Connect with us

New York

Salary Law Requires Transparency, Up to a Point

Published

on

Salary Law Requires Transparency, Up to a Point

Good morning. It’s Monday. We’ll see how a New York City law that took effect late last year is helping workers entering the job market.

It’s been almost seven months since New York City’s salary transparency law went into effect. It requires employers to disclose in job postings how much a particular job would pay. Our writer H. Claire Brown says the New York law, like similar state statutes elsewhere, can give job hunters a better sense of how much they can expect to earn. I spoke with her about how much of a difference the new laws are making.

How many job postings now contain salary ranges?

In New York, nearly all have to. If an employer has fewer than four employees, salary ranges do not have to be posted.

Nationally, I found that about a quarter of the work force lives in places that require salary postings, but there’s been a ripple effect. Indeed.com is reporting that something like 45 percent of postings across the country have salary ranges, up dramatically from before the pandemic, so the laws have prompted lots of companies to include ranges.

Advertisement

Whether they are helpful is another story entirely.

And what is that? Are salary transparency laws making a difference?

Indeed came across a potentially troubling finding, which was that when you look at the salary listings in places with transparency laws, the bands are getting wider — in other words, the spread is growing between the minimum salary and the maximum salary in job postings.

There’s not enough information to say whether there was a causal relationship between when a transparency law took effect and when the bands of salary ranges began getting wider, and most transparency laws contain untested language about what a salary band should look like.

In my reporting, I found a Netflix job where the range went from $60,000 to $210,000. That’s not useful information for many people. Who’s going to apply for a job where you can make one salary or three and a half times that?

Advertisement

Wall Street jobs often pay bonuses. Are bonuses covered by the city’s transparency laws?

No. Some states are starting to look at this, but in New York, companies don’t have to list benefits — and a bonus would be in the category of things not covered under the law, no matter how large it is. How much you have to pay for health care also counts as a benefit, and New York does not require that in a posting, only base pay.

So even with transparency laws, job seekers still don’t necessarily get a complete picture from a posting, do they?

Right. For hourly work where you typically don’t get a bonus and don’t expect much negotiating room on things like how much vacation you’re entitled to, the listings are a lot more accurate, whereas when you get higher income ranges with bonuses, they are less so. Indeed.com says this is the case nationally.

Also, in really tight labor markets, like child care, where there’s always a shortage, you’ll see ranges that are more precise.

Advertisement

There may be a connection between how in demand your skills are and how much information you can expect from a job posting, because in tech, where the story right now is layoffs, the ranges are getting wider and wider. And a wider range could be a way of concealing falling salaries.

How is remote work treated under salary transparency laws?

The city says that out-of-state employers have to include salary ranges when they advertise jobs — if they expect to draw applicants from the city.

These laws have revealed pay disparities, haven’t they?

I interviewed a 25-year-old copywriter named Kimberly Nguyen who had been hired by the consulting agency Photon to work as a contractor for Citigroup. For all work-flow intents and purposes, she was working for Citi. She had Citi bosses, but technically, her direct employer was the consulting agency. And it’s the direct employer, in this case the agency, that is responsible for setting the wage and posting the salary.

Advertisement

Then a job posting for a copywriter popped up on her LinkedIn feed with Citi as the direct employer. The salary was much higher — $31,000 was the minimum difference. She asked her Citi supervisor about the ad and was frustrated that she didn’t get a clear response. That was when she took to Twitter, and the thread went viral. As of last week, her situation had not changed (although Citi told me, after my original story was published, that the posted job was for someone with more experience than she has).

The crux of the matter is that she felt she would have received more money as a direct hire, and the transparency law enabled her to find that out.

What are the penalties for employers that don’t comply? How are salary transparency laws being enforced?

In most cases, the penalty is a fine. And it’s probably worth pointing out that state and local governments have not said much about how they intend to crack down on employers that list overly broad salary ranges or find ways to sidestep pay disclosure altogether.

In New York, the city would not say if any investigations have been opened or anyone has been fined — the spokesman for the city’s Commission on Human Rights would not comment on open investigations. The only data point was that their tip line had received more than 300 complaints about noncompliance.

