You must log in or register to comment.

TheChef44 t1_iw1f36f wrote

Except major corporations are still finding ways around showing salary transparency


[deleted] t1_iw1t2r0 wrote



Odd_Alternative2875 t1_iw1wfyk wrote

That’s so funny… also very helpful in filtering out bad employers from your search


CreamofTazz t1_iw252kh wrote

Yeah employers who don't want you to know how much they're paying, are paying far too little for what they want you to do. I think that means it's working as intended.


Master_Winchester t1_iw2frhv wrote

Report that shit! There's language in the law that the salaries posted need to be in good faith. NYC lawmakers aren't trawling the Internet for bad job posts. The only way they find them is if people report them.


fryseyes t1_iw31psg wrote

NPR reported Citi banking had one a 0-2,000,000. Don’t think anything has been done about that.


railbeast t1_iw48bdt wrote

Where is this job, let me apply. I'll waste their fucking time at the interview level.

Or get a job that pays 2 million a year.


ElevatortotheGallows t1_iw3fajj wrote

Report them to whom? LinkedIn does not seem to have a report for this last time I checked and when I sent a support request asking how to report a job that does not comply with NYC law they basically ignored it.


Master_Winchester t1_iw3qyeb wrote

I have these two comments saved from other users: "Don't just submit tips on the website. File actual complaints to force the agency to respond to them. This link explains how to file complaints, to whom, where, when, how, etc."


Report violations here:

Violations include salary not appearing on any job posting open to NYC residents, whether in person or remote. Includes perm and contract. Includes new hires and promotions/transfers. "


Sonic_Is_Real t1_iw4hcoa wrote

Only the best will apply in that case, gunning for that 10 mil of course /s


pixel_of_moral_decay t1_iw35m29 wrote

That’s because not all jobs pay purely in salary. Many jobs are also stock, which is excluded as the law only covers wages not compensation.

There’s a lot of people working for $1 because they want all stock, and need to accept $1 by law.

There are also executives who don’t take jobs that are stock based compensation because they value diversity in their investments. Having your job and money invested in your job means if something happens to your employer not only do you lose your job, your investments are shot too.

People in either bucket thing the other is an idiot.

And it’s not always executives. Lots of startups pay little bit pay in equity.

They also don’t have to disclose things like 401(k) specifics (you and your coworkers might not be getting the same matching), health plans etc.

A better version of this law would just be to open up tax returns and make them searchable.


Lucavious t1_iw1fk92 wrote

Some are, sure. But my state does not have those laws and most of the job postings I see have them so it’s clearly having a positive impact.


TheChef44 t1_iw1frzf wrote

That’s good to hear. I just can’t stand seeing salary ranges from 80k-210k


aBoyandHisVacuum t1_iw2i7xo wrote

As a side note. That literally is the range of my position. I may come in at 130 with 10 years experienc. But the new guy will get 80k. However my senior peers with 20 years of experience will land closer to 200k. Also depends on degree. But that is an accurate range for a senior specialst.


Forgot-My-Name_again t1_iw2llre wrote

Same in my field. We are offering a guy 85 right out of school next week, I make near 150, and our top specialist makes about 180. It's a technical field where experience matters.


Willingo t1_iw3asdb wrote

Seems like there should be at least one other title then


zypr3xa t1_iw1porj wrote

Thats how it goes in Colorado now.


MrGizthewiz t1_iw2v6nb wrote

Either that or they just add in the job description they aren't hiring people in Colorado.


Gnawlydog t1_iw2kqc5 wrote

Why? You ignore the 210K.. I see that and I see salary 80K so when I see another company with a salary range of 100-150K I know to avoid the first one. ALWAYS ignore the 2nd number.


rugbysecondrow t1_iw2areu wrote

Many companies have listed salary ranges for decades, well before this law.


TheChef44 t1_iw2i2vg wrote

Missing the point


rugbysecondrow t1_iw2nltn wrote

"so it’s clearly having a positive impact."

somebody doesn't understand correlation vs causation...that is the real missing point.


TheRealMicrowaveSafe t1_iw2alqm wrote

And those ways are blatantly obvious and do the exact same job as a posting showing a shitty salary.


