9 ms·

It's down to what you think salaries are for. If market value is supposed to equate to social value and ensure a fair distribution of the output of society, the

It's down to what you think salaries are for. If market value is supposed to equate to social value and ensure a fair distribution of the output of society, then you need open prices or the market won't work properly. I need to know what you are paid so I can balance what I am paid against what I think you are worth. Closed salaries only benefit the other side of the negotiating table - the employers - who then divide and conquer. Which is why they play upon the doubt and insecurity in people's minds that they are actually worth what they have negotiated. It's the basis of why unionisation works and why it ensured that workers got their fair share of productivity increases. Right up to the point when unionisation was defeated and 'individualists' got to play their game. Since then the productivity gains have gone to the top of town. Extreme individualism is always defeated by those who know how to share and work as a team.

Frondo 9y ago
"Extreme individualism is always defeated by those who know how to share and work as a team." Holy shit, that's it! That's why the individual always loses out in negotiating for their salary--the company is already one big team (HR, accounting, all the business processes, etc) and you're just some guy on the other side of the table. Even for hot shots, a union would only be a benefit. Look at the Screen Actors Guild--hot shot actors bring in bank, they're not constrained by the union, but everyone involved gets the basic union protections. Wow, that's it. Individuals always get defeated by the team, and that's exactly what it is when you go up against a company to negotiate your salary.
- jrimbault 9y ago
  You're a bit enthousiatic about that, but it's basically why many animals from groups (are gregarious), including humans. Groups are stronger than individuals. Lone hunters can get one individual out of a herd but they'll never be able to kill the whole herd. And some herds of certain species can kill a lone hunter.
- tod222 9y ago
  I'm sorry, I think your analysis of the cause of the power disparity is wrong. It's not due to numbers. It's because power disparity is inherent in hierarchical organizations. The CEO is just one person, but their position at the apex of the hierarchy gives them power over everyone else in the organization. Power disparity is baked into the hierarchy—it's not a hierarchy without it. Unions are a way to balance the power of the employee group against the management hierarchy. Unfortunately unions are also subject to the corruption that accompanies power.
vosper 9y ago
> Closed salaries only benefit the other side of the negotiating table - the employers - who then divide and conquer. Closed salaries might also benefit some employees. I think most people will agree that across any job title, or team, there are people who're favored in some way - better at their job, fun to be around, great motivators or mediators, whatever it is. It might be possible for these people to get better pay for themselves because the company doesn't have to give a commensurate increase to everyone.
- joombaga 9y ago
  Closed salaries would've helped me in a recent salary negotiation. The company's open salaries in combination with their tiered salary concept contributed to their refusal of a raise in starting base salary. "Everyone knows what a Tier 4 FTE starts at, so if I start you higher then I have to give everyone a raise". No problem if we could just keep my salary a secret. On the other hand, I don't think it's my employer's business with whom I share my salary, though I could see this secrecy being part of an employment contract.
  - hammock 9y ago
    Open salaries is not the root problem in your example, it's the rigid "tiers."
    - morgante 9y ago
      Rigidity in salaries is a natural end result of open salaries, as otherwise everyone demands explanations of why someone else is making more. Even in this thread you already see people calling for unionization and collective bargaining to ensure everyone gets their "fair share."
      - hammock 9y ago
        If you're going to be open about salaries, it makes sense to be open about the explanations for them too. You seem to want to keep them secret?
lend000 9y ago
> unionisation was defeated Did I miss something? Granted, the most powerful and corrupt unions are public sector unions, where salaries are more or less publicly known. Just look at how many police have been indicted for murdering innocent people. So the balance is clearly necessary -- there is no such thing as a collectivist utopia.
morgante 9y ago
> unionisation works and why it ensured that workers got their fair share of productivity increases Considering that most unions encourage rigid salary bands, this is a ludicrous statement to make. It's obvious that different workers have different productivity levels (and those levels don't correspond directly to years of experience). Considering that, I consider it highly unfair to force people into having the same salary.
examplar 9y ago
You need people who can work hard to learn/create stuff, money is a big motivator

Frondo 9y ago

"Extreme individualism is always defeated by those who know how to share and work as a team." Holy shit, that's it! That's why the individual always loses out in negotiating for their salary--the company is already one big team (HR, accounting, all the business processes, etc) and you're just some guy on the other side of the table. Even for hot shots, a union would only be a benefit. Look at the Screen Actors Guild--hot shot actors bring in bank, they're not constrained by the union, but everyone involved gets the basic union protections. Wow, that's it. Individuals always get defeated by the team, and that's exactly what it is when you go up against a company to negotiate your salary.

jrimbault 9y ago
You're a bit enthousiatic about that, but it's basically why many animals from groups (are gregarious), including humans. Groups are stronger than individuals. Lone hunters can get one individual out of a herd but they'll never be able to kill the whole herd. And some herds of certain species can kill a lone hunter.
tod222 9y ago
I'm sorry, I think your analysis of the cause of the power disparity is wrong. It's not due to numbers. It's because power disparity is inherent in hierarchical organizations. The CEO is just one person, but their position at the apex of the hierarchy gives them power over everyone else in the organization. Power disparity is baked into the hierarchy—it's not a hierarchy without it. Unions are a way to balance the power of the employee group against the management hierarchy. Unfortunately unions are also subject to the corruption that accompanies power.

vosper 9y ago

> Closed salaries only benefit the other side of the negotiating table - the employers - who then divide and conquer. Closed salaries might also benefit some employees. I think most people will agree that across any job title, or team, there are people who're favored in some way - better at their job, fun to be around, great motivators or mediators, whatever it is. It might be possible for these people to get better pay for themselves because the company doesn't have to give a commensurate increase to everyone.

joombaga 9y ago
Closed salaries would've helped me in a recent salary negotiation. The company's open salaries in combination with their tiered salary concept contributed to their refusal of a raise in starting base salary. "Everyone knows what a Tier 4 FTE starts at, so if I start you higher then I have to give everyone a raise". No problem if we could just keep my salary a secret. On the other hand, I don't think it's my employer's business with whom I share my salary, though I could see this secrecy being part of an employment contract.
- hammock 9y ago
  Open salaries is not the root problem in your example, it's the rigid "tiers."
  - morgante 9y ago
    Rigidity in salaries is a natural end result of open salaries, as otherwise everyone demands explanations of why someone else is making more. Even in this thread you already see people calling for unionization and collective bargaining to ensure everyone gets their "fair share."
    - hammock 9y ago
      If you're going to be open about salaries, it makes sense to be open about the explanations for them too. You seem to want to keep them secret?

lend000 9y ago

> unionisation was defeated Did I miss something? Granted, the most powerful and corrupt unions are public sector unions, where salaries are more or less publicly known. Just look at how many police have been indicted for murdering innocent people. So the balance is clearly necessary -- there is no such thing as a collectivist utopia.

morgante 9y ago

> unionisation works and why it ensured that workers got their fair share of productivity increases Considering that most unions encourage rigid salary bands, this is a ludicrous statement to make. It's obvious that different workers have different productivity levels (and those levels don't correspond directly to years of experience). Considering that, I consider it highly unfair to force people into having the same salary.

examplar 9y ago

You need people who can work hard to learn/create stuff, money is a big motivator