16 ms·
Silicon Valley pay cuts ignite tech-industry Covid-19 tensions
- airza 6y agoThis seems like a perfect example of why labor organization is important. Despite their (as i've seen on this site) extremely good bargaining position, workers in this company lack the collective ability to contest these changes (despite the fact that the value of their labor has not changed whatsoever.)
- SpicyLemonZest 6y agoIs there a reason to believe organization would make the difference here? Even the best organized unions sometimes get paid less than they'd prefer.
- EduardoBautista 6y agoAlso, I don’t want other people negotiating for me. Software Engineers are so high in demand that I believe I can do a better job negotiating on my own.
- airza 6y agoThis is fine if you want to hop jobs, but why do you think the most in demand engineers on earth are being forced to eat these pay cuts?
- lotsofpulp 6y agoBecause they don't want to hop jobs. Walking away from a transaction is the signal to the buyer and seller that there is something wrong with the price. If neither party walks away, then there is nothing wrong with the price.
- deleted 6y ago[deleted]
- creato 6y agoMaybe they aren't in quite as high demand as they were a year ago? I would be surprised if there wasn't some softening of the market in the pandemic.
- heavyset_go 6y agoHow would negotiate around Adobe, Apple, Google, Intel, Intuit, Pixar, Lucasfilm and eBay colluding[1] with one another to keep engineer compensation below its market value if you were working for one of them? [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High-Tech_Employee_Antitrust_Litigation https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High-Tech_Employee_Antitrust_L...
- diob 6y agoCollective bargaining is a big win for the working class (and yes, that includes tech). Even though we get paid a good chunk in the USA, our overall benefit package is thin in comparison to other developed countries. Not to mention our healthcare situation. Unfortunately, the scare tactics and propaganda of large corporations have won out in the USA. Folks hate collective bargaining with a passion.
- thelean12 6y ago> Even though we get paid a good chunk in the USA, our overall benefit package is thin in comparison to other developed countries. What do you mean by this? I mean I guess I get less PTO than other countries, but I get way more pay. I could just take a month of unpaid vacation if I wanted to, and still make more than my European counterparts. Tech also gets great healthcare (unless you work for a startup or something I'd guess). Not disagreeing that unions would probably be a net-positive for tech workers, but saying that tech in the USA gets a worse "benefit package" is pretty dishonest.
- diob 6y agoParental leave, vacation, healthcare, retirement, are all typically better in other developed countries. I, like you, get paid a heck of a lot more than my friends in those countries, but if something happens to me (say I get caught up in a mass shooting or get cancer like most do) I'm going to be on my own (gofundme?). We're ruggedly individualistic to a fault. Ultimately, I think we agree though, since you're saying it would be a net positive. The options you mentioned (taking unpaid PTO) are possible, but there are many employers who would then see you as unreliable (unless you're top level in terms of skill). I also think it takes a great deal of privilege to say "I can negotiate so who cares". While I agree with you that negotiation is important (it's how I got my current salary), you should think about those who come from poorer / less secure backgrounds. These people often don't want to blow their chance, so they take whatever offer comes their way. It's kind of a "rich get richer" thing, where those with confidence (growing up with a well off family, hence a safety net) are the main ones negotiating. Do not underestimate the importance of a safety net when it comes to negotiating, even for yourself. One thing that keeps me at my 9-5 job is knowing I need healthcare and a place to sleep with electricity (I have a lifelong genetic condition, sleep apnea, which untreated will result in my untimely death). My family is abusive, narcissistic, and unreliable. Being so incredibly on my own, I'm extremely risk averse. I imagine others, who might need insulin or some other thing would be the same. So ultimately, I find the "just negotiate" line to be at best naive, at worst unempathetic.
- MuffinFlavored 6y ago> This seems like a perfect example of why labor organization is important I've just always seen life as "unfair" and "up to you to fight for what is right". A labor organization/union has always struck me as "too good to be true" and unrealistic.
- vkou 6y agoYou can fight for what you want more effectively when you fight collectively. There also seems to be a popular misconception that unions prevent you from negotiating for yourself. Unions set salary and benefit floors, not ceilings. If you think you are a superstar negotiator, you're free to demand a higher wage than that floor. Actors and football players have unions, yet also have an incredible wage disparity between the top and bottom end of the pay scale.
- SaltyBackendGuy 6y agoWhat if you're simply not worth as much as you used to be in a given region?
