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

#211

Post by ncallaway » Fri, May 21, 2021, 2:43 PM UTC

fennecfoxen wrote: post #141

aynyc wrote: post #60

I remember when NY/NJ came out with law preventing employers asking your previous wages (they used to ask for W2!!!). People were saying, oh, employers just won't hire in NY/NJ anymore! Guess what, job market is still hot as the sun and salary range went up across all my job searches and I don't have to deal with bullshit recruiters trying to play with comps.

Are the labor markets in New York and New Jersey substantially similar to the labor markets in Colorado? (And should we expect the specific regulations in NY/NJ (forbidding certain questions) and those in Colorado (requiring disclosure of information, and, requiring certain notifications of existing employees) to have the same effect?)

As a small business owner and someone who is currently hiring for remote positions, I will say the CO law will not in any way dissuade me from considering candidates from CO.

Every jurisdiction has laws and compliance regulations specific to that jurisdiction. These requirements seem in no way onerous or out of line to me.

I think the companies that will avoid CO applicants for jobs will be doing so because they want to avoid the wage transparency more than they want to avoid the regulatory burden.

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

#212

Post by syshum » Fri, May 21, 2021, 2:44 PM UTC

cool_dude85 wrote: post #153

syshum wrote: post #120

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

>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 Of course they desire to have external actors impose requirements on their own actions and other people's actions and other companies' actions. Just so long as they think those requirements benefit…

union "busting" laws generally speaking are about REMOVING regulations around who is required by law to negotiate with and/or join a union. So these laws by definition are not imposing any regulatory burden on anyone they are removing regulatory burdens

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

#213

Post by Kirby64 » Fri, May 21, 2021, 2:45 PM UTC

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?

Lie vs. miss is relative. Every single inspector in the US at least has liability that only extends to the cost of their inspection (or, sometimes, 2x their inspection cost...). Hardly enough to cover any losses if there is major damage that is overlooked.

I had a friend who bought a house with major termite damage (i.e., every wall had to be removed to repair the studs basically), and 2 inspectors overlooked the damage. He said in retrospect (after doing a bunch of research on termite damage), it should have been obvious to inspectors, but they missed it.

He tried to pursue legal action against either the seller or the inspectors, and basically was told: impossible to prove seller knew (as there was no repairs done), and inspectors are not held liable.

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

#214

Post by ncallaway » Fri, May 21, 2021, 2:47 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_.

Corporations (at least mid-size and large corporations) already have a pretty good idea of what their competition is offering.

There are companies that survey employees for salary information, collect all that knowledge, and then sell it to corporations.

Medium and large businesses already have a very good understanding of the job market and what a competitive salary range is.

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

#215

Post by rswail » Fri, May 21, 2021, 2:47 PM UTC

paulgb wrote: post #65

refurb wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Right, but this applies to job postings. Current employees don’t require any additional work as they’re already hired.

Here's the act, it looks like it does have some additional requirements for companies with CO employees: https://leg.colorado.gov/bills/sb19-085 If remote work sticks around (I think it will), it will be interesting to see how employers handle the additional burden of having employees in dozens or even hundreds of jurisdictions. I don't think it's insurmountable, but it's certainly something many companies have not h…

The same way they deal with the asinine US sales taxes or how international companies deal with hiring internationally.

They'll outsource it to companies that look after it for them. This is the "resources" bit of "human resources".

In the meantime, maybe the actual HR people could get back to being "people and culture" managers and stop thinking of staff as "resources".

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

#216

Post by garettmd » Fri, May 21, 2021, 2:52 PM UTC

whiddershins wrote: post #119

I used to think keeping salaries secret was a racket. And maybe it is. But I also think there might be people you work with who try hard, do decent work slowly, and are compensated accordingly. (Fairly) And who are delighted with their job and salary. How would it benefit that person to be confronted with the fact that someone else makes double or triple what they do?

Well, I think there's a difference transparency with salaries of existing employees, and transparency with the salary being offered to new employees.

And it would benefit that person by giving them the information they need to decide whether to pursue a higher salary or not.

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

#217

Post by rswail » Fri, May 21, 2021, 2:52 PM UTC

inter_netuser wrote: post #145

privacylawthrow wrote: post #66

Earlier quoted context omitted.

6 months is not compliant. Employees have to be made aware of the posting on the same calendar day the job is posted. For jobs that are in constant demand, the company has to either send a daily email or have some kind of banner on its corporate intranet. There is also no geographic restriction so if a company has any offshore service centers, it would need to post any promotional jobs to its Colorado employees as we…

Amazing, they have to notify about jobs in Thailand to Colorado employees? Love it.

We're talking about a spreadsheet that is posted to an intranet. If someone in Colorado wants to apply for a Thailand based job and is willing to relocate for the position, then why shouldn't they know about it.

Of course, Thai employers can still discriminate on the basis of gender, sex, religion and a bunch of other things that Colorado employers can't.

And any company operating in Thailand has a local Thai company established, which would be the actual employer for the local employees. So the Colorado law would not apply.

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

#218

Post by langitbiru » Fri, May 21, 2021, 2:54 PM UTC

I'm making PredictSalary (https://predictsalary.com). It's a tool to predict the salary ranges from job opportunities. I collect job opportunities with salaries and create a Deep Learning model. Right now, it only supports three job opportunities websites.

Soon I will create a tool to share the salaries. I'm inspired by the story below.

https://www.axios.com/salaries-game-developers-break-silence...

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

#219

Post by alex_young » Fri, May 21, 2021, 2:58 PM UTC

Although not exactly the same thing, California already requires employers to give pay scales for jobs when requested by an applicant and bars asking about their salary history: https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billTextClient.xhtm...

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

#220

Post by egman_ekki » Fri, May 21, 2021, 2:58 PM UTC

xyzelement wrote: post #135

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…

> A competitive market would enable me to sort by salary and benefits and apply for the best job. I am always surprised to see comments that make it sound like jobs (or, employees) are fungible commodities that can be bought and sold purely on price. One simple example - two jobs may have the same title (Senior Developer, or whatever) but have totally different expectations of communication skills, leadership skills,…

> two jobs may have the same title (Senior Developer, or whatever) but have totally different expectations of communication skills, leadership skills, ability to handle pressure, etc and would pay very differently. So you (and everyone else) would be tempted to apply for the top-paying job but potentially not be qualified.

What do you think makes this a problem here? You apply, you interview, the company either gives you the position or not. I don't think anyone would use the salary range as the one and only factor to decide where to apply. It can help to decide where to make more effort or what the comp potential is if I improve my skills.