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

351–360 of 406 posts

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

#351

Post by ghaff »

Mauricebranagh wrote: post #302
ghaff wrote: post #160

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>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.

Or just someone senior people have worked with before in some capacity. I had a job description written for me in my current US role.

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

#352

Post by blacktriangle »

ativzzz wrote: post #257
blacktriangle wrote: post #248

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Because then somebody applies for the top band, the company says they're slotted in the bottom band, and they've effectively recreated the situation as it stands before Colorado's worthless regulation, since they now have some 80k - 200k range which is effectively useless information.

Doesn't this happen already? In fact, that's how I got my current job, I applied for tech lead and they gave me an offer for senior and I took it. The difference being I know the salary ranges of the bands before I apply and talk to HR The idea is they have 3 ranges for 3 experience levels for 1 position, not a 80-200k range

It absolutely happens today, except today people in Colorado can also apply for remote jobs. It's an example of government trying to regulate and failing to solve the problem while only creating new ones.

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

#353

Post by earlhathaway »

elliekelly wrote: post #93
privacylawthrow wrote: post #19

The law also requires that Colorado employees be informed of all promotional opportunities. A promotional opportunity is "a vacancy in an existing or new position that could be considered a promotion for one or more employees in terms of compensation, benefits, status, duties, or access to further advancement." If a company doesn't already have Colorado employees, they may not be interested in having a remote employe…

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…

Hey -- opened your profile because I was curious. If you're working on a company and interested in chatting, email in my profile.

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

#354

Post by ahelwer »

ummonk wrote: post #321
ahelwer wrote: post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Yes, that's what they said. There is no way to verify that. Punishing certain communities by withdrawing service to scare off future such wage increases is another explanation.

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

#355

Post by Judgmentality »

edmundsauto wrote: post #333
Judgmentality wrote: post #329

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

You also probably miss out on the fraud and negative ROI that the investigations would conceivably uncover. Also, making decisions around catching Tesla or GME at the right timing in the market… that’s not a great starting point for investment strategy.

> Also, making decisions around catching Tesla or GME at the right timing in the market… that’s not a great starting point for investment strategy.

I thought the same thing for years, and just avoided the market except for a 401k and stock granted by companies I worked at. Then I got into trading because I thought I could make money trading volatile stocks and I've never looked back (I've already made enough to retire). So far I've only lost money on my value stocks.

To each his own.

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

#356

Post by kbelder »

Der_Einzige wrote: post #275
nradov wrote: post #136

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's not sane, it's crazy! As a buyer why would I trust a surveyor selected by the seller? I would rather pay inspector myself for an independent opinion. In the US this only costs a few hundred dollars for a typical house, which is a tiny fraction of the overall transaction price.

In the current US housing market, you're expected to waive bringing in a house inspector because if you don't, the seller will sell to someone who will (and they likely have 3 all cash offers besides you ready to go).

That's what we're finding right now. Any attempt at negotiation just means your offer gets binned and the house will go to somebody who'll pony up the money, no questions asked.

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

#357

Post by ativzzz »

lotsofpulp wrote: post #283
ativzzz wrote: post #261

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't think it's that massive, especially because you should be figuring out a salary range within the first 1 or 2 conversations with the company regardless. For software engineers anyway, not sure about other less-hot markets.

Yes, this law will disproportionately benefit sellers of labor with a worse supply/demand situation. Price transparency is always better for the party (buyer or seller) in the worse supply/demand situation.

So maybe it should be limited to certain industries, like low skilled laborers and not white collar office jobs

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

#358

Post by ummonk »

ahelwer wrote: post #354
ummonk wrote: post #321

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Yes, that's what they said. There is no way to verify that. Punishing certain communities by withdrawing service to scare off future such wage increases is another explanation.

What are you arguing happened instead? That they closed still-profitable stores just to send a message?

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

#359

Post by lotsofpulp »

Judgmentality wrote: post #355
edmundsauto wrote: post #333

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You also probably miss out on the fraud and negative ROI that the investigations would conceivably uncover. Also, making decisions around catching Tesla or GME at the right timing in the market… that’s not a great starting point for investment strategy.

> Also, making decisions around catching Tesla or GME at the right timing in the market… that’s not a great starting point for investment strategy. I thought the same thing for years, and just avoided the market except for a 401k and stock granted by companies I worked at. Then I got into trading because I thought I could make money trading volatile stocks and I've never looked back (I've already made enough to retir…

Do you work on your own accord then and do not need to subject yourself to a boss?

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

#360

Post by sangnoir »

vineyardmike wrote: post #337
sangnoir wrote: post #232

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Or the situation where a company is very flexible on who they hire and thus would pay a lot more or a lot less depending on what the individual brings to the table. You're making it sound like the companies are being forced to pay the same salary for the same role - they are not , and this is a straw man argument. The companies should publish the salary range - they are free to adjust the offers within the range de…

My friend interviewed for an SDE 1 position but after interview, was then offered a role of SDE 2 on the team, since the team was hiring for both, and he was more qualified as a 2. I think this is an example of flexibility that people bring up. Not that they shouldn't publish the range, but my friend had no idea the other range was open to him. TO be clear, i agree that they should have to explain "why" if they chose…

> [...]but my friend had no idea the other range was open to him.

This asymmetric information is the intention of the employer, but sadly, in most cases it goes the other way: person gets hired as an SDE 2, but earns less than some/all SDE 1's because they are terrible at negotiating, or their salary history was always below market rate and they do not know it. I'm all for companies paying commensurate salaries and having the flexibility to do so - publishing salaries ranges when posting jobs is orthogonal to that.

> i think it misses some edge cases that are not uncommon.

In your friends case, I hope/wish the law covers that scenario whereby the employer is forced to disclose the range for the upgraded when asked - so that all your friend needed to do was ask.

Post reply on HN