I applaud pay transparency, but reading the text of my state's legislation regarding it (RCW 49.58.110), all I see is that it says most employers must have a pay scale that is known to candidates. My initial adversarial response as an imaginary business would be to say "okay, the pay scale for this position is between $0-$10000000, depending on qualifications". Now we're back where we started, with the candidate having no valuable information, and the company seemingly in compliance with the law. Why wouldn't this work?
Anyway, with regards to the actual article, I was wondering just what mechanism supposedly made jobs with pay transparency harder to negotiate from a recruiter's perspective. Is the implication that there were no hard salary bands before this, so recruiters could sometimes offer 2x or 10x the salary? I'm sure it happened for exceptional candidates, even though it certainly never came up when I negotiated my salary...
But I'm wondering: did it happen so often that it affects the overall statistics? That would be a moderate surprise to me.
Anyway, with regards to the actual article, I was wondering just what mechanism supposedly made jobs with pay transparency harder to negotiate from a recruiter's perspective. Is the implication that there were no hard salary bands before this, so recruiters could sometimes offer 2x or 10x the salary? I'm sure it happened for exceptional candidates, even though it certainly never came up when I negotiated my salary...
But I'm wondering: did it happen so often that it affects the overall statistics? That would be a moderate surprise to me.