Ask HN: Are CO salary disclosure laws affecting remote work opportunities?
86 comments
Sorry to raise an irrelevant point to the question asked, but if you are a United-States American, could you please either not use two-letter state abbreviations, or spell them out on first use.
A lot of people who use this site are located outside of the USA, and for these people, the abbreviations are not commonly known.
This can genuinely cause confusion - in this case I thought `CO` might be the abbreviation for an senior position which is unknown to me (i.e. like CEO, CTO, etc.).
A lot of people who use this site are located outside of the USA, and for these people, the abbreviations are not commonly known.
This can genuinely cause confusion - in this case I thought `CO` might be the abbreviation for an senior position which is unknown to me (i.e. like CEO, CTO, etc.).
I'm from the US and I skimmed past this post 6x before finally stopping and thinking about it because I had no idea what CO was. Although it's obvious in context if you're American, without context nobody would recognize state abbreviations, they're far too generic. MS ME MN MA etc could stand for so many things. I thought CO was "Chief Officer" at first.
I'm a Colorado resident, and even I didn't realize the OP was talking about the state at first...
My personal rule is that two-letter state abbreviations should only be used on postal addresses. For writing, spell it out, or use the longer abbrev. (like Calif., or Colo.)
I live in Ontario, CA. Pop quiz, where do I live? :)
I live in Ontario, CA. Pop quiz, where do I live? :)
This is the correct advice. Postal abbreviations should be used for postage only. If you're a newspaper writer who for whatever reason is constrained for space, feel free to use Associated Press abbreviations like "Calif." if and only if it's preceded by a city. In all other cases, spell it out. Nobody should have to think more than a nanosecond what state you mean when you write MS (Mississippi? Missouri? Massachusetts?) or AK (Alaska? Arkansas?).
California. If it were Canada, you would have said "where do I live, eh?"
Ontario.
My quiz should have been: "Does my milk come in a carton or a bag?"
Canada. I suspect that most Americans don't know that bag is an option.
I think it's making it hard for some companies to hire. I don't live in Colorado, but when people reach out to me for roles and they say anywhere but Colorado they get my blanket response-
> Sorry, I have a rule against companies that refuse to hire in Colorado. I feel that sharing a salary band is something that most honest companies are willing to do upfront, and if a company finds sharing that information so reputation damaging that they'll refuse to work with people from an entire state then the odds are their salary bands are low and their culture is not worker friendly.
> Sorry, I have a rule against companies that refuse to hire in Colorado. I feel that sharing a salary band is something that most honest companies are willing to do upfront, and if a company finds sharing that information so reputation damaging that they'll refuse to work with people from an entire state then the odds are their salary bands are low and their culture is not worker friendly.
This is the correct way, imo. Why start a relationship with a company that's going out of it's way to pay you less?
Does anyone have an opinion of open salaries? Ray Dalio's radical transparency idea is one example, and GitLab is another. Note it's also federally illegal to block employees from discussing salaries on their own.
It seems like salary negotiating -- and the necessary secrecy that goes with it -- benefits only employers who systematically shorting some workers and pocket the difference.
https://www.efinancialcareers.com/news/2019/10/salaries-brid...
https://about.gitlab.com/handbook/total-rewards/compensation...
It seems like salary negotiating -- and the necessary secrecy that goes with it -- benefits only employers who systematically shorting some workers and pocket the difference.
https://www.efinancialcareers.com/news/2019/10/salaries-brid...
https://about.gitlab.com/handbook/total-rewards/compensation...
> Ray Dalio's radical transparency idea is one example
May be worth to note that, as far as I know, radical transparency at Bridgewater does not extend to salaries. (Source: Was offered a job there about a decade ago). Maybe I am wrong or it has changed since I last checked, but even the link you posted is just a small sample taken from the H1B database, not something published by Bridgewater.
I'm not arguing for or against the idea, I just think its interesting that one of the companies most associated with the idea of radical transparency in the workplace doesn't extend that philosophy to compensation.
May be worth to note that, as far as I know, radical transparency at Bridgewater does not extend to salaries. (Source: Was offered a job there about a decade ago). Maybe I am wrong or it has changed since I last checked, but even the link you posted is just a small sample taken from the H1B database, not something published by Bridgewater.
