12 ms·
Survey of workers’ views on salary transparency
- dagw 4y agoThat's quite a weird framing of the result. The actual takeaway numbers should be that 83% of people would take some sort of action to attempt to rectify the situation and 17% would not act on the information.
- seqastian 4y agoThat number is way too low.
- bongoman37 4y ago
- rathish_g 4y agoThe article says - 63% will demand more pay, 9% legal action and 4% quit!
- tomalpha 4y agoIt doesn't inspire much faith in article's author when its title is: 1 in 20 workers will quit if transparency laws reveal they are paid less than co-workers and that is expanded lower down to be: 4% will quit if revealed co-workers earn more money Maybe it's all otherwise true and accurate, but it raises a warning flag for me about how good their methodology might be.
- grardb 4y agoI might be missing something, but what's the difference between those two statements? I suppose that given the first sentence, you could argue that the number of would-be quitters would be different if they learned their coworkers earned more money through means other than transparency laws, but I'm guessing that's not what you're alluding to.
- sokoloff 4y ago4% is 1 in 25, not 1 in 20 (which would be 5%, or a full 25% more than 4%).
- O__________O 4y agoFor clarity: - 1 in 20 is 5% - 1 in 25 is 4%
- HelloNurse 4y agoProbably just casual rounding of a quantity and its reciprocal, without realizing that 4% vs 5% is a large difference.
- deleted 4y ago[deleted]
- neallindsay 4y agoMaybe it's actually 4.48%, which would be about 1 in 22, and they rounded in opposite directions.
- iso1631 4y agoIndeed, 4.5% would be 5% when rounded in decimal, but it's 1 in 22.222 in fractional, so 1 in 20 and 5% both are valid choices with normal rounding.
- eurasiantiger 4y agoFor a company of 70,000 people, 4% leaving is 2,800 people and 5% would be 3,500.
- msrenee 4y agoIs it the people who ran the study claiming 1 in 20 is 4% or the person who wrote the article. Either way, it's a heck of a rounding error.
- RonanMcGovern 4y agoSeems it would depend on the economic conditions... and demand for that job. Also seems it would depend how much more they earn
- jl6 4y ago> If they find out their co-workers are making more money to do the same job, they are likely to take action. Here’s the rub: “same job”. Sure, this is a reasonable attitude to take if it’s genuinely the same job and each worker is creating genuinely the same value. But everywhere I’ve worked, comparable jobs are defined as graded job families, and it has been very obvious that there is a diverse range of work being done within a grade/job family, with individuals bringing a diverse range of experience, skills and performance. For two individuals to have the “same job” is a rare thing in knowledge work.
- tpxl 4y agoOften the person doing a more complex or impactful job has a lower wage than a new junior coworker. This can happen with employees that have been at the company long, whose wages have stagnated. When a company hires new people at current market rates, those new people will have a higher wage, for what can be the same or 'easier' job.
- club_tropical 4y agoYes, this is what the quitting is about. There would be no reason to quit if someone more valuable than you also earns more; that just makes sense.
- jbuhbjlnjbn 4y agoWork assignment does not equal ability. A phd can be assigned lowly management work, lets say tracking stuff, creating excel sheets and powerpoint presentations. That decision is made by the company and department. Does that mean they should not be compensated for the skills they posess? Surely not. Lets not even start with the metrics used to gauge someone's results. If they even exist, they are consistently useless.
- robertlagrant 4y agoAbility doesn't equal value to the company. If you have Einstein in and all he does is sweep your floors, you pay him a floor sweeper's wage. You pay for value.
- _2d30 4y agoLizardman’s constant
- phpisthebest 4y agoI once had employer tell me that because I was single with no kids I did not "need" as much income as a co-worker with multiple kids... I noped out of that employment quickly
- Eddy_Viscosity2 4y agoBut you don't need as much money as your co-worker with multiple kids. This is true.
- kaashif 4y agoPaying people based on need rather than performance incentivises people to "need" more and stop focusing on performance. Paying on performance and taxing high earners seems like a better system than paying directly based on need.
