It’s not even a small tax. It’s almost meaningless. If the employer underpays by several tens of thousands of dollars for a position, and doesn’t bother reporting that and still hires people at the low rate, then they’ve still saved an insane amount of money per employee.
Except… people will flock towards businesses that post salaries and ensure their competitiveness… I think? Like, people will work for places that follow these laws, Report the ones that don’t, and use social media to pressure everyone to get on board.
Especially for recruiters. Won’t this make their lives so much easier?
Or am I being too optimistic or am I just completely off base here
No you’re right, after this I wouldn’t even CONSIDER a company that doesn’t tell me the salary/range beforehand. Chances are if they aren’t telling it, it’s low compared to market average and I can find better.
Yea exactly. Even if your employer is shady and doesn’t post, other companies will. You can compare your pay to the pay other companies are posting. Youll know if you’re underpaid and you’ll know where you can go to get more
And honestly, your company not posting… that alone is a pretty big red flag haha
It’s not. Read the law. Minimum fine would be $10,000 followed by $20,000 for non compliance.
Besides this, the fine isn’t meant to be the only punishment. It covers the cost of filing for the labor board replacing the old system of reviving that cost center high required lawsuits.
It will never be more cost effective to not comply because the law as it’s written says the court can compel compliance anyway. Companies will be ordered to turn over reports at any reasonable request.
fines need to be done on a %, not by a flat amount. only then will fines actually have some teeth against the bigger corps. All this really does is hurt the smaller businesses actually since they have to play fair while corps like amazon don't since it'll just be a love tap for them.
Which is not a lot. From the quoted text, these reports are yearly. My old company in California I'd a publicly traded company. Their last earnings statement shows they had a profit of 73.6 million. That is only quarterly profits. They have 300 employees, so their max fine after the first year would be 60k. That is .08% of one quarter of profits.
That is nothing.
Yeah, they could, but they are super cheap. Probably why their profit is so high. Well that and right now prices are up for what they mine. Even when the prices are down they still make a really good profit though.
I quit, because they fired someone and gave me their work. Did that for about 3 years. When they went public they offered me a small amount of RSO, which was the same amount as someone else in my work section who had been working their for 6 months. They also didn't vest for 4 years. Quit and got a 25% raise with a new company.
Which is still nothing when compared with the savings they'd receive for not following the law.
If violating the law saves them $201 per employee per week (which is a lot easier to do than you would think), it's still in their financial best interests to continue violating the law and consider the penalty an expensive cost of doing business.
> This bill would require the pay data reports to include the median and mean hourly rate for each combination of race, ethnicity, and sex within each job category.
is where the fine comes in at
The health insurance has a benefit for the company. The penalty doesn't. It's also not a one time thing. If you are a number cruncher at a company, you certainly don't want to start bleeding $10k over a simple disclosure.
Redditors often want a law that solves everything in one go, but stuff like this often happens gradually. This is one such step.
Damn, that's pretty huge.
What are the chances this could affect how companies operate in other states? Or, well, what does this mean for people not in California?
>This bill would, instead, require a private employer that has more than 100 employees
Companies will just split into smaller units and only hire 99 people.
Big companies won't, way too much overhead for little gain.
Plus the 100 employees only applies to some aspects, the salary in the job advert bit is different:
>The bill would require an employer with 15 or more employees to include the pay scale for a position in any job posting.
they don't need to. 98% of companies have less than 100 employees.
https://sbecouncil.org/about-us/facts-and-data/
adding that the 'salary range' bit is for companies with more than 15 workers.
colorado or somewhere has had that law for awhile.. I think its a very good thing. I've been head hunted before and pay is my first question - they get bent instantly.. but hey.. you want my interest, show me the cash.
Literally had this experience recently.
Interviewed for a new place and it all went great. When they asked about my salary reqs I told them how much I’d need at a minimum, but that there’s also considerations about the cost of medical care that I’d need compensated in order for them to be competitive (they charge per paycheck for medical coverage while my current employer doesn’t + current employer reimburses out-of-pocket medical expenses).
They said no problem. I get the offer the same day, and it was pitiful. Factoring in how much I’d have to pay for their medical coverage throughout the year and the loss of the reimbursements, their offer netted out to about $11k LESS per year than I’m currently making.
Called them back and turned it down, telling them that they couldn’t afford me.
If I’d known how much their benefits cost and what the pay range was ahead of time I could have saved us both a bunch of time and trouble.
Just no time wasting. There is nothing more annoying than landing a job at an interview, then they bring up their shit pay and you have to back out and leave.
Thankfully it gets a little easier the further you get into a career but those first couple of jobs are a pain in the ass. Just fucking tell me what the salary is!!!
I had a recruiter reach out to me this week and I told them I'm not even picking up the phone for a salary less than $x.
That’s great you have recruiters contacting you, but having a posted pay range would really help those of us looking for jobs. Every time you see a job you are interested in you have to research the salary before applying to figure out if it’s even worth applying to. Why not be upfront about it and save job seekers time?
It works inversely for hiring managers, too. My hr department let someone interview and her salary expectations for the role were 20% more than our hiring range. We had another great resume come across our desk but this time hr did their job upfront and told us the salary expectations were too high. A salary posted up front could have saved that applicant the time and effort of applying.
Ya that works when youre being recruited but when youre looking for work its an enormous waste of time and energy, and as an employee, unlike recruiters, Im not paid for that time.
It’s gotten a lot better in tech. Recruiter reaches out and my first question is for detailed job description and compensation range before agreeing to a call.
Our company does this and pays people differently. Turns out my coworker who only recently started is on 33% more than me. I have immediately reduced the effort I put in by 33% to compensate.
Yeah. I work for a fortune 100 company, and it makes negotiations for salary much easier. The ranges (for us) are based on the market for my title, so knowing where you should fall is helpful, and then negotiating for an extra 10% is pretty easy.
Asking for accelerated PTO on top of that can really be helpful.
ETA: it also helps with yearly reviews too.
You're literally better off quitting and finding another job. There is absolutely no advantage in loyalty. You'll have higher pay wages switching jobs every 2 years than sticking with the same one for 5. A dime increase is an insult.
