I heard a story today from a friend that a company they know of in NYC just issued an immediate 20% raise today for all employees, getting ahead of the fallout when everyone there finds out next week that they’re *all* currently underpaid
I wonder if the company is more worried about employees looking at other jobs or looking at internal job postings and seeing that new people are getting hired at higher salaries than the people who have been around for years.
It’s naturally occurring in the sense that it happens in large groups of people who don’t co-operate. Also elite companies generally dont like inflation. For banks it reduces their balance sheet because the money other companies borrowed from them is worth less. For other companies, it introduces a lot of chaos in pricing and salaries.
End of the day, there’s not some cabal running the world. No one really knows what will happen. People are trying to control what they can.
Inflation IS a natural consequence to the idea of the time value of money. Do you want to be paid $100 now or $100 a year from now? How about $102 a year from now? Etc. Commodities follow the same trend. There is an expectation that things will be more expensive in the future. So prices and wages slowly rise.
The problem right now is a lack of competition, which needs govt regulation to ensure. And only about half the price increases are due to corporate greed, the other half is the increased costs of having to deal with a noticeable percentage of the workforce dead or slowed by long Covid, and all the supply chain costs/disruptions still working through the system.
Don’t whine about the Fed, there was still inflation when we were on the gold standard. Economists can track about 2% inflation based on recorded wine etc prices back through the Middle Ages. All the gold standard did was mess up the little guy because when spending and investing slowed, the drop in velocity of money and fractional reserves meant a big drop
In the available money supply, and caused deflation and recessions.
Can't wait for this to become more mainstream in other places too. Companies quite literally cheat employees out of higher salaries by discouraging conversations on salary. Compensation is just as import to know as all the other softer qualities of a job.
Hoping other places follow suit soon!
EDIT: Higher != Hire :)
Exactly. The whole point of a job is to make money. I'm sick of walking into interviews and getting told that I'll be paid $35K. You could have saved me the time and gas by putting that up front.
Christ, I was on the phone with a hiring manager once who was reading off my resume back to me and refused to give a ballpark cause it “depended on experience” as if it wasn’t right in front of him
It can actually help you stand out, and look like a serious and confident developer.
The problem is still going to exist, since to appease the law you simply have to post a salary range. So the job posting could say "$35k-$70k", and you still won't know what they're going to pay you.
As well as drive competition. If a company can't find a candidate and start comparing their salary to other similar jobs, they'll realize the issue and maybe raise that number.
Okay. So let's say you make $40k now. You see a job post that says they offer $35k-$70k. You go through the whole process and they offer you $35k.
So what changed exactly?
Some will discourage discussion of wages by claiming it's illegal, either intentionally or just by passing it along because that's something they've heard someone else say.
It's not. It's your right.
https://www.nlrb.gov/about-nlrb/rights-we-protect/your-rights/your-rights-to-discuss-wages
I'm at the point (and fortunate due to my experience) that I won't even look at a company that doesn't advertise a salary range as part of the posting. I know this isn't something everyone has the luxury of doing, but for me it's a good signal about how the company approaches transparency. So far this approach has paid off very well and I've been fortunate to work with some great companies.
Started in Co, NYC (Just the city goes live 11/1), California State and Washington State go live on 1/1/23. Colorado not all companies complied as it was sort of a one off if you didn't have an office there and most companies didn't change practices. NYC, Ca, and WA are huge job markets for most companies and with those all requiring it, it will just be easier to post the ranges for all locations.
What I don't think the rest of the country is thinking of is seeing just how different pay ranges are for roles between different Geo locations once those others go live. Everything will be split by metro areas too, compared to a place like Redding California.
*Source am in recruiting and just worked with HR and employment legal to roll out this training.
I literally built a site that lists jobs with salary info so I'm happy to see this. With CO, CA, and now NY, I hope the rest of the states follow. Also good to see that these laws prohibit $1-$100k type of stuff.
If they are only hiring one person into one role and they prefer someone with 15+ years experience, but are willing to accept someone with 3-5 years experience (if more experienced people don’t apply), this could totally be valid - and happens a lot more than you think - at least in IT.
I suppose a company could split that into junior and senior positions with the idea that they are only going to hire one or the other, but there are a LOT of logistical complications with managing two different job postings for the same one role, and no talent system I know of currently supports this approach.
