5 ms·

One of the reasons I like sites like glassdoor is that it separates the judgment from the data. I don't need to know that Alice makes 22% less than Bob, and Bo

One of the reasons I like sites like glassdoor is that it separates the judgment from the data. I don't need to know that Alice makes 22% less than Bob, and Bob makes 18% less than Claire, and therefore make personal judgments about each of my coworkers (like Alice is a pushover; Bob is mediocre; Claire is bossy.) I just need to know what the distribution is, in my company or in my industry, in order to negotiate for myself.

kirsebaer 11y ago
Wouldn't it be better if A, B, C, and you joined together and hired some professional lawyers and negotiators to work on your behalf (ie organized labor, union)?
- paulbaumgart 11y ago
  That sounds expensive.
  - draugadrotten 11y ago
    In practice, it also leads to the lawyer and union representatives having 10x-50x the pay of the people they "work for". Study Swedish unions to see how it works.
    - sukilot 11y ago
      That's not a priori wrong. Different roles command different salaries.
- mattlutze 11y ago
  From the employer side, if one or the other is a more valuable employee, I need to be able to compensate them more so that I can ensure they stay with our team and don't go to a competitor. From the employee side, if I go out and learn new skills and abilities, I want to be able to negotiate compensation that reflects the value I bring. Particularly in creative fields like tech / IT, unionization fails both of those needs, and promotes stagnation over innovation. So, no.
  - sukruh 11y ago
    Having professionals negotiate for the team doesn't necessarily mean the pay will be equal among the team. Actors, who also work in a creative field and also have vast differences in talent, use many kinds of intermediaries.
sukilot 11y ago
Unfortunately, glass door also separates the accuracy from the data. They don't even try to aggregate total compensation properly, when equity and benefits are involved.
sukilot 11y ago
Interesting that your example used "bossy" for a female
- lotharbot 11y ago
  it was an intentional reference [0], since I was highlighting how putting names to the salaries encourages inappropriate, judgmental attitudes. The list could be expanded -- DeShawn makes X because of racism or affirmative action; Ellen makes Y because she's out of the closet and HR is full of bigots or allies; Francisco makes Z because his foreign accent makes him sound either exotic or uneducated. So instead of using the salary information to break the taboos and negotiate fair compensation, it becomes a way to reinforce stereotypes. [0] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B8gz-jxjCmg https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B8gz-jxjCmg

kirsebaer 11y ago

Wouldn't it be better if A, B, C, and you joined together and hired some professional lawyers and negotiators to work on your behalf (ie organized labor, union)?

paulbaumgart 11y ago
That sounds expensive.
- draugadrotten 11y ago
  In practice, it also leads to the lawyer and union representatives having 10x-50x the pay of the people they "work for". Study Swedish unions to see how it works.
  - sukilot 11y ago
    That's not a priori wrong. Different roles command different salaries.
mattlutze 11y ago
From the employer side, if one or the other is a more valuable employee, I need to be able to compensate them more so that I can ensure they stay with our team and don't go to a competitor. From the employee side, if I go out and learn new skills and abilities, I want to be able to negotiate compensation that reflects the value I bring. Particularly in creative fields like tech / IT, unionization fails both of those needs, and promotes stagnation over innovation. So, no.
- sukruh 11y ago
  Having professionals negotiate for the team doesn't necessarily mean the pay will be equal among the team. Actors, who also work in a creative field and also have vast differences in talent, use many kinds of intermediaries.

sukilot 11y ago

Unfortunately, glass door also separates the accuracy from the data. They don't even try to aggregate total compensation properly, when equity and benefits are involved.

sukilot 11y ago

Interesting that your example used "bossy" for a female

lotharbot 11y ago
it was an intentional reference [0], since I was highlighting how putting names to the salaries encourages inappropriate, judgmental attitudes. The list could be expanded -- DeShawn makes X because of racism or affirmative action; Ellen makes Y because she's out of the closet and HR is full of bigots or allies; Francisco makes Z because his foreign accent makes him sound either exotic or uneducated. So instead of using the salary information to break the taboos and negotiate fair compensation, it becomes a way to reinforce stereotypes. [0] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B8gz-jxjCmg https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B8gz-jxjCmg