California passes law requiring companies to post salary ranges on job listings(bloomberg.com)
bloomberg.com
California passes law requiring companies to post salary ranges on job listings
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2022-08-30/california-passes-law-requiring-companies-like-meta-disney-to-post-salary-range
111 comments
Colorado resident here. Maybe companies will start to take this seriously now that more states are passing similar laws. My go to response to recruiter spam for the past 1.5 years has been "Do you have Colorado Equal Pay for Equal Work Act compliant job listings" to which they usually don't reply. The majority of "US Remote" posts I see don't include this information but the ones that do are interesting data points.
There are companies that refuse to hire from Colorado because of that. Hopefully if California passes this law, that exception will drop.
I cant think of a bigger red flag than that.
I’m so tired of companies putting bullshit ranges like “80-190k DoE” and claim they’re compliant with the Colorado law.
Is there anyway to report companies / job listings that are not in compliance?
Is there anyway to report companies / job listings that are not in compliance?
Is that range non-compliant?
Hi NickFF, if you work for me full time, I will pay you in the range of $1 per year to $40 billion dollars per year.
Ranges can be non-compliant. A range like that sure is non-compliant. I don't know if it is technically, but surely it is in the spirit of the law.
Ranges can be non-compliant. A range like that sure is non-compliant. I don't know if it is technically, but surely it is in the spirit of the law.
Sounds perfectly compliant to me.
For anyone who wants to read the bill, it's SB-1162.
https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billTextClient.xhtm...
https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billTextClient.xhtm...
I took a look to see if there were any requirements for the range of the pay scale to be posted, and it looks like this is all that's said:
> “Pay scale” means the salary or hourly wage range that the employer reasonably expects to pay for the position.
Also, apparently you can already ask for the pay scale, but this law would require it to be on any job posting.
> Existing law requires an employer, upon reasonable request, to provide the pay scale for a position to an applicant applying for employment.
And you would be able to get the pay range for your current job.
> This bill would also require an employer, upon request, to provide to an employee the pay scale for the position in which the employee is currently employed.
> “Pay scale” means the salary or hourly wage range that the employer reasonably expects to pay for the position.
Also, apparently you can already ask for the pay scale, but this law would require it to be on any job posting.
> Existing law requires an employer, upon reasonable request, to provide the pay scale for a position to an applicant applying for employment.
And you would be able to get the pay range for your current job.
> This bill would also require an employer, upon request, to provide to an employee the pay scale for the position in which the employee is currently employed.
> this law would require it to be on any job posting.
And companies will still avoid listing a salary, and just say 'Not accepting applicants in Colorado or California' as they do now[1] to get around the Colorado law.
1. https://www.coloradoexcluded.com/
And companies will still avoid listing a salary, and just say 'Not accepting applicants in Colorado or California' as they do now[1] to get around the Colorado law.
1. https://www.coloradoexcluded.com/
California is over 10% of the US population, and tends to be above average in the things that businesses are looking for. That's going to be a hard ask.
Not to mention, many jobs sites are probably based there, are they going to look too kindly on job listings that disallow their own state?
Not to mention, many jobs sites are probably based there, are they going to look too kindly on job listings that disallow their own state?
Until we hit a critical mass of states with this legislation.
Call your representative if you live in a state that hasn’t passed such legislation yet.
Maybe. California seems like a bit of a big state to exclude candidates from. Although, I guess for remote work, it might be preferable to get people from low CoL states anyway.
The business impact for any decently sized company of denying California + Colorado applicants will be much higher than denying just Colorado applicants.
Interestingly enough, many salaries are public, specifically H1B salaries:
https://h1bdata.info/
Many Washington state employees salary info is public, including full name:
https://fiscal.wa.gov/DVK12Salaries.aspx
https://h1bdata.info/
Many Washington state employees salary info is public, including full name:
https://fiscal.wa.gov/DVK12Salaries.aspx
The lie here is that many companies have as much as 75% of compensation in non-salary items (like equity, bonus).
So folks who do not know any better could still work for 1/4 the market rate.
So folks who do not know any better could still work for 1/4 the market rate.