Advertisement

If you’re getting your very first job or you’re a career switcher looking for a job in a new industry and you have no idea what the salary norms are, these transparency laws can be helpful. They’re more helpful when you don’t have contacts you can ask, when you don’t have a network, and that’s kind of the point. Salary transparency laws were meant as a measure to close wage gaps between men and women and people of different races. The idea is that the availability of this information will force employers to commit to a standard range for workers of every background and will help workers understand what their work is worth.


Weather

Prepare for a chance of showers and thunderstorms, with a possibility of strong wind. Temperatures will reach the low 80s. At night, temps will drop to the high 60s.

ALTERNATE-SIDE PARKING

In effect until Wednesday (Eid al-Adha).

Advertisement

METROPOLITAN diary

Dear Diary:

It was late one evening in fall 2021. I was relatively new to New York and had gotten a cheap rental on 143rd Street. Coming home most evenings on the 1 train from Chelsea, I would often settle in with a podcast or playlist.

On this particular night, however, I wasn’t wearing my headphones and happened to hear a teenage boy mention to his friends that it would be his birthday in 14 minutes. We were around 59th Street, and it was 11:46 p.m.

I decided that if he stayed on the train until midnight, I would surprise him by singing “Happy Birthday.”

Advertisement

Several minutes passed. We were now at 110th Street. The boy was still on the train. I checked the time: 11:56.

Another three minutes passed, and he didn’t get off. My heart was beating fast at what I was about to do: Would he like it? Would he think it was weird?

I waited until the clock struck midnight and broke into song. As I had hoped, the boy was shocked and delighted. His friends joined in excitedly and filmed the encounter. Some of the other passengers sang along.

After we finished, an older man sitting next to me spoke up in a shocked tone.

“It’s my birthday too!” he said. “I just turned 78!”

Advertisement

He pulled out his license to show me. He had been waiting for the clock to strike midnight, too.

We all sang “Happy Birthday” again.

Lucy Powers

Illustrated by Agnes Lee. Send submissions here and read more Metropolitan Diary here.


Glad we could get together here. See you tomorrow. — J.B.

Advertisement

P.S. Here’s today’s Mini Crossword and Spelling Bee. You can find all our puzzles here.

Melissa Guerrero and Ed Shanahan contributed to New York Today. You can reach the team at nytoday@nytimes.com.

Sign up here to get this newsletter in your inbox.

Continue Reading
Advertisement
Click to comment

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

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

New York

Large Blaze Ravages Bronx Apartment Building, Leaving Many Displaced

Published

on

Large Blaze Ravages Bronx Apartment Building, Leaving Many Displaced

Dozens of families were looking for shelter after a large fire broke out at an apartment building in the Bronx early Friday, injuring at least seven people, the Fire Department said. There were no fatalities or life-threatening injuries, according to officials.

About 250 firefighters and emergency medical responders rushed to a six-story residential building on Wallace Avenue near Arnow Avenue after a fire was reported there just before 2 a.m., the Fire Department said. The blaze on the top floor was elevated to a five-alarm fire about an hour later, it said.

Several dozen firefighters were still gathered outside the building at around 10 a.m. Many windows on the top floor were blown out and some had shards of glass hanging in place that resembled jagged teeth. Smoke continued to climb from the building as a firefighter on a ladder hosed the roof.

The fire was brought under control shortly before 2 p.m., according to fire officials.

The seven people who were injured included five firefighters, the department said in an email. One person was treated at the scene but declined to be taken to a hospital.

Advertisement

A spokeswoman for the Police Department said earlier that some people had suffered smoke inhalation injuries.

Robert S. Tucker, the fire commissioner, said during a news conference that it was a miracle that there had been no serious injuries or fatalities. Officials said that all of the apartments on the building’s top floor were destroyed.

Firefighters blasted water at the smoke and flames pouring out of the upper floors and roof, according to videos posted online by the Fire Department and television news outlets. Heavy winds had fueled the blaze, the department said.

The cause of the fire was under investigation, officials said.

The Red Cross was at the scene helping residents that were displaced by the fire, and a temporary shelter had been set up at the Bennington School on Adee Avenue nearby. Doreen Thomann-Howe, the chief executive of the American Red Cross Greater New York Region, said during the news conference that 66 families had already registered to receive assistance, including lodging. She said she expected that number to increase.

Advertisement

Juan Cabrera and his family were among those seeking help at the Bennington School. Mr. Cabrera said that he and his family had not heard a fire alarm but had instead heard glass breaking as residents climbed out of windows. He said he had also heard people race across the hall one flight above him while others screamed “Get out!”