I'm not arguing for or against the idea, I just think its interesting that one of the companies most associated with the idea of radical transparency in the workplace doesn't extend that philosophy to compensation.
> Does anyone have an opinion of open salaries?
I worked at a large hospital system where our salary "bands" were all a matter of record for everyone else in the School of Medicine and it was awesome. You could see what level people were and what their band range was but not their specific W-2. It was fair and transparent and the bands were small enough ranges that you know when you were a Level A vs a G what you were looking at so you didn't have much cost of living anxiety etc and could reasonably calculate if you could afford to rent a nicer apartment when you got your promotion.
It made the workers have sort of a "yeah we all work here because we love it and we all get paid shit and we still love what we do" type of communal gripes.
By contrast, another large public hospital, one of our competitors, has individual drill down public salaries BY PERSON (you can literally google the docs, plug them in and see their exact specific salary) and that seems imo a bridge too far, at least for private employees to ever accept in corporate world. I thought the "bands" added enough privacy that people were comfortable with it but doesn't let your stalker ex boyfriend in Worchester come snoop your take home pay.
I worked at a large hospital system where our salary "bands" were all a matter of record for everyone else in the School of Medicine and it was awesome. You could see what level people were and what their band range was but not their specific W-2. It was fair and transparent and the bands were small enough ranges that you know when you were a Level A vs a G what you were looking at so you didn't have much cost of living anxiety etc and could reasonably calculate if you could afford to rent a nicer apartment when you got your promotion.
It made the workers have sort of a "yeah we all work here because we love it and we all get paid shit and we still love what we do" type of communal gripes.
By contrast, another large public hospital, one of our competitors, has individual drill down public salaries BY PERSON (you can literally google the docs, plug them in and see their exact specific salary) and that seems imo a bridge too far, at least for private employees to ever accept in corporate world. I thought the "bands" added enough privacy that people were comfortable with it but doesn't let your stalker ex boyfriend in Worchester come snoop your take home pay.
My opinion is that hidden salaries skew the edges (wider distribution) and transparent salaries flatten it.
What I mean is, with hidden salaries, yes, the low performers get less. Company is shorting them. But also, the high performers get more.
When salaries are transparent, you start making algorithms for whats "fair", so it becomes impossible to counter offer to keep to talent. You can afford to overpay 1-10% of people, but if paying someone more means paying everyone more, then the high performer salaries go down.
Essentially what this means is that hidden salaries are good for the top 10%. 50% of people think they are in the top 10%, so they think transparent salaries will hurt them.
What I mean is, with hidden salaries, yes, the low performers get less. Company is shorting them. But also, the high performers get more.
When salaries are transparent, you start making algorithms for whats "fair", so it becomes impossible to counter offer to keep to talent. You can afford to overpay 1-10% of people, but if paying someone more means paying everyone more, then the high performer salaries go down.
Essentially what this means is that hidden salaries are good for the top 10%. 50% of people think they are in the top 10%, so they think transparent salaries will hurt them.
My guess is:
a) First, the company be forced to give raises to all employees so that they match they level of the highest paid.
b) Not wanting to repeat this experience, the company will stop competing for valuable candidates and will no longer reward high performers financially.
a) First, the company be forced to give raises to all employees so that they match they level of the highest paid.
b) Not wanting to repeat this experience, the company will stop competing for valuable candidates and will no longer reward high performers financially.
> Does anyone have an opinion of open salaries?
There's no such thing as a secret. Anyone, CEO included, that thinks they have a secret tier of comp... we know. We all talk about you and what a sweet deal you got and we make jokes about how your one or two good attributes are worth at least $$$ and we roll out eyes and chuckle. I love gossiping about salary information in the open
"But, the thing about rumors..." Dude, we know what you make. We show each other screenshots. We could get fired for it and we still do it
There's no such thing as a secret. Anyone, CEO included, that thinks they have a secret tier of comp... we know. We all talk about you and what a sweet deal you got and we make jokes about how your one or two good attributes are worth at least $$$ and we roll out eyes and chuckle. I love gossiping about salary information in the open
"But, the thing about rumors..." Dude, we know what you make. We show each other screenshots. We could get fired for it and we still do it
> We could get fired for it
Get it in writing :) That would be illegal under NLRA of 1935. And if you do get fired for that, you can sue.
https://www.thehrdigest.com/can-fire-employee-discussing-sal...