- elihu 6y agoEven in that case, labor organization might help you keep a larger percentage of the value you generate for your employer than you otherwise would.
- tomjakubowski 6y agoUnions representing professional athletes have in some cases agreed to maximum salaries for players (e.g. in the NBA) as a concession, so that isn't always true. Team salary caps negotiated in leagues without a salary max also depress player salaries.
- belval 6y agoNot sure how positive your interactions with unions were to hold this opinion, but that hasn't been my experience at all. - Unions add more politics to an already increasingly political environment. I don't want to spend an hour or more every month in a meeting to vote on stuff I usually don't care about. - Unions cost money, and while 200$/2 weeks (which is what one big union in my country charges) might seem reasonable to you, I don't like being forced to do anything. - Unions usually end up with rules regarding who gets promoted and who doesn't. Broke your back working OT to help out the company? Well tough luck Martha came in one month before you and has priority on promotions. - Unions make it harder to fire under performing employees. While that might fit in your ideal society, I prefer working with overachievers.
- SteveMorin 6y agoWhy?
- freewilly1040 6y agoThe employees themselves are pretty divided though. Those staying in the high cost metros want to keep their higher salaries, those moving don't want the paycut. In discussions I've seen you can predict what people are doing pretty reliably.
- GhostVII 6y agoWe need labour organization to protest being paid only slightly less insane salaries? Honestly people are acting as if they are making minimum wage or something, everyone at these big companies makes over 100k, and most of them probably make well over 200k. That's more than enough.
- mensetmanusman 6y agoIs 15% a big deal if your expenses drop by 20%? A company should be allowed to pay for the ‘supposed’ benefits that human interaction brings.
- ianmobbs 6y agoMost folks expenses aren't dropping by 20%. I've been remote since March, but my rent/life/expenses (key) hasn't changed. If anything, I'm paying more now for utilities and food since I'm home all the time.
- adamnemecek 6y agoBut you haven't moved right?
- dilyevsky 6y agoArticle is specifically about folks moving out of sfba so unless you moved to zurich i assume your expenses should go down
- snovv_crash 6y agoHonestly, I think rent in Zürich is less than sfba. It's just eating out that is more expensive, but supermarket food quality is so high people just cook more.
- dilyevsky 6y agoHonestly i gave up on finding whole foods quality produce there (meat and seafood specifically) but yeah other than food it’s cheaper now
- snovv_crash 6y agoMeat is easy to find extremely high quality, but also eyewateringly expensive. Often people make deals directly with farmers. Seafood, well, Switzerland is a landlocked nation. There aren't any good surfing spots either, but skiing is 1.5hrs to the slope by public transport.
- tomashertus 6y ago> Letting someone take a San Francisco salary to Wyoming could be considered unfair to present and future remote hires in cheaper cities who might receive a lower wage. I genuinely think that people who were thinking that this is not going to happen are disillusion. Their employers have one single and easy goal - maximize the shareholder value. So, no matter how humanitarian it would be to keep SF salaries to employees working from all around the world, nobody will sign the decision to do that, unless it's coming from the CEOs & boards & public markets. I would encourage everyone to look on how Gitlab is approaching this problem: https://about.gitlab.com/blog/2019/02/28/why-we-pay-local-rates/ https://about.gitlab.com/blog/2019/02/28/why-we-pay-local-ra...
- yumraj 6y agoIt probably gets more clicks if you talk about pay cut and tension, but if companies are expected to compensate for higher cost of living, shouldn't they be equally expected to take it away if a person moves to lower cost of living. Moreover, let's assume the pay cut doesn't happen - what about the people who don't or can't move. Isn't this unfair to them. Also, what about the gaming of the system. A person could ask for a higher salary saying they are in, or relocating to, the BA, then within a few months, or even days, of joining they move out.
- rightbyte 6y agoSF engineers are getting payed well becouse there is a shortage of SF engineers that can afford to live in SF with lower wages. If for any reason the engineers doesn't have to live in SF anymore wages will equalize atleast over the domestic market.
- legerdemain 6y agoMore hysterical reporting from irrelevant mass media. Instead of using the perfectly standard "compensation adjustment," they went for the incendiary "pay cuts" to drive up traffic!