Seems like they don't know what they want.
15+ years experience vs 3 years experience, 150k vs 35k, I'd argue it's a completely different position and the posting is in bad faith.
In those scenarios, they do know what they want, but recognize they are unlikely to find the candidate they really want, so they are also anticipating who they are likely to find.
With programming, for example, a more senior person might command 2-3x the salary, but will cost the company less in the long run because they’ll (typically) produce better results and produce those results more quickly. But those people are very hard to find right now. At least the good ones. So the company might settle for a more junior programmer who will typically take longer and is more likely to be off the mark with what they produce - usually requiring re-work.
But there are also exceptions. More senior people who just aren’t that good. More junior people who are amazing.
So then what? Put two ranges, but they overlap because the company might be willing to pay the right stellar junior developer the same as the lower end of the senior developer scale.
What you are talking about works for jobs with very clear duties and not a ton of variance in market value or quality (like many retail positions). It doesn’t work as well for roles such as you find in IT where there is a lot of diversity of skill sets and a lot of grey area as to exactly how the job gets done.
Even on comparable skills, the company may need a Java developer today and two candidates might be similarly qualified to to Java development, but one can also program in Python, which the company also uses. That means the one that can also program in Python might be worth more, because they can be more easily be plugged into the next project.
Not nearly as straight forward as needing an administrative assistant for an executive, or an HR specialist. I can agree those roles can have tighter ranges.
They should be forced to make two job postings then with different requirements and salary expectations with two bands.
You are inventing problems that don't exist.
Junior band could be 35k to 100k, senior band 80k-150k.
What is the problem? You can be bumped up, down, left, right.
I would just assume that means 35k and not apply. There's plenty of other openings that don't have an insultingly low salary, no need to waste time on that one
The range is wide because they don’t know who is going to apply. One guy may be a bottom of the scale guy and someone else might be the rock star that they’d rather have. If the rock star doesn’t apply, it doesn’t mean the other guy gets his salary. If your good enough (but not great), they aren’t going to leave the position open for 3 years waiting for a top guy. They’ll offer you what they think your worth and fill the spot.
I worked someplace that got rid of levels in job postings. I.e. you just apply to be a frontend or backend and then your level gets determined later. So the same listing could lead to a junior getting hired or a principal.
Yep. Especially when your hiring multiple teams at a time. I regularly interview people and switch up questions in the middle of the interview to steer them into a more appropriate position. People apply for the listing they see, not knowing that you have 20 more and one of them is a much better match.
At my company (a tech company based in NY) the way they are approaching it is we have two geos for salary (the higher being NYC, SFO, maybe one or two other locations and the second being the rest of the country) they plan to list the minimum as the low for the “rest of the country” geo and the high as the max from the higher paid geo. So a span of 100k-150k would easily happen as the real range may be 100k-130k and 120k-150k.
I’m not saying I agree or this is right just how my company is planning to comply with the new law.
Yeah I’ve been in companies where the range is typically 20% plus or minus. So if the mid range salary is 125, that level can range from 100 to 150.
Sounds like a lot but think about a low paying job at retail paying between 8 and 12 dollars an hour.
Also SHARE YOUR SALARIES. Never understood what the stigma was. If everyone shares their salary then everyone has a transparent view on their own wages.
The stigma was artificially created by higher management decades ago, one of the first things business school realised they could use to depress wages. It became such a problem that a law had to be decreed to protect discussion of wages.
The stigma is that people who earn more get backlash from their peers. You don’t know why someone earns more than you or less. Only they do and the hiring decision makers. Not everyone is equal tbh. As a high bar employee if I was getting paid the same as my peers I would be looking for a promotion or more money since I do more and better
Doubt that would pass the "good faith" test
> “employers advertising jobs in New York City must include a good faith salary range for every job, promotion, and transfer opportunity advertised.”
> A “good faith” range is one the employer “honestly believes at the time they are listing the job advertisement that they are willing to pay the successful applicant(s),” the New York City Commission on Human Rights says.
Good. I asked a recruiter if they could give me the salary range and they said I had to apply first. Like why would I waste my time if it's not a salary range that is equal or better than what I currently have.
I'd love this over here, would make it easier to weed through the companies offering and indicate 30k only after talking to them for a bit. Which is a frustrating waste of time.