Get it in writing :) That would be illegal under NLRA of 1935. And if you do get fired for that, you can sue.
https://www.thehrdigest.com/can-fire-employee-discussing-sal...
The NLRA prohibits employers from preventing you from talking about your own salary. You could absolutely be fired for accessing and sharing the compensation information of an employee who doesn't want their salary shared.
> Anyone, CEO included, that thinks they have a secret tier of comp... we know
No you don't. You have no clue what benefits and comp the CEO gets. Not even the CFO, CTO, COO, CxO knows benefits and comp the CEO (or each other) gets unless they share with each other.
No you don't. You have no clue what benefits and comp the CEO gets. Not even the CFO, CTO, COO, CxO knows benefits and comp the CEO (or each other) gets unless they share with each other.
If it's a public company, the compensation of the top 5 people is disclosed once a year in SEC filings.[1] Overpaid CEO + company losing money is a big red flag to investors.
[1] https://www.sec.gov/answers/execcomp.htm
[1] https://www.sec.gov/answers/execcomp.htm
> If it's a public company
True. I was responding to the OP who left an impression they were talking about a private early stage company
True. I was responding to the OP who left an impression they were talking about a private early stage company
> Not even the CFO, CTO, COO, CxO knows benefits and comp the CEO (or each other)
> unless they share with each other
Is that the only way? Because the method we use is we spy on the CEO and steal their documents and then we show each other so that we... know what you make
> unless they share with each other
Is that the only way? Because the method we use is we spy on the CEO and steal their documents and then we show each other so that we... know what you make
I worked in civil service (federal university), where the salary bands are public. Because they are public, it was easy to understand, going in, that the profs were rich, and I would not be. So I adjusted my expectation of what I'd get from that job in addition to salary (prestige, ability to be paid for Go when it was rare in my job market, contact with bright students). Worked for me.
I suspect that more states are going to go the Colorado model. If a big one like CA or NY adopts it, most tech companies will be forced to reveal.
As to its benefits: it absolutely benefits the workers as employers will need to pre-emptively raise salaries to compete for the candidates they want.
As to its benefits: it absolutely benefits the workers as employers will need to pre-emptively raise salaries to compete for the candidates they want.
New York City has such a law, and New York state has a law like it up for vote soon: https://www.nysenate.gov/legislation/bills/2021/s5598
"Requires employers to disclose compensation or range of compensation to applicants and employees upon issuing an employment opportunity for internal or public viewing or upon employee request."
"Requires employers to disclose compensation or range of compensation to applicants and employees upon issuing an employment opportunity for internal or public viewing or upon employee request."
That turns on in New York City on May 15, 2022.[1] Employers will start coming around after that.
New York State is considering that statewide.
[1] https://www.natlawreview.com/article/nyc-requires-employers-...
New York State is considering that statewide.
[1] https://www.natlawreview.com/article/nyc-requires-employers-...
> Range of compensation
Can’t a company just say that the range is $1-$1,000,000 for every single job? Or is there something in the law that requires a narrower range?
Can’t a company just say that the range is $1-$1,000,000 for every single job? Or is there something in the law that requires a narrower range?
The law includes language that says an employer must make a “good faith” determination of the lowest and highest salary it would pay for that position. However, the law itself law does not define what “salary” is; presumably that definition exists elsewhere.
I would therefore hope that if a company posted a range of $1-$1,000,000 for a job (let alone all jobs) they would get some scrutiny from regulators. But I don't know. I don't live there and I'm not a lawyer.
I would therefore hope that if a company posted a range of $1-$1,000,000 for a job (let alone all jobs) they would get some scrutiny from regulators. But I don't know. I don't live there and I'm not a lawyer.
Still, the could post something like $50k - $500k and say to the regulators that it depends on so many factors.
It might benefit workers in general but I don't think it will benefit me as a software engineer. The salary becomes tied to the job title/level and it becomes hard for me to individually negotiate. When the salary is tied to the job title, it is also much harder to get meaningful raises in many companies because the promotion process is a lot more bureaucratic.
That’s the point… pay transparency encodes a worldview wherein it is unjust for employees with ostensibly similar responsibilities to have different pay.
I agree with the general point but in practice you will find a range of people with the same supposed responsibilities. Not all of them would be executing them at the same level.
