Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Microsoft will include pay ranges in all U.S. job postings

forbes.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

61–70 of 329 posts

Re: Microsoft will include pay ranges in all U.S. job postings

#61

Post by bmelton »

DannyBee wrote: post #47
hef19898 wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you do that only for jobs in Washington state it is only a question of time until the first discrimibation law suites are filed. Plus it is easy good press.

and then the law would get struck down because, as said, washington state isn't allowed to regulate interstate commerce.

Nit to pick: States can and do regulate interstate commerce all the time. California once banned the import of foie gras into the state, and IIRC are planning a law banning the import of foreign oil. Some states ban the import of firearms they don't wish to exist.

Whether they should be allowed to engage in the regulation of interstate commerce for activities that occur entirely extra-state is probably more along what you intended, but even that you could probably find allowed or as-yet-indeterminate exceptions to.

Re: Microsoft will include pay ranges in all U.S. job postings

#62

Post by andjd »

JumpCrisscross wrote: post #16
epwr wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This article [1] seems to state pretty clearly that the law applies to all job posting by a company in Washington state. Any sources saying it's only about jobs open to Washington residents? [1] https://www.dwt.com/blogs/employment-labor-and-benefits/2022...

> sources saying it's only about jobs open to Washington residents? Washington state can't regulate how Microsoft hires people in Texas. Microsoft Corp. isn't even a Washington legal entity. (EDIT: Never mind, I stand corrected [1]. In any case, the broader point stands. Delaware doesn't get to regulate how its entities hire outside Delaware. This is well-settled employment/interstate commerce law.) [1] https://www.s…

Legally, a company is subject to state laws of their state of incorporation (usually Delaware, for various reasons) _and_ their state of 'domicile', usually where they are headquartered. They are also subject to state laws in states where they operate.

So yes, in this situation, even if MS were incorporated in Delaware, Washington state could pass laws that bind how the company acts anywhere in the world.

Washington also isn't the only state passing this style of law. Putting up the systems and processes to comply with this law only for Washington-based positions would probably not be worth it.

Re: Microsoft will include pay ranges in all U.S. job postings

#63

Post by _fat_santa »

ChicagoBoy11 wrote: post #43

This is going do to absolutely nothing. Most of this legislation does nothing to really address the potential for folks to just advertise incredibly wide potential salary ranges, to say nothing of alternative ways that they can change total compensation "for the right candidate," if you catch my drift. I would suspect that the biggest effect of this is to actually lead to overall greater distrusts, as folks will make…

I live in CO and we recently had a similar law pass that required companies to disclose salary ranges. Like you said it does absolutely nothing, companies will list "Senior Software Engineer" with a salary of "$70k - $240k". This often times isn't even the range for the current position, but the "entire range" of offers they extend to any level of SWE.

Re: Microsoft will include pay ranges in all U.S. job postings

#64

Post by willcipriano »

JumpCrisscross wrote: post #16
epwr wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This article [1] seems to state pretty clearly that the law applies to all job posting by a company in Washington state. Any sources saying it's only about jobs open to Washington residents? [1] https://www.dwt.com/blogs/employment-labor-and-benefits/2022...

> sources saying it's only about jobs open to Washington residents? Washington state can't regulate how Microsoft hires people in Texas. Microsoft Corp. isn't even a Washington legal entity. (EDIT: Never mind, I stand corrected [1]. In any case, the broader point stands. Delaware doesn't get to regulate how its entities hire outside Delaware. This is well-settled employment/interstate commerce law.) [1] https://www.s…

I pretty sure if you headquartered your marijuana company in a state where it's illegal you'd run into problems, even if you didn't grow or sell it in that state.

Re: Microsoft will include pay ranges in all U.S. job postings

#65

Post by malwarebytess »

dnissley wrote: post #51
JumpCrisscross wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> sources saying it's only about jobs open to Washington residents? Washington state can't regulate how Microsoft hires people in Texas. Microsoft Corp. isn't even a Washington legal entity. (EDIT: Never mind, I stand corrected [1]. In any case, the broader point stands. Delaware doesn't get to regulate how its entities hire outside Delaware. This is well-settled employment/interstate commerce law.) [1] https://www.s…

Just to take this a bit farther... if Washington state can regulate Washington incorporated entities, can it regulate them to act in a way that would violate laws in other states?

Here's an example.

California passes a law, and because doing business in California is good for the bottom line they will comply with the law, and in so doing set a new defacto national standard. But, if this burden becomes too onerous, the business can simply not do business with California or move out of California. But, California is such a large market it's quite a high burden to reach.

