California jobs required to post pay range starting 2023
gov.ca.gov
gov.ca.gov
They don’t need to, people already know.
It is unusual in a negotiation to offer to pay the largest amount possible as your opening bid - they do it so they can pay the smallest number they can get away with.
If there is someone amazing that they want to pay $25mil to - they wouldnt be advertising the role.
It’s inevitable that lawyers will weaponize this as a new source of revenue, just like patent trolls and ADA lawsuits do with copy and paste lawsuits. And those lawsuits will disproportionately fall on smaller companies without in-house lawyers and the resources to fight them, just like they have with ADA lawsuits and patent trolls.
Ideally would include full compensation be posted though, stocks, etc.
The idea that all are equally lined up against the wall for quick execution. Typically happens at swanky/rich companies leading up to more “equity/inclusion” pushed down your throat.
Everything else is agenda-based.
"Equitable pay" is a merely a political narrative for left leaning audiences - postmodernist talking points always require victims, after all.
Further, economists, political scientists, and philosophers alike have written on the topic of what is equitable in a capitalist economy, and in terms of distributive justice; there are very few people who would define equitability as the mere existence of an agreement between parties, including the legal system (for example, some contracts can and are deemed unconscionable, and selling organs or oneself into slavery are illegal).
The idea of equitable outcomes is a common law concept used for things like contract breach remedies, which is again something that the great-grand-parent touched up on.
That is, it's an idea used for compensation when one party walks away from a mutual agreement - the logical implication is that mutual agreements are equitable, which is why compensation is needed to re-establish that state upon a breach.
But nobody uses 'equitable' in this sense, as people have a variety of reasons to engage in a mutual agreement, where upon asked one or even both parties would agree that the agreement isn't 'equitable' or fair. To say that mutual agreements are equitable is only because of the assumption that the agreement wouldn't have occured or been accepted if the agreement isn't equitable - which is obviously false, given that people agree to heavily unfair (though not unconscionable) contracts all the time.
Who is the “we” deeming those characteristics as relevant? This entails legislators creating a central list of job characteristics, doesn’t it?
You can spend this afternoon whittling two by fours down into toothpicks as a real world demonstration of this.
Base salary: $150,000-$200,000 Stock compensation: $0 to >$1M
Is that helpful?
Listing the base salary is immensely helpful to determine if the job is worth your time and the effort the company wants based on the JD. Problem becomes when their range starts showing BS crap like $20/k - $350k yr. That is meaningless and not helpful.
Far more useful, in the tech industry at least, is to look at websites that show you pay ranges specific to the job level. For example:
I think society would be better with pay based on the job description for most jobs vs. the company or the individual employee.