A second reason is to avoid discrimination. Applicants that feel disadvantaged, even if they are actually qualified, may hesitate to negotiate for a higher salary in the same way that a other applicants would. The consequence is that they start with a lower salary. This applies specially to women. Plenty of research shows that they are less likely to negotiate their salary.
Research[1] suggests that pay transparency leads to lower average salaries because employers avoid paying higher wages to any one employee to avoid costly negotiations with others. The effect is small, around 2%, and it disappears with increasing degree of unionization. In my opinion this is an acceptable price to pay to reduce pay inequality, which often is much more than 2%. It is also a good argument for joining a union.
It's very hard for people to accept that this might even be the case, many people just assume that transparency is better for workers.
A company has a fixed amount of money it can spend on wages. Reducing wage inequality means paying less to the best employees and more to the others, which is great if you just want to slack off but terrible if you're already one of the highest paid employees.
Absolutely not. It has a maximum, sure, and a minimum it can get away with, but there's always a range in between them.
> Reducing wage inequality means paying less to the best employees
Bold assumption that the best are paid the most.
It is your fault if you allow the recruiting process to get to the third interview without at least knowing if the salary range is acceptable.
If you lack confidence in talking money, here is what you say:
"I'm looking for $120K to $130K. Before we get further into the process I want to confirm that this salary range is what would be discussed if we get to an offer."
You might add:
"$120K is my minimum but I am really hoping to find a role at the higher end - $130K is what I'm aiming for, depending on the job."
If, after saying all this, you get lowballed, then you have good reason to be very annoyed, and express calmly but clearly that you have had your minimum salary on the table since the first phone call." At that point you withdraw from the process and go look for a job with a professional company.
For me, being fresh out of university, I didn't really think to press on salary too much and was just happy to land a job. In my first job, I recall not knowing the salary until I got the contract and offer (luckily, it was surprisingly above average pay).
When I moved into the software industry, I started to realise my worth a bit more and job-hopped for 10-50% pay bumps on an annual basis for the first few years and just started chasing higher salaries and turning down interviews unless they were in my desired range.
I know many other engineers who never changed this behaviour (or were never taught to be more ruthless and know their worth) and were just happy to receive any increase in salary - and as a result had 10+ years in the industry and had utterly pitiful salaries due to their employer simply taking advantage - you'll never receive the same increase in pay by remaining loyal to a company versus job hopping. I'm not sure if it's a cultural thing in the UK or what but this is the type of advice that should be given in schools more IMO.
Would you agree to buy a house before you knew what it costs?
Literally insane behaviour
Depending on your circumstances, that might be reasonable. If most people aren't quoting pay ranges and you need a job, not applying because of that isn't very smart.
I would make sure I knew the pay range before going through all the interview rounds, but not sending your CV in sounds too limiting to me.
I was like, okay, fair enough.
I played it completely wrong though. I should have just reframed it and said, well, I paid this, but you're not competing against my current employer, you're competing against Meta, who I'm also interviewing with this week.
As an employer that ruins one of the classic ruses that has been going on for a while: take someone through multiple interviews and then lowball the candidate who seems the most desperate.
If you believe in free market economics I think we can expect this to be a mess for a little while and then within a year or two it gets relatively efficient at dealing with the inefficiencies it’s targeting: younger people just not wanting to play the bullshit game where employers dangle generous starting offers, and then rug pull them to 2/3rds of that number; and to fix the gender pay gap (and the smaller reaching ethnicity pay gap).
There is no gender pay gap in 20s, 30s with several areas now favouring women. The mean pay gap is entirely due to the percentage of women in their 40s+ taking time off work for motherhood.
A woman who has two children, at minimum, works two years less. In a (25 - 65) yr career that's a 10% pay gap she'll experience wrt a male who works the same period.
The paygap is just a dial which controls the rate of motherhood.
There is no "per job" paygap. Nor could there plausibly be. For if any group could be paid less to do the same work, someone en mass would be, thus lowering the pay for that work. (Its unclear how such a rich source of free output from 50% of the population could go untapped, systematically).
Though even if that logic isnt persuasive, there is no measured per-job pay difference at an individual level. The "pay gap" describes a mean difference in pay at population level -- when you control for total hours worked, it disappears.
However that consultation said this:
>We propose to introduce this requirement [pay transparency in recruitment] through a delegated power, enabling regulations to specify exact requirements. For example, the size of a salary range.
Example: https://www.enduranceenergy.com/careers/2af3b48c-4e20-420a-b...
The "complications" are basically employer and manager propaganda because the information asymmetry suits them better than people realising they are undervalued and leaving
For the low-paid, it can make it even harder to get credit, or a place to rent, and it can be used for other kinds of discrimination. For the highly-paid, service providers and sales people can use the information to increase the prices you pay and make negotiation harder.
Obviously it's not perfect. But as you say, it's a difficult problem. And salary ranges are at least something
Even if the minimum does apply everywhere, it fixes the inequalities gap that is causing so much economic drag in the UK: white men earn significantly more than any other demographic today for the exact same roles at the exact same companies. If everyone gets the bottom of the band, at least everyone gets the same, and that’s been an important goal for multiple UK governments of different political stripes over many decades for reasons to complex to go into here (and no, it’s not “political correctness”, it’s far more complex than that).
I also don’t think it likely means average salaries come down, I just think it means the distributions narrow.
Is there any evidence that’s the case?
One is that women do get paid less for the same job on average.
The second is that jobs which women tend to do get paid less than jobs which men tend to do, either through different industries or through different opportunities.
It’s not as clear as “yes” though, and there is little evidence boiling down to the “same job” disparity.
Employment tribunals in the UK now regularly conclude that jobs which are clearly different are actually the same, essentially as a bung to women. For example, stating that working in a warehouse lifting boxes all day is the same job as working on a checkout till sitting on a seat, or that being a librarian has the same value as a guy collecting garbage. Being a bin man is much higher paid because it's a dangerous, dirty and low status job that people don't want to do, so the incentives have to be correspondingly higher to attract workers, but delusional left wing tribunals declare by fiat that they're the same as highly feminized jobs that are clean and safe.
This now regularly causes chaos in Britain, for example in Birmingham where trash just doesn't get collected because the bin men went on strike:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2025%E2%80%932026_Birmingham_b...
> The council also says that the Waste Recycling and Collection Officer role does not exist at other councils, and that retaining the role opens it up to equal pay claims, since it is performed mainly by men.[2] In March 2025, the council declared a major incident after 17,000 tonnes of rubbish were left uncollected on the streets.
I think this would be illegal under the Equality Act (which does not of course mean it doesn't happen), can you offer some examples or further reading?
Until then, you are quite correct. The pay gap is not a feature of individual jobs, but a population effect due to women in their 40s+ not being in the labour force.
It is illegal in the UK to pay differently, and there are many high profile cases of this being enforced even to the point of absurdity (such as forcing councils to pay bin-men/trash-collectors the same as female office admin workers).
Likewise as the mean pay for women is ~1month/yr lower, the mean hours men work, as a population is ~1month/yr longer. Thus there is no pay gap once you control for hours worked.
Incidentally, the only way there could be no mean pay gap across both populations would be if no women had children. So a non-trivial paygap merely an indirect measure of the birth rate.
if i apply despite not liking the range i can still say no and ask for more, but not knowing the range in advance is unlikely to raise the chance of that happening.
99.99% 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.
If they would sue it would also burn their professional creds permanently, nobody sane would ever want to hire such a problematic person.
Sounds like lose-lose.
So what is the point of the law, if there are all these workarounds?