3 ms·

Lack of confidence and willingness to speak out are usually used by the employer to get more out of their employees, even if it's slightly worse for the employe

Lack of confidence and willingness to speak out are usually used by the employer to get more out of their employees, even if it's slightly worse for the employer it seems like straightforwardly positive for society. As for people being unable to judge and compare the price value of their contribution, because of the lack of public salary data, they've had no practice at the exercise. After a short adjustment period I'm sure people would develop the tools and attitudes to navigate a marketplace where they have way more information available.

fecak 10y ago
I agree there are lots of positives. But with increased transparency, what we won't likely see is someone saying "Joe is a better employee than me and I unfairly make more than him. Please reduce my salary." The adjustment requests are only going to go in one direction, and be requested by those who feel (wrongly or not) that they are contributing more than others. I wasn't referring to the inability to compare price value of contribution as related to public salary data, but rather for internal comparisons. Not market rate across the entire market, but value compared directly with a co-worker. These should be related, but transparency within one organization is easier to assess. If we have two programmers working on the same code base building the same product, how easy or difficult is it to determine who is contributing more and therefore worth more to the company? There are several factors at play, not to mention intangibles (catalysts, morale, leadership), and it's incredibly complex to say EMPLOYEE1 is 'more valuable' than EMPLOYEE2.
- RodericDay 10y ago
  This is all a red-herring. The real value people need to be able to compare is not co-worker vs. co-worker, but worker vs. manager. And then, requests for reducing salary will be weighed against the sacrifices the superiors are making, not about whether the kid brought in to fix the issue is getting paid more or less.

fecak 10y ago

I agree there are lots of positives. But with increased transparency, what we won't likely see is someone saying "Joe is a better employee than me and I unfairly make more than him. Please reduce my salary." The adjustment requests are only going to go in one direction, and be requested by those who feel (wrongly or not) that they are contributing more than others. I wasn't referring to the inability to compare price value of contribution as related to public salary data, but rather for internal comparisons. Not market rate across the entire market, but value compared directly with a co-worker. These should be related, but transparency within one organization is easier to assess. If we have two programmers working on the same code base building the same product, how easy or difficult is it to determine who is contributing more and therefore worth more to the company? There are several factors at play, not to mention intangibles (catalysts, morale, leadership), and it's incredibly complex to say EMPLOYEE1 is 'more valuable' than EMPLOYEE2.

RodericDay 10y ago
This is all a red-herring. The real value people need to be able to compare is not co-worker vs. co-worker, but worker vs. manager. And then, requests for reducing salary will be weighed against the sacrifices the superiors are making, not about whether the kid brought in to fix the issue is getting paid more or less.