Surely there has to be a limit on the ranges for salaries posted, otherwise what's stopping an employer from just posting a range of $10k - $1M, at which point the salary information becomes as worthless as having no information.
Because we’re hiring good candidates at various experience ranges.
If someone shows up with the most impressive resume and portfolio I’ve ever seen, I don’t want to lose them simply because our job description doesn’t have a salary high enough to convince them to join.
Likewise, if a college grad shows up with a potentially impressive but short resume then we might want to take a chance on them, but not if we’re forced to pay them senior engineer money because that’s what we put in the ad. If I have to pay senior engineer money, I’m going to wait until a senior engineer applies.
We basically keep job listings limited to "we're writing cloud software using Angular, Spring, and relational data". We're a large company, so other teams do it differently, but my team tries hard to not put ceilings or floors on experience or skills. We've hired everything from summer intern to Principal (Staff) Engineer using the same job req. We also don't limit the listings to a specific functional area - we might hire Ops, Front or Back End, Full Stack, Test, Autimation, etc, using the same req. We also actively look for skills we don't currently "need", on the hope they will widen the practical experience of the team.
Honestly, truly, does all that extra detail around experience, "job duties", micromanaged required skills, etc, actually add any value to the listing? Does "Agile experience preferred" even mean anything?
Nope, but the "x years of experience" does. IME teams that have the wrong balance of experience tend to go way off course. I worked on a team with a lot of juniors that put out a similar advert (HR snafu) and we were flooded with even more. It was a struggle to mentor those we had let alone do actual work.
I probably would apply to such jobs if I were really desperate but if salary is left out I assume it's a lowball negotiating ploy and ignore them. I believe absolutely that in spite of all protests to the contrary that it absolutely is in all cases. No shame in that either. You might score somebody senior for cheap.
There are plenty of roles these days that are up-front about what they are, though.
If you pick the salary without leveling first, then it's not based on their qualifications, and that's the type of discrimination these laws are trying to counteract.
Otherwise, if you allow that situation to happen, well, you allowed it to happen.
Last time I interviewed at Square, for example, after passing the interview for a particular group I met with several engineering managers within the group to understand my fit within their teams. That matching was a result of what teams the group thought I might be a good fit for based on the interview.
You know a high performer from a low one. Anything in between is anybody's guess.
Salaries are reflections of the negotiation market, which reflects merit, but only barely.
To keep the math and my HR processes simple, I pay them all $100K/yr and grant them all initially $200K in shares plus $100K/yr in refresher shares, vesting over 4 years. Someone who just joined will make $150K in the next 12 months. Someone who joined 2 years ago will make $200K in the next 12 months if our stock is UNCH since they joined. If it doubled since then, they’ll make close to $300K in the next 12 months.
Bam, my range is $150K-$300K/yr and I have the fairest, most equitable pay structure I could imagine. Layer on top of that complexities of people actually having different levels of productivity, different amounts of unvested stock appreciation, and you can have even wider spreads. Add to that having had to “buy out” someone’s unvested shares or bonus at another company to get them to switch to yours and the spread gets wider.
Personally I don't care about stocks on a job posting. I consider stocks to be worth 0 when considering offers unless it's a public company with all the information available for me to evaluate the company.
This is because statistically the startup will fail. And there's no way to make a fact based evaluation if it will fail or not until after you are working for them. If you are one of the initial hires it's basically blindly gambling on the founders. The exception being if the founders have previously founded successful startups, in which case you are betting on their experience.
That’s not the way I read it:
Employers must include the following compensation and benefits information in each posting:
(A) the hourly rate or salary compensation (or a range thereof) that the employer is offering for the position;
(B) a general description of any bonuses, commissions, or other forms of compensation that are being offered for the job; and
(C) a general description of all employment benefits the employer is offering for the position, including health care benefits, retirement benefits, any benefits permitting paid days off (including sick leave, parental leave, and paid time off or vacation benefits), and any other benefits that must be reported for federal tax purposes, but not benefits in the form of minor perks.
RSUs are benefits that must be reported for federal tax purposes.
My feeling is when people say location shouldn't matter then mean as long as the location is in their country.
"As little as they can get away with, not how much value you create" sounds like a recipe for exploitation and dissatisfied employees. Which I suppose is exactly what we have.
It would also seem to create a strange incentive for people to move to places where the cost of living is higher.
If you are in say NYC and a company is trying to hire specifically in NYC you can expect to be paid enough to live in NYC. It doesn't matter that the company could get the work done for 1/4 the cost if they were OK with the work being done in Smallville, Kansas. You aren't competing with the Smallville programmer. Your only competition also demands NYC level pay.
When the company doesn't care where the work is done other than broad limits like "should be in the US" then you are competing with the Smallville programmer for the job. And with some dude in Hooterville. And in Lake Wobegon. And in Mayberry. You are in a market with a lot of people who will accept less than NYC salary.
Actually this isn't all that different than how companies handle pay within metropolitan areas now. For example a company in downtown Los Angeles isn't going to have a different pay scale for their employees that live in Compton and the ones that live in Malibu.
If everyone goes remote-first someday, market rates everywhere will equalize, but this hasn’t happened yet.
This is because FAANG refuse to benchmark against finance, because it would cost them too much money. Like they wanted me to move from Dublin to London when I was at one, but the salaries were identical, but the living costs definitely were not (salaries were the same, but a FAANG salary in Dub puts you much closer to the top of the local income distribution than one does in London).
If they're from a real poor country, maybe this practice will help their economy (not that that's a reason to do it necessarily).
If an employer has a need for a level 3 software engineer (whatever that is for them), should they post in Colorado the salary range for that role in Colorado? Or the range for that role in Elbonia on the low end and Palo Alto on the high end? Would the latter pass muster with CO?
If someone aspirationally applies for that role and the interview process places them as a promising level 2 software engineer, what should the company’s answer be? “We regret to inform you that we will not be making a level 3 offer.” Or is the candidate better off if they then continue to say “we invite you to apply for consideration for a level 2 role by clicking this link: xxxx”?
Isn't the intent to benefit third parties though? I thought the point of pay transparency is to provide information to people who don't have the connections to know what the "real deal" generally is, so they can negotiate on an equal footing as other applicants when they have the opportunity.
In my (limited) experience hiring Colorado employees remotely, we had to make several different job postings with various ranges to make sure we didn’t exclude any possible applicants for having too high or too low salary bands. If someone applied for the $200-$300K job description but didn’t have the right experience or performance during the interview, we could offer for them to “reapply” to the $150K-$200K job title and pick up there. It felt like a lot of formality with no real benefit to either side.
The Colorado law also doesn’t stop at the job listing. You have to follow specific procedures for various things after the employee is hired, too. I could see companies excluding Colorado just to simplify their operations and avoid opening themselves up to another state’s different employment laws.