- bluntfang 6y ago>It probably gets more clicks if you talk about pay cut and tension, but if companies are expected to compensate for higher cost of living, shouldn't they be equally expected to take it away if a person moves to lower cost of living. If engineers are providing a tangible dollar value for their work, shouldn't they be paid what their work is worth and not paid relative to their cost of living?
- yumraj 6y agoNo. Compensation is always tied to local economy. That would imply that for identical work a person in SF would be paid the same as a person in let’s say India. That is great for the person in India if they get as much as the person in SF. But, what about the reverse, would a person in SF be OK getting the same compensation as the person in India? What about how much they can spend? Are the corresponding wages sufficient to live? You have to consider both cases, not just assume that everyone gets SF wages regardless of where they live. And the impact on local economies when these high earners go to low cost of living wages places and buy all the real estate? Will the locals be driven out? And so on.....
- altdatathrow 6y agoThere are so many tech jobs aggressively hiring, if someone feels slighted in their compensation, they only need to respond to recruiters or hit up a few of the 813 companies looking to hire on the latest [1] Who's Hiring? thread. [1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24651639 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24651639
- repo001 6y agoYep pretty much this. And luckily this will definitely work because none of these companies have a history of making secret agreements not to poach each other's talent after making a 15% pay cut.
- deleted 6y ago[deleted]
- onion2k 6y ago813 is a very small number in an industry that employs millions of people. There are almost a million people in tech in the Bay Area alone (https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.mercurynews.com/2019/06/14/tech-employment-bay-area-reaches-record-highs-google-apple-facebook-adobe/amp/ https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.mercurynews.com/2019/06/14/...).
- PragmaticPulp 6y agoThat’s true, but anecdotally it’s also the reason salaries are going down in the first place. As companies expand to remote-first, nationwide hiring they’re realizing that they don’t necessarily need to pay SV premiums to hire good talent. There are plenty of talented hires around the country that are underpaid relative to SV but were previously geographically locked out of these companies. In other words: You’re no longer competing against other SV people for these jobs. You’re competing against people across the country who would still be getting a significant raise if they worked for 2/3 of past SV comp.
- deleted 6y ago[deleted]
- dogman144 6y agoThis argument is a bit funky in that the lack of perks isn't discussed. On face value, yeah you'd be making less in WY vs. SF for CoL. But while they've moved to WY, they're not getting catered 3 meals a day, free yoga classes, and the office space. There are real dollar values attached to that. So if these SWEs get a pay cut, and a benefits cut... Companies are getting a pretty solid deal in terms of possible labor disputes to contend with if elite SWEs who did this remote move aren't bringing this up.
- colinmhayes 6y agoHave companies been laying off the cooks and not paying rent? Otherwise the reduced food bill isn't that much of a saving.
- dogman144 6y agoNot sure! My original point is just that the framing from WSJ doesn't capture accurate compensation factors well. To your point: I think that's irrelevant/off topic. There's probably a theoretical % of employees who could go remote that in turn will make a company move office space or fire cooks. Otherwise, those are fixed costs and don't come into the picture here. I don't think either % get hit for the class of SWE I'm referring too, so it's just lost benefits to the SWEs.
- colinmhayes 6y agoWell the company is still paying for the benefits they offered you, you just can't use them. I see both sides of the argument but we're in unprecedented territory here and in the end what's "fair" has little no to impact on the outcome of negotiations.
- dogman144 6y agoThey're paying for the benefits still, but unless a certain % of SWEs go remote, there's diminishing costs per SWE to provide the benefits. You have to consider the scale the benefits "get provided at." At a certain point, it costs the same to feed premium salad to 500 engineers as it does 575 engineers (no idea if this is the math, but conceptually yeah). A cook can make 600 or 700 gallons of soup without much difference or new purchases required: huge vat of soup is 2/3 vs. 3/4 full. If the % of remote engineers hit a level such that cooks have to buy new soup bowls, idle hand cooks, or offices with cavernous empty halllways, then yeah, you're back under diminishing costs/eng and need to scale down.
- sxp 6y agoArchive link http://archive.is/qmPRy http://archive.is/qmPRy
- almost_usual 6y agoBase salaries are one thing but what about cutting RSUs that aren’t vested? Is that normal? I’d take a base salary cut if my RSUs didn’t change. They outweigh base compensation over time anyway. Anyone who has relocated experienced this?
- beefalo 6y agoIf you have already received the grant I don't expect that is changeable right?