- Eddy_Viscosity2 4y agoYou need to pay people to meet their basic needs. I know that some don't think this way but it happens one way or another. If people can't get their basic needs met, they will eventually break.
- kaashif 4y agoI agree completely. If people cannot provide for themselves, the state should provide for them. I don't think it makes any sense for employers to be tasked with that, since all that does is provide a huge incentive for employers to discriminate against those who need more (and thus would cost more). To incentivise performance, employers should pay based on performance. If an employee cannot perform well enough to provide for themselves or their family, the state should help. None of this requires that employers directly decide pay based on whether you have a family. Requiring that results in the employer discriminating against parents and employees having a reduced incentive to produce.
- knorker 4y ago
- benreesman 4y agoVery few engineers are within a constant factor of one another. One person has the same title as another but everyone knows that person A does person B’s job in the shower. This is why serious companies use low key stock options or RSUs to pay person A 1000x more than person B. This stuff is hard, it’s all a gradient right? But Meta just whacked 10+ percent of staff in the biggest tech layoff ever and the street responded positively. Most people aren’t smart enough to do this shit, and efforts to democratize a field that should be more credentialed and regulated is why we keep fucking up as an industry. We have no (public) respect for the difference between the pros and the TypeScript dabblers.
- subsuxbjes 4y agoSo morale of your story is that you're the pro and all the TypeScript (read frontend) developers are not as good as you?
- benreesman 4y agoI cut my teeth as an engineer on front end. I ended up writing a web browser and contributing to a JS VM. There’s a parent around it floating around somewhere. And I never said I was the “pro”, I said that our industry doesn’t adequately acknowledge the difference between “pros” and “dabblers”. Which is why Therac 25 can happen. Honestly, as politely as possible, know before you speak.
- Varqu 4y agoThis is also the problem when asking companies to publish salary brackets: A lot of them have teams in which people with almost identical profile have a 30% or higher salary difference.
- lotsofpulp 4y agoWho is that a problem for? People and businesses negotiate prices all the time. No one is forcing anyone to be paid the same. If the people have an offer to get paid more elsewhere, they should change jobs.
- nomilk 4y agoThis extends beyond "earn more money" to "are allowed to work remotely/async" as well.
- H8crilA 4y agoSo 96% can be pushed over? Lol, no wonder companies try this over and over again.
- nurettin 4y ago4% will quit doesn't mean the rest won't negotiate.
- BiteCode_dev 4y agoI always wonder if the world would be a better or worse place if all salaries where forced to be made public by law. Lots of pros and cons, but it would be very interesting.
- boole1854 4y agoMany government and academic institutions do in fact publicly publish all salaries, so the question of what the effect would be is not entirely theoretical. Here's one place that aggregates this data: https://www.openthebooks.com/ https://www.openthebooks.com/ https://www.openthebooks.com/virginia-state-employees/ https://www.openthebooks.com/virginia-state-employees/
- abruzzi 4y agoyup. my salary and everyone else at my organization is published every year by the local newspaper. We aren't required to publish it ourselves, but if anyone asks, we are required to reveal it, so the local paper files a request every year and publishes it.
- sfe22 4y agoGovernments and most education institutions are not part of the free market. Their income also does not depend on their efficiency or value they create so its not the same comparison.
- eesmith 4y agoI believe several countries do that. For examples: "Norway, the country where you can see everyone's tax returns" - https://www.theguardian.com/money/blog/2016/apr/11/when-it-comes-to-tax-transparency-norway-leads-the-field https://www.theguardian.com/money/blog/2016/apr/11/when-it-c... . What We Can Learn From Sweden's Public Records of Salaries" - https://theculturetrip.com/europe/sweden/articles/what-we-can-learn-from-swedens-public-records-of-salaries/ https://theculturetrip.com/europe/sweden/articles/what-we-ca...
- Reason077 4y agoOnly 4%?!
- galangalalgol 4y agoIs it usual where you work for everyone with the same title to make the same amount? Everywhere I have worked your cost of living adjustment each year is based on performance appraisals. So after a few years you'd expect people to make significantly different amounts.
