The pay transparency problem: Why B.C.’s salary ranges aren’t bridging the gap

When B.C. introduced mandatory salary ranges on job postings, it was supposed to be a step toward greater pay transparency. On paper, it made sense—give candidates a clear idea of what a role pays and eliminate the guessing game.

But in practice, it’s created a new kind of misalignment.

Candidates are walking into interviews asking for the top end of the range. Employers, meanwhile, are reviewing resumes and pegging the same candidates closer to the lower end. Before either side even speaks, both are operating with different expectations—and often, a different interpretation of what that “range” actually means.

The legislation also prohibits employers from asking about a candidate’s previous salary—a well-intentioned move meant to reduce wage discrimination. But here’s the unintended consequence: without any benchmark or context, candidates often overshoot their ask (“I’ll just aim high—they can always negotiate down”), while others undercut themselves out of fear of pricing too high. Employers, on the other hand, hedge their offers lower “just in case.” The result? A widening trust gap and slower hiring cycles.

To make things even murkier, the legislation also states that both candidates and employers are free to negotiate outside the posted range if they choose to. So what’s the point? If the range isn’t binding—and both sides are still guessing—how transparent is the process, really?

The root issue isn’t the idea of transparency—it’s how it’s being presented. A salary range without context is like a map without a legend. It tells you where the borders are, but not how to navigate them.

What would true pay transparency look like?

• Publish annual salary reports per industry, with employers contributing anonymized data that shows what compensation actually looks like at each level.
• Break salary ranges down by experience brackets — for example, a posted range of $100K–$120K could be clarified as:
  • $100K–$110K for candidates with 5–7 years’ experience
  • $110K–$120K for candidates with 7–10 years’ experience
• Require employers to include this level of context directly in job descriptions, not just a vague range.
• Include disclaimers or notes in job descriptions where applicable—for example, “Based on budget, we may consider a Director-level candidate rather than an intermediate-level hire.” This sets expectations up front and encourages qualified applicants not to self-eliminate.
• Alternatively, if there’s that much flexibility in scope, employers could post two separate listings—one for an intermediate role and one for a senior one—rather than a single catch-all posting that confuses both sides.

This kind of framework would give both sides a shared starting point—one grounded in reality, not assumptions. Candidates could calibrate their expectations based on actual market data. Employers could enter conversations knowing their range is being interpreted fairly.

Pay transparency was meant to level the playing field. It still can—but not with half the information. The solution isn’t to remove ranges, it’s to add clarity to them. Transparency only works when everyone is reading from the same page.