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

301–310 of 406 posts

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

#301

Post by matwood »

hash872 wrote: post #116

I think one reason why this is difficult for companies that are hiring software engineers, is that they can hire at multiple levels of experience. They just need good developers! A company that needs, say, a Golang developer, or Scala, or React, might be willing to hire a junior, mid-level or senior developer- they'll take whatever experience level they can get. Remember, saying that you don't want to hire someone to…

> $80-180k doesn't really tell anyone anything

Not meaningless at all. The company is at least saying they are willing to pay senior level salaries. I think the companies really pushing back are those who want 2-20 years experience with a range of $50-$80k. The other group of companies pushing back are those who let their current employees get too far out of the current range, and can only keep them happy through hoping they don't find out.

Both are signs of companies I want to avoid.

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

#302

Post by Mauricebranagh »

ghaff wrote: post #160
elliekelly wrote: post #93

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…

>Or even sending a firm-wide email when a new position is posted externally. Please. No more emails. >It’s as simple as posting all open positions internally. One of the problems that happens (today) with this is that companies decide to hire someone external for a position essentially created for them. So they may create a job posting as a formality. But it's effectively a fake posting. No one else actually has a sh…

Ah the CEO's golfing buddy's son or daughter.

Don't try this in Northern Ireland btw. I know of US mangers getting into some serious hot water over not advertising the job in Catholic and Protestant publications.

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

#303

Post by lfowles »

Kirby64 wrote: post #213
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?

Lie vs. miss is relative. Every single inspector in the US at least has liability that only extends to the cost of their inspection (or, sometimes, 2x their inspection cost...). Hardly enough to cover any losses if there is major damage that is overlooked. I had a friend who bought a house with major termite damage (i.e., every wall had to be removed to repair the studs basically), and 2 inspectors overlooked the dam…

Hah yes, inspectors try to be as minimally liable as possible. Ours went to great lengths to get us to have someone come out and check the "stains" underneath a bathroom sink without actually saying the m-word that rhymes with cold :)

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

#304

Post by Mauricebranagh »

inter_netuser wrote: post #145
privacylawthrow wrote: post #66

Earlier quoted context omitted.

6 months is not compliant. Employees have to be made aware of the posting on the same calendar day the job is posted. For jobs that are in constant demand, the company has to either send a daily email or have some kind of banner on its corporate intranet. There is also no geographic restriction so if a company has any offshore service centers, it would need to post any promotional jobs to its Colorado employees as we…

Amazing, they have to notify about jobs in Thailand to Colorado employees? Love it.

Why not? When I worked at BT they did - a nice one or two year posting abroad on full ride expat status looks good on the CV.

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

#305

Post by Mauricebranagh »

commandlinefan wrote: post #47
eecc wrote: post #29

So it' s basically a corporate boycott against labor laws favorable to employees?! I guess this will be first time a boycott won't be broken by a police charge and perhaps even becoming successful! /s

> favorable to employees Is it really though? Complete transparency in salary ranges also means that every other employer can see exactly what their competition is offering. I can't help but worry that this will lead to a sort of "price fixing" that will actually drive wages _down_.

Cartels are illegal ask the companies in SV that got caught.

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

#306

Post by ska »

ativzzz wrote: post #259
notahacker wrote: post #247

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

It doesn't really matter. Particularly if you are looking for (actually) senior people with specific experience, unless you are very careful with postings you will end up with an avalanche of inappropriate submissions. Either someone has to wade through them, or you use a terrible filter that everyone hates.

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

#307

Post by Mauricebranagh »

Clubber wrote: post #185
grumple wrote: post #115

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Good luck in a competitive field like tech. Companies might not advertise salary ranges at a few big tech companies, but the vast majority of recruiters tell you the salary range as soon as you talk to them (or you name your price and they say "that will work"). I already totally ignore the bottom 75% of salaries. The problem tech companies have is that many of them can be disrupted by a few motivated individuals, an…

>The problem tech companies have is that many of them can be disrupted by a few motivated individuals I'm convinced a primary motivation for hiring in mega-tech companies is to keep people from making startups to dethrone them. You can't legally compete with Google, etc if you've signed a non-compete.

You can once you leave - just don't take the piss like the self driving car idiot did.

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

#308

Post by bombcar »

lostcolony wrote: post #282
bombcar wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Requiring that employees live at within X minutes of the job site - likely legal. Forbidding employees from certain locations as a proxy for a protected class - likely illegal. An example: during the sales tax wars many companies would refuse to hire from a state that would could the employee as a tax nexus. This is mostly gone now as the sales tax fight seems mostly over.

Is it? Even outside of sales tax, it's additional accounting overhead to handle the withholding and filing for states you aren't in. No idea how much, I would imagine it's dependent on the systems in use, but the organizational incentives for allowing and enabling it are probably horribly misaligned for many companies.

It's a hassle but not an huge one, and any company that is in a population center that straddles a state border already deals with this (think New York, Chicago, Portland, Minneapolis/St Paul) - once you can handle two states handling additional isn't that painful.

More importantly the COST associated is fixed per employee roughly - having an employee in another state doesn't usually change the amount of tax paid, etc - just who it's paid to.

This won't be entirely true, but it's close enough - and for companies with outsourced HR (think: ADP) it's even easier.

Any company big enough to have a significant number of employees that this applies to would be big enough to eat the cost (and probably already has offices/etc in multiple states as is).

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

#309

Post by tshaddox »

hash872 wrote: post #116

I think one reason why this is difficult for companies that are hiring software engineers, is that they can hire at multiple levels of experience. They just need good developers! A company that needs, say, a Golang developer, or Scala, or React, might be willing to hire a junior, mid-level or senior developer- they'll take whatever experience level they can get. Remember, saying that you don't want to hire someone to…

I find it very difficult to believe that an employer that would be happy to fill a certain position at $80k would also be willing to fill that same position at $180k.

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

#310

Post by offtop5 »

mavelikara wrote: post #293
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).

>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).

Nope, I switched to a new company. You can't really expect a company to take care of you

Post reply on HN