this post was submitted on 25 Sep 2023
560 points (99.3% liked)

World News

32286 readers
666 users here now

News from around the world!

Rules:

founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
top 23 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] NotBadAndYou@ttrpg.network 69 points 1 year ago (6 children)

Won't employers just adopt the same workaround that they're using in Colorado, by posting a huge pay range and hiring all employees near the bottom?

[–] donuts@kbin.social 68 points 1 year ago

And yet it's still better than a system where you don't have to tell prospective candidates anything at all. I'd much rather have the knowledge that they want to hire me towards the low end of their own advertised range than have no information at all.

[–] yukichigai@kbin.social 31 points 1 year ago

That workaround doesn't actually work, not legally. The Colorado law specifies that the pay range has to be reasonable and they will review and cite businesses that try to pull that if a complaint is made. The NYC-specific law also worked the same. I imagine the NY State law will have a similar provision.

Doesn't mean they still won't try it mind you.

[–] Kalkaline@leminal.space 30 points 1 year ago

The candidate work around is to ignore the top number and apply for jobs that have a reasonable bottom number.

[–] kiwifoxtrot@lemmy.world 23 points 1 year ago (5 children)

My employer gets around it by refusing to hire anyone in Colorado for remote jobs. Guess the same will happen for New York.

[–] popcap200@lemmy.ml 43 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

I feel like a business would have to be really dumb to rule out hiring NY'ers because of this. NY has a very educated and very large population.

Edit: I did the math. Colorado and NY have a combined college degree population of 9.9 million, or 8.9% of US degree holders.

[–] bleistift2@feddit.de 42 points 1 year ago (1 children)

a business would have to be really dumb

I don’t see how this is a counterargument.

[–] popcap200@lemmy.ml 24 points 1 year ago

Lmao you got me there.

[–] BolexForSoup@kbin.social 13 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (2 children)

I can get maybe blocking one state but New York AND Colorado? I'm sure California or some other larger, more progressive state will eventually make the swap too. Eventually you start cutting yourself off from not just large swaths of the american workforce, but also disproportionately from the types of hires you need (assuming remote hires still).

[–] 0110010001100010@lemmy.world 6 points 1 year ago (1 children)

According to the article, California already has a similar law. I didn't dig into the details of it. Relevant bit:

A similar pay transparency ordinance has been in effect in New York City since 2022. Now, the rest of the state joins a handful of others with similar laws, including California and Colorado.

[–] BolexForSoup@kbin.social 3 points 1 year ago

I had a feeling CA had something similar but couldn't recall and couldn't be bothered to google in the moment on my phone lol

[–] SeaJ@lemm.ee 3 points 1 year ago

It is required for employers here in Washington. But if the company is headquartered in a state where it is not required, they do not have to list it.

[–] FederatedSaint@lemmy.world 7 points 1 year ago

Like, we're not really keen on working for a crappy employer who would do this anyway, so no big loss I guess.

I think one long term effect of this would be driving up wages outside of states that require posted salaries, at least for some positions in some industries. There probably aren't enough businesses signing on to this idea to make much of a dent though. As a business, you're effectively reducing your own labor pool. Either way it feels like the corporate equivalent of cutting off your nose to spite your face.

Probably the same idiots whining that "no one wants to work anymore" (cue worlds tiniest violin).

[–] tehmics@lemmy.world 2 points 1 year ago

They'll be out of states if we keep going then they'll naturally just cease to exist. Or, more likely, adapt to actual regulations.

[–] scottywh@lemmy.world 19 points 1 year ago

That's illegal in Colorado and you should report it if you see employers listing bad faith salary ranges like that.

[–] sudo@lemmy.today 13 points 1 year ago

Pay: $40,000 - $250,000 (based on experience and qualifications)

[–] AlecSadler@sh.itjust.works 37 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I loathe employers that don't do this.

I threw caution to the wind once and went through 4 rounds of interviews (already a red flag) only to learn the job paid, at best, $50k less than current. I laughed thinking it was a joke...it wasn't. Well, fuck off.

I also had a job tell me the range upfront, which was nice...but it was oddly large. Yup, you guessed it, the offer despite my impressive interviewing was $1k over the low end. I laughed and told them good luck on their job search.

I straight up told a job I won't accept less than X, and after all the rigmarole, their offer was $20k under. I told them it was disingenuous of them, a waste of everyone's time, and that I would be advising my network to never apply or work for them and hung up.

Fuck these game playing companies.

[–] Rodeo@lemmy.ca 10 points 1 year ago (2 children)

See the problem here is you let them play you.

As soon a as company contacts you, ask the wage. They'll dodge the question, so you say "I notice you didn't answer my question about the wage, so what's the wage?" And you keep asking and they keep dodging until one of two things happens:

  1. They say "we're looking for someone who is motivated by more that just money." And then you say "well people work for money, however I am also motivated by other forms of compensation like pensions and profit sharing."

  2. They ask you to come in for an interview, and you say "I can't take the time to come in for an interview when you haven't even told me the wage yet."

It seems pretty clear you didn't need those jobs, so why are you playing along?

[–] AlecSadler@sh.itjust.works 9 points 1 year ago

I'm not sure you read what I wrote? Sometimes they will spout the wage, but not adhere to it.

These were historic, nowadays I don't deal with it unless I just want to waste their time on purpose.

But you're right, I didn't need those jobs, but I'm always looking. I believe one should always be applying. There is no such thing as loyalty to one company - it doesn't typically pay off or work in your favor. In 5 years of job hopping I've tripled my base salary, that would never have happened staying put.

[–] orcrist@lemm.ee 2 points 1 year ago

I don't think they "got played". They knew the situation and invested the time knowing that some companies are badly organized but actually pay reasonably. Then after determining that these companies were no good, they bailed. Should they have bailed earlier? Maybe so, but it's a gamble either way. Everyone has to use their own instincts based on their individual situations.

[–] csm10495@sh.itjust.works 15 points 1 year ago

I'm hiring for a job. Pay range is 5k to 98k depending on various factors.

[–] SeaJ@lemm.ee 13 points 1 year ago

I don't apply to places that do not list a range anymore. One interview I had described a mid level job position but at the end of the interview they were only willing to pay a little above entry level. They are looking for workers in high cost of living areas. Something tells me they will be looking for a long time until they get their wake up call.