[hexadec]

>The only possible purpose of making laws like this is so that the state can try to enforce some remedy whereby we're told how much we have to or are allowed to pay someone. Who in their right mind wants to sign up for that kind of risk?

How is this the logical conclusion you arrive at? Do you as a company not have a salary range for headcount? Do you not expect prices to be posted by your vendors leading to a lack in informational symmetry and haggling during every routine interaction?

Imagine if your landlord could arbitrarily raise your rent an untold amount with no notice. You of course have options, move or negotiate. But the informational asymmetry means it is harder for you to know if you are getting a good deal if every other landlord is listing their rent as $1-100000 per month or not telling you until after you spent the time checking out the property only to find it is way outside your budget.

The time cost of candidates finding your job, doing some basic research, prepping for X rounds of interviews, possible homework, dealing with hiring managers/ recruiters is insane once you figure folks usually apply to multiple jobs. Why not just tell them up front the salary like you do for role expectations and company culture drivel? Posting honest salary bands is fine to me, say seniors will get $100-150k or whatever, but the article shows clear malice towards any legitimate transparency up front.

[nerdponx]

> You of course have options

But in pretty much all cases, the renter incurs possibly substantial costs in time, money, and general well-being. So the mere act imposes a cost on the renter, even if the renter never pays the landlord an extra cent. Landlords know this, and if they can estimate those costs, they are able to increase rent freely as long as the present value of the rent increase is still less than the cost of moving and/or getting a lawyer. Employers have the same power, especially in tight labor markets.

[SavageBeast]

Whether or not posting salary bands for a given position is a good idea or not a good idea, It rubs me the wrong way that a state government somehow imagines it has the authority to mandate this. And for what purpose? Why does a state make a law if not to enforce some as yet undefined remedy? What will this remedy be? I don't think we know yet but I for one do not want to find out. I have enough other problems to be concerned with.

There are 2 boxes in front of you each containing a tasty red apple. One of those boxes is filled with barbed wire, razor blades and broken glass with an apple in the middle. The other is just an empty box with an apple in it, and it happens to be priced lower.

Which apple do you choose?

[mint2]

The reason for the regulation is the same reason that a lot of regulations are made: companies refuse to do something that’s one of good/common sense/not evil unless they’re absolutely forced to.

The unwillingness of some to comply with the spirit (posting absurd ranges) of the law shows how there is no chance the information asymmetry between worker and the potential employer would be fixed by letting the companies do as they will.

[upon_drumhead]

What possible hazards do you honestly feel the WA law is leading to?

I’m all for it. Less for tech workers and more for blue collar workers who don’t have nearly as much career mobility. Having them able to understand the current wider market when looking will only help them get better and more livable work.