The people who will benefit most from these price transparency laws will be at the low end of the pay scale, like fast food workers and drivers and retail and hotel employees.
They may not address price transparency for people who receive equity compensation, but it is still a great start to help those at the bottom.
They may not address price transparency for people who receive equity compensation, but it is still a great start to help those at the bottom.
I disagree - in economic terms the information asymmetry is hardest where there is less competition. You have companies paying 100k and 600k for same-roles in the industry.
But alas making it mandatory is not the way to go.
But alas making it mandatory is not the way to go.
Why not?
Most good ideas don't require guns to enforce them.
> Most good ideas don't require guns to enforce them.
This implies some do. So it didn't answer the question.
This implies some do. So it didn't answer the question.
Hard disagree. Environmental and consumer protection regulations are highly important and would not be followed because they cut into profit.
Yeah and this bill doesnt seem to change that
How does the law prevent the obvious loophole of listing the salary range as $1-$1bn for all positions? What are the permissible error bars?
Because it doesn't allow it, there needs to be a reasonable belief by the employer that the job posting may be paid within that range. If a complaint goes in front of a judge, they would probably find that $1bn/yr is not a reasonable payment for a job.
See the proposed amendments to 432.3 (m) (1).
See the proposed amendments to 432.3 (m) (1).
That would still be a massive improvement over the status quo - it becomes immediately apparent what companies are more likely to be playing games.
As a practical matter, most of us would immediately ignore these joke postings. Hell, most job sites do (or would) allow filtering by compensation, which would hide these entirely. E.g. if you know you need to make $500k minimum, then a job that could "pay" $1 is gonna be right out.
If they post $1 or whatever small/min wage, I think we can now at least assume they intend to pay the lowest stated or allowed.
That is not a loophole. It still solves the problem of information not being transmitted quickly enough through the marketplace about which jobs/types of labor have too much supply or insufficient demand if the bottom of the pay range is too low.
Easily searchable and sortable price transparency will help allocate labor resources in a more timely manner.
Easily searchable and sortable price transparency will help allocate labor resources in a more timely manner.
You're not describing problems that the laws were intended to solve, at least from public statements. I'm also unsure as to whether the issues you describe are more than 'nuisance' problems, in that they don't cause long-term instability or inequity.
Price transparency underpins proper allocation of resources in an economy. This is from microeconomics 101. It would be greatly beneficial in the long term for a society to allocate resources (including labor) to where it is needed.
Don't disagree, but the challenge in this area is that no two people are alike and so the market price for developer-a is not the same as the market price for developer-b. Related, it depends on what job you are applying for as the same person applying for two different jobs isn't going to automatically end up with the same compensation.
I'm not saying that some transparency wouldn't help, just that market pricing for labor doesn't work the same way it does for a commodity.
I'm not saying that some transparency wouldn't help, just that market pricing for labor doesn't work the same way it does for a commodity.
Sure, and for those positions the market will decide that a wider pay range for job listings is justified. That is the purpose of not forcing a certain pay range.
Personally, I do not see a reason to legislate a specific bottom or top range. Let the pay range be $min wage to $1B. Eventually, employers who try to do that will be forced to change by lack of quality workers applying to them.
Personally, I do not see a reason to legislate a specific bottom or top range. Let the pay range be $min wage to $1B. Eventually, employers who try to do that will be forced to change by lack of quality workers applying to them.
> Sure, and for those positions the market will decide that a wider pay range for job listings is justified.
Agreed. (and/or we end up with finer graduated positions with similar pay bands).
> Personally, I do not see a reason to legislate a specific bottom or top range. Let the pay range be $min wage to $1B.
If you don't require any good faith description of the pay bands, the law is useless. You can post accurate, narrow pay bands now if you want. Or you can post none. Workers have been letting companies get away with posting none.
$min wage to $1B is functionally equivalent to none.
Agreed. (and/or we end up with finer graduated positions with similar pay bands).
> Personally, I do not see a reason to legislate a specific bottom or top range. Let the pay range be $min wage to $1B.
If you don't require any good faith description of the pay bands, the law is useless. You can post accurate, narrow pay bands now if you want. Or you can post none. Workers have been letting companies get away with posting none.
