Will this expose that, or do you think that companies will find a way around that?
How much is a visa worth to you? A lot, so yes they'll pay people less; that's the way it works.
Regardless, I think the biggest benefit to companies hiring H1Bs is the leverage of the employee’s citizenship status.
I expect this would depend on H1B visa counts at least be public information. I'm not sure that's the case, and I'm not sure if it should be.
H1B income is capped by the inability to have secondary income sources and the inability for spouses to work.
See the proposed amendments to 432.3 (m) (1).
Easily searchable and sortable price transparency will help allocate labor resources in a more timely manner.
Is this the more depriving by state governments of the common workers’ privacy through needless encroaching laws?
Who gains by this loss of privacy?
Proof?
> Makes me wonder why California and New York are exposing the privacy part for through their state victims’ paychecks?
What on earth are you talking about? How does posting a salary range "expose the privacy" of people? Also this isn't just about pay equity, it's about knowing what you are applying for before going through the process.
> Meanwhile West Virginia, Michigan, Colorado, and Utah all achieved gender-pay equality as well as privacy without any pay transparency.
Also, how do you know that gender-pay equality has been achieved?
These laws don't outlaw negotiation. Not sure what you're talking about there.
You have to post the pay scale for the position. So, if current employees in that role make $100,000 to $120,000, and you expect to hire whomever responds at ~$116,000, you would post $100k-120k.
Later, if you hire someone for $125k, the pay scale now includes $125k. You must provide this info to current employees on request, and would have to include it in subsequent listings.
I can't imagine all the interpersonal issues caused by this being requested after every hire!
In many companies, org charts are public, but comp bands are secret, so this can be done without messing up manager/IC relationships.
https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billTextClient.xhtm...
> “Pay scale” means the salary or hourly wage range that the employer reasonably expects to pay for the position.
Also, apparently you can already ask for the pay scale, but this law would require it to be on any job posting.
> Existing law requires an employer, upon reasonable request, to provide the pay scale for a position to an applicant applying for employment.
And you would be able to get the pay range for your current job.
> This bill would also require an employer, upon request, to provide to an employee the pay scale for the position in which the employee is currently employed.
And companies will still avoid listing a salary, and just say 'Not accepting applicants in Colorado or California' as they do now[1] to get around the Colorado law.
Many Washington state employees salary info is public, including full name:
So folks who do not know any better could still work for 1/4 the market rate.
They may not address price transparency for people who receive equity compensation, but it is still a great start to help those at the bottom.
Post huge ranges and tell very qualified people that they only qualify for the low end, for instance.
Take Netflix for example who famously only had a single “Software Engineer” role regardless of skill level.
You’d see something like $75K-$1M which is not super helpful.
For others, they will know that the bottom of the pay range for software engineers is $75k so if they want to earn that much, they should acquire those skills.
For those who aspire to the low end that’s fine but there’s still no guarantee you’d get an offer.
Though I support this move whole heartedly it still doesn’t change the fact that you have to interview and get an offer to know the particulars.
The impossible ideal would be a company preemptively giving you an offer before interviewing given predetermined interview performance. That way you can only interview at places that will pay you want, guaranteed. This is basically the same as applying to places with a very tight range.
From the article...
Also, what does it do about the situation when a job's compensation is largely not salary but stock?
The bill will head to Governor Gavin Newsom, who has until Sept. 30 to sign or veto. He hasn’t yet expressed a position and didn’t immediately respond to a request for comment. If he signs it, [etc.]
If we want to resolve pay disparities we also need to stop pretending that Salary means 40 hours and instead require accurate hours worked reporting regardless of "exempt" salary or not.
Why? Because hours worked is not equal across the variables