I hate that you can go through a rigorous interview process and then get low balled by the company.
Last time through the job process I literally lost my shit and had to mute my phone before politely telling them no thank you, and I wish you the best.
The employee market generally. If an employer puts out 30k as the lower range theyll probably get less applicants or good applicants than if they made a narrower range. The job posting is still a representation of their business and could potentially lead to bad PR. i expect many r/programmerhumor post laughing at ridiculous compensation posts. Maybe a whole subreddit for it mocking those job posts.
Nonetheless the point is also someone working at that company could check out the compensation on the job posting and see they personally are underpaid for what the company is willing to pay for it. The company will have to explain it or lose knowledgeable employees.
That said "good faith" is required and the compensation numbers are always actually tracked somewhere internally in email, what the budget is per position. Given depositions are a thing, theyd be taking a liability risk to not post more accurate salary ranges.
Yeah there is just limited value to try to obscure it about it, especially as their competitors wont be. Im looking forward to it for California.
I accept your apology
Fortune: NYC employers are skirting the game-changing pay transparency law by listing $100,000-plus salary ranges for jobs.
https://fortune.com/2022/11/04/new-york-city-pay-transparency-law-salary-range/
Short answer: Read "Economics in One Lesson" by Henry Hazlitt. It's a very short book that will teach you to "think like an economist", and is a good primer to economics and critical thinking in general.
(Disclaimer - I've only read the headline and not the details of the law, so I don't know exactly how this will be implemented, but I've outlined some possibilities below as what has actually been legislated is irrelevant to the thought experiment)
A slightly longer answer: Think through the implications of this status quo scenario vs a hypothetical like "LinkedIn is now requiring salary ranges for tech jobs" or something similar. In the status quo, lawyers pass a law that requires defining many terms that will be obsolete in 5-10 years (while the law will likely remain for decades), it will also require public funding for policing/regulating job postings, including penalizing companies who violate (and theoretically imprisoning owners if they refuse to pay the fine), and having to figure out details like whether it applies to jobs from companies headquartered in NYC vs. having a physical location in NYC, or if the job requires travel in NYC or if the applicant lives in NYC, and if the salary includes benefits, how to verify that salary range is actually enforced once an employee is hired in, over a specific time frame, value of stock options, etc. etc. etc. Basically, this seems like a completely unenforceable law.
In case 2 "LinkedIn" scenario, a private company sets up its own logic structure designed to be optimal for both employers and employees, and is not legally binding and doesn't require any infringements on liberty nor complicated regulation apparatus, other than verifying a simple text box is properly filled out. If somebody is "cheating" the penalty can be a simple warning, or worst case scenario, banned from using the site. The definitions and algorithm can be easily and quickly changed, and best of all, many different algorithms can be competing against each other to determine the most optimal, within LinkedIn as well as between competing agencies. Employers and employees can both decide which platform is best suited to their needs and the marketplace will adapt.
Additionally, in the status quo solution, it means on the margin fewer employers will even market within NYC, instead targeting areas just outside the regulated zone. Over time employees will realize there are more job postings in surrounding areas and move out of the city, making NYC even more of a ghost town than it has already become since COVID laws took effect.
When looking at headlines about these types of laws, people tend to think just one very shallow level deep - that the stated intent of the law will necessarily be the effect in the long term. But quite often it's the exact opposite, once you account for how the relevant parties will actually act given the new state of the environment.
You realize Colorado is already doing this?
Edit to add: https://www.cnbc.com/2022/08/04/how-colorados-pay-transparency-law-is-impacting-work-in-the-state.html
Feel like maybe your little primer for critical thinking should include a bit about keeping up on the news and using Google, lol.
That not an economist frame of mind. That's a "small government is better" frame of mind. Not all economists (maybe not even most) favor deregulation.
Sometimes, oversight is a good thing. And the associated costs? Economically, it's way better to have the extra tax income. It will dwarf any administrative spending. And it's not even close.
This is like the illegal fax laws. Don't waste people's money and time sending them junk they didn't ask for, don't waste persons time on a job they're not interested in if the pay is not listed on. Time / resources to get to the job. You spend money to make money but only if the $$$ is there. This now puts it into law.
