It will be obvious that if a labor buyer is putting out $min wage to $1B pay ranges, that they should be ignored and/or they will get the worst applicants.
Wait this doesn't make sense.
If you think that employers would get better applicants if they put more accurate ranges... then they'd be putting accurate ranges right now, as nothing's stopping them.
Why does the government need to step if it's it's obviously such a good deal for the employers right now?
And why would I ignore a company with a wide range? I don't care if the range is wide, as long as I get the upper end of it.
Why does the government need to step if it's it's obviously such a good deal for the employers right now?
Because employers have had disproportionate power over labor for a very long time. Might not be so much for engineers/doctors/lawyers/etc, but 80%+ of people are walking into a negotiation in a weaker spot with less info than the employer.
That is why in the past couple years, we are finally seeing signs outside Taco Bell and signs on bus driving advertising pay rates. Until now, they have enjoyed a better negotiating position than the employees.
And why would I ignore a company with a wide range? I don't care if the range is wide, as long as I get the upper end of it.
Because if I am capable of getting the upper end, and another employer is offering the upper end, but with a higher lower end also, I am not going to waste my time risking getting a lower offer. Applying to a job and interviewing have costs.
You think it's an advantage to companies to post more accurate pay bands - right? You said "It will be obvious that if a labor buyer is putting out $min wage to $1B pay ranges, that they should be ignored and/or they will get the worst applicants."
But they can post narrow bands right now if they want to - they don't need to wait for the law to tell them do it.
If it's an advantage to them, then why aren't they doing it anyway?
I would guess that the answer is it's not an advantage, because most of the time their pay is bad, and telling people up front does not help them. I've seen this with companies like ThoughtBot and GitLab that make a big deal out of pay transparency... problem is they're being transparent about how bad their pay is.
If it's an advantage to them, then why aren't they doing it anyway?
Because it does not sufficiently offset the advantage they get from withholding pay information from labor sellers.
As soon as it does help employers more than it hurts them, they do advertise pay. Now that labor supply has shifted so drastically that restaurants and retailers have to close early, those places are advertising pay.
The purpose of the legislation is not to help employers, it is to help employees, who are at a disadvantage due to lack of information among other things.
I've seen this with companies like ThoughtBot and GitLab that make a big deal out of pay transparency... problem is they're being transparent about how bad their pay is.
Their pay is bad to you. Maybe it is acceptable to someone else. Maybe someone is earning $20 as a bus driver and wants to switch jobs. Maybe they would be willing to work for ThoughtBot and Gitlab’s wages and work to become qualified.
Or maybe their pay is objectively too low and they will eventually go out of business. Either way, price transparency always leads to better resource allocation and better functioning marketplaces. Letting either buyers or sellers have long term disproportionate advantages is not in society’s best interest.
Comments
Wait this doesn't make sense.
If you think that employers would get better applicants if they put more accurate ranges... then they'd be putting accurate ranges right now, as nothing's stopping them.
Why does the government need to step if it's it's obviously such a good deal for the employers right now?
And why would I ignore a company with a wide range? I don't care if the range is wide, as long as I get the upper end of it.
Because employers have had disproportionate power over labor for a very long time. Might not be so much for engineers/doctors/lawyers/etc, but 80%+ of people are walking into a negotiation in a weaker spot with less info than the employer.
That is why in the past couple years, we are finally seeing signs outside Taco Bell and signs on bus driving advertising pay rates. Until now, they have enjoyed a better negotiating position than the employees.
Because if I am capable of getting the upper end, and another employer is offering the upper end, but with a higher lower end also, I am not going to waste my time risking getting a lower offer. Applying to a job and interviewing have costs.
Sorry I'm still confused.
You think it's an advantage to companies to post more accurate pay bands - right? You said "It will be obvious that if a labor buyer is putting out $min wage to $1B pay ranges, that they should be ignored and/or they will get the worst applicants."
But they can post narrow bands right now if they want to - they don't need to wait for the law to tell them do it.
If it's an advantage to them, then why aren't they doing it anyway?
I would guess that the answer is it's not an advantage, because most of the time their pay is bad, and telling people up front does not help them. I've seen this with companies like ThoughtBot and GitLab that make a big deal out of pay transparency... problem is they're being transparent about how bad their pay is.
Because it does not sufficiently offset the advantage they get from withholding pay information from labor sellers.
As soon as it does help employers more than it hurts them, they do advertise pay. Now that labor supply has shifted so drastically that restaurants and retailers have to close early, those places are advertising pay.
The purpose of the legislation is not to help employers, it is to help employees, who are at a disadvantage due to lack of information among other things.
Their pay is bad to you. Maybe it is acceptable to someone else. Maybe someone is earning $20 as a bus driver and wants to switch jobs. Maybe they would be willing to work for ThoughtBot and Gitlab’s wages and work to become qualified.
Or maybe their pay is objectively too low and they will eventually go out of business. Either way, price transparency always leads to better resource allocation and better functioning marketplaces. Letting either buyers or sellers have long term disproportionate advantages is not in society’s best interest.