VietOne t1_iw2wnds wrote

Those ways are making them more transparent that they are crap to work for. So not much of a workaround when it's an immediate red flag to have stupid salary ranges.

The benefit to people looking for jobs far outweighs any negatives.


username0304 t1_iw2lw3y wrote

Yeah all they do is put a ridiculous range and then just pay whatever the lowest salary is on that range.


IliveinaMovie t1_iw2lcjz wrote

My boss and colleagues have been trying to get me to take a promotion- which I haven’t really been interested. But lately I’ve been asking more questions about it, including what the pay range is, and was told there ISN’T a range. The pay fluctuates depending on the applicant, experience, etc. I’m confused, that’s what a RANGE is?? I’ve never heard of a position NOT having a pay range. Anyone else?


TheSpanxxx t1_iw2ngr5 wrote

How big is the company?

If they have an HR team of any size, then there is a range.

There is always a range though. It may just be 0 to a billion..

More importantly for you though is don't ask them what the rate is, know it. Go look for yourself and do research. Know the value of the role you are applying for and the value of your skills. It gives you the confidence to negotiate for a fair wage.


IliveinaMovie t1_iw2tvre wrote

I appreciate it! You’re right, I need to do my own research. It’s a very large international company, which makes it even more fishy. They also said there’s zero negotiating on pay…. You get your offer and either take it or leave it.


justsomeplainmeadows t1_iw30erg wrote

That's BS. There's always room for negotiation when it comes to promotions.


Slowknots t1_iw35tn2 wrote

Ummm no. They can move on the next candidate.


findingmike t1_iw3fqnr wrote

It's also possible that they would try to shift those responsibilities onto her and do without the new position. This has happened to me a few times.


time_to_reset t1_iw4po8y wrote

That's why it's called negotiation? They may have someone else and use that as leverage to offer less. Similarly, you might have another job offer and use that as leverage to negotiate more.


justsomeplainmeadows t1_iw5qtdu wrote

And that's their move. But they risk losing a supposedly good employee to someone who is willing to pay more. What I'm basically saying is that having a non-negotiable term on compensation is bad practice if you wanna keep good employees


Slowknots t1_iw6zodk wrote

Everywhere I have worked - from private companies to - fortune 100 company practices putting thier best offer 1st. It’s the only one that will be given. There have been rare exceptions when someone had a special technical skill. Good HR and management teams know what competitive competition is. It’s j their best interest to offer it 1st.

Negotiations don’t help the companies. Showing they will stick to their original offer is in their best interests. People can be replaced unless the are a special butterfly.


manowtf t1_iw3315n wrote

There's no loss to you if you go for it and are offered the position. If you don't like the pay, then say thanks but no.


mekareami t1_iw467cg wrote

My large international company just broke profit records and decided that 90% of the company deserved no raise and the ones that got one got 3%

Here is hoping next year we break record for quickest downturn of profitability. They turned willing workers interested in company success into bitter people looking busy while they job search. The only joy at have at work these days is processing the quits, everyone of them fill my heart with joy knowing it will take 8 months minimum to replace them because giant companies move slow on hiring process.


[deleted] t1_iw3omh8 wrote

That is still negotiating, just shitty negotiating.


ibidanon t1_iw5pfw6 wrote

[gasp] OMG don't ever do your own research!!! [/s]


tellme_areyoufree t1_iw37yot wrote

Sometimes there are set pay schedules. For example, I'm a physician. Physicians in X specialty at my clinic start at a salary, physicians in Y specialty start at a slightly different salary. There is no negotiation. That is the salary offered. It increases with each year at the organization. Everyone has the same access to other ways to increase salary (like taking after hours calls nets everybody the same bonus).

Maybe ask if that's their setup. A pay schedule that's predetermined. You might mean to ask the range of possible salaries depending on factors like experience, and they may misinterpret your question to mean a negotiable range in which your personal salary might fall.


kit630 t1_iw3qubx wrote

They basically said "No, it's not a range. It's unlimited." Ask for something exorbitant 🤘😎


Bankzzz t1_iw3y9dh wrote

Throw an absurd number out there like $400,000/yr. I bet they’ll suddenly remember what the range is.


Boateys t1_iw42mfm wrote

Rephrase. Ask them what their budget is for the position. They may not have a “range”, but no matter who is in charge of the salary ceiling, they have a budget they can’t go over.


