![](/assets/icon.png)
1. A New York City tech worker discovered that her company was offering up to $90,000 more per year for the same job title through a job listing on LinkedIn.
2. The worker had been asking for a raise for months and attempted to negotiate with a competing offer, but was told there was no budget to increase her contracted pay.
3. The worker is now on the job market for a higher-paying position and encourages others to talk about their salaries and advocate for transparency laws.
The article discusses a viral tweet by a New York City tech worker who discovered that her employer was offering up to $90,000 more per year for the same job title she held. The worker, Kimberly Nguyen, learned about the discrepancy when her company posted a job opening with the same title as her current role on LinkedIn. The article highlights the new salary transparency law in NYC that requires companies to list salary ranges on job listings.
While the article provides some useful information about salary transparency laws and how they can benefit workers, it lacks depth and balance. For example, it does not explore why Citi listed some jobs with a salary range of $0 to $2 million or whether this was an intentional move or an error. Additionally, the article does not provide any evidence to support Nguyen's claim that she has been asking for a raise "for months" or whether she has received any feedback on her performance.
Furthermore, the article seems to take Nguyen's side without exploring other perspectives or counterarguments. It portrays her as a victim of unfair pay practices and suggests that companies should be proactive about making market adjustments for workers who may be underpaid. However, it does not consider factors such as experience level, education, skills, and performance metrics that could affect pay rates.
The article also includes promotional content by suggesting readers sign up for a new newsletter and highlighting other articles on CNBC's website. This detracts from the credibility of the piece and raises questions about its motives.
Overall, while the article raises important issues related to salary transparency and fair pay practices, it lacks depth and balance in its reporting. It would benefit from exploring different perspectives and providing more evidence to support its claims.