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

#191

Post by AlwaysRock » Fri, May 21, 2021, 2:22 PM UTC

commandlinefan wrote: post #47

eecc wrote: post #29

So 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_.

Then said remote employees could go work for companies in other states. Or the companies that are actually willing to pay above the market because they need the talent. Which will cause more people to pay and that level and then eventually we are in the same situation we are in now where swe salaries are very strong in general.

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

#192

Post by offtop5 » Fri, May 21, 2021, 2:22 PM UTC

AlwaysRock wrote: post #190

offtop5 wrote: post #163

I'm actually not a fan of this law. My first salary position was for job which advertised a range of something like 80 to 90k a year. The highest I had made previously was $10 an hour, the CEO of the company was a nice guy who brought me in for an interview anyway. I took an offer at 40K or so, and within 3 years I was at 100k. With laws like this in play I'm not sure if that would still be legal. A lot of these idea…

Does this law say that you cant offer someone below the salary posted in the job? I thought it was just a referance point more than anything.

I'd imagine companies wouldn't want to do that, because you could come up with an argument that you're being discriminated against.

The road to hell is paved with good intentions

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

#193

Post by ethbr0 » Fri, May 21, 2021, 2:23 PM UTC

syshum wrote: post #120

ethbr0 wrote: post #64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

Freedom and liberty to discriminate is a slippery freedom. For whom? When?

In a choice between maximizing efficiency for good actors, and curtailing behavior by bad actors, I tend to weight the latter.

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

#194

Post by sidlls » Fri, May 21, 2021, 2:24 PM UTC

offtop5 wrote: post #163

I'm actually not a fan of this law. My first salary position was for job which advertised a range of something like 80 to 90k a year. The highest I had made previously was $10 an hour, the CEO of the company was a nice guy who brought me in for an interview anyway. I took an offer at 40K or so, and within 3 years I was at 100k. With laws like this in play I'm not sure if that would still be legal. A lot of these idea…

The company is free to offer you a different job with the lower salary: that is, nothing requires a person to be offered the job to which they applied.

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

#195

Post by falcolas » Fri, May 21, 2021, 2:24 PM UTC

ethbr0 wrote: post #183

HPsquared wrote: post #103

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Fairness is an objective good to most people.

I would disagree with that, because the requirements for fairness typically disadvantage a majority in favor of leveling the field for a minority. Ergo, most people will gripe about the actual policies, even if they agree with the abstract end goal.

The alternative also has a name: The "Tyranny of the Majority".

Fairness is better than tyranny, don't you think?

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

#196

Post by ethbr0 » Fri, May 21, 2021, 2:25 PM UTC

bluGill wrote: post #102

ethbr0 wrote: post #64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Don't forget about C: companies that propose regulations because they know they can handle them and competitors cannot. Big companies will have no problem with these regulations. However small and medium sized companies need a bunch more busy work that needs to be done and so will avoid it. This last is hard to measure - regulations have a cost in this form but it is hard to figure out what would have been done but i…

A huge point!

IMHO, the US should have much more "larger than X" laws (and clauses that enfold organized subcontractors working for larger corporations).

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

#197

Post by jcomis » Fri, May 21, 2021, 2:26 PM UTC

offtop5 wrote: post #163

I'm actually not a fan of this law. My first salary position was for job which advertised a range of something like 80 to 90k a year. The highest I had made previously was $10 an hour, the CEO of the company was a nice guy who brought me in for an interview anyway. I took an offer at 40K or so, and within 3 years I was at 100k. With laws like this in play I'm not sure if that would still be legal. A lot of these idea…

This law is about ending pay disparity for two people doing the same work. This is not what you are describing. In your scenario a new title could simply be created more appropriate for the experience/skill. That would then establish what is appropriate pay for that skill/experience level for future candidates.

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

#198

Post by alejalapeno » Fri, May 21, 2021, 2:27 PM UTC

offtop5 wrote: post #163

I'm actually not a fan of this law. My first salary position was for job which advertised a range of something like 80 to 90k a year. The highest I had made previously was $10 an hour, the CEO of the company was a nice guy who brought me in for an interview anyway. I took an offer at 40K or so, and within 3 years I was at 100k. With laws like this in play I'm not sure if that would still be legal. A lot of these idea…

The act allows exceptions to the prohibition against a wage differential based on sex if the employer demonstrates that a wage differential is not based on wage rate history and is based upon one or more of the following factors, so long as the employer applies the factors reasonably and they account for the entire wage rate differential:

- A seniority system;

- A merit system;

- A system that measures earnings by quantity or quality of production;

- The geographic location where the work is performed;

- Education, training, or experience to the extent that they are reasonably related to the work in question; or

- Travel, if the travel is a regular and necessary condition of the work performed.

The things you listed, like taking the job for less because you lack the relevant education are actual exceptions written into the law.

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

#199

Post by ethbr0 » Fri, May 21, 2021, 2:27 PM UTC

falcolas wrote: post #195

ethbr0 wrote: post #183

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I would disagree with that, because the requirements for fairness typically disadvantage a majority in favor of leveling the field for a minority. Ergo, most people will gripe about the actual policies, even if they agree with the abstract end goal.

The alternative also has a name: The "Tyranny of the Majority". Fairness is better than tyranny, don't you think?

I would in the abstract.

But then in the specific I would also tend to support policies that are good for me, even to the detriment of others.

And since I'm a member of many majority classes... well, there you have my point.

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

#200

Post by thealfreds » Fri, May 21, 2021, 2:27 PM UTC

offtop5 wrote: post #192

AlwaysRock wrote: post #190

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Does this law say that you cant offer someone below the salary posted in the job? I thought it was just a referance point more than anything.

I'd imagine companies wouldn't want to do that, because you could come up with an argument that you're being discriminated against. The road to hell is paved with good intentions

You could always hire the person for a different role. Say its a SE position in the company but then the person doesn't meet the requirements. The company can offer a jr position.

Especially in your situation it would make sense to have a separate title at the start.