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

#201

Post by lmkg » Fri, Jun 10, 2022, 7:00 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.

I read somewhere that this is exactly what happened when (publicly-traded?) companies were required to publicize executive compensation. And it's a major reason why exec salaries have increased while regular salaries have not over the past few decades.

So... seems fair to me. Maybe salaries will actually increase enough that people won't have to switch jobs every three years to get a raise.

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

#202

Post by foobiekr » Fri, Jun 10, 2022, 7:01 PM UTC

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…

The noncompete thing is actually a much, much bigger deal than the pay transparency thing. I have a friend who is waiting out a 2Y noncompete that he foolishly agreed to in Texas.

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

#203

Post by InefficientRed » Fri, Jun 10, 2022, 7:03 PM UTC

tshaddox wrote: post #108

InefficientRed wrote: post #99

Earlier quoted context omitted.

November is pretty close to the whole year. If you choose a fixed % per paycheck and have a bonus that's not perfectly amortized then being off by a month is actually pretty good.

I assumed that employer contribution matching is generally a fixed percentage of the employee’s salary each pay period, which means that if you don’t contribute in one month you forfeit that percentage of your salary and thus about 8% of your total possible employer matching.

I've seen it work different ways and different companies. It's either a % of salary or a % of your gross paycheck. In the latter case, bonuses can mess things up.

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

#204

Post by social_quotient » Fri, Jun 10, 2022, 7:04 PM UTC

foobiekr wrote: post #202

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…

The noncompete thing is actually a much, much bigger deal than the pay transparency thing. I have a friend who is waiting out a 2Y noncompete that he foolishly agreed to in Texas.

It’s a right to work state, so maybe there is more to it than a vanilla NC?

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

#205

Post by alistairSH » Fri, Jun 10, 2022, 7:04 PM UTC

drewcon wrote: post #181

kodah wrote: post #155

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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’m not sure why the company is responsible at an individual level for what’s going on in the Bay Area. They can’t tell you how to manage and interact with the expenses of your life. If you’re mad at anyone, walk down to city hall and tell them to build more housing.

They can’t tell you how to manage and interact with the expenses of your life.

No, but they can move to a lower cost area, allow WFH, or gasp pay a fair wage for the region. Employers don't have a right to cheap labor

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

#206

Post by snuxoll » Fri, Jun 10, 2022, 7:06 PM UTC

com2kid wrote: post #156

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…

I'm sad more companies don't up their 401k contributions, most people don't realize their employer can put in 40k a year (!!!) into an employee's 401k. Due to the wonders of tax law, that is equiv to 60k cash, and that isn't counting the earnings or the flexibility to reallocate 401k investments w/o having to pay taxes on earnings when changing where the money is invested.

One benefit of not working for Big Tech and instead for a privately held company, instead of stock grants I get 120% match up to 6% of my salary and an annual 4% profit sharing bonus into my 401(k). Sure, my actual salary could be higher working for a "proper" tech company, but I get more employer contributions into my retirement savings than the Google's, Microsoft's, and Amazon's of the world will give to an employee capping their contributions.

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

#207

Post by sangnoir » Fri, Jun 10, 2022, 7:20 PM UTC

TulliusCicero wrote: post #166

marricks wrote: post #140

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

It's not a vanity range if it's leading to real-life salary adjustments.

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

#208

Post by jeromegv » Fri, Jun 10, 2022, 7:23 PM UTC

throwaway09223 wrote: post #192

showerst wrote: post #173

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Walmart is a bad comparison there; they have an enormous headcount of low-paid staff. Many tech companies are far lower headcount, but with high executive pay. Looking at some other companies, Activision-Blizzard's CEO alone makes enough to pay every employee a $15,000 bonus. Reed Hastings at Netflix makes enough to pay every employee $3800. And that's not counting any of the rest of the executive staff, or all the o…

Activision-Blizzard's board get 350k. If they earned $0 instead, this would only give each employee an extra $35 per year. That's including their stock compensation. As you say, most goes to investors. Which makes sense as they actually own the company.

OP was talking about executives (CEO, VPs), not board.

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

#209

Post by kccqzy » Fri, Jun 10, 2022, 7:25 PM UTC

Chinjut wrote: post #198

It's incredible in these comments that so many of you who work in the industry on the employee side are arguing against having more transparency for the employee, and for having more leverage in the negotiating process for the employer instead. I want all the advantage as an employee that I can get. Any secret withheld from me is not to my advantage.

I think for most people external tools like levels.fyi are already good enough in that they provide a salary range with sufficient accuracy. Of course these same people would hope that the other candidates haven't heard of levels.fyi so that companies can lowball them to have more budget for the salaries of those who have heard of levels.fyi.

It's just selfishness, not collective action.

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

#210

Post by sangnoir » Fri, Jun 10, 2022, 7:27 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

The problem is that 'specific places' very dynamic, and is hard to pin down when it comes to employment. A candidate/employee may move to/from jurisdictions where this is a requirement, and job postings may or may not be shown across different jurisdictions.

Does Microsoft want to invest time wrangling in court concerning a Colorado resident not seeing the pay range when they are using a VPN? Or when a candidate becomes a Colorado resident some time between the phone-screen and the first interview? Should Microsoft recruiters stop using external job-boards, and instead wait for a salary geo-fencing feature to be implemented in their internal jobs tool? What is the case law for out-of-staters who will be moving into a state with such a law for employment? How about remote candidate in Texas, working for a team based in Washington - and the reverse? There are dozens of edge cases, and for a company the size of Microsoft, can easily result in hundreds to thousands of infractions per year - the juice may not be worth the squeeze.