California becomes the latest state to require "Salary Transparency"

[ThatRobGuy]

California forces companies to show pay on job listings, revealing big tech salaries

A new law that went into effect this week requires most California employers to disclose salaries on job listings.

www.cnbc.com

I decided to tell everyone in my life how much I make — even on first dates

We talk about sex and politics and religion. So why is it still so hard to divulge our salaries?

www.businessinsider.com

I think this is a good move on the part of the states that have started doing this.

While the laws don't require employers to divulge what each individual makes (For example, it's not gonna say "Hey everyone else on the team, Joe Smith makes $70k!")

It's now required for salary ranges for each job title to be published. I see this as a net positive on a couple of fronts.

1) With layoffs happening in some geographical regions and in certain sectors, there's going to be a lot of job changing in the coming few years. Which means a lot of people relocating. Knowing what the acceptable range is for a position in a different city can be helpful for potential applicants so they know what a reasonable number is to throw out on an interview and don't ask for too much or too little.

2) It can help existing employees know if they're getting ripped off or not. If a person's been a solid performer and been at their job for 5 years, and they can see that they're at the bottom of the range listed for their position, that can help provide the documentation they need to have a conversation with their boss about an increase.

 

[The IbanezerScrooge]

California forces companies to show pay on job listings, revealing big tech salaries

A new law that went into effect this week requires most California employers to disclose salaries on job listings.

www.cnbc.com

I decided to tell everyone in my life how much I make — even on first dates

We talk about sex and politics and religion. So why is it still so hard to divulge our salaries?

www.businessinsider.com

I think this is a good move on the part of the states that have started doing this.

While the laws don't require employers to divulge what each individual makes (For example, it's not gonna say "Hey everyone else on the team, Joe Smith makes $70k!")

It's now required for salary ranges for each job title to be published. I see this as a net positive on a couple of fronts.

1) With layoffs happening in some geographical regions and in certain sectors, there's going to be a lot of job changing in the coming few years. Which means a lot of people relocating. Knowing what the acceptable range is for a position in a different city can be helpful for potential applicants so they know what a reasonable number is to throw out on an interview and don't ask for too much or too little.

2) It can help existing employees know if they're getting ripped off or not. If a person's been a solid performer and been at their job for 5 years, and they can see that they're at the bottom of the range listed for their position, that can help provide the documentation they need to have a conversation with their boss about an increase.

I agree with this also. My wife is looking for a job right now and it never fails, she finds the "perfect" job description, applies, gets the interview, and as she's being offered the job she's told the pay is minimum wage or otherwise really low. She wouldn't waster her time with it if she knew up front. Super frustrating. Luckily she can afford to be picky right now.

 

[Bradskii]

It's now required for salary ranges for each job title to be published. I see this as a net positive on a couple of fronts.

This surprised me. I didn't think it would be possible to advertise a job without giving some idea of what the job paid. I can't imagine I would have ever applied for a position without having a pretty good idea of at least the minimum wage. Wouldn't someone ask that straight out of the blocks before you even went for an interview?

 

[RocksInMyHead]

This surprised me. I didn't think it would be possible to advertise a job without giving some idea of what the job paid. I can't imagine I would have ever applied for a position without having a pretty good idea of at least the minimum wage. Wouldn't someone ask that straight out of the blocks before you even went for an interview?

We've been conditioned not to - it's considered "rude". I've been job hunting lately, and trying to get someone to tell you straight up what a job pays is like pulling teeth. They also do their best to get as much information out of you as possible - asking what you're looking for in terms of salary or asking your current salary - before they'll even throw out a range most of the time. And a lot of the time they won't even give you that - it's often, "Oh, that's something we can discuss after the interview!" or "We don't give out that information." Super frustrating.

 

[Bradskii]

We've been conditioned not to - it's considered "rude". I've been job hunting lately, and trying to get someone to tell you straight up what a job pays is like pulling teeth. They also do their best to get as much information out of you as possible - asking what you're looking for in terms of salary or asking your current salary - before they'll even throw out a range most of the time. And a lot of the time they won't even give you that - it's often, "Oh, that's something we can discuss after the interview!" or "We don't give out that information." Super frustrating.

Wow, that's like a Dutch auction. They can filter the interviewees based on what people say they want. And quite probably those who are better at what they do will suggest a higher wage. And possibly miss out on an interview. Employee and employer miss out.

I'd intentionally never bring the salary up in an interview and eventually they'd mention that fact. I'd say that the money wasn't important - getting the job was. But I knew the minimum, which they'd invariably offer. And to which I'd immediately agree. But...they had to agree to a review after 6 months. It was then up to me to convince them I was worth more.

