[epwr]

> Microsoft said it would disclose salary ranges in all internal and external U.S. job postings no later than January 2023. That date is when Washington state, where Microsoft’s headquarters are located, will start requiring employers with at least 15 employees to disclose salary ranges for each position.

In other news, Microsoft to comply with a new law.

[JumpCrisscross]

> In other news, Microsoft to comply with a new law

Microsoft is under no obligation to comply with Washington law outside Washington. That's what they're doing here.

[TulliusCicero]

Since their largest workforce is in Washington state, it's probably just less risky to make this their overall US policy. Making a different policy for HQ vs everywhere else could easily lead to mistakes and accidentally breaking the law.

[Dylan16807]

It can't be that hard to follow this law in specific places. This is a meaningful policy decision, not just following risk.

[InitialBP]

> It can't be that hard to follow this law in specific places.

Directly from the article: "Pay experts have long predicted companies would not want to mess with different practices in different states. Doing so not only complicates hiring practices for human resources departments, ..."

There is probably a lot more nuance and qualifications of when it's necessary to disclose and from a company that employs more than 150k employees (according to a quick google) there's probably even more complexity and chaos.

[sangnoir]

> It can't be that hard to follow this law in specific places

The problem is that 'specific places' very dynamic, and is hard to pin down when it comes to employment. A candidate/employee may move to/from jurisdictions where this is a requirement, and job postings may or may not be shown across different jurisdictions.

Does Microsoft want to invest time wrangling in court concerning a Colorado resident not seeing the pay range when they are using a VPN? Or when a candidate becomes a Colorado resident some time between the phone-screen and the first interview? Should Microsoft recruiters stop using external job-boards, and instead wait for a salary geo-fencing feature to be implemented in their internal jobs tool? What is the case law for out-of-staters who will be moving into a state with such a law for employment? How about remote candidate in Texas, working for a team based in Washington - and the reverse? There are dozens of edge cases, and for a company the size of Microsoft, can easily result in hundreds to thousands of infractions per year - the juice may not be worth the squeeze.

[pnw]

There will be an army of lawyers trying to monetize any errors by companies, since the WA bill 5761 allows a job applicant to sue for potential lost wages plus interest. Microsoft is just getting ahead of the lawsuit curve.

[TulliusCicero]

I think you'd be surprised. Though the problem isn't that it's hard to follow in the general case, but that things could potentially slip through the cracks.

Corporations are risk averse, they don't want to have to deal with potentially getting sued if a job opening starts out in one area and then moves to another one where suddenly the way the opening is described is illegal.

It's just easier to do it the same everywhere if the advantage they're giving up is small.

[refurb]

In my company ranges are posted and they are $150k to $250k USD.

Not terribly helpful.

[ffggvv]

thats not true and they already have to comply with alot of different laws around the globe. please dont make up random stuff.

[epwr]

This article [1] seems to state pretty clearly that the law applies to all job posting by a company in Washington state. Any sources saying it's only about jobs open to Washington residents?

[1] https://www.dwt.com/blogs/employment-labor-and-benefits/2022...

[JumpCrisscross]

> sources saying it's only about jobs open to Washington residents?

Washington state can't regulate how Microsoft hires people in Texas.

Microsoft Corp. isn't even a Washington legal entity. (EDIT: Never mind, I stand corrected [1]. In any case, the broader point stands. Delaware doesn't get to regulate how its entities hire outside Delaware. This is well-settled employment/interstate commerce law.)

[1] https://www.sec.gov/ix?doc=/Archives/edgar/data/789019/00015...

[andjd]

Legally, a company is subject to state laws of their state of incorporation (usually Delaware, for various reasons) _and_ their state of 'domicile', usually where they are headquartered. They are also subject to state laws in states where they operate.

So yes, in this situation, even if MS were incorporated in Delaware, Washington state could pass laws that bind how the company acts anywhere in the world.

Washington also isn't the only state passing this style of law. Putting up the systems and processes to comply with this law only for Washington-based positions would probably not be worth it.

