This is another advantage of a union. The pay scales are printed out in the contract.
51
I’m in management and hire a lot of people. This law is a great thing. I started voluntarily posting salary info upfront years ago. It was just a waste of time to interview people that you later found out where looking for a different salary.
In so doing, we started not only posting ranges, but internally laying out what characteristics would put someone lower or higher on that range. It actually makes everything easier.
Recently, we decided to stop negotiating at all. Negotiation skills are not something I need in an employee, so why pays more for that? It’s been great. Makes the entire process a lot easier.
74
Then applicants should be required to list their current and past salaries on their CVs. Oh, right. I forgot. Businesses are the bad guys, employees are precious and everyone is entitled to a unicorn and rainbows.
14
@What Is This why does a person’s previous salary matter to a new employer? If you’re hiring, then you know what the job and the person’s experience is worth to you. That’s all that should matter. Perhaps if the person’s prior employer was paying better, the person wouldn’t even be in the job market.
133
As a career coach, I train people on effect salary negotiation. The first step is salary research, which has become more transparent with sites like Glassdoor among others. But many people don’t realize they can and should negotiate. And many don’t realize how much less they are earning compared with colleagues. Requiring salary ranges is an incredible first step in pay equity. NYC should be proud.
53
@Public In some industries you can't negotiate, unfortunately.
11
I noticed that my employer took down job postings for roles they are actively recruiting for. I believe this is so current employees can not use published ranges to renegotiate their salaries. What is the best way to address this, ideally without putting a target on my own head?
11
My company has also done this but their competitors is posting salary ranges on their job posting. Use your competitors salary data if it indeed reflects a pay gap.
21
Making employees negotiate their salary up front with no meaningful information, while the company holds all the cards, has been grossly unfair, for so long.
Something to celebrate!
74
This is a step in the right direction. When I became manager of my group and gained access to the salaries of direct reports, I was surprised that a “B” player in the group had a base salary higher than mine. I learned it was due to his H1 status as my employer pays H1’s above prevailing wage. I agree with that to ensure H1’s are not being used for cheap labor, but I made a lot of noise about being paid less than someone two levels below me who is not even a top performer. Granted my bonus percentage is still higher than the direct report. I came close to pulling the “woman” card until I finally received an adequate raise two years later. If I did not have access to that information, I would still be blissfully unaware that I should be paid more. It is unfair that the “B” player is paid quite a bit more than several “A” players in the group and I continue to voice that concern to senior management. The “A” players are not aware, but I at least try to advocate for them. In a way I can thank the H1 employee for setting a high salary bar.
Knowledge is power. If not for the salary postings by employees on Glassdoor, I would have asked for $10k less when I was interviewing with my current employer. I’m sure they would have gladly paid me $10k less. Now the Glassdoor information can be used in conjunction with employer posted salary bands where available.
Some commenters are stating the CO hurt candidates, but NYC and CA are too big for prospective employers to ignore.
46
We've had this law in Colorado for a while now, and employers will get used to it. Some national companies put up a fight initially, but if you want talent, you can't afford to exclude an entire state (or in this case, city) in your search for applicants. Not posting salary ranges just gives cover to companies to allow them to discriminate, particularly if salary is then tied to "salary history." It's time the whole country got on board.
25
Wife works in health care - her boss told her that she could not discuss salaries with anyone else at the hospital.
She responded that his statement was illegal. He then tried to explain that was not really what he said.
There are union talks beginning now.
69
I have been in the software industry for over 40 years in all roles from CTO on down. This is a good thing, and not just in regards to hiring. Companies are naturally always trying to minimize labor costs and in my experience women are far more likely than men to not negotiate at all and accept what they are offered. This is true in initial hiring and also true with promotions. Over the years the difference between a series of 2% raises and 2.5% raises becomes significant. HR departments have rules about raises that ignore base pay. A manager that inherits an underpaid person is often told that they can't give an out-of-range percentage raise without a promotion even if the current pay is below the current bracket. People should know if they are being taken advantage of and this will help make some of the more egregious situations clear. It will also help managers trapped between employees and HR's rules.
