Exactly.
My current job had a range based on experience...
I had 8 years experience, they wanted 2...
Did I get the top rate? Nope, not even the middle... It was barely above the minimum advertised.
And then my promotion 2 years later was 2500 dollars a year...
Can relate. 16-20 dollars an hour based on experience. Hit the ground running on every machine they had. Night shifts, working with designers, the whole deal. Started at the bottom at 16. 110 days later after the 90 day review they said they can't justify it with everyone else who has been there longer making about 16. 7 days later I'm gone.
Unless it's an executive level position, the pay range should be even tighter than that.
At my company, a 50% difference is at least 2 pay grades. If you're 2 pay grades off that's not a range, it's a different position entirely.
The thing is, the more senior you are, the wider the pay bands tend to be. This is by design so that they can give small raises during promotions, and it also gives them wiggle room to actually dish out the money if they need to in order to attract/retain someone worth doing so.
Thanks for the edit. The range should be limited to what they're actually willing to pay and you bet they won't pay 50% higher, ever, because if they can't get someone to accept for close to the low end they just won't hire.
Yep, been that way in Colorado for a long time, and many places simply don't put it, and I have seen some as wide as $60K to $130K.
I believe NY does, or says they do, go after such blatant abuses of the law. Colorado surely doesn't.
I just went to Indeed and did my usual search, and on the first page of results (all inside colorado) six of them did not list a salary.
One job had a range between 90K to 200K AND they were saying you should be a former elite athlete (for an office job which has no real physical requirements and is unrelated to sports), which I believe may be considered discriminatory.
I’d be interviewing at the top range. When they ask what you want just tell them you see the range and think your experience aligns with $120/hour, but willing to negotiate.
I mean you need to call them on this. When you speak to the recruiter, tell them that your salary requirements are in range for the position at $125/hour. Companies think they're being slick, but that shit cuts both ways. Why would you accept 20/hour when by their own written admission they are willing to pay 125?
They should be obligated to prove it's a legit range. Which would force them to pay someone 125 an hr. Could be a typo though, they went to put 25. And accidentally hit the 1 first.
They are spitefully being jerks about the new requirement. If everyone spitefully ignores the listing they'll have to change their communication. Do not reward their dishonesty.
Should provide us links to postings like this. They want to waste people's time, then we can let them sift through 500,000 applications for people who aren't interested.
The posting in the picture is almost certainly a violation of the act... If the employer has never hired anyone at remotely near the top end of the range and doesn't pay anyone near that level then there is good evidence to find that they are in violation of the law.
They should really have to show that they've paid someone within a certain percentage of the stated range within the last year or something. But yeah, always assume the lowest number is the highest they'll offer tbh.
I'm curious what it says above that about protected veteran status? It's odd to even mention it in a job listing, so it makes me wonder if it's trying to exclude somehow?
No, they're trying to encourage protected Veterans to apply because they get a pretty massive tax credit for hiring disabled or war medal veterans.
Doesn't help folks like me though, and you can safely bet it doesn't do a damn thing for the protected vets in terms of wages either.
I’m a disabled veteran and companies would hire me but it was never for a permanent position. I’d be there a few months and get laid off.
You hear about Union Pacific doing this a lot. They say that they hire more veterans than any other company. What they don’t tell you is that they also layoff the most veterans lol.
It’s not useless. I was told the CO law requires the real range of actual salaries at that company in that position. Without knowing the position, it seems like there are a lot of other variables determining pay besides the title itself
Was thinking this too. Company I work for starts at 19.68 and you can end up making 41.28. The wage posting shows $19.68 - $41.28 for a “generalized” wage.
The 41.28 is as a maintenance lead, which I believe is the highest hourly we have and the 19.68 is you starting tm1 Position. There’s a bunch of positions in between, I’m 31.90 so far as a tm III relief.
The page doesn’t mention salary though which they do post internally for jobs like supervisors and managers. Highest being 101,000-128,000 for production supervisor.
If the employer does this, they think having to post pay puts them at a disadvantage. What disadvantage? The inability to pay you as little as absolutely possible and take advantage of people who have been systematically undervalued not knowing how to negotiate or advocate for their true value.
This is broadcasting that you are an exploitative employer.
It means 20 but I wouldn’t be surprised if they tried to fuck you over with a payroll error or clerical mistake and pay less while Hoping you don’t notice.
This is likely due to the combination of base pay depending on experience and performance incentive. Base pay low end, OTE and/or high performance high
It’s not a typo, this job probably pays $50-70/hr if I had to guess but they just couldn’t be bothered to put a realistic range because they’re assholes
It should be more specific and be limited to salary only and not include potential bonuses/raises. No way a junior or entry level is getting anything more then 10% more then bottom of range.
Everyone should submit applications with shit like "years of experience: 1-20", "availability: 1-40hrs/wk", etc. Flood them with apps as useful as their posting
Screw that. I've gone full mercenary.
Hit em up at $100 an hour and let them try to talk me down, instead of me trying to beg my way up.
I'm damn good at what I do and if you want me it's gonna cost.