Of course, this could be rectified by having finer grained titles. However, finer grained titles introduce their own overhead, introducing more politics/bureaucracy into the system (people at Microsoft would be familiar with this scenario).
Of course, this could be rectified by having finer grained titles. However, finer grained titles introduce their own overhead, introducing more politics/bureaucracy into the system (people at Microsoft would be familiar with this scenario).
Nobody trying to keep their salary a secret is holding onto good developers, or even mediocre ones.
This is unfortunately not true. Inertia is a huge problem.
Care to elaborate?
A company that gets a solid junior and promotes them on reasonable timelines (say once every 2 years) can easily get a person with skills "beyond" what the company that hire them can really afford and the person doesn't actively try to move to a different company because we are in a industry where a flat 100k is considered low by some, but still allows a fairly comfortable life style that doesn't engender wanting to make big changes.
Combine that with fear of the unknown, plus the cargo culting of hiring practices that ask for skills that dont actually get used on the job and are thus completely atrophied by actual experienced devs all encourage inertia in current role. Especially if they are getting okayish equity refreshers and are in a stable company.
Combine that with fear of the unknown, plus the cargo culting of hiring practices that ask for skills that dont actually get used on the job and are thus completely atrophied by actual experienced devs all encourage inertia in current role. Especially if they are getting okayish equity refreshers and are in a stable company.
> and the person doesn't actively try to move to a different company because […]
For me at least, there’s also the barrier of actually liking working there.
I don’t take jobs at companies where I can’t see myself “drinking the Koolaid”. I want to be engaged in the product, the company, and the work culture. If I’m working somewhere that checks those boxes, it’s going to take a fairly substantial increase in compensation for it to be worthwhile for me to start over in that process.
For me at least, there’s also the barrier of actually liking working there.
I don’t take jobs at companies where I can’t see myself “drinking the Koolaid”. I want to be engaged in the product, the company, and the work culture. If I’m working somewhere that checks those boxes, it’s going to take a fairly substantial increase in compensation for it to be worthwhile for me to start over in that process.
Yep theres also that dimension. Couple more to consider, like if you have a stable job, with ok pay, where you have gotten good enough at the job you get the expected quantity of work knocked out in 30 hours a week. Well yeah that new job might pay you 30k more. But it might end wanting 30 hours more a week out of you (at least when your in that ramp up time). And will probably want at least an extra 10 while your ramping up to your new role. Is it "worth" going from 30 hours a week to 40 even if salary increases?
Also social networks where you are afraid of up rooting your life to go to new city that pays way more but you dont know anybody and would be starting your life over on at least one level completely over. Your primary social network might even already be at work.....
Also social networks where you are afraid of up rooting your life to go to new city that pays way more but you dont know anybody and would be starting your life over on at least one level completely over. Your primary social network might even already be at work.....
Under-paid developers with decent skills are so rare and precious, I can get $30k a head poaching them. I'll split the fee two ways if you want to let me in on your secret stockpile ;)
I’m not the person to whom you were responding, but my experience is that companies that don’t share salary information in their postings seem to be distributed across the pay spectrum.
I suspect most companies aren’t sharing because of institutional inertia. Their HR folks would probably have to propose the change internally, and from their perspective it’s just not worth the time to do so.
Some companies don’t present salary bands because they know they are paying under market, and doing so would shrink their funnel. At least from the perspective of the people posting the jobs, that’s a rational decision - they likely don’t have influence over the salary, but they can decide not to post it up front.
On the other side of the issue, I expect that companies that pay very well have many fewer problems getting candidates into their candidate pools. If they know they’re paying more than their competitors, posting it would only increase the number of inbound candidates when they’re not having issues in that area. More candidates means that their evaluation process would need to scale further, which means more work for them with no immediately demonstrable benefit.
From the candidate’s perspective, salary information would give me one more (powerful) tool to assist me in choosing where to focus when I’m job hunting. I would discard very low salaries and spend a bit of additional time focusing on very high salaries. I’d follow up more thoroughly and aggressively with the highest paying employers. I wouldn’t immediately disregard the middle of the distribution, though, for several reasons.