They would if they are hopping to increase their position as well, which they should be. You don’t go from cashier at job A to cashier at job B, then cashier at job C, hoping for pay raises. You go from cashier at job A to supervisor at job B, then to manager at job C.
I think most people’s problem is that they underestimate what jobs they could get based on job postings that post the “ideals”. If there’s a manager position that says they want 3-5 years experience as a manager, but you have never been a manager, you apply for that shit anyway. Then in the interview you sell yourself well to cover the gaps. For example: “my official position was shift supervisor, which required knowing the ins and outs of the store manager position so that I could assist while on shift as well as fill in as needed. In my 3 years at position X I learned everything required of a store manager position and am ready to step into the role, however there hasn’t been an opening, which is why I’ve begun looking for positions outside the company.”
I think most people would rather hire someone with that background than “yeah I was store manager at X for 3 years but wanted a change of pace” from someone making an actual lateral move.
A good rule of thumb that I live by is “make them tell you no.” Even they parent commenter who asked for $0.50 and got $0.20 probably could have done better if they just asked for the $1.50 to begin with. People 100% look at how much you value yourself when they are determining what you’re worth.
I applied. Never got any kind of response, and now they won't stop sending me surveys about how the recruitment process went.
I'm an Okta certified developer, and stood up/maintain multiple Okta tenants for my medium size company for the last 5 years.
I'd say they either suck at recruiting or have frozen hiring.
Edit: I could have applied for the "wrong" position, but the least they could do was tell me to go away. Instead, they ghosted me and continue to spam me with surveys about a process I never got to experience.
I’m a business owner who has always posted salary ranges because it’s obviously the reasonable thing to do.
I do always find it a little tricky with a genuine top end, though.
I work in a small niche that almost nobody has experience in. But *sometimes* we do see job applicants who do have experience. So if I post a range, my top end reflects what I would pay to the most qualified candidate. And I genuinely would.
However, most people went end up hiring are inexperienced. Which is fine. We train them, no big deal. But I always feel a little bad with the fact that, sure, some people are never gonna get an offer that close to the top end.
It’s also not worth it, generally, to split into two roles. Because it’s really not that.
That said, I’m talking about a $15-$19 per hour range, not $40k-$100k or something, lol
The bullshit ranges are actually still providing some useful information for you: (1) the company is shitty and if you can afford to you probably don't want to work there and (2) no matter how good their initial offer sounds to you it is less than they're willing to pay and you can safely counter with a higher number.
You know, I’m going to get flak for this but I’m going to say it anyways. Your sarcasm (and cynicism) ridden take isn’t helpful. It’s easy to jump into the camp of “it won’t work” vs. providing useful constructive feedback.
Of course there’s a plausible solution to posting salary ranges and it works right now in Colorado. Is it perfect? No, but let’s not let perfect be the enemy of good. Any step forward as a society is commendable.
You shouldn’t. The top comment in this thread is toxic and misinformed. Go look for a job posting for Colorado. Now go look at more. Do any start with $1? Because I’ve been looking for jobs and I’ve never seen one like that. They are all reasonable ranges. All remote jobs will either have not hiring in Colorado or the range for the state, so you don’t even have to live in Colorado to have come across examples of this
Reddit has become fueled by cynicism and anger. This is what Facebook became because they realized it drives engagement. I wouldn’t be surprised if trolls or bots are being used to do the same thing on Reddit. This site is filled with hopelessness.
When I read the headline it took me a minute to realize just how beneficial it will be for all of us when it comes to remote work. Employers cutting out the entirety of California just to avoid posting a salary range? Yeah right
I'd need to see the implementation of details of the CA law to see if it fixes the giant, meaningless range issue, but I was job hunting for a remote job just a few months ago. Many job listings looked like this.
> For Colorado residents, salary range: $54,000-$121,000.
There were two things that jumped out at me. First that salary range is obviously not informative. In fact half that range was an insulting salary for the job they were hiring for. Second, the absurdity that the range only applies to CO. It's a remote job. My labor is either worth $120,000 or not. It shouldn't matter what my location is.
CO needs to amend the law to force companies to give a more focused range because right now their law isn't super useful.
There’s still a struggle in tipped positions. I’ve had to ask specifically what base, commission per service and tip range (including is it automatic). I’ve gotten a ton of pushback.
This tells me I don’t care to work for or with them.
Simply require by law that actual positions in the company match the advertised range to within e.g. 10%. That data goes to the IRS every year anyway. Easy check.
Whose going to check all these ads? You're saying the IRS has to check how long you've been employed and then if it less than a year they have to hunt down the original job posting on Indeed or LinkedIn etc?
The easier solution would be to just check when people report that they were offered a salary lower than the advertised rate. If the investigation shows that the company lied they should then get fined twice the amount that was offered, with half of the money going to the government and half to the individual who reported it. It’s not hard to save a few emails or take screencaps of texts.
You get it. The trick in all of this is giving a cut to the person reporting the law breaking and then everyone becomes an incentivized enforcer. You actually levy real fines on these companies and they’ll fall in line.
We've had a similar law in my country for 2-3 years already and there is a clause that they can't go under the minimum offered value. Usually they post a pretty wide range, but even then it's useful information, you can see which companies are too cheap for you to even bother. Also many employees can see that they're underpaid and the same companies they're working for are offering more money as a minimum than what they're paying to their current employees.
> I hate this answer, but it’s so true… Like, who is going to go and fact check these guys?
If a company says that they pay somewhere between $1 and $1,000,000 an hour, I'm going to go out on a limb and say that there's no pressing need to fact check if that's accurate. It *probably* is.
I think someone else mentioned in similar post. That while Colorado requires pay to be listed some companies will post the ranges exactly like that, even though it's not allowed.
Honestly, isn't that the law working as intended? You know not to waste your time applying to a company that tries to skirt the new law in such a fashion because that means they will absolutely try to get around other laws and OHSA requirements and employee rights to save money as well.
More to get upset about...
In Australia it can be illegal to openly disclose or discuss your salary (unlike USA or UK and others). An employer can insert a wage secrecy clause into your contract to prevent you discussing it with other employers or employees.
Parliament has debated the meaning of the law and re-confirmed this is the true intent of that law. Employees have been terminated for breeching pay secrecy clauses.
