4 ms·
> IMO salary secrecy is a weird fetish and probably counter productive. Hidden salaries are why the job market is so extremely awful and costly. I have heard a
by kartan 9y ago
> IMO salary secrecy is a weird fetish and probably counter productive.
Hidden salaries are why the job market is so extremely awful and costly. I have heard a million times that it is really hard to hire talent. But still, our approach to the job marketplace is akin to a bidding system, not a market. Imagine that each time that you go to the supermarket you need to negotiate the price of every item. It will be so hard to know where to buy your groceries.
And related to that also salary secrecy helps to hide discrimination from view. Again it makes it a hard problem even more difficult (https://hbr.org/2016/07/why-diversity-programs-fail https://hbr.org/2016/07/why-diversity-programs-fail).
- sitkack 9y agoAny company that is paying lip service to Diversity and Inclusion (DI in c-level speak) while at the same time requiring or even asking for historical pay is being extremely disingenuous. By using historical salary, they are borrowing, leaning on and embracing someone else's bigotry. Offer the prospect a market wage, not what *ist system has decided they should get paid and you will suddenly see your workforce normalize in DI.
- cbanek 9y agoGoogle does both of these (paying lip service to diversity and asking for historical pay, even requiring it). I told them I thought this was suspect, and I almost laughed when they made an offer (which was somehow lower than what I was already making and disclosed to them). I'm really interested to see how the whole wage gap DOJ thing goes, and how they will blame the gap on being "data driven".