Companies excluding Coloradans from remote jobs to avoid sharing salary ranges • Hacker News Board

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

#341

Post by syshum » Fri, May 21, 2021, 5:46 PM UTC

bluGill wrote: post #262

ethbr0 wrote: post #196

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A huge point! IMHO, the US should have much more "larger than X" laws (and clauses that enfold organized subcontractors working for larger corporations).

Beware of the unintended consequences of those laws (I have no idea what they are, but beware)

On of the consequences of those provisions is often either

1. Companies do weird divisions to keep under the limits

2. Companies are artificially restricted in their growth as they need to add employees but are unable to, for example if the cut of was 50 employees, adding the 49th employee is easy, adding the 50th employee is $$$$$ thus it will not happen, this would mean few companies grow to 50, rather you would see several 50+ employee companies merge as the cost burden for the new 100 employee company would spread over all 100 employees, vs the regulatory cost being hit with the single employee add

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

#342

Post by Bishop_ » Fri, May 21, 2021, 5:48 PM UTC

the_lonely_road wrote: post #157

My favorite comment on that Reddit post is one where the guy says his company is on Digital Ocean and this news about how the company engages in antiworker practices is enough to push him into migrating to AWS. I have no dog or pony in the show on either side but if I was writing a fiction story I wouldn't be able to include something like that because no one would believe that decision making...of that caliber...act…

My current employer migrated from AWS to GCP (Before my employment with them) because they don't like Jeff Bezos, things are sometimes... odd when dealing with very small businesses.

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

#343

Post by jonfw » Fri, May 21, 2021, 5:49 PM UTC

bob33212 wrote: post #300

jonfw wrote: post #291

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

That seems irrelevant, unless your company weds people

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

#344

Post by jdeibele » Fri, May 21, 2021, 5:52 PM UTC

wbl wrote: post #130

ClumsyPilot wrote: post #118

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In sane countries the seller must comission a survey and provide it to the buyer. The UK system where each buyer comissions a survey is absurd. I do not understand how the mortgage helps you - you are still paying for it, and if the survey uncovers issues, you either take mortgage on a house with problems, or you are out of pocket. If you pull out, and next house you view has issues too, you have to take it because a…

In the US the buyer hires an inspector after the contract is agreed and the transfer can be voided if the inspector finds serious issues. Typically the price gets adjusted.

I've had the pleasure of working with 3 excellent home inspectors over the past 20 years. They tested and checked things that I never would have thought of. One of them flagged the water heater in our current house for immediate replacement. Sure enough, it started leaking the day after we moved in.

We had asked for various fixes to be made but the seller only did a sewer repair and I think that is/was required for the house to be in sellable condition.

With everybody looking for houses now, a big thing is to put in a bid without requiring an inspection. I'm sure it works out almost all of the time but I'd hate to do it.

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

#345

Post by PaulDavisThe1st » Fri, May 21, 2021, 6:02 PM UTC

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…

Home inspectors in the US are barely useful.

If you really don't know anything about houses (or feel as if you do not), then having someone walk you through some of the things you may have to face living in a particular house is probably a good idea.

However, even as just an enthusiastic amateur, I know more about home construction and repair than most home inspectors. When I bought my current house I skipped the home inspector, and hired an electrician, a roofer and a structural engineer. It cost me more, but I got seriously informed reports about the property, not just boilerplate fill-in-the-blank PDFs telling me that one of the windows rattled.

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

#346

Post by tshaddox » Fri, May 21, 2021, 6:05 PM UTC

matwood wrote: post #326

tshaddox wrote: post #313

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 n…

Do they actually have to explain this? Is this part of the Colorado law? I can’t find anything about that.

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

#347

Post by eecc » Fri, May 21, 2021, 6:06 PM UTC

ncallaway wrote: post #214

commandlinefan wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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_.

Corporations (at least mid-size and large corporations) already have a pretty good idea of what their competition is offering. There are companies that survey employees for salary information, collect all that knowledge, and then sell it to corporations. Medium and large businesses already have a very good understanding of the job market and what a competitive salary range is.

Exactly, the problem is that they keep lowballing it because these ranges are somewhat not so much public knowledge

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

#348

Post by cblconfederate » Fri, May 21, 2021, 6:10 PM UTC

compiler-guy wrote: post #210

cblconfederate wrote: post #126

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Profit most often rests on the asymmetry of information, thats why monopolies are so profitable

Monopoly profits are based on dominant market power, not asymmetry of information.

Dominant market power is maintained by having control of information in a market. Google has control on the information about advertising and user searches that competitors don't. Amazon uses comprehensive sales data that others don't. Apple uses its power to enforce ignorance of competition to its customers.

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

#349

Post by alex_young » Fri, May 21, 2021, 6:11 PM UTC

lostcolony wrote: post #272

alex_young wrote: post #219

Although not exactly the same thing, California already requires employers to give pay scales for jobs when requested by an applicant and bars asking about their salary history: https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billTextClient.xhtm...

Asking for pay scales is a problem though. Do it at the start of the interview and you're flying in the face of all interview advice (i.e., don't ask about pay during the initial phone screen; the companies smart enough to save their own time will mention it upfront, and the companies that want to negotiate you as low as possible by hiding information will take it as a red flag), and at the end I don't care what the…

Seems pretty straightforward to me. "For alignment, can you provide the salary range for this position?" If they hedge, just tell them you want to make sure we're not waisting time.

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

#350

Post by matwood » Fri, May 21, 2021, 6:16 PM UTC

tshaddox wrote: post #346

matwood wrote: post #326

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 n…

Do they actually have to explain this? Is this part of the Colorado law? I can’t find anything about that.

Of course they don't have to, but it opens the door to make it easier for existing employees and candidates to ask.

So many people are uncomfortable talking about money, and companies push that it's taboo. This law does a tiny bit to push the information asymmetry back to the employee.

EDIT I've always been a pretty aggressive (not in a bad way) negotiator. So for me, asking why not the max would be question one and probing the answer would be the next set of questions. Maybe this wasn't obvious to those less apt to negotiate?