I guess we should be making all your insurance claims while you are on company insurance , how much you contribute to your retirement plan and how many sick days you have used too. It's weird to me that these boards that are generally pretty pro individuals right to privacy are all against someone keeping their salary private.
Those are not even close to being comparable. Your insurance claims, saving and sick days use should be private, like all the other ways you spend your salary.
That's not a problem. The whole point of making salaries public is to compensate for the asymmetrical information during salary negotiation.
I don't care about how many sick days you use, I just want to make sure I have some too.
But those are all benefits. If I have 5 sick days and you have zero, should you not be allowed to know? How about if they match 50% of my donations yet only match yours 35%?
I guess we should be making all your insurance claims while you are on company insurance , how much you contribute to your retirement plan and how many sick days you have used too. It's weird to me that these boards that are generally pretty pro individuals right to privacy are all against someone keeping their salary private.
Those are not even close to being comparable. Your insurance claims, saving and sick days use should be private, like all the other ways you spend your salary.
That's not a problem. The whole point of making salaries public is to compensate for the asymmetrical information during salary negotiation.
I don't care about how many sick days you use, I just want to make sure I have some too.
But those are all benefits. If I have 5 sick days and you have zero, should you not be allowed to know? How about if they match 50% of my donations yet only match yours 35%?
These are all forms of compensation.
Use isn't the same as pool. Insurance benefits should be public. Insurance claims should not. Etc.
I guess we should be making all your insurance claims while you are on company insurance , how much you contribute to your retirement plan and how many sick days you have used too. It's weird to me that these boards that are generally pretty pro individuals right to privacy are all against someone keeping their salary private.
Those are not even close to being comparable. Your insurance claims, saving and sick days use should be private, like all the other ways you spend your salary.
That's not a problem. The whole point of making salaries public is to compensate for the asymmetrical information during salary negotiation.
I don't care about how many sick days you use, I just want to make sure I have some too.
But those are all benefits. If I have 5 sick days and you have zero, should you not be allowed to know? How about if they match 50% of my donations yet only match yours 35%?
How public are we talking here? Like, could a recruiter for a new job be able to google my name, my company, see my current salary, and then automatically know to offer me a % over that? Because that makes getting your first job that muchmore important because from now on your future's going to be based primarily on the salary of your first job. Like, there's no longer room for negotiation at all. Is that a good thing?
I guess we should be making all your insurance claims while you are on company insurance , how much you contribute to your retirement plan and how many sick days you have used too. It's weird to me that these boards that are generally pretty pro individuals right to privacy are all against someone keeping their salary private.
Those are not even close to being comparable. Your insurance claims, saving and sick days use should be private, like all the other ways you spend your salary.
That's not a problem. The whole point of making salaries public is to compensate for the asymmetrical information during salary negotiation.
I don't care about how many sick days you use, I just want to make sure I have some too.
But those are all benefits. If I have 5 sick days and you have zero, should you not be allowed to know? How about if they match 50% of my donations yet only match yours 35%?
These are all forms of compensation.
Sick days tend to be disclosed in employee handbooks and benefit guides.
You typically know how many sick days people at your place of employment get according to tenure/position/whatever else.
How public are we talking here? Like, could a recruiter for a new job be able to google my name, my company, see my current salary, and then automatically know to offer me a % over that? Because that makes getting your first job that muchmore important because from now on your future's going to be based primarily on the salary of your first job. Like, there's no longer room for negotiation at all. Is that a good thing?
I would argue it is a bad thing and will likely promote a race to the bottom.
syndalis on
SW-4158-3990-6116
Let's play Mario Kart or something...
Your sick days and vacation days and shit are all going to be calculated at your current hourly rate, so you could reasonably extrapolate how much vacation a person could potentially can have (as documented in the policy), multiply it by the public rate, and say that is part of the benefits portion of their compensation. Them being out of compliance with their policy is a different issue entirely.
Many companies have policies where you can be fired for discussing wage/compensation with fellow employees. Even if compensation isn't made broadly available to everyone, should these policies be made illegal?
In the US those policies are illegal.
Just, like so much bullshit about US law, there's no punishment for having such a policy. They just can't fire you over it.
Of course not!
When you get fired in a right-to-work state shortly after discussing your salary with someone in a way that proves inconvenient for your boss, it's totally just a coincidence.
I submitted an entry to Lego Ideas, and if 10,000 people support me, it'll be turned into an actual Lego set!If you'd like to see and support my submission, follow this link.
