21–30 of 329 posts
> 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.
For instance, whereas before when salaries weren't explicit, a weaker candidate with some good qualities who was on the bubble for consideration might be able to get a job if the salary was more favorable than the company was initially planning. With explicit salary ranges, if the candidate isn't deemed good enough to warrant hitting that predefined range, they might be unemployable in that field and not gain the experience needed to progress. In the past, a weaker candidate might have been able to go for a lesser salary range, get the job and gain more experience, and maybe make it up down the line. Maybe that's no longer a path forward for a lot of people on the bubble.
And stronger candidates who are perfect fits and world-class performers might be lost for a lot of companies because the company has the excuse of a pre-defined salary range. So maybe firms miss out on some genius, perfect fits, because the bean counters can't be bothered to assess everybody's merits individually.
Can a company make an offer outside its stated range? E.g. What if Microsoft has a job opening with a range of $110k - $170k, and the candidate they selected used to make $180k and would like $200k? Will Microsoft offer him or her the 200k they seek or offer 170k and lose their candidate? If salary ranges can be bypassed, then they are not really useful, and if they can't, by law, companies could skirt the law by off…
> E.g. What if Microsoft has a job opening with a range of $110k - $170k, and the candidate they selected used to make $180k and would like $200k? If I was reviewing job descriptions, and the max of the posted range is less than my current salary, I'm probably not going to apply.
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?
This should be, by far, the top voted comment. I don't think MSFT sharing salary ranges is consequential in any way.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This article [1] seems to state pretty clearly that the law applies to all job posting by a company in Washington state. Any sources saying it's only about jobs open to Washington residents? [1] https://www.dwt.com/blogs/employment-labor-and-benefits/2022...
> sources saying it's only about jobs open to Washington residents? Washington state can't regulate how Microsoft hires people in Texas. Microsoft Corp. isn't even a Washington legal entity. (EDIT: Never mind, I stand corrected [1]. In any case, the broader point stands. Delaware doesn't get to regulate how its entities hire outside Delaware. This is well-settled employment/interstate commerce law.) [1] https://www.s…
Just to play Devil's Advocate: being explicit about salaries is the kind of practice that sounds amazingly good on the surface, but might have some unintended real-world consequences. For instance, whereas before when salaries weren't explicit, a weaker candidate with some good qualities who was on the bubble for consideration might be able to get a job if the salary was more favorable than the company was initially…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This article [1] seems to state pretty clearly that the law applies to all job posting by a company in Washington state. Any sources saying it's only about jobs open to Washington residents? [1] https://www.dwt.com/blogs/employment-labor-and-benefits/2022...
> sources saying it's only about jobs open to Washington residents? Washington state can't regulate how Microsoft hires people in Texas. Microsoft Corp. isn't even a Washington legal entity. (EDIT: Never mind, I stand corrected [1]. In any case, the broader point stands. Delaware doesn't get to regulate how its entities hire outside Delaware. This is well-settled employment/interstate commerce law.) [1] https://www.s…
Just to play Devil's Advocate: being explicit about salaries is the kind of practice that sounds amazingly good on the surface, but might have some unintended real-world consequences. For instance, whereas before when salaries weren't explicit, a weaker candidate with some good qualities who was on the bubble for consideration might be able to get a job if the salary was more favorable than the company was initially…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This article [1] seems to state pretty clearly that the law applies to all job posting by a company in Washington state. Any sources saying it's only about jobs open to Washington residents? [1] https://www.dwt.com/blogs/employment-labor-and-benefits/2022...
> sources saying it's only about jobs open to Washington residents? Washington state can't regulate how Microsoft hires people in Texas. Microsoft Corp. isn't even a Washington legal entity. (EDIT: Never mind, I stand corrected [1]. In any case, the broader point stands. Delaware doesn't get to regulate how its entities hire outside Delaware. This is well-settled employment/interstate commerce law.) [1] https://www.s…
> Microsoft was incorporated in the state of Washington on June 25, 1981; reincorporated in the state of Delaware on September 19, 1986; and reincorporated in the state of Washington on September 22, 1993.
https://app.quotemedia.com/data/downloadFiling?webmasterId=9...
Washington (State or Other Jurisdiction of Incorporation)