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

291–300 of 406 posts

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

#291

Post by jonfw »

bob33212 wrote: post #104
ausbah wrote: post #72

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm sure how this is relevant to the discussion of possible discrimination on the basis of geographical location. either way, for others who want more context to what you are referring to - you're speaking about the rapid hiring then firing of Antonio García Martínez by Apple due to several excerpts from his book "Chaos Monkeys" that many employees took as racist and sexist. The most notable of which being: "Most wom…

The message is loud and clear. If you write a book or say anything and then want a job after that you should expect no one to read the book except with the goal of finding the most offensive sentence and interpreting that as the most racist or sexist way possible. Look at it another way. What if someone said "I am not a supporter of gay marriage", would it be OK to call that person homophobic and cancel that person?…

Saying "I am not a supporter of gay marriage" in passing is very different than writing a book publicizing an opinion that gay people are somehow inferior to straights.

A more applicable comparision would be someone who publicized that they thought that gays were weak minded. I wouldn't say you should 'cancel' that person (what does that mean?), but I would say that person should be disqualified from the opportunity to lead a team that includes gay people. And any business should always assume that their team could include gay people.

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

#292

Post by actually_a_dog »

ryandrake wrote: post #246
actually_a_dog wrote: post #162

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In my case, it was more that the recruiter wouldn't give any sense of what their number was. I told them it was like they were selling a home and advertising an open house without an asking price or any pictures of the inside. I wouldn't waste 20 minutes on an open house for a place that wouldn't work for me, would you? They just clamped down on "I'm not at liberty to say." So, I told them to get back to me when they…

This "you say a number first" game has to end. I had a memorably surreal conversation with a recruiter that kind of went like this: RECRUITER: Tell me what your current salary is. ME: No. I'm not going to disclose this. Why don't you tell me what the range is for this role. RECRUITER: It depends on what you're currently making. ME: How does what I'm currently making change what value I'm offering to the company? I ha…

Yeah, that's roughly how my conversation went, too. It's too bad, because if the role had had competitive comp (and, I strongly suspect they wouldn't have been competitive, based on what little info I was able to drag out of the recruiter), I would have totally gone through with the interview process. Oh well.

The only way I know of to break through that kind of BS gamesmanship is to do a lot of research and determine what the market salary distribution is for comparable roles. Sites like comp.fyi and payscale.com have been helpful for me here.

BTW, if you just want to get offer numbers on comp.fyi, use 0 years at company. If you need more data, you can try including 1 or 2 years at company, but, if you start including too much, you're going to lose the original offer numbers in the noise.

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

#293

Post by mavelikara »

offtop5 wrote: post #163

I'm actually not a fan of this law. My first salary position was for job which advertised a range of something like 80 to 90k a year. The highest I had made previously was $10 an hour, the CEO of the company was a nice guy who brought me in for an interview anyway. I took an offer at 40K or so, and within 3 years I was at 100k. With laws like this in play I'm not sure if that would still be legal. A lot of these idea…

> I took an offer at 40K or so, and within 3 years I was at 100k.

These are not the same jobs. You took a junior position and in 3 years were promoted once, or maybe twice, into more senior position(s).

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

#294

Post by vbtemp »

xyzelement wrote: post #285
vbtemp wrote: post #271

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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. This!! - At every company and institution I've worked for, I've never really been in a situation where two people, even if they have the same job title, are line-replacable for one another (unless they are very junior). Everyone has extremely distinct skills, exper…

Agree with your first point. > Unless they are a flagship megacorp with well known salary bands and staff levels, and they are not disclosing the salary, then you know it's not competitive salary. Frankly that's not been my experience. I find that especially on the senior level, the variance is so high for what a person could make in a role that publishing the range would just be meaningless. Thus, I take the "lack o…

I see what you mean. If I could refine what I said, I'd put it that for those flagship mega corps, you generally know that it will _at least_ be competitive, and it's just a matter of how far beyond it.

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

#295

Post by neves »

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…

This is a strong signal that this law must be expanded to the other states.

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

#296

Post by matwood »

bawolff wrote: post #263
xyzelement wrote: post #135

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

Exactly. And to emphasize your point, a company (or car sale) who is being coy with the price/salary is a huge red flag. They know it's not good and are trying to lure you far enough down the path that you won't turn around.

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

#297

Post by Mauricebranagh »

gryn wrote: post #269
an_opabinia wrote: post #251

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Is this a managerial / professional union?

Those normally negotiate the banding and the COL increases and also know what the rates are.

Unions in the entertainment industries do :-) underpay or stiff workers and you get put on the "call first list" this is the PC name for another type of list.

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

#298

Post by 908B64B197 »

ska wrote: post #276
908B64B197 wrote: post #238

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> One simple example - 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. That's because software engineering suffers from tittle inflation (same wa…

You sort of point this out, but title inflation in itself isn't a problem. If everyone could agree that "senior staff developer" in 2021 is what everyone meant by "senior developer" in 2005, we'd be fine. The real problem, as you point out, is there is no consistency. In reviewing resumes basically ignore titles from any company I'm not very familiar with, and rely on their description of what they have done. As an a…

> In reviewing resumes basically ignore titles from any company I'm not very familiar with, and rely on their description of what they have done.

That's the correct approach. Same holds for job descriptions: what have others at this level band shipped and what were their contributions.

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

#299

Post by [deleted] »

ethbr0 wrote: post #183
HPsquared wrote: post #103

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Fairness is an objective good to most people.

I would disagree with that, because the requirements for fairness typically disadvantage a majority in favor of leveling the field for a minority. Ergo, most people will gripe about the actual policies, even if they agree with the abstract end goal.

[deleted]

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

#300

Post by bob33212 »

jonfw wrote: post #291
bob33212 wrote: post #104

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The message is loud and clear. If you write a book or say anything and then want a job after that you should expect no one to read the book except with the goal of finding the most offensive sentence and interpreting that as the most racist or sexist way possible. Look at it another way. What if someone said "I am not a supporter of gay marriage", would it be OK to call that person homophobic and cancel that person?…

Saying "I am not a supporter of gay marriage" in passing is very different than writing a book publicizing an opinion that gay people are somehow inferior to straights. A more applicable comparision would be someone who publicized that they thought that gays were weak minded. I wouldn't say you should 'cancel' that person (what does that mean?), but I would say that person should be disqualified from the opportunity…

So what should happen to someone who doesn't support gay marriage? Can they be a leader?
Post reply on HN