrote

Negotiating wages is the best way to get paid. Negotiated myself an additional 10k a year with my most recent job. It’s a bit nerve wracking, but know your worth.

19

SereneDreams03 t1_iz8b0g6 wrote

That only really works if you are in a position to negotiate, if they actually value your labor, most jobs are just looking to hire bodies to fill a certain role.

Maybe in your field negotiating a contract is common, but in my field there is not too much wiggle room on how much companies are willing to pay. If one company isn't willing to pay me what I'm worth, I just go to a different company, but that's why it's important that I know the salary range upfront, so I don't waste my time interviewing for a bunch of different jobs, just to find out how much they are willing to pay.

27

Dhiox t1_iz9vd07 wrote

I recommended a guy for a job I have, told him what I made and the dude managed to negotiate a dollar extra in pay to what i make, despite less experience and schooling. Now I know the absolute minimum i should be demanding for my next raise.

2

Lakersrock111 t1_iz9s749 wrote

I asked and they said no. How are you all negotiating?

1

TheConboy22 t1_iza2zst wrote

Confidently. Companies typically ask how much you think the job pays. I always high ball here. When they tell me a price I say that I like the job but for me to make the change that I’ll need to make around x (higher than they offered) they typically try to low mid me and we haggle to a middle rate. That’s my experience on it. You have to have reason to be paid more though. If the job is easily replaced by the next Joe than good luck.

2

Lakersrock111 t1_iza8ikz wrote

And which person decides? The hiring manager?

1

TheConboy22 t1_izaaa35 wrote

In my scenario. The person who is interviewing you decides. They make the determination if they want to hire you. They have a range of pay they can pay and want to pay you the lowest within that range.

1

santascumdumpster t1_iz90d3u wrote

$40 a year is a very, very, very, low, low end

1

SereneDreams03 t1_iz9tb5c wrote

That is exactly my point, if a company to list a job as $40,000-$200,000, then I would know that it is not even worth my time to apply because the pay will likely be $40,000.

2

DynamicHunter t1_iz6c3ie wrote

Hopefully a median makes its way into these laws. But the minimum posting is far more important than the maximum.

16

casicua t1_iz7hplg wrote

The law passed here in NY state this year, and they require “good faith” representation of salary range. I’ve already seen some hilarious ranges on job listings like “$50-150k DOE” or “$70-175k depending on location and experience”

The good news is that if job listings are any indication, I’m being grossly overpaid for my position.

9

cote112 t1_iz7ij04 wrote

Exactly why I was hoping one State might learn from another instead of acting like a separate country and making the same mistakes.

2

frogjg2003 t1_iz8crq1 wrote

Unfortunately, they only learn from each other when it comes to restricting rights. Actually making life better for the common man is every state for itself.

2

pamplemoussemethode t1_iz8oyqj wrote

I work in this field and deal with questions about this law from companies constantly, the "good faith" language is just as frustrating to the people who are asked to post ranges as it is to job seekers. The thing is that what you posted isn't a hilarious range at all...it's actually totally reasonable. It's just that it's covering a mix of multiple levels, and multiple locations.

Imagine a company is willing to hire anything from an L2 to an L4 for a role, in any geo from Fargo, ND to San Francisco, CA. But because they could theoretically hire in NYC, and already have one employee there, they have to post a range for the role. In theory, they could just post the NYC range for the role. But they'd still need to post the spread from L2 to L4, so the range already becomes broad. And then there's the fact that that's not what they'd pay in Fargo, so the range gets stretched even further in order to not mislead candidates in other markets. The result is a really wide spread, usually much wider than what you shared.

No one is doing a good job navigating this. In some cases I've seen businesses create multiple job postings just for specific markets, and give the exact pay range by level so that candidates get 100% accurate information. Then they get flooded with applicants that aren't in that market, and have to deal with wading through the noise, while also managing a bunch of duplicate job postings.

The pay transparency laws are a big positive for job seekers, but right now everyone is still trying to figure out the best way to follow them.

2

colemon1991 t1_iz9u0of wrote

Didn't one say $0-$1 million? I remember there was something idiotic like that from a news article. The position even required 3-5 years experience.

1

casicua t1_iz9vxr5 wrote

Somehow still less insane than a lot of listings that say stuff like “$20/hr Master’s Degree required”

1

Sariel007 OP t1_iz72fhm wrote

If only there was some way of knowing... like clicking the link and reading the article where it clearly spells this out.

