1131
submitted 1 year ago by MicroWave@lemmy.world to c/news@lemmy.world

Help-wanted advertisements in New York will have to disclose proposed pay rates after a statewide salary transparency law goes into effect on Sunday, part of growing state and city efforts to give women and people of color a tool to advocate for equal pay for equal work.

Employers with at least four workers will be required to disclose salary ranges for any job advertised externally to the public or internally to workers interested in a promotion or transfer.

Pay transparency, supporters say, will prevent employers from offering some job candidates less or more money based on age, gender, race or other factors not related to their skills.

Advocates believe the change also could help underpaid workers realize they make less than people doing the same job.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[-] mosiacmango@lemm.ee 35 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

Then people will avoid applying, and instead apply to the similair job without a bullshit range. The problem is self correcting.

This law is already in effect in Colorado/Washington/etc. Pull up an advert for seattle jobs on indeed and you'll see that they list a large band, but then a "likely salary" point. Its clear, easy and sets expectations well.

[-] BradleyUffner@lemmy.world 7 points 1 year ago

Then people will avoid applying, and instead apply to the similair job without a bullshit range. The problem is self correcting.

I doubt it. People still applied to jobs that didn't list a salary range. It didn't self correct.

[-] KevonLooney@lemm.ee 18 points 1 year ago

But now there's competition. The companies that post more realistic bands will get better people.

It's like how minimum wage increases also help people who earn above minimum wage. The minimum standard increasing encourages better companies to do more than the minimum, because now it doesn't put them at a disadvantage.

[-] afraid_of_zombies@lemmy.world 5 points 1 year ago

It's funny how pretty much every single economist in history (well not haha funny more like they are bank shills and less accurate than horoscopes) has argued that no one benefits from minimum wages and yet real world data shows the opposite. As you pointed out all salaries go up except the very highest.

The bottom employeers pay out more. The bottom employees have more money to spend. The people slightly above the bottom have to be paid more. In turn they have more to spend. The tiny increases in labor costs only impact the people who have the most labor working for them, i.e. the super rich.

If you owned a MacDonalds and had to pay out a 50 cents an hour more for 4 people on a shift that means you lose 2 dollars an hour more per shift hour. That's freaken nothing. To your employee that is 4 dollars a day, which works out to a grand a year assuming 250 days of employment. So here we can see even a tiny increase in the minimum wage leads to real money entering into the system for the one group that consistently demonstrates that they spend money as fast as they get it. If you want to increase economic activity pay a poor person more.

[-] BradleyUffner@lemmy.world 4 points 1 year ago

There was competition before though too, between jobs that didn't list ranges and those that did. You could view a job that didn't list a range as having an implicit range of something like 0-1000000. That competition didn't drive companies to specifically list salary ranges.

[-] KevonLooney@lemm.ee 10 points 1 year ago

This increases competition by increasing the minimum standard. It's not complicated.

[-] Foggyfroggy@lemmy.world 8 points 1 year ago

And some jobs will now show a maximum that is below a potential employee’s minimum even if the job sounded like a good fit at first.

There is good faith that the company will post estimated ranges from 25% to 75% of their true range so it’s not like it’s forcing them to give away the farm, but there also isn’t a hard rule about how close the estimate has to be.

[-] KevonLooney@lemm.ee 8 points 1 year ago

I definitely reject jobs based on the range offered. I am not going to negotiate hard to get something at my current wage. They can deal with the worse people who accept that range.

When you apply for a job and they like you, you have the most negotiating power you will have for 2 years. A low range just shows you up front that they don't value you and will not give you raises.

[-] CharlesDarwin@lemmy.world 2 points 1 year ago

Yep, the best time to try to get what you should be getting paid is when switching jobs. Most jobs will take you for granted and give you just enough to keep you from quitting (if they like your work) and act like you should be happy for that...staying at a job too long is a great way, most of the time, to end up falling behind industry average pay.

[-] AFKBRBChocolate@lemmy.world 17 points 1 year ago

I'm a manager in California, where this law has been in effect for a while. I've had prospective candidates reach out because of concerns about the salary ranges, some of whom didn't end up applying or who bowed out afterwards. It makes my job a little tougher, but I think the transparency is good.

[-] cole@lemdro.id 11 points 1 year ago

I'm currently applying for jobs and I don't even bother with unreasonable ranges. I have a target salary so I won't play games if the low end of your range is half that.

[-] Wakmrow@lemmy.world 4 points 1 year ago

I live in Colorado and I straight up tell recruiters the rate is far too low to open a conversation.

this post was submitted on 17 Sep 2023
1131 points (100.0% liked)

News

23674 readers
2718 users here now

Welcome to the News community!

Rules:

1. Be civil


Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.


2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.


Obvious right or left wing sources will be removed at the mods discretion. We have an actively updated blocklist, which you can see here: https://lemmy.world/post/2246130 if you feel like any website is missing, contact the mods. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted seperately but not to the post body.


3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.


Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.


4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source.


Posts which titles don’t match the source won’t be removed, but the autoMod will notify you, and if your title misrepresents the original article, the post will be deleted. If the site changed their headline, the bot might still contact you, just ignore it, we won’t delete your post.


5. Only recent news is allowed.


Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.


6. All posts must be news articles.


No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials or celebrity gossip is allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis.


7. No duplicate posts.


If a source you used was already posted by someone else, the autoMod will leave a message. Please remove your post if the autoMod is correct. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.


8. Misinformation is prohibited.


Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.


9. No link shorteners.


The auto mod will contact you if a link shortener is detected, please delete your post if they are right.


10. Don't copy entire article in your post body


For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS