As a Coloradan another thing that's happening is companies are listing their jobs as Remote, only advertising in CO, and just mentioning it's a CO only job verbally. They do the thing where they sit in the gray area due to pandemic "Oh, it's remote, FOR NOW, but it's a CO job" Or listing the job as Denver and a few other cities, but it's really just Denver/Boulder (Twitter currently doing this).
Another pattern is listing the range as 40-250k so the disclosure is effectively nothing. Consulting companies Accenture, PwC, Deloitte are doing that one.
A few companies are completely rejecting this whole law too. I've spoken with a few that still won't disclose (usually "We aren't CO based and it doesn't apply") or they just straight up aren't doing it with no comment. Experienced many recruiters completely flustered by it.
> Another pattern is listing the range as 40-250k so the disclosure is effectively nothing.
This feels like a losing strategy as other employers will be posting tighter ranges which will get more applications. Especially if the lower bounds is too low. Hopefully this sorts itself out.
A higher upper limit encourages more applications because people see the company has room to grow.
A lower floor encourages more people to accept mid-range offers because nobody likes getting an offer in the middle of the range.
If someone gets an $80K offer for a job with a $40K-$250K range, they are happy to be paid twice as much as what they assume entry-level employees get, and they’re happy because they think they can grow into the $250K range if they work hard enough.
However if someone receives the same $80K offer on a listing with an $80K to $110K range, they’re going to be upset that they were given the lowest possible value and also concerned that there isn’t much room to grow.
In our case, we have a wide salary range because we hire everywhere from juniors without college degrees up through ex-FAANG employees. We don’t set out with an exact compensation or seniority in mind when we start recruiting.
Data about how those job posts perform with large vs small ranges would be helpful in dissuading smaller companies from doing it. I think larger companies are going to do it regardless though.
A lot of the problem is what the job pays is highly dependent on who is chosen for the role, especially for those catch all job postings that are just Software Engineer -- All Levels.
So it genuinely could be anywhere between 40-250K.
The law only requires a minimum for the specific title. So it does fail if a company is just looking generically and they don't wish to follow the law in spirit by listing the minimums per level. And once you are in discussion and land at a level the recruiter is essentially obligated to tell you, so it's not just job listings.
That's either a defect in the law or it's HR people thinking they're more clever than the legal system and violating the rule in a spirit which a court could easily find actionable.
Another pattern is listing the range as 40-250k so the disclosure is effectively nothing. Consulting companies Accenture, PwC, Deloitte are doing that one.
A few companies are completely rejecting this whole law too. I've spoken with a few that still won't disclose (usually "We aren't CO based and it doesn't apply") or they just straight up aren't doing it with no comment. Experienced many recruiters completely flustered by it.