Become a fan of Slashdot on Facebook

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
The Almighty Buck Government

California's Pay Transparency Law Goes Into Effect, Revealing Big Tech Salaries 111

Posted by BeauHD from the show-me-the-money dept.
An anonymous reader quotes a report from CNBC: A new law that went into effect this week requires most California employers to disclose salaries on job listings. The law affects every company with more than 15 employees looking to fill a job that could be performed from the state of California. It covers hourly and temporary work, all the way up to openings for highly paid technology executives. That means it's now possible to know the salaries top tech companies pay their workers. For example: A program manager in Apple's augmented reality group will receive base pay between $121,000 and $230,000 per year, according to an Apple posting Wednesday. A midcareer software engineer at Google Health can expect to make between $126,000 and $190,000 per year. A director of software engineering at Meta leading teams building network infrastructure will make at least $253,000 and as much as $327,000 in salary per year. Notably, these salary listings do not include any bonuses or equity grants, which many tech companies use to attract and retain employees.

California's pay transparency law is intended to reduce gender and race pay gaps and help minorities and women better compete in the labor market. For example, people can compare their current pay with job listings with the same job title and see if they're being underpaid. [...] But the new disclosures under the law might not tell the whole story of what a job pays. Companies can choose to display wide pay ranges, violating the spirit of the law, and the law doesn't require companies to reveal bonuses or equity compensation. The law could also penalize ambitious workers who are gunning for more money because of their experience or skills, the California Chamber of Commerce said last year when opposing the bill. Some employers might be wary of posting pay to prevent bidding wars for top talent.

There are two primary components to California Senate Bill No. 1162, which was passed in September and went into effect Jan. 1. First is the pay transparency component on job listings, which applies to any company with more than 15 employees if the job could be done in California. The second part requires companies with more than 100 employees to submit a pay data report to the state of California with detailed salary information broken down by race, sex and job category. Companies have to provide a similar report on the federal level, but California now requires more details. Employers are required to maintain detailed records of each job title and its wage history, and California's labor commissioner can inspect those records. California can enforce the law through fines and can investigate violations. The reports won't be published publicly under the new law.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

California's Pay Transparency Law Goes Into Effect, Revealing Big Tech Salaries More

California's Pay Transparency Law Goes Into Effect, Revealing Big Tech Salaries

Comments Filter:
  • I thought pay was higher. How could anyone making 150K afford to live in San Jose? Don't get me wrong, 150K would be an excellent pay in a lot of places, just not in Silicon Valley.

    • Stock, bonuses, and room mates/working spouse.

    • Re: (Score:1)

      by f00zbll ( 526151 )

      after college, a lot of friends moved from southern CA to silicon valley in the mid 90's. No, 150K a year gets you a shed today in silicon valley. A few friends were paying over 1K /month for a room in a 5 bedroom house around 1996. By late 90's, a few friends were paying over 2K/month in SF for 1 room in a shared apartment. The avg rent in SF today is around 3,300/month. That's actually down a bit from pre covid prices

    • golden handcuffs (Score:5, Informative)

      by RegistrationIsDumb83 ( 6517138 ) on Friday January 06, 2023 @08:43AM (#63184488)
      You're only seeing base salary. The equity and bonuses are a huge missing component. This is the golden handcuffs, or how companies lock employees in. Imagine the very real situation of having half or more of your pay (the starting bonus and annual stock award) contingent on you sticking around at least a year. If you're stuck under an abusive boss, it can be a real nightmare since you might have to pay back starting bonus and miss first year vesting if you want to quit. Leaving early is basically walking away from a majority of your planned earnings for that time. It's a shitty system, and it lets the company get away with a lot of bad treatment.

      • Re:golden handcuffs (Score:4, Informative)

        by Junta ( 36770 ) on Friday January 06, 2023 @09:54AM (#63184628)

        Yep, a pretty aggressive salary for one of the big ones might be, say $200k base salary.

