Live data from Hacker News

Companies excluding Coloradans from remote jobs to avoid sharing salary ranges

reddit.com

221–230 of 406 posts

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

#221
post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not if the woke crowd gets their way. They got a guy fired from AAPL because they felt "unsafe" due to a book he wrote 6 years ago where he called some SF women useless in a zombie apocalypse. Feeling "threatened" or "violated" by not being able to apply to a job seems just as reasonable.

this feels a little disingenuous. the dude is a public facing exec that said shitty stuff about women, working at a company that heavily signals it won’t be like that. it seems like a lower level employee with the same views wouldn’t write a book including them or be liable for those views. context is important

> context is important

Funny you say that while clearly knowing nothing about the context of his comments!

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

#222
post #73
post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I've been taught in school that perfect competition ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perfect_competition ) requires perfect information ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perfect_information ), so I assume giving more information would increase competition. Could you share why this is anti-competitive?

Competition doesn't necessarily have anything to do with the amount of information. https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/competition

That's like responding to an article about new Python language features by pointing out that the author doesn't know anything because actually pythons are big snakes: https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/python

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

#223

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,…

If I’m looking for a job, it’s already on me to try to limit my search to positions I’m qualified for. Providing me with the salary information for each job doesn’t make that task any more difficult.

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

#224

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>>With housing (in UK) there is no competition on quality because the seller doesn't have to disclose any problems with the house. If it falls of a cliff the minute you sign on the dotted line, it's your problem. I'm in the UK and that's absolutely not true. If you think the owner knew about the problem and purposefully omitted telling you, then you definitely have a court case and any law firm worth their salt will…

In sane countries the seller must comission a survey and provide it to the buyer. The UK system where each buyer comissions a survey is absurd. I do not understand how the mortgage helps you - you are still paying for it, and if the survey uncovers issues, you either take mortgage on a house with problems, or you are out of pocket. If you pull out, and next house you view has issues too, you have to take it because a…

> The UK system where each buyer comissions a survey is absurd.

UK excluding Scotland.

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

#225

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Who says the CO remote employee requires special treatment? That would be a terrible leadership decision. The easy and obvious approach would be to treat all employees under the CO standard. It’s as simple as posting all open positions internally. Or even sending a firm-wide email when a new position is posted externally. I have a hard time believing most companies aren’t already doing this with the exception maybe o…

Many organizations just aren’t structured that way. I had a coworker who worked alone on what was a small project, gradually transitioning to a technical leadership role over the project as it got larger, until eventually he became the manager of the team that owns it. So he got a promotion opportunity, but there was never an opening as such; it would be pretty unfair for the company to open up applications for anyon…

I don't know how HR departments typically deal with this sort of thing. There's an obvious downside to posting a bunch of job openings that have effectively already been filled. The same applies to outside hires that effectively have had positions created for them (and job descriptions written with them in mind).

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

#226
post #130

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In the US the buyer hires an inspector after the contract is agreed and the transfer can be voided if the inspector finds serious issues. Typically the price gets adjusted.

Home inspectors are a borderline scam. In my experience they never find any of the real problems and only surface superficial stuff that should be obvious even to a layman. This probably is because many buyers go with the inspector recommendation of their realtor and realtors aren’t going to recommend someone that is too through to the point of risking the deal.

> Home inspectors are a borderline scam. In my experience they never find any of the real problems and only surface superficial stuff that should be obvious even to a layman.

In most states, home inspectors are licensed and insured professionals so they can be held liable for obvious omissions from their reports. But there are a lot of holes in the system, and there's no clear guide for inexperienced home buyers to vet inspectors.

The benefit of a good inspector is that they aren't the buyer and thus have no temptation to overlook things the buyer might miss. A good inspector is thorough and will take several hours to perform an inspection of even a small home.

If you can find a very reputable inspector, it's generally a good idea to use them both when selling or purchasing homes. Inspecting your home before sale can identify issues you can quickly address and it gives comfort to buyers to see an inspection report on the counter when they do a walk through.

I got burned with a home purchase early on in my life because I used my realtor's inspector who wasn't licensed in my state. When we later discovered a foundation issue we had no recourse because the inspection report had a disclosure on it.

A general problem in the US is that it's mostly ok to be misleading as long as you have a disclaimer, and that disclaimer doesn't necessarily have to be upfront or obvious. As a result of have a lot of "Administrations", "Bureaus", and "Authorities" that superficially appear to be governmental or reputable but turn out to be scams.

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

#227
post #117

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…

> You have to pay for the surveyor to find out any issues the house might have, and that means you can only view a few houses before you've paid the house price in survey fees. How much are you paying for surveys? Even a full structural survey -- which would be considered over the top for most purchases -- should only cost £1,500 or so. And you're not going to get any sort of survey for most of the houses you view. Y…

> You only usually bother with one once you've made an offer and the vendor's accepted it.

This is no longer the case in most of North America, where your offer only has a chance of being accepted if it's unconditional.

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

#228
post #136

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In sane countries the seller must comission a survey and provide it to the buyer. The UK system where each buyer comissions a survey is absurd. I do not understand how the mortgage helps you - you are still paying for it, and if the survey uncovers issues, you either take mortgage on a house with problems, or you are out of pocket. If you pull out, and next house you view has issues too, you have to take it because a…

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.

And in the US, the inspector is typically only liable up to the cost of the inspection, or some pre-arranged value. He also isn't an actual engineer, so is mostly worthless. He'll check the roof with a pain of binoculars, but not necessarily get onto the roof. He'll check the age of appliances, but that's mostly obvious to anybody willing to do a base amount of research. Etc.

If there's anything remotely questionable, they'll punt and tell the buyer to hire an actual engineer (or plumber or electrician), so even more money out of pocket.

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

#229
post #154

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The way to fix this is by enacting similar laws everywhere else, not to go for the lowest common denominator on workers rights (or "feel good laws" as you refer to them here.) Somebody has always got to be the first to outlaw slavery.

I can’t even argue with someone who thinks so highly of some half-baked piece of local legislation that they’re comparing it to the 13th Amendment. Lol.

The 13th Amendment decidedly wasn't the first law banning slavery. In fact, it was preceded was a rather notable war between states that already had laws banning it and those that didn't.

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

#230
post #106

Reminder: people respond to (dis)incentives. You should really think about the rational response to a disincentive whenever you make a law. But we have politicians who neither care to, nor have the intellectual capacity to bother researching how these “feel good” laws will actually be reacted to in real life. I have a friend who calls SF “the city of unintended consequences” for this exact reason, and now Colorado is…

In the meantime, those looking for work in Colorado, particularly for low paid work, will be able to find out whether they can make more per hour at one place than another.

This is the "intended consequences" and the slight impact on remote IT workers in Colorado is an unfortunate side-effect that is likely to be allieviated when the power of labor vs capital swings back towards labor, after 40 years of swinging in the other direction.

Post reply on HN