$min wage to $1B is functionally equivalent to none.
This implies that there is one true price, while, in fact, prices on the labor markets are constantly in flux. The market price is the result of individual transactions, so one could argue that limiting the free negotiation of prices to some previously published price range prevents the market from finding the best price for both sides.
I do not see how it implies one true price.
And there is nothing preventing employers from updating their price ranges.
Of course employers do not want to show their current employers that they are increasing their price for new hires, so that is their real concern with publicly listed price ranges.
And there is nothing preventing employers from updating their price ranges.
Of course employers do not want to show their current employers that they are increasing their price for new hires, so that is their real concern with publicly listed price ranges.
I'm not sure I agree with this type of legislation. Most of us have experienced that developer value add varies hugely. I think what bothers me most is that it seems to be a push for pay banding. We re individuals, I'd prefer to neogitate on my own terms.
It will help me greatly when job hunting as I will be able to immediately filter out the 90+% of jobs which would be a pay downgrade for me.
These laws don't outlaw negotiation. Not sure what you're talking about there.
These laws don't outlaw negotiation. Not sure what you're talking about there.
If someone is really good but it would take more money than is advertised to tempt them into the new role, what happens?
I would guess not systemically doing it is covered under it not being a “reasonable” expectation. If you are, over the course of time, paying 70% of the candidates you hire more than your stated top range, that might be a problem.
All the way at the bottom of:
https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billTextClient.xhtm...
>(1) “Pay scale” means the salary or hourly wage range that the employer reasonably expects to pay for the position.
All the way at the bottom of:
https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billTextClient.xhtm...
>(1) “Pay scale” means the salary or hourly wage range that the employer reasonably expects to pay for the position.
If "reasonable" is as relative as it sounds then this just seems performative.
How does it impede a labor seller’s ability to negotiate?
Because they can't negotiate a price higher than what was listed on the posting.
I do not see that stipulation in the text of the law.
Not mentioned somehow was that Washington state also passed a pay range on job listings law and it goes into effect Jan 1, 2023.
> California joins Colorado, New York City, and Washington state in adopting the job-posting tactic. Only Colorado’s law is currently in effect
From the article...
From the article...
I thought I did ctrl F for Washington. Guess I was mistaken.
Seems like a really obvious move. Don't waste time, don't bait-and-switch.
Companies will still try and bait and switch.
Post huge ranges and tell very qualified people that they only qualify for the low end, for instance.
Post huge ranges and tell very qualified people that they only qualify for the low end, for instance.
And many qualified applicants will simply ignore postings entirely with wide bands where the low end would be a pay cut for them.
Assuming other employers are not posting more helpful pay range information. If you are trying to attract very qualified candidates but also signaling that you want to pay bottom dollar, that might not work so well for any market where very qualified labor supply is tight.
I'm curious. We hear a lot about gender pay gaps, but I suspect that H1B pay gaps may be more extreme.
Will this expose that, or do you think that companies will find a way around that?
Will this expose that, or do you think that companies will find a way around that?
I thought companies already had to make H1B salaries public -- you can see them at https://h1bdata.info/.
To (probabl mis) quote the Economist magazine, when adjusted for other variables the gender pay gap disappears.
What are those other variables? They could point to other problems. For example, if adjusting for experience eliminates the gap, wages might be driven down for a group of folks due to a lack of opportunities to gain that experience.
Hours worked, career selection. In short there is no arbitrage to be found and employers aren’t leaving money on the table.
> I'm curious. We hear a lot about gender pay gaps, but I suspect that H1B pay gaps may be more extreme.
How much is a visa worth to you? A lot, so yes they'll pay people less; that's the way it works.
How much is a visa worth to you? A lot, so yes they'll pay people less; that's the way it works.
How would this expose that?
Regardless, I think the biggest benefit to companies hiring H1Bs is the leverage of the employee’s citizenship status.
Regardless, I think the biggest benefit to companies hiring H1Bs is the leverage of the employee’s citizenship status.