- almost_usual 6y agoThat’s what I would hope but since they aren’t vested I’m not sure?
- OliverGilan 6y agoThe whole paycut controversy seems a little strange to me. No one bats an eye when a company bumps your salary up if you move to NYC or SF yet if they bump it down when you move out surely that's the same thing right? Obviously there are edge cases but as a general principle that seems logical to me. Ofc it depends on how much each bump is etc. but on the surface a paycut while moving somewhere with lower cost of living doesn't seem radical to me.
- deleted 6y ago[deleted]
- lotsofpulp 6y agoBecause bumping it down when you move out means the company thinks they have a higher probability of being able to replace you with a similar person from anywhere else and/or you have a lower probability of securing employment with similar compensation, which is a thought most people don't like to have.
- lsaferite 6y agoI think if they actually split out the COL adjustment amount on the paycheck then it would be a much simpler conversation. But with most every company just making it a lump sum it feels like a demotion vs. a COL adjustment.
- panopticon 6y agonitpick: it's not a "cost of living" adjustment these companies make when you change locations; it's a market rate adjustment. The distinction is important when you end up in markets with high COL but low software engineer market rates (e.g., London), or how dealing with the expensive Bay Area can still make sense compared to midwestern metros--depending on the type of lifestyle you can live with, that is.
- nrmitchi 6y agoYou're right that they are different. Unfortunately, the terms are often used interchangeably, which makes discussions around this topic difficult to have.
- wilg 6y agoRemote work demonstrates that this is a national and/or worldwide labor market, so paying people based on where they choose to live makes no sense to me.
- spfzero 6y agoAgree. The value to the employer of two equally-talented and hard-working remote employees is the same. Why pay differently, and if you were paying different rates, I'd expect over time (a decade?) that differential would go away.
- refurb 6y agoSalaries aren't determined by value (though that's often the cap) they are determined by supply and demand. Open it up to WFH anywhere and your supply just went way up. Some random person in WY is likely willing to work for Google for much less than 20% below bay area salaries.
- mabbo 6y agoThis is the fun reality that most FAANG Canadian offices have faced for years. Cross the border from Seattle to Vancouver, suddenly you're being paid much less for the same value provided. And basically, it's market economics. The wage is determined by supply and demand in the labor market, not on the value provided to the company. This is why it's important to have many competing employers rather than just 1 or 2 big ones. Competition for labor increases wages. Hopefully, as more companies accept full remote employees, we'll see that- a single huge market not defined by regions.
- joelbluminator 6y agoOnly now you're competing against everyone in the world, not just everyone in your region. I can't see how this is good for the developed world.
- theflyinghorse 6y agoIt's good for developers from developing world who are just as educated and just as experienced as their western counterparts. Global wage equilibrium is outright horrible for western developers
- nip180 6y agoGlobal wage equilibrium would be horrible for western labor.
- api 6y ago... for a while, but then theoretically there would be a massive amount of economic growth. Of course that only works if people all do the free trade thing. US/China broke down because the US was globalist and China was nationalist and protectionist.
- aeternum 6y agoThat's not clear from a historic point of view. In general the more participatory the economy, the faster quality of life improves overall. While wages may drop for the west, that should be more than offset by the rate at which goods and services become cheaper and more plentiful. Protectionists often look at only one side of the equation.
- gnicholas 6y agoIt seems clear that WFH will be much more of a thing post-COVID. If this is the case, then tech companies will be hiring new employees from all over, presumably at rates that are based on the candidate's location. If this is the case, and employees in WY are being paid 30% less than employees in CA, then the company might end up having an implicit preference for turning over existing employees in favor of new/remote ones. Imagine managing a team with 10 employees and 2 million in total comp. Now you're told you have to make do with a 30% budget cut, due to bad earnings. It would be hard to imagine that you wouldn't consider the amount that would be saved by cutting more expensive folks versus less expensive folks. Of course, at first the longer-tenured folks would be more valuable than their newer colleagues, based on institutional knowledge. But as this advantage fades, presumably more expensive employees would be put at a disadvantage in these scenarios. And some companies will decide to pay everyone SF-based salaries, regardless of location. To my mind, that would have a similar effect on the company's finances as not price-discriminating when selling their product. Selling to a person? Same price as selling to a company! There are surely some cases where it would work out fine, but for some companies it could make the difference between success and failure.
