Bill to require job postings to include salaries passes Washington Senate(kiro7.com)
kiro7.com
Bill to require job postings to include salaries passes Washington Senate
https://www.kiro7.com/news/local/bill-require-job-postings-include-salaries-passes-washington-senate/UFC2IBIGCJAJRLGMMKHWZ3F3PE/
324 comments
As a candidate, I hate applying to jobs only to get a lowball offer at the end. So I appreciate bills like this.
As a hiring manager, I see that this is actually not so simple. You give someone a range, say $100-150k. I ASSURE you that they are thinking they are closer to 150k than 100. So good luck giving an offer for $100k, even though that might be what that particular candidate is worth to you.
It's never gonna happen, but what i'd rather see is an option to instead give current median total comp on the team i'm interviewing for, plus maybe the 25-75 percentile range. That gives me a sense of what I should expect, plus what the salary growth path might be.
As a hiring manager, I see that this is actually not so simple. You give someone a range, say $100-150k. I ASSURE you that they are thinking they are closer to 150k than 100. So good luck giving an offer for $100k, even though that might be what that particular candidate is worth to you.
It's never gonna happen, but what i'd rather see is an option to instead give current median total comp on the team i'm interviewing for, plus maybe the 25-75 percentile range. That gives me a sense of what I should expect, plus what the salary growth path might be.
this is one of those ostensibly good ideas that has some downsides which are often not discussed - the main one of which, is salary depression.
Forcing employers to publish salaries on job ads will inevitably lead to wide salary bands (lets see how absurd they get) with a low ceiling on the upper tier. Employers know that if they publish a high number, job candidates are naturally going to want to shoot for it, and would be disappointed if they got significantly less than the maximum advertised, compromising offer acceptance rates. Hence employers will set a lower 'maximum' salary than they might actually pay if the salary was hidden.
See UK public sector for evidence of this; salaries must be published, maximum is always significantly lower than equivalent job in private sector.
Forcing employers to publish salaries on job ads will inevitably lead to wide salary bands (lets see how absurd they get) with a low ceiling on the upper tier. Employers know that if they publish a high number, job candidates are naturally going to want to shoot for it, and would be disappointed if they got significantly less than the maximum advertised, compromising offer acceptance rates. Hence employers will set a lower 'maximum' salary than they might actually pay if the salary was hidden.
See UK public sector for evidence of this; salaries must be published, maximum is always significantly lower than equivalent job in private sector.
I'm curious if anyone else is concerned about the downside to this. Once they post a range they have to follow it because of the legal implications. Many companies are willing to bend the budget for an exceptional candidate at the very top end. I worry that some of the senior roles that could have negotiated above the top end of the range will now be hamstrung by it. I know of several situations where a company thought the top of their range was somewhere around $260K and went up to $275K after seeing a candidate they really liked. They aren't likely to post the role with the extra $15K in it since if they post a role from $200K-$275K then most people are going to want $250K+ which is near what they thought the top of their range was.
I’m very curious what the net effect on culture and salaries would be if everyone knew everyone’s total compensation.
On one hand, it’s already possible to know how much most people bought their house for and what their rent is, on the other hand, the data is relatively obsfucated and not directly relevant since most people bought their house in the past and aren’t new homeowners)
Would all businesses simply price discriminate if there were a very easy way to determine someone’s salary?
I feel most of modern personal finance is basically just taking advantage of information asymmetry.
On one hand, it’s already possible to know how much most people bought their house for and what their rent is, on the other hand, the data is relatively obsfucated and not directly relevant since most people bought their house in the past and aren’t new homeowners)
Would all businesses simply price discriminate if there were a very easy way to determine someone’s salary?
I feel most of modern personal finance is basically just taking advantage of information asymmetry.
You can read the bill text and find its current status here: https://app.leg.wa.gov/billsummary?BillNumber=5761&Initiativ...
