I'm a few years into nonprofit operations and currently applying for coordinator/manager roles at small-to-midsize orgs. Since the city pay transparency law took effect at the end of 2022, almost every posting has a range, but half of them look like $65k-$95k or $80k-$120k. I get that a range is supposed to leave room for experience, but a $30k window doesn't tell you much about what they've actually budgeted.

Two things happened this month: one recruiter said the range covered 'junior to senior performance within the title' but would only schedule an interview if I confirmed I'd accept $67k, which was the bottom. Another org posted $72k-$88k, and after a final interview, offered $73k and said the top was reserved for internal candidates with three more years of experience. Both feel like they're technically posting a range but using it as a ceiling for external hires.

I'd like to hear how people are actually reading these ranges now. Do you treat the midpoint as the real number? Do you anchor your ask at the top and expect them to negotiate down? If you're looking at a $70k-$90k posting and you want $82k, do you say that in the first screen or wait until an offer? Also, are employers required to give you the range for a role if they repost it after you've already talked to them? I know there's a law, but I'm not clear how much teeth it actually has for vague ranges.

Finally a salary transparency thread! The law applies to employers with at least four employees AND the role has to be performed at least in part in New York City. If you're fully remote for a Jersey-based company while living in Astoria, the posting may not be covered unless the employer has a New York City location or the role reports to one. This gets messy! Have you checked the NYC Commission on Human Rights guidance? It says the posted minimum and maximum must be the honest range the employer actually expects to pay, not a wish list.

A $65k-$95k window can still be legal if they have documentation showing internal equity or step increases, but if the recruiter says 'bottom only for you' before they've assessed your experience, that sounds like not good faith. I would ask in writing: 'Can you confirm whether this range reflects the current approved budget for this specific opening, not just the pay band for the title?' They hate that, but it works! Also remember NYC bars asking salary history, so if they ask what you currently make, you can politely say, 'I'm happy to focus on the posted range for this role.'

I'm just starting to apply for admin roles after being a nanny, and I've seen ranges like $45k-$60k. I always assume I'll get the bottom because I don't have office experience. Is that the wrong way to read it? I also didn't know the salary history thing was illegal here — a recruiter asked me my current pay last week and I froze. What do you say? Also, does the law apply to agencies, like if a temp agency posts a placement?

Not from NYC originally and still learning. I have eight years in customer service but no college degree. I applied for a $52k-$68k role and the screening interviewer asked me my target before I could see the range, which was only in the PDF, not the ad. I said $58k based on my last salary. Is that a mistake? Since I already said it, can I later go up?

Question for anyone who's negotiated after a written offer. I got hired in Woodside for an operations support job. Posted range was $50k-$65k, I asked for $60k in the interview, they offered $53k and said my one year of part-time office work didn't count. Is having a wide range like that enough for them to say no? Should I have waited to hear the number first?

Several of the above posts are touching on the same underlying issue: a posted range is not the same as a budgeted offer, and you shouldn't treat the bottom as your automatic landing spot. The law requires a good-faith range at the time of posting, but enforcement is complaint-driven, so a wide range won't get corrected unless someone pushes. If a final offer falls outside the posted range, that could be evidence of a bad-faith posting, but in practice you have more leverage if you can anchor to the midpoint.

For big_city_beth: no, you shouldn't assume the bottom. If you meet most of the requirements, ask for somewhere between the midpoint and the 60th percentile of the range. If the job is $45k-$60k, anchoring at $53k to start is reasonable. For the salary history question, I usually say, 'I'd prefer to focus on the budget for this role. Based on the posted range and my experience, I'm targeting $X.' If they push, it's legal to decline—under local law employers cannot ask for salary history or rely on it.

To new_in_harlem: Saying $58k early doesn't lock you in permanently, but it does create an anchor. You can walk it back after you learn more about the role: 'After the interview and seeing the full scope, I'd like to revise my target to $63k given the on-call piece.' That's much easier before an offer, not after.

Does this apply to city jobs or just private employers? I've been looking at assistant positions with the city, and many bulletins say salary is non-negotiable with steps. Is that different? Also, if a private company posts 'up to $70k' but no minimum, is that a violation? I saw a few agencies do that on LinkedIn.

To bronx_newbie: civil service titles usually have fixed, published salary ranges with steps and increments, so 'non-negotiable' is real for many city agencies because the pay is tied to the budget line and union or title schedules. That's not a transparency violation—it's a different system. But for private jobs, 'up to $70k' without a minimum is exactly the kind of thing the NYC law was designed to kill. A range must include a minimum and maximum. If you see 'up to $70k,' save a screenshot and ask the hiring team for the minimum in writing. And have you tried checking the employer's size? If they have fewer than four employees, they're not covered by the posting requirement, though many follow it anyway.

I have a practical negotiation question. I got an offer for a role posted $110k-$150k. I asked for $140k, they came back at $128k and said best and final because of internal parity. I'm fine with that salary, but I want another week of vacation. Are PTO and work-from-home days easier to negotiate when salary is capped? I've never asked before.

To city_slicker_sue: Yes, PTO is often the easier ask after they've moved to a 'best and final' salary. Vacation time can be more flexible because it doesn't show up in the payroll budget the same way, especially at smaller firms. Ask for an additional five days of PTO, or three days plus one work-from-home day if they have a hybrid schedule. If they say no to PTO, consider a signing bonus. I once accepted a salary at the lower end of a posted range in exchange for four extra vacation days and a six-month review with a $5k increase tied to specific metrics. Get the metrics in writing.

For bronx_newbie: yes, city civil service is different. Many titles have fixed steps and no posted min-max because the salary schedules are public. For private companies, a posting with only 'up to $70k' is likely out of compliance, but the practical move is to ask for the minimum before applying. If a recruiter won't give it, that tells you something.

For MovingToMaspeth: I don't believe the employer saying 'your part-time years don't count' means they can ignore the posted minimum. The posted minimum is still the floor; if they offer $53k on a $50k-$65k posting, they haven't violated the range. But you can push back with, 'I'd be happy to close at $57k based on the full scope and my relevant experience.' The hardest part is being willing to walk.

Thanks astoria_arch. I practiced the salary history line and used it in a phone screen today. The recruiter just moved on. I also asked for the minimum on an 'up to $62k' listing, and she sent me a range of $52k-$62k. Way less scary than I thought. Now I just need to convince myself I'm worth more than the bottom. This thread has been really helpful.