 

[ThatRobGuy]

This surprised me. I didn't think it would be possible to advertise a job without giving some idea of what the job paid. I can't imagine I would have ever applied for a position without having a pretty good idea of at least the minimum wage. Wouldn't someone ask that straight out of the blocks before you even went for an interview?

Well, I think a lot of jobs offer "some" idea. But actually posting a recent (and most importantly, accurate) pay range, based on this provision:

Employers are required to maintain detailed records of each job title and its wage history, and California’s labor commissioner can inspect those records.

Is what'll be the difference maker compared to what a lot of companies are doing now, which is either posting an inaccurate pay range, or posting a range so wide that it's pointless.

For instance, if a company says "I have a software engineer position open, the salary range could be anywhere from $40k to $160k", that's not particularly helpful information when compared to a more detailed "For the team that has the opening, the lowest salary in the last 5 years has been $72k, the highest has been $90k"

 

[Desk trauma]

This is a good move that I agree with but not being upfront about pay is a foreign notion to me. In my line of work, industrial construction, a job posting having the pay obfuscated is rare. A recruiter not opening the conversation with what the pay rate will be or failing to give it when asked is unheard of and them not doing so would be to the determent of their company as they would loose the great bulk of their prospective workers at that very moment.

 

[Arcangl86]

I'm looking for work right now, and even in the nonprofit field, this is a huge issue. There are so many jobs that treat salary like some kind of deep dark secret, which is frustrating if I'm trying to figure out if it's worth the time to apply.

 

[RocksInMyHead]

Wow, that's like a Dutch auction. They can filter the interviewees based on what people say they want. And quite probably those who are better at what they do will suggest a higher wage. And possibly miss out on an interview. Employee and employer miss out.

Yup, that's the idea. And because people in the US don't discuss wages in general (again, because it's discouraged as being "rude"), people enter the market with no idea of what they're worth and will happily be underpaid. Ultimately, it's the consequence of focusing on the bottom line above all else.

 

[ThatRobGuy]

Yup, that's the idea. And because people in the US don't discuss wages in general (again, because it's discouraged as being "rude"), people enter the market with no idea of what they're worth and will happily be underpaid. Ultimately, it's the consequence of focusing on the bottom line above all else.

There are two sides of the coin when it comes to the wage secrecy debate.

That's where I think that (and I can't believe I'm saying this), California's new regulations found a good balance and provided a best of both worlds approach.

On one extreme, you had some earlier proposals that suggested that everyone in the company gets to know what everyone else makes. (which anyone in a leadership position could probably write a 20 page essay about how that's a terrible idea and creates a lot of awkward conversations)

On the other extreme, you had some companies some years back implementing rules that sharing your salary with a coworker was grounds for termination. (which is a stupid policy, because unless someone is living wildly above or below their means, everyone has a pretty good idea of anyway, and it's a violation of freedom of speech)

Both of those recommendations are problematic.

Cali's new regulations seem to fit in the sensible middle ground... reveal enough info that gives people reasonable expectations and verifies whether or not they're getting ripped off, but no so much information that it creates inter-office drama.

 

[RocksInMyHead]

On one extreme, you had some earlier proposals that suggested that everyone in the company gets to know what everyone else makes. (which anyone in a leadership position could probably write a 20 page essay about how that's a terrible idea and creates a lot of awkward conversations)

All that means is that leadership doesn't want to have to have the awkward conversation about why Jim makes more than Patty despite them having the same job title and being hired in the same year. But that's an easily fixable problem. If you can't adequately explain why one person earns more than another, then either they shouldn't earn more or you shouldn't be in leadership. I currently work in state government, and all salaries are public knowledge. Hasn't created any awkward conversations that I've witnessed.

On the other extreme, you had some companies some years back implementing rules that sharing your salary with a coworker was grounds for termination. (which is a stupid policy, because unless someone is living wildly above or below their means, everyone has a pretty good idea of anyway, and it's a violation of freedom of speech)

It also violates federal labor laws.

 

[ThatRobGuy]

All that means is that leadership doesn't want to have to have the awkward conversation about why Jim makes more than Patty despite them having the same job title and being hired in the same year. But that's an easily fixable problem. If you can't adequately explain why one person earns more than another, then either they shouldn't earn more or you shouldn't be in leadership. I currently work in state government, and all salaries are public knowledge. Hasn't created any awkward conversations that I've witnessed.

It can create awkward conversations, because even if you outline the reasons why Jim makes more than Patty, Patty is unlikely to be happy with the explanation and will still likely resent you and Jim.

Perhaps it's different in the realm of certain government work (since it's my understanding that salaries based purely on tenure are more commonplace), but in the private sector, that's not as much the case.

