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

An update on salary transparency in job posts

directlyapply.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

71–80 of 150 posts

Re: An update on salary transparency in job posts

#71

Post by SpicyLemonZest »

pc86 wrote: post #58
synergy20 wrote: post #24

this is absolutely welcome. yeah a wide range is still better than nothing. it's actually very simple, surprisingly many job posts still miss them: * location, remote or relocation or hybrid * pay range * job description this saves both sides' time in the end. I also like the 'simple apply' and in fact I only apply for those jobs, i.e. just send out resume, instead of filling out lots of personal info. if the employe…

The number of jobs I've seen that have absolutely no mention of whether they are remote, hybrid, or on-site is astounding. I'm not wasting my time applying for something 1200 miles away just to find out that they want a 2/3 hybrid setup. Realistically I'd never find out because they'll see my address and never contact me.

The default is and has always been that employees will come into the office, I don't know why you'd expect this to be specifically disclosed. If it doesn't say remote it's almost surely not remote.

Re: An update on salary transparency in job posts

#72

Post by LispSporks22 »

lotsofpulp wrote: post #13
bearjaws wrote: post #2

Now lets quantify how many of them are absurd listings. Recently saw a Senior Security Engineer role for Netflix, $100-$700k salary range. How is someone supposed to reasonably negotiate that role? $100k is clearly a joke, $700k is clearly a salary someone got during the bubble. Do I come in at $400k? Is $250k a bargain rate? https://imgur.com/a/0Fe00Qf

>How is someone supposed to reasonably negotiate that role? Get a competing job offer. A minimum price lets labor sellers know if it is worth applying or not, and trends in supply and demand for that type of labor (based on which way the minimums are moving industry wide).

Honestly after sometimes weeks long latencies waiting on “proceeding to the next step”, ludicrous leetcode exercises and design Twitter, or worse - their business - from scratch on this here virtual whiteboard, I’m so buggered I’m gonna take the first number out of their mouths.

Re: An update on salary transparency in job posts

#73

Post by gear54rus »

vsareto wrote: post #28
thebradbain wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A big range like that means you should feel more than fine selecting the average— so $400k— at the minimum. Anything less and you’re essentially admitting you don’t think you’re worth what the salary range is. Personally I would ask for clarification, and if they refuse to provide any, ask for near or above the top-end of the range. Theres plenty of $215k salary jobs currently, so if you happen to not land this one,…

Most people don't know what a $400k Security Engineer actually does to warrant that pay because you can probably find a similar job at another company that pays much less and probably makes you work more. I sure as fuck don't and I at least have one pentesting cert FWIW. This pricing scheme punishes people trying to be honest about their skill set. Otherwise why stop at the average? Just max it out and ask for $700k.…

Do ask for 700 but be prepared to be passed over for a candidate that's better but asked for less. And if you are exceptional (compared to others) then you damn well deserve it. Comparison to the rest of the market (on both sides) is the crux here, not being 'honest' or whatever (what does this even mean). Isn't it?

Re: An update on salary transparency in job posts

#74

Post by grogenaut »

lotsofpulp wrote: post #34
jghn wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There is a 0% chance that I'd put in the effort to get an offer from a company just to set my price with a company I'd like to work for. No company is worth that headache. If I happen to already have a competing offer, sure. But when job searching I'm not carpet bombing resumes, I'm targeting specific companies that I think would be a match.

Then that is the price of not having the headache. Markets work best when buyers AND sellers are constantly engaging in negotiations.

wouldn't this mean that your company is also negotiating your salary down regularly?

Re: An update on salary transparency in job posts

#75

Post by lotsofpulp »

grogenaut wrote: post #74
lotsofpulp wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Then that is the price of not having the headache. Markets work best when buyers AND sellers are constantly engaging in negotiations.

wouldn't this mean that your company is also negotiating your salary down regularly?

They do, by not giving appropriate raises. Adjusting down nominally is typically done via terminating everyone and telling them to reapplying.