[JumpCrisscross]

> even if MS were incorporated in Delaware, Washington state could pass laws that bind how the company acts anywhere in the world

This is not true [1]. It's especially untrue with respect to employment, a domain in which federal statute has a lot to say about who can regulate whom.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dormant_Commerce_Clause

[LargeWu]

You are misreading this. The Dormant Commerce Clause is relevant when talking about applying laws unequally for the purpose of protecting in-state commercial entities. For instance, if companies based out of state were subject to salary disclosure laws, but Washington based companies were not.

In this case, Dormant Commerce does not apply since the salary disclosure laws apply to any company operating in the state, regardless of where they're headquartered or incorporated. It applies equally to all.

[lozenge]

That's specific to state protectionism though. The law applies equally to jobs posted inside and outside the state so the Dormant Commerce Clause is not relevant.

[willcipriano]

I pretty sure if you headquartered your marijuana company in a state where it's illegal you'd run into problems, even if you didn't grow or sell it in that state.

[oneoff786]

I don’t think that’s true?

[willcipriano]

"Conspiracy to commit drug trafficking" would probably fit the bill. I think they could just call in the feds because from the state and federal perspective you are running a drug empire from that office.

[decebalus1]

What are you even talking about?

> Microsoft was incorporated in the state of Washington on June 25, 1981; reincorporated in the state of Delaware on September 19, 1986; and reincorporated in the state of Washington on September 22, 1993.

https://app.quotemedia.com/data/downloadFiling?webmasterId=9...

Washington (State or Other Jurisdiction of Incorporation)

[dnissley]

Just to take this a bit farther... if Washington state can regulate Washington incorporated entities, can it regulate them to act in a way that would violate laws in other states?

[malwarebytess]

Here's an example.

California passes a law, and because doing business in California is good for the bottom line they will comply with the law, and in so doing set a new defacto national standard. But, if this burden becomes too onerous, the business can simply not do business with California or move out of California. But, California is such a large market it's quite a high burden to reach.

[CountSessine]

This isn't epwr's claim. His claim is that Washington has written and passed a law that binds Microsoft's operations outside Washington state, which I'm pretty sure would violate the commerce clause.

[zeroonetwothree]

They cannot just like they can’t regulate activities of private individual when outside their state of residence.

[AdrianB1]

California does regulate private individuals that lived in California in the past. It also does regulate private individuals with residence in California and working in a different state. Just saying.

[hef19898]

If you do that only for jobs in Washington state it is only a question of time until the first discrimibation law suites are filed. Plus it is easy good press.

[JumpCrisscross]

> you do that only for jobs in Washington state it is only a question of time until the first discrimibation law suites are filed

Discriminating based on an employee's state of residence is totally fine. Californians get different disclosures and rights compared with say Nevadans. Nevadans can't sue for those benefits; they're not entitled to them.

[DannyBee]

and then the law would get struck down because, as said, washington state isn't allowed to regulate interstate commerce.

[bmelton]

Nit to pick: States can and do regulate interstate commerce all the time. California once banned the import of foie gras into the state, and IIRC are planning a law banning the import of foreign oil. Some states ban the import of firearms they don't wish to exist.

Whether they should be allowed to engage in the regulation of interstate commerce for activities that occur entirely extra-state is probably more along what you intended, but even that you could probably find allowed or as-yet-indeterminate exceptions to.

[connicpu]

Washington has actually successfully enforced some of its worker protection rules on a national scale in the past. As a condition of having the harsh penalties for their in-state violations dropped, they got fast food companies to agree to drop non-compete agreements from all franchise agreements nationwide[1]

Whether it happens as a direct consequence of the word of the law feels less relevant than the fact they made it happen in practice via a settlement.

[1]: https://table.skift.com/2018/07/12/some-fast-food-chains-dro...

[dragonwriter]

> and then the law would get struck down because, as said, washington state isn't allowed to regulate interstate commerce.

It isn't allowed to discriminate against or unduly burden interstate commerce; it can generally regulate the behavior of Washington persons (including corporations) in interstate commerce where such regulation does not discriminate against such commerce (which is clearly the case where the rule is identical to that for in-state commerce of the same type.)

The exception would be if the federal government preempted the kind of regulation Washington sought to make by exercise of federal commerce powers.

