For fast-food the salary range will be $minimum wage to $minimum wage+$epsilon and guess what you will be offered?

For professional roles, that I guess this is aimed at, it will say $50K-$120K. And some people will negotiate for 130k and some will accept 50k, and this will be as exactly correlated with race and gender as it is now. The only advantage I can see is that you don't waste time applying for "senior roles" that then offer you $50K

For executive roles it will just say $200K+ options where the options can be worth $0-$MM

I think it will help as it allows everyone to see what is on offer for the job, and maybe compare it to their own job. Here in the UK it was the norm that all job adverts gave a salary range, but that has been less common of late for whatever reason. As you say, it avoids you wasting time applying for low-paid posts that are hyped up.

I really don't understand the claims it is too hard to administer, FFS you must have some idea of your budget before offering a post!

To be fair, the reporting requirement (average salary broken down by race and gender) could be an absolute PITA.

It's hard enough fitting people in predesigned "race" boxes already. Races mix and match. I might describe myself as one thing when applying for a job, but something else when filling in a form later - depends largely on what the options are. As for gender... give me strength. In neither of these categories are you likely to find consensus even as to how many boxes there ought to be, let alone who fits into which.

And I haven't even touched on "what counts as 'salary'?" Surely the likeliest outcome is a significant increase in the amount of remuneration being given as options, bonuses, time off...

Yes, some of the reporting could be but a sensible approach would be to stage things so small business just give the salary ranges, larger have to do some reporting, above 500 or so employees then detailed analysis, etc.

A few UK gov surveys have a couple of obvious choices for race/gender/religion and for each there is usually "prefer not to say" or "other" so folks who get in a tizzy about not matching some very specific minority (or are generally pissed off about being asked) can use those. In most cases you just need the obvious male/female and black/white/Asian sort of choices to show any biases.

Assuming you compare the results to the distribution of possible applicants, of course.

If they have to post a wide range at least that's better than the even more useless "salary commensurate with experience" that every professional position has these days.

While one of the main reasons for this is to tighten up on discriminatory hiring practices, there are plenty of other good reasons.

Too many companies want to waste as much of peoples time throwing roadblocks in front of this very basic question, and to much of their own time as well.

My company wasted 3 months trying to hire someone for a help desk position, where of the candidates that got to interview, we were offering less than they could accept. Huge waste of everyone's time. In too many companies the hiring pipeline has become so mired in BS that it is almost impossible to navigate, and that seems to get worse as the company gets more successful.

As a counter example I can site a smaller internet security company. They posted rates that were fair, though not top rate in the postings. The posting contained basic but specific instructions for the application process. Anyone who followed those instructions got a prompt call back. If they passed a basic phone screening, they were brought in for an in-person interview, and the company was prepared to make an offer that day if they thought they had a strong applicant. Follow up interviews would be made as needed either to decide between strong candidates or if they needed to keep looking. That company did great and was growing well for a few years, then as they grew, a new CFO and a change of guard in the HR office broke everything. Poorly structured and vague postings with delusional requirements became the norm. Too many people wanted to "have input on the process" so candidates started to have 3-4 interviews, and longer ones. I remember passing people in the halls who literally looked tired. We started hiring more C's, who then hired D's.

I can't see any downside to this, it just saves everyone's time.

Also every company says they offer competitive or market driven salaries so the only reason to not provide it is because you offer below market rates.

Here's to me the most obvious downside: when negotiating salary, one of the key pieces of information a prospective employee has to their advantage is their current salary. If their current company publishes the salary range for their job, then that key piece of private information becomes public.

In the developed world (outside the USA) it has long been the norm, I understand that it has not been 100% so in the UK over the last decade but we can all hope that normal service will resume when we get grown-ups back in government!

So you don't get secure jobs, salary structures or any decent employment practices. I can see why certain politicians here see your workplace as something they want¡