TheFreakish t1_iw2ulw8 wrote

Sounds sketchy. Do you not fit in by chance? Are they maybe just trying to get rid of you?


IliveinaMovie t1_iw2v92i wrote

Not at all. I’ve worked there for 3 years and probably in the top 3 performers in my current position. It’s a company based in France, and I’m in the USA. I have a feeling they might just be low-balling employee pay and they don’t want people talking about it.


Pixielo t1_iw4jixo wrote

If the offered salary isn't enough, ask for more PTO, or other benefit that you like.


LippySteve t1_iw2o26n wrote

I just went to an interview for an ad that quoted it paid $21 - $27 based on experience. I have tons of experience and was told it's actually $21 no matter what, lol.


aBoyandHisVacuum t1_iw2vk7q wrote

They are lying to you. Every company does this. You are worth more. Keep going. :)


DoomBot5 t1_iw2w4y4 wrote

His whole point was that there was no salary range. Experience didn't matter.


HackTheSystem-90 t1_iw39dnr wrote

What companies do to circumvent this is they advertise $21-27, but $27 is only “for experience within the company” i.e. “we can pay you for your experience up to $27 if you stick around long enough”.

Companies that do this need to be penalized.


WORKING2WORK t1_iw3jfnh wrote

If you get a 3.5% raise each year for 8 years (staying in this position), you'll hit the max of $27. Unfortunately, due to hopefully only moderate inflation, you will have effectively received no raise at all. It's possible that if inflation outpaces your yearly raise, you are taking a pay cut.

If that range never increases after those 8 years, the company is extra screwing everyone they fill into that position going forward.

If you stick to the same job without moving up to a higher job title in those 8 years, you're either unambitious, not a strong performer, or the company doesn't think you are a strong performer. There are other factors which may prevent you from moving up, but those are the basic ones.

You may even enjoy the job enough to not see a reason to change things, which is perfectly fine, though keep in mind getting too comfortable at a company where you've maxed out your potential earnings means you will effectively start losing money due to inflation.

Finally, this is all assuming the company even gives out yearly raises. If you're working for a company that waits for you to beg or demand a raise, especially if they deny any sizable raise which would compensate for inflation, they're grifting you hard and you need to seek employment elsewhere.


HackTheSystem-90 t1_iw3kw3g wrote

This is where I’m at now buddy, the job posting for my role is actually now $880 more than what I’m making after 3 years. I’d literally make more money if I quit and reapplied for my role


MnkyBzns t1_iw3zsxp wrote're applying elsewhere, right?


HackTheSystem-90 t1_iw4fn0i wrote

Oh yeah, been saving up to leave this job, I hate my field and hopefully by next year I’ll be out!


LippySteve t1_iw45ien wrote

That's why I'm leaving my current employer actually. They gave me a raise to less than my peer they just hired is making. We literally work in the same role and both have the same background and abilities.


The_Original_Miser t1_iw2zyqk wrote

I want to say "report them" ?

At first glance that smells like fraud?


LippySteve t1_iw30pzq wrote

Report them for what? They technically offered within their posted salary range.

This is just how companies will side-step regulations requiring they post a salary range. Always assume the pay is the bottom number and be prepared to be told about some "potential earned incentive" opportunities when you fight it.


Genericwood t1_iw38ldf wrote

Skip that job and go to the next one lol. They're ganna definitely have a bunch of people not taking it and then bump their standards to half way $23-$24. Unless someone desperately needs that job. I've seen a job I applied for raise their salary range after a few months because no nobody wanted that job.


WoodenPicklePoo t1_iw3buo2 wrote

Really? My first thought is that this person clearly doesn’t have the relevant experience they’re claiming to have


The_Original_Miser t1_iw3faf6 wrote

$21 no matter what implies to me that the company is complying with the law in writing only.

Now. If person above said "for you based on your experience we will pay $21" well, that's a different matter entirely.


LippySteve t1_iw46768 wrote

They were asking for 2-3 years of relevant experience in about 3 areas. I have between 6-8 years in every area and according to their own words killed the interview.

I was everything they were hoping to find and more according to the manager that offered me the job. Unfortunately they're budgeting $21 per hour for this role with incentive opportunities and a benefits package, lol.