- neonate 6y agohttps://archive.is/qmPRy https://archive.is/qmPRy
- egberts1 6y agoAnd the clash of meteoritic rise of apartment rent continues. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24765398 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24765398
- deleted 6y ago[deleted]
- 1235711 6y agoThe systems are so weirdly gameable though - I know a number of couples living with their parents for free to save money in very expensive parts of the country - they'll be paid top rates with no expenses vs. someone living in a poorer part of the country to be with family taking a massive paycut. Others are living in the hubs they always have while renting out flats in cheaper parts of the country as side income. The endgame is living in the cheapest neighbourhoods in SF/NY/London while working "remote" - the commute being bad in that part of the city doesn't matter anymore. Maybe we can just show our rent checks for food at the company store.
- bassman9000 6y agoEverything is a trade off. Do you thing living with your parents/relatives past a certain age is free? Maybe in the monetary sense.
- sackofmugs 6y agoIf the situation was reversed, where poorer employees were living with their parents, people would be upset with the inequality too. Even more so if the ones who were not living with their parents got stabilized rent after 5 years, or bought property and saw their equity rise in value.
- nrmitchi 6y agoIt's worse than gameable; it continuous to contribute to "discrimination" based on socioeconomic class. Your exact example: If you were born into a wealth area, your family likely has extra space for you to live, and you will continue to be paid highly due to living in an "expensive" area. If you were unlucky enough to be born into a poor area in a poor part of the country, you may have to move home to support your family due to a pandemic. They likely don't have extra room for you, so you have to find and pay for your own place. On top of that, you get your salary cut 50% as an "adjustment". It is a side effect of a system where the already-well-off will be treated better.
- deleted 6y ago[deleted]
- mdoms 6y agoTech libertarian types love the free hand of the market when they're making their inflated SV salaries. Not so much when it slaps them back down to earth.
- goodside 6y agoI see a lot of commentary saying that these pay cuts are perfectly rational, because “of course” new hires would be given different rates depending on their cost of living. But for a purely remote firm, why would a cost-of-living adjustment exist at all? In a pre-COVID job market with physical offices, obviously you need to pay higher rates for the same quality of employee in a major city. Someone must be hired, and the only available applicants are paying high rents, so the firm is forced to pay more if they want their offers accepted. Supply and demand. But if the firm is purely remote, why tolerate this? Ignoring the issue of pay cuts for moves, why pay $200K for someone in SF instead of $100K for someone just as good in Pittsburgh? If there were no friction to hiring/firing, and no difference in employee quality by location, the rational strategy would not to set wages based on the local cost-of-living. The wages should be set at the replacement cost of the labor. The firm receives no benefit from the employee choosing to live somewhere expensive. They should simply pay the same rate everywhere, and each employee can choose their city based on their own values and ability to pay rent. My personal theory is that this is the scenario that many newly-remote-only firms are now in. They don’t want to pay employees different rates based on location, but their workforce is nonetheless mostly in an expensive city and expects to be paid accordingly, as per pre-COVID norms. What the firm would like to do is reduce wages across the board, but doing so would spark a backlash from workers who suddenly can no longer make rent. Thus they create the fiction of downward CoL adjustments, which only made sense pre-COVID, to concentrate the negative effects on the workers most willing to endure them — the workers suddenly paying less in rent. If remote-only remains permanent, firms will eventually fire or decline to replace staff in expensive cities, as the same work can be done cheaper elsewhere, until reaching an equilibrium where all workers are paid less and the firm no longer cares where they live.
- cameldrv 6y agoAlso these companies may not want to work remotely in the long term. If they thought remote working was just as effective, presumably they would have done it before. If employees move away, and the company calls everyone back into the office at some point, a good portion of the workers that have moved will quit. In a sense, paying them the SF rate even though they're remote is sort of paying them to be "on reserve."
- 6y ago
- blobbers 6y agoI'm curious about the performance/success of remote-only on-boarding. If I move to Wyoming, google can lower my salary by 25% because of "market" factors. However, can they replace someone on-boarded on-site for 5 years even at a "Mountain View" rate? I suspect it's a lot harder to integrate "covid" hires into company culture, group norms, and expected performance. This would leave you with a more random process dependent on how good your interview process is at filtering, or how good your "online" training program is.
