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

251–260 of 406 posts

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

#251

Post by an_opabinia »

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…

If people want to better negotiate their salaries, they have to unionize. Everything else is just unproven, speculative, untested pitter patter.

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

#252

Post by teddyh »

AbrahamParangi wrote: post #174
ClumsyPilot wrote: post #150

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

An auditor hired by the seller has an incentive to make the seller happy that you cannot eliminate, only reduce through legal threats. An auditor hired by the buyer has no such incentive.

You’re thinking of the monetary incentive only, which might be too narrow a view.

The “regulatory capture” principle might apply here – an auditor only meets any one client once in their life, but probably meets some landlords many times, presumably develops a relationship with them, and might want to tend to not upset that relationship.

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

#253

Post by dcow »

insert_coin wrote: post #242
compiler-guy wrote: post #210

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

Where is the "dominant market power" coming from? Asymmetry of information is what got you to the top. You know more than your competition, more on a productive process, on consumer behavior, on business partners, on leveraging financial avenues, on political "contributions", on questionable use of insider information, etc. And Information is what keeps you at the top: knowing who to "lobby" to create convenient regu…

It’s not simply asymmetry of information though. Monopolies often have an incredible amount of financial power that they deploy against people trying to enter their market. Or maybe a company is on top because of their execution. I really don’t think the entire phenomenon can be explained by information asymmetry.

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

#254

Post by true_religion »

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…

You know it'd break the cartel-like control companies have over employees if a law were made that all jobs must payout within the salary range posted for the job.

That prevents people from negotiating higher pay than is advertised publicly, so employers would have to tell everyone what their maximum salary could be. Employers would have an incentive to post high maximums rather than miss out on quality candidates.

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

#256

Post by ethbr0 »

falcolas wrote: post #206
ethbr0 wrote: post #199

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Be that as it may in your case, are you arguing that most people will act contrary to their own best interests?

That seems a shaky foundation to build policy on.

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

#257

Post by ativzzz »

blacktriangle wrote: post #248
ativzzz wrote: post #209

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

Because then somebody applies for the top band, the company says they're slotted in the bottom band, and they've effectively recreated the situation as it stands before Colorado's worthless regulation, since they now have some 80k - 200k range which is effectively useless information.

Doesn't this happen already? In fact, that's how I got my current job, I applied for tech lead and they gave me an offer for senior and I took it.

The difference being I know the salary ranges of the bands before I apply and talk to HR

The idea is they have 3 ranges for 3 experience levels for 1 position, not a 80-200k range

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

#258

Post by rodonn »

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/

But these numbers can be very deceptive, since they don't include RSUs or bonuses. e.g. when you look at Amazon you won't see any salaries about $200k even though total compensation goes much higher than that.

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

#259

Post by ativzzz »

notahacker wrote: post #247
ativzzz wrote: post #209

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

If you list three levels, you end up with [i] a lot more applications to sift through especially at the extreme end of the spectrum (which might be an advantage sometimes, but often isn't) and [ii] otherwise perfectly hire-able people applying to the wrong bracket or anchoring their expectations to the top end of a bracket they're actually not at the top end of. Worse still, your existing employees see top ends of ra…

You only list one position, with 3 different bands, but ofc we know nobody is gonna read that part.

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

#260

Post by mywittyname »

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,…

> So you (and everyone else) would be tempted to apply for the top-paying job but potentially not be qualified.

I don't do this, and I feel like most reasonable people wouldn't do this either.

Let's say you manage to actually get a job that you're not qualified for. There's a strong possibility that you'll be fired, maybe within the 90 day probationary period. At a some large companies, you might get some cover and get passed around from department to department for years. But I've definitely seen a fair number of people fired for non-performance in my career; it's not exactly rare.

Post reply on HN