Let's take this nation wide. Why was everyone's time and interview hoops for jobs that don't pay competitive rates? Why should loyal employees stick with pay rates that are less than new hires?
Just let the states do state things, having the federal make laws is typically unnecessary. If it benefits business, then companies will do it. If it benefits states, then states will do it.
I'm pretty confident posting wages will suppress wages
I think it'll be the opposite. When _everyone_ is posting the wages, it lets companies at the top end use it as a recruiting tool, putting pressure downward to be more competitive on salary, rather than it being a blind negotiation.
There will be lots of companies that will have trouble recruiting, because they just aren't wage competitive.
This seems logical to me, whats the counter to that?
The same mechanism you see uncoordinated price fixing, companies set their numbers by copy+pasting from their competitor +/- a little depending on the details.
I think noncompetitive companies will be forced to increase wages initially to compete but after that initial spike the numbers will become much more sticky.
Numbers right now are already sticky, I'd argue.
a) method of colluding to depress wages
b) PR for "high wages" using jobs they don't intend to fill
c) ...
There are likely many different outcomes and each isn't likely mutually exclusive.
also it is possible to advertise higher wage for senior level, but then downlevel employee after interview and offer less and some would still accept that (Google is notorious for doing it)
Companies already functionally share compensation information via companies like Radford. You pay a hefty fee and provide your company's info, and in return you get descriptive statistics of the market.
Google and facebook don't scour job boards when determining pay scales, they pick some percentile of the market per these surveys and set compensation at that level. As a result, the companies already have transparency, employees do not, so they can only really gain.
In fact, more consistent laws across 300m people is often pointed out as a big reason for the success of the USA compared to say the EU which in many areas is still a patchwork of laws.
What makes you confident about that? I only see evidence to the contrary. Having workers able to see what other jobs are paying might encourage them to make moves to increase compensation.
Hiding the numbers makes it less obvious if one is being taken advantage of, which is a reason employers have made it taboo to discuss pay.
Posting wages might make it easier for companies to match their offers to others, leading to a sort of collusion, and salary stagnation.
Posting wages might make it easier for companies to offer higher than others in an attempt to attract talent, leading to competition in the market, and salary inflation.
I suspect that different things will happen in different markets. It seems (to me) that software development may be unaffected, administrative workers might benefit, and unskilled workers may suffer.
As if that hasn't already happened
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High-Tech_Employee_Antitrust_L...
On a separate yet related note: do you trust free markets?
And if it benefits only workers, and you happen to live in a state controlled by corporate interests, screw you I guess?
The point of labor regulations is that businesses will routinely do things that give them an unfair (and often already illegal) advantage in negotiations. The whole concept of "state's rights" was invented by the segregationist ring-wing, and that legacy is apparent every time it's brought up.
Because there's no guarantee it'll work right the first time and that there won't be some tweaks that need to be made.
People may disagree, but I think that the distinction and separation of state/local/federal law is great. one size often does not fit all and having different methods of laws experimented with and seen "in production" is useful despite downsides and the inherent difficulty in having 50 states have a different policy on something.
I'm fully for most laws being tested at the state level before the federal gov gets involved at all (unless it's interstate commerce). Honestly, I prefer the fed staying out of most things and letting states handle it.
How is teleworking across state lines not interstate commerce?
'But it's by design, federalist papers' ...are ~250 years old, and while they contain much wisdom, also contain much that is obsolete. We should be moving towards a sort of wikiocracy and away from bureaucracy.
If you toss out the status quo bullshit, cleansheeting public policy becomes workable!
I can't think of a way this law could be implemented in a way that hurts anyone besides businesses that want to unfairly underpay a portion of an equally qualified cohort of workers.
If you block that process "companies can't negotiate with you, they have to give you a rate and that's it", you will cause a lot of unintended consequences for the labor market.
Be very very careful making such changes.
Some extra laws might be required, such as forbidding and heavily fining companies that are shown to be acting like a cartel when setting salaries. At the very least, if salary offers are public, salary fixing conspiracies (of the type several Silicon Valley companies were fined for) will be much harder to pull off again.
What you are describing is the current status quo for the supermajority of workers, except it's the workers who can't negotiate. The company simply gives them a number and they have to accept it. Allowing the companies to hide the number behind the sunk costs of the interview process only tips the scales further in businesses' favor.
This law brings salary negotiation closer to actual supply and demand, not further.
This is true if and only if one defines adopts as the definition of “correct” something like “at whatever levels the particular variant of capitalism in question sets”.