47
@LS Exactly! This will help not only job seekers but current employees. Long term employees are often under paid compared to new employees with the same role.
27
I guess time will tell how this works through the system .... employees are not equal.
Getting a software engineer is all about finding one --- you don't know what you have until they are working for you. Pay ranges are often because you see potential in a young new hire and take the risk ..... vs paying more for someone with some degree of a track record.
5
I became a huge believer in posting salaries the first time I was in charge of hiring a position for a small non-profit. Hiring takes so much time and effort. And if you’re in a small company, the reason you’re hiring is because there is already more work than people can do and you probably cant afford to pay someone to hire for you. Then to read a bunch of resumes and set up interviews and then get really excited about a candidate only to find out that their minimum is twice was you have the budget for is such a waste of valuable time!
Obviously it’s also a waste of time for the applicant too. At this point, I would never apply for a job that didn’t have a posted salary because that signals that the company doesn’t have their financial house in order or is trying to play some kind of game. Frankly either is a bad sign.
I think the whole idea that this is bad for business is based on a lot of misguided and outdated ideas. Like the idea that when you’re hiring your “gut” will tell you who should be paid more or less—totally disproven. It makes so much more sense to start people off with the same salary and then reward good work with performance based raises or bonuses.
61
@Jessica
I'm sure the folks at Google appreciate your small non-profit perspective.
1
This is an awesome development, and I hope that it continues to spread throughout the country. I wasted a bunch of time my senior year of college applying to internships which were unwilling to list not just a pay range, but also whether or not they would pay period. I wasted an hour of my time and a lot of hope after taking and passing a coding test for an internship, only to be informed at the start of my interview the next week that the position would be unpaid
Pay transparency is incredibly important, and it should be encouraged for both employers and society. The idea that it is rude to ask a fellow employee their pay is a construct which only benefits the employer, and allows them to screw employees out of just pay, especially non-male, non-white employees.
39
Another reason why companies will leave NY City.
4
@Joe God forbid we promote honesty in the workplace.
41
From minimum wage to this, it’s the state trying to do what unionization once did. Sad.
7
@L - The problem is that less than 10% of private jobs are currently unionized, which puts the other 90% of workers at a disadvantage. The state NEEDED to step in.
31
@L No, happy.
7
Happy to see this! Hope it goes federal
26
We’d all be a lot better off if we all were able to know what everyone else was making.
The ridiculous inequalities based on arbitrary factors would be thrown into sharper relief, and salaries might actually begin to be fair.
20
@Harley - Unfortunately, the reason others make less is too often that they are the wrong sex, don't look assertive, didn't graduate from the "right schools" or etc., etc.
8
Sign up for the Blind App. You'll learn about what you should get paid by using the Blind app.
4
@John moore
What do the people at "Blind" app make? I mean before I buy the app I want to know. All's fair, right?
2
About time.
10
When will this be a federal law?
15
Another reason to avoid hiring in NYC.
2
@Will. Heaven forfend you tell potential employees how much you have available to offer them!
31
@What Is This Actually this is always how I purchase cars. I calculate in advance what I can comfortably afford, i.e. the max I'm willing to pay, put it out there, and they can take it or leave it. I don't have the time or patience for the head games and the posturing on both sides. There are just too many fun things I can spend my time doing, including doing nothing.
12
Would you tell a retailer or a car dealer the maximum you would pay for their product?
3
I wish this was universal.
This thing where you can go to multiple actual interviews without finding out how much the job pays is ridiculous, and wastes everyone's time. Then employers have the temerity to act offended that you care about money!
73
Why wouldn’t you ask before accepting the interview?
1
@Irish Because most employers won't tell you up front. That's why this law has been enacted.
22
Senior associates at Citigroup and directors at AE are surely earning at least twice those posted salaries. These ranges don't include variable compensation for corporate roles, which removes much of the meaning and context this law aimed to provide job-seekers.
