5 ms·

>They are people, they have needs - ignoring that is stupid, in my opinion. If we have someone on staff who is contributing greatly to the company but has high

>They are people, they have needs - ignoring that is stupid, in my opinion. If we have someone on staff who is contributing greatly to the company but has high mortgage payments, and I pay them less because I have this other person who is contributing the same but has much lower monthly costs, and I pay the first the same as the second, I will lose the first because they can't afford to keep this job. I see this as negative discrimination and feel it ought to be very illegal. You are paying people more on the justification that their life choices suggest they were more privileged to begin with. This is the same type of justification that people have used to pay women less, re-coded to fit modern social values.

Osmium 12y ago
> I see this as negative discrimination and feel it ought to be very illegal. Completely agreed. "I'm being punished [paid less] because I didn't take out that mortgage I couldn't afford?" Seems like it rewards irresponsible behaviour.
- swombat 12y ago
  It's not discrimination if it's something that's completely open and transparent and agreed to by the concerned parties. Don't try and map our culture to your typical secretive corporate workplace - the mapping just doesn't work. It's probably not very convincing as an argument, but take my word for it: the way we do this, openly and transparently, is not discriminative - on the contrary, it is collaborative, open, respectful, etc. As I said, the "what are your needs?" side of things is fairly new and untested. It may not work out. Still, it's worth trying and seeing whether it works, I think.
  - orangecat 12y ago
    It's probably not very convincing as an argument It really isn't, sorry. Having to share what should be private personal details with my employer and coworkers in order to get fair compensation is unreasonable. Plus as others have mentioned it's a potential gold mine for lawyers.
    - swombat 12y ago
      > Having to share what should be private personal details with my employer and coworkers in order to get fair compensation is unreasonable. First of all, there's no "have to share personal details to get a fair compensation" involved. People share personal details because they work closely with other people who become their friends. That said, your overall attitude is perfectly reasonable, and it's great that you're aware that that's your position on this - because we would definitely not want to employ someone who is uncomfortable with transparency. I've found that the reaction that some people have to transparency is a great hiring filter.
      - Osmium 12y ago
        > because we would definitely not want to employ someone who is uncomfortable with transparency And, likewise, I imagine quite a number of people here would definitely not want to be employed by someone who takes that sort of attitude. There are some things that it's just not possible to ethically consent to within the context of an employer-employee relationship. It might seem like everyone is onboard with this transparency, but it might equally make someone deeply uncomfortable but also feel like they're unable to question it without putting their job in jeopardy–as your comment just here has hinted that it might.
        swombat 12y ago
        I really don't understand the downvoting here. Seems evidence of very reactionary groupthink going on there. If you disagree, fine. GrantTree only employs 20 people at the moment. You don't have to work with us. There are literally millions of other places you can work who do not have transparency as a core value. I'll add that transparency is not something that's sprung on people at the last minute. It is explained abundantly upfront to people before they start. We're in central London, where there are a bajillion other startups and companies. It's not like they have to take a job with us. Surely you can accept that some people out there are interested in working in a transparent company, even if you personally aren't.
      - learnstats2 12y ago
  - cma 12y ago
    Might lead to need inflation and huge fertility.
    - swombat 12y ago
      I doubt the highly educated knowledge workers we employ would have kids just to get a salary bump.
      - jacalata 12y ago
        I thought you just said that they weren't highly educated, as part of your "they're not privileged" comment.
        swombat 12y ago
        Educating doesn't always come from expensive schools and degrees.

Osmium 12y ago

> I see this as negative discrimination and feel it ought to be very illegal. Completely agreed. "I'm being punished [paid less] because I didn't take out that mortgage I couldn't afford?" Seems like it rewards irresponsible behaviour.

swombat 12y ago
It's not discrimination if it's something that's completely open and transparent and agreed to by the concerned parties. Don't try and map our culture to your typical secretive corporate workplace - the mapping just doesn't work. It's probably not very convincing as an argument, but take my word for it: the way we do this, openly and transparently, is not discriminative - on the contrary, it is collaborative, open, respectful, etc. As I said, the "what are your needs?" side of things is fairly new and untested. It may not work out. Still, it's worth trying and seeing whether it works, I think.
- orangecat 12y ago
  It's probably not very convincing as an argument It really isn't, sorry. Having to share what should be private personal details with my employer and coworkers in order to get fair compensation is unreasonable. Plus as others have mentioned it's a potential gold mine for lawyers.
  - swombat 12y ago
    > Having to share what should be private personal details with my employer and coworkers in order to get fair compensation is unreasonable. First of all, there's no "have to share personal details to get a fair compensation" involved. People share personal details because they work closely with other people who become their friends. That said, your overall attitude is perfectly reasonable, and it's great that you're aware that that's your position on this - because we would definitely not want to employ someone who is uncomfortable with transparency. I've found that the reaction that some people have to transparency is a great hiring filter.
    - Osmium 12y ago
      > because we would definitely not want to employ someone who is uncomfortable with transparency And, likewise, I imagine quite a number of people here would definitely not want to be employed by someone who takes that sort of attitude. There are some things that it's just not possible to ethically consent to within the context of an employer-employee relationship. It might seem like everyone is onboard with this transparency, but it might equally make someone deeply uncomfortable but also feel like they're unable to question it without putting their job in jeopardy–as your comment just here has hinted that it might.
      - swombat 12y ago
        I really don't understand the downvoting here. Seems evidence of very reactionary groupthink going on there. If you disagree, fine. GrantTree only employs 20 people at the moment. You don't have to work with us. There are literally millions of other places you can work who do not have transparency as a core value. I'll add that transparency is not something that's sprung on people at the last minute. It is explained abundantly upfront to people before they start. We're in central London, where there are a bajillion other startups and companies. It's not like they have to take a job with us. Surely you can accept that some people out there are interested in working in a transparent company, even if you personally aren't.
    - learnstats2 12y ago
- cma 12y ago
  Might lead to need inflation and huge fertility.
  - swombat 12y ago
    I doubt the highly educated knowledge workers we employ would have kids just to get a salary bump.
    - jacalata 12y ago
      I thought you just said that they weren't highly educated, as part of your "they're not privileged" comment.
      - swombat 12y ago
        Educating doesn't always come from expensive schools and degrees.