I'm not confident it would, but just spitballing here, if Company X consistently posts a bunch of below-market salaries, and then/also hires an awful lot of H1B folk for the same positions, you could probably do an analysis a la opensecrets that could show a trend.
I expect this would depend on H1B visa counts at least be public information. I'm not sure that's the case, and I'm not sure if it should be.
I expect this would depend on H1B visa counts at least be public information. I'm not sure that's the case, and I'm not sure if it should be.
Immigration policy is national, so states can't do much about policy that affects us immigrants.
H1B income is capped by the inability to have secondary income sources and the inability for spouses to work.
H1B income is capped by the inability to have secondary income sources and the inability for spouses to work.
Is it required that the actual job pay adhere to the salary range posted, and no different? How about if companies pay more than the range quoted, so that they simply post low salaries and negotiate up? If it's not required, then how is it an improvement on the situation that everyone is still basically negotiating what he/she can justify?
Also, what does it do about the situation when a job's compensation is largely not salary but stock?
Also, what does it do about the situation when a job's compensation is largely not salary but stock?
No, but if you low ball the numbers you put in the job ad then the people you actually want for the job won't apply.
The Labor Commissioner must investigate complaints and may order fines. Companies can give more information if they want.
> (3) Within each job category, for each combination of race, ethnicity, and sex, the median and mean hourly rate.
If we want to resolve pay disparities we also need to stop pretending that Salary means 40 hours and instead require accurate hours worked reporting regardless of "exempt" salary or not.
Why? Because hours worked is not equal across the variables
If we want to resolve pay disparities we also need to stop pretending that Salary means 40 hours and instead require accurate hours worked reporting regardless of "exempt" salary or not.
Why? Because hours worked is not equal across the variables
Any bets on how many states pass legislation like this before companies stop with the "except CO, CA, ...." (and the other states that have passed it)?
With CA (and WA) passing it, I predict it will stop in 3, ... 2, ...
[deleted]
It’ll keep going as long as people tolerate it and continue to work for these exploitative organizations.
It’s a start but it’s not enough. They should post the inter-quartile range, median and median, but obviously that becomes cluttered.
Take Netflix for example who famously only had a single “Software Engineer” role regardless of skill level.
You’d see something like $75K-$1M which is not super helpful.
Take Netflix for example who famously only had a single “Software Engineer” role regardless of skill level.
You’d see something like $75K-$1M which is not super helpful.
It is very helpful because any half competent software engineer will know to stay away from Netflix, because demand for competent software engineers means they can filter out pay ranges that will waste their time.
For others, they will know that the bottom of the pay range for software engineers is $75k so if they want to earn that much, they should acquire those skills.
For others, they will know that the bottom of the pay range for software engineers is $75k so if they want to earn that much, they should acquire those skills.
That’s not what it means because Netflix also pays a lot on the high end. There’s no way to map your particular skills to the range without first getting an offer if the range is large.
For those who aspire to the low end that’s fine but there’s still no guarantee you’d get an offer.
Though I support this move whole heartedly it still doesn’t change the fact that you have to interview and get an offer to know the particulars.
The impossible ideal would be a company preemptively giving you an offer before interviewing given predetermined interview performance. That way you can only interview at places that will pay you want, guaranteed. This is basically the same as applying to places with a very tight range.
For those who aspire to the low end that’s fine but there’s still no guarantee you’d get an offer.
Though I support this move whole heartedly it still doesn’t change the fact that you have to interview and get an offer to know the particulars.
The impossible ideal would be a company preemptively giving you an offer before interviewing given predetermined interview performance. That way you can only interview at places that will pay you want, guaranteed. This is basically the same as applying to places with a very tight range.
And that is the applicant’s choice if they want to spend their time on finding that out.
Otherwise they can apply with Apple, Alphabet, Microsoft, and Facebook who might be hiring within a narrower, but higher pay band.
Otherwise they can apply with Apple, Alphabet, Microsoft, and Facebook who might be hiring within a narrower, but higher pay band.
> And that is the applicant’s choice if they want to spend their time on finding that out.
So... what's the point of the law? Isn't this already the case?
So... what's the point of the law? Isn't this already the case?