The IT field is one area with this is especially true. As someone who leads an IT team... (and I'm sure anyone else in a similar position can attest to this in any field where it some "ego" at play)

If you lead a team of 10 people, two things will be true:
1) you'll have 10 people who all think they're the MVP of the team and should make the most
2) 9 of them will be wrong

I've had to have those kinds of conversations with people before... You sit Patty down and explain why Jim makes more. The next few months are Patty coming to your office every time Jim makes a mistake, or "not no subtly" dropping lines into conversations to convey the idea that she did something better than Jim, etc...


I think California found the reasonable middle ground on this, which is, provide an accurate range based on the salaries for that job title over the past 5 years, but without getting so granular as to publish that "Jim makes more than Patty" with specificity .

 

[NxNW]

I like the idea of requiring a pay range in theory, but in practice it may not be as helpful as you might want. In some sales fields there is a base pay and also a quarterly performance bonus. The higher up you are, the more the bonus figures in, until it completely overwhelms the base pay. Or overtime could be a big factor. Some job postings will avoid publishing a pay range and then state that the position is not open to applicants from states that require publishing the pay range.

 

[archer75]

This surprised me. I didn't think it would be possible to advertise a job without giving some idea of what the job paid. I can't imagine I would have ever applied for a position without having a pretty good idea of at least the minimum wage. Wouldn't someone ask that straight out of the blocks before you even went for an interview?

I have never seen a job posted in my field with the money listed.

And if you ask you don't get interviewed.

 

[RocksInMyHead]

It can create awkward conversations, because even if you outline the reasons why Jim makes more than Patty, Patty is unlikely to be happy with the explanation and will still likely resent you and Jim.

Perhaps it's different in the realm of certain government work (since it's my understanding that salaries based purely on tenure are more commonplace), but in the private sector, that's not as much the case.

The IT field is one area with this is especially true. As someone who leads an IT team... (and I'm sure anyone else in a similar position can attest to this in any field where it some "ego" at play)

If you lead a team of 10 people, two things will be true:
1) you'll have 10 people who all think they're the MVP of the team and should make the most
2) 9 of them will be wrong

I've had to have those kinds of conversations with people before... You sit Patty down and explain why Jim makes more. The next few months are Patty coming to your office every time Jim makes a mistake, or "not no subtly" dropping lines into conversations to convey the idea that she did something better than Jim, etc...


I think California found the reasonable middle ground on this, which is, provide an accurate range based on the salaries for that job title over the past 5 years, but without getting so granular as to publish that "Jim makes more than Patty" with specificity .

And if Patty does that, she gets fired for not being a good fit on the team. If she sues, you can point to the reasons you provided as to why Jim makes more - if they're good enough, she won't have a case. If they aren't, then maybe you should have given her a raise. (I know the legal system isn't necessarily so cut-and-dried, but this is all a hypothetical situation).

I'm not saying that we absolutely should have full salary transparency (it has been instituted in some places, with mixed success: This Country Publishes Everyone’s Income on ‘National Jealousy Day’), just that the whole "management doesn't want to have awkward conversations" bit is a major cop-out.

 

[ThatRobGuy]

I like the idea of requiring a pay range in theory, but in practice it may not be as helpful as you might want. In some sales fields there is a base pay and also a quarterly performance bonus. The higher up you are, the more the bonus figures in, until it completely overwhelms the base pay. Or overtime could be a big factor. Some job postings will avoid publishing a pay range and then state that the position is not open to applicants from states that require publishing the pay range.

For certain fields that are highly tied to performance or commission, you're correct. But I would have to think that people going into those fields are already well aware of that.

For instance, sales positions, car salesman, wait staff, etc...

For those, if you wanted anything meaningful, base pay alone wouldn't be a valuable metric and some other numbers would have to be factored in. But the amount of time and data collection on that would be exhausting, and I think what Cali has done here is a decent step for 90% of the jobs out there.

 

[ThatRobGuy]

And if Patty does that, she gets fired for not being a good fit on the team. If she sues, you can point to the reasons you provided as to why Jim makes more - if they're good enough, she won't have a case. If they aren't, then maybe you should have given her a raise. (I know the legal system isn't necessarily so cut-and-dried, but this is all a hypothetical situation).

I'm not saying that we absolutely should have full salary transparency (it has been instituted in some places, with mixed success: This Country Publishes Everyone’s Income on ‘National Jealousy Day’), just that the whole "management doesn't want to have awkward conversations" bit is a major cop-out.

I don't think it's a cop-out.

It's a matter of not wanting to create a toxic work environment that didn't need to exist. I wouldn't publish my team's specific salary info for the same reason I wouldn't publicize the fact that a team member was in a 90 probation period for making too many careless mistakes.