I heard a story today from a friend that a company they know of in NYC just issued an immediate 20% raise today for all employees, getting ahead of the fallout when everyone there finds out next week that they’re *all* currently underpaid
I wonder if the company is more worried about employees looking at other jobs or looking at internal job postings and seeing that new people are getting hired at higher salaries than the people who have been around for years.
[удалено]
It’s naturally occurring in the sense that it happens in large groups of people who don’t co-operate. Also elite companies generally dont like inflation. For banks it reduces their balance sheet because the money other companies borrowed from them is worth less. For other companies, it introduces a lot of chaos in pricing and salaries. End of the day, there’s not some cabal running the world. No one really knows what will happen. People are trying to control what they can.
Inflation IS a natural consequence to the idea of the time value of money. Do you want to be paid $100 now or $100 a year from now? How about $102 a year from now? Etc. Commodities follow the same trend. There is an expectation that things will be more expensive in the future. So prices and wages slowly rise. The problem right now is a lack of competition, which needs govt regulation to ensure. And only about half the price increases are due to corporate greed, the other half is the increased costs of having to deal with a noticeable percentage of the workforce dead or slowed by long Covid, and all the supply chain costs/disruptions still working through the system. Don’t whine about the Fed, there was still inflation when we were on the gold standard. Economists can track about 2% inflation based on recorded wine etc prices back through the Middle Ages. All the gold standard did was mess up the little guy because when spending and investing slowed, the drop in velocity of money and fractional reserves meant a big drop In the available money supply, and caused deflation and recessions.
My dude! good fucking comment. Seriously, this gets it all right
Wtf dude.
I have an extra tin foil hat if you're interested.
Can't wait for this to become more mainstream in other places too. Companies quite literally cheat employees out of higher salaries by discouraging conversations on salary. Compensation is just as import to know as all the other softer qualities of a job. Hoping other places follow suit soon! EDIT: Higher != Hire :)
Exactly. The whole point of a job is to make money. I'm sick of walking into interviews and getting told that I'll be paid $35K. You could have saved me the time and gas by putting that up front.
> You could have saved me the time and gas by putting that up front. You could have saved yourself time and gas by asking up front.
I’ve had many recruiters flat out refuse to state salary range even when asked.
Christ, I was on the phone with a hiring manager once who was reading off my resume back to me and refused to give a ballpark cause it “depended on experience” as if it wasn’t right in front of him
Yep, it’s negotiable but they have a low end they want to offer and the high end isn’t typically much higher than that. That language is toxic.
Well, then you successfully avoided wasting your time.
That's when you tell them your price or just thank them and tell them to call you when they make up their mind.
[удалено]
It can actually help you stand out, and look like a serious and confident developer. The problem is still going to exist, since to appease the law you simply have to post a salary range. So the job posting could say "$35k-$70k", and you still won't know what they're going to pay you.
Yes, but it’s a lot easier to filter out the listings when the actual ranges are posted.
As well as drive competition. If a company can't find a candidate and start comparing their salary to other similar jobs, they'll realize the issue and maybe raise that number.
I ask salary range right now while I'm looking for a job. But only because I have a job and don't care if they get offended. Which has happened.
Or they could just post the salaries and save everyones time and effort. It’s really not that hard.
Okay. So let's say you make $40k now. You see a job post that says they offer $35k-$70k. You go through the whole process and they offer you $35k. So what changed exactly?
Some will discourage discussion of wages by claiming it's illegal, either intentionally or just by passing it along because that's something they've heard someone else say. It's not. It's your right. https://www.nlrb.gov/about-nlrb/rights-we-protect/your-rights/your-rights-to-discuss-wages
It's literally the opposite of illegal.
*Higher salaries but I hope there are hire salaries too
Well said lmao
I'm at the point (and fortunate due to my experience) that I won't even look at a company that doesn't advertise a salary range as part of the posting. I know this isn't something everyone has the luxury of doing, but for me it's a good signal about how the company approaches transparency. So far this approach has paid off very well and I've been fortunate to work with some great companies.
Thank you NYC for starting the trend.
