Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

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

forbes.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

281–290 of 329 posts

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

#281

Post by kodah »

anon291 wrote: post #245
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.

Why not just leave the company? I understand in many industries jobs are hard to find, but tech jobs are a dime a dozen.

As another commenter pointed out to you, I already said I'm leaving.

> tech jobs are a dime a dozen

Be that as it may for some, I am a mix of a software engineer and a systems engineer. It's difficult for companies to find a place for me, much less test me. Personally, I'd like this saying to die, because even in a white-hot market like I started my search in it still takes months of rigor to filter out the BS and find a company that isn't going to string me through the ringer just to dump me at final interviews for something entirely arbitrary while giving me glowing feedback along the way.

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

#282

Post by [deleted] »

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.

[deleted]

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

#283

Post by rootusrootus »

collegeburner wrote: post #270
avgDev wrote: post #3

This is the way. We need more of this. I'm at a point where if a recruiter messages me "about an exciting opportunity" without any salary information, he/she will not get a response. While there are some jobs that maybe I would consider a pay cut for, I generally want to make more money because that allows me to invest more so I can be free one day.

No not necessarily. Let me go over some scenarios: Bob contributes 1. I contribute 1.25. Units don't matter, I contribute 25% more. It used to be maybe the salary band is $100k to $130k. Bob gets $100k. I get $125k. My employer gets a total value of 2.25 for $225k. Now my employer has to disclose salaries and has 2 options: 1) Don't make out salaries the same, Bob quits, now the employer has only 1.25 when they need…

On HN a lot more than half the commenters believe themselves to be one of the top performers.

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

#284

Post by rootusrootus »

llbeansandrice wrote: post #113
mywittyname wrote: post #71

Does anyone know if popular job platforms out there use your location to determine whether or not to show the salary information for a job posting? Or is it usually something that have to request once you can establish that you're a resident of Colorado?

Colorado's law is written so that it would apply to any job that can reasonably be done by someone residing in the state. So if you're hiring for a remote position, under CO law you have to provide a salary range. It doesn't technically matter where _you_ are located. As a result, some companies have started explicitly excluding CO from their job postings. I'm not a lawyer, but I think there's probably latent lawsuit…

> I'm not a lawyer, but I think there's probably latent lawsuits there.

I hope not. We've got states trying to regulate things like abortion rights across state lines, too. I prefer states not have the same reach as the federal government, because some of them are especially crazy.

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

#285

Post by sgerenser »

lotsofpulp wrote: post #147
sgerenser wrote: post #127

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Everything I’ve seen so far is just salary. Which is kind of a huge loophole for tech companies where 20-60% of compensation is often in the form of stock and bonuses.

I am curious what level of details the text of the law requires: https://app.leg.wa.gov/billsummary?billnumber=5761&year=2021... https://lawfilesext.leg.wa.gov/biennium/2021-22/Pdf/Bills/Se... >disclose in each posting for each job opening the wage scale or salary range, and a general description of all of the benefits and other compensation to be offered to the hired applicant. What is general description? Is that h…

Doubt it, assuming the law is similar to Colorado’s. A Colorado job listing for a FAANG that eventually offered approximately $270k in total compensation was roughly worded like this:

“Colorado residents: Pay for this job starts at at $100,000/year commensurate with experience, plus additional compensation through bonuses, restricted stock units and a comprehensive benefit plan.”

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

#286

Post by luxuryballs »

nvr219 wrote: post #89
nomilk wrote: post #81

What's the actual problem that including salaries tries to solve? IMO if used strictly, it could only limit the talent pool (consider if someone more skilled than expected applies, but won't accept at or below the stated upper salary bound; the company won't be able to pivot and hire them). Including salary could let applicants avoid underpaying companies before they embark on a lengthy application process, which is…

> What's the actual problem that including salaries tries to solve? It tries to solve pay equity problems. https://hr.uw.edu/comp/pay-equity/salary-setting-guidance/

But what’s the actual problem?

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

#287

Post by kriops »

cogman10 wrote: post #225
kriops wrote: post #215

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Supply and demand. COL is a downstream price signal as far as a rational employer is concerned. While they might try to influence it to alter the supply of potential workers in their favor, it is by no means their responsibility to do so. And saying companies choose where the highest concentration of available talent resides is dishonest.

> Supply and demand. Yup, there's a low supply of employees and a high demand for them. So guess what the absolute dumbest thing is an employer can do when employees start clamoring for COL adjustments?

There are so many other factors in play than whether "employees start clamoring for COL adjustments" or not, so the correct course of action when that happens might very well be to reduce wages or do nothing.

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

#288

Post by tbrownaw »

WalterBright wrote: post #253
cogman10 wrote: post #199

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You say this as if companies don't chose where to have their offices and their attendance policies. If a company places it's headquarters in a HCOL area and requires everyone come in 5 days a week, then yes, they have a responsibility to pay a salary high enough that their employees can survive there. If employers don't like the fact that COL is too high, THEY can go ahead and march on city hall to advocate for polit…

> they have a responsibility to pay a salary high enough No, they don't. The employee gets to decide if the salary is high enough to meet his needs. If it isn't, the employee can negotiate for more, or go elsewhere. Nobody is obliged to work for a company they find unacceptable.

They don't have a responsibility to the employees, but from what I understand having all your staff walk out is generally seen as bad for business.

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

#289

Post by collegeburner »

rootusrootus wrote: post #283
collegeburner wrote: post #270

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No not necessarily. Let me go over some scenarios: Bob contributes 1. I contribute 1.25. Units don't matter, I contribute 25% more. It used to be maybe the salary band is $100k to $130k. Bob gets $100k. I get $125k. My employer gets a total value of 2.25 for $225k. Now my employer has to disclose salaries and has 2 options: 1) Don't make out salaries the same, Bob quits, now the employer has only 1.25 when they need…

On HN a lot more than half the commenters believe themselves to be one of the top performers.

I can believe that people who spend extra time like that skew to above average. Hn is not a random sample, it is very self selective.

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

#290

Post by shkkmo »

lthornberry wrote: post #256
social_quotient wrote: post #204

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

I don't know anything about Texas non-compete law, but "right to work state" refers to restrictions on unionizing. It has nothing to do with non-compete clauses.

The "right to work" is about restrictions on making unions mandatory, so you are correct but glossing over an important details. In practice it generally means that forming an effective union is much harder and thus harms workers, but theoretically it could be paired with other laws that supported unions but that didn't centralizing their power and removing worker choice.
Post reply on HN