        Then a bonus of like $20,000 cash every year.
        Then a stock grant of about $100,000 every year (though you would have to wait a year before you get to sell any, and it generally takes 3 or 4 years before you can sell it all, so in a given year you get to sell a bit of your bonuses over the last 4 years).

        The hiring bonus situation can be similar, you might get a $100k hiring bonus and a $750k stock bonus. Essentially ,'topping up' the rolling vesting to have your first years still have about six figure of stock to sell.

        In such a case, it is true that walking away at any given moment forfeits about half a million, but if moving to a comparable employer they offer a hiring bonus to basically entirely make up for what you had to walk away from.

        Of course, with the market the way it is, massive amounts of stock as if it were toilet paper might take a hit...

      • It's a shitty system, and it lets the company get away with a lot of bad treatment.

        Only for the naive. You can do your due diligence and check the turnover rate of existing employees before applying. Bad bosses will become obvious long before you start working for them.

    • They dont. They live 2-3 hours drive away in a place shared with 3 other people

    • They will make hundreds of thousands to millions in bonuses and grants as well.

      Without including bonuses and grants this law is not only meaningless, it is actually going to cause more confusion and problems.

    • Yeah this is bullshit propaganda you're pushing. I've lived in SF on much less than $100k for over a decade and I had a pretty good life doing it.

    • Been there, done that about a decade ago. It is easy IF you are smart about your expenses:

      * Car was paid off,
      * Lived in a (small, but not studio) apartment,
      * Only had to drive ~10 miles for work,
      * Biked to work for a year to save extra money.

  • I always mark decline to state race and I can change my gender at will.

  • First they state right out in the open that companies are disclosing ranges, which are likely the actual ranges and thus make them compliant, but still won't affect the issue. In a job paying between 125k and 175k, a company could still pay women and minorities the low end of that range and white men the high end of the range and be compliant with the law and still have a wage gap.

    But it also doesn't address the underlying issue. It's been the law of the land for years that people should get equal pay

    • > I don't know where it stems from.

      Check out Trait Agreeableness on the Big 5 personality inventory. There's a cross-cultural gender distribution distinction, which paradoxically becomes greater in more egalitarian societies.

      I looked at a friend's finances, an experienced IT person, who was barely paying the bills, living frugally. I told her to send an email saying she needed $10K more and a day later they were like "sure, no problem". She was still making below-market at that.

      Nonetheless, she was te

      • > I don't know where it stems from.

        Check out Trait Agreeableness on the Big 5 personality inventory. There's a cross-cultural gender distribution distinction, which paradoxically becomes greater in more egalitarian societies.

        I looked at a friend's finances, an experienced IT person, who was barely paying the bills, living frugally. I told her to send an email saying she needed $10K more and a day later they were like "sure, no problem". She was still making below-market at that.

        Nonetheless, she was terrified to send the letter as she didn't want to potentially disrupt the social dynamic.

        More often than not guys don't care about maintaining the social order.

        So the question is, do we demand women become more aggressive, or do we somehow intervene in mens physiology to remove their aggressiveness?

        In the workplace I am extremely assertive, and it is just part of me. Now a part of that assertiveness is that I am very very strict with myself about meeting deadlines, and to perform what I have to perform. I take almost no sick days, I will postpone vacations - Job is job one.

        And yes - that is part of how I have done well financially. While women were preferenti

    • Re:The law will fail at it's objective (Score:4, Insightful)

      by Ol Olsoc ( 1175323 ) on Friday January 06, 2023 @10:38AM (#63184792)

      First they state right out in the open that companies are disclosing ranges, which are likely the actual ranges and thus make them compliant, but still won't affect the issue. In a job paying between 125k and 175k, a company could still pay women and minorities the low end of that range and white men the high end of the range and be compliant with the law and still have a wage gap.

      But it also doesn't address the underlying issue. It's been the law of the land for years that people should get equal pay for equal work regardless of ethnicity or gender, but it's always given leeway in those ranges based on ability. It's that last part that is the issue. A hiring manager has to make a subjective assessment of ability, and in that is where the pay disparity falls. Now this could be a discriminatory thing on the part of the hiring manager, but there's also an issue with the candidates in how they portray themselves.