It's alright, I'm going back to college next fall and I found a job willing to pay me the $26-$27 range I'm worth until then.


WoodenPicklePoo t1_iw4a4rx wrote

So the person who hires you is always going to say that.

Best of luck going back to school. I was in your shoes and went back to grad school as an adult and am much happier now


hoonew t1_iw1qk8c wrote

I think this will provoke employers to inflate their quoted salary ranges by making them "OTE" (On Target Earnings) and then set those targets quite high.


CeolSilver t1_iw2id39 wrote

Outside of sales very few jobs would have formal defined OTEs

If anybody in my industry started saying I need to be sitting certain business targets to get my full salary they’d be laughed out of every job interview.


narwhal13 t1_iw2pxvh wrote

Working for a division of a fortune 500 and our bonus are tied to OTE/DNE. Which was a large part of the salary according to the interview, bonuses drop 90%+ 2 years ago. Grossing 2k-3k a quarter bonus is now an annual net about $500 (taxes).

On top of that, they have shrunk the workforce by 25% over those 2 years to save money. Heard our building went from 300+ to around 130 people over last 10 years and we are hitting record sales numbers but not enough for bonuses.


enragedcactus t1_iw2rcba wrote

We’ve had the law for almost a year now in Colorado and this isn’t what’s happened.


WYWYW t1_iw3mp41 wrote

Exactly. Sure, there's a few companies that blatantly try to skirt the law. Others provide broad ranges. But plenty of companies have started including reasonable ranges in their job postings and that's already a huge improvement in transparency from where we were a while back. If NY and other states follow, at one point it will be easier for companies just to include the range in all of their job reqs.


Anakaren152 t1_iw2z5su wrote

Thanks to this new law, I found out I’m getting anywhere from $20k-$40k underpaid.


Au_Sand t1_iw2bkhm wrote

The Economist did a great study that found "pay transparency" laws actually result in an overall pay decrease of 2% to 6%...


mikescha t1_iw2ecbx wrote

Where is that study? I can't seem to find it. Was it cited on their podcast? If so, it might be the one below.

It found the laws lead to 2% declines, because:

"Our model predicts that transparency reduces the individual bargaining power of workers, leading to lower average wages. A key insight is that employers credibly refuse to pay high wages to any one worker to avoid costly renegotiations with others under transparency."

Another study posited that posting salary ranges provides information to other companies about what the role is worth, potentially leading to a form of collusion. This seems similar to the idea above.


enragedcactus t1_iw2rv6v wrote

My wife runs an HR department. She’s never had an issue doing market analysis to figure out what comp should be for different roles. There are tools and applications out there that already helped with this stuff. We live in Colorado so yes, it’s become a bit easier this last year. Nonetheless employers already had no issue figuring out what roles were worth. Collusion happened pretty recently without this in places like Silicon Valley with tech talent.


Fozzymandius t1_iw382w6 wrote

What sort of tools are there, names would be great especially if it's possible to access them as a private person. I use the OOH and what paltry other information I can find.


enragedcactus t1_iw4wenv wrote

As a private individual not wanting to spend money you’re only going to have access to things like Glassdoor.

If you want to spend a boatload the services are called comp surveys and there are a “bunch of companies that do them” (quoting my wife here).

A small positive externality is that these new laws will put downward pressure on comp survey pricing.


Au_Sand t1_iw2vmac wrote

It was cited in their recent podcasts on the subject. Maybe 2 days ago?


rugbysecondrow t1_iw422xf wrote

This. As an employer in a system with less transparency, I am more apt to give larger raises to people who actually deserve them. With transparency, I am less likely to give larger raises and I am incentivized to keep all pay low and all pay as equitable as possible, even though we all know employees are not equal.

This stat seems totally plausible.


XediDC t1_iw4p5j8 wrote

You just create different titles for the folks that would get larger raises.

So then the person promoted to “Sr CS Rep” or “Dev Level IV” or “VP, Product Ideation” gets a larger raise, and it’s still transparent and equitable. Plus it’s a more clear progression path for everyone to aspire to, while also allowing for defined well-paid non-management roles. Similar job roles can have some responsibility differences that make sense and that probably already occur. The title is also rewarding in its own right, while also helpful on their resume.