10
@A the variable part of compensation is variable for a reason. The salary is the only part that is guaranteed.
10
DOE actually stands for Doesn't Offer Enough, just another case where all the advantages lie with the company. I'm glad my state is following suit next year. As an employer for 40 years I have always been explicit about pay in job offers.
17
It's about time. There is nothing worse than applying and interviewing for a position, only to find out that the offer is less that what you currently make. It's a waste of my time, especially if I have to take time off from work to go through the process, and it's a waste of the recruiter's time, because they could have interviewed another person who would be interested.
73
Better than nothing, but the devil will certainly be in the details — as the article points out, if the range is too broad it's essentially useless. Recently, I saw a position with a range of $57k–$163k. Complies with the law. Gee, thanks!
20
@Andrew
I would posit that an employer listing so wide a range as to be meaningless is skirting the law by complying with its letter not spirit. Unless, they clearly post grades such as $57K for "Band I" right out of school to "$163K for "supervisor w/ 20 yrs. exp."
13
@Marcy - Agreed. But will the state prosecute?
6
@Andrew well, the salary is commensurate with experience!
1
"In the United States, women made about 82 cents for every $1 men earned in 2020, according to the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, which said that pay inequity is constant across almost all occupations."
Please stop repeating this misleading statistics. That stat is for all women working vs all men. Not a comparison between men and women in the same career. It is particularly misleading in the context of this article.
16
@steve There is a part of this I agree to, in that by stating that stat alone is a bit misleading in that it focuses on pay, however what this also takes into account is seniority/demand of roles. It is a more holistic look at the gap between genders beyond just pay that SHOULD also be addressed, though of course it can't just be addressed with pay practices alone.
That being said, this will help to close that gap slightly because biases still exist by how much a company will be willing to offer for candidates who ask for more money than they should be. If only slightly.
5
This is great for job seekers. Even though the Fair Pay Act discourages a potential employer from using a candidate’s current salary to calculate an offer for another job, there is still a power imbalance when it comes to employers asking about a candidate’s current compensation.
The benefits to employees about equitable pay with coworkers being touted is overstated however. If an employee is in the same geographical market as the opening, the published ranges are so broad that they wouldn’t give you any indication of how someone else in the same job is being paid. They will lend some transparency to regional salary differences, as well as helping employees know what positions other than their own pay. All in all, these are good moves.
6
I wonder how this works for big corporations who regularly hire full time contractors via employment agencies ? I’m thinking of L’Oreal, Condé Nast, Apple, but I know there are tons and tons more. Those people technically aren’t employees but are essentially treated as such, minus other employee-only job protections like paid family leave, retirement contributions, health insurance, legal recourse for sexual harassment, and other valuable benefits and protections.
16
Screenshot this comment: this law will be challenged and will go to the Supreme Court who will overturn it based on "free speech" Corporations are too powerful to allow a law like this to go forward. Meanwhile, Americans STILL vote for republicans!
10
I've found that hiring managers ask an applicant what their salary requirement is but aren't willing to say what range the job pays. So, if the applicant names a number lower than the amount the company plans to pay, the company will pay the lower amount the applicant names. Often the applicant has no way of knowing that the salary the company was willing to pay was actually higher. I'd like this law to be in force in every state, so applicants have an idea of salary before applying. I've applied for jobs only to find that the company will only pay much less than my salary requirement. These interviews are a waste of my time and the interviewer's time.
61
@Ms. Pea I have an uneasy feeling that in my last job search I fell for this. After two years in the role and seeing how my colleagues live, I think I must have way underpriced myself. I like my job otherwise but haven't figured out how to resolve this.
21
@Ms. Pea
I've made it my policy of *never* disclosing what I've made in my last job. Most actually go ahead and reveal what they're paying, while a few have whined about *my* lack of transparency. Either way, it's good to get that information out of the way up front.
