Hacker News Reader

Comment by cure | Hacker News Reader

Definitely not everyone. For example, Google jobs have a narrow, specific range, e.g. https://careers.google.com/jobs/results/117083209834865350/

=================== Additional Information (Colorado only) Minimum Salary of $198,000 - $212,000 + bonus + equity + benefits. Note: Disclosure as required by sb19-085 (8-5-20) of the minimum salary compensation range for this role when being hired into our offices in Colorado.

View on HN

"minimum salary of". So $212 isn't the top of the range. It is the top of the bottom. Bonus and equity are also not specified. So this is easily a $100,000+ range.

They law only requires the salary portion of total comp when it comes to ranges, and a judge needs to think the range is reasonable if it comes to that. Everything else can just be a "general description", so "equity" in the description probably suffices for RSUs.

And AFAIUI, they don't really have that much of a problem with actually hiring people a little above the range. It's thought that the labor market pressures of stating too low of a salary range cutting into your talent pool is an appropriate counteraction.

Sure - I know only salary needs to be specified. My point is, while the CO law (I live in CO) is a step in the right direction it doesn't have a lot of bite. There is still plenty of room for significant pay discrimination - like $100,000 of room.

I also live in CO, and know of specific cases where someone got popped for obviously too broad of a range covering most of the income percentiles.

I agree that there's still room for discrimination, but it's a step up from what it was, particularly on the lower end of the scale. I know of a lot of people in the 50k-60k range that were able to increase their salary because of this law.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com