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

That’s taken into account as part of the range, Q. Little to no experience, bottom of the range of what they’re willing to pay. Massive amounts of experience, the top of the range. Further, it makes employers post realistic ranges if they want to attract candidates. It’s been working for two years now in Colorado so I can’t agree that it’s dumb.

The VAST majority of employers absolutely do not keep up with salaries. Every study out there shows it’s worth your while to jump jobs every 2-3 years because of this.

 

It is illegal now to try and "actively stifle" information.

It used to be that HR departments would basically forbid the discussion of pay among employees so as to hide the info. That (rightfully) isn't legal anymore. Companies can't hamper the sharing of such information.

 

If a vast majority dont keep up with salaries than where will I jump? It would seem the other guy isnt keeping up either under that thought process.

I have never worked anywhere where competing pay structure was not a constant source of attention.

 

Seems like you are admitting employers have every incentive to conceal information WRT compensation and only the law has prevented them from continuing to do it. Why are you arguing that this law is pointless again?

 

Internally. It was done so that woman rightfully know how much men make.

The equality problem isnt solved by some vague "range" posted on Indeed.

Apples to donuts.

 

I know you dont think its the same thing, I was simply speaking to the compulsory aspect of it. In both cases, they concealed information until they were forced to share it. I don't see how that part is any different, the incentives are the same.

 

I disagree though. One case is with hired people already employed. The other is just an invitation to talk.

I owe my employees full and clear disclosure, I do not owe non employees and my competition that information in the public spectre.

In fact that is yet another reason to keep it quiet. If I am bashing my competition because I pay better and they dont know it for some dumb reason, why do I have to publicly help them realize that?

Let them keep underpaying for lesser talent. It isnt my job to help them out.

There are tentacles to this.

Internal transparency is needed for equality. External is an infringement on business strategy.

 

Whether you are already an employee or a prospective one, that information empowers your ability to bargain. If you see your company or another listing a salary range for someone with your job, and you are below it, that's some information I'd like to have.

 

Of course you may like to have, but there should be no legal reason for me to put it out there for all to see. I will tell YOU.

The other case was flat out discrimination happening that needed to be rooted out.

 

You will only if you think I should have it, and as it turns out, lots of employers don't think people should have it. If you already do it, then compliance should be a non-issue, and it sounds like the beef is that someone is telling employers you have to do something, and as a hirer of labor, that you don't get to be king. We already know how much employers get bent out of shape if they cant be petty tyrants over other aspects of people's lives they employ or seek to employ, like what is covered under their insurance plans, minimum wages, who they get to discriminate against, etc.

 

Wow... Lol. I already said I post mine clear as day.

Save the kings and tyrants talk.

I'm literally the one saying that this hurts businesses that want to add more time off and more work life balance as incentives.
That doesnt jive with the kings and tyrant tripe.

 

Ok, you are merely showing solidarity with the kings and tyrants. "More time off/work-life balance" = less pay, but hey, thats good HR speak.

 

So are we posting just the starting range? That is the whole point. Every situation is different. What is the range? A starting range? A starting to maximum range? A true compensation range that includes benefits? A range that is based on a 40 hour work week and does or does not not include benefits? This regulation/law is meaningless. It is just another reason for government to potentially meddle in business for no reason. The employee is not benefited by this. The employer is not benefited by this. It is nothing more than political fodder…

 

In our area, the Kings and Tyrants Club #1047 gets together once a month to fix wages.

 

That's a bit more of an extreme example, but it absolutely does happen. Surprised the person responsible for the hire took another position instead of getting "promoted" out the role as so often occurs where there's a "one-off" like that. That situation was obviously a failing at multiple points as far as the candidate selected. Was it determined the candidate in fact lied about his credentials?

I agree with you as far as wider ranges are concerned. Maybe it becomes more opaque at the Sr Director or C-levels, but generally the lower pay grades are only sufficiently wide enough to promote growth into them (most companies in my industry have a general "policy" of not promoting until one is at least above the middle of the current grade)

 

It's what I literally chose for myself and family.

I mean...Show me on the doll where the mean boss hurt you.

 

us government workers have our pay scales posted all over the internet.

 

This is true. Only employers hate this law because then they aren’t holding all the knowledge.

 

Again, how is that true?

I post an ad selling my company.

You apply.

I call you for an interview.

You ask what the pay scale is.

I answer.

If you like my answer, you continue.

If you dont, you bow out.

I find someone who likes the answer.

You find an interview where you like the answer.