Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

TheChef44 t1_iw1f36f wrote

Except major corporations are still finding ways around showing salary transparency


[deleted] t1_iw1t2r0 wrote



Odd_Alternative2875 t1_iw1wfyk wrote

That’s so funny… also very helpful in filtering out bad employers from your search


CreamofTazz t1_iw252kh wrote

Yeah employers who don't want you to know how much they're paying, are paying far too little for what they want you to do. I think that means it's working as intended.


Master_Winchester t1_iw2frhv wrote

Report that shit! There's language in the law that the salaries posted need to be in good faith. NYC lawmakers aren't trawling the Internet for bad job posts. The only way they find them is if people report them.


fryseyes t1_iw31psg wrote

NPR reported Citi banking had one a 0-2,000,000. Don’t think anything has been done about that.


railbeast t1_iw48bdt wrote

Where is this job, let me apply. I'll waste their fucking time at the interview level.

Or get a job that pays 2 million a year.


ElevatortotheGallows t1_iw3fajj wrote

Report them to whom? LinkedIn does not seem to have a report for this last time I checked and when I sent a support request asking how to report a job that does not comply with NYC law they basically ignored it.


Master_Winchester t1_iw3qyeb wrote

I have these two comments saved from other users: "Don't just submit tips on the website. File actual complaints to force the agency to respond to them. This link explains how to file complaints, to whom, where, when, how, etc."


Report violations here:

Violations include salary not appearing on any job posting open to NYC residents, whether in person or remote. Includes perm and contract. Includes new hires and promotions/transfers. "


Sonic_Is_Real t1_iw4hcoa wrote

Only the best will apply in that case, gunning for that 10 mil of course /s


pixel_of_moral_decay t1_iw35m29 wrote

That’s because not all jobs pay purely in salary. Many jobs are also stock, which is excluded as the law only covers wages not compensation.

There’s a lot of people working for $1 because they want all stock, and need to accept $1 by law.

There are also executives who don’t take jobs that are stock based compensation because they value diversity in their investments. Having your job and money invested in your job means if something happens to your employer not only do you lose your job, your investments are shot too.

People in either bucket thing the other is an idiot.

And it’s not always executives. Lots of startups pay little bit pay in equity.

They also don’t have to disclose things like 401(k) specifics (you and your coworkers might not be getting the same matching), health plans etc.

A better version of this law would just be to open up tax returns and make them searchable.


Lucavious t1_iw1fk92 wrote

Some are, sure. But my state does not have those laws and most of the job postings I see have them so it’s clearly having a positive impact.


TheChef44 t1_iw1frzf wrote

That’s good to hear. I just can’t stand seeing salary ranges from 80k-210k


aBoyandHisVacuum t1_iw2i7xo wrote

As a side note. That literally is the range of my position. I may come in at 130 with 10 years experienc. But the new guy will get 80k. However my senior peers with 20 years of experience will land closer to 200k. Also depends on degree. But that is an accurate range for a senior specialst.


Forgot-My-Name_again t1_iw2llre wrote

Same in my field. We are offering a guy 85 right out of school next week, I make near 150, and our top specialist makes about 180. It's a technical field where experience matters.


Willingo t1_iw3asdb wrote

Seems like there should be at least one other title then


zypr3xa t1_iw1porj wrote

Thats how it goes in Colorado now.


MrGizthewiz t1_iw2v6nb wrote

Either that or they just add in the job description they aren't hiring people in Colorado.


Gnawlydog t1_iw2kqc5 wrote

Why? You ignore the 210K.. I see that and I see salary 80K so when I see another company with a salary range of 100-150K I know to avoid the first one. ALWAYS ignore the 2nd number.


rugbysecondrow t1_iw2areu wrote

Many companies have listed salary ranges for decades, well before this law.


TheChef44 t1_iw2i2vg wrote

Missing the point


rugbysecondrow t1_iw2nltn wrote

"so it’s clearly having a positive impact."

somebody doesn't understand correlation vs causation...that is the real missing point.


TheRealMicrowaveSafe t1_iw2alqm wrote

And those ways are blatantly obvious and do the exact same job as a posting showing a shitty salary.


VietOne t1_iw2wnds wrote

Those ways are making them more transparent that they are crap to work for. So not much of a workaround when it's an immediate red flag to have stupid salary ranges.

The benefit to people looking for jobs far outweighs any negatives.


username0304 t1_iw2lw3y wrote

Yeah all they do is put a ridiculous range and then just pay whatever the lowest salary is on that range.