No, because employers have an upper hand and more information (in most scenarios of buying and selling labor).
The benefit of the law would be to give all market participants access to more information, but it is also important not to unnecessarily restrict any of the market participants.
It will be obvious that if a labor buyer is putting out $min wage to $1B pay ranges, that they should be ignored and/or they will get the worst applicants. For a labor seller, they will know to avoid labor buyers that cannot provide a decent bottom pay for their job listing.
The benefit of the law would be to give all market participants access to more information, but it is also important not to unnecessarily restrict any of the market participants.
It will be obvious that if a labor buyer is putting out $min wage to $1B pay ranges, that they should be ignored and/or they will get the worst applicants. For a labor seller, they will know to avoid labor buyers that cannot provide a decent bottom pay for their job listing.
They don't have more information. They don't know:
- what the prospective employee is currently paid - what the prospective employee would move job for - how serious the alternatives the prospective employee mentions are
Those three are the things the prospective employee knows, that the prospective employer is trying to guess. This new law erodes (and will likely eradicate) the first one, as it's basically a statewide public salary banding system.
Also, this probably isn't all just "labor" jobs. I think it's all jobs.
- what the prospective employee is currently paid - what the prospective employee would move job for - how serious the alternatives the prospective employee mentions are
Those three are the things the prospective employee knows, that the prospective employer is trying to guess. This new law erodes (and will likely eradicate) the first one, as it's basically a statewide public salary banding system.
Also, this probably isn't all just "labor" jobs. I think it's all jobs.
An employer usually has more information about market prices than an employee because the employer is simply hiring or at least interviewing more often. Plus they might have access to things like https://theworknumber.com/ which can show them accurate pricing nationwide and per applicant (although this CA law would outlaw that).
It should never be relevant to an employer what a candidate is currently being paid.
>Also, this probably isn't all just "labor" jobs. I think it's all jobs.
I do not understand this. All jobs involve a worker selling labor to someone else.
It should never be relevant to an employer what a candidate is currently being paid.
>Also, this probably isn't all just "labor" jobs. I think it's all jobs.
I do not understand this. All jobs involve a worker selling labor to someone else.
> It should never be relevant to an employer what a candidate is currently being paid
Well they aren't going to come and work for you unless you pay them more than what they're currently being paid (unless they're moving for something like life reasons) so I don't think there is any more relevant number than that.
Well they aren't going to come and work for you unless you pay them more than what they're currently being paid (unless they're moving for something like life reasons) so I don't think there is any more relevant number than that.
> It should never be relevant to an employer what a candidate is currently being paid.
Of course it's relevant - it helps them understand what can tempt an employee away from their current job. That's why it's worth hiding it. This law stops it being hidden.
Of course it's relevant - it helps them understand what can tempt an employee away from their current job. That's why it's worth hiding it. This law stops it being hidden.
> It will be obvious that if a labor buyer is putting out $min wage to $1B pay ranges, that they should be ignored and/or they will get the worst applicants.
Wait this doesn't make sense.
If you think that employers would get better applicants if they put more accurate ranges... then they'd be putting accurate ranges right now, as nothing's stopping them.
Why does the government need to step if it's it's obviously such a good deal for the employers right now?
And why would I ignore a company with a wide range? I don't care if the range is wide, as long as I get the upper end of it.
Wait this doesn't make sense.
If you think that employers would get better applicants if they put more accurate ranges... then they'd be putting accurate ranges right now, as nothing's stopping them.
Why does the government need to step if it's it's obviously such a good deal for the employers right now?
And why would I ignore a company with a wide range? I don't care if the range is wide, as long as I get the upper end of it.
> Why does the government need to step if it's it's obviously such a good deal for the employers right now?
Because employers have had disproportionate power over labor for a very long time. Might not be so much for engineers/doctors/lawyers/etc, but 80%+ of people are walking into a negotiation in a weaker spot with less info than the employer.
That is why in the past couple years, we are finally seeing signs outside Taco Bell and signs on bus driving advertising pay rates. Until now, they have enjoyed a better negotiating position than the employees.
