[HN Gopher] New York City to require employers to list minimum a...
___________________________________________________________________
New York City to require employers to list minimum and maximum
salaries
Author : hswolff
Score : 48 points
Date : 2021-12-21 18:25 UTC (4 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (www.ny1.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (www.ny1.com)
| 999900000999 wrote:
| Way to make harder to get a job!
|
| For my first salary role I took half the advertised pay as I knew
| less than half of what they wanted.
|
| With this crap I'd just not get the job.
| eschewobfuscat wrote:
| This hasn't caused jobs to disappear in Colorado, which has a
| similar law.
| 999900000999 wrote:
| >Colorado remote workers need not apply: Companies avoid
| state due to salary-posting law
|
| https://www.denverpost.com/2021/06/26/colorado-remote-
| work-j...
| missedthecue wrote:
| For remote work it has. I see postings all the time
| "Residents of Colorado are ineligible for this position"
| redis_mlc wrote:
| rahimnathwani wrote:
| The law does not prevent this.
| 999900000999 wrote:
| The law opens any employer up to dozens of lawsuits if they
| hire people for less than what was advertised.
| frumper wrote:
| They still need to hire. Employers don't hire for the fun
| of it.
| redis_mlc wrote:
| tablespoon wrote:
| > The law opens any employer up to dozens of lawsuits if
| they hire people for less than what was advertised.
|
| If it actually does do that, then spell out why that's the
| case (e.g. what's the penalty for hiring someone for a
| salary outside the posted range)?
|
| The OP makes it sound like this is only to address certain
| information asymmetries in salary negotiation:
|
| > Currently, New York City employers are allowed to
| withhold pay information until the end of the hiring
| process.
|
| > Advocates of the bill argue that this forces applications
| into unequal negotiations throughout the hiring process
| without the critical piece of knowledge around salary.
|
| > "Lack of salary transparency is discriminatory and anti-
| worker," said Rosenthal. "Every New Yorker should have the
| right to determine whether they will be able to support
| themselves and their family when they apply for a job. It
| is time to level the playing field, and restore some
| dignity to New Yorkers seeking employment."
|
| > ...Job postings without salary range information can be
| reported to the city's Commission on Human Rights.
|
| Based on the article, I see no reason why someone would be
| prevented from consenting to pay below the position's
| current minimum, _so long as they have full knowledge that
| is what they are in fact doing_.
| 999900000999 wrote:
| >Based on the article, I see no reason why someone would
| be prevented from consenting to pay below the position's
| current minimum, so long as they have full knowledge that
| is what they are in fact doing
|
| As they say, the path to Hell is paved with good
| intentions, I see no reason why an HR department would
| take the risk.
|
| When I was in my early 20s I had no degree or real
| experience. With misguided laws like this I wouldn't of
| been offered a job. It's not on your employer to pay you
| 100k for your first job. You endure making a bit less for
| a while.
|
| Then about 3 years later you get your 100k job
| tablespoon wrote:
| > As they say, the path to Hell is paved with good
| intentions...
|
| The other path to Hell is to not act on good intentions.
|
| > With misguided laws like this I wouldn't of been
| offered a job.
|
| No, you're just making that assumption.
| rytcio wrote:
| > The other path to Hell is to not act on good
| intentions.
|
| Only if you ignore unintended consequences
| tablespoon wrote:
| > Only if you ignore unintended consequences
|
| Some people seem to think the hand-waved threat of
| "unintended consequences" should be enough to kill any
| policy they happen to dislike. It's not.
|
| I'm tired of the broken record fearmongering about
| unintended consequences, especially when it's paired (as
| it always is) with no constructive alternative to address
| the problem in question. It's an unpersuasive attempt at
| preventing improvement to the status quo.
| chrismcb wrote:
| Why? Why would you ask to be paid less?
| millzlane wrote:
| I don't even waste my time applying if I don't know what to
| expect for compensation. So it's already hard to get a job.
| dehrmann wrote:
| This might work better with government jobs than private sector,
| and it feels like public sector policymakers trying to manage
| businesses like they manage the government. Government jobs are
| more likely to have tight wage bands and strict requirements. The
| private sector will "figure something out" for a p90 candidate.
|
| Since candidates will always ask for the top of the band, I'd
| expect either very tight bands and candidates get moved to "more
| appropriate" openings or bands covering 3 standard deviations so
| employers can claim the range is in good faith, but still leave
| room for negotiation.
| imapeopleperson wrote:
| I'm worried I'll get paid less so that others won't have to get
| paid more.
| Manuel_D wrote:
| Minimum salary: $10,000 per year.
|
| Maximum salary: $1,000,000 per year.
|
| Legal compliance achieved, while still effectively maintaining
| confidentiality of salary info.
| rahimnathwani wrote:
| That range probably doesn't satisfy the requirements of the new
| law:
|
| The range must: "extend from the lowest to the highest salary
| the employer in good faith believes at the time of the posting
| it would pay for the advertised job, promotion or transfer
| opportunity."
| tablespoon wrote:
| > That range probably doesn't satisfy the requirements of the
| new law:
|
| It's amazing how some people lazily assume they're so much
| cleverer than everyone else.
|
| A good heuristic is to assume you're just plain wrong if you
| think you've discovered a way to weasel out of a law with
| only five seconds worth of thought.
| spicybright wrote:
| Not sure I follow. The min and max would be based all the real
| job in the company. Otherwise it's useless.
| [deleted]
| literallyaduck wrote:
| All positions are now unique use a guid designation and have the
| same minimum as maximum are immutable. To change salary the
| position will be retired and a new one will take its place.
| commandlinefan wrote:
| Will be interesting to see how many (and which) corporations move
| headquarters to get around this.
| JumpCrisscross wrote:
| > _Will be interesting to see how many (and which) corporations
| move headquarters to get around this_
|
| This is the wrong target. Large companies are generally fine
| with these sorts of laws. It's the small companies who now have
| another of ten million disclosure laws they have to follow,
| laws which vary from county to county.
| Spivak wrote:
| What "small" company is hiring employees in so many countries
| that it's burdensome to publish wages on their website.
| rahimnathwani wrote:
| Can you think of a single example of a company for which moving
| headquarters might make sense because of this law?
|
| Remember that it applies only to salary (not total
| compensation) and it applies to jobs done in NYC, not jobs done
| for companies whose headquarters are in NYC.
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2021-12-21 23:02 UTC)