What’s included in the posted salary? Is it actually “salary”, or is it total comp? Are healthcare and other benefits costs accounted for? If not, what does the benefits structure for the company look like? Is equity included? How should I quantify the inherently unpredictable future value of equity? What about their vesting schedule? Is the salary offered for the specific job that’s available, or might it be possible to end up being hired into a similar position with a different title/compensation? Is there room for negotiation? Can salary itself be negotiated directly, or might I need to use more creative methods, like asking for additional PTO, stipends, etc?
It’s a very hard problem, and I honestly don’t think trying to boil it down to a number (or range) offers much value to either side.
I suspect most companies aren’t sharing because of institutional inertia. Their HR folks would probably have to propose the change internally, and from their perspective it’s just not worth the time to do so.
Some companies don’t present salary bands because they know they are paying under market, and doing so would shrink their funnel. At least from the perspective of the people posting the jobs, that’s a rational decision - they likely don’t have influence over the salary, but they can decide not to post it up front.
On the other side of the issue, I expect that companies that pay very well have many fewer problems getting candidates into their candidate pools. If they know they’re paying more than their competitors, posting it would only increase the number of inbound candidates when they’re not having issues in that area. More candidates means that their evaluation process would need to scale further, which means more work for them with no immediately demonstrable benefit.
From the candidate’s perspective, salary information would give me one more (powerful) tool to assist me in choosing where to focus when I’m job hunting. I would discard very low salaries and spend a bit of additional time focusing on very high salaries. I’d follow up more thoroughly and aggressively with the highest paying employers. I wouldn’t immediately disregard the middle of the distribution, though, for several reasons.
What’s included in the posted salary? Is it actually “salary”, or is it total comp? Are healthcare and other benefits costs accounted for? If not, what does the benefits structure for the company look like? Is equity included? How should I quantify the inherently unpredictable future value of equity? What about their vesting schedule? Is the salary offered for the specific job that’s available, or might it be possible to end up being hired into a similar position with a different title/compensation? Is there room for negotiation? Can salary itself be negotiated directly, or might I need to use more creative methods, like asking for additional PTO, stipends, etc?
It’s a very hard problem, and I honestly don’t think trying to boil it down to a number (or range) offers much value to either side.
Pretty sure most FAANG companies don't list salaries on their open positions. You can find that info through 3rd party sources like Levels.fyi though.
Coloradoan here, my experience is that this law is pretty loosely enforced and many job postings don't comply, even for local, in-person positions (although it's getting better).
Most "anywhere in the US" job postings don't list a salary range for CO candidates, and I doubt the people posting them are even aware of this law.
My experience is there are roughly three categories of jobs:
1) "Anywhere in the US (or global)" jobs. Very unlikely they'll list a salary range, probably because the person posting a job has no idea about the Colorado law.
2) Companies not HQed in Colorado, but with a Colorado presence (e.g. a company with its HQ in NYC has an office in Boulder). It's maybe 50/50 whether or not they'll list a salary range, especially if the job can be filled in one of many offices in multiple states.
3) Colorado-only companies. Maybe 75%-90% of them will post a salary. Definitely not 100%, but it's better than it was a year ago.
As far as I know there's also no penalty for a company going paying someone outside of the posted salary range, and they also don't have to include any non-salary compensation (e.g. RSUs).
I wouldn't consider this law a major detriment to living here. I have yet to see one actual example of someone being harmed by it.
Most "anywhere in the US" job postings don't list a salary range for CO candidates, and I doubt the people posting them are even aware of this law.
My experience is there are roughly three categories of jobs:
1) "Anywhere in the US (or global)" jobs. Very unlikely they'll list a salary range, probably because the person posting a job has no idea about the Colorado law.
2) Companies not HQed in Colorado, but with a Colorado presence (e.g. a company with its HQ in NYC has an office in Boulder). It's maybe 50/50 whether or not they'll list a salary range, especially if the job can be filled in one of many offices in multiple states.
3) Colorado-only companies. Maybe 75%-90% of them will post a salary. Definitely not 100%, but it's better than it was a year ago.
As far as I know there's also no penalty for a company going paying someone outside of the posted salary range, and they also don't have to include any non-salary compensation (e.g. RSUs).
I wouldn't consider this law a major detriment to living here. I have yet to see one actual example of someone being harmed by it.
I live and hire people in Colorado, and a bunch of recruiters contact me about remote roles. Most companies that fear transparency just advertise very broad ranges, e.g. $100-200k. I'm sure some companies refuse Colorado employees, but nobody I've talked to seems concerned.