That said, I was recently contacted by one of those lousy recruiters from LinkedIn who was asking me "what I wanted in a job." Clearly, this recruiter had some not that great job whose "soft perks" she was going to try to oversell as though they could substitute for cold hard cash. The call ended fairly quickly.
9
A most welcome regulation. Best keep in mind that verbal promises may not be kept at sign-up, or later. Job postings are notoriously misleading, although hardly different from most advertising, or for that matter what companies claim for their offerings.
Now this is not to discount how employees blow smoke about their skills and accomplisments, nor what credentials are wholly reliable beyond alluring credulous receivers.
Then, don't walk away, more to come, there are the professionals and their organizations, their universities, their couture and lingo and networks and letters of recommendations and satisfied clients and late-night ads on TV and Alex Jones and GOP floggings and campaign outright lying and diplomatic assurances of wholly reliable speechifyings at global fora across the wastelands of the planet.
Skipping ahead of a long queue of honest bar talk, there are the commodious altars of ways to bow before deities of many stripes (no not prisons') to garner a favorable spot on the Sisyphean rock climb to eternal life, maybe inside an Egyptian pyramid stashed by a grave robber to play joke on scheming archeologists and fueling hopes of the astrophysicists their tall tales will loosen purse strings ever wider.
Be patient, age 65 will soon come to the rescue to provide a Lazy Boy escape pod to Nirvana of endless ice skating shows and perp walks of the rich and famous.
1
This is very interesting and I wonder how the city will comply with its own civil service system. As a retired civil servant, I must say the the city is probably the worst offender of this. All civil service jobs have salary ranges, and every city agency wants to bring on new employees at the minimum of the range or not more than a certain percent higher than what the new employee was earning at a previous job. Anyone hired off a civil service list is usually offered the minimum salary. So will the city be hiring brand new employees at higher salaries than those already in the same title doing the same job? Sounds like it’s going to exacerbate the existing problems built into the city’s civil service system unless the city is not required to comply with its own law.
5
Now how about disclosing the price in real estate ads next? I’ve wasted more time than I dare to count calling agents to just find out a price, usually out of my price range. And then getting inundated with calls and texts from all these different agents when something “just came in”.
4
@JPMonte Not sure I understand this. All homes and apartments are listed with their prices as a primary criterion. What properties are listed without asking price?
26
The problem I experienced as a hiring manager when Denver unveiled a similar law was that online job indexers like Indeed would take the posted salary and list it as if it applied to all regions. The company had regional differences in compensation, and so it depressed demand in higher cost of living areas like NYC. As a result, our own recruiters were recommending we avoid listing in Denver to avoid this effect (and the effect was demonstrably real).
I'm happy that more states are now joining the bandwagon to force the issue. Now companies must either post a real compensation range that takes all regions into account or job indexers must improve their software to distinguish different ranges by region.
18
One of the best companies I worked for would post a salary range along with the job description. It took away all of the angst over whether people were paid fairly.
26
Over a 40 year professional career I always knew the salary ranges of positions I had interest in, based on years of service and experience. I can’t think of a time my peers or I were surprised by a salary offer. They were always in an expected range and always had room for negotiation. I wouldn’t begin an interviewing process without salary and benefits basics known. I just asked.
11
Pretty confidently assuming you’re a man? Probably a cisgender white guy who started a professional career in the Reagan era?
It’s always been a challenge for women, people of color, those with disability as well as LBGTQ folks to obtain what you’re saying was provided just because you asked. We asked too. We soon found our applications were set aside because, clearly, we were gonna be trouble, wanting you know, fair pay and all that. How dare we!
If simply asking what the position paid worked for all of us, this new law wouldn’t be necessary.
40
This really should have included bonus, stock, and other non-salary pay. In tech for example, year-end take home pay of two people at the same level can vary by six figures because of non-salary pay.
33
@JC: Bonuses can be massively variable. I have a friend whose bonus was quite substantial one year, but in the following 3 years the CEO cut everyone's bonus by 70% (just b/c he could!). There's very little predictability to bonuses, IMO.
