4 ms·

I would not applaud if my company would decide to make my salary open.

by romanovcode 9y ago

clp16 9y ago
Why?
- ryanwaggoner 9y ago
  Not everyone wants their family and friends to be able to look up their salary. Or to know that they're the lowest (or highest) paid person in their department, etc.
  - carlmcqueen 9y ago
    STLtoday keeps a database of how much the teachers make in the Missouri school systems, while its not entirely accurate when you talk to teachers (sometimes the data is super stale, sometimes they have other 'responsibilities/commmities' that offer more money) I always felt wrong being able to look at it when they could not look at mine.
    - ryanwaggoner 9y ago
      Agree. I get the need for public accountability for government salaries, but I feel like having the data be anonymized would be better. The public needs to know the salary distribution, but not what Susan Baker made last year.
      - conanbatt 9y ago
        I disagree at this point. Anonymization is not perfect and it introduces less accountability while also increasing the costs of maintenance and auditability.
    - nsxwolf 9y ago
      They're public employees, paid with everyone else's tax dollars. That's why you get to know their salaries.
      - conanbatt 9y ago
        That has not made it hard for the government to take employees tho.
  - conanbatt 9y ago
    Pure FUD. Millions of people have their salary in the open in the US, from CEO's to government employees. If you wish to pay for your privacy go ahead, but price transparency can only help the workers.
    - ryanwaggoner 9y ago
      How is this FUD? I'm telling you that I don't want that. A lot of people don't want that. We have CEOs and government employees who have public salaries for the specific purpose of public accountability, not just because we're curious or because we're entitled to know the price of everything at all times. Now, a world with perfect price transparency in the labor market might make sense, but two points: 1) We don't have that universal transparency now, so being the 1% of firms that does (or their employees) can put you at a disadvantage. Why do you think some places are passing labor-friendly laws that make it illegal to ask what previous salary was? 2) Price transparency doesn't have to mean that we get those prices from an "objective" formula that has no room for flexibility based on the facts and circumstances of each case, right? How is this different from mandatory minimum sentencing guidelines, or whatever? I think that price transparency would probably help the average worker by bringing low performer salaries up and high performer salaries down, and it would probably harm overall productivity by harming incentives. But I'm not an economist.
- toomuchtodo 9y ago
  The information asymmetry puts you at a competitive disadvantage as a candidate when you start looking for your next gig. California law prohibits employers from asking, but Buffer is nevertheless releasing the data publicly. It's terrible corporate behavior. On the other hand, this is great material for both internal and external recruiters to start poaching away Buffer employees to orgs that have the budget to pay them market rate. "I see you're making ~20-30% below market rate. Would you be interested in talking about a new role?"

I would not applaud if my company would decide to make my salary open.

clp16 9y ago

Why?

ryanwaggoner 9y ago
Not everyone wants their family and friends to be able to look up their salary. Or to know that they're the lowest (or highest) paid person in their department, etc.
- carlmcqueen 9y ago
  STLtoday keeps a database of how much the teachers make in the Missouri school systems, while its not entirely accurate when you talk to teachers (sometimes the data is super stale, sometimes they have other 'responsibilities/commmities' that offer more money) I always felt wrong being able to look at it when they could not look at mine.
  - ryanwaggoner 9y ago
    Agree. I get the need for public accountability for government salaries, but I feel like having the data be anonymized would be better. The public needs to know the salary distribution, but not what Susan Baker made last year.
    - conanbatt 9y ago
      I disagree at this point. Anonymization is not perfect and it introduces less accountability while also increasing the costs of maintenance and auditability.
  - nsxwolf 9y ago
    They're public employees, paid with everyone else's tax dollars. That's why you get to know their salaries.
    - conanbatt 9y ago
      That has not made it hard for the government to take employees tho.
- conanbatt 9y ago
  Pure FUD. Millions of people have their salary in the open in the US, from CEO's to government employees. If you wish to pay for your privacy go ahead, but price transparency can only help the workers.
  - ryanwaggoner 9y ago
    How is this FUD? I'm telling you that I don't want that. A lot of people don't want that. We have CEOs and government employees who have public salaries for the specific purpose of public accountability, not just because we're curious or because we're entitled to know the price of everything at all times. Now, a world with perfect price transparency in the labor market might make sense, but two points: 1) We don't have that universal transparency now, so being the 1% of firms that does (or their employees) can put you at a disadvantage. Why do you think some places are passing labor-friendly laws that make it illegal to ask what previous salary was? 2) Price transparency doesn't have to mean that we get those prices from an "objective" formula that has no room for flexibility based on the facts and circumstances of each case, right? How is this different from mandatory minimum sentencing guidelines, or whatever? I think that price transparency would probably help the average worker by bringing low performer salaries up and high performer salaries down, and it would probably harm overall productivity by harming incentives. But I'm not an economist.
toomuchtodo 9y ago
The information asymmetry puts you at a competitive disadvantage as a candidate when you start looking for your next gig. California law prohibits employers from asking, but Buffer is nevertheless releasing the data publicly. It's terrible corporate behavior. On the other hand, this is great material for both internal and external recruiters to start poaching away Buffer employees to orgs that have the budget to pay them market rate. "I see you're making ~20-30% below market rate. Would you be interested in talking about a new role?"