The market for engineers in Colorado is very hot. What we're seeing is the smaller Boulder/Denver startup scene from the past decade transforming into a larger and more stable market as companies like Ibotta, Guild Education, SendGrid, etc. are hiring a ton of engineers. And you still have lots of smaller startups competing for talent.
The market for engineers in Colorado is very hot. What we're seeing is the smaller Boulder/Denver startup scene from the past decade transforming into a larger and more stable market as companies like Ibotta, Guild Education, SendGrid, etc. are hiring a ton of engineers. And you still have lots of smaller startups competing for talent.
This is what I've seen basically. Some companies meet the requirements of the law technically by putting a HUGE range like "75,000USD - 310,000USD". I would argue this is disingenuous by employers, but that is a problem with the law as written based on my understanding.
Oh wow, here's the disclaimer on a marketing job for Abercrombie and Fitch [1] and [2]:
"This position is not open to applicants residing in or otherwise based in the State of Colorado. The work location is flexible if approved by the Company, except that the position may not be performed remotely from within the State of Colorado."
I looked at one of the links on the site for Spotify, but I couldn't see any mention of Colorado on the job req [3]. Maybe it's somewhere else?? [4]
1: https://www.linkedin.com/jobs/view/2818550867 2: https://www.coloradoexcluded.com/company/776 3: https://www.indeed.com/viewjob?jk=11c21b0e0ec9f40d&tk=1fmsmo... 4: https://www.coloradoexcluded.com/company/509
"This position is not open to applicants residing in or otherwise based in the State of Colorado. The work location is flexible if approved by the Company, except that the position may not be performed remotely from within the State of Colorado."
I looked at one of the links on the site for Spotify, but I couldn't see any mention of Colorado on the job req [3]. Maybe it's somewhere else?? [4]
1: https://www.linkedin.com/jobs/view/2818550867 2: https://www.coloradoexcluded.com/company/776 3: https://www.indeed.com/viewjob?jk=11c21b0e0ec9f40d&tk=1fmsmo... 4: https://www.coloradoexcluded.com/company/509
Isn’t this a signal for a pay so low that publishing it would be disastrous?
Whats weird is that there are plenty of hacks for companies. I have seen one posting with a range of 50 to 200k with a proviso of "Salary based on experience, education, location, blah blah".
I mean that's not so weird, for some roles pay is standardized, but for other roles like a software engineer, or an AE it can vary widely based on experience. And nobody wants to post 7 job postings with level 1, level 2, level 3 etc.
The weird part is that its an easy way to dodge the restriction, so why do exclude Colorado instead of the easy hack? 50 to 200k doesnt tell anyone ANYTHING about what kind of salary they will get, and people might go in expecting the 200 when 80 is the real offer to expect.
Only reason I can think of is they dont want to argue with people who start demanding the 200 sense it was posted
Only reason I can think of is they dont want to argue with people who start demanding the 200 sense it was posted
I suspect a lot of it is just corporate policy. Someone would need to make the decision to post salary bands.
No, its legal and HR saying its better to exclude Colorado than expose salaries. Doesn't mean they are low. It means they are unknown.
I wonder what happens if you secretly go and do work from Colorado, say long enough to need to file taxes in CO. Surely you'll be fired eventually, but if you get away with it for long enough, would they be compelled to publish their salary whether they wanted to or not?
The tough thing with these laws is that the direction is clearly positive, yet it seems to just harm anyone doing remote work in CO. Hopefully they don't have to wait for the tax base to erode before making adjustments to the law or waiting for the rest of the country to enact similar laws?
The kinds of companies that oppose transparency do not deserve our assistance. It’s a form of boycott: fuck them
majority of companies oppose transparency.
Also, transparency is not a technical issue. The people here can easily setup an Airtable spreadsheet where everyone writes the offers they are getting.
There's no such Airtable spreadsheet currently because this is a people issue - we want to know what the companies budget are but want to hold the information to ourselves without sharing that information with anyone else interviewing.
The root cause is us
Also, transparency is not a technical issue. The people here can easily setup an Airtable spreadsheet where everyone writes the offers they are getting.