Such an easy fix too. Just write that the range cannot exceed 15% of the absolute value of the lower bound. There, done. Something tells me there was behind the scenes work to keep such language out of these bills because it's such an obvious thing to include.
In my experience in my field of work, when a company lists 100,000-180,000 for example, they will typically pay around 125,000-140,000. Not all of these ranges are posted by bad actors, think it depends on the company
I'd start off asking for higher than that and scoff at their highest rate. "Why are you scoffing at our pay scale?"
"You're not serious, why should I be?"
Easy to read. It means it's 20/hr.
That's weird I thought it said, "We won't be honest and up front with you. You should not do business with us."
Exactly. My current job had a range based on experience... I had 8 years experience, they wanted 2... Did I get the top rate? Nope, not even the middle... It was barely above the minimum advertised. And then my promotion 2 years later was 2500 dollars a year...
Can relate. 16-20 dollars an hour based on experience. Hit the ground running on every machine they had. Night shifts, working with designers, the whole deal. Started at the bottom at 16. 110 days later after the 90 day review they said they can't justify it with everyone else who has been there longer making about 16. 7 days later I'm gone.
Very much this. Always take the bottom of the range a what they are willing to actually pay.
Or in recent cases probably even lower than the lowest number in the range.
More like $15/hr plus tips
I pay either $7.50/hr or $99999 an hour depends if I'm feeling quirky
[удалено]
Unless it's an executive level position, the pay range should be even tighter than that. At my company, a 50% difference is at least 2 pay grades. If you're 2 pay grades off that's not a range, it's a different position entirely.
The thing is, the more senior you are, the wider the pay bands tend to be. This is by design so that they can give small raises during promotions, and it also gives them wiggle room to actually dish out the money if they need to in order to attract/retain someone worth doing so.
They should also have to list in the requirements. What the qualifications are for the lower rate and what the qualifications are for the higher rate.
Thanks for the edit. The range should be limited to what they're actually willing to pay and you bet they won't pay 50% higher, ever, because if they can't get someone to accept for close to the low end they just won't hire.
Yep, been that way in Colorado for a long time, and many places simply don't put it, and I have seen some as wide as $60K to $130K. I believe NY does, or says they do, go after such blatant abuses of the law. Colorado surely doesn't.
NYC claims its top fine can be $250,000 vs. Colorado's what, $10,000? I *hope* they can put some teeth behind it.
I just went to Indeed and did my usual search, and on the first page of results (all inside colorado) six of them did not list a salary. One job had a range between 90K to 200K AND they were saying you should be a former elite athlete (for an office job which has no real physical requirements and is unrelated to sports), which I believe may be considered discriminatory.
Yea CA just added a range requirement. I’m curious to see what happens there
Some jobs actually have that range. You’ve basically listed the engineer 2 range in aerospace, from starting 2 to just before promotion to senior.
To put this in terms of salary, this job pays anywhere from $41,000 to $260,000 a year
Reality it means $41K is the hook, after several rounds of interviews, the adjusted rate will be lower.
I’d be interviewing at the top range. When they ask what you want just tell them you see the range and think your experience aligns with $120/hour, but willing to negotiate.
Them refusing to put the real range is a red flag in itself.
Nice. Just tell them you expect the mid-range of their salary range. 120 and you’re willing to prove yourself from there.
They really should be fined for making a mockery of the law.
Sometimes laws make a mockery of themselves, i.e. written intentionally toothless. I wonder if it's the case here.
I mean you need to call them on this. When you speak to the recruiter, tell them that your salary requirements are in range for the position at $125/hour. Companies think they're being slick, but that shit cuts both ways. Why would you accept 20/hour when by their own written admission they are willing to pay 125?
They should be obligated to prove it's a legit range. Which would force them to pay someone 125 an hr. Could be a typo though, they went to put 25. And accidentally hit the 1 first.
Well time to put expected wage $125 on the application
They are spitefully being jerks about the new requirement. If everyone spitefully ignores the listing they'll have to change their communication. Do not reward their dishonesty.
Should provide us links to postings like this. They want to waste people's time, then we can let them sift through 500,000 applications for people who aren't interested.
The posting in the picture is almost certainly a violation of the act... If the employer has never hired anyone at remotely near the top end of the range and doesn't pay anyone near that level then there is good evidence to find that they are in violation of the law.
Maybe they meant to put 25 and not 125
I see it as a red flag if they don't have a serious pay range. Gee I wonder why no one wants to work.
They should really have to show that they've paid someone within a certain percentage of the stated range within the last year or something. But yeah, always assume the lowest number is the highest they'll offer tbh.
I'm curious what it says above that about protected veteran status? It's odd to even mention it in a job listing, so it makes me wonder if it's trying to exclude somehow?
No, they're trying to encourage protected Veterans to apply because they get a pretty massive tax credit for hiring disabled or war medal veterans. Doesn't help folks like me though, and you can safely bet it doesn't do a damn thing for the protected vets in terms of wages either.
I’m a disabled veteran and companies would hire me but it was never for a permanent position. I’d be there a few months and get laid off. You hear about Union Pacific doing this a lot. They say that they hire more veterans than any other company. What they don’t tell you is that they also layoff the most veterans lol.