7
@L True, but it's still a huge aspect of compensation that cannot be ignored. If we're talking about solving pay equity, one can at least look at past bonuses. When asked during the interview process, companies will provide this information, so they have it and it is valuable.
7
@JC. The value of stock options depends broadly on the larger stock market. As they say, past performance is not a guarantee of future returns. Including them would distort the pay information.
1
This needs to be nationwide. Several well known companies are already saying they just won’t hire in places with this law.
I’m actively job searching for director/vp roles in my field and have been quoted anywhere from 100k to 600k total comp for similar jobs. It’s ridiculous.
As an org leader, I could see some women paid radically less than some men in my own team and did everything Within my power to correct it, but most won’t.
56
@Beard in Tech
Nope, it'll be left to the liberal blues, who by the way, in the NE, are losing House seats precipitously.
1
This will benefit women and people of color enormously, and anyone else who is traditionally stuck in a pay gap rut. Companies that pay equally have nothing to be afraid of. Companies that undercut the those who don't know they've been settling for less are squirming. Good.
91
How many hundreds of hours of applying and interviewing have each one of us wasted over 10, 20, 30 or more YEARS because this isn’t required?
Finally. Now make it nationwide. And maybe dust off the equal rights amendment too.
141
@Huh 👻
Well, now that I think about it, none. None at all.
2
Posting jobs without a salary range is a waste of time for everyone involved. When I was younger and less confident, I would sometimes get two interviews in before salary was brought up and I'd find out we were tens of thousands apart. Waste of my time and waste of the employers time.
Not a fan of regulations in general, but corporations have been so slimy about compensation for so long that this is a case of them bringing this on themselves.
150
Perhaps at a time when we’re really really concerned about retaining businesses in NYC we shouldn’t make one more requirement that we won’t know the full implications of until we do it.
11
@Marshall Stevenson: Wrong. Whatever they're paying, they're paying - and stating the salary range will save everyone a lot of time.
PS: One can NEVER know the "full implications" ahead of time. If one could, then the stock market would never vary, and only surgeries with good outcomes would be performed, etc.
30
If these businesses are so afraid to disclose what their pay gaps are that they will deny NYC citizens jobs - they are the ones doing something wrong. This should be a nationwide regulation and if they’re not being shady they have nothing to be afraid of.
Thinking that we need “business” so badly that the working class should take whatever treatment they get without complaint and we should be afraid to regulate the wealthy…is not it.
32
@Jack Miller: This is more about providing clarity to prospective employees.
I don't see why this would be seen as "leaning toward government micromanagement" in any way.
IMO, "micromanagement" would be if the government tells a company what the salary range should be. THIS new law is not even close to that.
7
Salary amount should be a desirable perk of a job — thus, employers should be transparent and even proud with regard to posting the range in a job description.
If an employer is upset by this law and would rather try to hide the pay rate, it’s simply a sign that they are under-paying (i.e., exploiting) employees.
213
This disproportionately effects smaller businesses & will leave them struggling to find talent. Just another reason to do business anywhere else but NY.
7
@Mike L Yes, it's a great idea but not for companies that small. I would suggest 50 employees and up, but too late...
6
@Mike L Small businesses have always had to compete against higher paying larger businesses. Being transparent about pay shouldn't stop a business from running, unless their pay was so low it was exploitative, in which case they deserve to suffer until they figure out a real business model. This will just help people correctly calibrate their expectations. There are plenty of people who choose to work for smaller companies for various reasons, and generally don't expect to be paid the same as a flashy brand name company might pay.
47
@Mike L: No, it shouldn't "disproportionately" affect smaller businesses. WHY do you imagine it would??
IMO, only if you're interested in underpaying and low-balling all your job candidates, would this new law bother you.
PS: You're in SC; you can't afford to do business in NY!
13
This would be a great data set to compile as it would show the effect of hybrid or full wfh on compensation, if any.
5
This law aside, I’d love to see an article about what typical salaries are for a wide spectrum of jobs these days.