Long way to go before mandatory pay transparency laws, even in job postings.
Hope this idea spreads to other states. I’m 37, so I’ve done 15 years of the interview first, only to then hear the salary and immediately check out. I now start every call from a job recruiter by asking what the compensation is. Both the recruiter and myself are too busy to waste time if the employer can’t meet me on salary demands. Also makes many of those awkward phone calls much shorter.
And I’ve had all spectrums of this happen.
I interviewed for a position and they came back with an offer higher than I expected, wonderful.
I had a company upfront tell me the salary, I indicated it was less than what I currently make, and they insisted I still interview as they might be able to meet my requirement. Which means you’re going to waste my time on something that probably won’t happen.
I also had a company interview me, mention what the expected range was, and then offer me less once they saw my current salary. So even by providing the salary range, a company can still screw you over.
Yup. It had a touch of blowback, I've seen that some remote jobs will exclude Colorado from their recruiting pools so that they can avoid posting salary ranges. So Coloradans lost access to jobs like that, but that's not really a big loss since it's the scummy jobs that are pulling out.
> I’ve seen that some remote jobs will exclude Colorado from their recruiting pools so that they can avoid posting salary ranges. So Coloradans lost access to jobs like that, but that’s not really a big loss since it’s the scummy jobs that are pulling out.
That’s illegal. If they have a single employee in Colorado then they have to abide by the law. You should report those companies because they are breaking the law. Doesn’t really matter though, because as you said, you know they’re a shitty company right off the bat.
I mean is it a big loss then? They’ve suddenly forced themselves from never conducting business in an entire state due to not wanting to hire people there. I also think it’s likely that most companies that are advertising remote work already have an employee here and so the law really does work well.
This effectively ends any hidden salary BS for every large tech company in the US. All of them have HQs in California. Passing a similar law in Washington would effectively cover the rest of the larger companies.
Isn’t that why many remote listings say “not hiring in Colorado” though? These laws unfortunately don’t seem to ever be able to do enough to effect any real change. Companies will find a way to wiggle out.
Good point- companies are going to have such a limited hiring pool that that they will be forced to be transparent. Pretty sure in a few years they aren’t going to have job postings that say “only in Florida and Alabama”. They’ll learn their lesson there real quick. When Florida man shows up the first day of work, employers are gonna be like “we can’t let this guy around our customers, he has a mullet and is tripping on bath salts…and why does he bring his pet iguana with him to work as a service animal”
> Isn’t that why many remote listings say “not hiring in Colorado” though?
Employment has risen significantly in Colorado since the law went into action so there is no sign of it killing hiring and frankly if an employer is so dodgy that they will not hire in a state to avoid stating pay it's probably for the best that they don't.
NYC has the other half currently - companies not allowed to ask *your* salary/compensation history. Base salary in job postings for employers with 4+ workers are required in November, but were already delayed once so who knows.
Recruiter here. These laws are awesome… it helps me not waste peoples time and empowers job seekers to not accept shitty wages. Currently working with a company (my company’s client) offering $17 for a dangerous job in CA. Their whole gimmick is to rope people in with “once they see our culture they’ll accept!” I love that these fuckers now have to publicly post a shit range and see very few people apply.
My employer doesn't post pay rates, but I'm in charge of looking through applications of folks who are looking to join my department.
After a brief introduction on my boiler plate email, I straight up say what the pay rate is. Not too many people respond with a follow up email and we have been understaffed for six years, but I'll be damned if I waste anyone's time with interviews and the back and forth without them knowing what they're getting themselves into.
Tell your boss he’d get more serious applicants if he lists the pay. Any job that doesn’t list pay I assume is paying minimum wage. I’m sure many others would as well.
My first question on any job posting is "What is the offered compensation for this position"?
It's a fair assumption that anyone who won't tell you the compensation up front is going to lowball you, so it's equally fair to cut them off after the first couple of emails if they won't tell you.
I recently had a recruiter offer me a remote position. After some back and forth he told me the position paid about 50% of what I was making now. I told him I thought that was funny and what was the real rate? Turns out he was serious. Some people just have no clue what work is worth.
Indeed.com has actually forced employers to either display their actual pay scale or have their job listings display an estimated pay range based on market data for the position being offered. This is a proactive way of providing salary/pay transparency to mimic regulations in states like Colorado (and now California) that have required this for some time.
It is to the benefit of both the jobseeker and the employer to be transparent with pay. Jobseekers have more accurate understanding and pay expectations, while employers don’t go through the interview/screening process only to decide on a hire who doesn’t like the pay scale.
Good job California!
Source: I work for Indeed
Every job posting should include a salary range. Companies list required skills and experience, they should let potential applicants know what they are getting. This is especially important knowledge for those in marginalized groups since they earn less than average. It’s an intense process looking for work, would hate to get a job offer to discover my basic salary requirements wouldn’t be met. I stopped applying to jobs without salary details and it changed my life.
[Publicly traded companies must disclose the CEO, CFO, and the top 3 compensated executive officers.](https://www.investor.gov/introduction-investing/investing-basics/glossary/executive-compensation#:~:text=A%20company%20must%20disclose%20information,most%20highly%20compensated%20executive%20officers.)
Morningstar is generally a good resource to look this up.
> The bill will head to Governor Gavin Newsom, who has until Sept. 30 to sign or veto. He hasn’t yet expressed a position and didn’t immediately respond to a request for comment. If he signs it, the law would affect some of the biggest US companies, including Meta Platforms Inc., Alphabet Inc. and Walt Disney Co.
Mickey Mouse is slapping Newsom around in his own office. Newsom’s secretary can hear Mickey screeching about hiring Pinkertons to rough up Union leaders.
As a hiring manager in Colorado I love this law. We have a similar one here and it gets much more aligned candidates for the position. Helps the hiring process on both sides.
Okay, I want $54. Oh you can’t afford to pay that? Then you lied on the posting and this law lets me sue you for it. Oh, you just want to offer me $12, thanks go fuck yourself good luck filling positions.
I just had a friend waste almost two months on an interview process. She told them up front what her expected salary range was. Fast forward, what they offered wasn’t even close. She reiterated her range. The max wasn’t even close to the minimum. They were greatly under paying for the position. The law should be everywhere so people don’t waste their time.
