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

For basic hourly jobs and people who are "pounding pavement" filling out applications, I agree this could be a timesaver. However, for any professional career type position this is pretty pointless. When I was looking to shift jobs, I used to to get fairly constant calls from headhunters. My conversations with them usually started with asking the pay range and location of the position. If the headhunter was unable or unwilling to tell me (happened a few times), the conversation ended right there.

 

The government forces many standards we may or may not like or exactly agree with individually, considering you yourself would admit to being in favor of invasive government when it comes to womens health, transgendered being able to use the restroom, etc, it strikes me a bit odd (actually more than a bit) you are against something you admit “should be done anyway” simply because you don’t want to see “government to force you to”.

 

Lol this is useless. I advertise 18-28 for the same position usually. Experience and skill matter more than anything else.

 

Q:How does this stop them from doing that? A: It doesn’t. Just means they need to provide both bits of information. Nothing stopping them from selling the culture or other perks of the job.

 

This is junk information. Unless of course you are going to require to the employer to specify all the benefits. Have the employer specify the expectations of time commitment. This is junk information. It is a meaningless regulation. Employees and employers are already fully capable to communicate to not waste each others time. There is absolutely no benefit for either party if this regulation goes into effect.

 

Nice deflection. Those things impose on the rights or others. (Women using the locker rooms in Charlotte for instance and unborn humans for another).

Me business that promotes values over pay does not infringe on anyone's rights.

 

Plenty of professional jobs don't advertise the pay range or salary. Sometimes, you have the leverage to demand that information. Sometimes, you don't.

 

I think often the key for some businesses, maybe a start-up with no capital, is you want them face to face. Some businesses feel the pay disadvantage may hamper their ability to have the face to face.

If you chose to go to n interview without knowing the pay, thats your choice. Why is that a problem.

Job interviews are mutual consent.

Just leave the unbroken situation unfixed.

 

Very rarely do you not have the leverage. Looking for a job is in itself a full time job. If a potential employer is unwilling to give salary range on a professional job, it's not all that professional and likely a red flag to candidates.

 

Unless you're unemployed or in a job where you're miserable and don't want to get eliminated from a potentially good job by asking about money upfront.

 

In my field, salary range is never given out in the US until fairly late in the cycle (and these are all 6 figure jobs). Meanwhile, because my field is international, I know exactly what the pay range is in a bunch of places, notably the UK, Ireland, and Australia.

Every field is different in terms of it's culture of disclosure.

 

Again, if a company is unwilling to even tell you the range up front then it's not that "good" a job. And I actually spent almost three years in a job I was "miserable" at to find the one I'm in now.

I can concede that the field conceivably makes a difference. As an Engineer and a Program Manager, I've only a few times run across positions where the range wasn't readily available when I inquired. My conversations with them ended at that point. Companies don't offer the benefits these days they used to (e.g., pensions) to make up for a lower wage than a competitor. And right now there are more jobs out there than candidates so companies should be willing to disclose it to help them get the best ones.

 

Sometimes, that's true. Sometimes, it's not. I've interviewed for some jobs I considered quite good that didn't advertise pay upfront. Of course, while I certainly won't accept a job below X amount of pay, I'm not driven much by compensation beyond that.

 

But it has to enter into the equation early enough. I usually ask up front (and get it) because headhunters and Talent Acquisition reps for companies don't want to waste their time any more than you want to waste yours. It's a piece of the decision making process and in my experience, one of the first required.

And FWIW, I had multiple offers and took one that didn't offer the highest compensation because the other factors were better.

 

In some ways I’d argue professional jobs have more opaqueness and much wider range of negotiation, at least for management/leadership positions. I’ve seen it first hand what happens when you hire a bad manager who is good at bs’ing through an interview, but then turns out to be incompetent or not management material. Creates a domino effect in the organization, the situation I witnessed was so bad I questioned the guys entire background and wanted an investigation… think anyone was held accountable? Nope. Guy most responsible for the hire recognized the mistake but took off for another job rather than own up…took like 12 months to get that group back on track.

Anyway… for entry level jobs (unskilled) or more professional (but perhaps entry level with minimal experience) roles, the salaries should be pretty standard starting out. I can’t fathom the reason to not be 100% up front with people, perhaps with performance bonuses and wider gaps once the higher achievers start sorting themselves out. Obviously when you are doing “experienced” hires you want flexibility to be able to slot them in where you anticipate they fit. Both NY and CA laws accommodate that by only asking for a “reasonable range”, this isn’t some insidious plot. It’s actually quite sensible, if slightly pro worker (I think those that lean towards “mostly pointless” or “no big deal” are probably more on point here vs. than those freaking out over govt overreach).

 

It’s not government overreach. Employers frequently do not update current workers salaries to match the market so this will arm existing workers with knowledge to negotiate raises. Also, it’s not uncommon for interviewers to give different salary ranges to different candidates.

 

You pretty much explain why this is such a dumb regulation. You have an applicant with 20 years of experience and a candidate with 2-5 years of experience. The range could be drastically different for a job.

And employers keep up with wages. If they do not they lose their talent.

 

They have that knowledge. Its called co workers, friends, Glassdoor, etc.

And Interviewers giving different rates to different candidates wont change under this new way.

 

Theoretically they can but employers stifle and actively try to prohibit employees from finding out this information. Oftentimes that information is learned by error or chance.

Interviewers can offer different rates of pay but that wasn’t what I was talking about. They can’t take back the range they put out publicly which is more information for a potential employee. I know for a fact that employers have given different ranges to applicants in interviews which sets a different bargaining circumstance.