Well, not my salary. But a person can make a pretty good ballpark and get super close based on just a little extra info.
My basic pay can be found here.
My food allowance can be found here.
My housing allowance can be found here.
There are a couple other pays I'm eligible for based on location and current job but those three are the big ones just about anyone with a few years in gets. And no one I've worked with minds talking about pay. People do it all the time! We all know how our pay scale works so trying to keep it secret from each other is pointless. It's pretty nice since it means people talk about finances, what they're considering, and lets me help them if they're not sure or about to make a really dumb decision.
I honestly find the idea of not talking about one's salary kind of baffling.
I guess we should be making all your insurance claims while you are on company insurance , how much you contribute to your retirement plan and how many sick days you have used too. It's weird to me that these boards that are generally pretty pro individuals right to privacy are all against someone keeping their salary private.
Those are not even close to being comparable. Your insurance claims, saving and sick days use should be private, like all the other ways you spend your salary.
That's not a problem. The whole point of making salaries public is to compensate for the asymmetrical information during salary negotiation.
I don't care about how many sick days you use, I just want to make sure I have some too.
But those are all benefits. If I have 5 sick days and you have zero, should you not be allowed to know? How about if they match 50% of my donations yet only match yours 35%?
These are all forms of compensation.
Sick days tend to be disclosed in employee handbooks and benefit guides.
You typically know how many sick days people at your place of employment get according to tenure/position/whatever else.
Same with pension plans, etc.
Not the case in either my or my wife's place of employment.
I rather like the way my state handles it, because it's very easy to know what you should be earning, but something of a pain to determine what your coworker is earning. You basically have to look them up in the directory, find their job classification, know what their previous classifications might have been, and know how long they've been working in your department.
I could find out what everyone's making, but I'm way too lazy. I just know that what I'm making is that I should be making.
It's kind of nice having the whole thing be so deterministic. Then again, I'm not the type who's highly motivated by the prospect of squeezing out an extra 2 bucks an hour, or whatever. I know I could be making a lot more working elsewhere, but I don't really care too much about that. I'm comfortable in the knowledge that my employer isn't sneakily trying to fuck me in the pocketbook.
I submitted an entry to Lego Ideas, and if 10,000 people support me, it'll be turned into an actual Lego set!If you'd like to see and support my submission, follow this link.
I guess we should be making all your insurance claims while you are on company insurance , how much you contribute to your retirement plan and how many sick days you have used too. It's weird to me that these boards that are generally pretty pro individuals right to privacy are all against someone keeping their salary private.
Analogies are still bad.
Make known what kind of insurance everyone receives, sure. I think that's a really good idea actually! But just don't make public how they then use that insurance. Much like we wouldn't make public how a person uses their money.
Now! How about without an analogy, you actually explain what's bad about my pay being public knowledge.
I guess we should be making all your insurance claims while you are on company insurance , how much you contribute to your retirement plan and how many sick days you have used too. It's weird to me that these boards that are generally pretty pro individuals right to privacy are all against someone keeping their salary private.
Those are not even close to being comparable. Your insurance claims, saving and sick days use should be private, like all the other ways you spend your salary.
That's not a problem. The whole point of making salaries public is to compensate for the asymmetrical information during salary negotiation.
I don't care about how many sick days you use, I just want to make sure I have some too.
But those are all benefits. If I have 5 sick days and you have zero, should you not be allowed to know? How about if they match 50% of my donations yet only match yours 35%?
These are all forms of compensation.
Sick days tend to be disclosed in employee handbooks and benefit guides.
You typically know how many sick days people at your place of employment get according to tenure/position/whatever else.
Same with pension plans, etc.
Not the case in either my or my wife's place of employment.
If that's truly the case, and your company maintains no such policy, then your company policy is shitty and if I audited them I'd give them a savage fucking
+2
Options
Sir Landsharkresting shark faceRegistered Userregular
How public are we talking here? Like, could a recruiter for a new job be able to google my name, my company, see my current salary, and then automatically know to offer me a % over that? Because that makes getting your first job that muchmore important because from now on your future's going to be based primarily on the salary of your first job. Like, there's no longer room for negotiation at all. Is that a good thing?
I would argue it is a bad thing and will likely promote a race to the bottom.
Which way it goes will likely depend on the prevailing labor market. When demand is booming I can see it going the other way.
Please consider the environment before printing this post.
