Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Companies excluding Coloradans from remote jobs to avoid sharing salary ranges

reddit.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

201–210 of 406 posts

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

#201

Post by sidlls »

MattGaiser wrote: post #142
jcomis wrote: post #114

As a Coloradan another thing that's happening is companies are listing their jobs as Remote, only advertising in CO, and just mentioning it's a CO only job verbally. They do the thing where they sit in the gray area due to pandemic "Oh, it's remote, FOR NOW, but it's a CO job" Or listing the job as Denver and a few other cities, but it's really just Denver/Boulder (Twitter currently doing this). Another pattern is li…

A lot of the problem is what the job pays is highly dependent on who is chosen for the role, especially for those catch all job postings that are just Software Engineer -- All Levels. So it genuinely could be anywhere between 40-250K.

That's either a defect in the law or it's HR people thinking they're more clever than the legal system and violating the rule in a spirit which a court could easily find actionable.

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

#202

Post by mountainb »

bb123 wrote: post #94
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…

Thats just nonsense. There absolutely is a requirement to disclose known faults with the property, and if a survey (which every buyer does) shows up something serious, there is a legal requirement to disclose it to all parties. Also most banks will cover the cost of a survey.

Inspections are pretty cheap at least in the US. Inconsequential compared to the price of the house or any other expense related to buying, really.

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

#203

Post by ghaff »

hasmolo wrote: post #178
refenestrator wrote: post #134

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If I recall, the context was that he was dating a woman who was a bit of a tomboy and saying how cool it was that she was better at power tools and such than he was, and this comparison to typical SF tech women was part of that extended riff. It wasn't part of an incel monologue about 'femoids' or something. Ultimately, if we let this continue, it becomes a war on flavor and humor, where no rhetorical fun is allowed…

your point is fair. i agree with the idea that allowing outrage to drive all conversations is terrible. at the same time, i feel like i’d have known better than to generalize like this and publish it. i understand there’s context about how/why it was said. i’d really love to be able to express my thoughts that border on “anti-woke” but i don’t. i feel like the only way for us to be honest about our feelings is to be…

In a modern social media world, it's generally a pretty bad idea to make over the top controversial statements even if they have a context and you don't intend them to be taken seriously. And it's probably worth noting that in this case, it became an issue because the person in question wrote them in a published book and was being hired for a fairly high-profile position. But it can just as easily be some 20-something who posts something on Twitter (or gets captured for YouTube)that goes viral, given they're essentially disposable from the perspective of their current (and potential future) employers.

And I don't even blame the companies. They're just looking out for their own interests and individual current or potential future employees have pretty much zero weight as balanced against any public PR hit.

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

#204

Post by lotsofpulp »

ClumsyPilot wrote: post #150
nradov wrote: post #136

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's not sane, it's crazy! As a buyer why would I trust a surveyor selected by the seller? I would rather pay inspector myself for an independent opinion. In the US this only costs a few hundred dollars for a typical house, which is a tiny fraction of the overall transaction price.

For the same reason you trust an auditor and accountant hired by Tesla to produce quartely earnings report - they are on the hook if they lie. Surely you do not hire an independant accountant every time you buy stocks?

> For the same reason you trust an auditor and accountant hired by Tesla to produce quartely earnings report - they are on the hook if they lie.

“On the hook” has different meanings when you have the enforcement power of the US federal government and criminal courts versus an individual who has to cough up tens of thousands for lawyers in civil court.

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

#205

Post by toast0 »

cma wrote: post #6

Don't all companies have to share it for H1B listings anyway, as federal law, which legally are supposed to be commensurate with non-H1Bs (not that they necessarily are in practice)? https://h1bdata.info/

Only companies that hire H1B have to do those filings, AFAIK. Lots of companies don't hire H1B because it's a lot of work.

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

#206

Post by falcolas »

ethbr0 wrote: post #199
falcolas wrote: post #195

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

That stance is also known as, "Fuck you, I've got mine."

I personally, despite also being in a number of majority classes, prefer to avoid being an asshole because of an accident of birth.

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

#207

Post by bb123 »

sokoloff wrote: post #143
bb123 wrote: post #94

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Thats just nonsense. There absolutely is a requirement to disclose known faults with the property, and if a survey (which every buyer does) shows up something serious, there is a legal requirement to disclose it to all parties. Also most banks will cover the cost of a survey.

The buyer is the only one bringing money into the transaction. Regardless of who signs the check, the buyer is paying for all of the things.

Thats true, but you really can't have it both ways. You either want a professional opinion on the quality of the house or you're willing to run the risk. Anyway, the banks aren't doing inspections for the benefit of the buyer. They want to know that should the house be repossessed they are likely to recoup their investment. The fact the buyer might find something out about the house is a happy side effect.

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

#208

Post by bb123 »

mountainb wrote: post #202
bb123 wrote: post #94

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Thats just nonsense. There absolutely is a requirement to disclose known faults with the property, and if a survey (which every buyer does) shows up something serious, there is a legal requirement to disclose it to all parties. Also most banks will cover the cost of a survey.

Inspections are pretty cheap at least in the US. Inconsequential compared to the price of the house or any other expense related to buying, really.

Correct - the homebuyers report on my house cost £300.

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

#209

Post by ativzzz »

hash872 wrote: post #116

I think one reason why this is difficult for companies that are hiring software engineers, is that they can hire at multiple levels of experience. They just need good developers! A company that needs, say, a Golang developer, or Scala, or React, might be willing to hire a junior, mid-level or senior developer- they'll take whatever experience level they can get. Remember, saying that you don't want to hire someone to…

So why not just list the position for a software engineer, along with 3 different salary bands for 3 different experience levels? Or does that not comply with the law?

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

#210

Post by compiler-guy »

cblconfederate wrote: post #126
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

Monopoly profits are based on dominant market power, not asymmetry of information.
Post reply on HN