      There are issues however. Let's take my situation.

      I was paid roughly 3 times what the others of my job description were paid where I was at.

      Some of the ladies complained about that. Talk about a sticky wicket.

      But there were some significant differences. I would come in early and work late. I would travel. I would do dangerous work.

      All which were refused by them.

      I'd even finish their work, if it was needed the next day.

      Quite the dillemma, here you have the very embodiment of whom they want less of in the workplace, a person with a penis, and the wrong skin color - kinda pinkish. But I am really good at what I do, would do work that the others refused to do, and my skillset is such that I could leave anytime.

      Hell, my pay raises had to be approved at the very top because I was way over the top of that range for the position.

      Eventually, the response was "If you start to do the things Olsoc does, which are in the job description, we'll look at the situation again." No one wanted to do that. They wanted my pay for them and I just doing what we were already doing. I did note that I could move on at any time, and that would mean they would have to do the things they were allowed to refuse to do. Which probably resonated with them as maybe they should back off their demand.

      Now "Olsoc you doddering olde Boomer, why didn't they just make a new position for you?", you might ask, quite logically.

      Because that would be considered both a promotion, and a parallel move (not good), and besides, at that time, women were given preference in promotion and there were quotas. I was not on the quota list, in fact the opposite. Hoist by their own quotas and preferences, it would seem. I'll note that over the years, I gave up several promotions so a woman could get one and not violate the quota. I was trying to help. I did work with the diversity groups, and the attempts to get young ladies into a STEM path over the years as well.

      Eventually I retired from that place, and my skillset had people chasing after me. Now I'm in a singular position, so don't have to worry about what others in my position are paid. For all of the good intentions, the concept of genitalia and skin color being more important than ability, and demanding equal pay regardless will just chase away the more able people of male/female/underrepresented groups to positions where they are paid what they are worth, while places where actual skills are less important will tend to average pay, average output world.

      • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

        by 140Mandak262Jamuna ( 970587 )
        Based on the tone of your posting, it looks like you would not be a nice co worker. You seem to nurse so many grievances and show very little respect for others.

        You are probably someone who made your contribution more significant than it really is, probably your pinkish skin tone and other bodily accoutrements helped because you were able to dog whistle to your bosses with similar traits.

        You are probably a good fit for loner positions, individual contributor titles. Not suitable for team player or team

        • Based on the tone of your posting, it looks like you would not be a nice co worker. You seem to nurse so many grievances and show very little respect for others.

          Actually, reality is quite different. You read me as having grievances and disrespect for others.

          I offer my experience as illustrative of my experience, basically. Which is all to say that there is a lot more to the job than a published salary.

          You are probably someone who made your contribution more significant than it really is, probably your pinkish skin tone and other bodily accoutrements helped because you were able to dog whistle to your bosses with similar traits.

          I've reported to a number of women in my career. Contrary to your feelings and what you think "probably" happened, they loved me.

          You are probably a good fit for loner positions, individual contributor titles.

          And that would be okay, I would have no problem with that. But that definitely is not what I'm doing at present.

          Not suitable for team player or team lead.

          In addition to my pres

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by Ogive17 ( 691899 )
        Why did they know you were paid 3x as much as them? Was there a law in place back then?

        Even with this new law in California it appears only the starting pay range is required.

        • Why did they know you were paid 3x as much as them? Was there a law in place back then?

          I was in a University environment, and the different jobs all had pay ranges. My best guess is someone in HR leaked it since it had to be approved at a high level.

      • I was paid roughly 3 times what the others of my job description were paid where I was at.

        This stuff matters. Starting pay at a job affects all your later pay. If you're underpaid, then several years of above average wages will never be enough to catch up. If you're overpaid then getting below average raises doesn't hurt as much. When I was (briefly) a manager and got to see what people were actually paid; the most productive member of my team was the one who was paid the last (probably lowballed when hired) and the least productive member of the team was paid the most. And there was nothin

        • I was paid roughly 3 times what the others of my job description were paid where I was at.