[paulmd]

What are your qualifications to be dispensing legal advice in this area, if any?

Yes, a company headquartered in california is (in many cases) still bound by california law even if the employee is located in another state. The obvious example is non-compete clauses, a california company still usually cannot enforce a non-compete even if the law permits it in the employee's state.

However, this situation is what's called a "conflict-of-law" and it basically comes down to the way the court interprets it.

Take it from the actual lawyers:

> The circumstances that present the strongest case against enforcement of such an agreement involves a noncompete agreement between a California-based employer and a California-based employee. But not all cases are that simple; whether California law applies depends upon the application of “conflict of law” rules.

> “Conflict of law” rules allow courts to determine what state’s laws apply when the laws of more than one state might apply to a dispute but would produce different results. For example, a noncompete agreement between a California-based employer and a Nevada-based employee that was signed in Nevada could be construed under Nevada or California law, depending on the circumstances. If Nevada law applies, the restrictive covenant might be enforceable against the employee. If California law applies, it will not be enforceable.

> Because of these issues, parties often include choice-of-law provisions telling a court to apply a particular state’s law rather than determine what state’s substantive laws apply under a conflict-of-law analysis. In most cases a court will readily accept a choice-of-law provision and apply it as the parties intended. But that’s not necessarily so in the case of a noncompete agreement.

> Like other common law doctrines, conflict-of-law rules vary from state to state. Most states will not enforce a choice-of-law provision that would violate the public policy of a state with a “materially greater interest” in the dispute or where the parties do not have a “substantial relationship” with the chosen state. In other words, a California employer cannot get around California’s prohibition against employee restrictive covenants by requiring his California employee to sign an agreement that includes a Nevada choice-of-law clause.

https://www.bonalaw.com/insights/legal-resources/is-my-out-o...

So yes, employment law in state X usually does bind a company headquartered in state X even if the employee is working in a completely different state. Doesn't matter where you live, you are employed by an entity in state X.

(or rather, it does matter, you still have to pay taxes in state Y and state Y also gets to pass rules of its own governing work in that state... practically speaking what you get is the union of the two sets of rules, you get the combination of both. In the event of a full-on "state X requires A, state Y forbids it"... then the lawyers get paid.)

[lanstein]

I believe it is a WA corp.

[bena]

It's probably a move just to make it easier on themselves.

They want to streamline the job posting portion of HR. They don't want to have to worry about whether or not they have to post the salary range, so they just do what the most demanding law they deal with requires.

Now they only really have to deal with areas that have laws that contradict with laws in other areas. Then you'd default to the law that benefits you the most and deal with the contradictory areas explicitly. Since you have to do the work anyway.

For example, let's pretend that California had a really stupid law that forbid salary ranges from being posted on job listings. Now Microsoft has to be careful about how and where they post jobs. And since it's beneficial for them to hide the information, they'd likely only post the salary ranges where they were required to.

But absent that, don't do work you don't have to do.

[bombcar]

It also makes sense when you realize more and more jobs are "Location, or remote" and "or remote" would cover Washington and Colorado.

[superfrank]

My guess is they see the writing on the wall with this one. Colorado and Washington both have laws about this now. I wouldn't be surprised to see California and New York implement something similar in the next year or two.

[dragonwriter]

> I wouldn't be surprised to see California and New York implement something similar in the next year or two.

California started the trend with its “on reasonable request” pay range disclosure law, and has an proactive disclosure bill that has passed the Senate and is pending in the Assembly this session (DB 1162). But even without a proactive disclosure law, voluntary proactive disclosure reduces the request load for on-reequest disclosure, and consistency is cheaper to implement internally.

[wing-_-nuts]

Probably easier to just do it for everybody than have two separate listings for WA and the rest of the US. I wonder if this is TC or just salary?

[sgerenser]

Everything I’ve seen so far is just salary. Which is kind of a huge loophole for tech companies where 20-60% of compensation is often in the form of stock and bonuses.

[lotsofpulp]

I am curious what level of details the text of the law requires:

https://app.leg.wa.gov/billsummary?billnumber=5761&year=2021...

https://lawfilesext.leg.wa.gov/biennium/2021-22/Pdf/Bills/Se...