I guess we should be making all your insurance claims while you are on company insurance , how much you contribute to your retirement plan and how many sick days you have used too. It's weird to me that these boards that are generally pretty pro individuals right to privacy are all against someone keeping their salary private.
Those are not even close to being comparable. Your insurance claims, saving and sick days use should be private, like all the other ways you spend your salary.
That's not a problem. The whole point of making salaries public is to compensate for the asymmetrical information during salary negotiation.
I don't care about how many sick days you use, I just want to make sure I have some too.
But those are all benefits. If I have 5 sick days and you have zero, should you not be allowed to know? How about if they match 50% of my donations yet only match yours 35%?
These are all forms of compensation.
Sick days tend to be disclosed in employee handbooks and benefit guides.
You typically know how many sick days people at your place of employment get according to tenure/position/whatever else.
Same with pension plans, etc.
Not the case in either my or my wife's place of employment.
Andrew makes $500k in sales per year, but he is kind of an asshole. Brian makes $400k in sales per year, but he is nicer and coaches some of the junior team members.
A robust performance review system might say that "positive attitude" is 10% of your review, and coaching juniors is 20% of your review, and sales figures are 50%. The other 20% are other metrics not important to this example.
Andrew gets a 5/5 on sales, 2/5 on coaching, and 3/5 on attitude. Brian gets 3/5 on sales, 4/5 on coaching, and 4/5 on attitude. They get the same overall scores, so their compensation is equal.
Now imagine the same situation without a quantified performance review system. Andrew finds out he makes as much as Brian and vice versa. Andrew is pissed because Brian "is a shitty salesperson." Brian is pissed because Andrew "isn't a team player."
A good boss would be able to say "look, we need both of you. We need people like Andrew to push the hard sales, and we need people like Brian to internally develop the team." But that is a conversation that can easily go awry, and if it isn't phrased exactly right will be interpreted as favoritism.
If you've already quantified those factors and discussed them with everybody, then discovering salary discrepancies is a little less of a shock, and difficult discussions about them already have some groundwork.
These don't affect pay but instead the odds of promotion. A six month version is also done to try and help people improve in weak areas. And yeah, it's definitely not perfect. And they're not publicly available either. But when used right they're fantastic at getting people to realize what they need to work on and helping them take a good look at themselves compared to others.
Quantifying those evaluations is such a shitshow and it's fucking awful. It is universally panned as being a shitshow. Microsoft, GE, Accenture have all transitioned away from that X of 5 thing. It's a grass-is-greener thing because I'm in an industry that does it and it's terrible. You'd need to define "robust" in terms of how timely the reviews are performed, the information that's reviewed, and how the feedback is given. Otherwise it's just a "you fucked up in April '15 so you get a 2 in February '16 when we do our year-end close."
Quantifying those evaluations is such a shitshow and it's fucking awful. It is universally panned as being a shitshow. Microsoft, GE, Accenture have all transitioned away from that X of 5 thing. It's a grass-is-greener thing because I'm in an industry that does it and it's terrible.
*shrug*
My experience with it has been generally pretty good.
Disclosure: I'm in an industry in which turnover is very high and positive reinforcement is usually done though those ratings to get people to stay. Which is how they're used sometimes as well. Also I added other stuff.
Disclosure: I'm in an industry in which turnover is very high and positive reinforcement is usually done though those ratings to get people to stay. Which is how they're used sometimes as well. Also I added other stuff.
For us they're meant to be used long term in guiding or improving careers. The military isn't really known for its high turnover past the first few months. A person's rating also doesn't affect their ability to stay in unless they're actively screwing up. And high scores are given a quota so only a small percent can benefit from high scoring evals.
And yeah, someone screwing bad up one month can fuck up their eval for that year but everyone starts fresh the next. To the point that it can even be a boon for some promotion boards when they see someone messed up, learned from it, and started out performing everyone else a couple years later.
Hidden salaries are used as a weapon to keep salaries low in my industry. They put it in our contracts and I'm pretty sure it's not actually legally enforceable in our state, but they'll can you for it anyway. Through shrewd negotiation and leverage, I ended up making 25% more than my peers, and they have no way to know that this is even something they can aspire to.
Public salaries of the competition could just as easily be used as a metric to keep your salaries low; especially at publically traded companies operating in right to work states.
Hidden salaries are used as a weapon to keep salaries low in my industry. They put it in our contracts and I'm pretty sure it's not actually legally enforceable in our state, but they'll can you for it anyway. Through shrewd negotiation and leverage, I ended up making 25% more than my peers, and they have no way to know that this is even something they can aspire to.
