[deleted]
Comments
ctindel t1_iukpsr2 wrote
Also it's telling that they wrote the law as "salary" and not "total comp".
Loxodontox t1_iukpysn wrote
Yep. They are already looking to outsource to agencies the law does not include. The biggest issue may actually being the fact that they advertise positions for a salary higher than that of existing workers in the position lol
redditorium t1_iukq1e2 wrote
> Starting Nov. 1,
[deleted] OP t1_iukq8jl wrote
[deleted]
redcremesoda t1_iukqedo wrote
Salary range, $0 - $500,000
ctindel t1_iukqwmf wrote
Salary ranges for any given position are huge in general. But on top of that you have all the extra variability because of bonuses, commission, stock, etc. Two people could easily get the same "salary" and have wildly different total comp.
Loxodontox t1_iukr1xg wrote
His would be a fantastic development if I KNEW it would not have a workaround. It should be done for the benefit of the companies. They need to compete for workers so the workers know this and give Effort in the job
whata2021 t1_iukrim8 wrote
They’re not showing on LinkedIn
[deleted] OP t1_iukrwor wrote
[deleted]
whata2021 t1_iukuyx2 wrote
Yep I just looked on the JPM careers site and see the salaries reflected. Thanks
fizzymynizzy t1_iukvlfd wrote
Did you even read the NYC pdf? It already said you can't do that. Also, $0 is slave labor.
SheepherderFew3844 t1_iukx201 wrote
Fukin ridiculous. City council does nothing but pass insane and absurd laws for the private sector which clearly none of them have ever worked
orb_king t1_iukx6rs wrote
Yes and no - I dunno about you, but I’m not very interested in tech stocks as compensation right now. When the market is blowing up like it was last year? I’d totally agree with you.
redmandoss t1_iukzekc wrote
I think it’s the other way around. People with grant dates from last year have worthless options now. Getting in low is how you actually make $
Smashability5391 t1_iukzq07 wrote
Already started that conversation. Thank you NY state!
PZeroNero t1_iul04bp wrote
Cool I’ll ask for 500k
redcremesoda t1_iul0gqh wrote
That’s not the point. There will assuredly be some amount of boilerplate text.
danram207 t1_iul0nvk wrote
Recruiter here. My company explained today why this will happen. If we have an open Analyst position that can operate out of our Atlanta and New York offices, and the pay range for Atlanta is 60 to 75k, and for NYC, it's 85k to 100k, our job posting is going to list the pay range as 60 to 100k.
Obv. not as drastic as your example, but multiply this by multiple regions and pay ranges are going to come across as inflated.
Healthyred555 t1_iul0o96 wrote
I think this is a net positive move
HegemonNYC t1_iul12jh wrote
Some states already have this, and there are just very large ranges, like 90-160k. I was applying for jobs with 50k ranges. I suppose it tells you ‘this is entry level’ vs ‘this is mid career’, but that is about it.
the_lamou t1_iul1geh wrote
All employment agencies are covered by this law regardless of how many people they place or where or how.
down_up__left_right t1_iul1xkp wrote
Total comp would have employers adding in everything possible like the PTO hours, insurance benefits, commuter transit benefits, holidays, the cookies they bring into the office once a month, etc. There's lot more room for loopholes if it's total comp vs. just simply the yearly base salary.
Beyond giving less loopholes I would personally prefer to quickly see salary up front in the job listing and then look more in depth at total comp once I actually had the offer.
People in fields where the yearly bonus is huge compared to the base salary may feel differently but this law should cut through a lot of bullshit in fields not like that.
D14DFF0B t1_iul21yk wrote
I'm not aware of any public companies still granting options. It's all RSUs.
D14DFF0B t1_iul28qt wrote
It's industry standard. Netflix pays all cash as do most finance firms. Other than that, you're getting RSUs (if public) or options (if pre-IPO).
ctindel t1_iul2e68 wrote
Your annual pay is the same regardless of how much PTO they give you though I definitely agree its part of the package. WFH falls into the same bucket I'd say.