>disclose in each posting for each job opening the wage scale or salary range, and a general description of all of the benefits and other compensation to be offered to the hired applicant.

What is general description? Is that how many RSUs? Does it require showing what metal level health insurance is offered and specific the employer paid proportion?

[sgerenser]

Doubt it, assuming the law is similar to Colorado’s. A Colorado job listing for a FAANG that eventually offered approximately $270k in total compensation was roughly worded like this:

“Colorado residents: Pay for this job starts at at $100,000/year commensurate with experience, plus additional compensation through bonuses, restricted stock units and a comprehensive benefit plan.”

[NaturalPhallacy]

It's simpler and easier to do it this way. Which is what they're doing here.

[chrismeller]

“Software Engineer I - 40-250k”

[ekianjo]

anything preventing them from doing very large ranges like that?

[PragmaticPulp]

Yes, it would discourage some candidates from applying if they see the average within that range is lower than the average they could get anywhere else. Dirty tricks are also a red flag for candidates.

However, while that range is an exaggeration, the truth is that salary ranges for positions are actually much wider than candidates may expect. There's a misconception that open positions have a single "correct" salary and that the negotiation process is all about getting the company to reveal that maximum number. It's not true, though. Ranges exist because even within a certain title, candidates have a wide range of skills and locations (especially when hiring remote/international) really do matter, whether or not you think they should.

More broadly, the salary range isn't even necessarily the only range they'd be willing to pay you. It's actually not uncommon to interview someone and realize that their career level is either above or below the position they're interviewing for. In that case, you "decline" the candidate for the position/title/pay range they applied for but continue the interview for a different position.

For example, if someone applies for SW ENG II but their compensation ask is in the range of SW ENG III (and their talents match) then you just bump them up. Conversely, if someone applies for SW ENG II but they're interviewing below the level of your SW ENG II candidates, you offer to continue the interview at the lower SW ENG I title/salary if they're willing.

So the ranges are still just a starting point. There is no magic trick to force a company to reveal the maximum number they'd pay you specifically. It's still a negotiation, but at least you can order job postings somewhat.

I actually think the bigger problem we're going to see is companies bait-and-switching candidates by putting a huge upper range number in the job posting but then offering them the bottom end of range while claiming that they can work their way up the range later. A lot of eager candidates are going to be pulled into companies who claim to have high upper limits, but who tell them they need to start at the bottom of the range and move up.

[russellendicott]

Yeah, I expect it will turn into a game and companies will just explode the number of positions so "Software Engineer 1" will become

Software Engineer 1a (60k-70k) Software Engineer 1b (70k-80k) Etc...

[coding123]

If someone is a III and applied for a II, the company would likely hire them as a II.

[bombcar]

They'd likely offer at a II but reoffer at a III if there were competing offers, or really wanted the employee.

Or, sometimes, the fight was already done internally for a III and the manager wouldn't want to lose that, and so will hire at a low III.

[yjftsjthsd-h]

I am told that judges tend to be unimpressed with technically following a law in a way that blatantly ignores the intent; I suspect that if you tried to claim a larger range than actually exists in salaries you actually pay then they'd still find you to have broken the law. But IANAL and know nothing of the specifics; take with large grain of salt.

[treis]

It says you have to post "the" salary range. So you can't have an actual salary range and then post something different. Most corps will have realistic salary bands and when they create job reqs it will be for a specific level. It's possible that some will call everyone engineers and have a band like that when you include interns. But that's not how most of them operate.

[ekianjo]

> So you can't have an actual salary range and then post something different.

If it's a new position that's different from the roles your currently have, sure you can.

[chrismeller]

Nothing I see in the bill [1] says what an acceptable range is.

1: https://app.leg.wa.gov/billsummary?BillNumber=5761&Year=2021...

[anticensor]

The state could publish an executive order stating "pay ranges for a given job post may not simultaneously cover three or more public servant pay grades".

[llbeansandrice]

FWIW the similar Colorado law prevents this

[ekianjo]

How do they prevent it?

[pulse7]

"Any Job ... 0-1B"