3

cote112 t1_iz7cwj7 wrote

Yeah I did, it's about getting people taking about it lol

2

DoublePostedBroski t1_iz7bae8 wrote

It definitely needs to include language that says that the range given represents a .75-1.10 compa-ratio so that outliers are not included.

2

1x2x4x1 t1_iz8zq7y wrote

And then another law saying you need to pay within 20% range

2

Symnestra t1_iz5pe6b wrote

Hopefully there are consequences for lying. I've interviewed with so many places that had salaries posted only to be told, "Well the starting rate is actually-"

169

vrenak t1_iz5tycc wrote

Consequences should be company wide everyone goes to the high end of the promise, including CEO, no bonuses or other incentives can be given out.

56

Alexstarfire t1_iz8rquu wrote

Unless for some reason they tell you a higher number I would just get up and walk out. If they can't even get the salary range right why would I trust anything else they say?

5

onkel_axel t1_iz9pss5 wrote

Just ask them how they feel if you actually didn't go to college and leave.

1

Gremlin-Overlord t1_iz5og8g wrote

Please dear God, do this everywhere.

73

Sariel007 OP t1_iz71ac1 wrote

CO already has it too. I think CA might. Progress one state at a time.

24

MyAccountWasBanned7 t1_iz5t8q5 wrote

Now do the other 49!

This should have always been the case. The stigma around discussing and being transparent about wages (created entirely by predatory executives) needs to die.

61

Fishy1911 t1_iz5vd51 wrote

We've had this in Colorado for a few years. Some of the big tech companies exclude hiring remote here because of it.

46

forgot_to_growup t1_iz63gdc wrote

Which companies?

3

alnyland t1_iz64zmv wrote

I see this regularly, especially for remote - “remote available but not in Colorado”. It trends with the shittiness of the company, so I haven’t really bothered.

37

forgot_to_growup t1_iz72xr6 wrote

Interesting that shitty companies are opposed to transparency…….

9

TheRealMoofoo t1_iz73oc8 wrote

Maybe gonna be a little trickier with how large the tech presence in WA is.

5

forgot_to_growup t1_iz73vdq wrote

I was thinking the same thing. I live near Seattle and the tech presence is huge.

3

Fishy1911 t1_iz64ckh wrote

Great question. It was a few years ago, there were news articles about companies having the Colorado exception, when we first did this, so it shouldn't be hard to Google. I wasn't looking and I'm not in tech.

3

scdirtdragon t1_iz6hd4d wrote

California also starts new year, Colorado has had it a while, its coming state by state

13

alabasterwilliams t1_iz5wqoy wrote

In Minnesota, discussion of wages and earnings is not against labor laws, but your employer can stipulate no wage discussion while on the clock, which is where most employees get together.

It’s a fucked system, and if you ever shied away from the discussion of wages, you aren’t helping the situation.

12

DynamicHunter t1_iz6c6jo wrote

That sounds like it’s against federal labor law which supersedes state law

22

alabasterwilliams t1_iz792g6 wrote

It’s messy, but the languages allows wiggle room in an at will employment state.

I’m busy now, but the federal labor department spells it out pretty clearly.

4

scyber t1_iz6ny6g wrote

New York has this now. I had forgotten about it till I looked at some jobs my company recently posted

5

Festernd t1_iz72zuu wrote

*city

It's not the entire state, just something like 50% of the population :)

5

KittenKoder t1_iz77cuk wrote

As much as I wish we were, we're not the first to do this. ;)

1

destructivecupcake t1_iz6mnvg wrote

They should have to also post the median pay for the job, not the average or the range. Coming from a sales background, yeah one guy whose been there for 20 years is making $150k a year, but the rest of us who’ve been there 2 years are making $50k.

41

First-Celebration-11 t1_iz62t9e wrote

New York companies already dealt with this: “$0-$1,000,000”

30

__theoneandonly t1_iz6r8is wrote

There were a couple companies who tried to pull this in the first days, but regulators swooped in and let them know that wasn’t acceptable right away.

24

TheRealVillain666 t1_iz6r9m1 wrote

Or when employers advertise : €650 per week.

How fucking long is that week!

Tell me the hourly rate.

14

1nv1s1blek1d t1_iz7nm3l wrote

Every state should have this. They just started doing this in New York and it saves me so much time applying for jobs.

9

Clarkeprops t1_iz8j7kw wrote

There’s no labour shortage. There’s a wage shortage. Funny how these free market fucks seem to forget how supply and demand works.

