The requirement is to publish either minimal salary or salary range for the position from the advertisement. If company has several positions available then specific minimal salaries should be given for each.
replySometimes companies create a specific position for an interviewee after getting to know the candidate. For example, a candidate might have an unexpected unusual skill.
replyWhat does that have to do with providing a salary range for a particular job posting? That specific position created should also have a range - publish that. Normally you have to interview other candidates for this position too.
replyThat would be making it difficult to adapt the job to fit the person.
replyUnless you’re some VP/Director/Distinguished Eng/C-level etc, this doesn’t happen in practice. Those jobs don’t follow normal job posting rules anyway, they’re usually sought out.
reply99.99% of the time, I doubt the job is ever adapted for the person. They come in with that skillset and are usually expected to grow and meet the needs of the other job areas.
So, you want the 1 in 10 000 (likely 1 in 1 000 000) hyperspecific job posting to affect the rules for the rest?
replyAnd nothing stops them from doing that
replyAnd then the candidate sues claiming bait and switch.
replyThe candidate isn't going to complain if you give them _more_.
replyWhy would you sue for that? There's no contract in place
replyAnd in any normal court they will lose since its a different position and they agreed (paper trail) for that switch. Or they could be just let go if company is too careful. Not that such situation happens often in real world, I never even heard about even one.
replyIf they would sue it would also burn their professional creds permanently, nobody sane would ever want to hire such a problematic person.
Then you tell Bob about how he would be much better suited for job A or B, explain how the pay is less, and if he's cool with it, directly put his CV into the pile for that job. If he's not cool with it, shake his hand and wish him a good day
replyWhat if there was no job posting with a defined salary for A or B?
replySounds like lose-lose.
If you're not hiring for that job, why are you telling Bob that he'd be really well suited there?
replyWell then they'd be interviewing for a different job. I assume it's no different at any other company where they actually do include the salary range
replyCancel the job posting - advertise again for A task, Bob already passed some of the stages, maybe see a few more candidates for A task and boom you are in business.
replyPresumably the law will be written to account for advertised role != assigned role, but it can't account for gaming the system by never hiring exactly the advertised position.
replySounds like a recipe for a lot of time and money wasted in court.
replyIdeally they reapply if it’s a lesser role and the pay is lower than the previously posted minimum.
replyI suspect that kind of bait and switch will become the norm.
replyYou can always walk away if you don't like the company's offer.
replyIf companies engage in behavior intended to deceive, they are wasting people's time, which has an economic cost >$0.
replyNothing says you can't negotiate, does it?
replyThe law seems to be about preventing negotiating.
replyThe law is about information asymmetry. That doesn't prevent negotiation, it just changes the dynamics and power balance.
reply[dead]
replyThe replies are all about workarounds for the law.
replySo what is the point of the law, if there are all these workarounds?