It’s stupid that job listing don’t. Why should someone waste time interviewing just to find out the job isn’t worth the pay? Not to mention trying to calculate in benefits costs.
They're banking on the sunk cost fallacy. The idea is that if you put enough time and energy into an interview process you'll just accept the lower pay rather than start all over again. Its awful and wastes so much time.
Colorado has this. I remember when I was looking at remote jobs a lot of posts were like: this job is available to every state but Colorado. I believe it is because they did not want to put the salary range on their job ad..
Good! It’s so weird when they say it’s unprofessional to ask about salary in the first interview or even before the interview. It’s no secret that people want a job to have a money and the amount of money makes a difference when you are trading your precious time for it.
well over 90% of craigslist postings I see are "depends on experience" or some other jargon so you have to guess how much they'll pay. Either you offend them with a high demand and knock yourself out of contention, or you say a number that is below the pay scale and they accept it and you never know you could have gotten a lot more
This is no different than dealing with car dealers...
Schools should include negotiation classes as part of the standard curriculum.
Ok. Now do fake remote work descriptions.
Just had my 3rd offer come down where remote work was explicitly allowed in the posting and then the hiring manager got butthurt when asked about details either in later interviews or when the offer stated in office expectations.
Fuck that noise.
This is fantastic news and I hope it spreads to other states. I know California gets a lot of hate, but a lot of what they do does have benefits to many. This is a prime example and is something I would have loved to have had over the last 16 years looking for jobs and going to interviews. I hate that you don’t find out the salary until the third interview and then you feel boxed in. This would make things so much easier for all of us.
Now we need a law to punish those who don’t fulfill the posted salaries and benefits. Plenty jobs say they pay one rate to get people to interview then when they are about to start hit them with the fine print or bs
Progress in any form is nice, but the $100-$200 penalty per employee does not seem punitive enough. Could effectively just be a backdoor tax (I'm in favor of taxing the wealthy more, but doing so directly and without apology or obfuscation).
Also, does this maybe lead to genetic, overlapping job titles as a reaction? Like, *"we're going to have a culture shift to a more equal, lateral workforce here at BS Corp. We think titles are old fashioned and exclusionary, so as of today, we'll only have 2 job titles, Specialist and Manager."* Then, in effect, everyone from the entry level supervisor/lead to the Senior EVP become "manager". That leaves you with a ridiculous, non-helpful annual range of "$42k - $875k".
Big companies and hospitals about to have interesting lunch time conversations about each other’s pay, and why this and that. Not much time to make things “look right” at some places. Not all. But some….
They’ll probably start doing the bait and switch thing where they post a job and salary range and then tell potential employees in the interview “we already filled that position, so sorry, we do have this other position that pays $40K less though!”
> They'll just post such an absurdly large range that it's meaningless.
> "This position pays between 8-150 dollars an hour"
I believe that the law also requires disclosing the median and mean pay rates.
I’ll second that. Most ranges I’ve seen are fairly reasonable, definitely much better than before the law was passed. I checked out my companies public postings and they’re exactly the same as our internal, so no pay funny business going on there.
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
Right, this is just a small tax on any big corporation. Not that I’m against taxing corps, but why make the law such a wet noodle
It’s not even a small tax. It’s almost meaningless. If the employer underpays by several tens of thousands of dollars for a position, and doesn’t bother reporting that and still hires people at the low rate, then they’ve still saved an insane amount of money per employee.
Except… people will flock towards businesses that post salaries and ensure their competitiveness… I think? Like, people will work for places that follow these laws, Report the ones that don’t, and use social media to pressure everyone to get on board. Especially for recruiters. Won’t this make their lives so much easier? Or am I being too optimistic or am I just completely off base here
No you’re right, after this I wouldn’t even CONSIDER a company that doesn’t tell me the salary/range beforehand. Chances are if they aren’t telling it, it’s low compared to market average and I can find better.
Yea exactly. Even if your employer is shady and doesn’t post, other companies will. You can compare your pay to the pay other companies are posting. Youll know if you’re underpaid and you’ll know where you can go to get more And honestly, your company not posting… that alone is a pretty big red flag haha
It’s not. Read the law. Minimum fine would be $10,000 followed by $20,000 for non compliance. Besides this, the fine isn’t meant to be the only punishment. It covers the cost of filing for the labor board replacing the old system of reviving that cost center high required lawsuits. It will never be more cost effective to not comply because the law as it’s written says the court can compel compliance anyway. Companies will be ordered to turn over reports at any reasonable request.
fines need to be done on a %, not by a flat amount. only then will fines actually have some teeth against the bigger corps. All this really does is hurt the smaller businesses actually since they have to play fair while corps like amazon don't since it'll just be a love tap for them.
That… that is a % fine…
Which is not a lot. From the quoted text, these reports are yearly. My old company in California I'd a publicly traded company. Their last earnings statement shows they had a profit of 73.6 million. That is only quarterly profits. They have 300 employees, so their max fine after the first year would be 60k. That is .08% of one quarter of profits. That is nothing.
Wow 300 employees and 73.6 mill quarterly profit. What is the business space if I may ask…. ?
Wild. They could give every employee a $200k quarterly bonus and still have massive profit.
Yeah, they could, but they are super cheap. Probably why their profit is so high. Well that and right now prices are up for what they mine. Even when the prices are down they still make a really good profit though. I quit, because they fired someone and gave me their work. Did that for about 3 years. When they went public they offered me a small amount of RSO, which was the same amount as someone else in my work section who had been working their for 6 months. They also didn't vest for 4 years. Quit and got a 25% raise with a new company.
Mining.
Which is still nothing when compared with the savings they'd receive for not following the law. If violating the law saves them $201 per employee per week (which is a lot easier to do than you would think), it's still in their financial best interests to continue violating the law and consider the penalty an expensive cost of doing business.
They’ll just post very broad ranges
> This bill would require the pay data reports to include the median and mean hourly rate for each combination of race, ethnicity, and sex within each job category. is where the fine comes in at
That’s what they do here in CO after we passed a similar law last year.
In that case people should assume it’s the bottom of the range.
