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

321–330 of 406 posts

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

#321

Post by ummonk »

ahelwer wrote: post #48
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

This is quite common. Corporations know the long game and are willing to pay in the short term to get it. Another example is those grocery stores that closed last year after hazard pay was mandated at the height of the pandemic, citing unprofitability. Unprofitability! Of a grocery store, one of like three places where people were spending money in 2020!

They didn't close all locations with the hazard pay increase. They closed a few locations that were already struggling to be profitable, and had now become even more unprofitable.

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

#322

Post by brundolf »

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…

Weekly reminder that sometimes a functioning market can only be maintained via regulation.

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

#323

Post by someguydave »

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.

more like they bribe potentially competent founders with a high salary and “perks”, which effectively raises the opportunity cost of making a competing startup.

in this hypothesis most people working for google are actually not needed, but employed there primarily to waste their time

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

#324

Post by iudqnolq »

dominotw wrote: post #68
zachrose wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What competition is being hampered by this law?

I don't know what is being hampered but in general there is no free lunch. You always are making a tradeoff when you make a law, there is no such thing as only good law. So there has to be some downside for even this law.

All laws have downsides is about as interesting as "PI isn't always good. Sometimes you want to multiply by 2".

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

#325

Post by alaxsxaq »

Interesting since this coincides with a different issue I am facing. I had an employee move to California (we are a single-site business on the east coast) and everything was fine during covid. Now I'm being told that there are concerns about California's employment laws since they are out of sync with the laws in our state and might require HR to do some additional work and the organization to incur added expenses. Currently, we are awaiting a decision from HR. Our mitigation plan centers around moving this person from employee to contractor. It might be the only option for us - the employee has plenty of other opportunities.

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

#326

Post by matwood »

tshaddox wrote: post #313
matwood wrote: post #301

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> $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.

Except now they have to actually give you some reason why it's not the top. Without the listing the common reason I would hear about my salary request was 'not budgeted'. Well if 180k is listed, not budgeted doesn't fly. They either need to explain why I didn't get the max in a way that makes sense, or I move on.

Is it perfect for employees? No, but it's much better than no information. Also, keep in mind they will not just throw some crazy high number on their either because then they have to explain it to existing employees.

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

#328

Post by ummonk »

ghaff wrote: post #184
ethbr0 wrote: post #113

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It is. Afaict, protected classes and characteristics as of 2021 are: Sex, race, color, religion, national origin, pregnancy and childbirth (and related medical conditions), age (including mandatory retirement), disability (including requiring reasonable accommodation), black lung disease (mine operators), bankruptcy and bad debt, citizenship status, & genetic information. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Employment_di…

>citizenship status It's a little more complicated. The person needs to have the legal right to work in the country of course. And, if there are any legal restrictions related to e.g. Federal contracts such as defense contractors often have, a job may be restricted to US citizens.

"e.g. Federal contracts such as defense contractors often have, a job may be restricted to US citizens."

While true, that seems like a rare occurrence. Most jobs I've seen just require US Persons (e.g. to work on space / defense technology) which includes permanent residents.

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

#329

Post by Judgmentality »

InitialLastName wrote: post #187
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?

>Surely you do not hire an independant accountant every time you buy stocks? Of course not, I let the short sellers do it for me.

Then you'd miss out on GME, TSLA, and all the stocks that make the most money. That's obviously a viable strategy, but it's certainly not the best in terms of ROI.

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

#330

Post by hash872 »

tshaddox wrote: post #309
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.

Did you happen to see the part where I explained that a company could hire someone at a relatively junior, mid-level or senior opening- in an extremely competitive market for software developers? Like, let's say you're X Startup, you desperately need a Golang developer, not having another good Golang developer on your team is costing you Y amounts of money per month, and you just can't find one in your preferred experience range. Do you A) do nothing and just continue to lose money each month for lack of a good developer, or B) hire someone who knows Golang, regardless of whether they're more junior or more senior than you were hoping? Does that kinda make sense?
Post reply on HN