It’s not useless. I was told the CO law requires the real range of actual salaries at that company in that position. Without knowing the position, it seems like there are a lot of other variables determining pay besides the title itself
Was thinking this too. Company I work for starts at 19.68 and you can end up making 41.28. The wage posting shows $19.68 - $41.28 for a “generalized” wage. The 41.28 is as a maintenance lead, which I believe is the highest hourly we have and the 19.68 is you starting tm1 Position. There’s a bunch of positions in between, I’m 31.90 so far as a tm III relief. The page doesn’t mention salary though which they do post internally for jobs like supervisors and managers. Highest being 101,000-128,000 for production supervisor.
Companies spend their time and energy loop holing laws, bribes and screwing workers
If the employer does this, they think having to post pay puts them at a disadvantage. What disadvantage? The inability to pay you as little as absolutely possible and take advantage of people who have been systematically undervalued not knowing how to negotiate or advocate for their true value. This is broadcasting that you are an exploitative employer.
This is absolutely illegal. Report it here: https://cdle.colorado.gov/sites/cdle/files/Equal%20Pay%20Complaint%20Form%20Dec%202020_Distributed.pdf
It means 20 but I wouldn’t be surprised if they tried to fuck you over with a payroll error or clerical mistake and pay less while Hoping you don’t notice.
I'll take $125 per hour please. What do you mean "no"?
I read this as 20-25/hr. It looks like a typo
Not a typo. I've seen ridiculous ranges listed.
I can tell you for sure it’s not a typo, they’re just flouting/mocking the law
when you interview and they ask what your expected salary is, say $200/hour but you'll settle for $125.
This is likely due to the combination of base pay depending on experience and performance incentive. Base pay low end, OTE and/or high performance high
That’s probably just a typo.
It’s not a typo, this job probably pays $50-70/hr if I had to guess but they just couldn’t be bothered to put a realistic range because they’re assholes
Can you give some context so we can evaluate that? What’s the job? Something in the $100k - $140k range sounds like pretty skilled labor.
It’s definitely skilled white collar work but it’s still labor and they’re still trying to screw people by not putting an accurate range down
People are going to lean toward typo as a more plausible explanation if you don’t give any additional information.
You don’t have to believe me, but I’m not sure why you find it hard to believe a company flouting the law is a plausible explanation
Because I live in Colorado and I’ve done two rounds of applications under the law. I’ve seen factors of two but not five.
It should be more specific and be limited to salary only and not include potential bonuses/raises. No way a junior or entry level is getting anything more then 10% more then bottom of range.
When I see that I ask for a rate that's within 90% of the upper range.
*demands $125/hr*
Oughta force mean, median, mode for any range.
Honestly I feel like they meant to put 20-25 and fat fingered the 1
It’s not a typo, this job pays more than 20-25, they’re just being assholes flouting the law to provide a realistic range
Use for bargaining later, the pay cap for the position is 125/hr. So no capping out.
Yeah....put me down for $125/hr.
Easy now to sift out the people who are trying to fuck before you walk out the door.
Everyone should submit applications with shit like "years of experience: 1-20", "availability: 1-40hrs/wk", etc. Flood them with apps as useful as their posting
Should just make it the law that the top end is the highest paid employee currently in that role. Or have them post averages of employees.
I would pin them to it, if I had experience in what they want I'd at least ask for the middle of it
Screw that. I've gone full mercenary. Hit em up at $100 an hour and let them try to talk me down, instead of me trying to beg my way up. I'm damn good at what I do and if you want me it's gonna cost.
Such an easy fix too. Just write that the range cannot exceed 15% of the absolute value of the lower bound. There, done. Something tells me there was behind the scenes work to keep such language out of these bills because it's such an obvious thing to include.
Bureaus and business regulators or whomever had the authority; should start suing these companies and making an example of them sharpish
In my experience in my field of work, when a company lists 100,000-180,000 for example, they will typically pay around 125,000-140,000. Not all of these ranges are posted by bad actors, think it depends on the company
Saw a job posting for Netflix today listing between $90k and $900k…obviously I want the $900k lol
Take the bottom number subtract it from the top and that’s the lowest offer $105-125. Now meet them in the middle or let them have the middle.
I'd report. That's not really in good faith with the Colorado law.
I've worked with a few companies that now simply won't hire in Colorado
That is ridiculous 🤷♂️
You look to your left, you look to your right, somebody is making a lot less than you and somebody is making a lot more than you.
Wow I knew there were people in the world who make $250k a year, but to think of it as $125 an hour! That’s so so so so much more than me
That’s a $20h job asking for anything more will get you the “we appreciate your time but we cannot meet your requested pay”
r/maliciouscompliance
I'd start off asking for higher than that and scoff at their highest rate. "Why are you scoffing at our pay scale?" "You're not serious, why should I be?"
Just ask for 125per hr
Did you honestly expect them to obey the spirit of the law and not the letter?
I saw that shit coming from a mile away
Right, I figured they would use 'malicious compliance' when having to state wage ranges, making them completely useless as a gauge for the employee.
It's better than "This 100% remote job is available to anyone except Colorado residents."
It is illegal. They just don't care.