5 ms·

I hope unionizing against these tech giants becomes fashionable. I worked at Adobe as a contractor and one of the recruiters for the contractor had called me an

I hope unionizing against these tech giants becomes fashionable. I worked at Adobe as a contractor and one of the recruiters for the contractor had called me and told me not to discuss my pay because I was being paid very well for the job (I wasn't and in fact was underpaid but I took the job to build a resume). I immediately asked my coworkers what they made and told them what I was getting. I also asked the recruiter to send that in writing. I got a call the next day from his manager saying to ignore and disregard what he said. While they squashed the issue immediately, I suspect this practice is common and bullying people about sharing their wages in this industry is normal.

thaumasiotes 6y ago
> because I was being paid very well for the job (I wasn't and in fact was underpaid but I took the job to build a resume) "I took the job to build a resume" is another way of saying "I was being paid very well for the job".
- mjcohen 6y ago
  No. It means the opposite - not paid well.
  - thaumasiotes 6y ago
    Then ask yourself what you'd charge for the same job under an NDA specifying "you can never reveal any association between yourself and the company".
    - sp332 6y ago
      I think anyone would ask for more money in that case, right?
      - sam1r 6y ago
        That's not true. There comes a time where you're willing to take a pay cut for the group of people you are working with [that of which includes experience/mentorship maybe even stable job vs overpaid exec startup position]
      - thaumasiotes 6y ago
        Depends on the company. Most are worthless from a resume perspective. But stating that they were giving you something you wanted even more than money is not good grounds for complaining that you weren't getting enough money.
  - readflaggedcomm 6y ago
    There is more which has value than money.
    - readflaggedcomm 6y ago
      This whole thread shows that HN disagrees. I can't understand how you all think compensation works.
- gbear605 6y ago
  If you make $60,000 a year for a job, you are doing decently well on a US-wide perspective (and very well on a global perspective). However if your coworkers, doing the exact same work as you exactly as well, make $120,000, you’re in fact being underpaid. And the solution to the first issue isn’t to attack the people making $60,000 but to bring everyone who is underpaid up.
  - renewiltord 6y ago
    No, he's including in the compensation the experience etc. It's not strictly a free market so the market closing price will be lower than true equilibrium because a no-agreement for one negotiator (labour) results in starvation but a no-agreement for the other negotiator (employer) results in minor discomfort. Perhaps allowing the former to negotiate freely by guaranteeing life will bring negotiation outcomes closer to true market closing price. That's got its own problems, of course, but unions aren't a bad idea to attempt to increase power of labour vs employer.
    - deleted 6y ago
      [deleted]
    - uoaei 6y ago
      "Experience" has nothing to do with compensation. You don't deserve more money just because you have been around longer. It is appropriate to make it proportional to value creation. Experience helps with this but obviously then the correlation will be lower.
      - renewiltord 6y ago
        No, he was paid with getting the experience. He got compensation in the shape of "build(ing) a resume"
        nohr 6y ago
        I'll ask my landlord if they take that next time. I'm sure the company would love to earn experience from my work instead of money too since it's so valuable.
Copernicron 6y ago
It goes a lot further than that. I had a very brief stint at a company that looked good on the surface but was toxic as hell underneath. As part of my employment agreement I had to sign an NDA stating I could not discuss my compensation with other employees. If memory serves there was an exception for HR and my manager but I wasn’t supposed to talk about it with anyone else. I honestly don’t know if conditions like that are legal in Ontario but I also didn’t have the resources to contest it.

thaumasiotes 6y ago

> because I was being paid very well for the job (I wasn't and in fact was underpaid but I took the job to build a resume) "I took the job to build a resume" is another way of saying "I was being paid very well for the job".

mjcohen 6y ago
No. It means the opposite - not paid well.
- thaumasiotes 6y ago
  Then ask yourself what you'd charge for the same job under an NDA specifying "you can never reveal any association between yourself and the company".
  - sp332 6y ago
    I think anyone would ask for more money in that case, right?
    - sam1r 6y ago
      That's not true. There comes a time where you're willing to take a pay cut for the group of people you are working with [that of which includes experience/mentorship maybe even stable job vs overpaid exec startup position]
    - thaumasiotes 6y ago
      Depends on the company. Most are worthless from a resume perspective. But stating that they were giving you something you wanted even more than money is not good grounds for complaining that you weren't getting enough money.
- readflaggedcomm 6y ago
  There is more which has value than money.
  - readflaggedcomm 6y ago
    This whole thread shows that HN disagrees. I can't understand how you all think compensation works.
gbear605 6y ago
If you make $60,000 a year for a job, you are doing decently well on a US-wide perspective (and very well on a global perspective). However if your coworkers, doing the exact same work as you exactly as well, make $120,000, you’re in fact being underpaid. And the solution to the first issue isn’t to attack the people making $60,000 but to bring everyone who is underpaid up.
- renewiltord 6y ago
  No, he's including in the compensation the experience etc. It's not strictly a free market so the market closing price will be lower than true equilibrium because a no-agreement for one negotiator (labour) results in starvation but a no-agreement for the other negotiator (employer) results in minor discomfort. Perhaps allowing the former to negotiate freely by guaranteeing life will bring negotiation outcomes closer to true market closing price. That's got its own problems, of course, but unions aren't a bad idea to attempt to increase power of labour vs employer.
  - deleted 6y ago
    [deleted]
  - uoaei 6y ago
    "Experience" has nothing to do with compensation. You don't deserve more money just because you have been around longer. It is appropriate to make it proportional to value creation. Experience helps with this but obviously then the correlation will be lower.
    - renewiltord 6y ago
      No, he was paid with getting the experience. He got compensation in the shape of "build(ing) a resume"
      - nohr 6y ago
        I'll ask my landlord if they take that next time. I'm sure the company would love to earn experience from my work instead of money too since it's so valuable.

Copernicron 6y ago

It goes a lot further than that. I had a very brief stint at a company that looked good on the surface but was toxic as hell underneath. As part of my employment agreement I had to sign an NDA stating I could not discuss my compensation with other employees. If memory serves there was an exception for HR and my manager but I wasn’t supposed to talk about it with anyone else. I honestly don’t know if conditions like that are legal in Ontario but I also didn’t have the resources to contest it.