The implications of a new salary disclosure law that takes effect next month in Washington state:
Employers in Washington state will be required to include the minimum and maximum salary they're willing to pay on job listings beginning next month, when a new law designed to improve pay equity and empower workers takes effect.
The law applies to companies with more than 15 employees that do business in Washington or recruit employees who are based in the state. If a position is remote and employees in Washington could apply for it, then the salary range must be disclosed.
The new requirements, signed into law earlier this year and clarified by rules released in November, will usher in a new era of salary transparency for the tech industry, which often keeps compensation data private to gain an edge over competitors in the labor market. Washington will become one of several states and cities mandating salary disclosure in a trend that's driving big tech companies to change their policies nationwide.
"With pay transparency, the genie is out of the bottle and there is no going back," said Maggie Hulce, executive vice president and general manager of enterprise for Indeed, via email. "By setting clearer pay expectations upfront between a job seeker and employer, better matches happen — faster."
Hulce also noted that these laws can help "close pay gaps that still exist across gender, race/ethnicity and other factors."
California, Colorado, New York City, and other jurisdictions have enacted salary disclosure laws in recent months. The laws are forcing some companies to list salary ranges for remote positions. A listing for a remote senior software engineer position at Microsoft notes: "for the state of Colorado, the salary range for this role is from $133,900-$200,900." Another for a remote Salesforce engineer includes ranges for both those based in California ($146,600-$258,700) and Washington state ($133,400-$215,600).
Proponents say these laws keep workers from leaving money on the table by shifting the onus of valuing work from candidates to employers.
But critics worry the law could hurt Washington's competitiveness in a tight labor market. They have also expressed concern that public compensation data may be a disadvantage for workers because employers could offer less money based on a candidate's previous salary.
The legislation is written to protect against that practice, however. Employers are prohibited from seeking past salary information about candidates or asking how much they earned in their previous position on a job application.
[...] "The pay transparency moment is here," said Christine Hendrickson, vice president of strategic initiatives at the Seattle pay equity software startup Syndio.
Hendrickson has spent the past year hosting roundtables with employers and workers on salary transparency laws, in addition to advising clients on compliance. She said many employers were reluctant but have now accepted that salary transparency will soon be expected by job seekers across the country.
"Resistant or not, your employees are demanding it and if you're not providing the information ... employees and applicants are going to fill in those gaps," she said. "And it's often with misinformation."
Washington's new law goes beyond salary transparency in job listings with additional rules designed to make compensation more equitable:
- It requires employers to provide equal pay to "similarly-employed" workers regardless of gender, race, or identity differences.
- Companies are allowed to consider differences in experience, seniority, or work performance, as well as regional compensation trends.
- Employers can't stop employees from discussing their wages with each other or retaliate against them from doing so under the law.
(Score: 2) by looorg on Saturday December 24, @03:14PM (3 children)
While nice to at least have a range those ranges or are not exactly that helpful. It's a sum or pretty much almost double that sum. I guess the ballpark might be nice but it's one hell of a ballpark in the difference. That said I'm not sure why I don't like it when they ask me how much I want to do something. I much prefer it when I can flip it around and ask, or know, what they are offering for me to do it for them. That way if the sum doesn't match one can just decline or not even bother offering.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by Immerman on Saturday December 24, @03:53PM
Seems to me this is could be move towards redefining "pay transparency" away from "how much are current employees actually making" and towards "vague up front pricing".
Still better than nothing when looking at new jobs though. And also makes your potential employer's integrity obvious at the salary negotiation table - if you're overqualified and they still offer you the low end of the spectrum then you know right away they're intentionally deceptive with their (potential) employees, and can factor that into the vehemence of your "Fuck off you assholes!"response.
(Score: 2) by JoeMerchant on Saturday December 24, @05:02PM
If you are hired for a role with an advertised range of $50k-100k, and "due to your lack of experience" you are offered $50k and accept, the expectation is that you should advance in compensation over time with good performance.
If, after 5 years, you are still at 60k in that same role, it is pretty clear you should be pursuing other opportunities, possibly hopping to a similar role now advertised at $60k to 120k, and with 5 years experience and good performance in the role, you should expect an offer around $90k or better. If you get such an offer, it might be a good way to incentivize your current employer for a raise to $100k+, and/or other working terms more valuable to you (advancement to another role, shorter work hours for the same pay, etc.)
It will take a long time to move the US to full salary transparency, but every little step in the right direction helps.
Україна досі не є частиною Росії Слава Україні🌻 https://news.stanford.edu/2023/02/17/will-russia-ukraine-war-end
(Score: 2) by legont on Sunday December 25, @09:35AM
The discussion part that can't be prohibited is nice. "Hey boys and girls I just got $300K from them" published on Facebook will do wonders for salary negotiations.
"Wealth is the relentless enemy of understanding" - John Kenneth Galbraith.