Though, in at least a somewhat healthy company, adjusting down nominally leaves too much of a bad taste, so layoffs are used instead where the remaining employees’ pay to qualify of life at work ratio goes down (more work responsibilities, more hours, less amenities at work, etc).

Re: An update on salary transparency in job posts

#76

Post by Aurornis »

bearjaws wrote: post #2

Now lets quantify how many of them are absurd listings. Recently saw a Senior Security Engineer role for Netflix, $100-$700k salary range. How is someone supposed to reasonably negotiate that role? $100k is clearly a joke, $700k is clearly a salary someone got during the bubble. Do I come in at $400k? Is $250k a bargain rate? https://imgur.com/a/0Fe00Qf

> How is someone supposed to reasonably negotiate that role? $100k is clearly a joke, $700k is clearly a salary someone got during the bubble.

Netflix does actually compensate within this range, though.

The alternatives to these wide ranges are:

1. Create a lot of different postings with different ranges. This is how companies end up with Junior Engineer, Engineer, Senior Engineer, Staff Engineer, Senior Staff Engineer and other titles for what might be the same headcount. If someone comes in with skills and compensation expectations that don’t match the job they applied for, they get bumped to a different job listing. Nothing actually changes, but now the salary ranges are narrower in the job postings.

2. Give everyone similar base compensation and make the difference up in bonuses and RSUs, which aren’t posted in the job listings. These listings usually have lower compensation listed to signal the candidate that RSUs are going to be significant. For example, you’ll see Meta posting jobs with comp down to $129K even though everyone knows they’re going to get more RSUs than base comp. I’ve seen more companies claim to pay everyone the same, with the fine print being that equity grants can vary greatly from person to person.

Really though, I think highly compensated devs need to acknowledge that this law wasn’t made for them. It was made for the people applying to jobs where they don’t know if the typical compensation is $18/hr or $30/hr, or people who have been earning $45K for years who haven’t realized that their peers are getting $60K.

When someone is applying to $450K jobs at Netflix, they have numerous resources from levels.fyi to Blind that will reveal far more than a number on a job listing will. The law is not for highly compensated SWEs applying to the top 0.1% of jobs.

Re: An update on salary transparency in job posts

#77

Post by eschneider »

buildbot wrote: post #22
lotsofpulp wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>How is someone supposed to reasonably negotiate that role? Get a competing job offer. A minimum price lets labor sellers know if it is worth applying or not, and trends in supply and demand for that type of labor (based on which way the minimums are moving industry wide).

or “unethically” (depending on your ethics!), you could just _say_ you have a competing offer. Unless there is like some secret hiring manager slack where people ask each other “did you really send that person an offer?”.

Sure, you can do that. But aside from the ethics of it, there's always a chance that they won't counteroffer and just say "Maybe you should go with that higher offer."

You really don't want to bring up a "competing offer" unless you're prepared to take the counteroffer/just walk away.

Re: An update on salary transparency in job posts

#78

Post by Consultant32452 »

apocalyptic0n3 wrote: post #6

I'm shocked to see it's that high. I'm simultaneously shocked to see it's that low in states that require it. I suppose I shouldn't be — no law is obeyed 100% afterall — but I would have expected higher than 60%. This makes me think there needs to be higher penalties for failing to follow it.

I am similarly shocked. I don't remember the last time I saw a job posting that had the salary range listed.

Re: An update on salary transparency in job posts

#79

Post by [deleted] »

singron wrote: post #4

The scariest thing about the salary transparency laws is that it makes it blindingly obvious that companies do not regularly follow the law. Adherence is both very public and easy, but imagine all the other laws being broken all the time that aren't as trivial to comply with.

[deleted]

Re: An update on salary transparency in job posts

#80

Post by LtWorf »

pxx wrote: post #35
buildbot wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

or “unethically” (depending on your ethics!), you could just _say_ you have a competing offer. Unless there is like some secret hiring manager slack where people ask each other “did you really send that person an offer?”.

The counteroffer can easily be conditioned on seeing a copy of your offer. They don't need to see it today, but they might when you start your job...

Well, I can print a piece of paper...
Post reply on HN