4 ms·

Or perhaps: "John will ask why Sandy is making more. The truth is that Sandy is more productive, and saying that to John will lead to friction. John will eithe

Or perhaps: "John will ask why Sandy is making more. The truth is that Sandy is more productive, and saying that to John will lead to friction. John will either need to make more money (which will piss off Sandy), or Sandy will need to get promoted to the same level as her manager (which will piss off her manager because what is she going to do now?). So who do we piss off? Wait, why do we need to piss off anyone - let's just keep the salaries private."

deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
potamic 5y ago
But salaries never remain private at the end of the day. Employees will anyway share salaries with each other and how do you handle the conflict then?
- unethical_ban 5y ago
  This is not true by fiat or by experience. In ten years working at a company with 10-20 coworkers, we rarely talked salary; only in the very end of my time there and during covid were people coming out a little bit more about it and only in tight knit groups. What makes you think people always discuss salary? Because it seems rational from a negotiating standpoint?
  - potamic 5y ago
    Of course in tight knit groups. But one tight knit group shares with another and before you know it, it has spread through the network. Happens more often than you think, even more so with younger people.
fivelessminutes 5y ago
> John will ask why Sandy is making more. The truth is that Sandy is more productive These secret decisions are not commonly rational like that. Maybe Sandy keeps quiet when they know the boss is wrong and leaves it to John to speak up and stop the whole thing going over the cliff edge.
joshuamorton 5y ago
Why would acknowledging that another employee is more productive lead to friction? "Sandy is more productive than you, if your goal is to earn as much, here's where you can improve...". Like if you're able to describe how Sandy is more valuable, you can describe that to John, and he can emulate it, and everybody wins.
- Scarblac 5y ago
  The problems are that it's subjective, so will lead to arguing all the time. And the truth is often closer to, Sandy negotiated a higher salary when she came in,maybe because she made more at her previous job. But the biggest problem is that if you wanted this "fixed", you can only raise salaries of people who make too little. Lowering salaries of people who make too much is usually a legal impossibility. So the effect will be that you risk ending up overpaying everybody instead of only an outlier now and then.
  - joshuamorton 5y ago
    > And the truth is often closer to, Sandy negotiated a higher salary when she came in,maybe because she made more at her previous job. Perhaps that's what these laws are attempting to address ;)
  - lotsofpulp 5y ago
    > Lowering salaries of people who make too much is usually a legal impossibility. What law is this? I have never heard of it in any US jurisdiction.
    - tpxl 5y ago
      Salary changes come with a new contract IME (unless the changes are in the bonus compensation). You can't force someone to sign a new contract (you can probably make them a sign or leave offer, but you can't make them sign) so you can't lower someone's base salary.
      - 5y ago
throwawaylinux 5y ago
Giving John such an explanation for why his salary is set as it is and what he can do to get a raise is not a problem for an employer. It's about the best possible case for them really. The real problem for companies is when the explanation comes down to "Sandy negotiated harder than you", "Sandy got a higher offer from a competitor so we had to match it to keep her", "we're paying you significantly under the market rate and are hoping you don't notice or aren't too bothered by it", etc.
- sjg007 5y ago
  By not paying equivalent wages the company opens itself up to lawsuits. You can and should ask your peers what they make. This is totally legal and encouraged.
  - throwawaylinux 5y ago
    > By not paying equivalent wages the company opens itself up to lawsuits. Depending on what you mean by "equivalent", yes it could make some claims of discrimination based on race/sex/etc slightly harder to defend against. It does not "open" a company to lawsuits as opposed to being closed to suits by paying equivalent wages. It is one of many many things that could be a factor in such cases. And a lot of companies decide it is worthwhile to do despite that. > You can and should ask your peers what they make. This is totally legal and encouraged. It's not encouraged by many companies, and some try to discourage it including by trying to get employees to agree not to, whether or not it's legal.
- morgante 5y ago
  Most people feel slighted when told that they're worse performers than someone nominally at the "same level" as them.
  - throwawaylinux 5y ago
    If they ask why they get paid less and it's because they perform less and they understand that, it might hurt their feelings but at least most well adjusted people can accept it and even better work to improve themselves. What is much harder to accept, and builds resentment and apathy, is something that feels arbitrary or unjust.
linza 5y ago
The system you describe seems to be rigged against the employee. Employees will try to optimize their financial situation much like the company does, and knowing one's own value to the company and the industry as a whole is an important puzzle piece. This system is doomed long-term if it only works because of information imbalance, since ways will be found around that (levels.fyi, random walk across employers, ...).

