3 ms·
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 t
by 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 agoIt'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 agoI 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 agoAnd so - again - you only hire people who are privileged. In this case, privileged enough never to have observed any personal problem with transparency nor to have any aspect of a personal life that they might not wish to share with work colleagues. You are trying to rationalise discriminatory practices.
- swombat 12y agoIf "privilege" in your definition includes people who have degrees and who have no formal education, from a broad range of countries, from wealthy backgrounds and poor backgrounds, male, female and other, gay, straight and other, black, white, brown and Asian... All this within a small group of 20 people... Well then your definition of privilege is unavoidable. Perhaps I wasn't clear about something: we do consider personal/medical issues to be a person's own thing to share if and when they're feeling like doing so. Business data secrecy is hunted out of existence, but personal sharing is entirely voluntary, and not everyone shares everything about their personal life obviously.
- learnstats2 12y agoSpeaking personally, my main problem with what you are doing is this: I don't believe you have any reason to pay people more than they are worth. That would be bad for your business and is not credible if we exclude nepotism. So, by admitting that you pay people different amounts for the same work, you are paying some people less than their genuine value to you. You are paying people unequally because of their personal circumstances. Although I don't doubt that many or most companies do this privately, I cannot see it as anything other than discrimination. The fact that you are open about this process is not an improvement. It's an admission that you're glad to have the ability to do this. I found it a bit shocking that elsewhere you suggested being openly gay at work is somehow unusual - are you hiring openly gay people on the basis that they are cheaper than the market rate for the same skills? because they have fewer good options? Do you, in reality, use this justification to pay your black, gay, and female employees less than white, straight, male ones? I don't suggest that is your motivation for this (nor even that it is realised in such a small sample), but that is how I interpret your line of reasoning and I would be spend significant time talking to a lawyer if I was entering an employment relationship with you.
- cma 12y agoMight lead to need inflation and huge fertility.
- swombat 12y agoI doubt the highly educated knowledge workers we employ would have kids just to get a salary bump.