> There's also a lot more room for loopholes if it's total comp vs. just simply the yearly base salary.
Sure but if they have to publish "people in this job level in NYC last year made somewhere in the range of $75k - $1.5M" it is far better in terms of the transparency that people are looking for so much.
down_up__left_right t1_iul36qh wrote
>Sure but if they have to publish "people in this job level in NYC last year made somewhere in the range of $75k - $1.5M" it is far better in terms of the transparency that people are looking for so much.
If a company lists a base salary with that range then it would be up to a judge if that's a "good faith" listing:
>Employers must state the minimum and maximum salary they in good faith believe at the time of the posting they are willing to pay for the advertised job, promotion, or transfer opportunity. "Good faith” means the salary range the employer honestly believes at the time they are listing the job advertisement that they are willing to pay the successful applicant(s).
Also if a company lists clearly bullshit ranges it could turn off prospective applicants. Now that the numbers have to be there employers are probably going to want them to be accurate. too low of a minimum and employees that have other options don't even apply. Too high of a max and companies waste time doing interviews and giving offers to people that turn it down because they were expecting a much higher offer.
There's a reason someone linked JP Morgan's job listing and they're already complying with this. It's more work to try to cheat it than just putting in the ranges that HR already had internally for the listing.
miltonfriedman2028 t1_iul3mda wrote
Nah, if you set the bottom of the pay range too low, you stop getting applicants. We actually ended up with very narrow ranges after HR researched the best strategy. I’m a director at a bank and am hiring a senior associate, and HR gave it the range of $160-175k base. Which was much narrower than I was expecting.
Of course, a decent percentage of your salary is variable compensations / bonus, and that doesn’t go on the job rec.
ctindel t1_iul3mxy wrote
> If a company lists a base salary with that range then it would be up to a judge if that's a "good faith" listing.
I didn't say it was a base salary I said it was a total comp and of course if they just issued a SQL query in the payroll system and took the MIN() and MAX() then its absolutely been done in good faith.
What good does it do if the company just gives everyone the same base salary (lets say 100K) and then still has a very widely skewed total comp range because some people are better at negotiating than others?
down_up__left_right t1_iul3rfy wrote
> I didn't say it was a base salary I said it was a total comp and of course if they just issued a SQL query in the payroll system and took the MIN() and MAX() then its absolutely been done in good faith.
You think there are roles at the same company where someone is making $1.5M and someone else in the same role is making $75K? Is that the basis of what you are saying here?
Well if that's the case then the person making $75k will see the listing for their role and realized how under paid they are.
>What good does it do if the company just gives everyone the same base salary (lets say 100K) and then still has a very widely skewed total comp range because some people are better at negotiating than others?
As I said:
>People in fields where the yearly bonus is huge compared to the base salary may feel differently but this law should cut through a lot of bullshit in fields not like that.
down_up__left_right t1_iul4elf wrote
Or they have worked in the private sector and know that HR departments already have these ranges and just doesn't put them in the listings.
There's a reason someone above linked JP Morgan's job listings and they're already complying with this. It's more work to try to cheat it than just putting in the ranges that they already had internally.
down_up__left_right t1_iul4xg9 wrote
From the fact sheet link by Op:
>Advertisements that cover multiple jobs, promotions, or transfer opportunities can include salary ranges that are specific to each opportunity.
For reference since someone else linked their listings JP Morgan is now listing the salary range for each possible location. (Even when the ranges are the same for every location)
Also if a company is looking for NYC workers it's not in their interest to put $60k on there if HR doesn't expect anyone in NYC to take the job for less than $85k.
