22 ms·

From the "Why does this matter" link on the first page (https://www.coloradoexcluded.com/about https://www.coloradoexcluded.com/about): "Companies are excludin

From the "Why does this matter" link on the first page (https://www.coloradoexcluded.com/about https://www.coloradoexcluded.com/about): "Companies are excluding Colorado from their remote employment opportunities in order to avoid sharing the salary range of their open positions. In May of 2019 SB19-085, titled the Equal Pay For Equal Work Act, was signed into law in Colorado. It's a fairly short read if you're not familiar with it, but its main goal is enabling pay transparency to allow for people to know if they're being discriminated against with their wages and file a complaint with the CDLE. The law went into effect January 1st, 2021. The most visible part of the law has been the requirement for all job listings open to a CO resident to contain a salary range. If you've seen an increase in salary ranges on job postings recently you have this law to thank. Some companies however have decided that excluding all Colorado residents for a remote job that can be filled by someone in any of the other 49 US states is better than sharing how much they're willing to pay..."

dboreham 5y ago
Salary ranges are typically pretty wide though so I'm not sure how much secret info this will leak.
- lotsofpulp 5y ago
  The advertised minimum pay is what matters, as employers will have to increase the minimum pay to attract more and/or quality job applicants.
  - lostcolony 5y ago
    Only if the advertised minimum has to be the actual minimum someone at the company is making, and not a theoretical minimum that the salary band encompasses. Because if it's a theoretical minimum, I don't care about it; I want to know what the maximum is. If it's an actual minimum, I also don't care about it, but the person earning that might.
    - lotsofpulp 5y ago
      If a company offers $1 as their minimum, then applications will know they are a joke. They will have to keep moving this minimum up and up to be taken more seriously. If a company offers $50k as a minimum for a role that most people earn $200k for, then they probably will not get many good people responding to it since who would want to work for a company that could lowball you by $150k? And another company can see that and up their minimum to take advantage. It just helps weed the garbage employers out quickly. Perhaps it will not be as useful in a situation where employers have all the negotiating power where they can list $1, but at least now there is some time saved.
      - munk-a 5y ago
        In theory the minimum and maximum are pretty detached from the actual salary negotiations - since you can bargain up the salary (at least within the range). However, it's like screening resumes by tech keywords - sure that C++ Systems Programmer with 20 years of experience as a senior dev might be able to pick up Java in like a week - but the algorithm didn't see Java anywhere in the resume so into the bin it goes. This is basically just letting employees do a similar first pass of employers that employers are doing on us - if your salary range is bonkers and your senior dev has a low range of 30k then I'm not working there - I don't care if you offer me 150k, you clearly have something toxic going on with your culture so into the bin you go.
bri3d 5y ago
I think many of these companies are simply too lazy to have their compliance department review listings, and have chosen to pull them instead. Which still reflects just as negatively on them, but isn't quite the same. This law is absolutely a great step forward, but I've seen plenty of roles listing pay ranges like "Minimum - $30,200/annual Maximum - $289,200/annual," so I struggle to believe that the actual information disclosure is the issue at hand.
- MattGaiser 5y ago
  The max is helpful too as I keep running into companies that want to pay 60K or 70K.
  - Sohcahtoa82 5y ago
    I had a recruiter e-mail me once to pitch a 6-month PHP programming contract that expected a Master's degree and 5 years experience that was only going to pay $15/hr.
    - MattGaiser 5y ago
      I pity the poor fellow who must advertise that.
- CountDrewku 5y ago
  My guess is it has less to do with laziness and more to do with the financial cost of opening yourself up to lawsuits if you can't prove the wage difference isn't due to sexual discrimination. While I like the idea of forcing these companies to list salary on job posts I'm not sure I agree with the reason the bill was put in place. If I were a company I'd avoid CO as well. Plenty of other places to pick up employees.
  - lotsofpulp 5y ago
    >My guess is it has less to do with laziness and more to do with the financial cost of opening yourself up to lawsuits if you can't prove the wage difference isn't due to sexual discrimination. Why would they not be equally open to that risk right now? I am not seeing any special connection between publicly listing a pay range and an applicant's gender.
umvi 5y ago
> but its main goal is enabling pay transparency to allow for people to know if they're being discriminated against with their wages Won't this just lead to: "hmm, I'm not a white male and I'm making less than average white male salary, therefore I'm being discriminated against" "hmm, I'm not a while male and I'm making more than average white male salary, therefore I'm not being discriminated against"
- only_as_i_fall 5y ago
  Averages have nothing to do with it and I don't know where you're getting that from. The goal is to limit the amount of discretion companies can exercise on a per applicant basis by forcing them to provide a salary range up front. Even if you don't care about discrimination for some reason the law should still have a positive effect on wage transparency which should benefit anyone who works for wages.