Mr. Cabrera, 47, said he had smelled smoke and woke up his daughter, Rose, 13. He and his wife, Aurora Tavera, grabbed their IDs, passports and cellphones, and the family left the building.

“I felt desperate,” Ms. Taverna, 32, said.

“Thank God we are still alive,” said Mr. Cabrera, who works as a school aide and custodian and has lived in the building for five years. “The material stuff you can get back, but we have our family,” he said.

Louis Montalvo, 55, was also among those seeking help. He said firefighters banged on his door at around 3 a.m. and that he had smelled smoke.

Advertisement

“I am grateful to be around,” Mr. Montalvo said, as he stood outside of the temporary shelter. He was still wearing his felt pajama pants, which had snowmen printed on them.

Vanessa L. Gibson, the Bronx borough president, said she was “so grateful” there had been no fatalities from the fire.

The last major apartment fire in the Bronx occurred in 2022, and resulted in 17 deaths, which experts said were entirely preventable. Self-closing doors in the building did not work properly, allowing smoke to escape the apartment where the fire started and rapidly fill the structure’s 19 stories.

Continue Reading

New York

New York’s Chinese Dissidents Thought He Was an Ally. He Was a Spy.

Published

on

New York’s Chinese Dissidents Thought He Was an Ally. He Was a Spy.

The Chinese government’s paranoia about overseas dissidents can seem strange, considering the enormous differences in power between exiled protesters who organize marches in America and their mighty homeland, a geopolitical and economic superpower whose citizens they have almost no ability to mobilize. But to those familiar with the Chinese Communist Party, the government’s obsession with dissidents, no matter where in the world they are, is unsurprising. “Regardless of how the overseas dissident community is dismissed outside of China, its very existence represents a symbol of hope for many within China,” Wang Dan, a leader of the Tiananmen Square protests who spent years in prison before being exiled to the United States in 1998, told me. “For the Chinese Communist Party, the hope for change among the people is itself a threat. Therefore, they spare no effort in suppressing and discrediting the overseas dissident community — to extinguish this hope in the hearts of people at home.”

To understand the party’s fears about the risks posed by dissidents abroad, it helps to know the history of revolutions in China. “Historically, the groups that have overthrown the incumbent government or regime in China have often spent a lot of time overseas and organized there,” says Jessica Chen Weiss, a professor of China studies at Johns Hopkins University. The leader Sun Yat-sen, who played an important role in the 1911 revolution that dethroned the Qing dynasty and led eventually to the establishment of the People’s Republic of China, spent several periods of his life abroad, during which he engaged in effective fund-raising and political coordination. The Communist Party’s own rise to power in 1949 was partly advanced by contributions from leaders who were living overseas. “They are very sensitive to that potential,” Weiss says.

“What the Chinese government and the circle of elites that are running China right now fear the most is not the United States, with all of its military power, but elements of unrest within their own society that could potentially topple the Chinese Communist Party,” says Adam Kozy, a cybersecurity consultant who worked on Chinese cyberespionage cases when he was at the F.B.I. Specifically, Chinese authorities worry about a list of threats — collectively referred to as the “five poisons” — that pose a risk to the stability of Communist rule: the Uyghurs, the Tibetans, followers of the Falun Gong movement, supporters of Taiwanese independence and those who advocate for democracy in China. As a result, the Chinese government invests great effort in combating these threats, which involves collecting intelligence about overseas dissident groups and dampening their influence both within China and on the international stage.

Controlling dissidents, regardless of where they are, is essential to China’s goal of projecting power to its own citizens and to the world, according to Charles Kable, who served as an assistant director in the F.B.I.’s national security branch before retiring from the bureau at the end of 2022. “If you have a dissident out there who is looking back at China and pointing out problems that make the entire Chinese political apparatus look bad, it will not stand,” Kable says.

The leadership’s worries about such individuals were evident to the F.B.I. right before the 2008 Beijing Olympics, Kable told me, describing how the Chinese worked to ensure that the running of the Olympic flame through San Francisco would not be disrupted by protesters. “And so, you had the M.S.S. and its collaborators deployed in San Francisco just to make sure that the five poisons didn’t get in there and disrupt the optic of what was to be the best Olympics in history,” Kable says. During the run, whose route was changed at the last minute to avoid protesters, Chinese authorities “had their proxies in the community line the streets and also stand back from the streets, looking around to see who might be looking to cause trouble.”

