5 ms·

I don’t think no-negotiation is a selling point here for candidates. If anything, it’s a filter. People willing to accept less vs not.

by msftie 6y ago

antihero 6y ago
Yeah I've not understood this approach. People who are willing to negotiate should get a higher salary. Preventing negotiation seems like a bandaid approach to equality that should be fixed by teaching female candidates (or other candidates who are less likely to negotiate) to negotiate and feel confident in their worth much earlier in their careers and education. Preventing negotiation seems like it gives less freedom to the candidate.
- lghh 6y ago
  It's not that women candidates (or anyone) are necessarily less adept at negotiations, it's that those that they are negotiating with could potentially be less apt to pay more to that specific person due to their identification or any other reason. This gets rid of that bias.
- BeetleB 6y ago
  > People who are willing to negotiate should get a higher salary. Most people's take is that people who perform better should get a higher salary. While negotiation helps prevent you from being underpaid, it very often[1] is the reason people who perform poorer are getting a higher salary. [1] As in, every single place I've worked.
- joshuamorton 6y ago
  > People who are willing to negotiate should get a higher salary. Why? You seem to be saying that willingness to negotiate is something an employer should value and therefore remunerate more. Why should they value that particular skill?
- the_gipsy 6y ago
  > People who are willing to negotiate should get a higher salary. Why? What is the merit? Do you infer they will perform better because they are good negotiators?
  - loopz 6y ago
    Because it benefits themselves.
  - chrisseaton 6y ago
    Because they won’t take the job otherwise. If you want them to work there, then you need to match their requirements. You could also give everyone else a pay rise every time you struggle to fill a position I suppose.
    - the_gipsy 6y ago
      They are just upfront about how much "requirements" can be met. They don't waste anybody's time if someone seeks hidden salary ranges.
      - chrisseaton 6y ago
        > They are just upfront about how much "requirements" can be met. Right... but if you just refuse to meet people's requirements then you won't be able to hire them, or you're only be able to hire desperate people with no other options. Surely this is damaging to your business, and the careers and equity of everyone working there.
  - antihero 6y ago
    Because everyone should have the right to try and extract as much wealth as they can from a company who is extracting as much value as they can from an employee.
- afthonos 6y ago
  Whenever there’s a pot of money that people of a special group inexplicably fail to pick up, it’s worth wondering if teaching them to pick it up is the solution. I am no expert in gender discrimination, for instance, but even I have come across research that suggests that (1) people are less impressed with a resume if the name attached to it isn’t the right kind (by gender or other characteristics) and (2) people interpret identical behavior differently when coming from people of different characteristics (e.g. a male negotiator is viewed as “tough”, where a female negotiator might be viewed as “overly demanding”). The approach in the parent article may not be ideal, but from where I stand, it’s as valid as waiting for someone (who?) to teach groups of interest to negotiate, and having the problem fix itself.
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
- antihero 6y ago
  After talking to some friends about this, I'm not so sure about my opinion. Take it with a grain of salt.
marssaxman 6y ago
It would be a selling point for me! It's not about "accepting less", it's about the fact that a company committed to transparency and equitable treatment sounds like it could be a great place to work. Individual negotiations and secrecy over compensation clearly don't produce desirable cultural results. This policy sends the same kind of signal as a restaurant which replaces tipping with a fixed service charge: that's the future I want to live in.
- chrisseaton 6y ago
  What should the company do if they need to hire an expert and just none of the experts available are interested in the value of the non-negotiable compensation? Just give up and not build the thing they need? It’s in everyone’s interest to attract the right people. If a new person joins and is paid more but it increases the value of my equity by improving the company I’m still happy.
  - rapind 6y ago
    Invest in the people you have. If they don’t have the cycles then hire someone you can invest in. Ultimately if it’s temporary expertise that isn’t core to your business you can still contract it out. This system is similar to what a co-op would use, and there are successful (and unsuccessful) co-ops.
    - gravypod 6y ago
      In some situations that's just not an option because once you've acquired the skill you now need to be paid for the skill in order for this system to be at all fair. That's also not saying anything about the feasibility of turning the average engineer into, for example, a chrisseaton [0] in a few months. The deal from the employer sounds bad: "Ok we need you to become an expert in X by Y to meet deadline Z. If you can't become an expert in X just do your best so we are able to hit deadline Z! Don't worry! You'll have a bunch of time in the future to maintain it!" [0] - https://chrisseaton.com/ https://chrisseaton.com/
  - matthewmacleod 6y ago

I don’t think no-negotiation is a selling point here for candidates. If anything, it’s a filter. People willing to accept less vs not.

by msftie 6y ago

I don’t think no-negotiation is a selling point here for candidates. If anything, it’s a filter. People willing to accept less vs not.

antihero 6y ago

Yeah I've not understood this approach. People who are willing to negotiate should get a higher salary. Preventing negotiation seems like a bandaid approach to equality that should be fixed by teaching female candidates (or other candidates who are less likely to negotiate) to negotiate and feel confident in their worth much earlier in their careers and education. Preventing negotiation seems like it gives less freedom to the candidate.

lghh 6y ago
It's not that women candidates (or anyone) are necessarily less adept at negotiations, it's that those that they are negotiating with could potentially be less apt to pay more to that specific person due to their identification or any other reason. This gets rid of that bias.
BeetleB 6y ago
> People who are willing to negotiate should get a higher salary. Most people's take is that people who perform better should get a higher salary. While negotiation helps prevent you from being underpaid, it very often[1] is the reason people who perform poorer are getting a higher salary. [1] As in, every single place I've worked.
joshuamorton 6y ago
> People who are willing to negotiate should get a higher salary. Why? You seem to be saying that willingness to negotiate is something an employer should value and therefore remunerate more. Why should they value that particular skill?
the_gipsy 6y ago
> People who are willing to negotiate should get a higher salary. Why? What is the merit? Do you infer they will perform better because they are good negotiators?
- loopz 6y ago
  Because it benefits themselves.
- chrisseaton 6y ago
  Because they won’t take the job otherwise. If you want them to work there, then you need to match their requirements. You could also give everyone else a pay rise every time you struggle to fill a position I suppose.
  - the_gipsy 6y ago
    They are just upfront about how much "requirements" can be met. They don't waste anybody's time if someone seeks hidden salary ranges.
    - chrisseaton 6y ago
      > They are just upfront about how much "requirements" can be met. Right... but if you just refuse to meet people's requirements then you won't be able to hire them, or you're only be able to hire desperate people with no other options. Surely this is damaging to your business, and the careers and equity of everyone working there.
- antihero 6y ago
  Because everyone should have the right to try and extract as much wealth as they can from a company who is extracting as much value as they can from an employee.
afthonos 6y ago
Whenever there’s a pot of money that people of a special group inexplicably fail to pick up, it’s worth wondering if teaching them to pick it up is the solution. I am no expert in gender discrimination, for instance, but even I have come across research that suggests that (1) people are less impressed with a resume if the name attached to it isn’t the right kind (by gender or other characteristics) and (2) people interpret identical behavior differently when coming from people of different characteristics (e.g. a male negotiator is viewed as “tough”, where a female negotiator might be viewed as “overly demanding”). The approach in the parent article may not be ideal, but from where I stand, it’s as valid as waiting for someone (who?) to teach groups of interest to negotiate, and having the problem fix itself.
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
antihero 6y ago
After talking to some friends about this, I'm not so sure about my opinion. Take it with a grain of salt.

marssaxman 6y ago

It would be a selling point for me! It's not about "accepting less", it's about the fact that a company committed to transparency and equitable treatment sounds like it could be a great place to work. Individual negotiations and secrecy over compensation clearly don't produce desirable cultural results. This policy sends the same kind of signal as a restaurant which replaces tipping with a fixed service charge: that's the future I want to live in.

chrisseaton 6y ago
What should the company do if they need to hire an expert and just none of the experts available are interested in the value of the non-negotiable compensation? Just give up and not build the thing they need? It’s in everyone’s interest to attract the right people. If a new person joins and is paid more but it increases the value of my equity by improving the company I’m still happy.
- rapind 6y ago
  Invest in the people you have. If they don’t have the cycles then hire someone you can invest in. Ultimately if it’s temporary expertise that isn’t core to your business you can still contract it out. This system is similar to what a co-op would use, and there are successful (and unsuccessful) co-ops.
  - gravypod 6y ago
    In some situations that's just not an option because once you've acquired the skill you now need to be paid for the skill in order for this system to be at all fair. That's also not saying anything about the feasibility of turning the average engineer into, for example, a chrisseaton [0] in a few months. The deal from the employer sounds bad: "Ok we need you to become an expert in X by Y to meet deadline Z. If you can't become an expert in X just do your best so we are able to hit deadline Z! Don't worry! You'll have a bunch of time in the future to maintain it!" [0] - https://chrisseaton.com/ https://chrisseaton.com/
- matthewmacleod 6y ago