Public salaries of the competition could just as easily be used as a metric to keep your salaries low; especially at publically traded companies operating in right to work states.
I don't see it being any worse than the current situation where the standard is "This is how much we'll offer you and trust us it's totally a fair deal."
Most larger companies already do know how much money large swaths of comparable workers make simply by being so large. Meanwhile they're still going to have to use compensation to attract better workers. So, barring collusion, every company slowly lowering their salaries to pay everyone the least doesn't strike me as likely.
Quantifying those evaluations is such a shitshow and it's fucking awful. It is universally panned as being a shitshow. Microsoft, GE, Accenture have all transitioned away from that X of 5 thing. It's a grass-is-greener thing because I'm in an industry that does it and it's terrible. You'd need to define "robust" in terms of how timely the reviews are performed, the information that's reviewed, and how the feedback is given. Otherwise it's just a "you fucked up in April '15 so you get a 2 in February '16 when we do our year-end close."
Doesn't MS use stack ranking? I'm not sure how anything could be worse than that.
Quantifying those evaluations is such a shitshow and it's fucking awful. It is universally panned as being a shitshow. Microsoft, GE, Accenture have all transitioned away from that X of 5 thing. It's a grass-is-greener thing because I'm in an industry that does it and it's terrible. You'd need to define "robust" in terms of how timely the reviews are performed, the information that's reviewed, and how the feedback is given. Otherwise it's just a "you fucked up in April '15 so you get a 2 in February '16 when we do our year-end close."
Doesn't MS use stack ranking? I'm not sure how anything could be worse than that.
Quantifying those evaluations is such a shitshow and it's fucking awful. It is universally panned as being a shitshow. Microsoft, GE, Accenture have all transitioned away from that X of 5 thing. It's a grass-is-greener thing because I'm in an industry that does it and it's terrible. You'd need to define "robust" in terms of how timely the reviews are performed, the information that's reviewed, and how the feedback is given. Otherwise it's just a "you fucked up in April '15 so you get a 2 in February '16 when we do our year-end close."
Doesn't MS use stack ranking? I'm not sure how anything could be worse than that.
they stopped
life's a game that you're bound to lose / like using a hammer to pound in screws
fuck up once and you break your thumb / if you're happy at all then you're god damn dumb
that's right we're on a fucked up cruise / God is dead but at least we have booze
bad things happen, no one knows why / the sun burns out and everyone dies
So, UC publishes (is forced to publish?) their employee salaries online. I'm not listed on there (student), but my boss is. And all the department staff. Which leads to some more or less harmless griping about who is paid HOW MUCH?
Hidden salaries are used as a weapon to keep salaries low in my industry. They put it in our contracts and I'm pretty sure it's not actually legally enforceable in our state, but they'll can you for it anyway. Through shrewd negotiation and leverage, I ended up making 25% more than my peers, and they have no way to know that this is even something they can aspire to.
Public salaries of the competition could just as easily be used as a metric to keep your salaries low; especially at publically traded companies operating in right to work states.
It would have a middling effect. People like me who can demand higher salaries would not be able to get as high of salaries, but people who are being screwed over because they don't know any better would know better and wouldn't be screwed over as bad. If I have to struggle a little more so that fifty people have to struggle a little less, I'm fine with that.
Hidden salaries are used as a weapon to keep salaries low in my industry. They put it in our contracts and I'm pretty sure it's not actually legally enforceable in our state, but they'll can you for it anyway. Through shrewd negotiation and leverage, I ended up making 25% more than my peers, and they have no way to know that this is even something they can aspire to.
Public salaries of the competition could just as easily be used as a metric to keep your salaries low; especially at publically traded companies operating in right to work states.
I don't see it being any worse than the current situation where the standard is "This is how much we'll offer you and trust us it's totally a fair deal."
Most larger companies already do know how much money large swaths of comparable workers make simply by being so large. Meanwhile they're still going to have to use compensation to attract better workers. So, barring collusion, every company slowly lowering their salaries to pay everyone the least doesn't strike me as likely.
Starting salaries are only part of this puzzle, and I think it's charitable to think that any salary information in excess of your current salary is going to be a major factor in many hiring manager's eyes, or give you much leverage against a less mercenary HM.
'This is better than what you make, and all we can afford, take it or leave.'
