Not disclosing pay is illegal in three states in the US, and has the practical effect of reducing the number of applicants to the advertised job by 14%, so it's self-harming for the employer anyway. Bonus: a lot of job boards will just plug an "estimated salary" in for you to max their CTR and revenue on syndication.
> people are figuring out and it’s easier to forget about if you’re in the habit of re-using old listings.
Some companies don't hire very often, so yes. But for startups and venture funded, high growth companies to be unaware after two years is not cool. We need to do better... and you can see from the people posting here, some of them would rather report employers to the AG than get a job at that company. I'm not sure how productive that is, but I do think it shows why a law was required to get a minimal level of disclosure.
Another downside is that it's easy to scrap and collect this data and companies might not like candidates or employees easily accessing historical data.
Sharing salary range basically reduces the knowledge advantage of a company in many ways.
It's surely great for candidates and existing employees.
They are spending 14% more on recruitment advertising than they would have to if they just put a range in the salary box. So, yes, financial self harm. 14% is substantial for many companies.
> ther downsides - e.g. it might tilt existing employees.
People have access to wage data and job boards in their pocket. If they answer that unknown caller, it's as likely to be a recruiter as a car warranty hustle. It's amazing how many business leaders think that their people are not going to look.
Oh boy, huge assumptions there, so bad that I would associate that thinking with HR recruiters. What matters is what selects/filters for desirable employees. Getting 14% more applicants is a terrible metric to be measuring - https://wikipedia.org/wiki/Goodhart%27s_law which is obvious since one can increase applications by advertising in irrelevant places to get more irrelevant applicants.
Alternatively 14% more could be extremely important, if a lack of salary indication filtered for bad candidates, and salary indication brought in good candidates.
> A single day of delay in response causes 28% of candidates to become unresponsive to recruiters (this is from our company's research). It drops to 51% become unresponsive 48 hours later. [your top level comment].
That’s an interesting metric, since anecdotally the best candidates get snapped up extremely quickly.
It is obviously very difficult to find good factual correlations: a lack of good data just produces opinions.
HR and recruiting is not legendary for financial acumen, but they do spend in aggregate, billions on advertising, and they do in many cases have very good analyitcs on that spend.
> Alternatively 14% more could be extremely important, if a lack of salary indication filtered for bad candidates, and salary indication brought in good candidates.
We've not seen a change in quality of candidate in either direction. It does reduce the cost per applicant significantly.
Mind you I prefer when companies post salaries, but 14% greater/fewer applicants does not directly equate to 14% greater/lesser spend on listings. A company only needs one qualified applicant. More applicants means you might find better candidates faster/more easily, but by itself listing salaries isn't necessarily going to save the company money.
does not mean
> spending 14% more on recruitment advertising
if a company gets 86 applicants instead of 100, that's less screening work which means less $ spent for the hire.
Using this logic, then just hire the first person who applies and you will minimize all cost. Screening is a drop in the bucket compared to the cost of making a bad hire, and the quality of the final candidates requires you have enough candidates to make a good selection from.
Defaulting to an adversarial relationship with its own staff is not the sign of a good company.
Oh wow, true. Now I'll know exactly when to negotiate a raise or leave.
Fucking good.
It's absolutely scummy to secretly pay new hires more than your experienced existing employees.
It's also extremely short-sighted. You'd rather deal with attrition costs of losing a trained, experienced employee and having to find new candidates and train someone new, than to just give your current employees the pay raise they obviously deserve?
> Sharing salary range basically reduces the knowledge advantage of a company in many ways.
That's the fucking point.
The job market is a market, meaning it's a game between buyers and sellers. "Deserve" does not exist there. The companies are obviously counting on the fact that majority of people will prefer to stay put instead of risk jumping ship for a salary increase - which is in fact what happens in practice.
Most startups are paying the lower end of market rate to below market rate salaries and compensating more with equity, so it's not necessarily irrational on the part of the startups.
> But for startups and venture funded, high growth companies to be unaware after two years is not cool
There are a million more important things to worry about at most startups than being in regulatory compliance with every silly law. I would venture to guess that the more a startup is in regulatory compliance with every little thing the less likely it is to succeed.
Being a scofflaw does not increase your company's valuation.
The law passed in 2019 and went into effect Jan 1, 2021.
NY state is waiting on governor’s signature, but seeing as how it has been months and she has not signed it, I assume she will not.
It did pop up with New York City job listings, like this one:
https://jobs.walgreens.com/en/job/new-york/duane-reade-shift...
Which do not list the pay range, but have tiny text at the bottom that says
>To see the salary range for this position please click here: Pay Transparency Duane Reade Shift Leader .
https://jobs.walgreens.com/en/paydrsfl
And then if you search for similar positions, you get:
Here's a photo I took of the posting: https://i.imgur.com/jSl1Rjk.png
I found the a job listing in boulder here, which has the same pay range link as above:
https://jobs.walgreens.com/en/job/boulder/pharmacy-technicia...
But yes, per CO law, the job posting you took a picture of should also state the same pay range and benefit info (page 4).
https://cdle.colorado.gov/sites/cdle/files/7%20CCR%201103-13...
The major difference with the NY law is that NY is actually expected to enforce it. That being said, the law is deliberately expected to be leniently enforced, starting with warnings, and only after the warning has been issued will fines be enforced.
Also, another big difference is that other major states (CA & WA I believe) are expected to enact similar laws in 2023, so most US companies are pretty much switching over to displaying salary ranges by default nationally.
Pretty good signal of a less desirable employer though.
“If you are a Colorado or New York City resident and this role is a remote role, you can receive additional information about the compensation and benefits for this role, which we will provide upon request. Requests can be submitted here.“
link: https://docs.google.com/forms/d/e/1FAIpQLScOlYgPtpG56uqO0O9j...
When I submitted my information I did not hear back, which does feel like a blatant violation of the law(s)
See page 4, it is spelled out pretty clearly that the posting itself needs to advertise the range.
https://cdle.colorado.gov/sites/cdle/files/7%20CCR%201103-13...
I hope you don't mind if I don't weep for the billion dollar VC's that encourage others to "move fast," but are unable to respond to changes in the law.
If only they had enough money to hire a lawyer!
This law didn't suddenly materialize overnight last month. No laws do. It was in the works for months, perhaps longer.
All companies are responsible for keeping tabs on legislation that may affect them. From the corner doughnut shop to billion-dollar startup incubators.
That Ycombinator missed this says something is wrong behind the curtain.
So what? The idea of transparency on salaries is not a new one. Why would I want to do business with a company that won't even tell me how much they're offering for a job when asked? That just wastes people's time.
I don't care for this legalistic and disingenuous approach to business, it's an indicator that management is not going to be transparent with people who work there and is relying on information asymmetries rather than actually trying to build a team. Anyone acting like they don't know that potential hires have a strong interest in knowing what a job potentially pays is BSing you.