3 ms·
The flip side to this, is that workers who bake 1 pie per hour will demand the same pay as those who bake 10 per hour. Lest their "rights to equal pay" be unde
by hpcjoe 5y ago
The flip side to this, is that workers who bake 1 pie per hour will demand the same pay as those who bake 10 per hour. Lest their "rights to equal pay" be under threat.
Put another way, it will be very ... very difficult to reward good people with higher pay, without consequences. The onus would be on the business to articulate in legal terms, why X should get more than Y. This would open businesses up to lawsuits.
I suspect that the net effect of this will be that businesses are going to work much harder at vetting people, and more rapidly letting go staff members who are on the wrong side of the bell curve (say 1 or more sigma below peak) in productivity. I'm not sure this is a good thing, for workers, or for businesses.
As they say, the road to hell is paved with good intentions.
- nathanappere 5y agoThe parent comment is about adjusting pay for productivity, what is the reasoning behind "in a world where you compensate for productivity, you'll have to pay more employees that are less productive"?
- nitrogen 5y agoThe main reason is that people are petty, lawsuits are a very risky roll of the dice, and bad PR can cost a lot more than a bad employee. The other reason is that pay transparency is often anchored to specific credentials and characteristics, and it's often the case that credentials can be orthogonal to work performance. You might have a PhD who can't code who demands higher pay than a HS dropout who designed your entire infrastructure, and the HR department (or lawsuits, or etc) would force you to comply.
- hpcjoe 5y agoEqual pay for "equal work". Two people have the same job. One is 2x as productive as the other. But they would be paid the same, due to a drive for pay equality. Such concepts punish high achievers.
- onlyrealcuzzo 5y agoThis is one possible outcome. But it is also possible to not be the outcome [=