[learc83]

Instead of having 1 role with such a huge gap. Why not multiple roles.

If you find a candidate who you really think is worth 50% more than the average salary for Role X, then obviously that candidate is qualified for Role X + 1.

[stickfigure]

The logical conclusion of this is a long chart that looks like this:

    ...
    Role #125,798 - salary $125,798/yr
    Role #125,799 - salary $125,799/yr
    Role #125,800 - salary $125,800/yr
    ...

[lscdlscd]

It doesn't have to be that granular. If one engineer is getting (deservedly) paid 50% more than another in the same role, the company owes it to that engineer to give them a title/role that reflects their merit/contributions, at the very least for their career progression.

[llbeansandrice]

Why is that the logical conclusion? That doesn't make sense to me at all.

Internally managing that many positions and requirements and putting up that many job postings is a nightmare. For applicants, I'm going to almost immediately leave a page with that many listings and look at other companies.

It's only "logical" if you ignore all other pressures to job postings and are only trying to game these laws, which I presume have some baked-in preventions for this. I know Colorado's equivalent law does.

[plorg]

The exercise of putting together job descriptions and requirements should be enough to narrow it down to probably fewer than 3 Roles.