Top
Best
New

Posted by 1659447091 1 day ago

Britain to make salary disclosure in job ads mandatory(www.reuters.com)
609 points | 453 commentspage 6
worldsavior 1 day ago|
Would that actually be a good thing? When a company publishes the salary range, that means the job seeker agrees to that range, including maybe getting the lower part of the range. Companies know that, and now they have the advantage to put lower ranges.
em-bee 1 day ago||
if i don't agree to the range then i don't need to bother applying. saves me lot's of time.

if i apply despite not liking the range i can still say no and ask for more, but not knowing the range in advance is unlikely to raise the chance of that happening.

WalterBright 1 day ago||
How is that going to work if you interview Bob for X task at Y pay, but discover Bob would be much better suited for A task that is worth more salary? What if Bob didn't meet the requirements for X, but would be a perfect fit for B task that is not worth as much salary?
fpoling 1 day ago||
The requirement is to publish either minimal salary or salary range for the position from the advertisement. If company has several positions available then specific minimal salaries should be given for each.
WalterBright 1 day ago||
Sometimes companies create a specific position for an interviewee after getting to know the candidate. For example, a candidate might have an unexpected unusual skill.
pixelatedindex 1 day ago|||
What does that have to do with providing a salary range for a particular job posting? That specific position created should also have a range - publish that. Normally you have to interview other candidates for this position too.
WalterBright 1 day ago||
That would be making it difficult to adapt the job to fit the person.
pixelatedindex 1 day ago|||
Unless you’re some VP/Director/Distinguished Eng/C-level etc, this doesn’t happen in practice. Those jobs don’t follow normal job posting rules anyway, they’re usually sought out.

99.99% of the time, I doubt the job is ever adapted for the person. They come in with that skillset and are usually expected to grow and meet the needs of the other job areas.

troupo 1 day ago|||
So, you want the 1 in 10 000 (likely 1 in 1 000 000) hyperspecific job posting to affect the rules for the rest?
aspect0545 1 day ago||||
And nothing stops them from doing that
WalterBright 1 day ago||
And then the candidate sues claiming bait and switch.
pjc50 1 day ago|||
The candidate isn't going to complain if you give them _more_.
ChrisRR 1 day ago||||
Why would you sue for that? There's no contract in place
kakacik 1 day ago|||
And in any normal court they will lose since its a different position and they agreed (paper trail) for that switch. Or they could be just let go if company is too careful. Not that such situation happens often in real world, I never even heard about even one.

If they would sue it would also burn their professional creds permanently, nobody sane would ever want to hire such a problematic person.

AngryData 1 day ago|||
Nothing is stopping them from paying more than they advertised or hiring them for another position.
voidUpdate 1 day ago|||
Then you tell Bob about how he would be much better suited for job A or B, explain how the pay is less, and if he's cool with it, directly put his CV into the pile for that job. If he's not cool with it, shake his hand and wish him a good day
WalterBright 1 day ago||
What if there was no job posting with a defined salary for A or B?

Sounds like lose-lose.

voidUpdate 1 day ago||
If you're not hiring for that job, why are you telling Bob that he'd be really well suited there?
ChrisRR 1 day ago|||
Well then they'd be interviewing for a different job. I assume it's no different at any other company where they actually do include the salary range
postexitus 1 day ago|||
Cancel the job posting - advertise again for A task, Bob already passed some of the stages, maybe see a few more candidates for A task and boom you are in business.
skew-aberration 1 day ago|||
Presumably the law will be written to account for advertised role != assigned role, but it can't account for gaming the system by never hiring exactly the advertised position.
WalterBright 1 day ago|||
Sounds like a recipe for a lot of time and money wasted in court.
jimbob45 1 day ago|||
Ideally they reapply if it’s a lesser role and the pay is lower than the previously posted minimum.
specialdragon 1 day ago|||
I suspect that kind of bait and switch will become the norm.
WalterBright 1 day ago||
You can always walk away if you don't like the company's offer.
ElProlactin 1 day ago||
If companies engage in behavior intended to deceive, they are wasting people's time, which has an economic cost >$0.
ahoef 1 day ago|||
Nothing says you can't negotiate, does it?
WalterBright 1 day ago||
The law seems to be about preventing negotiating.
notarobot123 1 day ago||
The law is about information asymmetry. That doesn't prevent negotiation, it just changes the dynamics and power balance.
486sx33 1 day ago|||
[dead]
WalterBright 1 day ago||
The replies are all about workarounds for the law.

So what is the point of the law, if there are all these workarounds?

zerr 1 day ago||
Isn't it a shithole anyway? Outside London, I've seen senior engineer ads for 39K GBP per annum :) I'm pretty sure delivery chaps make much more...
gste 1 day ago||
Labour's approach to problems is to tax employers into oblivion and then say "the reason salaries are so low is because we didn't ban them from posting adverts without salary disclosure".
hdgvhicv 1 day ago||
How is this taxing companies? They already have the data.
gste 1 day ago||
To be clear, I mean employment is already taxed extremely highly.

Burnham put cost of living as his highest priority, then this is the kind of measures he comes out with. If you think more red tape and bureaucracy is going to help then I've got nothing.

hdgvhicv 1 day ago|||
This isn’t red tape or bureaucracy though. Many things are, but not this. Infact it actually reduces waste for both comapnies and citizens because they won’t have people applying who will turn down due to the salary.
gste 1 day ago||
Forcing employers to declare information is bureaucracy.

The opposite to bureaucracy is allowing them to approach hiring however they see fit.

hdgvhicv 1 day ago|||
Hardly an “excessively complicated administrative procedure”
gampleman 1 day ago||
In modern Britain it's death by a thousand cuts for anyone brave enough to start a business in this regulatory environment.
postexitus 1 day ago|||
Opposite to bureaucracy is cash in hand and paying no taxes - that will make the businesses boom.
postexitus 1 day ago|||
Advertising salaries upfront lifts the salaries. Study a bit harder man, you will make it.
blitzar 1 day ago|||
Unlike the other side (tm) ...

Mandatory Gender Pay Gap Reporting (Conservative Party 2017)

Pay Transparency Pilot (Conservative Party 2022) - (Participating employers only) list salary ranges on all job adverts and stop asking applicants for their salary history during recruitment

gampleman 1 day ago||
That's why they call it the uniparty after all.
blitzar 1 day ago||
For some reason cultists get all excited that one particular person is single handedly destroying everything that is great and true - by doing the same thing their lord and saviour does.

This political timeline is the worst.

ChrisRR 1 day ago||
You're really clutching at straws to spin this pro-employee move into some way to claim that Labour are bad
lifestyleguru 1 day ago||
Why do they have to disclose the obvious? The salary is GBP 25000 gross annually.
thaumaturgicon- 1 day ago|
[flagged]