171–180 of 207 posts
That being said, this will only equalize if job seekers from most or all states can get their state to pass similar laws. If that happens, then companies will have no choice but to list out their ranges.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Only if the advertised minimum has to be the actual minimum someone at the company is making, and not a theoretical minimum that the salary band encompasses. Because if it's a theoretical minimum, I don't care about it; I want to know what the maximum is. If it's an actual minimum, I also don't care about it, but the person earning that might.
If a company offers $1 as their minimum, then applications will know they are a joke. They will have to keep moving this minimum up and up to be taken more seriously. If a company offers $50k as a minimum for a role that most people earn $200k for, then they probably will not get many good people responding to it since who would want to work for a company that could lowball you by $150k? And another company can see t…
This is basically just letting employees do a similar first pass of employers that employers are doing on us - if your salary range is bonkers and your senior dev has a low range of 30k then I'm not working there - I don't care if you offer me 150k, you clearly have something toxic going on with your culture so into the bin you go.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The max is helpful too as I keep running into companies that want to pay 60K or 70K.
I had a recruiter e-mail me once to pitch a 6-month PHP programming contract that expected a Master's degree and 5 years experience that was only going to pay $15/hr.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think working for an employer because you identify with their “mission” is deeply unhealthy for both individual employees and for society at large. In almost all cases, employment should be a purely financial transaction, and if you’re looking for something “deeper” you should probably work for yourself or start a new company.
Is wearing a sports team jersey deeply unhealthy? What about wearing a political hat? People like being in tribes, and they like standing for something. They love signaling those affiliations. If someone can get paid to join a tribe on a mission they identify with, if they get to say things like “We are accelerating the world’s transition to sustainable transport!” without the extraordinary stress of being an entrepr…
Your work and your life are two quite separable things - when you're young it's easy to be entirely consumed by work, but you'll grow out of that hopefully (whether or not you have kids - you can also just start valuing yourself more). The more they are intertwined the more you're putting yourself at risk of a serious sudden life shock.
I think being a founder is a bit easier life-shock wise - things can definitely go horribly wrong (they usually do in fact!) but you get a lot of warning and you should see the end coming before it slaps you in the face. If your company graduates to being a full corporation with a board and such - I think that's the time when you should regroup and step back a bit - since you are now a disposable employee.
Do the people who lobbied for this law think this is a positive outcome for workers in Colorado or not?
It's early days to be forming a judgement about that, I suspect.
Context: Colorado’s Equal Pay Act requires jobs ads to list a salary range [1], which companies generally don't want to do. Excluding CO residents is one way companies are avoiding the law. [1] https://www.colorado.edu/hr/colorados-equal-pay-equal-work-a...
Doesn't this basically show the stupidity of local regulations? Make these kind of laws federal if you want them to stick or at least coordinate with the big states. Looking at Wikipedia Colorado doesn't have the economic power to dictate anything.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's early days to be forming a judgement about that, I suspect.
no, as someone who lives in Colorado, and is affected by this law, which was something widely reported on, nor was it bipartisan, it's not too early to form a judgement on this.
I'm sorry if that comes at some personal cost to you, but there are very [ EDIT: few ] social changes that don't cost someone something.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
no, as someone who lives in Colorado, and is affected by this law, which was something widely reported on, nor was it bipartisan, it's not too early to form a judgement on this.
I would insist that it is. If other states follow CO with this type of legislation, it will result in all (most) companies deciding to do what many people consider the right thing. If they do not, and CO remains alone in this requirement, then the longer term conclusion will look different. I'm sorry if that comes at some personal cost to you, but there are very [ EDIT: few ] social changes that don't cost someone so…
Doesn’t California have a similar pay transparency law? As far as I can tell, it doesn’t work, because it’s still rare to see a salary range up front.
California’s is “on applicant request” not “in advertisements”. Though the California Equal Pay Act has had annual amendments for the last several years so I wouldn't be surprised to see it picking up a Colorado-style disclosure rule soon.