Now that the numbers have to be there employers are probably going to want them to be accurate. A falsely low minimum and employees that have other options don't even apply. A falsely high maximum and companies waste time doing interviews and giving offers to people that turn it down because they were expecting a much higher offer.
redmandoss t1_iul5rnk wrote
From first hand experience they definitely are
Treehaus_user t1_iul7ztq wrote
The real question is who is driving enforcement of these rules? Just like the Chipotle Settlement for $20M. You need a large union or media action that has sway with government to get any type of enforcement.
ShadownetZero t1_iule5tt wrote
I mean, this wont impact any white collar workers, but good for whoever it does help.
RolandDeepson t1_iulfvtd wrote
No really, enlighten us. What would be a better alternative, in your opinion.
[deleted] OP t1_iulm4nd wrote
[deleted]
HayPlaceAPlaceforHay t1_iulqy4w wrote
Exxxxactly
Babhadfad12 t1_iulsqqu wrote
And the point of the law is not to prevent low pay. It is to help people filter out bad employers and search for good ones (which will obviously put pressure on all employers in markets that are not completely saturated with laborers).
Babhadfad12 t1_iult310 wrote
Morgan Stanley is not showing pay ranges:
Edit: Some jobs are showing pay range and some are not.
Babhadfad12 t1_iult8zu wrote
Only Colorado has it since Jan 1, 2021, but California and Washington start Jan 1, 2023.
numba1cyberwarrior t1_iulyfnu wrote
>Recruiter here. My company explained today why this will happen. If we have an open Analyst position that can operate out of our Atlanta and New York offices, and the pay range for Atlanta is 60 to 75k, and for NYC, it's 85k to 100k, our job posting is going to list the pay range as 60 to 100k.
Whenever I see job postings that include multiple states and Colorado though it always specifically mentions the Colorado salary
PiffityPoffity t1_iulyqx8 wrote
Colorado also has a disclosure law.
numba1cyberwarrior t1_iulz30t wrote
I know but OP was saying they would mix the salaries from different locations.
harvestbent t1_ium40k8 wrote
What about jobs that were posted Oct 31? Do they get grandfathered into not having to share a range, or do they have to adjust the post today?
virtual_adam t1_iumalar wrote
There’s no other option though. Lots of companies peak the base pay - even for a VP or CEO at ~$200k, 300k in an extreme condition. The rest is just bonus and RSU which is hidden by this law
It’s not like Meta is compensating people with $600k TC to more cash now that the stock dropped. It’s take more RSUs or quit
down_up__left_right t1_iumc38a wrote
From OP’s link:
> The Commission on Human Rights accepts and investigates complaints of discrimination filed by members of the public, including complaints alleging violations of the new salary transparency protection. The Law Enforcement Bureau also initiates its own investigations based on testing, tips, and other sources of information. In addition to filing complaints at the Commission, individuals with claims against their current employer can also file a lawsuit in civil court.
> Employers and employment agencies who are found to have violated the NYCHRL may have to pay monetary damages to affected employees, amend advertisements and postings, create or update policies, conduct training, provide notices of rights to employees or applicants, and engage in other forms of affirmative relief. The Commission will not assess a civil penalty for a first complaint alleging a violation of the salary transparency provision, provided that the employer shows they have fixed the violation within 30 days of receiving the Commission’s notice of the violation. Covered employers may have to pay civil penalties of up to $250,000 for a uncured first violation of the new law, as well as for any subsequent violations. Information regarding the process for submitting proof of a fixed violation and appealing a civil penalty for a violation of the new salary transparency protection is available on the Commission’s website.
Burymeincalamine t1_iumhifi wrote
Because anyone actually working in finance already knows what the general pay range is
SheepherderFew3844 t1_iumkc6v wrote
Tell me why this is necessary
schkra t1_iumkgi9 wrote
that doesn’t exempt the employer from complying with the law though
RolandDeepson t1_iumme8v wrote
So if YOU see no need for employers to transparently disclose their base salary ranges, that means that there is no need for anyone to do so. And any attempt to do something so "insane and absurd" as "require recruiters and employers to disclose hard-figures of their expected salary ranges" means that it's a "fuckin ridiculous" thing to do.
