Just like the “can’t charge extra for using a credit card” law. Prices went up and gas stations give a cash discount.
There are true superstars out there that some companies can afford to compensate properly, but they are generally remarkably atypical and their salary is irrelevant to what a person of ordinary talent and experience can expect. I think it is great that some of them are worth and can be paid nearly $1M / year, but I wouldn't expect that to be relevant to the salary negotiation of most engineers taking a job with similar duties.
As the range is based on total comp, it makes sense. If you are at the bottom of that range (which is likely just the base salary), you will probably be laid off (Netflix is transparent about this). It's still a massive range. I wonder how much of that total comp range is due to them estimating a certain amount of volatility (50%? 100%?) in their stock price.
In this case, they are reporting potential base because of their somewhat unique comp structure.
The pressure is very real and lots of people get fired quickly (a PM I worked with said she saw over 20 engineers let go in the 2 years she was there) but I find that the ones that stay at Netflix for a long time love it and are never worried about being fired.
Meanwhile, Netflix offers flexibility in choosing base vs. equity rewards. So, while not required to, Netflix is providing the total comp guidance:
"This market range is based on total compensation (vs. only base salary), which is in line with our compensation philosophy."
Maybe, though Netflix just seems to just be blatantly violating the law, and the probably-unreasonable width of the range isn’t the most bright-line way. (Explicitly using total compensation instead of the mandatory salary or hourly wage is.)
In this case, they are reporting potential base because of their somewhat unique comp structure.
Salary lower than minimum wage? No legal minimum parental leave granted? Hazardous work environment? Just quit and apply somewhere else!
“Why don’t you tell me?”
[0] even ignoring the sizs of the range and the use of “reasonably expects” in the law, which I suspect, unless there are some very unusual factual circumstances applicable to the position, would also be problematic
[1] Cal Labor Code 432.3(m)(1) as adopted in SB 1162 of 2022.
Netflix uses “total compensation” to mean “total compensation excluding benefits”?
Or Netflix has no (including those required by federal and state law for an employer of their size) benefits?
(And it doesn’t, as it was previously reported to, have “free option” as part of its employee equity program that provides an amount equal to 5% of salary for stock option purchases, which would be very much a non-salary-or-hourly-wage part of total comp?)
> What gender identity do you most closely identify with?
> Are you a person of transgender experience?
> Please select the race and/or ethnic identities you identify with
> What sexual orientation do you most closely identify with?
> Do you live with a disability (as outlined by the ADA)?
But employees/candidates are not themselves required to answer the questions. And if they do, employers are forbidden from using the information for discriminatory purposes.
(Realistically, if somebody is intent on discriminating based on race/sex/etc., they're going to do it based on the candidate's self-presentation, regardless of how they answer the questionnaire.)
It's also illegal for them to make decisions based off these. I have no idea how you would know if they did or not but that's what they say.
Of course this somehow ends up with companies using "helps our dei score" as a major criterion for which candidate to pick.
I know some companies are now working to ensure that they no longer have a single listing for a job into which you could hire people at different levels, so that they can better honor the spirit of the law. It would be nice if the law itself ensured had a way to enforce or ensure that sort of behavior, but I don’t know what that would look like.
And then because Netflix considered themselves a "dream team" snowflake, they even have a "we may decide to fire you if you're not the absolute best each week every week". But because of how they implement that, it really means "we'll fire you if you and your manager don't click". From https://jobs.netflix.com/culture:
"To strengthen our dream team, our managers use a “keeper test” for each of their people: if a team member was leaving for a similar role at another company, would the manager try to keep them? Those who do not pass the keeper test (i.e. their manager would not fight to keep them) are given a generous severance package so we can find someone even better for that position—making an even better dream team. Being on a dream team is the thrill of a professional lifetime, and team members are incredibly supportive of each other. This is why "You make time to help colleagues across Netflix succeed" is a valued behavior."
This is not a good company to work for, even if the people working there are amazing people to work with.
> the salary or hourly wage range that the employer reasonably expects to pay for the position.
This posting likely violates it as the position specifies a level and at that specific level that whole range is not reasonable.
However enforcement requires a complaint:
> 432.3. (d) (1) A person who claims to be aggrieved by a violation of this section may file a written complaint with the Labor Commissioner within one year after the date the person learned of the violation. The complaint shall state the name and address of the employer and shall provide a detailed account of the alleged violation, as may be required by the Labor Commissioner.
and the fines aren't large.
> (4) Upon finding that an employer has violated this section, the Labor Commissioner may order the employer to pay a civil penalty of no less than one hundred dollars ($100) and no more than ten thousand dollars ($10,000) per violation. The Labor Commissioner shall determine the amount of the penalty based on the totality of the circumstances, including, but not limited to, whether the employer has previously violated this section. For a first violation of subdivision (c), no penalty shall be assessed upon demonstration by the employer that all job postings for open positions have been updated to include the pay scale as required by this section.
Although there's also the possibility of getting a court order to get them to fix it:
> (2) A person who claims to be aggrieved by a violation of this section may also bring a civil action for injunctive relief and any other relief that the court deems appropriate.
ref: https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displaySectio...
The law specifies that the range must represent the reasonable expectation of the employer of pay for the position, so, were it challenged, it would be a question of fact if that whole range really was both the employers actual expected range, and whether the exepctation of the whole width of the range was objectively reasonable.
Nothing wrong with this. I personally find titles annoying, compensation ceilings based on titles moreso, so this would seem a decent culture filter. (I also like working with teams and seeing colleagues as, if not necessarily friends, very close acquaintances, so Netflix wouldn’t be a fit.)
Colorado has had this law for a while. Has this been studied?
Even if not the case here, isn't that to be expected then? Volatility in share price will put a big range in that figure for companies with less of the total comp in cash base salary.
Also, RSU+cash salaries are almost universally quoted in year-of Total Direct Compensation, that is share value of the newly granted shares at the time they are granted each year, so volatility doesn't affect the TDC, only the actual realized TC.
That said, this could easily become the norm should enough companies do the same thing.
https://www.levels.fyi/companies/netflix/salaries/software-e...
In the samples,
L5: 610k
L3: 70k
Hard working Engineers- 1.
California virtue signaling bureaucrats - 0.