3 ms·

This will only hurt employee salaries. If all salaries were public, there would be no negotiating and they it would make them based on position rather than ind

This will only hurt employee salaries. If all salaries were public, there would be no negotiating and they it would make them based on position rather than individual (IE: the lowest it can possibly be). Companies will just show you the public chart if you try to negotiate. Want to fix the problem? Learn how to negotiate your value to a company. This skill comes in handy in pretty much all aspects of life.

mschuster91 6y ago
>Want to fix the problem? Learn how to negotiate your value to a company. Wrong. The way to fix the problem is to organize. Collective action works.
- sacks2k 6y ago
  "Wrong. The way to fix the problem is to organize. Collective action works." Why would I want to do that? I already make many multiple times more than my peers due to my specialized skill set. I remember my first job out of college. Somehow, salaries got leaked and I was making 40% more than my colleague, in the same position (he sat right next to me). The difference was my experience and negotiating skills. 'Collective action' as you say just adds a middleman that won't do much for me..except prevent me from getting a raise on my own terms. Again, no thanks.
  - GenerocUsername 6y ago
    Collectivism always helps those below the median and harms those above the median in whatever metric you are trying to mediate via collectivism. Collectivism is typically preferred by people below median in whatever metric you are considering.
    - ticmasta 6y ago
      It's also often supported by those at the most extreme top end for whom it has very little positive or negative impact beyond signaling. See philanthropic billionaires and top-level athletes for examples.
    - nfg 6y ago
      Historically this just isn’t correct - for example in accounts of labour agitation and union formation in the 19th century it’s noted time and again that the organisers and ringleaders were often the cream of the workers in each industry despite the attempts of capital to put forward the impression you have. The very best of humanity can see further than their own little bubble.
    - int_19h 6y ago
      When the metric is income, pretty much everybody who works for wages or salary is below median. People who are above it are those who derive most of their income from investments. So, in that sense, OP is still correct - it's beneficial for workers to organize for collective action, so long as you draw the proper boundaries within which that collective action will operate.
    - srtjstjsj 6y ago
      Mean, not median.
  - ticmasta 6y ago
    I don't know why people always jump to "collective action" as the answer to anything related to compensation. Software engineers and program managers are not powerless, uniform skilled, replaceable cogs. You have unique & distinctive value. That we've just gone through the most ridiculous compensation inflation period of my entire career yet people still act like they're forced to put in 70+ hours a week in a coal mine boggles the mind.
    - mschuster91 6y ago
      > Software engineers and program managers are not powerless, uniform skilled, replaceable cogs. You have unique & distinctive value. I beg to differ. Most companies treat their IT employees as exchangeable cogs. Hell, there's an entire offshoring and h1b industry built around that fact, not to mention local dumpsterfires like Accidenture. > yet people still act like they're forced to put in 70+ hours a week in a coal mine boggles the mind. Well, many of us work 80+ hours a week and are happy because they're allowed the honor to work for SpaceX/Facebook/Google/... so yeah.
majormajor 6y ago
> This will only hurt employee salaries. If all salaries were public, there would be no negotiating and they it would make them based on position rather than individual (IE: the lowest it can possibly be). Companies don't just give great negotiators whatever number they want. They know how much they're willing to pay for a certain role. I've failed to hire people because they wouldn't take what HR would let me pay. Sucks, but those are existing company problems. How is making salary numbers public going to change that? They'll still need to find someone to do that job, and if they publish too low a number they won't be able to hire the people capable of doing the job. When you say in a later post that you made 40% more in your first-out-of-college job compared to a colleague due to your "experience and negotiating skills," I'm skeptical of the "experience" aspect since it was your first job. So I'm all for things that in that case would have put you two both making exactly the same amount. And then if your on-the-job skills are better, yours will go up faster; if they aren't, you aren't getting overpaid just for being better at an unrelated skill set.
- sugarpile 6y ago
  Your points are anecdotal as well, without you realizing it, in the sense that they're based on your lack of anecdotes. To further the anecdotal train I can tell you I have a few first hand examples that prove you wrong: - Due to me negotiating well during the offer stage I received a title bump (to meet mandatory max salary range reqs) and had budget pulled from other open positions to pay for mine as I was now 40% (I'm guessing) above max pay for the position I interviewed for. - Before my latest job I've had one way candid conversations with coworkers (i.e., I know what they make) and I've always been significantly above them (25-40%) for the same level of experience or less. I'm completely against making salary numbers public for obvious reasons.
  - r00fus 6y ago
    How did you manage to have one-way conversations about coworkers? Sounds like quite a feat.
  - majormajor 6y ago
    Yes, I had one anecdote, and in it, I failed to hire the candidate I was looking at because I couldn't pull off that re-leveling. (It was discussed, but we didn't need that level of skill enough to justify shifting our other budget.) They walked away from the offer we gave them instead, as was their right. In the non-anecdotal part - yes, someone like you would be hurt with this. I consider that a net benefit. Your negotiation skills are not helping you write better software than me or anyone else, but they're redirecting money towards you instead of me. I distrust organization because I want to be able to make more than people based on skill and output, but I am all in favor of problems at all with measures to tie salary more strictly to output, or to make that more transparent. Heck, I've even managed people who made considerably more than people at their same title band, despite less experience - it was based on on the job performance, not years of experience or negotiation before being hired. The salary band for the range was wide so that it could accommodate both strong performers and poor ones.

