Microsoft will include pay ranges in all U.S. job postings • Hacker News Board

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

#161

Post by dragonwriter » Fri, Jun 10, 2022, 5:34 PM UTC

superfrank wrote: post #159

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.

My guess is they see the writing on the wall with this one. Colorado and Washington both have laws about this now. I wouldn't be surprised to see California and New York implement something similar in the next year or two.

> I wouldn't be surprised to see California and New York implement something similar in the next year or two.

California started the trend with its “on reasonable request” pay range disclosure law, and has an proactive disclosure bill that has passed the Senate and is pending in the Assembly this session (DB 1162). But even without a proactive disclosure law, voluntary proactive disclosure reduces the request load for on-reequest disclosure, and consistency is cheaper to implement internally.

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

#162

Post by killjoywashere » Fri, Jun 10, 2022, 5:36 PM UTC

This will work for a while, but have a look at how this has played out in other situations: 1) college tuition cost of attendance calculators (shit goes up every year), 2) federal pay scales (completely immobile), 3) healthcare standard charges mandate. This will eventually become oppressive as the powerful learn to communicate with this new node in the network.

edit: not sure why the downvotes. Making information public increases market efficiencies, but market efficiencies don't always transfer to the workers. See: the last 30 years.

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

#163

Post by nomilk » Fri, Jun 10, 2022, 5:41 PM UTC

lotsofpulp wrote: post #157

nomilk wrote: post #103

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Employers must provide equal compensation to similarly employed workers The kicker is "similarly employed". I've seen people with the same job title earn a differential of 3x, but that's simply because one negotiated better and was more economically valuable (had about 1.5 more decades' experience) than the other, yet they had the same job title. I guess we could argue to control for years' experience, but I've see…

Beginner microeconomics courses teach that for the best allocation of resources, a market must have price transparency. How else are market participants supposed to ascertain the movements of supply and demand curves?

> How else are market participants supposed to ascertain the movements of supply and demand curves?

The problem is jobs aren't homogenous, so comparing salaries is meaningless, not only for applicants but also for the company itself. Imagine you find 10 people whose resumes look similar on paper, but after you interview all ten you realise there are some you'd hire in an instant, others you think are just okay, and some you think are awful. It's so obvious why their salaries would differ, and I find it very challenging to make any good argument otherwise.

So, how can market participants ascertain supply and demand (and hence, price)? The answer is they can't, but they're no worse than companies, academics, government or anyone else - without assessing the individual, I don't think it's possible for anyone to know.

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

#164

Post by TulliusCicero » Fri, Jun 10, 2022, 5:41 PM UTC

Dylan16807 wrote: post #148

TulliusCicero wrote: post #131

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

It can't be that hard to follow this law in specific places. This is a meaningful policy decision, not just following risk.

I think you'd be surprised. Though the problem isn't that it's hard to follow in the general case, but that things could potentially slip through the cracks.

Corporations are risk averse, they don't want to have to deal with potentially getting sued if a job opening starts out in one area and then moves to another one where suddenly the way the opening is described is illegal.

It's just easier to do it the same everywhere if the advantage they're giving up is small.

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

#165

Post by InitialBP » Fri, Jun 10, 2022, 5:42 PM UTC

Dylan16807 wrote: post #148

TulliusCicero wrote: post #131

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

It can't be that hard to follow this law in specific places. This is a meaningful policy decision, not just following risk.

> It can't be that hard to follow this law in specific places.

Directly from the article: "Pay experts have long predicted companies would not want to mess with different practices in different states. Doing so not only complicates hiring practices for human resources departments, ..."

There is probably a lot more nuance and qualifications of when it's necessary to disclose and from a company that employs more than 150k employees (according to a quick google) there's probably even more complexity and chaos.

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

#166

Post by TulliusCicero » Fri, Jun 10, 2022, 5:43 PM UTC

marricks wrote: post #140

TulliusCicero wrote: post #130

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

> So the pay bands go up.

They can't, though; if you do that, now there are people in the bottom half, and they're upset that they're 'below average'.

You basically need a vanity range for pay.

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

#167

Post by jeremyjh » Fri, Jun 10, 2022, 5:43 PM UTC

marricks wrote: post #140

TulliusCicero wrote: post #130

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

How does that follow? They will just lower the bottom of the pay bands, and now people who in the bottom third are at the midpoint without another dollar being spent.

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

#168

Post by [deleted] » Fri, Jun 10, 2022, 5:44 PM UTC

zeroonetwothree wrote: post #102

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?

They cannot just like they can’t regulate activities of private individual when outside their state of residence.

[deleted]

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

#169

Post by jzawodn » Fri, Jun 10, 2022, 5:44 PM UTC

kodah wrote: post #155

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…

I'm leaving my company because it took so much "upwards pressure" to make this happen. Literally hundreds of people screaming in a townhall that the companies wages were so low that housing was eating up most of their paycheck while mandating a return to work from the top. This is in the Bay Area. I do think there's something to be said about a company that does not tend to the needs of its flock proactively.

I see what you did there.

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

#170

Post by throwaway09223 » Fri, Jun 10, 2022, 5:46 PM UTC

marricks wrote: post #140

TulliusCicero wrote: post #130

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

Board retainers aren't significant expense anywhere as far as I'm aware. Often their stipends are less than an employee's pay.

For example, Google's board stipend is $100k, which is about half the median total comp of an average employee (less, counting benefits). Walmart I think pays their board $60k.

You may be thinking of executive comp, but even then it is generally not significant amount. You could completely eliminate and redistribute executive compensation at Wal-Mart and it wouldn't really make a measurable difference in employee hourly salaries.