Skip to main content

“It’s like a meteorologist saying we’re going to get 2 to 16 inches of snow. That way no one can say they were wrong.”

That was the response from my husband, Christopher Wilkins, when I shared the pay range in the job posting pictured here.

Pay Transparency | 110 West Group | Cynthia Farrell

I am 100+% in favor of pay transparency laws.

The intent is that the laws will drive pay equity, which obviously companies can’t be trusted to make a reality on their own.

The laws also will create transparency for those already inside an organization (a nail-biter for many companies no doubt) that will further influence pay equity AND require employers to address the pay compression that happens with tenured employees.

And I completely understand geographic pay differentials.

But a ~$136k pay range?

I’m assuming this employer’s argument would be the geographic differentials.

Not shown in this screenshot is that it’s a hybrid role in Boulder, CO, so one would think the person would need to be in Boulder and therefore in a CO pay range. But maybe not.

AND the post says that the pay range is only applicable to candidates in the 4 states with pay transparency laws. That leaves you to wonder if someone in a different state could be paid well below the bottom of the range.

So is this employer adhering to the letter of the law, or the spirit of the law? If it’s the letter of the law, what does that say about them?

Does it really help to post pay ranges this broad?

Should pay ranges be listed for each geography?

I don’t know what the right answer is, but a $136k pay range doesn’t seem helpful. It’s the equivalent of a forecast for 2 to 16 inches of snow.

What thoughts do you have? How do you think the pay transparency in job postings, especially with multiple geographies, should be handled? Let’s talk.


Leave a Reply

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.