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]

potamic 5y ago

But salaries never remain private at the end of the day. Employees will anyway share salaries with each other and how do you handle the conflict then?

unethical_ban 5y ago
This is not true by fiat or by experience. In ten years working at a company with 10-20 coworkers, we rarely talked salary; only in the very end of my time there and during covid were people coming out a little bit more about it and only in tight knit groups. What makes you think people always discuss salary? Because it seems rational from a negotiating standpoint?
- potamic 5y ago
  Of course in tight knit groups. But one tight knit group shares with another and before you know it, it has spread through the network. Happens more often than you think, even more so with younger people.

fivelessminutes 5y ago

> John will ask why Sandy is making more. The truth is that Sandy is more productive These secret decisions are not commonly rational like that. Maybe Sandy keeps quiet when they know the boss is wrong and leaves it to John to speak up and stop the whole thing going over the cliff edge.

joshuamorton 5y ago

Why would acknowledging that another employee is more productive lead to friction? "Sandy is more productive than you, if your goal is to earn as much, here's where you can improve...". Like if you're able to describe how Sandy is more valuable, you can describe that to John, and he can emulate it, and everybody wins.

Scarblac 5y ago
The problems are that it's subjective, so will lead to arguing all the time. And the truth is often closer to, Sandy negotiated a higher salary when she came in,maybe because she made more at her previous job. But the biggest problem is that if you wanted this "fixed", you can only raise salaries of people who make too little. Lowering salaries of people who make too much is usually a legal impossibility. So the effect will be that you risk ending up overpaying everybody instead of only an outlier now and then.
- joshuamorton 5y ago
  > And the truth is often closer to, Sandy negotiated a higher salary when she came in,maybe because she made more at her previous job. Perhaps that's what these laws are attempting to address ;)
- lotsofpulp 5y ago
  > Lowering salaries of people who make too much is usually a legal impossibility. What law is this? I have never heard of it in any US jurisdiction.
  - tpxl 5y ago
    Salary changes come with a new contract IME (unless the changes are in the bonus compensation). You can't force someone to sign a new contract (you can probably make them a sign or leave offer, but you can't make them sign) so you can't lower someone's base salary.
    - 5y ago

throwawaylinux 5y ago

Giving John such an explanation for why his salary is set as it is and what he can do to get a raise is not a problem for an employer. It's about the best possible case for them really. The real problem for companies is when the explanation comes down to "Sandy negotiated harder than you", "Sandy got a higher offer from a competitor so we had to match it to keep her", "we're paying you significantly under the market rate and are hoping you don't notice or aren't too bothered by it", etc.

sjg007 5y ago
By not paying equivalent wages the company opens itself up to lawsuits. You can and should ask your peers what they make. This is totally legal and encouraged.
- throwawaylinux 5y ago
  > By not paying equivalent wages the company opens itself up to lawsuits. Depending on what you mean by "equivalent", yes it could make some claims of discrimination based on race/sex/etc slightly harder to defend against. It does not "open" a company to lawsuits as opposed to being closed to suits by paying equivalent wages. It is one of many many things that could be a factor in such cases. And a lot of companies decide it is worthwhile to do despite that. > You can and should ask your peers what they make. This is totally legal and encouraged. It's not encouraged by many companies, and some try to discourage it including by trying to get employees to agree not to, whether or not it's legal.
morgante 5y ago
Most people feel slighted when told that they're worse performers than someone nominally at the "same level" as them.
- throwawaylinux 5y ago
  If they ask why they get paid less and it's because they perform less and they understand that, it might hurt their feelings but at least most well adjusted people can accept it and even better work to improve themselves. What is much harder to accept, and builds resentment and apathy, is something that feels arbitrary or unjust.

linza 5y ago

The system you describe seems to be rigged against the employee. Employees will try to optimize their financial situation much like the company does, and knowing one's own value to the company and the industry as a whole is an important puzzle piece. This system is doomed long-term if it only works because of information imbalance, since ways will be found around that (levels.fyi, random walk across employers, ...).