It’s not that hard, at least if you have the power to make the decisions to do it…within an existing corp it takes more wheedling.


rugbysecondrow t1_iw5d7bv wrote

Sure, but not every raise comes with a title change, nor should it.

If I have 5 baristas, and 2 are better than the three, I should be able to reward the better ones without a promotion, title change etc.


XediDC t1_iw5wpsv wrote

If it would cause an issue if pay was discussed (and I’d assume it will be) or transparent, then maybe a connected title or some other attribute could still help?

It’s been ~20 years since I’ve done retail mgmt but at the time I recollect at a small place we had a Store Manager, Assistant Manager, “3rd key” (don’t remember the real title), “Shift Leaders” and reps.

The “shift leader” position was a slightly higher paid position for exactly what we’re talking about. A bit of money and prestige, but not actually a supervisor or any real extra responsibility beyond what those that excel at naturally do. (The name wasn’t great as it did imply mgmt…I’d prefer something not sounding management. “Sr Barista” or “Coffee Artist” or…I dunno.)

Then the 3rd keys were entry level management that has keys to the building and could work without other managers there. But didn’t have to make major decisions, scheduling, were still hourly, and we always had a non-3rd key there on some other shift during the day.

Both served well for that middle ground, depending on if they should be and wanted to have any potential leadership role, or a non-leadership option for just really good at your job. (The latter I think is important, as a lot of great employees suck at managing people…an issue I see a lot in the corporate world.)

Anyway, just thinking out loud. Hope that doesn’t sound too critical. And I was on my phone with a headache for my first response which…was snippy.


chrispyb t1_iw2dmhe wrote

Here's a podcast from them, haven't found a full article or study yet


TNI92 t1_iw2oz16 wrote

They make reference to a series of 9 studies that mention that the average pay for workers as a group goes down by 2% against the status quo because employers are less likely to give bigger raises to top performers, knowing they will have a fight on their hands with lower paid employees.

In the positive side, they mention the pay gap between men and women (negotiation is often cited as one of the reasons for the pay gap) gets smaller.

As someone who doesnt live in NY but in a business that is very prevalent in NY, the bands are very helpful in understanding what the top end of the pay range should be. I can make my own cost of living, etc. Adjustments.


shitposts_over_9000 t1_iw2hhjl wrote

I mean, it makes sense that it would. At least for some positions..

Almost no career salary positions have a set rate at the time of making the job posting. The hiring manager has a budget and a pay band.

So they either post a wide enough range that they aren't tipping their hand to the competition or they post a specific target and lose the upper 1/3 of their applicants.

If you go the first route then nothing much changes, if you go the second route then you end up hiring less which means you have more spend on retention, less of your staff looks for new jobs so they advance less in career pay over time.

There is also for larger corporations the effect of location choice. Most of the places passing laws like this are already very high cost of living regions. The additional compliance costs is one more factor to lead them to choose a low cost of living alternative.

We have posted a lot more positions in the Midwest recently because of things like this for example.


M3Core t1_iw35bx7 wrote

I just want to mention, Colorado is already doing something very similar. 😉


taicrunch t1_iw39n9p wrote

Colorado has consistently been way ahead of the curve with a lot of legislation. Legalizing weed and taxing it to fund public education, fully funding IUDs for any woman that wants it, and just recently voted to legalize mushrooms and other hallucinogenic drugs.

Still couldn't pass a bill to allow wine to be sold in grocery stores, but at least they made somewhat of a fair argument against it.


M3Core t1_iw3euwc wrote

I've been proud to be able to vote on a lot of those progressive movements!

Pretty hilarious about the wine in grocery stores. I don't really understand why that didn't pass, but I'm not bothered either.

Another very underrated CO prop this year was for all future tax adjustment propositions to include tax bracket information so everyone can figure out exactly how much these propositions will cost them in real dollar amounts.

Wonderful transparency!