          This stuff matters. Starting pay at a job affects all your later pay. If you're underpaid, then several years of above average wages will never be enough to catch up. If you're overpaid then getting below average raises doesn't hurt as much.

          It was kind of a consolation prize for being last in line for promotions. There was a real quota push going on. Anyhow, my worth was known, so they were okay with giving me as much money as they could.

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by skam240 ( 789197 )

        Quite the dillemma, here you have the very embodiment of whom they want less of in the workplace, a person with a penis, and the wrong skin color - kinda pinkish. But I am really good at what I do, would do work that the others refused to do, and my skillset is such that I could leave anytime.

        The fact that you think this is probably why they really want you gone. Minorities and women are not out to get white men and as a white male you've got plenty of things working for you. Get a grasp on reality.

        It's funny because under all your nailing yourself to a cross nonsense you have a good point about performance mattering in regards to pay. Only those who subscribe to your idiot ideology will ever appreciate it though as quite a lot of us tune out when we hear the "Poor me, I'm a white male" victimho

        • Quite the dillemma, here you have the very embodiment of whom they want less of in the workplace, a person with a penis, and the wrong skin color - kinda pinkish. But I am really good at what I do, would do work that the others refused to do, and my skillset is such that I could leave anytime.

          The fact that you think this is probably why they really want you gone.

          Umm, they didn't want me gone at all. I use a more stark term of having a penis to get people's attention. But I was definitely not promoted in order to promote women. How do I know that? They told me.

          It's a strange environment we have. I was definitely their best employee in that position, because I would perform required duties others refused to do.

          Think of it this way - we had people who refused to travel, come in early or work late, work weekends, and do any work that was dangerous. Even though it w

          • Re: (Score:2)

            by skam240 ( 789197 )

            First off though, "race" is a 100 percent social construct. Only racists believe in race

            You're contradicting yourself. If race is a social construct (which it is) then it's real so it makes no sense to then claim that only racists believe in race.

            Pink skin isn't a "race", homie, that's why I used the term. Some people might judge it as such though. You know - racists might.

            What nonsense. You were clearly referring to the fact that you're white, otherwise what would be the point of pointing out your complexion at all if it wasnt to point out your ethnic origin? All you're doing here is being intentional obtuse.

            Your comment I quoted above displays very clear hang ups on both gender and race. I love your current enlightene

    • An old employer (~20 years ago) used to maintain a list of positions with target 25th, median, and 75th compensation percentiles that HR considered highly confidential. I showed it to every person I needed to negotiate with in order to try to find a middle ground between their expectations and what I could get them. It was mainly a problem with female engineers, ironically.

      Even with that level of transparency you can still game the system.

    • Heck one I literally had a female employee of mine say how much she loved working for my team and appreciated her job, and I stopped her and told her she's doing better than she thinks and if I were in her shoes I would come in and ask for promotion and a raise; to literally ask for what she's worth or she'll never get it. THe next day she came in with strong arguments as to her worth, which I agreed to (because I told her them) and promoted her.

      So, not to ask a dumb question but why did you wait for her to ask? Since you knew she was ready and able to be promoted, why didn't you do that of your own accord?

      I'm not a manager so this is an honest question. In the past I've had promotions work both ways: because I asked for a new job and because that was part of a managers job, to promote qualified individuals.

      • Not a dumb question at all.

        As a manager the best thing you can do is understand your staff, what motivates them and then help them find a path to get there. Sometimes they don't know what that is, so you have to be observant. Some people are simply motivated by money; those are the worst. But different people are motivated by different things. Someone in their 50's is thinking about retirement not career growth. Someone in their 30's-40's is looking for responsibility that will position them best fo

    • But it also doesn't address the underlying issue. It's been the law of the land for years that people should get equal pay for equal work regardless of ethnicity or gender, but it's always given leeway in those ranges based on ability. It's that last part that is the issue. A hiring manager has to make a subjective assessment of ability, and in that is where the pay disparity falls. Now this could be a discriminatory thing on the part of the hiring manager, but there's also an issue with the candidates in how they portray themselves.