There's no such Airtable spreadsheet currently because this is a people issue - we want to know what the companies budget are but want to hold the information to ourselves without sharing that information with anyone else interviewing.
The root cause is us
There's no such Airtable spreadsheet currently
You mean like Glassdoor?
https://www.glassdoor.com/Salaries/boulder-software-engineer...
You mean like Glassdoor?
https://www.glassdoor.com/Salaries/boulder-software-engineer...
> You mean like Glassdoor?
No. Glassdoor are posts by (ex)employees and you have to fill out their existing template, which leaves out a lot of perks/benefits/options/RSUs at companies. If you looked at Glassdoor, you would think people at FAANG make no more than $120k/yr because the rest of the perks/benefits/options/RSUs match or often exceed (eg: 2021) the cash component.
I literally meant an Airtable spreadsheet that you and I fill out after speaking to the recruiter from NewCo, even if we dont interview nor ever work there.
No. Glassdoor are posts by (ex)employees and you have to fill out their existing template, which leaves out a lot of perks/benefits/options/RSUs at companies. If you looked at Glassdoor, you would think people at FAANG make no more than $120k/yr because the rest of the perks/benefits/options/RSUs match or often exceed (eg: 2021) the cash component.
I literally meant an Airtable spreadsheet that you and I fill out after speaking to the recruiter from NewCo, even if we dont interview nor ever work there.
[deleted]
If you're considering moving to Boulder, it'd probably be better to work with a company based there. For one, Colorado companies get the mountain vibe of taking off for bluebird days to go ski, and two it has a really good local network to get plugged into.
and insane rents
There are plenty of companies (mine included) that are moving into Colorado despite all of this. Tech is growing rapidly in Boulder and Denver. I wouldn't worry too much about it. Boulder is an amazing place to live!
Isn't there a similar rule going into effect in NYC?
Yes, it goes into affect May 15: https://www.natlawreview.com/article/new-york-city-to-requir...
Companies aren't going to be able to pull this sort of trickiness for too long -- the job market is too hot and laws like these are popping up in areas they can't afford not to hire from.
Companies aren't going to be able to pull this sort of trickiness for too long -- the job market is too hot and laws like these are popping up in areas they can't afford not to hire from.
Yes, it goes into effect on May 15 [1].
1: https://www.shrm.org/resourcesandtools/hr-topics/talent-acqu...
1: https://www.shrm.org/resourcesandtools/hr-topics/talent-acqu...
Not sure, but it wouldn't surprise me if there was.
I was a manager for a 100% remote company. Because of the job listing software they used, all postings had to have a city associated with it (you had to read the body of the posting to see that it was open to anyone in the US). They would change the city occasionally to attract a new crop of applicants.
When they changed the city of one of my openings to Denver, I pointed out that it was illegal to post a job in Colorado without a salary range. I was fired a week later.
Some companies _really_ don't want to post salaries.
When they changed the city of one of my openings to Denver, I pointed out that it was illegal to post a job in Colorado without a salary range. I was fired a week later.
Some companies _really_ don't want to post salaries.
Would you want to work for a company that goes out of its way to avoid states with worker-friendly laws like the Colorado's wage disclosure? It seems a pretty clear sign that they will try to screw you over. There are plenty of companies that you can work for, if you're just trying to get a salary.
But on the flip side, have you visited Colorado recently? Large parts of the state are now what I would describe as a "suburban hellscape." There are other states with nature and fewer people.
But on the flip side, have you visited Colorado recently? Large parts of the state are now what I would describe as a "suburban hellscape." There are other states with nature and fewer people.
Your first point is really the most important part for me. I've been in tech now for around a decade; finding new work isn't that hard and I know roughly what I'm going to get paid wherever I go. But "does this company treat its workers well?" is frequently a trickier thing to get good signal on, especially if you don't know anyone there (more common now in the new mostly-remote world), and "role open to any state but Colorado" is now a useful data point (and an immediate red flag).
[deleted]
I have been actively searching and haven't noticed any impact at all.
Colorado is a totally fine state, my brother lives in Denver. I've spent plenty of time there and have a lot of love for it... Denver/Boulder have changed alot in the last 5 years though.
If you're trying to get more nature in your life though Denver won't be quite as good as smaller metros with easier access: Salt Lake City, Provo, Portland, Bend, Flagstaff, Reno, or Boise. New Hampshire/ Vermont also have a lot going on but it seems like a different vibe than I'm picking up from the post, and I would guess Canadian Cities like Calgary are out too.
