5 ms·
>"Don't you know what could happen?" >Nothing. It's illegal to retaliate against employees for sharing salaries. This answer in fantastic and I wish more tech
by dataker 11y ago
>"Don't you know what could happen?"
>Nothing. It's illegal to retaliate against employees for sharing salaries.
This answer in fantastic and I wish more technical people learned with this.
As a programmer, some managers assume(often rightly so) that you have no clue about laws, finance and business in general.
- deadmik3 11y agoI think this shows how selfish her goals really were. As if her manager asking "Don't you know what could happen?" implied that bad things could happen to only her. Why would she assume they were saying she would be retaliated against (or that anyone would be retaliated against)? What about the other 5% of the company this affected?
- angelbob 11y agoRetaliation is illegal against them, too.
- deadmik3 11y agoThe point is the manager might not have even been implying any retaliation. Can you think of other possible meanings behind the manager's question?
- ryanmonroe 11y agoI can't . Can you?
- vehementi 11y agoYeah I didn't even at first take it to mean "the company can retaliate". I assumed the manager was referring to unrest & animosity at people undeservedly making more money than others.
- eropple 11y agoWhich is still not the employee's problem, and so bringing it up is, to me, very much a threat.
- deadmik3 11y agoAs an employee you should kind of care about the company's problems, especially if they're ones that you caused. It doesn't read like a threat to me as much as it's a "Do you even realize the internal repercussions of everyone discussing their salaries?" They're just asking for insight into why this could be a problem (think 3rd grade, "Do you know why this is wrong?") and she shoots back aggressively. I think her inability to produce any sort of thought besides oppression shows that she probably isn't able to handle issues like this.
- eropple 11y agoThose repercussions are irrelevant in their entirety because it is both legal and right to discuss compensation. There's nothing for her to consider as wrong and inconveniencing an employer by exercising completely and utterly protected rights is not, in any way or by any stretch of the word, her problem. The company may have a problem with openness and truthfulness, but it's not hers, and to lay it at her feet speaks volumes of you but not of her. (edit: politeness)
- deadmik3 11y agoI don't think she's an SJW and putting quotes around it doesn't mean I ever said that (I didn't). I just think she's a shitty employee. Whether or not it's legal for her to discuss those things, it's also legal for her employer to be upset that she's making the work environment more difficult for others. The problem with these noble issues is that there's a view that you can do no wrong as long as you're fighting for what's right. She clearly sees herself as some Snowdenesque whistle-blower, and she's surprised that it's cold in Russia.
- 11y ago