6 ms·
Not if you’re making more than others in your role.
by kerpotgh 4y ago
Not if you’re making more than others in your role.
- khazhoux 4y agoRight. Unless you and your co-worker are at the same level and making the exact same, or you're making different amounts but aligned with your difference in levels, or unless you and your co-worker are both 100%-envy-free people... exactly one of you is going to be pissed off!
- pwinnski 4y agoWhich is a problem for the company choosing to pay us different amounts, right? Keeping employees in the dark is what companies want, so they can underpay as often as possible.
- thunky 4y agoProbably true. But would you be ok taking a pay cut in order for you and your equivalent peers to make the exact same amount? Cuts both ways.
- flandish 4y agoA properly united rank of employees will ensure the salaries are appropriate - who says they have to be cut? That’s just a scare tactic - why not scare the employer? Cuts both ways.
- thunky 4y agoBecause not all companies have incredible profits. They have to manage their money, and a big part of that is salary. I know it's convenient to believe that all employers are greedy Scrooge McMusks taking advantage of their employees, but most businesses are actually small and run by normal people just trying to keep the lights on without losing their shirt.
- flandish 4y agoI’m not speaking about a five person bakery, I am speaking about corporations run by a class of owner far and beyond that of the “mom and pop.” Walmart/Starbucks know if emps talk they unionize…
- thunky 4y agoThere's a lot of room between Walmart and "mom and pop". And I would guess that the majority of employees work for a company in that middle area. Try running a job search on any big job board and you'll see what I mean.
- flandish 4y agoI dont disagree. Except that I think at all levels employees discussing wage and benefit helps the employees and provides more look into what is being kept from them. Stronger employees will make stronger product. Even if that means stake/shareholders, who do not make the product, will receive less return on investment. So: what is the purpose of business? Provide jobs? Provide ROI? And at what ratio? Once that is decided, it’s easy to figure out what’s “allowed.”
- thunky 4y agoAgree to disagree. Even for a company that advertises and publishes their pay scales, an employee at level x will look at another employee at level x (with the same experience, same tenure, same everything) and think: "this isn't fair, I'm way more valuable to the company than they are". And maybe they're right, or maybe not. But the employee believes they are being treated unfairly all the same.
- flandish 4y agoFair enough on the agree to disagree. Enjoyed the thread! Go enjoy your day, my friend.
- number6 4y agoThe problem with salarys is, that they rise and fall as the market does. If at your company labor is in demand there might be a bunch of people who are getting paid more because people are needed. Some years later the labor market relaxes and now labor is cheaper. People still get hired but with smaller salarys. Economically this makes sense. Now we have a bunch of people who are earning too much for the same work. Wouldn't it be fair for them to cut their salary? Where should the employer take the money to pay above market rates? He would have to charge the customers extra and maybe lose some of them. This could lead to job loss for the newer hired.
- flandish 4y agoYou’re describing the concept that owning a business is difficult. That’s not the problem of the employee to figure out. They’re exploited in exchange for wage at the lowest possible cost to the employer. Owning a business is hard. Being a human is harder. Leave some of the challenge up to the business. ;)
- thunky 4y ago> They’re exploited This is an unproductive view, imo. On the whole, business owners stick their necks out to start a business and provide their employees with a job that they can sustain their life with. > for wage at the lowest possible cost to the employer. Yes of course. Why shouldn't the business owners be rewarded for building a profitable business and giving their employees a living? That's what capitalism is all about.
- flandish 4y agoYour fault here, and it’s not really anything more than marketing taking its toll: is that you apply the gamble and stress that exists to small business as if it also exists to places like walmart. Walmart has ZERO real human “neck stuck out” stress when you get to the top and have billions racked up. Yet Walmart still dislikes it when employees discuss wage. Why?
- 4y ago
- kerpotgh 4y ago[dead]
- flandish 4y agoHere’s the deal though: the “pissed off” ire should be directed at the employer. Making employees both pissed at each other and at the same time too scared to talk about salary means the employer gets it all the more easier to pay employees less. Employees are of the same class - and therefore should be open and honest about salary and benefits in an effort to ensure all members of the employee class are compensated appropriately and the employer is aware they need to compensate accordingly.
- number6 4y agoSame class, but no employee is the same.
- flandish 4y agoClass is important and the more people become conscious of how important class is - the better aligned they can all be. Scaring them with a spooking about salary talk being taboo just further divides people and only benefits the corporation’s desire to pay people as little as possible, ensuring they pay shareholders as much as possible.
- number6 4y agoIf the company is worker owned will they start to exploit themselves? Like e.g. über drivers and gig workers?