7

Human_2468 t1_iz7iiil wrote

It would be nice to not have to be interested in a posting and find out it is below my current salary. I'm not going to make a move that is lateral or a step down from where I am now.

3

foxxof9 t1_iz7k76k wrote

I live in colorado. There’s still jobs posted without salaries, there is very little you can do about it and in some cases companies will outright refuse to hire you.

3

pamplemoussemethode t1_iz8pp32 wrote

NYC is taking it pretty seriously, reporting a violation is easy and each violation carries a $250,000 fine. There's a 30 day grace period to correct your first violation, but after that there's no getting out of it. California fines go up to $10K per posting. Overall, states are getting more strict.

5

Smallios t1_iz72xz1 wrote

Nice, we have that here in CO

2

KittenKoder t1_iz76wvh wrote

Hey now, we're a bit slow sometimes but we get there eventually. :P

2

Jplopinyourpants t1_iz7zatx wrote

It’s already a law in Colorado.

2

weauxbreaux t1_iz9sdyi wrote

It's awesome in theory but in practice,

A) Employers still don't post their ranges

B) Many employers just say "Nobody from Colorado will be considered"

1

djphatjive t1_iz8d38m wrote

We have this in Colorado and it’s awesome.

2

SurlyJackRabbit t1_iz950h2 wrote

Be careful what you wish for.

What happens when this is inacted is that each individual employee loses a ton of bargaining power. Wages flatten across the board and actually go down. Remember, your employer can see what everyone is paying so they don't have to compete as hard to get a good employee. And asking for that raise means you aren't asking for just you to get a raise... you are asking for every single person at your salary level to get a raise. Think that's going to happen? No more exceptions for top performers. Salary bands all the way. Good for equity, though, if that's your goal.

It's not as good as it sounds. Take it from a Coloradan.

plus and minus of pay transparency

2

Fozzymandius t1_iz9zaqt wrote

Your employer already uses industry wide hiring tools that have salary ranges and caps for positions by job title. Yes this can flatten wages, but it also gives people a better idea of what is out there and potentially more room to bargain.

I used a job posting with pay info (it was not required by law at the time) as evidence of need for a pay raise and was given a ~18% raise.

2

SurlyJackRabbit t1_iza5b2q wrote

Not saying that can't happen... you got lucky. Your employer is now open to a lawsuit unless they give everyone else with your same job title the same raise. Of course the employer is using tools already... but this kind of law makes the data feeding into those tools even better.

Overall, wages go down 2% when these kinds of laws are passed so your experience is the exception not the rule.

0

Fozzymandius t1_iza5r5o wrote

I got lucky that I negotiated a raise? No, I demanded it and the threat of me leaving for more money made them give me a raise. It was a real threat that I could easily follow-up on even today.

And there is no one else with my job title in this market for my company. I cover the entire PNW. Even if there was someone else they can't be sued for negotiating a raise with me.

2

SurlyJackRabbit t1_iza708m wrote

Yes, you got lucky... which isnt to say that what you did doesn't occur. It's definitely more the exception than the rule. If they call your bluff then you got to call their bluff and actually take that other job, which is generally a pain in the ass... Pay transparency is good for the company, good for equity, but bad for top performers since everyone has to be treated the same and your job has a much stronger negotiating position (genereally) since they can no longer approve raises for just one person.

0

Fozzymandius t1_izaepbs wrote

I won't say it was lucky because it was an ultimatum, which I was happy to enforce either way. It would be lucky if I was banking on the raise.

Pay transparency for wage brackets doesn't mean they can't approve individual raises. The wage bracket for my job is realistically $50-175k. It may be more of a problem if you're looking for a job with a small bracket of acceptable pay, but a company should be able to justify wages for top earners. You can easily tell people that they would need to demonstrate more skills and experience to earn higher amounts. Maybe you'd argue this opens them up to suits but I say a competent HR department would be able to demonstrate that pay is apportioned by actual metrics.

If it isn't then that smacks of discrimination against lower earning employees or nepotism/favoritsm.

1

fusionsofwonder t1_iz98say wrote

I'm in WA, and my company has two open positions in my job rating and I cannot wait to see how they update them.

2

AutoModerator t1_iz5hjng wrote

Reminder: this subreddit is meant to be a place free of excessive cynicism, negativity and bitterness. Toxic attitudes are not welcome here.

All Negative comments will be removed and will possibly result in a ban.

I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.

1

1x2x4x1 t1_iz7cjkg wrote

“Oh, we meant you’ll make it up in tips.”