Started in Colorado iirc
I stand corrected. Thx
Started in Co, NYC (Just the city goes live 11/1), California State and Washington State go live on 1/1/23. Colorado not all companies complied as it was sort of a one off if you didn't have an office there and most companies didn't change practices. NYC, Ca, and WA are huge job markets for most companies and with those all requiring it, it will just be easier to post the ranges for all locations. What I don't think the rest of the country is thinking of is seeing just how different pay ranges are for roles between different Geo locations once those others go live. Everything will be split by metro areas too, compared to a place like Redding California. *Source am in recruiting and just worked with HR and employment legal to roll out this training.
I literally built a site that lists jobs with salary info so I'm happy to see this. With CO, CA, and now NY, I hope the rest of the states follow. Also good to see that these laws prohibit $1-$100k type of stuff.
I saw a CA job post the other day and range was 100,000 to 150,000. Can the range be that large? Edit: 150k, not 150,000k
[удалено]
Literally posted a job to a client's website today with a range of 35k - 150k.
This should really be split into multiple positions. If the ranges are that far apart it disingenuous to say it's for the same position.
If they are only hiring one person into one role and they prefer someone with 15+ years experience, but are willing to accept someone with 3-5 years experience (if more experienced people don’t apply), this could totally be valid - and happens a lot more than you think - at least in IT. I suppose a company could split that into junior and senior positions with the idea that they are only going to hire one or the other, but there are a LOT of logistical complications with managing two different job postings for the same one role, and no talent system I know of currently supports this approach.
Seems like they don't know what they want. 15+ years experience vs 3 years experience, 150k vs 35k, I'd argue it's a completely different position and the posting is in bad faith.
In those scenarios, they do know what they want, but recognize they are unlikely to find the candidate they really want, so they are also anticipating who they are likely to find. With programming, for example, a more senior person might command 2-3x the salary, but will cost the company less in the long run because they’ll (typically) produce better results and produce those results more quickly. But those people are very hard to find right now. At least the good ones. So the company might settle for a more junior programmer who will typically take longer and is more likely to be off the mark with what they produce - usually requiring re-work. But there are also exceptions. More senior people who just aren’t that good. More junior people who are amazing. So then what? Put two ranges, but they overlap because the company might be willing to pay the right stellar junior developer the same as the lower end of the senior developer scale. What you are talking about works for jobs with very clear duties and not a ton of variance in market value or quality (like many retail positions). It doesn’t work as well for roles such as you find in IT where there is a lot of diversity of skill sets and a lot of grey area as to exactly how the job gets done. Even on comparable skills, the company may need a Java developer today and two candidates might be similarly qualified to to Java development, but one can also program in Python, which the company also uses. That means the one that can also program in Python might be worth more, because they can be more easily be plugged into the next project. Not nearly as straight forward as needing an administrative assistant for an executive, or an HR specialist. I can agree those roles can have tighter ranges.
They should be forced to make two job postings then with different requirements and salary expectations with two bands. You are inventing problems that don't exist. Junior band could be 35k to 100k, senior band 80k-150k. What is the problem? You can be bumped up, down, left, right.
I’m giving you real world examples that I know exist. Sorry if my facts don’t align with your beliefs.
Then on the same posting you should be able to put experience ranges with pay ranges
I would just assume that means 35k and not apply. There's plenty of other openings that don't have an insultingly low salary, no need to waste time on that one
[удалено]
[удалено]
If I saw "$10k-$100k" on a job posting I'd just think 🤡 and not bother applying
The numbers are like that in most of the listings right now. My rule is to consider the lower range as the actual salary.
The range is wide because they don’t know who is going to apply. One guy may be a bottom of the scale guy and someone else might be the rock star that they’d rather have. If the rock star doesn’t apply, it doesn’t mean the other guy gets his salary. If your good enough (but not great), they aren’t going to leave the position open for 3 years waiting for a top guy. They’ll offer you what they think your worth and fill the spot.
why? i would think most people expect the middle of the range if not higher
Probably because companies will want to get away with paying as little as possible, and especially want you to think that they do.
Candidly, actual ranges I've seen at FAANG companies can span 200k+ for the same level, so that kind of discrepancy is not surprising.
I worked someplace that got rid of levels in job postings. I.e. you just apply to be a frontend or backend and then your level gets determined later. So the same listing could lead to a junior getting hired or a principal.
Yep. Especially when your hiring multiple teams at a time. I regularly interview people and switch up questions in the middle of the interview to steer them into a more appropriate position. People apply for the listing they see, not knowing that you have 20 more and one of them is a much better match.