Because you don't know their budget, that might actually be an honest statement even if you can see the 8 other people in your prospective cube farm make more. Your position as a negatiator is not necessarily improved anymore than simply looking up the comps on salary.com would help today.
What really concerns me is the mechanism of shareholders suppressing raises or cutting compensation because they pay better than 51% of the competition. It might not be outright collusion, but you may see a slide to the middle, followed by a deadlock where no one wants to leave the security of the herd.
Whether or not it would raise salaries very strongly depends on the industry. For instance, where I work it would probably not significantly change the salary because negotiations seem pretty minimal and it's pretty broadly known how well people in the industry get paid, and compensation targets that. Additionally, a lot of the different companies are still running very similar operations. Maybe public salaries would prevent collusion and raise prices some, and I can't see it having a negative effect, but it'd probably be minor.
In an industry that is more scattered and with less "identical" jobs, I can definitely see it improve people who are being taken advantage of, especially for high value employees or employees in high demand. Conversely, in jobs that do not require unique skills and have a high supply, I can see it lowering the salaries of any "whales" who happen to be compensated a lot higher than average, without increasing the average salary much.
It sort of depends on the industry, but I would imagine most big industry jobs would tend towards the "middling, hurts any collusion" effect.
I guess we should be making all your insurance claims while you are on company insurance , how much you contribute to your retirement plan and how many sick days you have used too. It's weird to me that these boards that are generally pretty pro individuals right to privacy are all against someone keeping their salary private.
Those are not even close to being comparable. Your insurance claims, saving and sick days use should be private, like all the other ways you spend your salary.
That's not a problem. The whole point of making salaries public is to compensate for the asymmetrical information during salary negotiation.
I don't care about how many sick days you use, I just want to make sure I have some too.
But those are all benefits. If I have 5 sick days and you have zero, should you not be allowed to know? How about if they match 50% of my donations yet only match yours 35%?
These are all forms of compensation.
Sick days tend to be disclosed in employee handbooks and benefit guides.
You typically know how many sick days people at your place of employment get according to tenure/position/whatever else.
Same with pension plans, etc.
Not the case in either my or my wife's place of employment.
And you don't see this as a problem?
Not particularly, no. I'm in sales so a large portion of my take home pay is a combination of commissions and bonuses that have been negotiated over years. I am the top grossing sales person in my division and, to be frank, deserve some extra compensation. My wife has a standardized salary + benefit package but is over qualified and in the same position that she outperforms her colleges by a country mile so she negotiated some extras.
It was accidentally reveled that I do not pay insurance premiums as a benefit. This was something that was common in my organization when I started over a decade ago but was phased out about 5 years ago. It became quite a point of contention for a while so no, I don't think everyone needs to know what I make.
My 2cents anyway and this is Canada, so insurance is not as big a deal.
Hidden salaries are used as a weapon to keep salaries low in my industry. They put it in our contracts and I'm pretty sure it's not actually legally enforceable in our state, but they'll can you for it anyway. Through shrewd negotiation and leverage, I ended up making 25% more than my peers, and they have no way to know that this is even something they can aspire to.
Public salaries of the competition could just as easily be used as a metric to keep your salaries low; especially at publically traded companies operating in right to work states.
I don't see it being any worse than the current situation where the standard is "This is how much we'll offer you and trust us it's totally a fair deal."
Most larger companies already do know how much money large swaths of comparable workers make simply by being so large. Meanwhile they're still going to have to use compensation to attract better workers. So, barring collusion, every company slowly lowering their salaries to pay everyone the least doesn't strike me as likely.
Starting salaries are only part of this puzzle, and I think it's charitable to think that any salary information in excess of your current salary is going to be a major factor in many hiring manager's eyes, or give you much leverage against a less mercenary HM.
'This is better than what you make, and all we can afford, take it or leave.'
Because you don't know their budget, that might actually be an honest statement even if you can see the 8 other people in your prospective cube farm make more. Your position as a negatiator is not necessarily improved anymore than simply looking up the comps on salary.com would help today.
What really concerns me is the mechanism of shareholders suppressing raises or cutting compensation because they pay better than 51% of the competition. It might not be outright collusion, but you may see a slide to the middle, followed by a deadlock where no one wants to leave the security of the herd.
"This is better than what you make, and all we can afford, take it or leave" is a jillion times better than "Here's our offer, and all we can afford, take it or leave it also you have nothing reliable to compare it to but your own salary."
And it could be an honest statement. But the reality is that it almost never is. They're trying to make money just as much as the next person and the less they pay you the more they get.