- lr 4y ago250,000 people (includes student employees) at the university of California can just go online and look up their co-worker’s salary, for the past 10 years! Yet, it doesn’t cause problems. In fact, salaries are public for all government workers in California (UC just makes it very easy to look someone up). The entire country of Finland posts all salaries of the entire population online! The angst over these laws is, IMO, blown way out of proportion. The only thing I can think is the real underlying issue is that there must be massive pay disparities in some industries…
- ClumsyPilot 4y agoThe definition of free market is that information is avaliable. I dont understand how people that declare they believe in free market, want information to be hidden and the market to be less free. Additionally most of them are employees. It should be obvious that freely knowing salaries will improve the employee's ability to negotiate the wage they deserve.
- a4a4a4a4 4y ago> It should be obvious that freely knowing salaries will improve the employee's ability to negotiate the wage they deserve. I would argue that for high performers, it could become an excuse not to pay more. "Sorry, we know you did XYZ, but we can't give you a further raise because you're already 4% ahead of your colleagues." And of course, everyone thinks they're a high-performer, so this policy would be unpopular with actual high-performers + the people that think they are (but aren't, and wouldn't be affected anyway).
- clcaev 4y agoWhy presume that high performers are already paid well? Why wouldn't high performers be just as ignorant of salaries?
- hiq 4y ago> I would argue that for high performers, it could become an excuse not to pay more. This is already used as an excuse, except that right now you can't easily check whether that's even true, so I think transparency would actually be better. If you're a high performer, switch to a company where you feel rewarded suitably, which is easier to do with transparency. > everyone thinks they're a high-performer That's again a problem with less information: nobody really knows so they just assume.
- A4ET8a8uTh0 4y agoStory time. Long time ago when I was young, naive and even more stupid than I am now, I have, by chance, found out how much my younger co-worker, who just joined our team, earned. By chance I mean, it came up in the form life insurance he took, which, at our place, was a standard double salary. My co-worker had less experience, less credentials; he was doing less than I was doing, because he just joined us. I was incensed and I did everything wrong including sending email to my boss asking effectively 'the fuck'. My boss, not being an idiot, started documenting the interaction with first question being:'How did you get this information and did you happen to access something you are not supposed to?' As you can imagine, it kinda spiraled downwards from there, which included me having a longer conversation with boss's boss. Eventually, I quit, but if I were to do it again. I would urge everyone to take a deep breath, get an offer and then talk to the bosses to throw the 'more money for co-worker' as a cherry on top. Anything else is counterproductive.
- pmontra 4y agoSalary is a function of so many things. Random stuff from my experience: - People hired when the company needs a lot of new staff at once are paid more than people hired to do same job in normal times. Basic demand/offer law. - Somebody will negotiate more cash vs less stock options. - I was able to get some extra money many years ago because for that new job I had to commute from a longer distance (10 minutes walking vs 1 hour metro or car). Extra costs -> extra money. - Some people have pay rises because of what they did (deserved or undeserved, I won't get into that.)
- agumonkey 4y agosalary differences affect : - how you evaluate others investment in their job it's hard to see people paid more taking more pauses - how you respond to their claims it's hard listening to mediocre arguments if they're paid more
- rroot 4y ago4% quitting. But what effect does it have on the other 96%? Quitting is an extreme response (not wrong, and I totally understand people who'd decide to quit). But what's the response of the other 96%? No response? Lower productivity? Toxicity? Less helpful? Indifferent? Revenge? Destructive? I doubt the 96% will have no response.
- iLoveOncall 4y agoHow about you click the article link and find out? It's even at the very top of the article for once: - 88% of workers will demand to know the salary range for their current position, if permitted by law; 68% will demand the highest end of known salary range - 1 in 20 workers would quit if it’s revealed co-workers earn more money; 63% would demand equal pay - 85% say they’re more likely to apply to job that lists a salary range - 42% say the salary ranges companies list should be limited - 63% worry salary transparency will cause problems among co-workers - 92% of workers support salary transparency laws; 61% say laws will improve wage gap
- rroot 4y agoYou're right. I worded my reply very badly. I was thinking about the psychological effects. The article mentions it but doesn't go into it: "However, 63% do fear it will be problematic to know how much their co-workers make" If you look at the list of problems I wrote you see they are psychological.
