3 ms·

As 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

As 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 ago
Those 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 ago
  I 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.
  - eropple 11y ago
    > it's also legal for her employer to be upset that she's making the work environment more difficult for others I guess I'm not done, because I am compelled to point out that this is completely false. That's the entire point of all of the legality around the protection of these discussions under United States law: that, no, your employer cannot be "upset" at you for choosing to exercise that right.
    - deadmik3 11y ago
      But they didn't actually do anything to her! What did they do? Please, I am clearly missing it. Yes they can absolutely be unhappy that their employees are causing a problem, that's why they tried to discuss it with her. But they didn't do anything to her for it.
      - eropple 11y ago
        An employer is the power-holder in almost any employer/employee relationship. And so even the "discussion" exists to have a chilling effect upon that worker. The act of having that uncomfortable and fraught discussion is in itself a threat. You have those "discussions" to get a worker to stop exercising their rights. There's no other reason to have it. When your employee does something that is entirely legal and protected, you don't have a "discussion" with them. You nod, say "OK", and you do absolutely nothing else, because nothing you do in response to it, as it pertains to that employee, can be anything other than hostile--and hostility of your direction. Not the employee's, not now and not ever.
        msutherl 11y ago
        Isn't it possible that employee and employer can have a non-antagonistic relationship? What if the "discussion" was intended entirely in the interest of the employee? In any event, it seems to me that it was good advice given the context.
        eropple 11y ago
        > Isn't it possible that employee and employer can have a non-antagonistic relationship? I'm skeptical, given the vastly divergent goals of employer and employee. I'm borderline-dismissive at Google scale, where there's no meaningful employer/employee relationship to be found at most levels of the hierarchy (and a relationship with a manager isn't the same thing). Of course, there are models of organization (co-ops and the like) where one can have a mutualistic relationship with the other stakeholders, but--these aren't that. > What if the "discussion" was intended entirely in the interest of the employee? The interest of the employee just happens to involve not rocking the boat, not ensuring that everybody's got an accurate picture of the market, and depressing workers' negotiation position so that the company can profit? To me the possibility of this what-if is so remote as to be laughable.
- res0nat0r 11y ago
  It might not be illegal, but you have to realize you've labeled yourself as a pain in the ass, or someone willing to irritate and cause problems for a company, thus this will probably affect your ability to be promoted, or work on important projects / teams. Everyone can respond how it is legal, their right, etc, but the fact that you are now known as a troublemaker won't bode well for you.
  - eropple 11y ago
    If a company decides that exercising one's rights is "troublemaking", that company should be utterly destroyed without hesitation or remorse. The corporation exists solely at the sufferance of the society that grants it its charter. Someday maybe we'll remember this instead of throwing our hands up in the air and giving up.
    - res0nat0r 11y ago
      Sorry but not really...You could be totally in the right to say whatever you want on a conference call, make promises to a customer that you've decided for yourself matter that the company has no way of fulfilling, these things are all legal and fine, but you aren't going to be getting promoted any time soon. The world is not black and white, no matter how naive folks here believe it to be.
      - eropple 11y ago
        I don't think you have a particularly strong conception of what a right is. I do not have the right to represent my company to a third party (though I may be tasked with doing so in the course of my duties, as an agent of the company). I do have the right to discuss compensation with my colleagues, as enshrined by the government that ensures that company's legal status. The world is not black-and-white. This is. I do not understand, Steinbeck notwithstanding, the steadfast desire to take the minimal power of the worker out of the worker's hands.
    - msutherl 11y ago
      You seem to be equating 'acting within the law' with both moral conduct and efficacy (from the perspective of the charter). This is denying that efficacy from the perspective of the company, contra the law, moral code, or the charter could have a positive outcome. In fact, it appears that successful corporations are constantly pushing on all 3 restraints, and in the marketplace, corporations that ride the edge are more competitive, thus more successful, and therefore deliver greater benefit. How then does it make sense to immediately dismantle a corporation that breaks the rules even in a small way (destroying huge amounts of value)? It seems that you're advocating a 'punishment as deterrent' strategy for society along the lines of capital punishment. "If you violate the rules even slightly, you will be executed." Is that a good strategy for encouraging lawfulness while preserving efficacy? And is law the perfect (or the best) mechanism for encoding moral behavior?

