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

131–140 of 329 posts

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

#131

Post by TulliusCicero »

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.

Since their largest workforce is in Washington state, it's probably just less risky to make this their overall US policy. Making a different policy for HQ vs everywhere else could easily lead to mistakes and accidentally breaking the law.

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

#132

Post by bombcar »

TulliusCicero wrote: post #130
another_poster wrote: post #109

Individual states’ pay transparency laws are already applying upwards pressure on salaries across the country. My company has multiple groups in different states including Colorado, and in anticipation of needing to post salary ranges for our open positions in Colorado, my group (with no positions in Colorado) preemptively bumped up everyone’s salaries to the midpoint of their pay bands to avoid anyone becoming frust…

> my group (with no positions in Colorado) preemptively bumped up everyone’s salaries to the midpoint of their pay bands Uhh, surely I'm not the only one seeing the obvious flaw here, right? Is the inevitable outcome here that pay bands will now cover a range where nobody is actually in the lower half, ever? That lower half of the range will just be there as a sort of psychological buffer?

That's very common in anything that has a range. The pay bands will shift to compensate for it.

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

#133

Post by bombcar »

bena wrote: post #94
JumpCrisscross wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 y…

It also makes sense when you realize more and more jobs are "Location, or remote" and "or remote" would cover Washington and Colorado.

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

#135

Post by r00fus »

ENOTTY wrote: post #6

Given that most big tech companies' base salary tends to plateau and total comp begins to be dominated by stock grants and performance bonuses, just how much real transparency is actually going to be provided?

The side effects of this move are probably bigger than the move itself. Hopefully this induces other companies to advertise their salary ranges as candidates (it's still a candidate's market out there) use Microsoft's ranges as reference for negotiating salaries on other non-MS jobs.

Essentially this will push salaries up to match the massive inflation we've seen recently. Likely this will result in a homeostasis at some future point.

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

#136

Post by bombcar »

coding123 wrote: post #115
PragmaticPulp wrote: post #87

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, it would discourage some candidates from applying if they see the average within that range is lower than the average they could get anywhere else. Dirty tricks are also a red flag for candidates. However, while that range is an exaggeration, the truth is that salary ranges for positions are actually much wider than candidates may expect. There's a misconception that open positions have a single "correct" salary…

If someone is a III and applied for a II, the company would likely hire them as a II.

They'd likely offer at a II but reoffer at a III if there were competing offers, or really wanted the employee.

Or, sometimes, the fight was already done internally for a III and the manager wouldn't want to lose that, and so will hire at a low III.

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

#137

Post by xtracto »

avgDev wrote: post #3

This is the way. We need more of this. I'm at a point where if a recruiter messages me "about an exciting opportunity" without any salary information, he/she will not get a response. While there are some jobs that maybe I would consider a pay cut for, I generally want to make more money because that allows me to invest more so I can be free one day.

I just reply to everyone with my expected salary, which is 30% increase of my current salary. If they are not close to that number, then it is better to not waste our time.

I've been in the employer position (as a hiring manager) and in the Employee position. I know how much I am worth (or what I want to be worth), so I don't really care about playing games and haggling. I'ts ok, my value might become lower in a recession, or when trying to get into new verticals. When that happens, I'll adjust my expectations.

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

#138

Post by fartcannon »

zeroonetwothree wrote: post #100
willcipriano wrote: post #72

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"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

That's hardly the point.

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

#139

Post by r00fus »

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…

This would be included in total compensation (which should include non-renumerative benefits as well). In sales, where total comp could be mostly commission (I've seen a 25/75% split in some cases) the company should have some idea of what the bonus/commission range is.

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

#140

Post by marricks »

TulliusCicero wrote: post #130
another_poster wrote: post #109

Individual states’ pay transparency laws are already applying upwards pressure on salaries across the country. My company has multiple groups in different states including Colorado, and in anticipation of needing to post salary ranges for our open positions in Colorado, my group (with no positions in Colorado) preemptively bumped up everyone’s salaries to the midpoint of their pay bands to avoid anyone becoming frust…

> my group (with no positions in Colorado) preemptively bumped up everyone’s salaries to the midpoint of their pay bands Uhh, surely I'm not the only one seeing the obvious flaw here, right? Is the inevitable outcome here that pay bands will now cover a range where nobody is actually in the lower half, ever? That lower half of the range will just be there as a sort of psychological buffer?

So the pay bands go up. Everyone gets paid more, board salary go down a bit, and things hopefully become a bit more event. Sounds good? Things have been going the other direction far too long.
Post reply on HN