New York City to require employers to list minimum and maximum salaries
ny1.comThis might work better with government jobs than private sector, and it feels like public sector policymakers trying to manage businesses like they manage the government. Government jobs are more likely to have tight wage bands and strict requirements. The private sector will "figure something out" for a p90 candidate.
Since candidates will always ask for the top of the band, I'd expect either very tight bands and candidates get moved to "more appropriate" openings or bands covering 3 standard deviations so employers can claim the range is in good faith, but still leave room for negotiation.
Minimum salary: $10,000 per year.
Maximum salary: $1,000,000 per year.
Legal compliance achieved, while still effectively maintaining confidentiality of salary info.
That range probably doesn't satisfy the requirements of the new law:
The range must: "extend from the lowest to the highest salary the employer in good faith believes at the time of the posting it would pay for the advertised job, promotion or transfer opportunity."
> That range probably doesn't satisfy the requirements of the new law:
It's amazing how some people lazily assume they're so much cleverer than everyone else.
A good heuristic is to assume you're just plain wrong if you think you've discovered a way to weasel out of a law with only five seconds worth of thought.
Right, the first thing a compliance officer will ask is: "what are your <employees of this category> actually paid right now?"
When your given range and that range don't roughly coincide, they'll ask why—and then fine you for your bullshit "are you a mind reader?" response.
> Right, the first thing a compliance officer will ask is: "what are your <employees of this category> actually paid right now?"
And then you can point out to entry level software developers and much more senior ones and demonstrate that such a wide range is not only feasible, but already exists between employees.
> the employer in good faith believes
So unless you can read minds, it'd be hard to prove that the employer doesn't believe this is the salary range.
And besides, 10K to 1M is a pedantically large range to illustrate this dynamic. Realistically a lot of companies could provide a range from $60K to $300K for software developers - both of these are salaries I can attest to firsthand. This isn't as stark as a 100:1 range, but a range of 5:1 is still a wide enough range such that expected salaries are still effectively unknown.
> unless you can read minds, it'd be hard to prove
That's not how it works.
There is going to be an evidentiary standard (such as "preponderance of the evidence" -- it won't be "beyond a reasonable doubt") applied by an administrative law judge.
The judge can very well decide he CAN read minds -- unless YOU can read minds, or he decides to tell you, you won't know.
It'd still be easy to meet that evidentiary standard: point to an entry level software developer making ~$60k and point to a much more experienced one making north of a quarter million. Such a spread is not hard to find
The job ads for their positions will have different experience and education requirements.
Even judges understand there is a difference between "entry level" and "senior."
Can't the company be compelled to provide salary data for the role? I assume there is some kind of enforcement mechanism. So then it's a matter of explaining why your lowest paid senior engineer makes 150k, the median makes 200k and you've listed a floor of 10k? The judge/jury don't have to accept a smarmy response about how the hypothetical candidate might conceivably make 10k.
And on the subject of the window, most places have much narrower bands than that for a role. It might be that wide for all engineers, but not for senior engineers for example.
An 60k is easily an entry level salary. And 300k is easily a principal engineer's salary. Put the two under the same job title and then you can say to the jury, "it's not just credible that this salary range could exist, this range actually already exist right now."
Good luck convincing your principal engineers to take the same job title as the entry level engineers.
They do at my company. Everyone is just "Software Developer". I don't see anything wrong with it, I find that titles are largely meaningless anyways. At some companies "principal engineer" is handed out after 3-4 years of experience, and at others principal engineer is the highest title with only 1-2% of devs holding it.
For software engineering compensation, wide salary range isn't the biggest issue. It's that much of the compensation (often 25% to 60%) isn't salary: it's stock and discretionary bonus.
I haven't read the background for this law, but I guess it's meant to help people earning less than $100k, and people with less power to negotiate an initial offer.
It's meant to help people applying for jobs, the vast majority of whom don't get the job, so it's not really about the people who get hired.
Not sure I follow. The min and max would be based all the real job in the company. Otherwise it's useless.
All positions are now unique use a guid designation and have the same minimum as maximum are immutable. To change salary the position will be retired and a new one will take its place.
I’m worried I’ll get paid less so that others won’t have to get paid more.
That's the goal, comrade. Equity for all!
At least in tech this has been mostly worthless in CA where your equity makes up 25-75% of your total comp and isn’t required to be reported since it isn’t your “salary”.
It depends a lot on where you land in tech (both department and company). That's definitely true for SWEs at FAANG companies.
I wonder what it would take to update these laws to require total comp disclosure instead of simply salary disclosure.
Will be interesting to see how many (and which) corporations move headquarters to get around this.
> Will be interesting to see how many (and which) corporations move headquarters to get around this
This is the wrong target. Large companies are generally fine with these sorts of laws. It's the small companies who now have another of ten million disclosure laws they have to follow, laws which vary from county to county.
What “small” company is hiring employees in so many countries that it’s burdensome to publish wages on their website.
Any company that wants to be "worldwide remote". You have to post the info before you hire, so if you if want to hire anywhere in the world you have to meet the requirements for every country. Even if you only end up hiring from a couple countries
So all remote jobs will have to post salaries if they want any hires from NYC?
Sounds good to me.
Can you think of a single example of a company for which moving headquarters might make sense because of this law?
Remember that it applies only to salary (not total compensation) and it applies to jobs done in NYC, not jobs done for companies whose headquarters are in NYC.
Way to make harder to get a job!
For my first salary role I took half the advertised pay as I knew less than half of what they wanted.
With this crap I'd just not get the job.
I don't even waste my time applying if I don't know what to expect for compensation. So it's already hard to get a job.
The law does not prevent this.
The law opens any employer up to dozens of lawsuits if they hire people for less than what was advertised.
