News

That's what they did in Colorado, but it backfired because every applicant expected the high end of the range. Now they just advertise jobs that aren't available in Colorado.

Pay transparency helps both employers and employees, but at the expense of employers who are trying to underpay their workers.

I interviewed at a place a few weeks ago. I asked the recruiter what the salary band was. I told her I expected to be in the top 10-15% of that range.

"Well we don't really like to hire someone at that high of a rate."

Thanks for waving the red flag. Good luck to you. Talk to you never.

Then people will avoid applying, and instead apply to the similair job without a bullshit range. The problem is self correcting.

This law is already in effect in Colorado/Washington/etc. Pull up an advert for seattle jobs on indeed and you'll see that they list a large band, but then a "likely salary" point. Its clear, easy and sets expectations well.

They have been doing that, but it's in the law (at least in CO) that that's still a violation, so we can report companies that say shit like $30k-$500k. If they can't demonstrate that someone in that position could feasibly make the high end, that range is still illegal.

Which is fine since it tells you so much already. If they say nothing at least it is possible it is an oversight. Someone forgot to click the right box. If they post a crazy range you know that they actively went out of their way to lie to you.

$17 for managers with an MBA, PhD in Economics, and 47 years experience.

Just like ads for retail stores: "Up to 70% off OR MORE"
Which really means fuckall.

Dang minimum wage in my city is $18/h

Agreed but I think in time the rest will follow, certainly for remote jobs.

Last company I was at would bring people in on referrals, then offer them a different job and never pay out the referral because they didn't accept the job there were initially referred for.

Magically the well dried up in a couple months and they were looking at 80% turnover in a matter of weeks. Never seen so many people quit en masse.

Usually it's 50, I suspect 4 is because more than 4 means 5 or more, and 5 is a commonly liked number

My country's goods and services tax was allegedly set by one of the cabinet members reading the percentage off their wine bottle

I'm disappointed they weren't drinking beer, glad they weren't drinking spirits, and moderately happy it was a female cabinet member, drinking a sweet white

We ended up with 10%

#moreWomenInPolitics

This is literally what my job is doing now... "Machinists: $16-$30/hr"

... so you're saying it's $16/hr.

This is why everyone needs to talk about their salary. Shatter that idiotic notion about pay rate discussions being bad, because it only benefits the assholes at the top sucking every penny they can.

They have to provide a range. Knowing the highest is also very helpful when you're negotiating a starting salary.

I live in CA where a law like this has been in effect for a while. Almost all jobs I look at have a pretty tight pay range and has allowed me to bypass not wasting time applying for super low pay positions. Every once in a blue moon you see a company post in bad faith but that's an anomaly not the norm and let's me know they're a shitty company I shouldn't work for.

Pet peeve: emails with the subject "urgent need start ASAP". I actually called up one recruiter who sent me that and asked them why I would ever consider working for a company that plans ahead so badly.

Oh yes that is exactly what my ulcer needs. A job running a huge complex project that is turning into a clusterfuck because they didn't want to hire an engineer until the last possible second for fear of spending a penny extra. Yes please give me this job. I want to work with people who are a bad mixture of ditzy and cheap.

Those "headhunters" in India are nearly entirely useless anyway so I don't even bother responding to them anymore... Especially if they aren't going to include salary ranges.

Recruiting in general needs a fundamental overhaul. People should not be recruiting at all for positions that they themselves have zero experience in. If IT recruiters, for example, were all former IT staff then we'd have a much higher quality pool of applicants since the recruiters would actually know what to look for and what questions to ask for a change.

Sounds like BoA