4 ms·
> Also, it's bad for small business owners, because then the large businesses could see what they are paying and much more easily poach employees. That sounds
by short_sells_poo 5y ago
> Also, it's bad for small business owners, because then the large businesses could see what they are paying and much more easily poach employees.
That sounds a bit like (apologies for the strawman): "small business needs to be able to exploit employees to survive."
If small business can't survive without that, perhaps the problem lies elsewhere?
- s1artibartfast 5y agoThe employee would benefit from more transparency, but that doesn't mean it is exploitation. Not
- gameman144 5y agoThis is a double-edged sword, though. For employees, working at a large company that has already achieved economies of scale is probably a better paycheck -- they have the budget to be able to pay you better. For society, though, we definitely don't want those small businesses (which don't have the same efficiencies or economies of scale) to be boxed out by large corporations across the board. Not that this means that we shouldn't have pay transparency (people can and should be able to make their own decisions), but the inability of small businesses to match the salaries of huge corporations is pretty unavoidable.
- jedberg 5y agoI agree, the small business has to bring something else to the table, such as greater scope of responsibility or quicker execution. Transparent pay is great for the employees, but it's still a downside to the company.