> And why would I ignore a company with a wide range? I don't care if the range is wide, as long as I get the upper end of it.
Because if I am capable of getting the upper end, and another employer is offering the upper end, but with a higher lower end also, I am not going to waste my time risking getting a lower offer. Applying to a job and interviewing have costs.
Because employers have had disproportionate power over labor for a very long time. Might not be so much for engineers/doctors/lawyers/etc, but 80%+ of people are walking into a negotiation in a weaker spot with less info than the employer.
That is why in the past couple years, we are finally seeing signs outside Taco Bell and signs on bus driving advertising pay rates. Until now, they have enjoyed a better negotiating position than the employees.
> And why would I ignore a company with a wide range? I don't care if the range is wide, as long as I get the upper end of it.
Because if I am capable of getting the upper end, and another employer is offering the upper end, but with a higher lower end also, I am not going to waste my time risking getting a lower offer. Applying to a job and interviewing have costs.
Sorry I'm still confused.
You think it's an advantage to companies to post more accurate pay bands - right? You said "It will be obvious that if a labor buyer is putting out $min wage to $1B pay ranges, that they should be ignored and/or they will get the worst applicants."
But they can post narrow bands right now if they want to - they don't need to wait for the law to tell them do it.
If it's an advantage to them, then why aren't they doing it anyway?
I would guess that the answer is it's not an advantage, because most of the time their pay is bad, and telling people up front does not help them. I've seen this with companies like ThoughtBot and GitLab that make a big deal out of pay transparency... problem is they're being transparent about how bad their pay is.
You think it's an advantage to companies to post more accurate pay bands - right? You said "It will be obvious that if a labor buyer is putting out $min wage to $1B pay ranges, that they should be ignored and/or they will get the worst applicants."
But they can post narrow bands right now if they want to - they don't need to wait for the law to tell them do it.
If it's an advantage to them, then why aren't they doing it anyway?
I would guess that the answer is it's not an advantage, because most of the time their pay is bad, and telling people up front does not help them. I've seen this with companies like ThoughtBot and GitLab that make a big deal out of pay transparency... problem is they're being transparent about how bad their pay is.
> If it's an advantage to them, then why aren't they doing it anyway?
Because it does not sufficiently offset the advantage they get from withholding pay information from labor sellers.
As soon as it does help employers more than it hurts them, they do advertise pay. Now that labor supply has shifted so drastically that restaurants and retailers have to close early, those places are advertising pay.
The purpose of the legislation is not to help employers, it is to help employees, who are at a disadvantage due to lack of information among other things.
> I've seen this with companies like ThoughtBot and GitLab that make a big deal out of pay transparency... problem is they're being transparent about how bad their pay is.
Their pay is bad to you. Maybe it is acceptable to someone else. Maybe someone is earning $20 as a bus driver and wants to switch jobs. Maybe they would be willing to work for ThoughtBot and Gitlab’s wages and work to become qualified.
Or maybe their pay is objectively too low and they will eventually go out of business. Either way, price transparency always leads to better resource allocation and better functioning marketplaces. Letting either buyers or sellers have long term disproportionate advantages is not in society’s best interest.
Because it does not sufficiently offset the advantage they get from withholding pay information from labor sellers.
As soon as it does help employers more than it hurts them, they do advertise pay. Now that labor supply has shifted so drastically that restaurants and retailers have to close early, those places are advertising pay.
The purpose of the legislation is not to help employers, it is to help employees, who are at a disadvantage due to lack of information among other things.
> I've seen this with companies like ThoughtBot and GitLab that make a big deal out of pay transparency... problem is they're being transparent about how bad their pay is.
Their pay is bad to you. Maybe it is acceptable to someone else. Maybe someone is earning $20 as a bus driver and wants to switch jobs. Maybe they would be willing to work for ThoughtBot and Gitlab’s wages and work to become qualified.
Or maybe their pay is objectively too low and they will eventually go out of business. Either way, price transparency always leads to better resource allocation and better functioning marketplaces. Letting either buyers or sellers have long term disproportionate advantages is not in society’s best interest.
Netflix's stated policy is to be the top payer for every role. Pay is the only reason to not stay away from Netflix.