1

JLock17 t1_iz9iy69 wrote

Needs to be the President one, not the rainy one. But good progress, none the less.

1

Mushu_Green t1_iz9ppjf wrote

i wish it was like this everywhere...

1

2goornot2go t1_iza447g wrote

I wonder if there will be any mechanisms to keep employers actually paying according to the salary ranges they publish. I used to work at a (big tech) company and found out at one point that I had been being paid less than what the range specified for a while and I wasn't aware of this (ranges weren't shared with us individual contributors lol) until I started working with a manager who went to bat for me to get me back in the range. Should be illegal to pay an employee less than what the employer specifies for that role/location and hopefully this is a big stride towards that.

1

Bgrngod t1_iza5ld9 wrote

I work in the ATS space and these laws rolling out, all with subtle differences, are really a lot to try and work with. There are some other state variations on wage notification for Nevada, Connecticut, and soon Rhode Island, where they opted to require this information is shared during the hiring process before the first interview or before the initial offer.

I totally support the idea behind it, and 100% understand why going down this path is a great idea. It's transparency that drives supply/demand theory. Buuuut... it's a patchwork mess right now.

For clients I work with that want to do it and support it, it's still a huge PITA to figure out exactly what the best way to handle it is. Their wage ranges are all over the place depending on regions, so the big discussion revolves around how to bucket particular regions. A lot of these setups started as one position with the exact same details flagged for the entire country. Now they have to split that up and maintain separate positions for each different regional pay range that needs to be posted.

Mix that in with how a lot of aggressive 3rd party job boards are scraping career pages without permission, and then creating their own postings as if the company with the job opening did it, and things get messy REAL fast.

1

gerd50501 t1_iz6z6gh wrote

so how wide can the range be

Minimum wage - $100k.

0

Sariel007 OP t1_iz727gz wrote

If only there was some way of knowing... like clicking the link and reading the article where it clearly spells this out.

12

VentingID10t t1_iz81h2z wrote

Yes, so now all job salary ranges become ridiculously large so it ends up meaning nothing. They'll just post, "the salary range is 33,000 to 87,000 depending on skills, education and experience."

0

Tavarin t1_iz87lz9 wrote

> According to the department, vague language such as "$60,000 per year and up" or "up to $29 an hour" won't meet the new law's transparency requirements.

5

AustinTreeLover t1_iz8abps wrote

Been job searching lately and sometimes under "job range" employers will put something like "$0-$100000/hr".

0

pamplemoussemethode t1_iz8pspw wrote

You should report this when you see it if the job posting is covered by a current law. No state allows you to post a range that you wouldn't be willing to pay.

2

Hiskus t1_iz8s4fu wrote

Living in France, I'm always surprised to learn that in the US you can post a job offer and not say what the salary is !

0

djdestrado t1_iz83lqg wrote

This will lead to far fewer jobs posted in Washington. More will be posted internally, locking out new entrants to the job market. Some companies will simply move elsewhere. Others will find or carve out loopholes.

−5

SpectralMagic t1_iz7ajkj wrote

Fucking useless I've seen this shit already, it does nothing assuming this bill does what I think I does.

"Acme Job Listing ($15,000-$76,000 Annually)"

−6

RealFrog t1_iz7hz0o wrote

It does tell you Acme is a bunch of lying scumbags who have no intention of paying anything above $15K so your time is better spent looking elsewhere.

11

Bitter-Basket t1_iz82b80 wrote

The insanity in my state continues. The concept of "equality" and "fairness"has been perverted beyond comprehension.

−6

Tavarin t1_iz87oh6 wrote

Because companies will have to be honest about what they intend to pay? How is that perverted beyond comprehension?

3

Bitter-Basket t1_iz886zt wrote

Who is seriously going to accept a job without knowing what the pay is ? You really need the government to wipe our asses for every aspect in life ? Insane.

−4

Tavarin t1_iz8bo44 wrote

This mis about applying to jobs, so people don't waste their time applying to jobs that pay less than they will accept. If no companies are posting salary info with their job postings, then people have to apply and go through interviews before they find out what it pays, thus wasting their time massively.

5

Darth_Vagrance t1_iz8bgij wrote

I can see thinking this is unnecessary... But bad? How is this in any way bad?

2

covertpetersen t1_iz9e3dm wrote

>Who is seriously going to accept a job without knowing what the pay is ?

So instead of knowing what the salary range is before a job interview, or even an application, you'd rather waste your time on those things and then find out the salary is too low?