And what you call "the herd" I call "human beings." There probably would be a slide to the middle and I'm perfectly fine with that. Income inequality as it stands could benefit strongly from a slide towards the middle.
I guess we should be making all your insurance claims while you are on company insurance , how much you contribute to your retirement plan and how many sick days you have used too. It's weird to me that these boards that are generally pretty pro individuals right to privacy are all against someone keeping their salary private.
Those are not even close to being comparable. Your insurance claims, saving and sick days use should be private, like all the other ways you spend your salary.
That's not a problem. The whole point of making salaries public is to compensate for the asymmetrical information during salary negotiation.
I don't care about how many sick days you use, I just want to make sure I have some too.
But those are all benefits. If I have 5 sick days and you have zero, should you not be allowed to know? How about if they match 50% of my donations yet only match yours 35%?
These are all forms of compensation.
Sick days tend to be disclosed in employee handbooks and benefit guides.
You typically know how many sick days people at your place of employment get according to tenure/position/whatever else.
Same with pension plans, etc.
Not the case in either my or my wife's place of employment.
And you don't see this as a problem?
Not particularly, no. I'm in sales so a large portion of my take home pay is a combination of commissions and bonuses that have been negotiated over years. I am the top grossing sales person in my division and, to be frank, deserve some extra compensation. My wife has a standardized salary + benefit package but is over qualified and in the same position that she outperforms her colleges by a country mile so she negotiated some extras.
It was accidentally reveled that I do not pay insurance premiums as a benefit. This was something that was common in my organization when I started over a decade ago but was phased out about 5 years ago. It became quite a point of contention for a while so no, I don't think everyone needs to know what I make.
My 2cents anyway and this is Canada, so insurance is not as big a deal.
Nothing you described is prevented from happening with salaries being made public.
I think its a good idea. I know how much everyone in my company makes and I think its helpful in many ways. I think if everyone knew everyone's salary it would make the workplace more honest overall. The transition might be hard for a lot of people though.
One of the big places this would help is in workforces supplied by different agencies.
Every agency is in competition with the others, but because there is no transparency for the clients/workers, they have no way to actually gauge the product. This gets even worse because they all throw in non-compete clauses. The last one I had was six months.
0
Options
Powerpuppiesdrinking coffee in themountain cabinRegistered Userregular
Synd I just don't think it's a bad thing that someome know what I make and if someone does mind, I'm inclined to tell them tough, them's the breaks, because it helps everyone else get paid fairly
Synd I just don't think it's a bad thing that someome know what I make and if someone does mind, I'm inclined to tell them tough, them's the breaks, because it helps everyone else get paid fairly
And I think going to the point of specifically making individual worker's salaries public knowledge makes it easier for headhunters to poach talent, breeds resentment and hyper-competetive attitudes in the workplace, unless the goal is to 100% strip all variance of pay off the table, which would likely have a chilling effect on productivity.
The military and government jobs are not really systems you can apply to smaller organizations. The military handles pay grades by having 40+ similarish titles for each job designation that you can climb up through.
I think there is value in addressing income inequality for women and minorities, but this can be done through use of anonymous data, and government oversight/enforcement. Not by giving everyone all the info on everyone else.
To give an example. You run a medical practice, and you need to hire a new PA to assist with patient load. There is someone you personally know, who has excellent patient rapport and a baked-in following who would come to the practice just to see them. You are willing to pay potentially 15-20% more to this person than you are any of your currently hired PAs because you know the working relationship is going to be good and they are a value-add to the practice.
Why is it the business of the other PAs / staffers that you made this arrangement with the PA? What is wrong in paying more for what you perceive to be a better experience and a better return for the practice?
Another example. Bob the coder just had a kid. The company, having valued bob's hard work over the past many years and his dedication to the company, gives him a raise right before paternity leave as a way of congratulating him, and being aware of the increased financial burden they are about to undertake.
Why is this the business of anyone but the company and Bob?
syndalis on
SW-4158-3990-6116
Let's play Mario Kart or something...
Headhunter poaching is a result of workers not being paid enough.
Competition is..... bad....?
headhunter poaching has many, many more reasons for existing than that, and if there was a place a competing company could go to see the names of all your staff and how much they make that company could do a lot of damage.
SW-4158-3990-6116
Let's play Mario Kart or something...
Posts
But those are all benefits. If I have 5 sick days and you have zero, should you not be allowed to know? How about if they match 50% of my donations yet only match yours 35%?
