4 ms·

I think the challenge is most of our major tech corporations love to publicly tout their progressive bonafides at every possible opportunity. Right until it hu

I think the challenge is most of our major tech corporations love to publicly tout their progressive bonafides at every possible opportunity. Right until it hurts their pocket book that is. Then suddenly all of the politics they've been pushing go out the window and they want to have an apolitical workforce. If corporations want to be non-political, they should stay non-political. I've personally become quite cynical about their motives. I think these woke tech companies are happy to talk about equity and climate because it doesn't cost them anything -- it's basically free marketing -- but if their workers organized or their taxes were raised, they'd suddenly show their true colors.

lotsofpulp 5y ago
Regarding this specific issue, I do not see what paying people for what they negotiate has to do with progressivism. Equity in pay potential is progressive (i.e. not discriminating against race, etc), but I do not see why everyone should have the same pay. I pay people (and businesses) differently based on what I think my second best option would cost. Is that not what everyone does?
- duxup 5y ago
  I agree. What exactly people mean about pay equity may or may not seem progressive ... no matter if they wrap themselves in that title or not. Most people aren't very disciplined about their political ideology.
- joshuamorton 5y ago
  > Equity in pay potential is progressive (i.e. not discriminating against race, etc), but I do not see why everyone should have the same pay. I pay people (and businesses) differently based on what I think my second best option would cost. Is that not what everyone does? People aren't generally advocating for "the same" pay (precise lockstep), but broadly transparency and auditability. To use Google as an example, roles have bands. Two people in the same role aren't paid the precise same amount, but you'll generally know that they'll be +-, say, 20%. And someone at L+1 will earn more than someone at L. In other words, there is a fairly straightforward way to calculate $$$ given performance review data. So there's rules and things work within the rules. This allows individuals to see that their performance is getting compensated the same as someone else's performance, via the same rules. If and when there are exceptions, the employer should be able to justify those exceptions. Why is John, at L, getting paid more than James at L+1? Because James was just promoted, and John has been a top performer at L for the last 5 years.
aaaaaaaaaaab 5y ago
You’ve become cynical about the motives of trillion dollar multinational corporations? That should have been the default, but better late than never.
duxup 5y ago
I don't think it has anything to do with "major tech corporations" or even "progressive". It is anyone once their interests / income matters.
- luckylion 5y ago
  > It is anyone once their interests / income matters. I think the GP's point was that they are dishonest about it. They claim that they, unlike others, aren't selfish, other things matter more than money etc when in reality they don't, and all the talk is only virtue signalling.
  - duxup 5y ago
    My local mega corp loves to sponsor a local politician who believes in "free market" but what they mean is legislating a monopoly ;) It's a human thing.

lotsofpulp 5y ago

Regarding this specific issue, I do not see what paying people for what they negotiate has to do with progressivism. Equity in pay potential is progressive (i.e. not discriminating against race, etc), but I do not see why everyone should have the same pay. I pay people (and businesses) differently based on what I think my second best option would cost. Is that not what everyone does?

duxup 5y ago
I agree. What exactly people mean about pay equity may or may not seem progressive ... no matter if they wrap themselves in that title or not. Most people aren't very disciplined about their political ideology.
joshuamorton 5y ago
> Equity in pay potential is progressive (i.e. not discriminating against race, etc), but I do not see why everyone should have the same pay. I pay people (and businesses) differently based on what I think my second best option would cost. Is that not what everyone does? People aren't generally advocating for "the same" pay (precise lockstep), but broadly transparency and auditability. To use Google as an example, roles have bands. Two people in the same role aren't paid the precise same amount, but you'll generally know that they'll be +-, say, 20%. And someone at L+1 will earn more than someone at L. In other words, there is a fairly straightforward way to calculate $$$ given performance review data. So there's rules and things work within the rules. This allows individuals to see that their performance is getting compensated the same as someone else's performance, via the same rules. If and when there are exceptions, the employer should be able to justify those exceptions. Why is John, at L, getting paid more than James at L+1? Because James was just promoted, and John has been a top performer at L for the last 5 years.

aaaaaaaaaaab 5y ago

You’ve become cynical about the motives of trillion dollar multinational corporations? That should have been the default, but better late than never.

duxup 5y ago

I don't think it has anything to do with "major tech corporations" or even "progressive". It is anyone once their interests / income matters.

luckylion 5y ago
> It is anyone once their interests / income matters. I think the GP's point was that they are dishonest about it. They claim that they, unlike others, aren't selfish, other things matter more than money etc when in reality they don't, and all the talk is only virtue signalling.
- duxup 5y ago
  My local mega corp loves to sponsor a local politician who believes in "free market" but what they mean is legislating a monopoly ;) It's a human thing.