...
Role #125,798 - salary $125,798/yr
Role #125,799 - salary $125,799/yr
Role #125,800 - salary $125,800/yr
...Instead of offering to pay you less, company suggests you apply for a less valuable role (or demotes you), and then pays you less.
Instead of offering to pay you more, company suggests you apply for a more valuable role (or promotes you), and then pays you more.
If a company is trying to lowball or discriminate, they'll just do it by title and wage, instead of just wage.
If a company is trying negotiate in good faith, it's made the process needlessly complex.
I don't see what problem this solves.
Internally managing that many positions and requirements and putting up that many job postings is a nightmare. For applicants, I'm going to almost immediately leave a page with that many listings and look at other companies.
It's only "logical" if you ignore all other pressures to job postings and are only trying to game these laws, which I presume have some baked-in preventions for this. I know Colorado's equivalent law does.
Also, hiring managers sometimes invented additional tracks.
Those levels are the same for any engineering track (IC or manager).
There are some exceptions like vendors and partner+ positions, but those levels won’t overlap with the typical engineering job postings.
Within the context of Microsoft: we often interview people for a Senior role, find a good candidate and make an offer, while at the same time making an SDE2 offer to someone else who did well on the interview but doesn’t seem ready for senior. Since the SDE2 salary range will be different than Senior (there is some overlap), I wonder how that works with the law.