News for hackers. Stuff that matters.
Re:Pay transparency: which states have laws and do they work? by sokoloff on Monday November 22, 2021 @02:19PM (#29310495)
Suppose I only have one level of employee and they’re all in CO.

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.

Re:Pay transparency: which states have laws and do they work? by the-pigeon on Monday November 22, 2021 @02:42PM (#29310767)
I thought the Colorado law was about base pay?

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.

Re:Pay transparency: which states have laws and do they work? by sokoloff on Monday November 22, 2021 @03:14PM (#29311095)
> I thought the Colorado law was about base pay?

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.

Re:Pay transparency: which states have laws and do they work? by nitrogen on Monday November 22, 2021 @03:26PM (#29311208)
B and C say "general description", while A says "rate" or "compensation"; has the exact meaning of those been figured out yet, w.r.t. what goes in the number and what goes in the text?