Hacker News

points by mppm 1 day ago | 0 comments

I understand the frustration this is born from, but find it hard to imagine a practical rule set that will actually do more good than harm.

1. To be meaningful at all, the legislation must only allow narrow ranges, e.g. 10%, so that employers can't put 30-90K in the description.

2. In addition, you would have to make the application very specific to a given position. If the employer can say "you don't qualify for L7 that you applied for, buuut... we could transfer your application to the L5 track", then we are back to where we started.

3. On the other hand, any super-rigid rule like this will hurt both employers and employees who are actually trying to fill a real position. It will hurt even more the few remaining companies that are looking for people and not just labeled cogs in the machine.

I want this to work, but it has the smell of compliance theater.

[–] DonsDiscountGas 1 day ago

I dunno I see a lot of broad ranges in the US but it's still a lot better than nothing. And they can list multiple levels in the job ad. I can see these being pointless but I can't imagine it being harmful.

[–] BobaFloutist 1 day ago

>2. In addition, you would have to make the application very specific to a given position. If the employer can say "you don't qualify for L7 that you applied for, buuut... we could transfer your application to the L5 track", then we are back to where we started.

In banking, there's various thresholds for transfers or deposits or withdrawals that require scrutiny or reporting. There's also laws that amount to "Don't fuck with us" around deliberately narrowly avoiding those thresholds.

I think that this law could have a similar "Don't fuck with us" clause, where a company can reasonably adjust what jobs they offer people that apply to their posted jobs occasionally, but if they're clearly deliberately misleading applicants, they get penalized enough to make it cost more than they benefit.