Top
Best
New

Posted by 1659447091 1 day ago

Britain to make salary disclosure in job ads mandatory(www.reuters.com)
606 points | 451 commentspage 2
miki123211 1 day ago|
My issue with mandated ranges is how to require the range to be narrow enough, without preventing the candidate from negotiating?

If you don't have any narrowness requirements, you can have a job where the range is $50k-500k, which is useless. If you narrow it to — let's say — 10% of the midpoint, you can say $180k-220k, but then you're not allowed to hire the perfect candidate who won't accept less than $250k, even though you would actually want to pay this much given that person's skills. If the candidate is allowed to negotiate upwards, ranges may gradually, over the course of years, drift downwards, with an implicit understanding that they are unrepresentative of the actual salary you are likely to earn.

With an infinite number of employers and an infinite number of candidates, you would always be able to find the perfect candidate for your mix of requirements and pay them the exact salary that matches those requirements. The real world isn't like that, though, and if you, as an employer, have an offer available, you will get candidates who are under and over qualified for the specific offer you had in mind, and you might nevertheless be able to find a spot for them at some salary that both of you are willing to accept.

lelanthran 1 day ago||
> My issue with mandated ranges is how to require the range to be narrow enough, without preventing the candidate from negotiating?

So few candidates so rarely have the power to negotiate above what the hidden range already is, that this is a non-issue.

We really shouldn't be deciding policy based on the outliers, besides which those people (the outliers) that can dictate a number higher than the range already set aren't hired from advertisements anyway, making the whole "but we can't do this because it would affect those who don't apply respond to job ads"...

halJordan 1 day ago|||
No one is saying you cannot negotiate. It's forcing them to simply make the first offer as opposed to making an offer at all.
carlosjobim 1 day ago|||
> but then you're not allowed to hire the perfect candidate who won't accept less than $250k

You are allowed to hire whoever you want. How could you come to your conclusion? You are allowed to hire people without making job ads at all, for that matter. You are allowed to hire 10 people for a position even if you only advertised 1. And of course you are allowed to pay more than initially advertised.

paxy 1 day ago||
> but then you're not allowed to hire the perfect candidate who won't accept less than $250k

Says who? No one is saying you aren't allowed to go over the advertised range.

gadders 1 day ago||
This is great news and an easy win. Not disclosing salary information disproportionately affects people from a lower socio-economic background.
mppm 1 day ago||
I understand the frustration this is born from, but find it hard to imagine a practical rule set that will actually do more good than harm.

1. To be meaningful at all, the legislation must only allow narrow ranges, e.g. 10%, so that employers can't put 30-90K in the description.

2. In addition, you would have to make the application very specific to a given position. If the employer can say "you don't qualify for L7 that you applied for, buuut... we could transfer your application to the L5 track", then we are back to where we started.

3. On the other hand, any super-rigid rule like this will hurt both employers and employees who are actually trying to fill a real position. It will hurt even more the few remaining companies that are looking for people and not just labeled cogs in the machine.

I want this to work, but it has the smell of compliance theater.

DonsDiscountGas 21 hours ago||
I dunno I see a lot of broad ranges in the US but it's still a lot better than nothing. And they can list multiple levels in the job ad. I can see these being pointless but I can't imagine it being harmful.
BobaFloutist 22 hours ago||
>2. In addition, you would have to make the application very specific to a given position. If the employer can say "you don't qualify for L7 that you applied for, buuut... we could transfer your application to the L5 track", then we are back to where we started.

In banking, there's various thresholds for transfers or deposits or withdrawals that require scrutiny or reporting. There's also laws that amount to "Don't fuck with us" around deliberately narrowly avoiding those thresholds.

I think that this law could have a similar "Don't fuck with us" clause, where a company can reasonably adjust what jobs they offer people that apply to their posted jobs occasionally, but if they're clearly deliberately misleading applicants, they get penalized enough to make it cost more than they benefit.

serhack_ 1 day ago||
In Italy this feature has become mandatory this summer and we've been observing some good patterns (companies that do not find anyone because the salary is too low compared to responsibilities). We have also seen interesting hacks, companies reporting from 20k to 150k for an intership position.
skizm 1 day ago||
I agree this is overall great, and will work for most companies and jobs. I'm wondering how it will work for companies where bonuses and RSUs / stock is a large part of their compensation. Or companies where their compensation legitimately has incredibly wide ranges. FAANG, big tech companies, banks, etc. can plausibly say "£100k up to [insert absurdly large number]" when talking about engineers, especially if they're hiring specialty roles like PhDs.
dam_jackalopes 1 day ago|
We have salary disclosure in our State which requires you to give a "general overview" of other compensation beyond salary. My guess is they'd mandate something similar. What I do still see are the absurd ranges. I think I had a range of something like 70% between min and max in my current role when I took it? The effect has been that the "range" becomes a mandate to post a minimum that you'll actually pay in terms of salary with the max number on the range having little basis in reality.
QuiEgo 1 day ago||
They need to make sure it’s total comp (equity and bonus) while they are at it. The CA postings that only show base salary are borderline useless
lbriner 1 day ago||
I am not sure this will do what I think it is designed to do. The current problem is, for example, people who are not confident enough to ask for more money being paid consistently less than others who are doing the same job. These people are likely to be female and/or from a minority group.

The problem is, if you haven't noticed yet, that it might work for a low/semi-skilled job like e.g an estate agent "£25-30K + £10K OTE bonus depending on experience". But it doesn't work for artistic or highly bespoke jobs like doctors, lawyers, some types of engineers etc. where the salary range can be much larger. Does it really help anyone to say, "Wanted: Software Engineers. Salary £25-100K depending on experience and skill"? Lots of ads already show that, people might think they are worth near the top end and get low-balled with an offer (fairly or unfairly) whereas the people who are not confident are still likely to get paid less money.

As for telling everyone what everyone is paid, that opens even more cans of worms. It is not always easy to describe that the other person gets paid £10K more than you because they have e.g. "a better attitude" (says who?), "is more productive" (based on what?) etc. and tbh, it is not usually completely objective.

Sometimes ignorance is bliss. If you are all about money, then ask for what you think you are worth and if you don't get it, move jobs. I think what other people get paid should be nothing to do with you.

cattenwallen 1 day ago|
> The current problem is, for example, people who are not confident enough to ask for more money being paid consistently less than others who are doing the same job.

As far as I know, women who ask for more money are received less positively than men! So the risk/reward calculus for women and minorities are different, since ambition actually hurts you more.

lazka 1 day ago||
That's already the case where I live, but some companies use the trick that they advertise a job with high salary, and once you apply they says "sadly this job is no longer available, but we have this similar one we haven't advertised yet", which of course comes with lower salary.
Good4boothee 1 day ago||
I hope this will a real law, not the phony one passed here. They should literally exile from country the person responsible for that mockery. It goes something like this: The salary range has to be included in job add or provided to job seeker at the latest upon signing the contract.

That entire sentence could be stricken out and nothing would change.

tefkah 1 day ago||
What?? That’s ridiculous, in which country do you live? Oss there ever a situation where they wouldn’t provide the salary even on the contract?
arcza 1 day ago||
>literally exile from country

What? And sort your grammar out, I got a headache reading it.

BobaFloutist 22 hours ago||
> I got a headache reading it.

You should probably speak to a neurologist about that, their grammar was hardly egregious

dorienh 14 hours ago|
Awesome. Salary shouldn't be so secretive as it is right now.
More comments...