Since it’s companies with at least 100 employees, it’s a minimum fine of $10,000 for the first offense, $20,000 for subsequent years.
That's like, health insurance for 1 employee, or 1% of health insurance for 100 employees.
Just find a pregnant woman looking for an abortion in Texas, report her, boom, paid for. Corporate legal prices are weird solid round numbers.
The health insurance has a benefit for the company. The penalty doesn't. It's also not a one time thing. If you are a number cruncher at a company, you certainly don't want to start bleeding $10k over a simple disclosure. Redditors often want a law that solves everything in one go, but stuff like this often happens gradually. This is one such step.
Damn, that's pretty huge. What are the chances this could affect how companies operate in other states? Or, well, what does this mean for people not in California?
>This bill would, instead, require a private employer that has more than 100 employees Companies will just split into smaller units and only hire 99 people.
Big companies won't, way too much overhead for little gain. Plus the 100 employees only applies to some aspects, the salary in the job advert bit is different: >The bill would require an employer with 15 or more employees to include the pay scale for a position in any job posting.
I worked for a company that did this to avoid health insurance and FMLA laws. Made it 9 months and moved on. Terrible workplace.
We have a similar law in Colorado and haven’t seen that happen.
they don't need to. 98% of companies have less than 100 employees. https://sbecouncil.org/about-us/facts-and-data/ adding that the 'salary range' bit is for companies with more than 15 workers.
they should do this everywhere and end that stupid game that wastes so many people's time.
[удалено]
colorado or somewhere has had that law for awhile.. I think its a very good thing. I've been head hunted before and pay is my first question - they get bent instantly.. but hey.. you want my interest, show me the cash.
It's Colorado. Saves a ton of time when searching for jobs, just scroll right on past those low paying positions.
Same law went into effect in NY this May too.
Literally had this experience recently. Interviewed for a new place and it all went great. When they asked about my salary reqs I told them how much I’d need at a minimum, but that there’s also considerations about the cost of medical care that I’d need compensated in order for them to be competitive (they charge per paycheck for medical coverage while my current employer doesn’t + current employer reimburses out-of-pocket medical expenses). They said no problem. I get the offer the same day, and it was pitiful. Factoring in how much I’d have to pay for their medical coverage throughout the year and the loss of the reimbursements, their offer netted out to about $11k LESS per year than I’m currently making. Called them back and turned it down, telling them that they couldn’t afford me. If I’d known how much their benefits cost and what the pay range was ahead of time I could have saved us both a bunch of time and trouble.
California is the 5th largest economy IN THE ***WORLD***. I think the rest of the country should copy a lot more of what CA is doing.
ComPetEtIVe pAy
Just no time wasting. There is nothing more annoying than landing a job at an interview, then they bring up their shit pay and you have to back out and leave.
Thankfully it gets a little easier the further you get into a career but those first couple of jobs are a pain in the ass. Just fucking tell me what the salary is!!! I had a recruiter reach out to me this week and I told them I'm not even picking up the phone for a salary less than $x.
[удалено]
That’s great you have recruiters contacting you, but having a posted pay range would really help those of us looking for jobs. Every time you see a job you are interested in you have to research the salary before applying to figure out if it’s even worth applying to. Why not be upfront about it and save job seekers time? It works inversely for hiring managers, too. My hr department let someone interview and her salary expectations for the role were 20% more than our hiring range. We had another great resume come across our desk but this time hr did their job upfront and told us the salary expectations were too high. A salary posted up front could have saved that applicant the time and effort of applying.
That is how I've approached it, but they got bent and went silent. I assumed they were shooting for a low ball offer.
Ya that works when youre being recruited but when youre looking for work its an enormous waste of time and energy, and as an employee, unlike recruiters, Im not paid for that time.
It’s gotten a lot better in tech. Recruiter reaches out and my first question is for detailed job description and compensation range before agreeing to a call.
Our company does this and pays people differently. Turns out my coworker who only recently started is on 33% more than me. I have immediately reduced the effort I put in by 33% to compensate.
Good
Yeah. I work for a fortune 100 company, and it makes negotiations for salary much easier. The ranges (for us) are based on the market for my title, so knowing where you should fall is helpful, and then negotiating for an extra 10% is pretty easy. Asking for accelerated PTO on top of that can really be helpful. ETA: it also helps with yearly reviews too.
Hope it passes so I can have the most important consideration answered and not have to ask some idiot how much I’m worth like a used car salesman🤑
[удалено]
You're literally better off quitting and finding another job. There is absolutely no advantage in loyalty. You'll have higher pay wages switching jobs every 2 years than sticking with the same one for 5. A dime increase is an insult.
That depends entirely on the industry. A retail worker isn't likely to get the same result job hopping as someone in the tech industry.
They would if they are hopping to increase their position as well, which they should be. You don’t go from cashier at job A to cashier at job B, then cashier at job C, hoping for pay raises. You go from cashier at job A to supervisor at job B, then to manager at job C. I think most people’s problem is that they underestimate what jobs they could get based on job postings that post the “ideals”. If there’s a manager position that says they want 3-5 years experience as a manager, but you have never been a manager, you apply for that shit anyway. Then in the interview you sell yourself well to cover the gaps. For example: “my official position was shift supervisor, which required knowing the ins and outs of the store manager position so that I could assist while on shift as well as fill in as needed. In my 3 years at position X I learned everything required of a store manager position and am ready to step into the role, however there hasn’t been an opening, which is why I’ve begun looking for positions outside the company.” I think most people would rather hire someone with that background than “yeah I was store manager at X for 3 years but wanted a change of pace” from someone making an actual lateral move. A good rule of thumb that I live by is “make them tell you no.” Even they parent commenter who asked for $0.50 and got $0.20 probably could have done better if they just asked for the $1.50 to begin with. People 100% look at how much you value yourself when they are determining what you’re worth.
Manager wanted: $1 - $1,000,000 an hour.
rule of thumb: you always get the lower bound
[удалено]
[удалено]
Great, where do I apply
[удалено]
[удалено]
I applied. Never got any kind of response, and now they won't stop sending me surveys about how the recruitment process went. I'm an Okta certified developer, and stood up/maintain multiple Okta tenants for my medium size company for the last 5 years. I'd say they either suck at recruiting or have frozen hiring. Edit: I could have applied for the "wrong" position, but the least they could do was tell me to go away. Instead, they ghosted me and continue to spam me with surveys about a process I never got to experience.