Advertisement
Continue Reading

New York

Hochul Seeks to Limit Private-Equity Ownership of Homes in New York

Published

on

Hochul Seeks to Limit Private-Equity Ownership of Homes in New York

Gov. Kathy Hochul of New York on Thursday proposed several measures that would restrict hedge funds and private-equity firms from buying up large numbers of single-family homes, the latest in a string of populist proposals she intends to include in her State of the State address next week.

The governor wants to prevent institutional investors from bidding on properties in the first 75 days that they are on the market. Her plan would also remove certain tax benefits, such as interest deductions, when the homes are purchased.

The proposals reflect a nationwide effort by mostly Democratic lawmakers to discourage large firms from crowding out individuals or families from the housing market by paying far above market rate and in cash, and then leasing the homes or turning them into short-term rentals.

Activists and some politicians have argued that this trend has played a role in soaring prices and low vacancy rates — though low housing production is widely viewed as the main driver of those problems.

If Ms. Hochul was inviting a fight with the real estate interests who have backed her in the past, she did not seem concerned. She even borrowed a line from Jimmy McMillan, who ran long-shot candidacies for governor and mayor as the founder of the Rent Is Too Damn High Party.

Advertisement

“The cost of living is just too damn high — especially when it comes to the sky-high rents and mortgages New Yorkers pay every month,” Ms. Hochul said in a written statement.

James Whelan, president of the Real Estate Board of New York, said his team would review the proposal, but characterized it as “another example of policy that will stifle investment in housing in New York.”

The plan — the specifics of which will be negotiated with the Legislature — is one of several recent proposals the governor has made with the goal of addressing the state’s affordability crisis. Voters have expressed frustration about the high costs of housing and basic goods in the state. This discontent has led to political challenges for Ms. Hochul, who is likely to face rivals in the 2026 Democratic primary and in the general election.

In 2022, five of the largest investors in the United States owned 2 percent of the country’s single-family rental homes, most of them in Sun Belt and Southern states, according to a recent report from the federal Government Accountability Office. The report stated that it was “unclear how these investors affected homeownership opportunities or tenants because many related factors affect homeownership — e.g., market conditions, demographic factors and lending conditions.”

Researchers at Harvard University found that “a growing share of rental properties are owned by business entities and medium- and large-scale rental operators.”

Advertisement

State officials were not able to offer a complete picture of how widespread the practice was in New York. They said local officials in several upstate cities had told them about investors buying up dozens of homes at a time and turning them into rentals.

The New York Times reported in 2023 that investment firms were buying smaller buildings in places like Brooklyn and Queens from families and smaller landlords.

Ms. Hochul’s concern is that these purchases make it harder for first-time home buyers to gain a foothold in the market and can lead to more rental price gouging.

“Shadowy private-equity giants are buying up the housing supply in communities across New York, leaving everyday homeowners with nowhere to turn,” she said in a statement on Thursday. “I’m proposing new laws and policy changes to put the American dream of owning a home within reach for more New Yorkers than ever before.”

Cracking down on corporate landlords became a prominent talking point in last year’s presidential election. On the campaign trail, Vice President Kamala Harris called on Congress to pass previously introduced legislation eliminating tax benefits for large investors that purchase large numbers of homes.

Advertisement

“It can make it impossible then for regular people to be able to buy or even rent a home,” Ms. Harris said last summer.

In August, Representative Pat Ryan, Democrat of New York, called on the Federal Trade Commission to investigate price gouging by private-equity firms in the housing market. He cited a study that estimated that private-equity firms “are expected to control 40 percent of the U.S. single-family rental market by 2030.”

Statehouses across the country have recently looked at ways to tackle corporate homeownership. One effort in Nevada, which passed the Legislature but was vetoed by Gov. Joe Lombardo, proposed capping the number of units a corporation could buy in a calendar year. It was opposed by local chambers of commerce and the state’s homebuilders association.

A bill was introduced in the Minnesota State Legislature that would ban the conversion of homes owned by corporations into rentals. It has yet to come up for a vote.

At the federal level, Senator Jeff Merkley, Democrat of Oregon, and Representative Adam Smith, Democrat of Washington, introduced joint legislation that would force hedge funds to sell all the single-family homes they own over 10 years.

Advertisement
Continue Reading

Trending