- parsley27 6y agoI think the effect of remote-only onboarding will be seen mostly in junior hires, since they do not have much experience in getting up to speed with a company's tech and its culture. As a senior dev about to start a new remote position at a company that's still mostly non-distributed, I'm probably a little more nervous than I've been at previous first days, but I think the bigger risk is that I'm considered a more distant team member if ever there were cutbacks. But I guess that's less of a risk if you can provide unique value in a specialized role.
- ayk3 6y agoReminds me of https://bonkersworld.net/based https://bonkersworld.net/based
- kevinpet 6y agoTo me this whole thing is very simple: If you have an office there, you should pay location-based rates at that office. If you have remote employees, you should pay a standard remote rate, regardless of where someone is. Someone working remotely for a CA based company from NYT isn't adding more value than someone working remotely from Phoenix.
- zuhayeer 6y agoWhile pay is being cut if you choose to move to another location, pay is still higher than ever if you decide to move into HCOL areas like the Bay Area, New York, or Seattle. This is especially true for senior engineers with some years of experience under their belt.
- MetalGuru 6y agoDo you see this changing though?
- zuhayeer 6y agoDefinitely can, I was more just stating things as they are right now from data we've observed on Levels.fyi. I feel there's a dichotomy at play here. This tweet may sum it up best: https://twitter.com/whrobbins/status/1315767934816452608?s=20 https://twitter.com/whrobbins/status/1315767934816452608?s=2... Replace overstated with overpaid, and understated with underpaid
- GoodJokes 6y agoYou are a commodity, not a human. You will get paid the least amount possible to keep you alive and uh not desperate.
- gravypod 6y agoThis might be a great opportunity for many small startups. Big companies are too full of bloat to see this is a bad choice with even worse optics. Startups have the advantage of common sense and now need to only compete with much lower offers from larger companies. There's a bunch of startups that probably done care where or when you work.
- 627467 6y agoI read "companies do this or that" but it's teams that make hiring decisions. Whether companies or teams are prepared for remote colleagues or not it's up to them. Yes, pandemic has made everyone remote but we can't just ignore the fact that Bay area was paying premium because they wanted "locals" (or at least those willing to become locals). Otherwise why bother restrict hiring to a single region/country/continent? I know that it feels anachronistic to fight remote teams right now, but the truth is, regardless of the merits of both form of working some managers/teams/companies have preference for one or the other, simple as that. Employees also don't automatically become ideal remote colleagues overnight. So, maybe it is a good idea to attach a cost to the change from being in office to being remote so that the decision balances both ways.
- mensetmanusman 6y agoThe world is about to get a lot more poor due to the pandemic. It’s no surprise that will be felt amongst the non-0.05%.
- MarkMc 6y agoBack in the 1960's, many people argued that it was OK to pay a single women a lower salary than a married man for the same job - because the man was the breadwinner for his whole family. These days most people believe in "equal pay for work of equal value". But only in relation to gender equality - they don't apply the same principle to remote work.
- emteycz 6y agoOf course, because remote work is absolutely different from work on premise, and the supply/demand profile is obviously different too, both unlike gender.
- MarkMc 6y agoI'm not talking about on-premesis work. I mean someone working remotely in San Francisco gets paid more than someone working remotely in Detroit. I'd be surprised if the supply and demand curves are in fact the same for each gender. But even as a hypothetical question - "suppose that women were more willing to do a particular job for lower wages..." - most people would still say that men and women should be paid equally.
- emteycz 6y agoHmm, how does that work? I am from Europe, so I don't have insight into US customs. But here nobody knows where I am - how could they pay me differently? Do you have to report your location (and be truthful) in the US?
- mensetmanusman 6y agoThis is such an interesting question because we can’t agree on what ‘fair’ means. In the past, they used to pay new fathers more the moment their child was born, because the company knew the family needed it. This would be an outrage now because we think fairness is only about being paid for exactly what you do.
- AshWolfy 6y agoYeah we need unions
- hbt 6y agoLooking forward to product pricing pages being updated to reflect my current geo location.
- sizt 6y agoYou see, HR has these survey books. The HR interlopers must follow the institutional labor rates for the GAAP budgeteers so that quarterly margins are not destroyed by the labor line item lest the jet jumpers not receive their quarterly bonus. Best to live free and make your own way boys and girls.
- codeisawesome 6y ago... what?
- marek22 6y agoamzing blog
- deleted 6y ago[deleted]