Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Microsoft will include pay ranges in all U.S. job postings

forbes.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

91–100 of 329 posts

Re: Microsoft will include pay ranges in all U.S. job postings

#91

Post by JumpCrisscross »

andjd wrote: post #62
JumpCrisscross wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> sources saying it's only about jobs open to Washington residents? Washington state can't regulate how Microsoft hires people in Texas. Microsoft Corp. isn't even a Washington legal entity. (EDIT: Never mind, I stand corrected [1]. In any case, the broader point stands. Delaware doesn't get to regulate how its entities hire outside Delaware. This is well-settled employment/interstate commerce law.) [1] https://www.s…

Legally, a company is subject to state laws of their state of incorporation (usually Delaware, for various reasons) _and_ their state of 'domicile', usually where they are headquartered. They are also subject to state laws in states where they operate. So yes, in this situation, even if MS were incorporated in Delaware, Washington state could pass laws that bind how the company acts anywhere in the world. Washington…

> even if MS were incorporated in Delaware, Washington state could pass laws that bind how the company acts anywhere in the world

This is not true [1]. It's especially untrue with respect to employment, a domain in which federal statute has a lot to say about who can regulate whom.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dormant_Commerce_Clause

Re: Microsoft will include pay ranges in all U.S. job postings

#93

Post by CountSessine »

malwarebytess wrote: post #65
dnissley wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Just to take this a bit farther... if Washington state can regulate Washington incorporated entities, can it regulate them to act in a way that would violate laws in other states?

Here's an example. California passes a law, and because doing business in California is good for the bottom line they will comply with the law, and in so doing set a new defacto national standard. But, if this burden becomes too onerous, the business can simply not do business with California or move out of California. But, California is such a large market it's quite a high burden to reach.

This isn't epwr's claim. His claim is that Washington has written and passed a law that binds Microsoft's operations outside Washington state, which I'm pretty sure would violate the commerce clause.

Re: Microsoft will include pay ranges in all U.S. job postings

#94

Post by bena »

JumpCrisscross wrote: post #10
epwr wrote: post #8

> Microsoft said it would disclose salary ranges in all internal and external U.S. job postings no later than January 2023. That date is when Washington state, where Microsoft’s headquarters are located, will start requiring employers with at least 15 employees to disclose salary ranges for each position. In other news, Microsoft to comply with a new law.

> In other news, Microsoft to comply with a new law Microsoft is under no obligation to comply with Washington law outside Washington. That's what they're doing here.

It's probably a move just to make it easier on themselves.

They want to streamline the job posting portion of HR. They don't want to have to worry about whether or not they have to post the salary range, so they just do what the most demanding law they deal with requires.

Now they only really have to deal with areas that have laws that contradict with laws in other areas. Then you'd default to the law that benefits you the most and deal with the contradictory areas explicitly. Since you have to do the work anyway.

For example, let's pretend that California had a really stupid law that forbid salary ranges from being posted on job listings. Now Microsoft has to be careful about how and where they post jobs. And since it's beneficial for them to hide the information, they'd likely only post the salary ranges where they were required to.

But absent that, don't do work you don't have to do.

Re: Microsoft will include pay ranges in all U.S. job postings

#95

Post by JumpCrisscross »

bmelton wrote: post #61
DannyBee wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

and then the law would get struck down because, as said, washington state isn't allowed to regulate interstate commerce.

Nit to pick: States can and do regulate interstate commerce all the time. California once banned the import of foie gras into the state, and IIRC are planning a law banning the import of foreign oil. Some states ban the import of firearms they don't wish to exist. Whether they should be allowed to engage in the regulation of interstate commerce for activities that occur entirely extra-state is probably more along wha…

> States can and do regulate interstate commerce all the time. California once banned the import of foie gras into the state, and IIRC are planning a law banning the import of foreign oil.

This is fine. Sacramento can regulate what's coming into California. It cannot set food labeling requirements for Michigan.

Re: Microsoft will include pay ranges in all U.S. job postings

#96

Post by Solstinox »

JamesSwift wrote: post #46
InefficientRed wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Agreed 100%. At big tech salary is close to useless and rarely the primary number that changes during negotiations. My highest paying job -- a 3.5x raise -- came with a $75K salary cut compared to my previous job. This should be, by far, the top voted comment. I don't think MSFT sharing salary ranges is consequential in any way.

Sure it is. If more start to do it, it becomes an arms race. If a company is loading the compensation in other ways and coming in light on salary then their job posting becomes much less compelling for job seekers. So they have a choice: disclose the other compensation (in order to compete with the salary numbers of the other companies) or adjust their compensation to be heavier on salary so their numbers are in line…

Arms race (which will lead to bigger salaries) or price collusion (salaries stay the same)?

Re: Microsoft will include pay ranges in all U.S. job postings

#97

Post by tshaddox »

bluGill wrote: post #83
JamesSwift wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sure it is. If more start to do it, it becomes an arms race. If a company is loading the compensation in other ways and coming in light on salary then their job posting becomes much less compelling for job seekers. So they have a choice: disclose the other compensation (in order to compete with the salary numbers of the other companies) or adjust their compensation to be heavier on salary so their numbers are in line…

That depends on what the other things are. Most years I get half of my take home pay in December because of my bonus (some of that is my 401k maxing out in November), there have been a couple bad years where the bonus was less, but at least I was able to keep my job. Keeping my job is a factor as well, since I have a family to support, if I'm laid off (like most companies do all the time) that means I'm scrambling to…

Out of curiosity, why does your 401k max out in November? If your employee does matching then wouldn’t you want to spread it as evenly as possible throughout the entire year?

Re: Microsoft will include pay ranges in all U.S. job postings

#98

Post by rsanek »

Solstinox wrote: post #96
JamesSwift wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sure it is. If more start to do it, it becomes an arms race. If a company is loading the compensation in other ways and coming in light on salary then their job posting becomes much less compelling for job seekers. So they have a choice: disclose the other compensation (in order to compete with the salary numbers of the other companies) or adjust their compensation to be heavier on salary so their numbers are in line…

Arms race (which will lead to bigger salaries) or price collusion (salaries stay the same)?

Wouldn't be the first time https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High-Tech_Employee_Antitrust_L...

Re: Microsoft will include pay ranges in all U.S. job postings

#99

Post by InefficientRed »

tshaddox wrote: post #97
bluGill wrote: post #83

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That depends on what the other things are. Most years I get half of my take home pay in December because of my bonus (some of that is my 401k maxing out in November), there have been a couple bad years where the bonus was less, but at least I was able to keep my job. Keeping my job is a factor as well, since I have a family to support, if I'm laid off (like most companies do all the time) that means I'm scrambling to…

Out of curiosity, why does your 401k max out in November? If your employee does matching then wouldn’t you want to spread it as evenly as possible throughout the entire year?

November is pretty close to the whole year. If you choose a fixed % per paycheck and have a bonus that's not perfectly amortized then being off by a month is actually pretty good.

Re: Microsoft will include pay ranges in all U.S. job postings

#100

Post by zeroonetwothree »

willcipriano wrote: post #72
oneoff786 wrote: post #66

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don’t think that’s true?

"Conspiracy to commit drug trafficking" would probably fit the bill. I think they could just call in the feds because from the state and federal perspective you are running a drug empire from that office.

The feds don’t seem very concerned with marijuana lately
Post reply on HN