      My guess is the second part of the law, more detailed reporting, is the biggest deal. I don't think reporting rate ranges in job listings will amount to a hill of beans. However, given detailed data on job classifications, pay, history, and demographics, we might be able to identify real pay disparities. Or, and this is mostly what I hope, put to rest the idea that women and minorities get paid less for doing the same job as men.

      What this won't answer is the root cause of any pay disparities. The implicit a

  • Those guys (presumably) work a fair bit harder than I have to and don't make that much more ... in a more expensive place.

    • That's pretty much the question that should actually be asked and answered: How much is left of those 250 grand after expenses?

      I make less than that. Partly because I choose to. Still I have a hunch that at the end of the day, after all expenses, insurances, mortgages, student loans and whatnot are paid off, I have more money in the bank.

      • That's pretty much the question that should actually be asked and answered: How much is left of those 250 grand after expenses?

        I make less than that. Partly because I choose to. Still I have a hunch that at the end of the day, after all expenses, insurances, mortgages, student loans and whatnot are paid off, I have more money in the bank.

        And we both know why. You are better with money than a whole lot of people. You have the math skills.

        I always am skeptical when people whine about money, when they should be able to live on what they are making.

        It isn't hard.

        When I was young, I kept my cars longer, I kept my furniture longer. I lived in a mobile home (a very nice one) until I was 39 yo, saving money. I bought a house during an economic turndown. I fired 3 Real Estate agents until I got one who wouldn't try to upsell me to the point of

        • Better with money? Dude, if you knew me...

          Nah, I just don't care about it too much. What I want to have, I have, and what I really need, I can buy. I really don't get why people want more and more money, to buy what exactly? My car is a compact and it's I think 15 years old by now. It's still running, why'd I need a new one? My house is way too big anyway, why the hell should I buy a bigger one? I wear cheap clothing, I have cheap hobbies, my only "luxuries" are food and an occasional Tom Collins with some

          • Better with money? Dude, if you knew me...

            I made a well thought out idea, logical and concise, yet completely wrong! 8^)

    • You need to multiply by about 2.5-3 those figures to account for the total compensation they receive (different bonuses and stocks)

  • Elsewhere in the world (Score:5, Insightful)

    by VeryFluffyBunny ( 5037285 ) on Friday January 06, 2023 @09:01AM (#63184520)
    Laws like this are coming in in other parts of the world too. It can save everyone a lot of time & trouble if job ads include the salary range. There's nothing worse than preparing, travelling, & going through an interview only to be insulted with a ridiculously low pay offer at the end of it. If that's an invitation to negotiate, that'll mean that there'll likely be high variability between my colleagues' salaries for doing equivalent value jobs. It's not fair & doesn't help to create an amenable work atmosphere.

    • I'm in the fortunate situation that my industry is very much lopsided towards employees. In other words, if you don't list the intended salary for the job you offer, don't be surprised if nobody bothers to even grace you with an interview request.

      • In the UK, which has no such law, recruitment agents always say that job postings with a salary amount get a lot more applications than those that don't; and try to persuade employers to allow them to include it in the listing. But employers, for whatever reason, often refuse to allow them to do it.

        • When I was job hunting 20 years ago I saw lots of salary and hourly rates posted. And then they'd lowball the shit out of the offer, way below the "starting salary." Because they knew there'd be someone who just needs a job and they'd take it and worst comes to worst you'd have to pay your advertised rate to one of the others, so what's the harm? I had friends report the same thing so I'm guessing it wasn't just me.

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by AmiMoJo ( 196126 )

          Employers don't want to reveal salary ranges to existing employees, who will discover they are under paid.

          They also don't want to tip their hand with a budget, and still attract good people in the hope of low balling them right at the end.

          If they don't give a salary range then assume they are out to screw you.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by Junta ( 36770 )

      Yeah, there was one place that wouldn't tell me even a ballpark until I flew across the entire country to have the talk in person. They would have paid for everything, but that's a lot of trouble on my part without knowing the outcome. Figured if it *were* that compelling they would fold and tell me rather than just let me decline. So I declined and take it as a sign it wasn't going to be impressive anyway.