/end of Colorado fanboy hype


MrGabr t1_iw3j7uh wrote

There wasn't really a reason to vote against wine in grocery stores other than to stick it to DoorDash, Instacart, Krogers, Safeway, Target, and Whole Foods


taicrunch t1_iw4275p wrote

I'm not from here, just happened to be here for work for election day. The ads I saw about it mentioned liquor stores' limits on licenses whereas grocery stores would potentially get unlimited licenses. Which is still far better than Southern states that are still fighting it based on religious and moral reasons.


pspahn t1_iw5dzmq wrote

We do still have some puritan shit in Colorado regarding booze. Namely that you can't sell it on Christmas.


Pixielo t1_iw4jwkz wrote

I live in a state that just legalized weed, and is otherwise majority liberal, and there's zero alcohol in our grocery stores as well. Our largest county also will only use county liquor stores, no mom'n'pop shops. Leave that county, and liquor stores are everywhere, lol.


charleswj t1_iw1ttyo wrote

Narrator: it won't


AirlinePeanuts t1_iw30a8x wrote

It might help some, but I can tell you we've had this in Colorado for several years now and companies do one of the following: List the job with no salary range, list the job with a ridiculously large salary range, list the job as available anywhere except Colorado if its a remote job.


WYWYW t1_iw3n4vt wrote

The more states implement a law like this, the higher the pressure on companies to include a somewhat reasonable estimate. Unless, of course, they want to miss out on a significant portion of the American workforce. It will take time, but ultimately these laws will benefit job seekers.


Bgrngod t1_iw49y8z wrote

Sometimes this is a technical thing where they have one listing for CO and another listing for everywhere else.

Even if they wanted to post the pay ranges for everywhere else, they might not be the same as those in CO, so CO gets an isolated posting.


josephtheepi t1_iw2nt3d wrote

Do NY State or NYC state/city government hire remote workers from out of state? Asking for a friend.


trx1150 t1_iw3bpka wrote

As someone who has been looking at job postings lately, yes. Try looking at LinkedIn Jobs or other job boards and filter to NYC.


emm8chh t1_iw3mh20 wrote

Just saw this on LinkedIn 10 minutes ago for a job in NYC. Anywhere from a $1 to a million dollars per year lol. It should be illegal to post a range this big lol.


Sometimesnotfunny t1_iw352ag wrote

If only scummy NYC companies couldn't skirt this law by posting ranges from $20K to $450K in their postings...!


ncb_phantom t1_iw363r0 wrote

Recently had a job offer where I was supposed to start at $30.00/h with a $9k sign on bonus. Kept hounding their HR POC for a written offer as I wasn't gonna leave my current employer without a written offer. I had passed their entire hiring process too.

After 12 back and forth emails over the span of five business days I finally got that written offer on a Friday at 3pm. It was for $28.00/h with a $5k sign on bonus. I waited over the weekend to send a nice, polite email that Monday morning respectfully declining the position as it wasn't a good time for me to pursue this opportunity. The schedule I have and the money at my current employer is much better than their offer.

Just the commute sucks terribly.


Zech08 t1_iw2we7c wrote

They should have a range included for experience as well, also redo terms for experience level. Like get rid of entry level if it requires experience or create another category for it (or maybe just use what the govt has and adapt that into a provate sector version... should dump out some of the unnecessary HR filler in the job apps).


thisisfakereality t1_iw2swbl wrote

This is a myth. It will rarely, if ever, work in an employee’s favor.


mymar101 t1_iw38eiz wrote

Pay range for this "job" 0-$400k helps no one.


redditcreditcardz t1_iw2wss7 wrote

So this is yet another thing the Dems have done for the people they work for. I’ll wait for the Republicans to give me just one example in the last 30 of something they’ve done to help us…but I won’t hold my breath.


chalbersma t1_iw3gcnv wrote

More information makes capital markets more efficient. Anyone against this is anti-capitalism.


yagonnawanna t1_iw3it63 wrote

Typical selfish assholes who don't seem to care about the profits of our overlords!


shaodyn t1_iw3z7qs wrote

If you take time off work to go to an interview, only to find out that it pays less than the job you have, not only did you waste time, you lost money.


evilpercy t1_iw4aua2 wrote

This should be a national law. As well labour laws/rights should be required class in high school.


mordinvan t1_iw4onrp wrote

General civil rights courses to be honest. As well as the lesson, NEVER speak to a cop without immunity, in writing signed by the D.A.'s office.


evilpercy t1_iw53wpx wrote

First aid/cpr, your rights if stopped by police, how to get a morgage, basic investments, how to file Taxes your self, ....