mschuster91 6y ago

>Want to fix the problem? Learn how to negotiate your value to a company. Wrong. The way to fix the problem is to organize. Collective action works.

sacks2k 6y ago
"Wrong. The way to fix the problem is to organize. Collective action works." Why would I want to do that? I already make many multiple times more than my peers due to my specialized skill set. I remember my first job out of college. Somehow, salaries got leaked and I was making 40% more than my colleague, in the same position (he sat right next to me). The difference was my experience and negotiating skills. 'Collective action' as you say just adds a middleman that won't do much for me..except prevent me from getting a raise on my own terms. Again, no thanks.
- GenerocUsername 6y ago
  Collectivism always helps those below the median and harms those above the median in whatever metric you are trying to mediate via collectivism. Collectivism is typically preferred by people below median in whatever metric you are considering.
  - ticmasta 6y ago
    It's also often supported by those at the most extreme top end for whom it has very little positive or negative impact beyond signaling. See philanthropic billionaires and top-level athletes for examples.
  - nfg 6y ago
    Historically this just isn’t correct - for example in accounts of labour agitation and union formation in the 19th century it’s noted time and again that the organisers and ringleaders were often the cream of the workers in each industry despite the attempts of capital to put forward the impression you have. The very best of humanity can see further than their own little bubble.
  - int_19h 6y ago
    When the metric is income, pretty much everybody who works for wages or salary is below median. People who are above it are those who derive most of their income from investments. So, in that sense, OP is still correct - it's beneficial for workers to organize for collective action, so long as you draw the proper boundaries within which that collective action will operate.
  - srtjstjsj 6y ago
    Mean, not median.
- ticmasta 6y ago
  I don't know why people always jump to "collective action" as the answer to anything related to compensation. Software engineers and program managers are not powerless, uniform skilled, replaceable cogs. You have unique & distinctive value. That we've just gone through the most ridiculous compensation inflation period of my entire career yet people still act like they're forced to put in 70+ hours a week in a coal mine boggles the mind.
  - mschuster91 6y ago
    > Software engineers and program managers are not powerless, uniform skilled, replaceable cogs. You have unique & distinctive value. I beg to differ. Most companies treat their IT employees as exchangeable cogs. Hell, there's an entire offshoring and h1b industry built around that fact, not to mention local dumpsterfires like Accidenture. > yet people still act like they're forced to put in 70+ hours a week in a coal mine boggles the mind. Well, many of us work 80+ hours a week and are happy because they're allowed the honor to work for SpaceX/Facebook/Google/... so yeah.

majormajor 6y ago

> This will only hurt employee salaries. If all salaries were public, there would be no negotiating and they it would make them based on position rather than individual (IE: the lowest it can possibly be). Companies don't just give great negotiators whatever number they want. They know how much they're willing to pay for a certain role. I've failed to hire people because they wouldn't take what HR would let me pay. Sucks, but those are existing company problems. How is making salary numbers public going to change that? They'll still need to find someone to do that job, and if they publish too low a number they won't be able to hire the people capable of doing the job. When you say in a later post that you made 40% more in your first-out-of-college job compared to a colleague due to your "experience and negotiating skills," I'm skeptical of the "experience" aspect since it was your first job. So I'm all for things that in that case would have put you two both making exactly the same amount. And then if your on-the-job skills are better, yours will go up faster; if they aren't, you aren't getting overpaid just for being better at an unrelated skill set.

sugarpile 6y ago
Your points are anecdotal as well, without you realizing it, in the sense that they're based on your lack of anecdotes. To further the anecdotal train I can tell you I have a few first hand examples that prove you wrong: - Due to me negotiating well during the offer stage I received a title bump (to meet mandatory max salary range reqs) and had budget pulled from other open positions to pay for mine as I was now 40% (I'm guessing) above max pay for the position I interviewed for. - Before my latest job I've had one way candid conversations with coworkers (i.e., I know what they make) and I've always been significantly above them (25-40%) for the same level of experience or less. I'm completely against making salary numbers public for obvious reasons.
- r00fus 6y ago
  How did you manage to have one-way conversations about coworkers? Sounds like quite a feat.
- majormajor 6y ago
  Yes, I had one anecdote, and in it, I failed to hire the candidate I was looking at because I couldn't pull off that re-leveling. (It was discussed, but we didn't need that level of skill enough to justify shifting our other budget.) They walked away from the offer we gave them instead, as was their right. In the non-anecdotal part - yes, someone like you would be hurt with this. I consider that a net benefit. Your negotiation skills are not helping you write better software than me or anyone else, but they're redirecting money towards you instead of me. I distrust organization because I want to be able to make more than people based on skill and output, but I am all in favor of problems at all with measures to tie salary more strictly to output, or to make that more transparent. Heck, I've even managed people who made considerably more than people at their same title band, despite less experience - it was based on on the job performance, not years of experience or negotiation before being hired. The salary band for the range was wide so that it could accommodate both strong performers and poor ones.