dboreham 5y ago

Salary ranges are typically pretty wide though so I'm not sure how much secret info this will leak.

lotsofpulp 5y ago
The advertised minimum pay is what matters, as employers will have to increase the minimum pay to attract more and/or quality job applicants.
- lostcolony 5y ago
  Only if the advertised minimum has to be the actual minimum someone at the company is making, and not a theoretical minimum that the salary band encompasses. Because if it's a theoretical minimum, I don't care about it; I want to know what the maximum is. If it's an actual minimum, I also don't care about it, but the person earning that might.
  - lotsofpulp 5y ago
    If a company offers $1 as their minimum, then applications will know they are a joke. They will have to keep moving this minimum up and up to be taken more seriously. If a company offers $50k as a minimum for a role that most people earn $200k for, then they probably will not get many good people responding to it since who would want to work for a company that could lowball you by $150k? And another company can see that and up their minimum to take advantage. It just helps weed the garbage employers out quickly. Perhaps it will not be as useful in a situation where employers have all the negotiating power where they can list $1, but at least now there is some time saved.
    - munk-a 5y ago
      In theory the minimum and maximum are pretty detached from the actual salary negotiations - since you can bargain up the salary (at least within the range). However, it's like screening resumes by tech keywords - sure that C++ Systems Programmer with 20 years of experience as a senior dev might be able to pick up Java in like a week - but the algorithm didn't see Java anywhere in the resume so into the bin it goes. This is basically just letting employees do a similar first pass of employers that employers are doing on us - if your salary range is bonkers and your senior dev has a low range of 30k then I'm not working there - I don't care if you offer me 150k, you clearly have something toxic going on with your culture so into the bin you go.

bri3d 5y ago

I think many of these companies are simply too lazy to have their compliance department review listings, and have chosen to pull them instead. Which still reflects just as negatively on them, but isn't quite the same. This law is absolutely a great step forward, but I've seen plenty of roles listing pay ranges like "Minimum - $30,200/annual Maximum - $289,200/annual," so I struggle to believe that the actual information disclosure is the issue at hand.

MattGaiser 5y ago
The max is helpful too as I keep running into companies that want to pay 60K or 70K.
- Sohcahtoa82 5y ago
  I had a recruiter e-mail me once to pitch a 6-month PHP programming contract that expected a Master's degree and 5 years experience that was only going to pay $15/hr.
  - MattGaiser 5y ago
    I pity the poor fellow who must advertise that.
CountDrewku 5y ago
My guess is it has less to do with laziness and more to do with the financial cost of opening yourself up to lawsuits if you can't prove the wage difference isn't due to sexual discrimination. While I like the idea of forcing these companies to list salary on job posts I'm not sure I agree with the reason the bill was put in place. If I were a company I'd avoid CO as well. Plenty of other places to pick up employees.
- lotsofpulp 5y ago
  >My guess is it has less to do with laziness and more to do with the financial cost of opening yourself up to lawsuits if you can't prove the wage difference isn't due to sexual discrimination. Why would they not be equally open to that risk right now? I am not seeing any special connection between publicly listing a pay range and an applicant's gender.

umvi 5y ago

> but its main goal is enabling pay transparency to allow for people to know if they're being discriminated against with their wages Won't this just lead to: "hmm, I'm not a white male and I'm making less than average white male salary, therefore I'm being discriminated against" "hmm, I'm not a while male and I'm making more than average white male salary, therefore I'm not being discriminated against"

only_as_i_fall 5y ago
Averages have nothing to do with it and I don't know where you're getting that from. The goal is to limit the amount of discretion companies can exercise on a per applicant basis by forcing them to provide a salary range up front. Even if you don't care about discrimination for some reason the law should still have a positive effect on wage transparency which should benefit anyone who works for wages.