Employers in NYC and California will soon have to post salary ranges on job postings

Or you could just post the range. If people don't like the answer, they apply. If not, they don't.

Seems like a lot fewer steps.

 

Perhaps he’s not looking for the person that’s just collecting a paycheck.

 

Ex. A for why many people don't feel comfortable asking about pay before or during the first interview.

 

What kind of trite BS is that? Everyone of us is working for money.

 

Everyone?

 

I get it; you don’t like it. You don’t like my reasons and I think yours are pretty damn weak. Everything you claim to need is easily solved by including the information in the advertisement. Employers frequently play employees off against each other and utilize imperfect information against employees to manipulate the power dynamic. They also have a history of bias and offering different ranges and salaries to workers. To me these reasons are far more compelling than anything an employer can conjure up for keep the information quiet.

 

There you go again. There may not be a better instance of the exception proving the rule.

 

Yeah, none of anyone's business... unless they have an interview for a job.

Socialism is a funny thing. It's tried in so many different ways, and it creeps up into private businesses in all kinds of iterations.

 

Welcome to the thread. I do post the pay.
Its not the government's job to make me do it though.

 

I just looked at indeed.com 95% of job postings on there have a salary range.

 

That is because Indeed estimates the salary for companies that don't report it.

 

Everything you just said is not changed by regulating an employer provide a pay range that can mean 100 different things based on the applicant. Based on the information still not provided. This is a meaningless regulation. It is nothing more than political fodder…

 

How so? The government has the power to regulate commerce.

 

Government should regulate only the enforcement of constitutional rights and equality.

I supported the change that allowed employees to openly discuss their wages for that reason.

Outside of that the government doesnt need to be in the business of regulating how a business markets itself.

If a business has the research and experience that shows it benefits from first and foremost selling its intangibles, than so be it. As long as it doesnt violate any laws in doing so.

 

Those limitations aren't in the state/federal constitutions, though, which instead give quite broad power to regulate commerce through statute for numerous purposes, not just constitutional rights or equality. That allows all sorts of regulations on both advertising and labor relations. Some of them you might agree with and some you might not, but it's pretty clearly the government's job to decide which ones to put in place.

 

Oh trust us, we know. The govt will soon own us all. Guys like you will help and accelerate it.
Sad.

 

I think we agree and disagree.
I would say it is the governments right but not their job. As in the right exists so as to impact fairness and equity. It isnt their job however to find an issue where there realy isn't one and try to solve it with a vague solution that changes nothing.

A simpler solution is just banning bait and switch. Period. Let companies market their pay as they desire, but make them stick to what is stated.

I would even be ok with requiring it in writing IF requested. Just don't tie their first impression hands that may sell the other positives for businesses that arent bathed in cash.

 

So you are against things like -

-Price stickers at car dealers?
-Ingredient labels on foods?
-Financial reports for public traded co’s (because why not just invest blind)
-Disclosure in real estate sales?
-Lemon laws?
-etc etc etc

None of these are “constitutional rights”, yet I’d think most people would see them as desirable if not outright necessary. All basically on the same sphere as what CA and NY are doing here.

There’s an entire universe of laws regulating commerce, even if one takes the extremist stance against federal regulation, most states operate under the Uniform Commercial Code. I see this basically like requiring price stickers on new vehicles. While I don’t think mandatory wage transparency is the issue of our time, it’s also not exactly a major burden either. Just seems to me this is a nonsensical way for social issues big guv lovers to convince themselves they are for limited guv.

 

I get what he is saying. The government is sometimes the only thing that makes the workplace fair and equal. And because of that it needs the RIGHT to intervene. It isnt their job though to manage marketing departments that are not being dishonest.

I just think this goes beyond the need for government and opens the door to further prying in things that arent in need of government.

 

I’m with you. I think some of the libbies are thinking of the distant past before internet, when some companies took advantage of their employees.
I have several years experience working in the labor/staffing industry in nursing and light industrial.
People talk and we always supplied our workers with all the info they needed to take a job. We wouldn’t keep our people happy any other way.
I don’t think govt new laws forcing a fake, broad pay range does anything except show that they will overreach any chance they can get and waste our money yet again.