Probably because HN is not a law enforcement agency for New York City. The law has some exceptions, perhaps those apply. Why not contact the company and politely ask for the salary range?
I agree with the sentiment but maybe you can see this post as them doing that very thing but aimed at YC. While I agree normal HN posts don’t need to be policed, the ads for hiring at YC companies aren’t normal posts.
Sure. But if someone wants YC to enforce posting salary ranges in job posts they might want to take that up privately with YC management rather than starting with public criticism. In other contexts people usually advocate "praise publicly, criticize privately." If the OP thinks YC job posts break the law or fall short of ethical rules then I suggest asking YC about it rather than accusing YC companies of "breaking hiring laws" on a public forum.
The original post title: "Why are YC companies breaking hiring laws?"
I read that as an accusation. OP did not name any specific companies supposedly breaking hiring laws. New York City started requiring salary ranges in job postings for most companies (not all) just a few weeks ago. I would interpret a few job postings that don't include salaries as oversights or perhaps companies exempt from the law (which has a few exceptions).
If someone posted "Why is HN allowing shanelbellone to break the law?" would you read that as an accusation?
I have invested exactly as much in this thread as you and everyone else have.
I don't have any investment in the topic. I don't care if companies post salaries in their job postings. I just pointed out that the OP made a couple of accusations, including the implication that YC was allowing their companies to break the law in HN job postings. OP did not provide any examples.
> HN is completely capable of responding to any accusations properly.
Exactly, that was the point I made above. If OP thinks HN is complicit in something illegal, take it up with them. I didn't post unsourced accusations on HN. If I had an actual concern about YC allowing (OP's word) their companies to break the law I would contact YC about it privately.
If someone posts in a public forum that some (unnamed) companies have broken the law (without any supporting facts), and that YC maybe allowed that because of their financial interest, making them complicit, I think that person should expect pushback. Either back up the claim or back off.
My personal reasons for commenting make no difference. Questioning my motives or "investment" amount to ad hominem, and don't address the issues raised by the OP or subsequent comments.
What facts did the OP provide to support the claim that YC was allowing YC startups to post job ads without salary ranges, allegedly in violation of NYC law? Go back to the original post and point out the supporting facts. That's how I can say it.
I have no stake in this. I pointed out that OP leveled an accusation against YC and some "YC startups" claiming that their job postings did not include salary ranges "when law requires it." With not a single referenced job posting or example that just stands as an unfounded accusation.
Again, no need to try to infer my motives or emotional state. Either the OP made an unsupported accusation or they did not. Easy enough to determine that from the post without projecting or speculating about my emotional state.
> Probably because HN is not a law enforcement agency for New York City.
True, but irrelevant, as that's not the only reason to do it. YC has a brand whose value they surely wish to maintain. Presumably that gives them an interest in not directly aiding companies in breaking the law.
Ethical behavior, to me, includes considering more than one reason someone or some company does something I don't like. Possibly these companies posting on HN deliberately intended to break the law. Equally possibly (more likely, in my opinion) those companies don't know about the law, or haven't had time to comply since the law went into effect just a few weeks ago. Any number of explanations present themselves, and only a few come down to "deliberately breaking the law" or doing anything unethical or shady.
So I don't think a reasonable person should quickly (and publicly) jump from "this job posting apparently for NYC doesn't include salaries" to "the company broke hiring laws" and "HN directly aids companies breaking the law." Try a more generous interpretation on.
I don't believe I said anything about intent. Indeed, my comment is rooted in the assumption that YC wants to do the right thing here. Did you mean to reply to somebody else?
Even assuming the best of intent -- in fact, especially when we assume that -- YC's role as a guide to often-novice entrepreneurs means they should be helping out here. Both by educating them on changing hiring laws and by sending back inadequate job postings for reworking.
Regarding your last paragraph, I'll also note that whether "the company broke hiring laws" is a purely factual question, as is whether or not HN publishes job ads that break the law. A generous interpretation involves why and how they did it, but can't include denying the facts.
Since the OP didn't quote or link to any of the supposedly offending job posts we can't judge the "purely factual question." That would require seeing the job posting in question and then reading the text of the NYC law. We would have to determine if the NYC law applied to every specific case. If OP implies that job postings from YC companies "break hiring laws" then the OP should support that with some facts.
