5 ms·
You have a right to know how much your coworkers are paid
- apokaladle 10y agoDamn straight. Obfuscation only benefits the boss at your expense.
- programmarchy 10y agoIt also benefits the employees who are getting a larger slice of the pie. Deserving or not, would said employees have an obligation to disclose their higher salary to their peers?
- tawayway 10y agoHow would they know that they have higher salaries?
- drdeadringer 10y agoPerhaps a right, but I'd be more comfortable if the data had was a touch anonymous. Like, no names but perhaps with job title and years of experience or similar.
- gdulli 10y agoYeah if we're just declaring rights that sound good could I prioritize my right to privacy in this area instead?
- MichaelBurge 10y agoNext up: They should require freelance workers to disclose their full rate history, to ensure that greedy freelancers aren't ripping off less-knowledgeable clients. It's not fair if you charge one client a different rate than another based on opaque criteria or a reason your lawmaker doesn't approve of.
- koverstreet 10y agoYes, because the power imbalance between freelancers and their clients is just as bad as the power imbalance between companies and their employees.
- deleted 10y ago[deleted]
- programmarchy 10y agoIt could be better, or it could be worse. If the freelancer is skilled and has a good reputation, then they probably have more leverage. If they're just starting out, they may have less than a full time employee who has a stable income.
- TheAdamAndChe 10y agoThe current imbalances aren't in the laborers' favor. Why should we pass laws that increase the corporation's leverage over workers when the current structure skews heavily in the corporation's favor?
- programmarchy 10y agoSay a person X is paid more than person Y in the same role because X's child has a health issue that requires extra income for X's family to stay afloat. There was a private agreement between the X and the employer because X needs the extra money, and X is a valued employee. Then Y raises the issue. The employer can't afford to pay Y the same as X. Is Y owed some kind of explanation? How is that explanation given without violating the privacy of X?
- crdoconnor 10y agoSo in essence you believe that employers keep secrets because they're terrified that everybody will discover that they're actually kind hearted?
- programmarchy 10y agoNice non sequitur. Rather, the intention of my example is to point out privacy concerns for employees.
- deleted 10y ago[deleted]
- colanderman 10y agoI think that's kind of the point. X shouldn't get paid more just because they have children, sick or not. Y could have equal need for the money, and they oughtn't need to justify their cause against X's cause, for the sole reason that such subjective valuation leads most immediately to discriminatory remuneration. (As an example, maybe Y needs money because she donates to nonprofits. Probably the kind-hearted boss would also give Y a raise if Y gave the money to curing childhood cancer. But what about if it went to the NAACP? Or an evangelical church? Normalizing subjective need-based remuneration promotes discrimination.)
- programmarchy 10y ago> X shouldn't get paid more just because they have children, sick or not. What is the moral basis for this claim? Do you also oppose welfare? > Y could have equal need for the money, and they oughtn't need to justify their cause against X's cause If Y has equal need for the money, then they can also make their case, privately. There's no reason for Y to even know about X's cause, because it's none of their business, which is more to my original point. The examples you provided are of a different category, because Y isn't facing insolvency if they don't make a donation.
- grok2 10y agoI think this only will cause more problems than it will solve (unhappy employees, stressed managers and ultimately depressed salaries (because companies will then peg salaries at the least common denominator to avoid problems) and unmotivated employees (they won't see that doing a good job is appreciated by a nice pay bump once in a while)). Maybe an easier approach is to have an external arbiter periodically comb through employee salaries to check for discrimination?
- xt00 10y agoSo the basic premise of the article and this movement is that people assume that the default is for virtually everybody to be underpaid. So since there is obviously a Gaussian or poission distribution in salaries, then obviously some people will be above what "everybody gets paid". So unless the author solved the somewhat old emotion of ya know jealousy, then this is guaranteed to be a recipe for disaster for most companies. Especially the high performers would feel constantly like their peers would be saying under their breath "and he gets paid so much more for what??".. So yea likely they would be less likely to want to show even the smallest amount of weakness to those people and would likely try to work in a more cautious manner. My thinking is that the problem people are trying to solve is noble but it turns a creative industry into a trade industry like electricians with various levels of seniority and levels of advancement. I think it's better to simply rely upon the glass door type stuff and if you feel like you are underpaid, change your job. Asking for raises I honestly think is a bad way to increase your salary.
- crdoconnor 10y ago"So the basic premise of the article and this movement is that people assume that the default is for virtually everybody to be underpaid. So since there is obviously a Gaussian or poission distribution in salaries, then obviously some people will be above what "everybody gets paid"." Except labor/capital share doesn't follow a gaussian distribution within a company. It's a ratio. It's perfectly plausible (probably likely, in fact) that salary transparency will increase wages for all employees.
- programmarchy 10y agoThe parent was not comparing labor vs. capital, but rather labor vs. labor e.g. the set of all software engineers at a company. It's perfectly reasonable to expect the salary distribution to fit a bell curve. And I disagree with your conclusion that this would likely increase wages for all employees. In the least, it's very likely to penalize high performers by redistributing their wealth to low performers, so employers can maintain the appearance of "fairness". It's equally likely that this would decrease wages for all employees. If the incentive to perform well is diminished (e.g. "why work harder if you won't be rewarded?"), then it will lower the bar for quality across the board, providing less value to employers, ultimately pushing the price (i.e. wage) downward.
- gozur88 10y agoOnly in Iceland. My pay is between me and my employer. It's none of anyone else's business.
- kk_cz 10y agoBetween the right to know how much my coworkers are paid and the right of privacy I will always prefer the latter.
- TheAdamAndChe 10y agoI'm seeing a lot of pushback against this in here. Executive compensation disclosure laws in the US led to massively increasing pay for executives, who are some of the highest paid people in the company. Seeing how a major problem in the US is income and wealth inequality, why wouldn't this kind of legislation lead to the same race to the top for laborers' pay that executive compensation disclosure laws led to?
- pottersbasilisk 10y agoI doubt it. There is asymmetry in roles and value to a company. Id expect it to lower wages.
- TheAdamAndChe 10y agoThe executive compensation disclosures led to greater compensation because the top performers had a baseline from which to be paid and thus required higher wages. At the same time, nobody likes to think they're below average, and thus demanded at least near-average wages. What makes you think that mechanism wouldn't lead to increased wages for laborers?
- pottersbasilisk 10y agoBecause workers are not executives. Instead the push for 15 dollar min wages has pushed fast food industries to find ways to replace them.