undefined | Better HN

0 pointsllbeansandrice4y ago0 comments

I'm unsure of exact enforcement and such but you could report them if you wanted. I also don't mind FAANG so much since there's so much info available for those positions on like levels.fyi.

The biggest strength for me is that I can ask them and they have to tell me. When I was job searching before I'd ask the recruiter and then they'd always ask me what my target is. Not showing your cards is like negotiation 101. Plus it's made fielding messages and emails easier. If they provide a range, I can just easily say "This position sounds interesting but unfortunately the salary range isn't what I'm looking for currently."

You're right that a lot of positions aren't great about this, I've literally seen "Pay starting at $0.01" or ranges literally $30k to +$200k. But I've seen it as a benefit in the negotiation process and it's just been easier to field recruiters.

> total comp

This law only covers salary as far as I know, so equity and such aren't included. Total comp is different.

0 comments

sgerenser4y ago

True but if equity is ~50% of compensation at many tech companies, but also varies hugely, being forced to reveal base pay doesn’t mean much.

llbeansandriceOP4y ago

I guess not, but this is also a law that applies to _all_ job postings for CO. I feel like a lot of people are criticizing this law when I see it as an absolute step in the right direction.

It's not perfect, but I feel like it's wildly helpful for a ton of people. It helps transparency for a lot of positions and I feel like it rewards honest companies. If equity and bonuses are a big part I think it reduces the overhead for talking about salary to clear the way to talk more about equity and bonuses.

It's also in the early stages and CO is the only state with a law that requires disclosure up-front to my knowledge (someone mentioned CA has a law, but they only have to answer if asked). It feels like a fantastic first-step to me.

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse