Companies excluding Coloradans from remote jobs to avoid sharing salary ranges • Hacker News Board

Re: Companies excluding Coloradans from remote jobs to avoid sharing salary ranges

#121

Post by pessimizer » Fri, May 21, 2021, 1:40 PM UTC

kolbe wrote: post #106

Reminder: people respond to (dis)incentives. You should really think about the rational response to a disincentive whenever you make a law. But we have politicians who neither care to, nor have the intellectual capacity to bother researching how these “feel good” laws will actually be reacted to in real life. I have a friend who calls SF “the city of unintended consequences” for this exact reason, and now Colorado is…

The way to fix this is by enacting similar laws everywhere else, not to go for the lowest common denominator on workers rights (or "feel good laws" as you refer to them here.) Somebody has always got to be the first to outlaw slavery.

Re: Companies excluding Coloradans from remote jobs to avoid sharing salary ranges

#122

Post by sbarre » Fri, May 21, 2021, 1:40 PM UTC

MattGaiser wrote: post #111

I get why companies are increasingly focusing on referral hiring. it lets you sidestep so much compliance.

Compliance is one thing but if you trust your employees, then a referral hire also potentially lets you skip a ton of vetting.

Re: Companies excluding Coloradans from remote jobs to avoid sharing salary ranges

#123

Post by dboreham » Fri, May 21, 2021, 1:41 PM UTC

ClumsyPilot wrote: post #55

A 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…

Hmm. I lived in the UK (both England and Scotland, which are slightly different) for 1st 1/2 of my life then moved to USA. In my experience the housing market is one of the few things that is handled pretty much the same.

Re: Companies excluding Coloradans from remote jobs to avoid sharing salary ranges

#124

Post by lotsofpulp » Fri, May 21, 2021, 1:41 PM UTC

LargeWu wrote: post #87

zuhayeer wrote: post #49

Curious how wide the salary ranges can be. Are there ways companies can just provide a wide range and get away?

Might be counterproductive. If I, as an applicant, see a wide range and think there's a good chance that it's in bad faith, I might just skip them altogether in my search.

This law mainly benefits the lower end who are trying to find out if the fast food place will pay a dollar more than the hotel.

People that already had the option of switching high paying jobs don’t need this law, they can simply shop around themselves. Although they are also helped.

Re: Companies excluding Coloradans from remote jobs to avoid sharing salary ranges

#125

Post by sandworm101 » Fri, May 21, 2021, 1:41 PM UTC

ClumsyPilot wrote: post #55

A 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…

>> The market is not really free - its being manipulated by one side.

The market is free, it just isn't a healthy market. Those are different concepts. Participants in a totally free market are free to use their size/power/leverage as they wish. A free market is one where the little guy, the job applicant, will be hammered by the big guy. A 'healthy' market is one that is regulated in such a way that the little guy has at least a hope in the negotiation process. This then fosters competition, innovation, yielding a free-but-healthy market. Regulation needed to do those things that the "free" market cannot.

Re: Companies excluding Coloradans from remote jobs to avoid sharing salary ranges

#126

Post by cblconfederate » Fri, May 21, 2021, 1:41 PM UTC

ClumsyPilot wrote: post #55

A 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…

Profit most often rests on the asymmetry of information, thats why monopolies are so profitable

Re: Companies excluding Coloradans from remote jobs to avoid sharing salary ranges

#127

Post by nzmsv » Fri, May 21, 2021, 1:42 PM UTC

waheoo wrote: post #59

hasmolo wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

this feels a little disingenuous. the dude is a public facing exec that said shitty stuff about women, working at a company that heavily signals it won’t be like that. it seems like a lower level employee with the same views wouldn’t write a book including them or be liable for those views. context is important

It shouldn't matter what his role is. Saying some off the cuff stuff a few years ago in an obscure book doesn't make a workplace unsafe. That is disingenuous. I've seen people fired for similar "unsafe" bullshit. Literally anything can trigger these deranged individuals. They're just out to play victim and get attention. And no, I don't think all toxic workplace behaviour is like this, many places have narcissists an…

Dude was hired as a senior exec. Part of the job description is being a public persona representing the company. And the majority of the public disagrees with him. What are we taught to do as engineers when we don't agree with the majority? Disagree and commit. What did he do? Throw a temper tantrum along the lines of "how come Dre gets to be sexist and I don't". Forget opinions, he screwed up a basic job requirement. It's OK, we all make mistakes, and his was big enough to get canned. Life goes on.

Re: Companies excluding Coloradans from remote jobs to avoid sharing salary ranges

#128

Post by NovemberWhiskey » Fri, May 21, 2021, 1:42 PM UTC

How is this expected to work in the real world?

When I'm hiring, which I always am for software engineering roles, I am looking for talent at levels between college intern and multi-decade veteran.

I don't necessarily have a roster of specific positions I need to fill; I have an idea of what kind of skills and experience mix I would like to see over time, but there's always going to be turnover at every level.

Talent acquisition is multi-modal through campus programs, referrals, recruiters (both for targeted skill needs and passive candidates), and I guess probably some advertised positions.

Re: Companies excluding Coloradans from remote jobs to avoid sharing salary ranges

#129

Post by [deleted] » Fri, May 21, 2021, 1:43 PM UTC

matz1 wrote: post #73

phh wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I've been taught in school that perfect competition ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perfect_competition ) requires perfect information ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perfect_information ), so I assume giving more information would increase competition. Could you share why this is anti-competitive?

Competition doesn't necessarily have anything to do with the amount of information. https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/competition

[deleted]

Re: Companies excluding Coloradans from remote jobs to avoid sharing salary ranges

#130

Post by wbl » Fri, May 21, 2021, 1:43 PM UTC

ClumsyPilot wrote: post #118

gambiting wrote: post #84

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>>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 a…

In the US the buyer hires an inspector after the contract is agreed and the transfer can be voided if the inspector finds serious issues. Typically the price gets adjusted.