Someone told me recently that a young man I know who is a clerk in a gourmet deli earns nearly $100,000 a year. Could this possibly be true? How much have real salaries changed in the last five or ten years?
17
@WDP: "Could this possibly be true?" You have no way of knowing, b/c "someone told me" is a TFG statement.
For all you know, the clerk might be pulling double-shifts.
But IMO, it sounds like an unconfirmed rumor that's meant to make people jealous of that deli clerk.
10
A generally good idea, but I'm not sure that the published bands will be meaningful. The 3:1 range (17 to 50) in the article is an example. Ultimately there should be some test of the "good faith" - the range can't be too much wider than the range for existing employees. And the aggregation group can't be too big. "At UniCorp, our jobs pay $15/hr to $100M/yr"
26
@jimlux "And the aggregation group can't be too big." Well the listing should be for an individual role, not multiple positions.
6
@jimlux i would think even a wide range should be pretty useful. in the example from the article, it could be very helpful to know that your role could pay up to 50 dollars an hour. based on your experience and skill fit you could get a pretty good idea what you should be asking for.
1
Definitely long overdue. Prior to this, I've become accustomed to asking for the Salary Compensation details upfront to evaluate opportunities. (Do this prior to scheduling interviews/screenings if possible)
This will help applicants and companies save time + money, while increasing transparency and salary parity across the board.
40
I'm very glad to see this, and I hope it becomes a trend nationwide.
Without these disclosures, prospective employees are expected to negotiate their salaries blind, while prospective employers do so holding all the cards in their hand. That is manifestly unfair.
95
@Mark Kessinger: Yep! And "manifestly unfair" is just how employers want it to be.
10
This will benefit the people. All the talk about employers not hiring in the city because of this is all smoke. If you want to conduct business in NY, these are the rules. NY is too big of a worldwide market for employers to just pull out. It's not like they are asking them to pay you more monies ... hence no need to pull out. Law just asks them to be more transparent and fair.
60
Finally! It's about time!
In fact, it's well past time for this to be the law, not just in NY, but in the entire country.
99
I have mixed feelings about this one. It's definitely good during a job hunt. But I don't want people knowing how much (or little) money I make. One could lookup my employer and job title, find a similar job listing, and get a good idea. I also think it's very possible some employers will choose not to hire in NYC so they don't have to comply. It's already an expensive market so this just gives one more reason to not bother.
12
@ERR - "I also think it's very possible some employers will choose not to hire in NYC so they don't have to comply."
They've been doing this for decades.
41
Good point.
But think of all the online daters who can’t hide the truth now…the mandated child support payments that will need adjustments…there will indeed be repercussions beyond saving job applicants time. Possibly more jobs for lawyers.
And this doesn’t seem to cover contracted employment?
3
@ERR -- The workforce in New York is already more expensive than in many other parts of the country. If that trade-off weren't worth it, those employers would already have left the city.
And no one will actually know how much _you_ make. The required disclosures represent the range of salaries an employer is prepared to offer _new_ employees to that position.
13
Including job band salary/wages in a job posting should be a federal requirement. It has been a huge benefit for Colorado residents and I suspect other Americans would find it equally compelling.
149
@Sam I don’t think it’s been a huge benefit for Colorado residents. The pay ranges listed are often very wide and not very helpful. Also, there are openings that exclude Colorado residents (even if not officially) because of this law.
2
@AAFT
The job bands are wide but they anchor you for salary negotiation. They are also extremely helpful for existing employees who can better advocate for themselves as bands shift, or seek lateral moves if necessary to keep up.
Exclusion of Colorado residents because of this law is underhanded and federal salary reporting requirements would solve this.
27
@AAFT " The pay ranges listed are often very wide and not very helpful. "
they can be very helpful no matter how wide. in fact, just knowing the _upper limit_ of that range is extremely helpful. it can give prospective employees a very good idea about how much they can ask for based on their experience and skill fit.
17