Boy, I sure wish every naysayer were open books like you! Have a nice day, man, and please, pay yourself on the back for your solid civic engagement. The world needs more patient and conscientious people like you!
SheepherderFew3844 t1_iummop7 wrote
Pure genius. Again what’s the point? Why was not disclosing salary sooo egregious that the esteemed and super respected city council made this a law?
RolandDeepson t1_iumor8b wrote
>Pure genius. Again what’s the point? Why was not disclosing salary sooo egregious that the esteemed and super respected city council made this a law?
You've asked what's known as "a loaded question." A common example of a loaded question is, "when did you decide to stop violently assaulting your neighbors." The question is loaded because any question-conforming answer (in this case, a date or a time period) necessarily reinforces the implication that the person asked actually is, or was at one time, a violent person. Any response to the loaded question that attempts to address the fallacy or refute the accusation is then vulnerable to other rhetorical shenanigans such as accusations of "derailing" or "changing the subject" or "avoiding the question."
An unloaded question might be something like, "Have you ever been a particularly violent person," and then proceeding from there with follow ups.
You think it's ok for employers to either keep their hiring salaries secrets entirely, or possibly for employers to cherrypick on the fly as they decide what each individual applicant "deserves to hear" about salaries for positions being applied for.
See how easy that was? I asked you to clarify and elaborate on your point, and seemingly without even realizing it, you decided to do EXACTLY THAT. You're a very good conversationalist, u/sheepherderfew3844!! Now, everyone else reading this thread has a VERY DETAILED AND CLEAR understanding of what to expect from you, both as a human being, and as a member of society!
Well done!
Fine-Will t1_iumscuy wrote
A job is an exchange for time/skill/services for money. Would it make sense if I was looking to buy/sell something online and there isn't even a price on the listing page? Even for things where there isn't a price right on the listing you can easily find out a range if you contact the person.
Why waste everyone's time with job listings without a range and make people go through multiple rounds of interviews just to discover the pay is so low they would have never bothered applying in the first place if they knew?
SheepherderFew3844 t1_iumsnep wrote
You find out when you interview. And I doubt someone goes on interview and has absolutely no knowledge of the salary for the position. It’s completely unnecessary and doesn’t the council have bigger fish to fry?
SheepherderFew3844 t1_iumt6kn wrote
You must be responding ftom Mensa headquarters!! A 4 paragraph post stating nothing regarding your answe letter to the question. If you go on a job interview you know what salary you want and deserve for your experience and skill level. My point is the city council has much more pressing issues that making this a law. Who was harmed so terribly that someone said we can never have this happen again. It must be stamped out. It’s a completely unnecessary law issued by people who have zero concept how the private sector works.
richb83 t1_iumui02 wrote
Probably the Dept of labor since they are the ones that fine companies.
thearchiguy t1_iumx2s1 wrote
Good.
NoGimmicks t1_iumxlur wrote
So I took a peek at indeed and there are still several listings with no employer provided salaries. Just indeeds estimate.
Is there a way to report them and/or will Indeed be removing them for not complying? Are they obligated to?
Junk-trash t1_iun0a35 wrote
Wish they would pay people who find these jobs not listing salary haha
Waiting to see whether it’s enforced
hak8or t1_iun2ncu wrote
That doesn't answer OP's question.
For example, housing laws in NYC have many limits on security deposits and how leases are allowed to work, and yet that doesn't mean anything unless you are able to get a lawyer and go to housing court, or get very lucky and have a public/nonprofit agency back you.
You didn't specify the actual enforcement mechanism. For example, I really doubt that department going to find listings in their own and take the companies to court/fine them by themselves. They probably expect to have a lawyer work with them to prosecute these companies, and the lawyer coming from a class action or form a group of private citizens paying the lawyer.
MeatballMadness t1_iun5jgo wrote
Better than nothing.