Note that one of the bill's sponsors, Sen. Joe Nguyen, coincidentally my state Senator, is a Program Manager at Microsoft.
Note that one of the bill's sponsors, Sen. Joe Nguyen, coincidentally my state Senator, is a Program Manager at Microsoft.
In case anyone's curious about California's law on this:
https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displaySectio...
This was changed in 2019. Employers must provide a salary band, but it can be after an initial interview, and is not required in job postings.
The same code prevents employers from directly asking a candidate about their salary history, or relying on salary history to make a hiring decision.
(Employers can ask about a candidate's salary expectation, though. And the law doesn't say anything about benefits or non-salary compensation.)
https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displaySectio...
This was changed in 2019. Employers must provide a salary band, but it can be after an initial interview, and is not required in job postings.
The same code prevents employers from directly asking a candidate about their salary history, or relying on salary history to make a hiring decision.
(Employers can ask about a candidate's salary expectation, though. And the law doesn't say anything about benefits or non-salary compensation.)
I am curious what prevents companies from including a "range" such as: "From $1 to $10,000,000 annually."
> Additionally, for internal transfers to a new position or promotion, the employer must provide the wage scale or salary range.
Nice. To the best of my knowledge, this is the first bill to mandate this; all other bills simply mandated that external job postings include a salary range.
I hope this bill includes language that forces the advertised salary range to reflect the actual range. Otherwise, companies will just say that the range is $50-$500k.
I would still like to see a bill go one step further and mandate that everyone’s salary be public knowledge to everyone else within the same company. If this generates resentment, it means the company is poorly managed. The company would therefore either be compelled to fix their pay discrepancies (thereby allaying the resentment) or risk losing resentful employees to other companies.
Nice. To the best of my knowledge, this is the first bill to mandate this; all other bills simply mandated that external job postings include a salary range.
I hope this bill includes language that forces the advertised salary range to reflect the actual range. Otherwise, companies will just say that the range is $50-$500k.
I would still like to see a bill go one step further and mandate that everyone’s salary be public knowledge to everyone else within the same company. If this generates resentment, it means the company is poorly managed. The company would therefore either be compelled to fix their pay discrepancies (thereby allaying the resentment) or risk losing resentful employees to other companies.
A similar bill passed in Colorado and resulted in many employers stopping hiring in Colorado to avoid having to comply. I hope this won’t have the same outcome.
The European Commission has recently announced mandatory salary transparency in a similar vein: https://ec.europa.eu/info/policies/justice-and-fundamental-r...
Amazing. I wonder what the implications are as I'm aware of jobs many jobs intentionally avoid posting in Colorado due to the same issue; but the sheer size of tech talent in the greater Seattle area is unavoidable.
Does salary in this bill include RSU or stock options? If not, then it may not be that relevant to tech employees? For instance, anyone L6+ in Amazon received 160K in Seattle area and 180K in the bay area.
I don't believe this will be meaningful at all. Supposedly the same thing is going into effect in NY, and I've seen plenty of postings with ranges then all sorts of caveats about "experience," or flexibility in the role, or whatever else, that make it clear that the real range and the published range may be quite different. This, of course, to speak nothing of the distinction between salary and total compensation, which can be quite different.
I think this is great.
I've worked at several places that say 'we pay at the market rate', and it's very hard to verify. It leads to gossip, or interviewing and getting offers etc.. This should make it easy. If you work in an area with multiple competitors this is going to be great for employees.
When is this likely to go live?
I've worked at several places that say 'we pay at the market rate', and it's very hard to verify. It leads to gossip, or interviewing and getting offers etc.. This should make it easy. If you work in an area with multiple competitors this is going to be great for employees.
When is this likely to go live?
I assume it's not illegal to negotiate a salary that is higher than the range stated in the job posting.
Hopefully companies don't start using the job posting as an excuse not to negotiate higher salaries, otherwise it could depress wages for highly qualified applicants.