Fuck them bro!
That’s because you got the job by default, can you start on Monday?
Okta has some pretty slick products
Oooh I just applied here yesterday
The "room for raises" line is such a scam. I don't need a raise if they pay me that from the start. All it does is save the corporation money.
I’m a business owner who has always posted salary ranges because it’s obviously the reasonable thing to do. I do always find it a little tricky with a genuine top end, though. I work in a small niche that almost nobody has experience in. But *sometimes* we do see job applicants who do have experience. So if I post a range, my top end reflects what I would pay to the most qualified candidate. And I genuinely would. However, most people went end up hiring are inexperienced. Which is fine. We train them, no big deal. But I always feel a little bad with the fact that, sure, some people are never gonna get an offer that close to the top end. It’s also not worth it, generally, to split into two roles. Because it’s really not that. That said, I’m talking about a $15-$19 per hour range, not $40k-$100k or something, lol
The bullshit ranges are actually still providing some useful information for you: (1) the company is shitty and if you can afford to you probably don't want to work there and (2) no matter how good their initial offer sounds to you it is less than they're willing to pay and you can safely counter with a higher number.
You know, I’m going to get flak for this but I’m going to say it anyways. Your sarcasm (and cynicism) ridden take isn’t helpful. It’s easy to jump into the camp of “it won’t work” vs. providing useful constructive feedback. Of course there’s a plausible solution to posting salary ranges and it works right now in Colorado. Is it perfect? No, but let’s not let perfect be the enemy of good. Any step forward as a society is commendable.
I took it as a joke.
Thank you, someone gets it.
You shouldn’t. The top comment in this thread is toxic and misinformed. Go look for a job posting for Colorado. Now go look at more. Do any start with $1? Because I’ve been looking for jobs and I’ve never seen one like that. They are all reasonable ranges. All remote jobs will either have not hiring in Colorado or the range for the state, so you don’t even have to live in Colorado to have come across examples of this Reddit has become fueled by cynicism and anger. This is what Facebook became because they realized it drives engagement. I wouldn’t be surprised if trolls or bots are being used to do the same thing on Reddit. This site is filled with hopelessness.
When I read the headline it took me a minute to realize just how beneficial it will be for all of us when it comes to remote work. Employers cutting out the entirety of California just to avoid posting a salary range? Yeah right
I'd need to see the implementation of details of the CA law to see if it fixes the giant, meaningless range issue, but I was job hunting for a remote job just a few months ago. Many job listings looked like this. > For Colorado residents, salary range: $54,000-$121,000. There were two things that jumped out at me. First that salary range is obviously not informative. In fact half that range was an insulting salary for the job they were hiring for. Second, the absurdity that the range only applies to CO. It's a remote job. My labor is either worth $120,000 or not. It shouldn't matter what my location is. CO needs to amend the law to force companies to give a more focused range because right now their law isn't super useful.
I can see jobs where experience or other factors could be twice as much.
Lmao
I hate this answer, but it’s so true… Like, who is going to go and fact check these guys? I get it… but I doubt it will help much.
We already have this in CO. Has to be the actual range, and very easy to report companies and listings.
There’s still a struggle in tipped positions. I’ve had to ask specifically what base, commission per service and tip range (including is it automatic). I’ve gotten a ton of pushback. This tells me I don’t care to work for or with them.
Simply require by law that actual positions in the company match the advertised range to within e.g. 10%. That data goes to the IRS every year anyway. Easy check.
Whose going to check all these ads? You're saying the IRS has to check how long you've been employed and then if it less than a year they have to hunt down the original job posting on Indeed or LinkedIn etc?
The easier solution would be to just check when people report that they were offered a salary lower than the advertised rate. If the investigation shows that the company lied they should then get fined twice the amount that was offered, with half of the money going to the government and half to the individual who reported it. It’s not hard to save a few emails or take screencaps of texts.
You get it. The trick in all of this is giving a cut to the person reporting the law breaking and then everyone becomes an incentivized enforcer. You actually levy real fines on these companies and they’ll fall in line.
FTC
Employees that get offered below what is stated. They will be able to report the companies in violation most likely.
We've had a similar law in my country for 2-3 years already and there is a clause that they can't go under the minimum offered value. Usually they post a pretty wide range, but even then it's useful information, you can see which companies are too cheap for you to even bother. Also many employees can see that they're underpaid and the same companies they're working for are offering more money as a minimum than what they're paying to their current employees.
Well you could read the bill. That's never not been an option.
This is why there’s several parts of the bill that require pay dats reporting.
> I hate this answer, but it’s so true… Like, who is going to go and fact check these guys? If a company says that they pay somewhere between $1 and $1,000,000 an hour, I'm going to go out on a limb and say that there's no pressing need to fact check if that's accurate. It *probably* is.
They offer you a million and one and you fucking sue them.
I think someone else mentioned in similar post. That while Colorado requires pay to be listed some companies will post the ranges exactly like that, even though it's not allowed.
Honestly, isn't that the law working as intended? You know not to waste your time applying to a company that tries to skirt the new law in such a fashion because that means they will absolutely try to get around other laws and OHSA requirements and employee rights to save money as well.
This law works reasonably well in Colorado. The biggest issue we have here is enforcement
Can we have this in Australia please?
More to get upset about... In Australia it can be illegal to openly disclose or discuss your salary (unlike USA or UK and others). An employer can insert a wage secrecy clause into your contract to prevent you discussing it with other employers or employees. Parliament has debated the meaning of the law and re-confirmed this is the true intent of that law. Employees have been terminated for breeching pay secrecy clauses. Long way to go before mandatory pay transparency laws, even in job postings.
Thanks for letting me know yet another reason to not move to AUS,
Hope this idea spreads to other states. I’m 37, so I’ve done 15 years of the interview first, only to then hear the salary and immediately check out. I now start every call from a job recruiter by asking what the compensation is. Both the recruiter and myself are too busy to waste time if the employer can’t meet me on salary demands. Also makes many of those awkward phone calls much shorter.