AutoModerator t1_iw1aa8t 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.


WideBlock t1_iw4aj5p wrote

there has to be a loophole on not publishing salaries. as the article states this law has been in effect in Colorado since 2021, but in most IT job posting, i do not see sslaries.


blitzinger t1_iw4ywuu wrote

The one thing I found out is that the Hr at my company were honest about pay. Like they gave me an offer, I pushed back, they upped it, they said I’m near topping out for my position. Then I checked online since this new law went into effect, sure enough, they were right.


TylrLS t1_iw2ejoz wrote

or less


rasner724 t1_iw3hzg7 wrote

Anddddd even more millions lose money…


fliffers t1_iw567gw wrote

But if this works, it’s because people can see how much they’re getting fucked over and that they’re not being paid what they’re worth. It’s more like companies have been saving millions of dollars at the worker’s expense for years. Why is it taking from/bad for the companies when it finally changes, but it’s not bad for the workers now?


rasner724 t1_iw5rp4c wrote

It’s a net negative, it doesn’t work. And it hurts the lowest skilled labor.


Ivantheasshole t1_iw3graw wrote

And force the end consumer to pay millions more to make up for it.


6Gears1Speed t1_iw3ctqp wrote

This sounds like the kids who got participation trophies are now in charge. To expect someone whos lazy and does a chitty job get the same pay as someone who's super producive makes no sense at all.


gagreel t1_iw2ixlp wrote

Until a conservative judge slaps it down


Gnawlydog t1_iw2l3ey wrote

Its a NYC law so a judge wont slap it down.. It just is supposed to have a ripple effect across the country.


enragedcactus t1_iw2qgdx wrote

It seems to me that it’s Colorado’s law that’s having a ripple effect across the country as other places start to copy it.

But it’s NYC so it’s the one making news a year later of course.


hardolaf t1_iw324o9 wrote

A law in NYC affects a lot more people than a law in Colorado though as also every major corporation and finance firm has a location in NYC while most don't have any in Colorado.


enragedcactus t1_iw33sdw wrote

Right. And who did they look to for inspiration for the law? Maybe the only state with the law in place?

This is like saying that Colorado legalizing weed didn’t have much of an impact and it was NY legalizing that actually changed things.


[deleted] t1_iw3b5ge wrote



enragedcactus t1_iw4ujoj wrote

You’re changing what I was saying and you’re right about what you’re saying.

I said Colorado started the ripple effect, not NY. My proof is that NY and CA passed laws a year AFTER Colorado passed theirs and saw success. There is no doubt that NYC’s will have a larger effect.

Since an enormous amount of writers live in Brooklyn there tends to be a bias in media with regards to the amount of focus NY gets and the center of the country often gets ignored.


[deleted] t1_iw39v3b wrote



enragedcactus t1_iw4va6h wrote

Who started the ripple effect? Was it the place that passed the law first and already cause tons of global and national companies to start posting salary ranges starting a year ago? Or the places that just copied it?

For example the S&P 500 company I work for operates in like 20 states and in a couple other countries. Because of the Colorado law we post ranges in all those places now. It wasn’t the NY law that caused that.


thisisfakereality t1_iw2t16f wrote

It won’t because it won’t change anything in reality. It’s a Pyrrhic victory for employees.


Cant_Do_This12 t1_iw2w7lr wrote

Pay transparency is a terrible idea that will actually reduce salaries in the long run. I don’t understand why you people have such a difficult time thinking ahead or how this will negatively effect people. Also, how do you expect people with experience moving to a different company to negotiate their salaries now? This is going to effect those people as well. Such a stupid idea.


gagreel t1_iw2yqa9 wrote

What is your idea to make things better?


VietOne t1_iw2xhaj wrote

Way better than before, it makes it far easier to get paid more as you can filter out any jobs that isn't a pay raise and only apply for jobs that would actually pay more.

If a job isn't willing to post publicly that they would pay you more than a previous company, you wouldn't be able to negotiate a pay increase anyway.


MobiusCube t1_iw2ag5q wrote

It's strange that they force employers to reveal desires salary range, but do not require employees to also reveal their desired range. Not very equitable of them.