- kazinator 4y agon% say they will do something is different from n% will actually do something.
- loloquwowndueo 4y agoAs a manager I get visibility on my direct reports’ salaries and they all earn more than I do :) and I haven’t quit in over a decade. My salary is sufficient for me, why would the fact that a coworker earns more motivate me to rage-quit.
- tl_donson 4y agoif i found out i made less than my manager i’d rage quit.
- JofArnold 4y agoI'm curious: is that in issue with your particular manager or managers in general?
- tl_donson 4y agoit’s really just an observation about what the market conditions are for a specialised technical position compared to a general project/program manager. i have nothing against my manager specifically or managers in general.
- loloquwowndueo 4y agoLol good one :) to be fair, when I’m meeting with the team I’m definitely the dumbest person in the room ;)
- olliecornelia 4y agoThey're all talk.
- 0xRusty 4y agoIt's not easy for people promoted into manager roles either. I'm a new manager who the first time is now exposed to salary details of my, now direct reports, former co-workers. For the past couple of weeks I've been walking around thinking "how the hell does he make that much?! When I was at that level of experience I was paid $40k less". It's really affecting me to be honest. I'm seeing people in different light and resenting their pay. I'm resenting people being paid in some cases almost double what I was on a new comer to that role with no experience, we used to pay about 80k hour for a new starter in the role I now oversee, we now pay over 140k. That's barely less for a brand new starter than I was making a few months ago with 10 years more experience in the role. Salary matters suck for everyone, I hate dealing with this aspect of my job. Everybody just wants wants wants and act like children when they don't get.
- cumshitpiss 4y ago
- FactoryReboot 4y agoIf you really hate it that much is management for you? I’d learn to get more comfortable with it. Also it’s not fair to be mad at your coworkers cause you were underpaid. Be mad at the company or your bosses if anything.
- mclightning 4y agothis. really. I wouldn't want an envious manager.
- wirrbel 4y agoIt seems you didn’t negotiate hard enough on your behalf (or others negotiated at the right time). The question you should ask yourself as a manager now is not the question whether you expect others to negotiate like you did, but how can you reach a pay level across the team that is somewhat balanced . The company I am working in has fairly strict guidance based on competences and experience which I do like. It makes sure that no one is payed much below or much above an estimated market rate. You won’t receive sometime into your team who is extremely overpayed because they were their manager‘s darling.
- brunooliv 4y agoThis is really as expected. 4% might quit, but, well amongst the other 96% I bet MANY people will consider quitting or at least be vocal about it, etc... Actually doing it in practice and managing to get a better paying job... that's much much harder so yeah... nothing new.
- zuhayeer 4y agoThere's a reason why salary bands for each level at a company are structured as ranges and not simply one value (though some companies are trying this). The higher you go up in level, the broader the range is. The variance in skillset increases the higher you go, and employees can also have differing tenures within a level as well. Salary transparency as a singular compensation number doesn't always paint the full picture about an individual, and so it's easy to get upset seeing some of the higher end numbers. The solution in my opinion is just deeper transparency: how do compensation structures at companies really work. What determines a higher salary within a level for a role. And what are the details for large discrepancies / variance within a particular level. All of which we're attempting to collect and display with Levels.fyi (disclosure: I'm one of the founders). A lot of folks look at the out of band offers for a certain level and immediately conclude that they are being underpaid. As in the article: "7 in 10 will demand highest end of salary range". But to provide more comprehensive information around why someone may have received a higher offer could help clear some of this up. For example, interview performance, scope of work, and previous tenure can all affect the resulting offer.
- iLoveOncall 4y ago4% is already almost nothing, but there is always a drastic difference between poll results and real-life response. A lot of those 4% would be a lot less vehement when it comes the time to actually quit and go on 0 income. The article still has value, but the 4% figure is honestly negligible and it is absolutely not the main take away.