Use your head

1

Bitter-Basket t1_iza7l8p wrote

Don't waste your time if that makes you uncomfortable. Use your head. You need the government to tuck you in at night too ?

0

Mers1nary t1_iz6n9b2 wrote

New Washington? Why the hell do we need a new state...And where is it?

−9

CamelSpotting t1_iz6upz8 wrote

Cause some goober decided to name a state and the capitol the same thing.

3

iNogle t1_iz7268o wrote

The initial name for Washington state was Columbia, but that was rejected due to its similarity to District of Columbia. Real forward thinking there

5

skylercollins t1_iz6nlsb wrote

Oh cool, more intrusion on free speech and free association.

−42

Sariel007 OP t1_iz71x7e wrote

Lol, if you have to straight up lie to trick people into applying for your company or to vote for you then you really need to re-evaluate your life choices.

10

skylercollins t1_iz7hz8m wrote

Then expose the companies that do that. Don't attack free speech and think you're doing a good and noble thing. You're not.

−9

hammonjj t1_iz76q9q wrote

And how exactly is this an infringement on free speech?

7

skylercollins t1_iz7hto0 wrote

Compelled speech is an infringement on free speech.

−6

Paradachshund t1_iz7onxh wrote

What's your take on warning labels? For example, overdose warnings on medications.

9

skylercollins t1_iz8b3qn wrote

Same thing. If the manufacturer and prescriber want to avoid liability for harming you then they will include overdose warnings as a matter of prudence.

0

Paradachshund t1_iz8fxo3 wrote

So if I'm following your philosophy, and let me know if I'm not understanding you, companies should be held liable if they fail to disclose a salary range of their own volition, and it should be something you could sue them over. Is that right?

2

skylercollins t1_iz9jcus wrote

No, you're not following me. Not disclosing a salary range does not bring actionable harm to anybody, not like ingesting poison or injuring yourself.

Duh.

1

Paradachshund t1_iza346u wrote

So is the line causing bodily harm to another party? That's where free speech should end?

1

skylercollins t1_izbar5k wrote

The line is aggression or the threat of aggression (the initiation of force against a person or property).

Telling a business they have to disclose a salary in their job listing is telling him that you're going to throw them in prison if they don't. All laws are backed up with force. Always. That's an initiation of force against non-force. I don't know about you, but that violates my most fundamental of principles.

1

Paradachshund t1_izbjhrw wrote

Is it true that the penalty is prison? And who goes to prison in the salary example? Wouldn't it be the company who's liable rather than an individual?

1

skylercollins t1_izbmffd wrote

Every law ends in prison, or death. Don't support laws that you wouldn't kill for. End of story.

1

Gullible-Medium123 t1_iz7o76h wrote

Do you consider other accurate labeling requirements to be free speech intrusions as well? (I'm not being snarky, I'm earnestly trying to better understand your perspective here.)

Like packaged food manufacturers being required to include ingredients and nutrition information; car manufacturers reporting miles per gallon according to a standardized test; property owners who wish to enforce access restrictions on their property having to post notice of such restriction ("no trespassing"); data collection companies having to let you know how they intend to use your data (privacy policy and terms of service); news services having at least a nominal duty to the truth; and so on?

6

skylercollins t1_iz8ayru wrote

>Do you consider other accurate labeling requirements to be free speech intrusions as well?

Yes, until it crosses the line and becomes fraud.

>Like packaged food manufacturers being required to include ingredients and nutrition information; car manufacturers reporting miles per gallon according to a standardized test;

Absolutely.

>property owners who wish to enforce access restrictions on their property having to post notice of such restriction ("no trespassing");

This should not be required but it is wise to do in order to avoid legal liability in the harm they bring to trespassers. "I didn't know I was trespassing because there was no indication I was on private property" should be a valid offense when suing somebody for harming you.

>news services having at least a nominal duty to the truth; and so on?

Absolutely.

Lying, defamation, hate speech, all of it are free speech and should be legally protected. Cancel culture can go where the law shouldn't.

2

Gullible-Medium123 t1_iz8bu5k wrote

Interesting. Thank you for taking the time to explain in more detail.

So far I quite disagree, but I don't think I've run into your particular stance before. I will keep an open mind as I research further.

1

skylercollins t1_iz9ji8a wrote

It's just the principled free speech stance taken to its logical conclusion. Wherever you disagree, apply that disagreement consistently across the board and you'll probably reach some very distasteful conclusions, at least I hope you would, assuming you're a kind and decent person.

0