(Score: 2) by Immerman on Saturday December 24, @04:00PM (7 children)
Isn't attempting to stop that already illegal under federal employment laws? It's kinda essential to union effectiveness, and I was pretty sure one of the few union protections offered at the federal level.
Not that another layer of protection is a bad thing.
(Score: 1) by Runaway1956 on Saturday December 24, @04:27PM (5 children)
I don't know about legality on the federal scale. But it has always amused me that employers think your wages are top secret. Out here, in the real world, everyone knows that Company A pay sucks, Company B sucks a little less, and Company C sucks even less. If you can get in the door at Company G, you're doing alright. But, never take a job at Evil Corp - you'll have all the money you ever want, but you have to sell your soul to get it.
Abortion is the number one killed of children in the United States.
(Score: 3, Funny) by JoeMerchant on Saturday December 24, @05:15PM (4 children)
Where is this Evil Corp? I'd like to apply.
Україна досі не є частиною Росії Слава Україні🌻 https://news.stanford.edu/2023/02/17/will-russia-ukraine-war-end
(Score: 1) by Runaway1956 on Saturday December 24, @07:21PM (3 children)
Call Elliot Alderson at 555-1212. He can hook you up.
https://www.imdb.com/title/tt4158110/ [imdb.com]
Abortion is the number one killed of children in the United States.
(Score: 2) by JoeMerchant on Saturday December 24, @08:37PM (2 children)
CIA actually had recruiters at my University, they didn't make an appealing pitch to me or anyone I knew, but apparently they get a few fresh faces every year.
Україна досі не є частиною Росії Слава Україні🌻 https://news.stanford.edu/2023/02/17/will-russia-ukraine-war-end
(Score: 2) by legont on Sunday December 25, @09:37AM (1 child)
Do they openly advertise compensation?
"Wealth is the relentless enemy of understanding" - John Kenneth Galbraith.
(Score: 2) by JoeMerchant on Sunday December 25, @04:53PM
In 1990? As much as anyone else, kinda vague: depends on your career path sort of story.
I think it was in line with an EE job to start: $30k for a BS, $35k for a MS, they weren't trying to offer more money to get people to sign.
Україна досі не є частиною Росії Слава Україні🌻 https://news.stanford.edu/2023/02/17/will-russia-ukraine-war-end
(Score: 2) by JoeMerchant on Saturday December 24, @05:09PM
In 1995, a 20+ year employee of a hospital I worked with more or less snapped one day and went around quoting various doctors' and administrators' salaries. They let her go specifically for that reason, though it was clear she had a lot of underlying job dissatisfaction too (research assistant isn't supposed to be a 30 year career...)
I have often wondered since then if she has a case against the hospital for wrongful dismissal. I believe this was just before Florida went "Employment at will" which would have meant they could let her go after 20+ years for no reason at all, under an at will contract.
Україна досі не є частиною Росії Слава Україні🌻 https://news.stanford.edu/2023/02/17/will-russia-ukraine-war-end
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday December 24, @04:30PM (6 children)
Could a company simply refuse to offer the job to Washington residents to get around this?
(Score: 2) by sjames on Saturday December 24, @06:58PM (3 children)
The list of need not apply states will grow until they can't find employees anymore. Even people not from Washington will see that refusal as a giant red flag.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday December 24, @07:26PM (2 children)
This just encourages companies to hire foreign workers instead of U.S. citizens. Thank your State government for screwing you.
(Score: 2, Disagree) by JoeMerchant on Saturday December 24, @08:51PM
Fat domestic salary expectations do that already, this law will have minimal impact compared with down home greed and laziness.
Україна досі не є частиною Росії Слава Україні🌻 https://news.stanford.edu/2023/02/17/will-russia-ukraine-war-end
(Score: 2) by sjames on Sunday December 25, @09:43AM
If they could have done that, they already would have.
(Score: 2) by legont on Sunday December 25, @09:41AM (1 child)
My question too and I doubt it. It appears any company that does not satisfy this law can be sued for rather serious violation regardless of its connection to Washington State.
"Wealth is the relentless enemy of understanding" - John Kenneth Galbraith.
(Score: 2) by legont on Sunday December 25, @09:50AM
Yep.
"Wealth is the relentless enemy of understanding" - John Kenneth Galbraith.
(Score: 1) by weirsbaski on Sunday December 25, @03:40PM
Of course employers can stop discussions or retaliate later on. What they can't do is tell the employee that this is the specific reason they're being fired. When the axe falls, "discussing their wages" gets communicated as a vague "not a team player", and it's left it to the (now ex) employee to read between the lines.
(Score: 1) by psa on Sunday December 25, @06:20PM
When my company restructured their pay brackets this year, they took the new law into effect. The pay range for my exact position has an upper limit that is three times the lower end of the pay. Scales like this are absolutely useless for determining what a job pays, or how much someone in that position makes. On the plus side, I no longer have to worry about running into a cap on my salary increases (because, obviously, despite my 30 years in the industry, they're not paying me anywhere near the top end of the range).