The NYC Commission on Human Rights has a complaint process documented at NYC.gov/HumanRights. If someone has evidence of an actual violation perhaps start there rather than posting unsubstantiated accusations and implying illegal behavior on the part of un-named employers and YC.
Again, are you sure you're replying to the right person? The one saying this happened is not me. I'm replying to a specific point about the extent to which YC would want to prevent this from happening.
I'll also note that the person who did post about this perhaps left the company names out because they were being considerate, not wanting to invite trouble for people who could be entirely well meaning when they are just examples of a broader problem. So as long as you're arguing for assuming good intent, maybe you could try that yourself?
I did think you wrote the original post. My mistake, I have corrected my comment.
Whether YC would want to prevent illegal or unethical behavior is a question I can't answer. I would hope so. But I don't think it's reasonable to put the burden of enforcing various employment posting laws on YC/HN, especially when the laws are new and have jurisdiction questions and exceptions. My reading of the NYC law tells me job boards are not subject to any enforcement -- only the companies posting the job ads have to comply.
I don't object to a discussion about what responsibility YC and HN have in regards to allowing job posts that don't include salary ranges. Personally I would ignore job posts that don't voluntarily include that. I objected to the OP characterizing the job posts from YC companies as "breaking hiring laws." Whether the law was broken or not would require more facts than the OP gave. Maybe the OP didn't name the companies that supposedly "broke hiring laws" out of consideration, but in the original post it seems clear OP intended to call them out in comments but couldn't comment on the posts, not that the OP decided to take the considerate path of not naming them.
Because not every violation has bad intentions, so why not be polite?
And folks at startups are usually wearing multiple hats. They might not have a VP of Recruiting/HR/Legal on board that knows all applicable federal/state/city laws. It might be a SWE posting these jobs.
They might not have four employees yet. They might not have any employees in NYC yet. Either of those conditions would exempt them from the NYC law.
I wouldn't jump to assuming deliberate illegal behavior. The NYC law went into effect last month, and waives the penalty for first offenses to give companies time to comply. If I saw a NYC-based job posting with no salary I would give the benefit of the doubt at least.
> All employers that have four or more employees or one or more domestic workers are covered by the NYCHRL, including this new provision of the law. As with other provisions of the NYCHRL, owners and individual employers count towards the four employees. The four employees do not need to work in the same location, and they do not need to all work in New York City. As long as one of the employees works in New York City, the workplace is covered.
I don't have a law degree, but I read that as the law only applies if the company currently has at least four employees, one of which "works in New York City." If a company intends to hire someone in NYC but has no employees there yet the law wouldn't apply to them yet, probably because NYC wouldn't have jurisdiction without a nexus in the city.
In my experience the police aren't polite when people are breaking laws, so I don't see why I should hold companies to a lower standard than my fellow citizens.
That wouldn't count as polite. I suggested asking the company for the salary range. If they decline to answer then you make your own decision about that.
The more-powerful and better-informed entity deliberately leveraging those imbalances to extract more value from the weaker entity is unethical. Might be normal, might be expected, might be "just business", but it's unethical.
It's also contrary to the ideals of a free market, if that matters to anyone.
I'll admit that it's ethical if one's ethical framework is based on Pirates of the Caribbean. "Take what you can, give nothing back." Which probably is pretty common, especially among people who succeed at business.
Respectfully, if someone can't comply with the laws they're subject to (or more accurately bother to look up the laws they need to comply with), they shouldn't be trying to run a business.
It's literally their job as a business owner, and millions of people successfully do this every year.
I can guarantee that every single business fails to comply with many laws. No one can know every law that might apply to them. A startup in California advertising a remote job that they hire a New Yorker for now has to comply with NYC laws. At best you can try to keep up with, understand, and comply with the most important and well-known laws. But you don't find out your toilets aren't ADA compliant or your storage shed breaks the fire and zoning rules until someone catches you. It's simply not practical to "look up the laws they need to comply with."
> It's simply not practical to "look up the laws they need to comply with."
If that's the case where you're incorporated and operating, specialists in what the law says and how it applies exists. Use some of that VC money to use them.
That said, your examples are pretty terrible. ADA rules for buildings are incredibly clear, and a halfway decent contractor will know them. Ditto fire rules. Seriously, a business owner with a shed that hurts or kills somebody for not being compliant with fire codes deserves their day in court.
Oh, and the usual "Ignorance of the law is no excuse to break the law" applies here too.