Hopefully companies don't start using the job posting as an excuse not to negotiate higher salaries, otherwise it could depress wages for highly qualified applicants.
Honestly I don't see what this will accomplish. Employer posts salary. Candidate interviews. Actual salary will be higher or lower than the salary dependent on perceived experience. Equity grants boost TC to the stratosphere.
The Washington senate will pass just aboutanything. I’m 99% sure they’re all just desperate political runner ups who don’t want to lose their free government cheese.
Companies will just say "$1-$1,000,000,000".
It will turn out just like California Proposition 65: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/1986_California_Proposition_...
People who come up with these schemes need to consider the "spam response" and engineer in some kind of countervailing pressure, otherwise you just add noise.
It will turn out just like California Proposition 65: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/1986_California_Proposition_...
People who come up with these schemes need to consider the "spam response" and engineer in some kind of countervailing pressure, otherwise you just add noise.
I dig this, more transparency is sorely needed.
I recently asked the pay band for an upcoming promotion and was treated by HR like I had just shot their dog in front of them.
I recently asked the pay band for an upcoming promotion and was treated by HR like I had just shot their dog in front of them.
You have to start somewhere. That said, I'm pretty sure they will just change to
Software Engineer
Comp: 50k-350k d/o experienceI dunno the specifics of this bill, but my former HR person said in most cases, this is easily bypassed by giving some absurd range.
The trouble is, if you post salary range from X to Y, most candidates will expect getting Y and will be permanently unhappy with their new position if they get closer to X. It is simple psychology.
Then what about the candidates that are so good that you want to pay them more?
I fully expect that best candidates will still be able to negotiate better than the official salary range.
Then what about the candidates that are so good that you want to pay them more?
I fully expect that best candidates will still be able to negotiate better than the official salary range.
Now we need laws restricting a specific job-posting tactic where a few employers spam their same jobs over and over, multiple times daily, so you have to scroll past or filter out redundant listings. DoorDash is a prime example. Truck-driving jobs belong in a separate category altogether, but they are also prime offenders.
These bills are mostly useless if they don't include bonus and stock compensation, and this bill only requires a "general description" of other benefits.
Companies that don't want market transparency will simply restructure compensation packages -- "bonuses" doled on on a 24 pay period amortized schedule are an option even when equity isn't.
In tech, salary being mostly useless as a measure of total comp is already the status quo... if someone tells you that their salary is $160,000 then could be making $160,000 or they could be making >$1M. Expect to see similar behavior but even at the $60K/yr jobs.
Companies that don't want market transparency will simply restructure compensation packages -- "bonuses" doled on on a 24 pay period amortized schedule are an option even when equity isn't.
In tech, salary being mostly useless as a measure of total comp is already the status quo... if someone tells you that their salary is $160,000 then could be making $160,000 or they could be making >$1M. Expect to see similar behavior but even at the $60K/yr jobs.
why not require companies to post salary ranges of already employed workers in same or similar roles? seems like it could circumvent the absurd range issue
So now all job postings are going to be "Salary range between 50-300k, depending on experience."
These laws are bad for high earners.
Salaries closer aligned with the productivity in our field will massively increase inequality.
This might actually depress tech salaries in non-tech companies.
As is the discrepancy in titles is significant.
As is the discrepancy in titles is significant.
I don't understand how you can have a labor market where only one side has information on what the salaries are for an industry through a team that does market research. It depresses wages, mostly for internal employees who aren't paying attention bc they're content with their jobs.
Price transparency leads to more efficient markets, no reason the labor market is any different. A company hiring an employee under market rate, because the employee doesn't know what market rate is, is a failure.
EDIT: Wanted to add that this hits closer to home for me b/c I've personally experienced this.
Went out and jumped companies and got a 300% raise b/c I was underpaid at the prev, only know that thanks to levels.fyi. New hires at my level were making almost double what I was.
When other engineers at my current company talk about salary, or total comp more generally, they vastly underestimate the state of the market.