> The law opens any employer up to dozens of lawsuits if they hire people for less than what was advertised.
If it actually does do that, then spell out why that's the case (e.g. what's the penalty for hiring someone for a salary outside the posted range)?
The OP makes it sound like this is only to address certain information asymmetries in salary negotiation:
> Currently, New York City employers are allowed to withhold pay information until the end of the hiring process.
> Advocates of the bill argue that this forces applications into unequal negotiations throughout the hiring process without the critical piece of knowledge around salary.
> “Lack of salary transparency is discriminatory and anti-worker,” said Rosenthal. “Every New Yorker should have the right to determine whether they will be able to support themselves and their family when they apply for a job. It is time to level the playing field, and restore some dignity to New Yorkers seeking employment.”
> ...Job postings without salary range information can be reported to the city’s Commission on Human Rights.
Based on the article, I see no reason why someone would be prevented from consenting to pay below the position's current minimum, so long as they have full knowledge that is what they are in fact doing.
>Based on the article, I see no reason why someone would be prevented from consenting to pay below the position's current minimum, so long as they have full knowledge that is what they are in fact doing
As they say, the path to Hell is paved with good intentions, I see no reason why an HR department would take the risk.
When I was in my early 20s I had no degree or real experience. With misguided laws like this I wouldn't of been offered a job. It's not on your employer to pay you 100k for your first job. You endure making a bit less for a while.
Then about 3 years later you get your 100k job
> As they say, the path to Hell is paved with good intentions...
The other path to Hell is to not act on good intentions.
> With misguided laws like this I wouldn't of been offered a job.
No, you're just making that assumption.
> The other path to Hell is to not act on good intentions.
Only if you ignore unintended consequences
> Only if you ignore unintended consequences
Some people seem to think the hand-waved threat of "unintended consequences" should be enough to kill any policy they happen to dislike. It's not.
I'm tired of the broken record fearmongering about unintended consequences, especially when it's paired (as it always is) with no constructive alternative to address the problem in question. It's an unpersuasive attempt at preventing improvement to the status quo.
I don't see anything that needs improving.
If you don't have the courage to ask how much the job pays on the first call that's your problem. If you agree to a certain wage that's what you agreed to.
> I don't see anything that needs improving.
So? The kind of information asymmetry that this regulation addresses is an actual issue, whether you want to acknowledge it or not.
> If you don't have the courage to ask how much the job pays on the first call that's your problem.
That's not the problem something like this is meant to solve. Rather, it's probably meant to deal with situations like when an employer low-balls someone who doesn't know what they're worth, and they take the offer because they don't know any better. Eventually someone like that will probably get wise, but this gives them a much cheaper shortcut to that knowledge.
This lets you see the salary before you even choose to apply.
By the way, your whole story makes no sense. If you weren't qualified why did you even get an interview?
Startups tend to take chances on less qualified candidates to save money.
There's plenty of opportunity in this country if you're willing to work for it.
You're just saying startups have lower qualification requirements.
The question is: how do you get an interview _for a position_ where you don't meet the requirements _for that position_?
So if it's a startup, then you don't meet the lowered requirements of that startup.
It doesn't make sense. They wouldn't interview you if you didn't meet their requirements.
You're free to believe whatever you want. They originally advertised a position which paid about twice as much as what I ended up taking. They expected years upon years of specific experience, I showed them a couple of mobile apps I made and they decided to hire me at a lower rate.
That job changed my life, I'd rather just accept some people are going to make more and some are going to make less then create a dystopia where you need 10 pages of documentation to justify every hiring. There's no way this law is going to work out the way people think it well, if anything it encourages less full-time work. If you run the risk of being audited by a fairness officer, why not just outsource it instead?
Why not lean on consultants more?
As discussed elsewhere, many companies are just not hiring people from Colorado, which has a similar law. I can't find a better example of this not working.
> They expected years upon years of specific experience
They demonstrably didn't, since they interviewed/followed up. That's why your story doesn't add up.
Not doubting whatever you say happened, just your interpretation doesn't make sense.
Why? Why would you ask to be paid less?
The alternative is no pay, not higher pay. If the employer thinks that you don't meet all the qualifications that they'd like, there are two reasonable outcomes:
1. The most likely => you don't get any offer.
2. You mutually agree to take a lower offer. It's a lower offer, but it's also much, much greater than zero. You got your foot in the door, can develop your skills, earn an income, and make progress in your career instead of continuing to interview.
If you don't meet all the qualifications how are you getting your foot in the door? How are you getting interviews without qualifications?
I think the most likely scenario if you don't meet the qualifications is you get ghosted.
With salary requirements, maybe people will waste less time on pointless applications, and there will be less ghosting.
They still need to hire. Employers don't hire for the fun of it.
> They still need to hire.
But they don't need to hire in NYC, and companies look at other regulations when deciding head count.
For example, you'll see a lot of startups freeze hiring at employee #49, since in the US (and other countries), there's a ton of HR requirements that kick in, including submitting IRS documents on magnetic tape.
One of Netscape's early advantages was that since they knew they would hire thousands of people, they skipped over all of the entry-level HR systems and started with enterprise-level systems. It was controversial at the time, but turned out to be the correct decision (the first exec was from SGI, so knew what growth looked like.)
This hasn't caused jobs to disappear in Colorado, which has a similar law.
>Colorado remote workers need not apply: Companies avoid state due to salary-posting law
https://www.denverpost.com/2021/06/26/colorado-remote-work-j...
For remote work it has. I see postings all the time "Residents of Colorado are ineligible for this position"
Several companies refuse to hire from Colorado over its law:
https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2021/07/remote-...
And these are all anecdotes. The unemployment rate has followed the national trend for Colorado, and there does not appear to be a shortage of remote work for software engineers.