Why not look at other cities before having to worry about any of the legal stuff?
If you're trying to get more nature in your life though Denver won't be quite as good as smaller metros with easier access: Salt Lake City, Provo, Portland, Bend, Flagstaff, Reno, or Boise. New Hampshire/ Vermont also have a lot going on but it seems like a different vibe than I'm picking up from the post, and I would guess Canadian Cities like Calgary are out too.
Why not look at other cities before having to worry about any of the legal stuff?
I spoke with a recruiter who works for a VC firm and hires for many of their portfolio companies yesterday. She mentioned the difficulty here, but framed it as a reasonable + manageable lift a company would make for a sufficiently senior hire. EG Director+, sure, for a single junior sales or CS role, maybe not so much. Don't think there was anything she took issue with here aside from a little extra logistics work.
Stream hires in Co, Amsterdam and remote. I think it's a good trend that jobs show a salary indication. The only thing that makes it tricky is that the range can be quite wide depending on experience. So for some roles, where you are ok with a wide range of experience your low to high range can be 3-4x. So it doesn't solve all problems, but it solves some. Probably a good initiative.
I support legislation like this, but I think it's actually made some of the bands wider so that companies can continue to be vague. I think California mandates disclosure when a company is asked about a position, but every time I've tried that with a recruiter I get a "well, I've got some really wide ranges, it depends on experience and how the interview and your placement goes, but somewhere between $N,000 and $3N,000". Given that N is often less than my current salary and 3N is way more, this makes the question useless for determining whether proceeding with the company is a waste of time (although I guess you could say it's a waste of time to engage with a company that refuses to discuss salary in good faith).
Norway is going one step further: it is possibly to check the net income of every resident online: https://www.skatteetaten.no/en/forms/search-the-tax-lists/
Not really.
The new thing is disclosing only CO salaries or asterisking that the published salary is for CO residents only.
The new thing is disclosing only CO salaries or asterisking that the published salary is for CO residents only.
many co listings are showing a range for the position. helpful to know the bottom but there are still caveats. with that said i have applied to listings in other states (often with no salary listed) as a CO resident, and it never came up at any point
What would happen if the Colorado state legislature passed a law that said you can't sell goods or services to people in Colorado if you refuse employment to people in Colorado?
Most likely the federal government would step in and point out how stupid that law would be.
In addition companies outside if Colorado would stop doing business with people inside Colorado.
My large company just opened up to hiring remote workers and they specifically state no Colorado workers.
What's keeping a company from posting a salary of $1-$1000000 and then always being compliant?
Some combination of market pressure and regulatory pressure. Market pressure: it'll be harder to attract people to a position without a listed salary band once they get used to listed salary bands. Regulatory pressure: the law in Colorado isn't being enforced too strictly, per bkjelden elsewhere in the comments, but the law does require "the hourly rate or salary compensation (or a range thereof) that the employer in good faith believes it may pay for the particular job"[0]. If you post a ridiculous range, you're playing with fire; one report and one pissed-off regulator later and you might end up being the poster child for the state's enforcement of the law. I would personally not want to be on the receiving end when they decide to make an example of someone.
[0]: https://www.skandslegal.com/sks-blog/2021/1/15/colorados-new...
[0]: https://www.skandslegal.com/sks-blog/2021/1/15/colorados-new...
I'm in my late twenties and looking for states / cities to relocate to with more of a social balance than where I currently live in New York City. I feel like to continue growing I need to be in a place with fewer people, less noise and more nature (not to mention being able to save more $$).
I have a number of friends living in Boulder and Denver, however I'm not too sure if I want to make the jump to CO given their recent employment laws mandating employers publish salaries up front[0]. Although I support this legislation and the core initiatives of transparent compensation disclosure it's clearly driving some companies to explicitly not hire remote in CO.
Curious if anyone else here on HN can comment on the current hiring climate here, both for startups and growth stage companies that are full remote (think Stripe, Brex, etc).
0 - https://www.shrm.org/resourcesandtools/legal-and-compliance/...
direct link to CO "Equal Pay for Equal Work Act" text - https://leg.colorado.gov/sites/default/files/2019a_085_signe...