Sure, so if that is true, you will see employers listing jobs for $200k to $500k, and Netflix listing jobs for $250k to $600k.
This price transparency law will give applicants the ability to see if Netflix is bluffing when they say they offer top pay, without having to waste time actually applying.
This price transparency law will give applicants the ability to see if Netflix is bluffing when they say they offer top pay, without having to waste time actually applying.
What happens if they really want someone but to get them to move it would require breaching the maximum advertised?
Roughly:
You have to post the pay scale for the position. So, if current employees in that role make $100,000 to $120,000, and you expect to hire whomever responds at ~$116,000, you would post $100k-120k.
Later, if you hire someone for $125k, the pay scale now includes $125k. You must provide this info to current employees on request, and would have to include it in subsequent listings.
You have to post the pay scale for the position. So, if current employees in that role make $100,000 to $120,000, and you expect to hire whomever responds at ~$116,000, you would post $100k-120k.
Later, if you hire someone for $125k, the pay scale now includes $125k. You must provide this info to current employees on request, and would have to include it in subsequent listings.
I imagine it will be simpler to just higher a $10k/yr cheaper alternative than do this all the time, even if that alternative ends up being half as good as the more expensive alternative.
I can't imagine all the interpersonal issues caused by this being requested after every hire!
I can't imagine all the interpersonal issues caused by this being requested after every hire!
Alternatively, transparency could make things more fair and eliminate a lot of jealousy, etc. It's this weird not-very-transparent place we are that's unstable.
What do you mean, unstable? If someone will leave if they don't get a pay rise they should get one without management (who all need paying for, lowering the useful salaries) getting together to figure out if it's worth all of the cost of giving everyone that pay rise, or the hassle of uprisings and complaints if they only give that person one.
> What do you mean, unstable?
I mean, the lack of transparency and partial information makes the situation unstable. Employers enjoy an information advantage. Times that this information advantage are breached --- whether by people selectively sharing information, leaks, etc --- cause big disruptions to morale and big movements of people.
Partial information is known to distort markets and cause wide variability in outcomes (and to create less stable equilibria than markets with better information flow).
I mean, the lack of transparency and partial information makes the situation unstable. Employers enjoy an information advantage. Times that this information advantage are breached --- whether by people selectively sharing information, leaks, etc --- cause big disruptions to morale and big movements of people.
Partial information is known to distort markets and cause wide variability in outcomes (and to create less stable equilibria than markets with better information flow).
Employees have all the job market information too, and they have info personal to them that the employer doesn't know (e.g. "I would've taken the job for $20k/yr less"). There's no obvious asymmetry. Each side has different information, but not asymmetric.
This law will remove an aspect of the employee's secret information - what they're currently on - so their next employer will be able to calculate precisely how little to offer them.
This law will remove an aspect of the employee's secret information - what they're currently on - so their next employer will be able to calculate precisely how little to offer them.
> Employees have all the job market information too
Employees absolutely do not have the information that there are people in the same role earning 5x what they do. When they find out, it tends to get really messy, too.
> Each side has different information, but not asymmetric.
This is a definition of asymmetry that I am not familiar with.
> This law will remove an aspect of the employee's secret information - what they're currently on
Actually, the law explicitly prohibits employers seeking this information about employees-- their specific comp. In the past, employers would pay data brokers for this information.
In turn, the playing field was very tilted: you could see the person's current comp and know the entire set of comp you pay in that position and the total history of offers you've made and their acceptance rates... whereas employees know just what they've gathered through informal, unreliable means (glassdoor, friends, etc).
Employees absolutely do not have the information that there are people in the same role earning 5x what they do. When they find out, it tends to get really messy, too.
> Each side has different information, but not asymmetric.
This is a definition of asymmetry that I am not familiar with.
> This law will remove an aspect of the employee's secret information - what they're currently on
Actually, the law explicitly prohibits employers seeking this information about employees-- their specific comp. In the past, employers would pay data brokers for this information.
In turn, the playing field was very tilted: you could see the person's current comp and know the entire set of comp you pay in that position and the total history of offers you've made and their acceptance rates... whereas employees know just what they've gathered through informal, unreliable means (glassdoor, friends, etc).