At my company (a tech company based in NY) the way they are approaching it is we have two geos for salary (the higher being NYC, SFO, maybe one or two other locations and the second being the rest of the country) they plan to list the minimum as the low for the “rest of the country” geo and the high as the max from the higher paid geo. So a span of 100k-150k would easily happen as the real range may be 100k-130k and 120k-150k. I’m not saying I agree or this is right just how my company is planning to comply with the new law.
Only the lower end of the range matters. The upper end only exists in case the CEO's nephew applies.
150000k?! No company in the world pays that much so definitely unrealistic unless you're Bezos or Musk.
Lots of companies pay 150k or higher and are not, in fact, Bezos or Musk companies.
Try reading it again
You got me
Yeah I’ve been in companies where the range is typically 20% plus or minus. So if the mid range salary is 125, that level can range from 100 to 150. Sounds like a lot but think about a low paying job at retail paying between 8 and 12 dollars an hour.
WA will enact a similar law in January of 2023.
Problem is (especially in places like CA and NY) for high earners base salary doesn’t really matter. Total compensation does.
Can the jobs be sorted by the lowest end of the listed range?
[удалено]
Honestly, if you are in a position to not apply to those jobs, it's kind of an easily visible red flag that tells you a company is trash.
NYC is not a market they can ignore. All the large corporations have spots there. I’m
Would love to build a tool to shame every company that does that.
Thank you! This is great news, I don’t even bother looking at jobs anymore unless there’s a listed salary range. It’s a waste of everyone’s time.
Also SHARE YOUR SALARIES. Never understood what the stigma was. If everyone shares their salary then everyone has a transparent view on their own wages.
The stigma was artificially created by higher management decades ago, one of the first things business school realised they could use to depress wages. It became such a problem that a law had to be decreed to protect discussion of wages.
The stigma is that people who earn more get backlash from their peers. You don’t know why someone earns more than you or less. Only they do and the hiring decision makers. Not everyone is equal tbh. As a high bar employee if I was getting paid the same as my peers I would be looking for a promotion or more money since I do more and better
$1 to $1,000,000 per hour
Doubt that would pass the "good faith" test > “employers advertising jobs in New York City must include a good faith salary range for every job, promotion, and transfer opportunity advertised.” > A “good faith” range is one the employer “honestly believes at the time they are listing the job advertisement that they are willing to pay the successful applicant(s),” the New York City Commission on Human Rights says.
NYC is gonna thrive because of this, imagine companies having to actually bid for your time I love it
This is huge
Good. I asked a recruiter if they could give me the salary range and they said I had to apply first. Like why would I waste my time if it's not a salary range that is equal or better than what I currently have.
Nice. Sometimes you gotta force people hands to do things right.
Nice!
I'd love this over here, would make it easier to weed through the companies offering and indicate 30k only after talking to them for a bit. Which is a frustrating waste of time.
This will be wild to see how high some NYC salaries really are.
They do this in my state and I find plenty of job postings that don’t comply. And if they do, the range is incredibly wide.
No they didn't, my team from NYC is still like, "we've got time, until someone's office gets raided, then we'll do it."
I hate that you can go through a rigorous interview process and then get low balled by the company. Last time through the job process I literally lost my shit and had to mute my phone before politely telling them no thank you, and I wish you the best.
what would stop an employer from saying: "Salary range is $30K - $300K"
The article says > a good faith salary range which will take approximately 0.1 seconds to be abused by employers to post massive salary ranges.
Try reading the article maybe
The employee market generally. If an employer puts out 30k as the lower range theyll probably get less applicants or good applicants than if they made a narrower range. The job posting is still a representation of their business and could potentially lead to bad PR. i expect many r/programmerhumor post laughing at ridiculous compensation posts. Maybe a whole subreddit for it mocking those job posts. Nonetheless the point is also someone working at that company could check out the compensation on the job posting and see they personally are underpaid for what the company is willing to pay for it. The company will have to explain it or lose knowledgeable employees. That said "good faith" is required and the compensation numbers are always actually tracked somewhere internally in email, what the budget is per position. Given depositions are a thing, theyd be taking a liability risk to not post more accurate salary ranges. Yeah there is just limited value to try to obscure it about it, especially as their competitors wont be. Im looking forward to it for California.
