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

261–270 of 406 posts

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

#261

Post by ativzzz »

lotsofpulp wrote: post #244
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?

They can. The companies not wanting to do it just don’t want to give more information to the sellers (labor), especially their current labor who might be being paid less while the buyer (employer) profits from the arbitrage.

I don't think it's that massive, especially because you should be figuring out a salary range within the first 1 or 2 conversations with the company regardless. For software engineers anyway, not sure about other less-hot markets.

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

#262

Post by bluGill »

ethbr0 wrote: post #196
bluGill wrote: post #102

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Don't forget about C: companies that propose regulations because they know they can handle them and competitors cannot. Big companies will have no problem with these regulations. However small and medium sized companies need a bunch more busy work that needs to be done and so will avoid it. This last is hard to measure - regulations have a cost in this form but it is hard to figure out what would have been done but i…

A huge point! IMHO, the US should have much more "larger than X" laws (and clauses that enfold organized subcontractors working for larger corporations).

Beware of the unintended consequences of those laws (I have no idea what they are, but beware)

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

#263

Post by bawolff »

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,…

> To use your real-estate analogy, would you ever buy a house that came up first in a price-sort?

No, but if they also weren't giving me an asking price, that's a huge red flag.

You're right that price is but one attribute of a job, but it is an important attribute. Its not the only thing i am evaluating, but it is one of the things, even one of the more important things.

So yes, i would like to know what the salary range is at the get-go.

Also this is true for pretty much everything - when buying a car, you dont generally go with the cheapest option, there's lots of attributes to evaluate, but if someone refused to tell you the price you wouldn't go with them either.

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

#264

Post by maccard »

nradov wrote: post #136
ClumsyPilot wrote: post #118

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.

I live in Scotland, and the process here is the seller has to undertake a survey with someone who is accredited. In practice this means that the same 3-4 firms end up doing most of the surveys. It's not just some ranodmer saying "yeah, looks good mate".

> In the US this only costs a few hundred dollars for a typical house, which is a tiny fraction of the overall transaction price.

You know what's even better than _only_ a couple of hundred dollars? The seller paying it once.

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

#265

Post by Mountain_Skies »

FiatLuxDave wrote: post #249
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.

Does anybody know if there is a secondary market for home inspection reports? I know that the two times I was involved with a home purchase in the U.S., I needed to hire a home inspector. But the interested party in front of me also had to hire a home inspector. Would it not make sense for the interested parties to split the cost for one home inspector rather than reproducing the work? After all, copying information…

If you happen to select the same home inspector as the other perspective buyer, you can rest assured that they will simply copy over the report and charge you the full amount. It's best to arrange to be there when the inspection happens to prevent this or drive-by inspections.

One of the issues that keeps there from being a neutral third party holding the inspection results is the vast difference in quality in home inspections. Since home inspectors are not liable for anything they miss in the inspections, there are some really poor quality inspectors out there. The third party hiring the inspectors isn't going to be aligned with your interest in hiring the best inspector. Most likely they're going to go with whoever is the cheapest so they can keep as most of the fee you and other buyers are paying them.

In states that license and regulate home inspectors, perhaps part of the requirements could be that every home inspection report has to be part of the public record for the property. If there are multiple inspections, each of them becomes part of the record. A sneaky seller might pose as a buyer and payoff an inspector to give them a good report that becomes part of the record so it would still be in the buyer's interest to hire their own inspector if there is only one inspection report. At some point though, there will be enough inspection reports that your risk of only seeing faulty reports becomes low.

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

#266

Post by gambiting »

aaronax wrote: post #110
gambiting wrote: post #84

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…

The bank may be requiring the survey but you are paying for it. If not directly then at least in a very clear indirect way.

The last mortgage I took was with Bank of Ireland, they offered a full survey for £400 but I rang them and asked if they would do it for free if I took their mortgage on completion - they said yes, so I paid nothing for the survey. Other mortgages I had the survey was just included in the mortgage, no extra cost.

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

#267

Post by gambiting »

borvo wrote: post #186
gambiting wrote: post #84

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…

I’m looking at 5 houses and want to pick the best one. Of course I need to see the surveys now. Tell me which bank is this that will pay for the 5 surveys?

>> Of course I need to see the surveys now

Fair enough, I don't know anyone who bought a house this way though. For me personally it was always 1) find a house 2) ask the bank to do the survey 3) based on the survey either carry on with the mortgage or retract my offer. Yes I probably couldn't do 5 houses at once, but I have done 3 houses consecutively this way before, no issues whatsoever with the banks.

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

#268

Post by gambiting »

cptskippy wrote: post #235
borvo wrote: post #186

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I’m looking at 5 houses and want to pick the best one. Of course I need to see the surveys now. Tell me which bank is this that will pay for the 5 surveys?

What does a survey consist of and why are they so expensive? In the US we have home inspectors, and we have surveyors. A home inspector is generally responsible for auditing the structure and mechanicals of the home for issues. A surveyor is only responsible for identifying property boundaries. A home inspection is under $1000, usually $250-500. I don't know what a survey costs as I've never been involved in a proper…

>>What does a survey consist of and why are they so expensive?

They aren't, OP makes it sound like it costs an arm and a leg. The costs are around £300-400, about £500 if you want to pull out all the environmental reports as well, which while not insignificant in itself, is not really a big deal when buying a house for hundreds of thousands of pounds.

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

#269

Post by gryn »

an_opabinia wrote: post #251
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.

why do you think a union would help in this ?

I live in france and all big enough companies are mandated to have union, doesn't mean that they help with salaries.

Post reply on HN