> In turn, the playing field was very tilted: you could see the person's current comp
No, you'll be able to see that now by looking up their current employers pay bands for their role. Previously this wouldn't have been available, except anecdotally on Glassdoor.
No, you'll be able to see that now by looking up their current employers pay bands for their role. Previously this wouldn't have been available, except anecdotally on Glassdoor.
> No, you'll be able to see that now by looking up their current employers pay bands for their role. Previously this wouldn't have been available, except anecdotally on Glassdoor.
Actually, no, this is completely wrong.
Previously you'd use services like QuickConfirm, etc, and get that person's exact comp. Employers and payroll processors colluded to share this information. The law now prohibits doing that.
And you may not even be able to look up the pay band, because only people in that role are allowed to request it from the employer. It's only if you can find a corresponding job listing that you can get the entire band as of that date.
As a result, the information asymmetry is adjusted from favoring employers to be more neutral; employers only have very approximate information on an employee's past comp; comparable to employees' knowledge of the compensation for the role into which they're applying.
Actually, no, this is completely wrong.
Previously you'd use services like QuickConfirm, etc, and get that person's exact comp. Employers and payroll processors colluded to share this information. The law now prohibits doing that.
And you may not even be able to look up the pay band, because only people in that role are allowed to request it from the employer. It's only if you can find a corresponding job listing that you can get the entire band as of that date.
As a result, the information asymmetry is adjusted from favoring employers to be more neutral; employers only have very approximate information on an employee's past comp; comparable to employees' knowledge of the compensation for the role into which they're applying.
Just add a position / pay band for them (or move them up a rung into an existing band).
In many companies, org charts are public, but comp bands are secret, so this can be done without messing up manager/IC relationships.
In many companies, org charts are public, but comp bands are secret, so this can be done without messing up manager/IC relationships.
The ranges aren’t a legal min/max. Just a reasonable range.
Can't wait for some absurdly low COL state tries to follow
[deleted]
Kentucky, Wisconsin, Nevada and Vermont all achieved better gender-pay equality than California, Colorado, and New York without the need to enforce private sector from revealing the salary offer.
Is this the more depriving by state governments of the common workers’ privacy through needless encroaching laws?
Who gains by this loss of privacy?
Is this the more depriving by state governments of the common workers’ privacy through needless encroaching laws?
Who gains by this loss of privacy?
> Meanwhile West Virginia, Michigan, Colorado, and Utah all achieved gender-pay equality as well as privacy without any pay transparency.
Proof?
> Makes me wonder why California and New York are exposing the privacy part for through their state victims’ paychecks?
What on earth are you talking about? How does posting a salary range "expose the privacy" of people? Also this isn't just about pay equity, it's about knowing what you are applying for before going through the process.
Proof?
> Makes me wonder why California and New York are exposing the privacy part for through their state victims’ paychecks?
What on earth are you talking about? How does posting a salary range "expose the privacy" of people? Also this isn't just about pay equity, it's about knowing what you are applying for before going through the process.
I can't tell what you're arguing. No one is saying that any of those states have "achieved gender-pay equality". And CA isn't requiring your pay to be public knowledge, just salary ranges on job listings.
"can't tell what you're arguing." I can; it's essentially a passive-aggressive conniption about an issue that doesn't exist that he has constructed to suit a political narrative glued permanently in his head about states that have in all likelihood, policies he views as not Randian/Trumpian enough.
Isn't California following Colorado's lead?
> Meanwhile West Virginia, Michigan, Colorado, and Utah all achieved gender-pay equality as well as privacy without any pay transparency.
Also, how do you know that gender-pay equality has been achieved?
> Meanwhile West Virginia, Michigan, Colorado, and Utah all achieved gender-pay equality as well as privacy without any pay transparency.
Also, how do you know that gender-pay equality has been achieved?
The bill will head to Governor Gavin Newsom, who has until Sept. 30 to sign or veto. He hasn’t yet expressed a position and didn’t immediately respond to a request for comment. If he signs it, [etc.]