Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

MobiusCube t1_iw2ag5q wrote

It's strange that they force employers to reveal desires salary range, but do not require employees to also reveal their desired range. Not very equitable of them.

Edit: For clarity, I'm referring to the desired salary of the posting in question, not historical salary of previous jobs the applicant held.


tulipseamstress t1_iw2cdca wrote

When employees reveal their salaries to employers, employers use that as a reason to pay them less. For instance, if someone is moving up from retail to an office job and the office boss sees the retail salary before making an offer, the office boss will offer the potential employee less money. The boss thinks the employee will accept less because of what the employer is used to.

For this reason, many states ban bosses from asking about salary history:


MobiusCube t1_iw2q2s1 wrote

Salary history has nothing to do with the salary of the position in question.


VietOne t1_iw2wzaj wrote

So then there's no reason a employer should ask. Glad you agree on that employers shouldn't ask for salary history.


MobiusCube t1_iw5lp0r wrote

I never said they should.


VietOne t1_iw5p54y wrote

> It's strange that they force employers to reveal salaries, but not employees. Not very equitable of them.


MobiusCube t1_iw5shvs wrote

Your desired range for the job you apply for is not your salary history.


enragedcactus t1_iw2r056 wrote

I don’t get this comment. If I apply to a new job the employer can theoretically look up my current salary band here in Colorado since we passed this law, actually a better written one, last year.

They won’t know my exact salary, but they’ll have an idea. Just like I wouldn’t know what my exact salary will be when applying to a new job, but I’ll have an idea.


MobiusCube t1_iw5m0w6 wrote

Current job and future job are two entirely different jobs. I'm referring to why employees are forced to disclose what they're willing to offer for the role, but applicants aren't forced to disclose what pay they're willing to accept for the role they're applying for.


enragedcactus t1_iw7ribv wrote

As an applicant and an employer you’re wasting your time if you don’t find out the other’s comp range early on in the application process. If you’re working with a recruiter that’s absolutely something they ask and will ensure that roles they bring you will pay what you’re asking.

By definition now if an applicant is applying for a role somewhere like Colorado the employer knows they will accept something in the range.

Also as an applicant you should be smart enough to know that it’s unlikely to enter anywhere higher than about 75% of the provided comp range. Companies need to be able to give you raises within the role’s wage band and you don’t want to be maxing out without the ability to get future raises immediately or soon after you’re hired.


MobiusCube t1_iw7ulkj wrote

Your argument only proves that regulating this disclosure is mostly useless.


TheFreakish t1_iw2ufnj wrote

Employer employee by definition is an asymmetrical relationship.


MobiusCube t1_iw5lssl wrote

It's not though. Employer and employee are different roles, but it's a mutually beneficial agreement.


XediDC t1_iw4pkcr wrote

Salary is a direct indication of a job’s worth. Prior salary is not a direct indication of an employees worth. Not equivalent at all.

Try again hon.


MobiusCube t1_iw5lnp2 wrote

Prior salary is irrelevant. IDK why you bring it up.


XediDC t1_iw5pacg wrote

Maybe you could explain exactly what an employee should be forced to reveal and to who? If you don’t mean applicants having to show their salary history, it’s very unclear what you mean.

And regardless, it’s unlikely “equatable” as an employer and employee are different types of of things and not on the same power footing.


MobiusCube t1_iw5sfhi wrote

If one party is required to reveal their desired range, then so should the other. Employment is a mutually beneficial agreement, so it's only equitable that laws forcing one party's hand should also force the others.


XediDC t1_iw5v9tw wrote

That’s more reasonable, but I think your initial comment is being taken every way but that.

I still don’t agree, as the employer/employee relationship isn’t equitable in the first place. Likewise job postings are one sided, something done by the employer to the public — that is what is being regulated.

(And contractors and free-lancers holding out for hire generally disclose their rates/ranges, which as a “public for hire listing” would be the direct thing akin to the inverse of a job posting.)


MobiusCube t1_iw70pb1 wrote

>I still don’t agree, as the employer/employee relationship isn’t equitable in the first place. Likewise job postings are one sided, something done by the employer to the public — that is what is being regulated.

I think you're confusing "equitable" with "equal". Each side of hiring is certainly fair, both sides want something from the other as employment is a mutually beneficial agreement between the two parties. One side wants labor and the other wants money.


XediDC t1_iw7772b wrote

No, I meant what I said. There is no need for the legal requirement from employees, like is being done to regulate job postings.


MobiusCube t1_iw7uria wrote

Sure there is, employers don't want their time just as applicants don't want to waste theirs. Again, employment is a two way street.


XediDC t1_iwdv43h wrote

How is there a need for a legal requirement? What prevents any (US) employer from asking the question on their application and rejecting it if it isn't filled out?

As an employer, I have no need or want for that, especially for it to be required. It would actually make my life harder to get people paid what they should be in some roles, as many people undervalue themselves or their potential. Not to mention that at larger places you want to hire high to reduce turnover, as increases are much harder to get for someone later -- sucks, but you plan for it.

A job posting with a reasonable and narrow enough range to be useful is all that's needed...that someone is responding to it tells you what their range in, unless they tell you otherwise.

> Again, employment is a two way street.

Any how would a law like that even work...? When someone is holding out (the employer) what other laws even work the other way -- where the responder is required to provide certain information before any agreements are in place? Or would it be a law that makes it illegal to reply to a listing if you wouldn't accept it's range? Anything like that is non-sensical at best or downright evil in ways it could be implemented..

Employment in the US is very unbalanced in favor of the employer. I have almost all the power...the only real leverage an employee has is leaving, which hurts them too. I certainly don't need any more. Rules like this are part of making it a little closer to a two way street.

TL;DR: Nah.


MobiusCube t1_iwe5odk wrote

The same can be said for the employer's range. If an employee wants to know the pay range of the position, they can just ask. It's just as stupid and useless to require one as it is to require the other.


XediDC t1_iwe6hgl wrote

No, you're missing the "holding out" part I already mentioned in detail. The employer is making a public and regulated job posting asking for applicants. It's not the same, and it's not stupid or useless if it has enough teeth.


MobiusCube t1_iwe9y2o wrote

Holding out what? It's unbalanced if one party is required to reveal their price, but the other isn't.


Orwellian__Nightmare t1_iw2bjrk wrote

its also dumb because it just limits what you could potentially get paid, granted you have the experience. many jobs would love to list 70-80k range when before most new employees could negotiate 90k.

people forget what you get paid at your job is an agreement between you and your job.


VietOne t1_iw2x43u wrote

People also forget that your job description is your job contract and you shouldn't work any more than you have to.

But somehow employers are claiming that's quiet quitting.


crazyboy1234 t1_iw2f7ad wrote

Seems like a very large amount of workers accept up front that they aren’t smart enough to out earn others so they try to standardize and make legal artificial standardization in the work place. I think this is an example but it’s stupid to anyone who’s learned how to negotiate / understands value of labor