I get why companies are increasingly focusing on referral hiring. it lets you sidestep so much compliance.
Companies excluding Coloradans from remote jobs to avoid sharing salary ranges
111–120 of 406 posts
Re: Companies excluding Coloradans from remote jobs to avoid sharing salary ranges
#112While that’s employee friendly..
Re: Companies excluding Coloradans from remote jobs to avoid sharing salary ranges
#113What is the likelihood someone in Colorado sues for discrimination? I think 100% at some point in the next 5 years.
I think it's legal to discriminate based on geographic location.
It is. Afaict, protected classes and characteristics as of 2021 are:
Sex, race, color, religion, national origin, pregnancy and childbirth (and related medical conditions), age (including mandatory retirement), disability (including requiring reasonable accommodation), black lung disease (mine operators), bankruptcy and bad debt, citizenship status, & genetic information.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Employment_discrimination_la...
Re: Companies excluding Coloradans from remote jobs to avoid sharing salary ranges
#114As a Coloradan another thing that's happening is companies are listing their jobs as Remote, only advertising in CO, and just mentioning it's a CO only job verbally. They do the thing where they sit in the gray area due to pandemic "Oh, it's remote, FOR NOW, but it's a CO job" Or listing the job as Denver and a few other cities, but it's really just Denver/Boulder (Twitter currently doing this).
Another pattern is listing the range as 40-250k so the disclosure is effectively nothing. Consulting companies Accenture, PwC, Deloitte are doing that one.
A few companies are completely rejecting this whole law too. I've spoken with a few that still won't disclose (usually "We aren't CO based and it doesn't apply") or they just straight up aren't doing it with no comment. Experienced many recruiters completely flustered by it.
Re: Companies excluding Coloradans from remote jobs to avoid sharing salary ranges
#115So it' s basically a corporate boycott against labor laws favorable to employees?! I guess this will be first time a boycott won't be broken by a police charge and perhaps even becoming successful! /s
> favorable to employees Is it really though? Complete transparency in salary ranges also means that every other employer can see exactly what their competition is offering. I can't help but worry that this will lead to a sort of "price fixing" that will actually drive wages _down_.
Good luck in a competitive field like tech.
Companies might not advertise salary ranges at a few big tech companies, but the vast majority of recruiters tell you the salary range as soon as you talk to them (or you name your price and they say "that will work"). I already totally ignore the bottom 75% of salaries.
The problem tech companies have is that many of them can be disrupted by a few motivated individuals, and there are always new opportunities for them. If you pay enough, you benefit from them. If you don't, somebody else does, or worse, they become new competition.
Re: Companies excluding Coloradans from remote jobs to avoid sharing salary ranges
#116I think one reason why this is difficult for companies that are hiring software engineers, is that they can hire at multiple levels of experience. They just need good developers! A company that needs, say, a Golang developer, or Scala, or React, might be willing to hire a junior, mid-level or senior developer- they'll take whatever experience level they can get. Remember, saying that you don't want to hire someone too experienced is pushing the envelope on age discrimination laws....
So if they're willing to hire someone with 2-20 years of experience, the salary range may be so broad as to be meaningless. $80-180k doesn't really tell anyone anything, and I'd imagine regulators can't do much if that's what companies put down as their range. I find that a lot of people imagine an open job & job description to be Very Rigid Categories, whereas in practice companies hiring in high-demand fields have to be flexible to find people. From the employer's point of view, that's why we find demands for the salary range to be frustrating- lots of companies really don't have a specific range in mind!
If you mandate that companies use a tight salary band, they'll simply say OK, our Software Developer 1 pays $70-90k, Software Developer 2 pays $90-11k, etc. However- we haven't decided which level of software developer we're going to hire you for. Tough for regulators to beat that approach too
Re: Companies excluding Coloradans from remote jobs to avoid sharing salary ranges
#117A competitive market would enable me to sort by salary and benefits and apply for the best job. However companies don't want to compete on salary, and potentialy drive them up - they want maximum leverage. They get more leverage if process is obscure, so that you only agree salary late in the process and for the applicant, pulling out is risky. The market is not really free - its being manipulated by one side. Simila…
> You have to pay for the surveyor to find out any issues the house might have, and that means you can only view a few houses before you've paid the house price in survey fees.
How much are you paying for surveys? Even a full structural survey -- which would be considered over the top for most purchases -- should only cost £1,500 or so.
And you're not going to get any sort of survey for most of the houses you view. You only usually bother with one once you've made an offer and the vendor's accepted it: if the survey reveals anything significant, you either pull out or try to renegotiate the price.
Re: Companies excluding Coloradans from remote jobs to avoid sharing salary ranges
#118A competitive market would enable me to sort by salary and benefits and apply for the best job. However companies don't want to compete on salary, and potentialy drive them up - they want maximum leverage. They get more leverage if process is obscure, so that you only agree salary late in the process and for the applicant, pulling out is risky. The market is not really free - its being manipulated by one side. Simila…
>>With housing (in UK) there is no competition on quality because the seller doesn't have to disclose any problems with the house. If it falls of a cliff the minute you sign on the dotted line, it's your problem. I'm in the UK and that's absolutely not true. If you think the owner knew about the problem and purposefully omitted telling you, then you definitely have a court case and any law firm worth their salt will…
In sane countries the seller must comission a survey and provide it to the buyer. The UK system where each buyer comissions a survey is absurd.
I do not understand how the mortgage helps you - you are still paying for it, and if the survey uncovers issues, you either take mortgage on a house with problems, or you are out of pocket.
If you pull out, and next house you view has issues too, you have to take it because at some poijt you run out of money
Re: Companies excluding Coloradans from remote jobs to avoid sharing salary ranges
#119I used to think keeping salaries secret was a racket. And maybe it is.
But I also think there might be people you work with who try hard, do decent work slowly, and are compensated accordingly. (Fairly) And who are delighted with their job and salary.
How would it benefit that person to be confronted with the fact that someone else makes double or triple what they do?
Re: Companies excluding Coloradans from remote jobs to avoid sharing salary ranges
#120Earlier quoted context omitted.
I am amazed that people do not understand that difference between Voluntary Action and Mandatory / Regulatory Burden. A Company could 100% already being doing everything to be in compliance with a regulation and still oppose the regulation, and take actions to ensure they are bound by that regulation
Granted. But which of the following happens more often? A) Companies oppose regulation because of filing and compliance costs, despite already doing the required behavior B) Companies oppose regulation because they don't want to have a requirement to do and maintain the behavior It feels like really we're talking about (B) as a primary motivator, and (A) is a smoke screen for PR palatability.
Of course B primary motivator and I do not see that as a bad thing
I am not sure why you think anyone or any company would DESIRE to have external actors imposes requirements on their actions or why it would be unpalatable to say you do not want to have regulatory burdens imposes on you
As a culture have we so lost the respect for freedom and liberty that is now bad if you want to have said freedom?