I also would prefer to know salaries (while not minding letting other know mine) but I certainly don't think this should be mandated. And, unless regulations force all my competitors to disclose this information (even those outside of these regulations jurisdictios) I don't see the point of these regulations at all.
Companies excluding Coloradans from remote jobs to avoid sharing salary ranges
311–320 of 406 posts
Re: Companies excluding Coloradans from remote jobs to avoid sharing salary ranges
#312Earlier 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…
We have something like 15,000 employees and 20 some odd brand companies that operate largely independently. There is no reasonable way for us to wrangle every single opening into a single process to comply with a CO law (times all the other jurisdictions who’d like to put their own thumbprint on it). I would always rather take a qualified internal candidate rather than spend months to land someone outside. So, I do s…
At that size, I imagine you're already operating across several states, and HR already has processes in place to deal with differing regulatory requirements. Adding the latest CO rules to these processes isn't all that onerous in the overall scheme of things. It's not like "post a minimum salary" and "post listings internally" are crazy or complicated ideas.
Re: Companies excluding Coloradans from remote jobs to avoid sharing salary ranges
#313I 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 hop…
If I saw $80-180k on a job posting, I wouldn't think it was meaningless. I would think it means that they will pay $80k, maybe a bit more, but definitely nowhere near $180k.
Re: Companies excluding Coloradans from remote jobs to avoid sharing salary ranges
#314Earlier 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.
That depends on how 'fairness' is defined. Your definition of fairness appears to exclude a set of concepts which you see as unfair.
It's not a good rhetorical tactic to cede the concept of fairness; better to argue "that thing being done in the name of fairness, is actually unfair".
Re: Companies excluding Coloradans from remote jobs to avoid sharing salary ranges
#315We should build a blacklist of companies that do this.
Re: Companies excluding Coloradans from remote jobs to avoid sharing salary ranges
#316Earlier 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’d only list 3 levels if you’re actually intending to hire 3 different people, each at 1 of those levels.
Re: Companies excluding Coloradans from remote jobs to avoid sharing salary ranges
#317Earlier 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,…
It's a bit presumptuous to suggest the OP "has limited perspective on how career development, seniority, and hiring work". Also, I most certainly do sort by price when I'm looking for real estate: I have a budget, after all. Same thing with employment: most people have needs that salary requirements can meet, and it's pointless to look for jobs outside the range one can accept. Therefore it's almost certainly the bes…
> It's a bit presumptuous to suggest the OP "has limited perspective ...
This is going to be very meta and not about salary so feel free to skip :)
When I disagree with someone, I try to find where we are disconnected. It's usually one of two things: we reach divergent conclusions either because we are aware of different facts, or because we're interpreting those facts through different values lens.
A good quick heuristic of a fact missing if when someone talks about either one side of the equation or even worse, makes both sides line up to their conclusion.
For example: "we should use Python - it's the best dev experience, we are only using C++ cuz our lead engineer is stupid" versus "We use C++ because of performance attributes, but I argue we can be fast-enough in Python and get better dev-experience"
The 2nd statement shows awareness of both sides of the argument and then proposes a solution that accounts for them. The 1st side is missing the context for why someone would do something other than what they want to do - suggesting they don't have perspective on that and making it likely that their solution doesn't account for it (or if it does, only by accident.)
In the discussion at hand, the original poster clearly prefers salary ranges and his model for why companies don't publish them is that they are evil. To me that suggests that they are lacking perspectives on the cases where salary ranges are either impossible to share or end up working in the employee's favor. Having had this conversation many times before, I attribute this lack of perspective on not having the senior hiring experience either from candidate or company side where one would have picked up the perspective.
To sum it all up, yet there's a bit of presumption in my suggestion but at the same time - you have to be able to assert things or else you'd never be able to make any points.
Re: Companies excluding Coloradans from remote jobs to avoid sharing salary ranges
#318Earlier quoted context omitted.
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…
A bit tangential: Back in the early 90s — on a recommendation from a realtor who was a close friend of my brother's — I hired an inspector who was close to retirement. He worked with his wife who served as his assistant tasked with, in essence, taking dictation of her husband's near constant commentary as he conducted an incredibly thorough inspection. Every outlet tested for proper ground, every nook and cranny look…
How long was the duration between the 90s purchase and the next purchase? 20 years?
This was fascinating to read!
Re: Companies excluding Coloradans from remote jobs to avoid sharing salary ranges
#319Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
That depends on how 'fairness' is defined. Your definition of fairness appears to exclude a set of concepts which you see as unfair. It's not a good rhetorical tactic to cede the concept of fairness; better to argue "that thing being done in the name of fairness, is actually unfair".
I would define fairness as equality of opportunity, for every person.
Hence the previous comment's tautology that fairness will not be an objective good for most people, because (a) most people prefer their own self interest, (b) the status quo provides majorities advantages that minorities do not share, and (c) objective fairness will thus come at the expense of the majority (who are by definition more numerous than the minority).
It's interesting most people are interpreting my comment as a preference, vs an observation.
Re: Companies excluding Coloradans from remote jobs to avoid sharing salary ranges
#320Earlier quoted context omitted.
A bit tangential: Back in the early 90s — on a recommendation from a realtor who was a close friend of my brother's — I hired an inspector who was close to retirement. He worked with his wife who served as his assistant tasked with, in essence, taking dictation of her husband's near constant commentary as he conducted an incredibly thorough inspection. Every outlet tested for proper ground, every nook and cranny look…
How long was the duration between the 90s purchase and the next purchase? 20 years? This was fascinating to read!
Spring 1993 to Spring 2001.