Not sure how someone gets burned by not seeing the salary range. That would come up in the first five minutes of talks with the potential employer.
HN does not enforce NYC laws. Nor does it enforce Colorado laws, or any laws regarding jobs including salary ranges. Whether YC/HN have an ethical responsibility or not comes down to one's ethical position. Laws do not necessarily equal ethics.
Personally I would ignore job postings that leave out crucial information, including salary ranges. If we all did that (i.e. behaved according to our professed ethics) companies would post salary ranges just to get applicants. Compelling companies to post salary ranges by law may have some underlying logic I agree with, I don't know for sure. Compelling HN or any other public forum to enforce those laws (which vary and change by jurisdiction, with numerous exceptions) seems a stretch to me -- I would rather see the job posts and decide which to ignore and which to respond to rather than have HN try to enforce the patchwork of local laws by hiding postings. Once you get into the moderation business you have to invest a lot of effort in that and still you will piss off a lot of people.
The NYC has a documented complaint process. Start there if you have evidence of a violation. My quick reading of the NYC law tells me HN and other public forums for job postings do not have to enforce the law -- the person/company writing the job posting has to comply. If YC-funded companies break the NYC job posting law I don't see where in the wording of the law that investors have any legal jeopardy.
The law in question only has vague enforcement provisions that include fines "up to $250,000," which means any actual cases brought for enforcement will end up in court in NYC. A civil judge will then get to decide what "good faith" means in each specific case, and also decide questions of jurisdiction and responsibility.
> HN and other public forums for job postings do not have to enforce the law
I don’t think Hacker News faces liability for posting non-compliant ads. (Not a lawyer!) But if it turns out to be a trove of them, HN’s essentially a honey pot.
> any actual cases brought for enforcement will end up in court in NYC
Precisely what you want your early-stage portfolio dealing with.
The way the law reads it looks like someone has to file a complaint. I doubt the NYC Commission on Human Rights has the manpower to scour the internet for violations.
Agree that investors should not tolerate illegal behavior from their portfolio companies, but realistically VCs can't manage every day-to-day detail of their portfolio. And even when they do get involved they can't always control the management -- see Uber, for example. Sometimes the VCs provide the legal cover for questionable behavior because the potential profits outweigh the potential fines and risk of enforcement by well-intentioned but ultimately toothless laws, as I suspect the NYC law will turn out.
HN is being payed by these companies for these posts. Surely it wouldn’t be too hard for HN devs to have a running list of states that require salary ranges to be posted, and check against that when the customer submits a request.
Then it will make it easier as more and more states require the bare-minimum worker right of public salaries.
If it's so easy then why not set up a site that enforces the patchwork of local laws and exceptions to filter out non-compliant job postings?
If that existed today I would still choose to see the unfiltered job listings, because if I was looking for a job my goal would come down to "find a job" rather than "make sure all job postings comply with every regulation."
Right, I thought this site's whole purpose was to be a relatively high-value and free (to the company posting the ad) place to display certain ads for the companies YC invests in.
HN is not payed for these posts. Who’s Hiring posts are like all others: anyone can comment, and no one on HN ever pays the site operator for the right to post.
And Who's Hiring posts are not covered by this law or requirement.
Most jobs have official job postings. It's those that need to carry the salary requirement.
If I'm telling a friend, Hey, there's an opening in my company, you wanna apply, I am not required to tell him the salary range. However, when I point him out to the job application page where he can get more official information on it and can apply for it, that should carry this information, or at least link to it.
> Who's Hiring posts are not covered by this law or requirement.
I don’t think that‘s generally true.
“Any advertisement for a job, promotion, or transfer opportunity that would be performed in New York City is covered by the new law. An ‘advertisement’ is a written description of an available job, promotion, or transfer opportunity that is publicized to a pool of potential applicants. Such advertisements are covered regardless of the medium in which they are disseminated. Covered listings include postings on internal bulletin boards, internet advertisements, printed flyers distributed at job fairs, and newspaper advertisements.” [0]
> Most jobs have official job postings. It's those that need to carry the salary requirement.
What is your reasoning for this? I don’t see anything in the text of the law [1] about “official job postings.”
> If I'm telling a friend, Hey, there's an opening in my company, you wanna apply, I am not required to tell him the salary range.
This at least is correct, because that case is not “a written description [...] that is publicized to a pool of potential applicants.”
