4 ms·

The title makes it very easy to make incorrect assumptions about how this works. It’s not individual salaries that are made public, just ranges and averages

deleted 2y ago
[deleted]
jimbob45 2y ago
Having a range at all greatly reduces individual bargaining power. My understanding is that the EU has had a terrible time recently attracting and retaining both businesses and talent. I don't see how this will help solve their issue.
- diggan 2y ago
  How does more information reduce the bargaining power for potential employees? In my mind its the opposite, but maybe I miss something obvious?
  - jppope 2y ago
    Other companies know easily what their competitors are paying... you can't leverage labor market competition to bump your salary. You can't start a bidding war between employers.
    - surgical_fire 2y ago
      Let's pretend companies don't collude to suppress salaries. Of course, this would never happen. In capitalism, fair competition is a given.
      - pdonis 2y ago
        > companies don't collude to suppress salaries If companies treat employees as commodities, which is largely the case, they don't have to collude to suppress salaries. The basic economics of commodities is enough. The only way for employees to really have any bargaining power is to not be commodities; but trying to do that as employees is swimming against a strong economic current, because companies who can't treat their employees as commodities are in a more precarious business position than companies that can. In other words, if you really think you're being underpaid as an employee compared to the value you create, your best option is to stop being an employee and become an owner of a company. And as an owner, if you are going to have any employees, you are going to end up under strong business pressure to treat them as commodities, so if you don't want to do that, your best option is to not have any employees in the first place: the owners either do the work themselves or outsource it to the owners of other companies with contracts.
        surgical_fire 2y ago
        Which is why proper regulations that ensure labor protections is a good thing. The relationship between employee and employer is fundamentally adversarial, and the employer has all the power in that relationship.
        pdonis 2y ago
        > proper regulations that ensure labor protections Don't. Regulatory capture is a thing. > The relationship between employee and employer is fundamentally adversarial In general, no, it is no more so than any contractual relationship. However, to the extent that employees can be treated as commodities, that does add an adversarial element. > the employer has all the power in that relationship. Again, this is not true in general, but to the extent that employees can be treated as commodities, yes, that means their bargaining power is minimal. However, this is not something that can be fixed by regulation, because, as above, employers, who, in the cases where employees can be treated as commodities, will be large corporations, can just buy the regulations that favor them. To the extent that they have to accept provisions that they would rather not have, for example minimum wage, limitations on how they can fire people, requirements for "fairness" in compensation, etc., those provisions don't actually help employees; they make us all poorer by reducing overall productivity, so while the relative position of some people might be improved, in absolute terms they are still worse off, like everyone else.
        surgical_fire 2y ago
        I fundamentally disagree with most everything you said. Worker protections do not reduce productivity, this is a typical talking point of employers who only seek to reduce costs of employment, at the expense of employees. Even if it increased productivity, without regulation protecting employees the profits of that increased productivity are all harnessed by the elites who own the capital, and the workers are all poorer because of that. If regulatory capture in labor protections was a thing, the large companies would pressure for strong labor protections, instead of always rallying and lobbying against thoae
    - diggan 2y ago
      That sounds better for the employees since you can see what others at competitors are earning, so you can ask management to either bump you or you'll go offer your time somewhere else.
  - pdonis 2y ago
    If the company is committed by law to honoring a published salary range, it can't make a private exception for you even if you can show them that you bring more value to the table. That reduces your bargaining power.
    - marssaxman 2y ago
      That's a good thing. Individual bargaining over compensation is only good for those individuals who happen to be good at bargaining, not for the employer nor the other employees. Most of us never have to dicker about money in the course of our work, so it's not actually a skill worth paying extra for; an employer who nevertheless pays a premium for good bargainers it doesn't need will conversely tend to undercompensate everyone else, which is bad for cohesion and retention.
- ithkuil 2y ago
  Are the ranges prescriptive or descriptive?

deleted 2y ago

[deleted]

jimbob45 2y ago

Having a range at all greatly reduces individual bargaining power. My understanding is that the EU has had a terrible time recently attracting and retaining both businesses and talent. I don't see how this will help solve their issue.

diggan 2y ago
How does more information reduce the bargaining power for potential employees? In my mind its the opposite, but maybe I miss something obvious?
- jppope 2y ago
  Other companies know easily what their competitors are paying... you can't leverage labor market competition to bump your salary. You can't start a bidding war between employers.
  - surgical_fire 2y ago
    Let's pretend companies don't collude to suppress salaries. Of course, this would never happen. In capitalism, fair competition is a given.
    - pdonis 2y ago
      > companies don't collude to suppress salaries If companies treat employees as commodities, which is largely the case, they don't have to collude to suppress salaries. The basic economics of commodities is enough. The only way for employees to really have any bargaining power is to not be commodities; but trying to do that as employees is swimming against a strong economic current, because companies who can't treat their employees as commodities are in a more precarious business position than companies that can. In other words, if you really think you're being underpaid as an employee compared to the value you create, your best option is to stop being an employee and become an owner of a company. And as an owner, if you are going to have any employees, you are going to end up under strong business pressure to treat them as commodities, so if you don't want to do that, your best option is to not have any employees in the first place: the owners either do the work themselves or outsource it to the owners of other companies with contracts.
      - surgical_fire 2y ago
        Which is why proper regulations that ensure labor protections is a good thing. The relationship between employee and employer is fundamentally adversarial, and the employer has all the power in that relationship.
        pdonis 2y ago
        > proper regulations that ensure labor protections Don't. Regulatory capture is a thing. > The relationship between employee and employer is fundamentally adversarial In general, no, it is no more so than any contractual relationship. However, to the extent that employees can be treated as commodities, that does add an adversarial element. > the employer has all the power in that relationship. Again, this is not true in general, but to the extent that employees can be treated as commodities, yes, that means their bargaining power is minimal. However, this is not something that can be fixed by regulation, because, as above, employers, who, in the cases where employees can be treated as commodities, will be large corporations, can just buy the regulations that favor them. To the extent that they have to accept provisions that they would rather not have, for example minimum wage, limitations on how they can fire people, requirements for "fairness" in compensation, etc., those provisions don't actually help employees; they make us all poorer by reducing overall productivity, so while the relative position of some people might be improved, in absolute terms they are still worse off, like everyone else.
        surgical_fire 2y ago
        I fundamentally disagree with most everything you said. Worker protections do not reduce productivity, this is a typical talking point of employers who only seek to reduce costs of employment, at the expense of employees. Even if it increased productivity, without regulation protecting employees the profits of that increased productivity are all harnessed by the elites who own the capital, and the workers are all poorer because of that. If regulatory capture in labor protections was a thing, the large companies would pressure for strong labor protections, instead of always rallying and lobbying against thoae
  - diggan 2y ago
    That sounds better for the employees since you can see what others at competitors are earning, so you can ask management to either bump you or you'll go offer your time somewhere else.
- pdonis 2y ago
  If the company is committed by law to honoring a published salary range, it can't make a private exception for you even if you can show them that you bring more value to the table. That reduces your bargaining power.
  - marssaxman 2y ago
    That's a good thing. Individual bargaining over compensation is only good for those individuals who happen to be good at bargaining, not for the employer nor the other employees. Most of us never have to dicker about money in the course of our work, so it's not actually a skill worth paying extra for; an employer who nevertheless pays a premium for good bargainers it doesn't need will conversely tend to undercompensate everyone else, which is bad for cohesion and retention.
ithkuil 2y ago
Are the ranges prescriptive or descriptive?