  • A range between 125k and 190k is WAY larger than the already mathematically unfounded pay gap ever was reported.

    Meaning even leaving out all other rationality AND ideology, the pay gap still neatly fits into these ranges.

    So in effect, it is still very possible for all the guys in the team to earn 170k and the sole woman 150k.

    So what I want to know: Whoever pushed this one through... did they realise this from the beginning and only wanted to look like they're "doing SOMETHING" or are some people in governme

    • I'd guess that's the point of the mandatory reporting.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by quall ( 1441799 )

      A reasonable person would conclude that the range is based on experience and location. If a woman has 15 years experience and often works over time, and is making the bottom pay, then yeah it could be a pay-gap issue which is rare. If she has 2 or 3 years experience, would you even assume that a male is making the mid to upper range?

      However, gender pay gaps are so rare that people who site its existence can only find rare examples that are few and far in between. Often times they don't even cite performance

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by Kokuyo ( 549451 )

        From what I believe to know, women who are not mothers tend to make more than men in their twenties.

        The point is once they get families they don't race after their careers as men do. Also women excuse themselves from the rat race way more often than men because they realize they earn enough and don't need an additional 30k a year.

      • The ones that tend to Cite the gap 99.99999% time exclude taking in to account things like doing same job, hours worked, putting in same effort like willing to work overtime or travel. Due to fact they leave all that out it makes the gap look like a thing when in reality its slim to none. If you want basic logical way to see how bs the claim is then if it did exist then No man would be hired if they could hire a women for less. That logical view of it ends any claim on its face.

    • After New York passed a similar law, a bank advertised for a position that would earn between $0 and $2,000,000. Rather silly, they should at least have said $1 as the low end, they are a bank after all.

  • Will this also include how much these people pay in taxes and fees? 150 to 300K sounds like a lot but at least a third of that goes to taxes so government can pass laws designed to make people either feel bad or be subjected to ridicule for having that kind of salary.

  • Gotta love it when pconpanies immediately ignore the intent of a law and just abuse gray areas. they are already posting job offers with ranges as wide as the Rio Grande. software developer role, salary range of 20-250k

    • Re:already being avoided (Score:4, Interesting)

      by nevermindme ( 912672 ) on Friday January 06, 2023 @10:32AM (#63184766)
      We have a few part time people, post retirement on steering, legacy support and special projects. The enterprise would really like to keep them around hourly, with some years perhaps they only doing 200 hours. Some want higher end medical and 20k cash and 40k medical plan makes them happy to spend one or two days a week finishing their professional priorities.

    • To be fair though this let's you see the quality of the company before having to work there. If they're really posting absurd pay ranges between 20k and 250K I certainly wouldnt trust them to be a good employer.

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by Xicor ( 2738029 )

        this only works up until the point where ALL of the companies do this and then you're back to square one.

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by skam240 ( 789197 )

          I find it unlikely that all companies will end up doing this as not all companies are run by dirt bags but time will tell.

          Another possibility is that companies that post absurd pay ranges will find themselves with a decreased pool of potential hires which is undesirable enough to where it might make some companies post honest pay ranges even though they dont want to just so they have a larger talent pool to pull from.

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by Dan667 ( 564390 )
        This was my first thought too. If the company thinks so little of me to post an insulting pay range they certainly won't be good to me if I was to work there. I think this works great to filter folks away from companies like this. They can struggle with the folks that once they get a job never do any work and never leave because they can't. Seems like a win win as good folks will get to put up with less of those folks too.
  • You would be surprised how many programmers have fallen for that old: and how would you code this? And this? And this? Hey CEO, I got it done, and didn't have to pay any programmers.

  • It is standard for someone to make many multiples of their salary in bonuses and grants. It's actually the primary way most tech employees are compensated. An engineer may make 200K salary and 800K in grants annually for a $1M package.

    • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

      by Anonymous Coward

      It happens for some tech employees, but it's definitely not "standard." As a successful software engineer & manager at well-known tech companies for 25 years, neither I or my many direct & indirect reports have been compensated that way. I've seen bonus+equity occasionally exceed base salary, maybe by 50%, but never by "many multiples."

    • Re:Without bonuses and grants, these numbers are m (Score:4, Insightful)

      by thegarbz ( 1787294 ) on Friday January 06, 2023 @12:38PM (#63185264)

      WTF? It's nothing of the sort. Standards and grants of that size are common among startups who pay their employees in hopes and dreams, and C-suits, but little more. It's incredibly rare to find any normal employee of any large company to have their bonuses or grants even amount to 100% of their salary. "Standard" bonuses are typically in the 15-30%, and sometimes equity or other packages like lease cars come on top of that. Very senior engineers have performance related bonuses that amount to over 50%. But that's it.

      What world are you living in.

      • I am talking about tech employees in the valley. What I am quoting is perfectly standard.

        Spend a little time on levels.fyi

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by uarch ( 637449 )

          ^ This poster is correct.
          The big tech companies are paying key tech talent more in bonuses and stock than in base salary.

          The low performers or easy to replace individuals certainly don't make as much but the ones who move the ball forward are doing extremely well.

          Heck - my base salary last year barely covered my W2 state + federal taxes.

        • I am talking about tech employees in the valley. What I am quoting is perfectly standard.

          No. What you're quoting is small startups in the valley. Where they congregate. What you're quoting isn't remotely standard for established firms.

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by SkOink ( 212592 )

        It's pretty common.

        At my current job (and my previous two as well), my total take-home pay was about 50% base-salary and 50% bonus+RSUs.

        There are lots of companies that don't use this structure, and there are quite a few more that do.

    • I don't think this is that common. Maybe in startups, but that's where the base pay is a pittance because the startup really has no revenue but has worthless-now-but-just-wait stocks it can give. But in a normal company that is earning revenue, public or private, the base pay is the biggest part of compensation by far.

      And I don't think there are any real "work for a living" engineers getting 800K in grants, that's absurd. That's what's given to C level people as enticements to join.

  • I agree with the rest of the posts - this would have been far more effective if they were required to disclose the ranges of the total compensation packages for these statistics as well as the total compensation package value for each job offer. However, given how dysfunctional governments in the US currently are, the fact that California even got this passed is unfortunately fairly impressive.

  • But what if ... (Score:3)

    by PPH ( 736903 ) on Friday January 06, 2023 @12:02PM (#63185154)

    ... a company uses contractors instead of employees?

  • So, companies have to do a lot more paperwork so that activist groups can target them. What's not to love?

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by skam240 ( 789197 )

      How would this create more paper work? Any company worth its salt has these pay ranges already figured out. Literally all this law is doing is forcing companies to post these already existing ranges online with the rest of the job post.

  • Next logical step is to mandate name badges with current salary affixed below the name. This should include companies with one or more employees. There should be no exceptions. Also, it would be a good time to mandate dress code. If your job involves social media, a suit should be required--it's serious business.

  • You have to post the full compensation package within 5 days of hiring into a position.

  • I have it on good authority from Slashdotters who were modded insightful that these companies are staffed entirely from H1B immigrants working for little more than a, attaboy!, a pat on the head, and some free coffee.

  • With my stock RSU vesting and target bonus, I clear around $620k on a base of $210k.

    CA law only applies to base salary

    • They can't really value the RSUs, since the real value depends on the stock price when you sell it. Possibly when it vests, but that's going to also be in the future.

  • Hopefully no more blacklisting States (Score:3)

    by ageoffri ( 723674 ) on Friday January 06, 2023 @02:30PM (#63185716)

    Colorado has had a similar law for a year or two. I've run into a number of job postings that say something like "not open to Colorado residents".

    It'll be much harder with California having joined the transparency of salaries.

    Next to tackle is better ranges, I've seen ranges in cybersecurity with 100k range, that's just too much.

Slashdot Top Deals

C'est magnifique, mais ce n'est pas l'Informatique. -- Bosquet [on seeing the IBM 4341]

Close