Edit: For clarity, I'm referring to the desired salary of the posting in question, not historical salary of previous jobs the applicant held.


tulipseamstress t1_iw2cdca wrote

When employees reveal their salaries to employers, employers use that as a reason to pay them less. For instance, if someone is moving up from retail to an office job and the office boss sees the retail salary before making an offer, the office boss will offer the potential employee less money. The boss thinks the employee will accept less because of what the employer is used to.

For this reason, many states ban bosses from asking about salary history:


MobiusCube t1_iw2q2s1 wrote

Salary history has nothing to do with the salary of the position in question.


VietOne t1_iw2wzaj wrote

So then there's no reason a employer should ask. Glad you agree on that employers shouldn't ask for salary history.


MobiusCube t1_iw5lp0r wrote

I never said they should.


VietOne t1_iw5p54y wrote

> It's strange that they force employers to reveal salaries, but not employees. Not very equitable of them.


MobiusCube t1_iw5shvs wrote

Your desired range for the job you apply for is not your salary history.


enragedcactus t1_iw2r056 wrote

I don’t get this comment. If I apply to a new job the employer can theoretically look up my current salary band here in Colorado since we passed this law, actually a better written one, last year.

They won’t know my exact salary, but they’ll have an idea. Just like I wouldn’t know what my exact salary will be when applying to a new job, but I’ll have an idea.


MobiusCube t1_iw5m0w6 wrote

Current job and future job are two entirely different jobs. I'm referring to why employees are forced to disclose what they're willing to offer for the role, but applicants aren't forced to disclose what pay they're willing to accept for the role they're applying for.


enragedcactus t1_iw7ribv wrote

As an applicant and an employer you’re wasting your time if you don’t find out the other’s comp range early on in the application process. If you’re working with a recruiter that’s absolutely something they ask and will ensure that roles they bring you will pay what you’re asking.

By definition now if an applicant is applying for a role somewhere like Colorado the employer knows they will accept something in the range.

Also as an applicant you should be smart enough to know that it’s unlikely to enter anywhere higher than about 75% of the provided comp range. Companies need to be able to give you raises within the role’s wage band and you don’t want to be maxing out without the ability to get future raises immediately or soon after you’re hired.


MobiusCube t1_iw7ulkj wrote

Your argument only proves that regulating this disclosure is mostly useless.


TheFreakish t1_iw2ufnj wrote

Employer employee by definition is an asymmetrical relationship.


MobiusCube t1_iw5lssl wrote

It's not though. Employer and employee are different roles, but it's a mutually beneficial agreement.


XediDC t1_iw4pkcr wrote

Salary is a direct indication of a job’s worth. Prior salary is not a direct indication of an employees worth. Not equivalent at all.

Try again hon.


MobiusCube t1_iw5lnp2 wrote

Prior salary is irrelevant. IDK why you bring it up.


XediDC t1_iw5pacg wrote

Maybe you could explain exactly what an employee should be forced to reveal and to who? If you don’t mean applicants having to show their salary history, it’s very unclear what you mean.

And regardless, it’s unlikely “equatable” as an employer and employee are different types of of things and not on the same power footing.


MobiusCube t1_iw5sfhi wrote

If one party is required to reveal their desired range, then so should the other. Employment is a mutually beneficial agreement, so it's only equitable that laws forcing one party's hand should also force the others.


XediDC t1_iw5v9tw wrote

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.)


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.


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.


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.


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.


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.


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.


MobiusCube t1_iwe9y2o wrote

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


Orwellian__Nightmare t1_iw2bjrk wrote

its also dumb because it just limits what you could potentially get paid, granted you have the experience. many jobs would love to list 70-80k range when before most new employees could negotiate 90k.

people forget what you get paid at your job is an agreement between you and your job.


VietOne t1_iw2x43u wrote

People also forget that your job description is your job contract and you shouldn't work any more than you have to.

But somehow employers are claiming that's quiet quitting.


crazyboy1234 t1_iw2f7ad wrote

Seems like a very large amount of workers accept up front that they aren’t smart enough to out earn others so they try to standardize and make legal artificial standardization in the work place. I think this is an example but it’s stupid to anyone who’s learned how to negotiate / understands value of labor