[deleted] OP t1_iun7umz wrote
[deleted]
-SmartOwl- t1_iun8bkb wrote
I’m seeing a extremely high jobless rate very soon… With everything so expensive, the government should figure out a way to reduce the living cost, but instead, they keep having wrong policies to raise the salaries (high portion of it will go into the inflation calcs.) it is not a sustainable way but no one cares, as long as they can be seen as a government that is helping people to live easier at a skim….
BTW I support this policy though, all the salary information should be transparent to the public!
PZeroNero t1_iun8zvt wrote
See your trying to be funny but I never had someone be upset when I asked for the top salary range. They might be amused but they usually give a proper answer why they cannot offer the top.
down_up__left_right t1_iun9i16 wrote
>For example, I really doubt that department going to find listings in their own
vs.
> The Commission on Human Rights accepts and investigates complaints of discrimination filed by members of the public, including complaints alleging violations of the new salary transparency protection.
Also there really isn't a profit motive for companies to try to cheat this. Internally HR departments already have the salary ranges for the jobs list so it's not like they're doing extra work to come up with that.
And now that everyone will be listing the salaries it's in a company's interest to list accurate numbers. A falsely low minimum and employees that have other options/are paid better at their current job don't even apply. A falsely high maximum and companies waste time doing interviews and giving offers to people that turn it down because they were expecting a much higher offer.
brownredgreen t1_iunb110 wrote
Reported to the DOL for below min wage job.
That's my offer.
depressednymetsfan t1_iunezgx wrote
according to this link https://www1.nyc.gov/site/cchr/media/pay-transparency.page, we need to call this number to report these listings - (212) 416-0197. Just found this link as well for sending a report via email https://www1.nyc.gov/site/cchr/about/report-discrimination.page.
NedDasty t1_iunga0p wrote
> slavery ranges
Makes sense they wouldn't want it on an external site.
schkra t1_iuo5q0d wrote
to answer your question: this is important because it gives transparency to employees to see if their pay is reasonable, and it gives them data to negotiate for fairer wages. transparency is good for workers. additionally, it lets you sift through jobs to understand if it’s worth your time to apply. i’ve gone through multiple interviews before where the employer asks comp expectations at the end. if i’m asking for 1.5x what the position pays, seeing salary upfront shows me i shouldn’t bother. for employers, it also saves time on wasted interviews for candidates who never would’ve said yes anyway. for small companies it might be unpleasant, but if comp is small you can compensate in other ways that don’t need to be published such as equity or profit sharing. i fail to see how this is a dumb law for a state like new york where top talent goes.
edit - typo
ny773 t1_iuom68c wrote
ny773 t1_iuom9gb wrote
ny773 t1_iuomcdg wrote
Let's take a look at how this is going on Day 1, shall we?
Loxodontox t1_iuoochq wrote
Knew it. Took what, under a day lol
Loxodontox t1_iuoofk5 wrote
Haha exactly just give an enormous range
miltonfriedman2028 t1_iuovqgk wrote
As with everything, there’s a learning curve.
SolitaryMarmot t1_iup59ke wrote
I would say they will get fined since that is in violation of the new law but considering it's just a sloppy photoshop it doesn't matter
baseballctr31 t1_iupx2rf wrote
- also confirmed untrue based on personal experience; and 2) even with RSUs, the number of shares you get is based on the stock price on the grant date regardless of when those shares vest. So if you had a grant date in 2021 at most tech companies you’re already fucked
Background-Net-4715 t1_iuwio95 wrote
How it's going to affect people looking for work, i.e. how to use it to your advantage :)
https://www.welcometothejungle.com/en/articles/nyc-salary-transparency-law
JellyfishConscious t1_iv0ossb wrote
How do you anonymously report listings?
Loxodontox t1_iukpmf1 wrote
They will find loopholes. This headline is going to look like a joke within a year, unfortunately.