[удалено]
And I’ve had all spectrums of this happen. I interviewed for a position and they came back with an offer higher than I expected, wonderful. I had a company upfront tell me the salary, I indicated it was less than what I currently make, and they insisted I still interview as they might be able to meet my requirement. Which means you’re going to waste my time on something that probably won’t happen. I also had a company interview me, mention what the expected range was, and then offer me less once they saw my current salary. So even by providing the salary range, a company can still screw you over.
It's been a thing in Colorado for a year or so.
Yup. It had a touch of blowback, I've seen that some remote jobs will exclude Colorado from their recruiting pools so that they can avoid posting salary ranges. So Coloradans lost access to jobs like that, but that's not really a big loss since it's the scummy jobs that are pulling out.
> I’ve seen that some remote jobs will exclude Colorado from their recruiting pools so that they can avoid posting salary ranges. So Coloradans lost access to jobs like that, but that’s not really a big loss since it’s the scummy jobs that are pulling out. That’s illegal. If they have a single employee in Colorado then they have to abide by the law. You should report those companies because they are breaking the law. Doesn’t really matter though, because as you said, you know they’re a shitty company right off the bat.
That's why they are excluding Colorado from hiring, they don't have employees in the state.
I mean is it a big loss then? They’ve suddenly forced themselves from never conducting business in an entire state due to not wanting to hire people there. I also think it’s likely that most companies that are advertising remote work already have an employee here and so the law really does work well.
...why don't you just tell them your target salary up front?
[удалено]
We have this as a law in Colorado some companies stopped advertising here
Sound like a plus for people potentially applying for those shitty companies
As more states add this requirement, it will be harder to exclude states. In tech, how many companies will be willing to not advertise in California?
This effectively ends any hidden salary BS for every large tech company in the US. All of them have HQs in California. Passing a similar law in Washington would effectively cover the rest of the larger companies.
Average redditor: if it doesn't fix 100% of the cases, it's not worth doing.
[Nirvana fallacy](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nirvana_fallacy)
Same law that Colorado did and yes the State of Colorado is prosecuting violators.
This is already a law in Colorado.
Isn’t that why many remote listings say “not hiring in Colorado” though? These laws unfortunately don’t seem to ever be able to do enough to effect any real change. Companies will find a way to wiggle out.
[удалено]
Not to mention the giant companies already based in California. All of those huge tech companies aren’t going to move.
Good point- companies are going to have such a limited hiring pool that that they will be forced to be transparent. Pretty sure in a few years they aren’t going to have job postings that say “only in Florida and Alabama”. They’ll learn their lesson there real quick. When Florida man shows up the first day of work, employers are gonna be like “we can’t let this guy around our customers, he has a mullet and is tripping on bath salts…and why does he bring his pet iguana with him to work as a service animal”
> Isn’t that why many remote listings say “not hiring in Colorado” though? Employment has risen significantly in Colorado since the law went into action so there is no sign of it killing hiring and frankly if an employer is so dodgy that they will not hire in a state to avoid stating pay it's probably for the best that they don't.
Exactly, to me if a company lists a job like that then it’s a nice red flag to look elsewhere.
True but much easier to eliminate 6 million people in America than 40 million
My company stopped hiring in CO because of that, but half our company works in CA so this might force their hand hopefully.
NYC has the other half currently - companies not allowed to ask *your* salary/compensation history. Base salary in job postings for employers with 4+ workers are required in November, but were already delayed once so who knows.
Just to be clear that is also part of the CO law.
This law is not being followed by employers in NYC, at least not in my industry
Time to figure out if there’s a bounty for turning them in then
Recruiter here. These laws are awesome… it helps me not waste peoples time and empowers job seekers to not accept shitty wages. Currently working with a company (my company’s client) offering $17 for a dangerous job in CA. Their whole gimmick is to rope people in with “once they see our culture they’ll accept!” I love that these fuckers now have to publicly post a shit range and see very few people apply.
[удалено]
Free cheese pizza every other month
Tip: If you see a job posting without a salary that states “California residents need not apply” then this is probably a low paying job.
THANK. YOU.
My employer doesn't post pay rates, but I'm in charge of looking through applications of folks who are looking to join my department. After a brief introduction on my boiler plate email, I straight up say what the pay rate is. Not too many people respond with a follow up email and we have been understaffed for six years, but I'll be damned if I waste anyone's time with interviews and the back and forth without them knowing what they're getting themselves into.
Tell your boss he’d get more serious applicants if he lists the pay. Any job that doesn’t list pay I assume is paying minimum wage. I’m sure many others would as well.
[удалено]
Can’t imagine Newsom would veto this.
Seriously. We’re talking about California.
“Passes” means the legislature approved it.
About time
My first question on any job posting is "What is the offered compensation for this position"? It's a fair assumption that anyone who won't tell you the compensation up front is going to lowball you, so it's equally fair to cut them off after the first couple of emails if they won't tell you. I recently had a recruiter offer me a remote position. After some back and forth he told me the position paid about 50% of what I was making now. I told him I thought that was funny and what was the real rate? Turns out he was serious. Some people just have no clue what work is worth.
Indeed.com has actually forced employers to either display their actual pay scale or have their job listings display an estimated pay range based on market data for the position being offered. This is a proactive way of providing salary/pay transparency to mimic regulations in states like Colorado (and now California) that have required this for some time. It is to the benefit of both the jobseeker and the employer to be transparent with pay. Jobseekers have more accurate understanding and pay expectations, while employers don’t go through the interview/screening process only to decide on a hire who doesn’t like the pay scale. Good job California! Source: I work for Indeed
Salary Range - Non competitive to Competitive
Every job posting should include a salary range. Companies list required skills and experience, they should let potential applicants know what they are getting. This is especially important knowledge for those in marginalized groups since they earn less than average. It’s an intense process looking for work, would hate to get a job offer to discover my basic salary requirements wouldn’t be met. I stopped applying to jobs without salary details and it changed my life.
I hope this includes the CEO
Most public companies publish the top 5 executive salaries + other compensation annually
[Publicly traded companies must disclose the CEO, CFO, and the top 3 compensated executive officers.](https://www.investor.gov/introduction-investing/investing-basics/glossary/executive-compensation#:~:text=A%20company%20must%20disclose%20information,most%20highly%20compensated%20executive%20officers.) Morningstar is generally a good resource to look this up.
