And IMO it's actually milder in intensity, although more complex. I love them both.

I wonder how deep a reddit thread can get?

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.

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.

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

If it would cause an issue if pay was discussed (and I’d assume it will be) or transparent, then maybe a connected title or some other attribute could still help?

It’s been ~20 years since I’ve done retail mgmt but at the time I recollect at a small place we had a Store Manager, Assistant Manager, “3rd key” (don’t remember the real title), “Shift Leaders” and reps.

The “shift leader” position was a slightly higher paid position for exactly what we’re talking about. A bit of money and prestige, but not actually a supervisor or any real extra responsibility beyond what those that excel at naturally do. (The name wasn’t great as it did imply mgmt…I’d prefer something not sounding management. “Sr Barista” or “Coffee Artist” or…I dunno.)

Then the 3rd keys were entry level management that has keys to the building and could work without other managers there. But didn’t have to make major decisions, scheduling, were still hourly, and we always had a non-3rd key there on some other shift during the day.

Both served well for that middle ground, depending on if they should be and wanted to have any potential leadership role, or a non-leadership option for just really good at your job. (The latter I think is important, as a lot of great employees suck at managing people…an issue I see a lot in the corporate world.)

Anyway, just thinking out loud. Hope that doesn’t sound too critical. And I was on my phone with a headache for my first response which…was snippy.

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.)

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.

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.

You just create different titles for the folks that would get larger raises.

So then the person promoted to “Sr CS Rep” or “Dev Level IV” or “VP, Product Ideation” gets a larger raise, and it’s still transparent and equitable. Plus it’s a more clear progression path for everyone to aspire to, while also allowing for defined well-paid non-management roles. Similar job roles can have some responsibility differences that make sense and that probably already occur. The title is also rewarding in its own right, while also helpful on their resume.

It’s not that hard, at least if you have the power to make the decisions to do it…within an existing corp it takes more wheedling.