Re: Microsoft will include pay ranges in all U.S. job postings

#66

Post by oneoff786 »

willcipriano wrote: post #64
JumpCrisscross wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> sources saying it's only about jobs open to Washington residents? Washington state can't regulate how Microsoft hires people in Texas. Microsoft Corp. isn't even a Washington legal entity. (EDIT: Never mind, I stand corrected [1]. In any case, the broader point stands. Delaware doesn't get to regulate how its entities hire outside Delaware. This is well-settled employment/interstate commerce law.) [1] https://www.s…

I pretty sure if you headquartered your marijuana company in a state where it's illegal you'd run into problems, even if you didn't grow or sell it in that state.

I don’t think that’s true?

Re: Microsoft will include pay ranges in all U.S. job postings

#67

Post by mywittyname »

logicalmonster wrote: post #22

Just to play Devil's Advocate: being explicit about salaries is the kind of practice that sounds amazingly good on the surface, but might have some unintended real-world consequences. For instance, whereas before when salaries weren't explicit, a weaker candidate with some good qualities who was on the bubble for consideration might be able to get a job if the salary was more favorable than the company was initially…

I feel like most places would be open to hiring a senior in place of a principle if they felt either, the senior could do the job well enough.

At some places I've worked, level was determined after the decision to hire. A position would be open to levels I, II, & III, and a panel of people would determine which level they felt the candidate would come it at.

Re: Microsoft will include pay ranges in all U.S. job postings

#68

Post by athorax »

_fat_santa wrote: post #63
ChicagoBoy11 wrote: post #43

This is going do to absolutely nothing. Most of this legislation does nothing to really address the potential for folks to just advertise incredibly wide potential salary ranges, to say nothing of alternative ways that they can change total compensation "for the right candidate," if you catch my drift. I would suspect that the biggest effect of this is to actually lead to overall greater distrusts, as folks will make…

I live in CO and we recently had a similar law pass that required companies to disclose salary ranges. Like you said it does absolutely nothing, companies will list "Senior Software Engineer" with a salary of "$70k - $240k". This often times isn't even the range for the current position, but the "entire range" of offers they extend to any level of SWE.

That is explicitly called out as not being allowed:

"An employer cannot post a $70,000-$100,000 range for a junior accountant position just because it pays senior accountants at the high end of that range. But it can post $70,000-$100,000 for an accountant if it does not limit the posting to junior or senior accountants, and genuinely might offer as low as $70,000 for a junior accountant, or as much as $100,000 for a senior one."

https://cdle.colorado.gov/equalpaytransparency https://cdle.colorado.gov/sites/cdle/files/INFO%20%239_%20Eq...

Re: Microsoft will include pay ranges in all U.S. job postings

#69

Post by nomilk »

_fat_santa wrote: post #63
ChicagoBoy11 wrote: post #43

This is going do to absolutely nothing. Most of this legislation does nothing to really address the potential for folks to just advertise incredibly wide potential salary ranges, to say nothing of alternative ways that they can change total compensation "for the right candidate," if you catch my drift. I would suspect that the biggest effect of this is to actually lead to overall greater distrusts, as folks will make…

I live in CO and we recently had a similar law pass that required companies to disclose salary ranges. Like you said it does absolutely nothing, companies will list "Senior Software Engineer" with a salary of "$70k - $240k". This often times isn't even the range for the current position, but the "entire range" of offers they extend to any level of SWE.

Not only are the salary bands meaninglessly wide, but I'd bet that if someone was really great and justified more than the upper bound, the company (Microsoft, but any other rational company too) would, of course, pay that higher amount since it's in their interest to do so.

Re: Microsoft will include pay ranges in all U.S. job postings

#70

Post by willcipriano »

sokoloff wrote: post #56
logicalmonster wrote: post #22

Just to play Devil's Advocate: being explicit about salaries is the kind of practice that sounds amazingly good on the surface, but might have some unintended real-world consequences. For instance, whereas before when salaries weren't explicit, a weaker candidate with some good qualities who was on the bubble for consideration might be able to get a job if the salary was more favorable than the company was initially…

Job postings with a range use the term range in a much looser than the mathematical sense. In mathematics, if I say the range is 100-200, I'm telling you that 95 and 205 are not possible. In job postings, if I say the range is 100-200, 95 and 205 are still possible. 100-200 was just a (hopefully) good-faith estimate of the range.

It's really the low number I want. What is the least you would offer someone who can fill this role? Jobs can have dramatically different expectations depending on the company and that number helps me understand what your level of expectations are.
Post reply on HN