4 ms·

> people will go very far to justify a raise I would say "this new position you are hiring for gets paid more than I do for the same work" is a very good justi

> people will go very far to justify a raise I would say "this new position you are hiring for gets paid more than I do for the same work" is a very good justification for a raise. :) If companies can be held accountable for injustices like this one, that can only be a good thing. Well, except if you're scared your employees will catch you out. For the record: I've played the part of the employer in this specific issue and learned my lesson.

sneak 5y ago
Paying someone an amount that you are willing to pay and that they are willing to accept is not an injustice.
- vladharbuz 5y ago
  I disagree! You see this argument repeated around a lot: “well, the employee accepted this job, so since it's their choice, there's no injustice, they can always decide to go somewhere else!”. I think this is missing the point. Do you think employers coercing employees into accepting conditions below what they should normally get is not a thing that happens? The employer, as opposed to the employee, has the power to manipulate the socioeconomic circumstances around the employee. They can (and do) prevent employees from discussing politics at the workplace or unionising, they can (and do) hide (and manipulate) information about who is getting paid what, they can (and do) decline additional compensation when it should be given (overtime), and this is the least of it. You might think, “well, the employees should just get a different job then!”. But don't we want to fix the underlying problem instead of just churning our way through countless jobs? Sometimes it doesn't even work — you are often compelled to stay at a job for various reasons (you relocated with your family, you've worked there for a long time etc.), and you might not even realise this manipulation is happening to begin with. The above comment said that employees will go very far to justify a raise. Don't you think that, if employees had all of the information their employers had, a lot of employees _would be_ able to justify a raise that they deserve, perhaps even without having previously realised this because of the information asymmetry? That sounds like an injustice to me.
  - lambertsimnel 5y ago
    There's another way in which unjust pay might have been mutually agreed: it might have been just when it was agreed, but as the pay was eroded by inflation and the employee's productivity increased it might have become unjust (especially in cases where new hires are paid much more).
    - sneak 5y ago
      No, still not unjust. The employee opts in to that job anew each time they show up for work. To work at a job is to actively consent to that job.
      - hiptobecubic 5y ago
        This is bonkers. Expecting everyone to treat every minute of their employment as an active decision to exchange their work-seconds for dollars that can be cancelled (and therefore optimized) at any time is some libertarian robo-dystopian nonsense. Even ignoring how horrible it would be to try to actually live like that, there is objectively significant overhead to job hunting for candidates, for employers and for society. Switching jobs is expensive on many levels.
      - lambertsimnel 5y ago
        I don't agree. For one thing, there are notice periods. You might not consider them material in this context, but sometimes they can be. For example, a rapid change in working conditions or in the purchasing power of wages.
        sneak 5y ago
        Notice periods are custom, not requirement. You are free to stop showing up at any time if your employer starts giving you a bad deal. It's hard to make an argument that you owe them notice if they didn't give notice of a significant change in working conditions.
        5y ago

sneak 5y ago

Paying someone an amount that you are willing to pay and that they are willing to accept is not an injustice.

vladharbuz 5y ago
I disagree! You see this argument repeated around a lot: “well, the employee accepted this job, so since it's their choice, there's no injustice, they can always decide to go somewhere else!”. I think this is missing the point. Do you think employers coercing employees into accepting conditions below what they should normally get is not a thing that happens? The employer, as opposed to the employee, has the power to manipulate the socioeconomic circumstances around the employee. They can (and do) prevent employees from discussing politics at the workplace or unionising, they can (and do) hide (and manipulate) information about who is getting paid what, they can (and do) decline additional compensation when it should be given (overtime), and this is the least of it. You might think, “well, the employees should just get a different job then!”. But don't we want to fix the underlying problem instead of just churning our way through countless jobs? Sometimes it doesn't even work — you are often compelled to stay at a job for various reasons (you relocated with your family, you've worked there for a long time etc.), and you might not even realise this manipulation is happening to begin with. The above comment said that employees will go very far to justify a raise. Don't you think that, if employees had all of the information their employers had, a lot of employees _would be_ able to justify a raise that they deserve, perhaps even without having previously realised this because of the information asymmetry? That sounds like an injustice to me.
- lambertsimnel 5y ago
  There's another way in which unjust pay might have been mutually agreed: it might have been just when it was agreed, but as the pay was eroded by inflation and the employee's productivity increased it might have become unjust (especially in cases where new hires are paid much more).
  - sneak 5y ago
    No, still not unjust. The employee opts in to that job anew each time they show up for work. To work at a job is to actively consent to that job.
    - hiptobecubic 5y ago
      This is bonkers. Expecting everyone to treat every minute of their employment as an active decision to exchange their work-seconds for dollars that can be cancelled (and therefore optimized) at any time is some libertarian robo-dystopian nonsense. Even ignoring how horrible it would be to try to actually live like that, there is objectively significant overhead to job hunting for candidates, for employers and for society. Switching jobs is expensive on many levels.
    - lambertsimnel 5y ago
      I don't agree. For one thing, there are notice periods. You might not consider them material in this context, but sometimes they can be. For example, a rapid change in working conditions or in the purchasing power of wages.
      - sneak 5y ago
        Notice periods are custom, not requirement. You are free to stop showing up at any time if your employer starts giving you a bad deal. It's hard to make an argument that you owe them notice if they didn't give notice of a significant change in working conditions.
        5y ago