These are all forms of compensation.
Use isn't the same as pool. Insurance benefits should be public. Insurance claims should not. Etc.
Sick days tend to be disclosed in employee handbooks and benefit guides.
You typically know how many sick days people at your place of employment get according to tenure/position/whatever else.
Same with pension plans, etc.
BF3 Battlelog | Twitter | World of Warships | World of Tanks | Wishlist
I would argue it is a bad thing and will likely promote a race to the bottom.
Let's play Mario Kart or something...
Of course not!
When you get fired in a right-to-work state shortly after discussing your salary with someone in a way that proves inconvenient for your boss, it's totally just a coincidence.
Well, not my salary. But a person can make a pretty good ballpark and get super close based on just a little extra info.
My basic pay can be found here.
My food allowance can be found here.
My housing allowance can be found here.
There are a couple other pays I'm eligible for based on location and current job but those three are the big ones just about anyone with a few years in gets. And no one I've worked with minds talking about pay. People do it all the time! We all know how our pay scale works so trying to keep it secret from each other is pointless. It's pretty nice since it means people talk about finances, what they're considering, and lets me help them if they're not sure or about to make a really dumb decision.
I honestly find the idea of not talking about one's salary kind of baffling.
Not the case in either my or my wife's place of employment.
I could find out what everyone's making, but I'm way too lazy. I just know that what I'm making is that I should be making.
It's kind of nice having the whole thing be so deterministic. Then again, I'm not the type who's highly motivated by the prospect of squeezing out an extra 2 bucks an hour, or whatever. I know I could be making a lot more working elsewhere, but I don't really care too much about that. I'm comfortable in the knowledge that my employer isn't sneakily trying to fuck me in the pocketbook.
Analogies are still bad.
Make known what kind of insurance everyone receives, sure. I think that's a really good idea actually! But just don't make public how they then use that insurance. Much like we wouldn't make public how a person uses their money.
Now! How about without an analogy, you actually explain what's bad about my pay being public knowledge.
If that's truly the case, and your company maintains no such policy, then your company policy is shitty and if I audited them I'd give them a savage fucking
Which way it goes will likely depend on the prevailing labor market. When demand is booming I can see it going the other way.
And you don't see this as a problem?
BF3 Battlelog | Twitter | World of Warships | World of Tanks | Wishlist
So hey guess what else the Navy does. This! Yearly evaluations with X out of 5 graded areas are a thing. The other branches do it too but they're not nautical so nuts to them. I also don't know what form numbers to search for.
These don't affect pay but instead the odds of promotion. A six month version is also done to try and help people improve in weak areas. And yeah, it's definitely not perfect. And they're not publicly available either. But when used right they're fantastic at getting people to realize what they need to work on and helping them take a good look at themselves compared to others.
*shrug*
My experience with it has been generally pretty good.
Come at me.
For us they're meant to be used long term in guiding or improving careers. The military isn't really known for its high turnover past the first few months. A person's rating also doesn't affect their ability to stay in unless they're actively screwing up. And high scores are given a quota so only a small percent can benefit from high scoring evals.
And yeah, someone screwing bad up one month can fuck up their eval for that year but everyone starts fresh the next. To the point that it can even be a boon for some promotion boards when they see someone messed up, learned from it, and started out performing everyone else a couple years later.
Public salaries of the competition could just as easily be used as a metric to keep your salaries low; especially at publically traded companies operating in right to work states.
I don't see it being any worse than the current situation where the standard is "This is how much we'll offer you and trust us it's totally a fair deal."
Most larger companies already do know how much money large swaths of comparable workers make simply by being so large. Meanwhile they're still going to have to use compensation to attract better workers. So, barring collusion, every company slowly lowering their salaries to pay everyone the least doesn't strike me as likely.
Doesn't MS use stack ranking? I'm not sure how anything could be worse than that.
Enron's rating system was pretty bad.
they stopped
fuck up once and you break your thumb / if you're happy at all then you're god damn dumb
that's right we're on a fucked up cruise / God is dead but at least we have booze
bad things happen, no one knows why / the sun burns out and everyone dies
http://www.sacbee.com/site-services/databases/state-pay/article2642161.html
Unsurprisingly, athletics coaches are at the top, along with the hospital CEOs.
On the other hand, I suspect that this is the type of "oversight" that the leads to websites encouraging you to report NIH grants you think are dumb.