eropple 11y ago

Those 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 ago
I 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.
- eropple 11y ago
  > it's also legal for her employer to be upset that she's making the work environment more difficult for others I guess I'm not done, because I am compelled to point out that this is completely false. That's the entire point of all of the legality around the protection of these discussions under United States law: that, no, your employer cannot be "upset" at you for choosing to exercise that right.
  - deadmik3 11y ago
    But they didn't actually do anything to her! What did they do? Please, I am clearly missing it. Yes they can absolutely be unhappy that their employees are causing a problem, that's why they tried to discuss it with her. But they didn't do anything to her for it.
    - eropple 11y ago
      An employer is the power-holder in almost any employer/employee relationship. And so even the "discussion" exists to have a chilling effect upon that worker. The act of having that uncomfortable and fraught discussion is in itself a threat. You have those "discussions" to get a worker to stop exercising their rights. There's no other reason to have it. When your employee does something that is entirely legal and protected, you don't have a "discussion" with them. You nod, say "OK", and you do absolutely nothing else, because nothing you do in response to it, as it pertains to that employee, can be anything other than hostile--and hostility of your direction. Not the employee's, not now and not ever.
      - msutherl 11y ago
        Isn't it possible that employee and employer can have a non-antagonistic relationship? What if the "discussion" was intended entirely in the interest of the employee? In any event, it seems to me that it was good advice given the context.
        eropple 11y ago
        > Isn't it possible that employee and employer can have a non-antagonistic relationship? I'm skeptical, given the vastly divergent goals of employer and employee. I'm borderline-dismissive at Google scale, where there's no meaningful employer/employee relationship to be found at most levels of the hierarchy (and a relationship with a manager isn't the same thing). Of course, there are models of organization (co-ops and the like) where one can have a mutualistic relationship with the other stakeholders, but--these aren't that. > What if the "discussion" was intended entirely in the interest of the employee? The interest of the employee just happens to involve not rocking the boat, not ensuring that everybody's got an accurate picture of the market, and depressing workers' negotiation position so that the company can profit? To me the possibility of this what-if is so remote as to be laughable.
res0nat0r 11y ago
It might not be illegal, but you have to realize you've labeled yourself as a pain in the ass, or someone willing to irritate and cause problems for a company, thus this will probably affect your ability to be promoted, or work on important projects / teams. Everyone can respond how it is legal, their right, etc, but the fact that you are now known as a troublemaker won't bode well for you.
- eropple 11y ago
  If a company decides that exercising one's rights is "troublemaking", that company should be utterly destroyed without hesitation or remorse. The corporation exists solely at the sufferance of the society that grants it its charter. Someday maybe we'll remember this instead of throwing our hands up in the air and giving up.
  - res0nat0r 11y ago
    Sorry but not really...You could be totally in the right to say whatever you want on a conference call, make promises to a customer that you've decided for yourself matter that the company has no way of fulfilling, these things are all legal and fine, but you aren't going to be getting promoted any time soon. The world is not black and white, no matter how naive folks here believe it to be.
    - eropple 11y ago
      I don't think you have a particularly strong conception of what a right is. I do not have the right to represent my company to a third party (though I may be tasked with doing so in the course of my duties, as an agent of the company). I do have the right to discuss compensation with my colleagues, as enshrined by the government that ensures that company's legal status. The world is not black-and-white. This is. I do not understand, Steinbeck notwithstanding, the steadfast desire to take the minimal power of the worker out of the worker's hands.
  - msutherl 11y ago
    You seem to be equating 'acting within the law' with both moral conduct and efficacy (from the perspective of the charter). This is denying that efficacy from the perspective of the company, contra the law, moral code, or the charter could have a positive outcome. In fact, it appears that successful corporations are constantly pushing on all 3 restraints, and in the marketplace, corporations that ride the edge are more competitive, thus more successful, and therefore deliver greater benefit. How then does it make sense to immediately dismantle a corporation that breaks the rules even in a small way (destroying huge amounts of value)? It seems that you're advocating a 'punishment as deterrent' strategy for society along the lines of capital punishment. "If you violate the rules even slightly, you will be executed." Is that a good strategy for encouraging lawfulness while preserving efficacy? And is law the perfect (or the best) mechanism for encoding moral behavior?