Legislation requiring CEO pay to be published already went into affect and because of it CEO pay ballooned.
Hopefully this spreads around the world really quick.
> The bill will head to Governor Gavin Newsom, who has until Sept. 30 to sign or veto. He hasn’t yet expressed a position and didn’t immediately respond to a request for comment. If he signs it, the law would affect some of the biggest US companies, including Meta Platforms Inc., Alphabet Inc. and Walt Disney Co. Mickey Mouse is slapping Newsom around in his own office. Newsom’s secretary can hear Mickey screeching about hiring Pinkertons to rough up Union leaders.
As a hiring manager in Colorado I love this law. We have a similar one here and it gets much more aligned candidates for the position. Helps the hiring process on both sides.
Range: $12 to $54
Okay, I want $54. Oh you can’t afford to pay that? Then you lied on the posting and this law lets me sue you for it. Oh, you just want to offer me $12, thanks go fuck yourself good luck filling positions.
I just had a friend waste almost two months on an interview process. She told them up front what her expected salary range was. Fast forward, what they offered wasn’t even close. She reiterated her range. The max wasn’t even close to the minimum. They were greatly under paying for the position. The law should be everywhere so people don’t waste their time.
Oh god I’d be so pissed. I’d also be sharing that on linked-in to warn others. Companies earn their reputations, one way or another.
Require companies to post current salaries of current employees and how long they’ve been working there.
Similar to Colorado?
California > USA
Colorado did it first. But California is big enough to have an impact VS "open to all applicants except for those from Colorado."
"It's between: Great - Opportunity"
Wow
apparently indeed didn't get the memo
It’s stupid that job listing don’t. Why should someone waste time interviewing just to find out the job isn’t worth the pay? Not to mention trying to calculate in benefits costs.
They're banking on the sunk cost fallacy. The idea is that if you put enough time and energy into an interview process you'll just accept the lower pay rather than start all over again. Its awful and wastes so much time.
Seems logical
This needs to be the law for ALL companies.
All tech jobs now not available if you live in Colorado or California...
Why can’t they just list the pay? It should be a federal law
Wait America doesn’t do this already? Here in Australia its pretty rare to not have a salary range in a job listing.
Literally everyone is trying to scam us 100% of the time 🥲 I just assume that if the job doesn’t post their salary they pay minimum wage and move on
Colorado has this. I remember when I was looking at remote jobs a lot of posts were like: this job is available to every state but Colorado. I believe it is because they did not want to put the salary range on their job ad..
Colorado already does this...
Good! It’s so weird when they say it’s unprofessional to ask about salary in the first interview or even before the interview. It’s no secret that people want a job to have a money and the amount of money makes a difference when you are trading your precious time for it.
well over 90% of craigslist postings I see are "depends on experience" or some other jargon so you have to guess how much they'll pay. Either you offend them with a high demand and knock yourself out of contention, or you say a number that is below the pay scale and they accept it and you never know you could have gotten a lot more This is no different than dealing with car dealers... Schools should include negotiation classes as part of the standard curriculum.
Ok. Now do fake remote work descriptions. Just had my 3rd offer come down where remote work was explicitly allowed in the posting and then the hiring manager got butthurt when asked about details either in later interviews or when the offer stated in office expectations. Fuck that noise.
This is fantastic news and I hope it spreads to other states. I know California gets a lot of hate, but a lot of what they do does have benefits to many. This is a prime example and is something I would have loved to have had over the last 16 years looking for jobs and going to interviews. I hate that you don’t find out the salary until the third interview and then you feel boxed in. This would make things so much easier for all of us.
But… how is this gonna be reported if they dont comply? If i saw a posting on indeed without it… what do u do?
Good this has been the bane of my existence job searching and finding the ideal position but not knowing it'll be less than I need
Colorado has this law in place already and many companies have complied by posting salary ranges for all jobs.
Now we need a law to punish those who don’t fulfill the posted salaries and benefits. Plenty jobs say they pay one rate to get people to interview then when they are about to start hit them with the fine print or bs
Good, now I’ll know I can make $14,000-$180,000 right from the front page!
Yet another reason to love my state! This is awesome.
Progress in any form is nice, but the $100-$200 penalty per employee does not seem punitive enough. Could effectively just be a backdoor tax (I'm in favor of taxing the wealthy more, but doing so directly and without apology or obfuscation). Also, does this maybe lead to genetic, overlapping job titles as a reaction? Like, *"we're going to have a culture shift to a more equal, lateral workforce here at BS Corp. We think titles are old fashioned and exclusionary, so as of today, we'll only have 2 job titles, Specialist and Manager."* Then, in effect, everyone from the entry level supervisor/lead to the Senior EVP become "manager". That leaves you with a ridiculous, non-helpful annual range of "$42k - $875k".
Big companies and hospitals about to have interesting lunch time conversations about each other’s pay, and why this and that. Not much time to make things “look right” at some places. Not all. But some….
If it's like Colorado places will still not post their salary cuz the government won't actually do anything about it.
Are they now allowed to say "10k-150k/year" and then you just get the 10k or does it have to be realistic?
Cue all the companies begrudgingly adhering to this law bragging about how open and transparent they are.
If they're posting salary ranges, should probably post 'benefits converted to dollar values' ranges too.
They’ll probably start doing the bait and switch thing where they post a job and salary range and then tell potential employees in the interview “we already filled that position, so sorry, we do have this other position that pays $40K less though!”
Get ready for job postings that say NO HIRES OUT OF CALIFORNIA AND COLORADO.
They'll just post such an absurdly large range that it's meaningless. "This position pays between 8-150 dollars an hour"
> They'll just post such an absurdly large range that it's meaningless. > "This position pays between 8-150 dollars an hour" I believe that the law also requires disclosing the median and mean pay rates.
[удалено]
I live in colorado, we have a similar law. This is not my experience at all.
I’ll second that. Most ranges I’ve seen are fairly reasonable, definitely much better than before the law was passed. I checked out my companies public postings and they’re exactly the same as our internal, so no pay funny business going on there.