I think if salary information is public, it should be at least anonymized. I guess the pay-tables available at many institutions do that.
It would have a middling effect. People like me who can demand higher salaries would not be able to get as high of salaries, but people who are being screwed over because they don't know any better would know better and wouldn't be screwed over as bad. If I have to struggle a little more so that fifty people have to struggle a little less, I'm fine with that.
Starting salaries are only part of this puzzle, and I think it's charitable to think that any salary information in excess of your current salary is going to be a major factor in many hiring manager's eyes, or give you much leverage against a less mercenary HM.
'This is better than what you make, and all we can afford, take it or leave.'
Because you don't know their budget, that might actually be an honest statement even if you can see the 8 other people in your prospective cube farm make more. Your position as a negatiator is not necessarily improved anymore than simply looking up the comps on salary.com would help today.
What really concerns me is the mechanism of shareholders suppressing raises or cutting compensation because they pay better than 51% of the competition. It might not be outright collusion, but you may see a slide to the middle, followed by a deadlock where no one wants to leave the security of the herd.
In an industry that is more scattered and with less "identical" jobs, I can definitely see it improve people who are being taken advantage of, especially for high value employees or employees in high demand. Conversely, in jobs that do not require unique skills and have a high supply, I can see it lowering the salaries of any "whales" who happen to be compensated a lot higher than average, without increasing the average salary much.
It sort of depends on the industry, but I would imagine most big industry jobs would tend towards the "middling, hurts any collusion" effect.
Not particularly, no. I'm in sales so a large portion of my take home pay is a combination of commissions and bonuses that have been negotiated over years. I am the top grossing sales person in my division and, to be frank, deserve some extra compensation. My wife has a standardized salary + benefit package but is over qualified and in the same position that she outperforms her colleges by a country mile so she negotiated some extras.
It was accidentally reveled that I do not pay insurance premiums as a benefit. This was something that was common in my organization when I started over a decade ago but was phased out about 5 years ago. It became quite a point of contention for a while so no, I don't think everyone needs to know what I make.
My 2cents anyway and this is Canada, so insurance is not as big a deal.
"This is better than what you make, and all we can afford, take it or leave" is a jillion times better than "Here's our offer, and all we can afford, take it or leave it also you have nothing reliable to compare it to but your own salary."
And it could be an honest statement. But the reality is that it almost never is. They're trying to make money just as much as the next person and the less they pay you the more they get.
And what you call "the herd" I call "human beings." There probably would be a slide to the middle and I'm perfectly fine with that. Income inequality as it stands could benefit strongly from a slide towards the middle.
Nothing you described is prevented from happening with salaries being made public.
Every agency is in competition with the others, but because there is no transparency for the clients/workers, they have no way to actually gauge the product. This gets even worse because they all throw in non-compete clauses. The last one I had was six months.
"Oh gosh, Phillis makes 10% more than everyone else. Maybe I should ask her how she got so productive."
And I think going to the point of specifically making individual worker's salaries public knowledge makes it easier for headhunters to poach talent, breeds resentment and hyper-competetive attitudes in the workplace, unless the goal is to 100% strip all variance of pay off the table, which would likely have a chilling effect on productivity.
The military and government jobs are not really systems you can apply to smaller organizations. The military handles pay grades by having 40+ similarish titles for each job designation that you can climb up through.
I think there is value in addressing income inequality for women and minorities, but this can be done through use of anonymous data, and government oversight/enforcement. Not by giving everyone all the info on everyone else.
To give an example. You run a medical practice, and you need to hire a new PA to assist with patient load. There is someone you personally know, who has excellent patient rapport and a baked-in following who would come to the practice just to see them. You are willing to pay potentially 15-20% more to this person than you are any of your currently hired PAs because you know the working relationship is going to be good and they are a value-add to the practice.
Why is it the business of the other PAs / staffers that you made this arrangement with the PA? What is wrong in paying more for what you perceive to be a better experience and a better return for the practice?
Another example. Bob the coder just had a kid. The company, having valued bob's hard work over the past many years and his dedication to the company, gives him a raise right before paternity leave as a way of congratulating him, and being aware of the increased financial burden they are about to undertake.
Why is this the business of anyone but the company and Bob?
Let's play Mario Kart or something...
Competition is..... bad....?
headhunter poaching has many, many more reasons for existing than that, and if there was a place a competing company could go to see the names of all your staff and how much they make that company could do a lot of damage.
Let's play Mario Kart or something...