4 ms·

Keeping pay negotiations confidential benefits only the company, not the workers.

nprateem 7y ago
It can help reduce jealousy between colleagues. How would someone feel knowing one of their other colleagues who just so happened to be a better negotiator is getting paid possibly much more than them, despite apparently similar skills/work?
- snarf21 7y ago
  The counter argument is that salary negotiation is a skill that all employees should develop, not just the newest code framework.
- brokenmachine 7y ago
  So the solution is to bypass some potential jealousy through mandating secrecy, instead of making the pays more fair? Sounds like a weak argument to justify possible exploitation. In my opinion, there's an unfair information asymmetry, as the company knows how much everyone is getting paid. I've worked in government jobs where everyone's pays are easily known, and there is still some (smallish) amount of jealousy because those pays are still based on a grading, so some people will think that others are not doing enough work to justify their grading.
  - nprateem 7y ago
    > mandating secrecy That's unnecessary. If you've a gram of experience you should realise it's generally in your own best interests not to tell your colleagues what you're on. > justify possible exploitation. If you don't like the pay, get another job. I don't see where the exploitation comes from. Unless you're suggesting people who don't like the pay can't get a job, can't negotiate and should for some reason therefore be excused of the need to do either with strict pay grades? I can't see how that would work across the whole market, and unless there is pay fixing then market forces will prevent it working.
    - brokenmachine 7y ago
      > If you've a gram of experience you should realise it's generally in your own best interests not to tell your colleagues what you're on. Don't patronize me. I'll decide what is in my best interests thanks. > I don't see where the exploitation comes from. exploit - 2nd definition from google: > make use of (a situation) in a way considered unfair or underhand. The company is taking advantage of the fact they are the only party that has access to the information on what everyone is paid in order to benefit by paying some people less than others. The company has a maximum that they will pay but is not telling the workers what that is, and even going so far as to make rules to prevent the workers discussing amongst themselves. You are arguing that these circumstances are somehow a free market while simultaneously accepting that one party is artificially and unfairly impeding the free flow of information. A free market requires informed consumers and the company is well aware of that. The workers should be able to decide for themselves if they agree that "preventing jealousy" is a strong enough argument to justify manipulating the market. If they think it is, then fine, they are free to decide to keep their pay private. As a party that stands to benefit, it is not up to the company to mandate what is in the best interest of the workers. That is the definition of a conflict of interest. In my opinion, any rule that attempts to stifle communication between workers is overstepping a company's authority.
      - nprateem 7y ago
        As you become more senior you'll realise that most companies won't be able to pay everyone high rates, so you'll either have to accept a cap on your pay for fairness or move to another company that doesn't publicise what everyone earns. But as I already wrote: "mandating secrecy - that's unnecessary" since it's in your own best interest.
        brokenmachine 7y ago
        >As you become more senior you'll realise Once again, you are being rude and don't patronize me. And don't assume you have some higher level of understanding. One thing I know, even at my current level of seniority, is that policies like these enable the upper levels to command astronomical pay and conditions while the workers are forced to "negotiate" for small increases. I know that it will probably be this way regardless because obviously the higher ups are the ones who make the pay decisions. >you'll either have to accept a cap on your pay for fairness or move to another company that doesn't publicise what everyone earns I would happily accept a cap on my pay for fairness, and I strongly suspect that at most companies that would improve pays across the board, barring a few upper level people. The alternative is accepting a cap on my pay because of unfairness! Regardless, I think it's ridiculous for the company to think it is empowered to prevent discussion between colleagues.
raxxorrax 7y ago
I disagree profoundly. Source: I had so many discussion where someone complained about x getting a company car. I would not be in favor of them knowing the contract I have with my employer. Companies can abuse this fact, out of question, but there are so many other factors involved, that it doesn't seem worth it to me.

It can help reduce jealousy between colleagues. How would someone feel knowing one of their other colleagues who just so happened to be a better negotiator is getting paid possibly much more than them, despite apparently similar skills/work?

snarf21 7y ago
The counter argument is that salary negotiation is a skill that all employees should develop, not just the newest code framework.
brokenmachine 7y ago
So the solution is to bypass some potential jealousy through mandating secrecy, instead of making the pays more fair? Sounds like a weak argument to justify possible exploitation. In my opinion, there's an unfair information asymmetry, as the company knows how much everyone is getting paid. I've worked in government jobs where everyone's pays are easily known, and there is still some (smallish) amount of jealousy because those pays are still based on a grading, so some people will think that others are not doing enough work to justify their grading.
- nprateem 7y ago
  > mandating secrecy That's unnecessary. If you've a gram of experience you should realise it's generally in your own best interests not to tell your colleagues what you're on. > justify possible exploitation. If you don't like the pay, get another job. I don't see where the exploitation comes from. Unless you're suggesting people who don't like the pay can't get a job, can't negotiate and should for some reason therefore be excused of the need to do either with strict pay grades? I can't see how that would work across the whole market, and unless there is pay fixing then market forces will prevent it working.
  - brokenmachine 7y ago
    > If you've a gram of experience you should realise it's generally in your own best interests not to tell your colleagues what you're on. Don't patronize me. I'll decide what is in my best interests thanks. > I don't see where the exploitation comes from. exploit - 2nd definition from google: > make use of (a situation) in a way considered unfair or underhand. The company is taking advantage of the fact they are the only party that has access to the information on what everyone is paid in order to benefit by paying some people less than others. The company has a maximum that they will pay but is not telling the workers what that is, and even going so far as to make rules to prevent the workers discussing amongst themselves. You are arguing that these circumstances are somehow a free market while simultaneously accepting that one party is artificially and unfairly impeding the free flow of information. A free market requires informed consumers and the company is well aware of that. The workers should be able to decide for themselves if they agree that "preventing jealousy" is a strong enough argument to justify manipulating the market. If they think it is, then fine, they are free to decide to keep their pay private. As a party that stands to benefit, it is not up to the company to mandate what is in the best interest of the workers. That is the definition of a conflict of interest. In my opinion, any rule that attempts to stifle communication between workers is overstepping a company's authority.
    - nprateem 7y ago
      As you become more senior you'll realise that most companies won't be able to pay everyone high rates, so you'll either have to accept a cap on your pay for fairness or move to another company that doesn't publicise what everyone earns. But as I already wrote: "mandating secrecy - that's unnecessary" since it's in your own best interest.
      - brokenmachine 7y ago
        >As you become more senior you'll realise Once again, you are being rude and don't patronize me. And don't assume you have some higher level of understanding. One thing I know, even at my current level of seniority, is that policies like these enable the upper levels to command astronomical pay and conditions while the workers are forced to "negotiate" for small increases. I know that it will probably be this way regardless because obviously the higher ups are the ones who make the pay decisions. >you'll either have to accept a cap on your pay for fairness or move to another company that doesn't publicise what everyone earns I would happily accept a cap on my pay for fairness, and I strongly suspect that at most companies that would improve pays across the board, barring a few upper level people. The alternative is accepting a cap on my pay because of unfairness! Regardless, I think it's ridiculous for the company to think it is empowered to prevent discussion between colleagues.

raxxorrax 7y ago

I disagree profoundly. Source: I had so many discussion where someone complained about x getting a company car. I would not be in favor of them knowing the contract I have with my employer. Companies can abuse this fact, out of question, but there are so many other factors involved, that it doesn't seem worth it to me.