- puffybeignette 4y ago4%??? Bro if you’re doing the same job as someone and they are getting paid more, you are quitting or getting a raise. This number should be significantly higher.
- valdiorn 4y agoDefine "same job". I'm on a team of six people, all classified as "senior engineers". None of us do the same job, even if we all work on the same stuff. Some deliver tons of new features and code. Others think and design, and come up with resilient, well-engineered things. Some are great with stakeholder relationships. Unless I find out there's some huge disparity in pay (as in, everyone else out-earning me 2:1), I have absolutely no problem with some getting paid more, some less. If I were to find out I'm getting paid the least, I would: 1. Start by asking for a raise to correct that. 2. If denied, inquire as to why my manager thinks I'm worth less. 3. If he makes a good point that I can agree with, I will focus on improving in that area and then discuss again in 6 months. 4. If I disagree and think they are under-valuing my skillset, I walk. For context, I've done #3 at least 3 times, where I've asked a manager "what do I need to improve to warrant a pay raise or promotion?", and they give me an actual list of things to improve. Once I'm satisfied I've improved those areas, and have a few months of work history to prove it, they have absolutely no valid reason to deny me a pay rise, and I've received a pay rise 3/3 of those times. This obviously doesn't work if your manager is an asshole, or if there's suddenly a budget cut, etc - you need to evaluate the chances of that happening, and consider option #4.
- kqr 4y agoThis number seems completely reasonable to me. 20 % of the working force is in the top quintile. It wouldn't surprise me if a fifth of them were in it for the money, and if they found out they were underpaid despite being a top performer, they would quit. That works out to 4 %. I'm actually surprised the number isn't higher.
- digitalsushi 4y agoI'm getting really old cause I am starting to see this from both sides If you found out your cube neighbor is out-earning you and you do the same work, you (probably) are safer when the next wave of layoffs comes around. That little disparity can feel like a giant shield. This is the most anti-worker thing I have ever typed. I hate myself for sharing how I rationalize this.
- pydry 4y agoThe shield is illusory. Money in the bank is not. If you earn more, spend the same and keep the difference in a rainy day fund overall you'll be better off.
- shapefrog 4y agoFunily enough I have sat at the table and it went down the opposite. The underpaid lifer, with tons of internal knowledge was thrown out over the shiny new grifter who convinced them they were the second coming and they threw money at. There was also a lot of confirmation bias as they were sure the story was true.
- greedo 4y agoAnd there's also inherent bias in terms of who the hiring manager was for each employee. Our team had a director change a few years ago, and everyone he has hired has been treated far better than the original crew, regardless of work output.
- lo_zamoyski 4y agoThat's a good point. I've seen this myself during a layoff. The more senior staff (who, presumably, were earning more) were the first to go, save for a couple who were kept so that all the senior knowledge of the system wasn't lost. This is just the application of basic economic principles to specific circumstances (sometimes, it makes more sense to cut junior staff because the senior staff too more valuable).
- valdiorn 4y agowell, it's true. The first people to go in every layoff operation, at every company I've worked for, were always the "rockstar programmers". The guys that came in with reputation, because they are known in the tech world. The conference speakers, bloggers, open source heroes, etc. They come in, command a huge salary, and give a big PR/awareness boost to the company. But then turns out they're about as productive as everyone else, which makes them the first to go during layoff season.
- bluedino 4y agoI don't care what anyone else makes. I make enough for me. If I want more, I'll ask, or find a different job.
- nmstoker 4y agoAnyone know if the new NYC applies only to newly posted roles? Or is it backdated to postings made before the introduction of the law? Tried to find details online but couldn't find anything yet. I would have assumed it was backdated for anything currently available but it's not clear.
- greatgib 4y agoLooks like to be fud/propaganda against a possible law for salary transparency. Anyway 4% is a quite low value and workers are not lost, they will just go to work somewhere else.
- thebigspacefuck 4y agoI love the salary transparency. Realized I was underpaid/underleveled and increased my salary over 60% in a year. It was a brutal grind but now I’m a good place. I see other job postings and know I’m being paid fairly, so I don’t worry about it.