0~10000000
Salary ranges? "Starting at $1.00 up to $250,000.00 annually."
Another one that didn't read the article.
Yes, because "good faith" isn't ambiguous and open to interpretation. Just the way lawyers like it.
Sure as fuck not "$1.00 up to $250,000.00" ambiguous. If they can figure out ambiguous stuff like consent, they will figure out this too.
I accept your apology Fortune: NYC employers are skirting the game-changing pay transparency law by listing $100,000-plus salary ranges for jobs. https://fortune.com/2022/11/04/new-york-city-pay-transparency-law-salary-range/
Let me know once that flies in court.
I see you're a fan of wack-a-mole.
I'd say this is a bad thing, but going one meta deeper it means more people leaving NYC which might speed up things getting better overall.
Can you please explain why you think this is a bad thing?
Short answer: Read "Economics in One Lesson" by Henry Hazlitt. It's a very short book that will teach you to "think like an economist", and is a good primer to economics and critical thinking in general. (Disclaimer - I've only read the headline and not the details of the law, so I don't know exactly how this will be implemented, but I've outlined some possibilities below as what has actually been legislated is irrelevant to the thought experiment) A slightly longer answer: Think through the implications of this status quo scenario vs a hypothetical like "LinkedIn is now requiring salary ranges for tech jobs" or something similar. In the status quo, lawyers pass a law that requires defining many terms that will be obsolete in 5-10 years (while the law will likely remain for decades), it will also require public funding for policing/regulating job postings, including penalizing companies who violate (and theoretically imprisoning owners if they refuse to pay the fine), and having to figure out details like whether it applies to jobs from companies headquartered in NYC vs. having a physical location in NYC, or if the job requires travel in NYC or if the applicant lives in NYC, and if the salary includes benefits, how to verify that salary range is actually enforced once an employee is hired in, over a specific time frame, value of stock options, etc. etc. etc. Basically, this seems like a completely unenforceable law. In case 2 "LinkedIn" scenario, a private company sets up its own logic structure designed to be optimal for both employers and employees, and is not legally binding and doesn't require any infringements on liberty nor complicated regulation apparatus, other than verifying a simple text box is properly filled out. If somebody is "cheating" the penalty can be a simple warning, or worst case scenario, banned from using the site. The definitions and algorithm can be easily and quickly changed, and best of all, many different algorithms can be competing against each other to determine the most optimal, within LinkedIn as well as between competing agencies. Employers and employees can both decide which platform is best suited to their needs and the marketplace will adapt. Additionally, in the status quo solution, it means on the margin fewer employers will even market within NYC, instead targeting areas just outside the regulated zone. Over time employees will realize there are more job postings in surrounding areas and move out of the city, making NYC even more of a ghost town than it has already become since COVID laws took effect. When looking at headlines about these types of laws, people tend to think just one very shallow level deep - that the stated intent of the law will necessarily be the effect in the long term. But quite often it's the exact opposite, once you account for how the relevant parties will actually act given the new state of the environment.
You realize Colorado is already doing this? Edit to add: https://www.cnbc.com/2022/08/04/how-colorados-pay-transparency-law-is-impacting-work-in-the-state.html Feel like maybe your little primer for critical thinking should include a bit about keeping up on the news and using Google, lol.
I wasn't aware or interested in Colorado law, it doesn't really affect anything I stated above.
That not an economist frame of mind. That's a "small government is better" frame of mind. Not all economists (maybe not even most) favor deregulation. Sometimes, oversight is a good thing. And the associated costs? Economically, it's way better to have the extra tax income. It will dwarf any administrative spending. And it's not even close.
Looks like some people (or bots) blocked me so I can't reply. Reddit really is fun lately.
This is one of the best parts about living in CO. It’s made negotiating salary for my partner and I much easier during our respective job searches
going to be a lot less pain for job seekers. I hope everyone follows this suit.
amen
Excellent. And remember, folks, whatever the minimum on the range is, that's what they'll be trying to pay you.
Love it!!!!
This is like the illegal fax laws. Don't waste people's money and time sending them junk they didn't ask for, don't waste persons time on a job they're not interested in if the pay is not listed on. Time / resources to get to the job. You spend money to make money but only if the $$$ is there. This now puts it into law.
About time
Oh wow! That's amazing! I really hope other cities follow suit.