Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

"Equal pay for equal work" in remote jobs

nityesh.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

221–230 of 624 posts

Re: "Equal pay for equal work" in remote jobs

#221

Post by ajuc »

HarryHirsch wrote: post #80
cashewchoo wrote: post #69

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think an extremely large percentage of America would disagree with you, though. The puritan work ethic is absolutely the backbone of society for a lot of americans.

Only for the employee, though, never for the employer. When the employee doesn't work he's a slacking , when the employer overworks the employees or pays poorly it's "go find another job". It's religion for the masses, capitalism for the rich.

That's my whole point, and it works the same in Catholic countries, too (at least in Poland).

Re: "Equal pay for equal work" in remote jobs

#222

Post by UnpossibleJim »

x87678r wrote: post #189
jasonjayr wrote: post #136

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Then companies should have no problems whatsoever with Unions? I mean, if a group of employees want to get together to amplify their negotiating power, then they should not stop that?

I'd think the opposite. When I'm physically with people I can form groups, picket offices, go on strike. If I'm a remote worker I'm much more easily replaced and there isn't much I can do about it.

Hasn't this been one of the major problems with unionization in the tech world, is that so many jobs in the tech sector can, in theory, be off shored if the headache becomes too large (among others - being notoriously difficult to unionize college graduate jobs in general, for some reason). Even for non remote workers, picketing offices and going on strike doesn't seem to be a true option in practice, even if it is an option in theory.

Re: "Equal pay for equal work" in remote jobs

#224

Post by 0x445442 »

JoeAltmaier wrote: post #174
thinkharderdev wrote: post #169

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But those two seem equivalent to me. A software engineer in Toledo has a competitive advantage over an equally skilled software engineer the Bay Area because they are able to work at a lower wage without materially sacrificing their quality of life. So by looking to reduce labor costs by hiring more remote engineers in Toledo, Bay Area companies are effectively working to reduce income polarization and spreading the…

Don't follow. How does income get less polarized? Toledo Engineers working remotely but at Toledo pay, are not ahead. I guess they have a larger market for their skills? But that could lower rates thru competition.

Yes, the idea is to push some of that wealth away from the coasts.

Re: "Equal pay for equal work" in remote jobs

#225

Post by michaelscott »

ma2rten wrote: post #139
klodolph wrote: post #91

Often overlooked in the discussions about privilege and equality is the discussion about how citizens of different countries are given different levels of access to the same jobs. Like, I’m a US citizen and have basic programming skills. Not long after college I landed a software engineering job and I immediately have access to markets like SF or NYC, all I have to do is pack up and move (and it turns out I don’t eve…

This comes down to a philosophical question: what would be the ideal way to give access to opportunities? Should only smart and hard working people people get them? Both of those things are in large part determined by genes. If you take this to the extreme we could give every child a gene and IQ test and determine based on that if they should live in a slum or in luxury. I don’t think that there is a good answer.

> what would be the ideal way to give access to opportunities? Should only smart and hard working people people get them?

As opposed to just getting access by virtue of where you were lucky enough to be born or how wealthy your parents are?

Re: "Equal pay for equal work" in remote jobs

#226

Post by a_imho »

simonebrunozzi wrote: post #112

> You should expect "equal pay for equal work" at your new remote job So naive. In an ideal, utopian world? Maybe it would work this way. Maybe. In reality, your compensation is a function of your negotiating power. Some people, in fact, manage to get the same pay even when working remote, because they're "highly employable". Others don't. And let me add: I almost agree that remote work shouldn't necessarily command…

s/remote/female/g

Or really, use any other marginalized group with limited negotiation power and see how your comment turns out. Only difference is remote is not protected class, but that is simply an implementation detail.

Everybody argues this issue from the POV of their very own salary and it is understandable. It is fair to say you think you are at the good end of the deal and you like it there. But the moral argument about equal work should be equally compensated is nigh unchallengable.

https://elsajohansson.wordpress.com/2017/09/13/what-does-a-w...

Re: "Equal pay for equal work" in remote jobs

#227

Post by AlexTWithBeard »

jasonjayr wrote: post #136
simonebrunozzi wrote: post #112

> You should expect "equal pay for equal work" at your new remote job So naive. In an ideal, utopian world? Maybe it would work this way. Maybe. In reality, your compensation is a function of your negotiating power. Some people, in fact, manage to get the same pay even when working remote, because they're "highly employable". Others don't. And let me add: I almost agree that remote work shouldn't necessarily command…

Then companies should have no problems whatsoever with Unions? I mean, if a group of employees want to get together to amplify their negotiating power, then they should not stop that?

As long as unions do not create a labor force monopoly - yes, companies should be fine with them.

Re: "Equal pay for equal work" in remote jobs

#228

Post by warkdarrior »

xenocratus wrote: post #99
eloisant wrote: post #88

The reality behind "cost of living" is actually "market price". Companies having this policy don't actually try to figure out how much it costs to live in a city in an other, they just look how much people are paid for a similar job in the area. In other words, companies with this policy pay you as low as the market allows them, without you being poached by a local competitor.

So presumably once a sufficient number of employers switch to accepting fully-remote on the reg, "local competitor" won't mean much anymore. This impacts "local-first" companies more, right, because their pool of candidates will shrink/be poached, so it will put more pressure on them to switch to "remote accepted" as well

Correct. Symmetrically, the pool of candidates increases once "local-first" companies migrate to "remote accepted", so companies get more power to hire from anywhere in the world. So you as an employee will compete with anyone in the country/world purely based on your skills/expertise, regardless of your cost of living.

Re: "Equal pay for equal work" in remote jobs

#229

Post by IggleSniggle »

bserge wrote: post #82
joelbluminator wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> It's funny how people expect moral behaviour from other people Do we though? We expect people to not break the rules, e.g murder or steal. We don't expect people to stop eating meat, polluting the earth, or generally to stop being extremely selfish. If we expected everyone to be moral you and I wouldn't be spending money on vacations and buying computer games but on trying to save poor kids in Africa and Bangladesh…

Over the years, I realized that everyone is selfish and will literally throw you under a bus for the right amount of money, or some other acceptable incentive. Laws keep people in line, except for the few who break them and get away with it. Maybe I'm hanging around the wrong people (I often wonder where all the "right" ones are), but that's how it is. And if I don't play the same game, I'll keep getting fucked until…

“Or some other acceptable incentive.” Ok sure, that leaves the opening wide for any possibility including “throw your friend under the bus or I will literally shoot you in the head,” “this 1 billion will be distributed to the needy if and only if you block your friend from receiving a promotion” or even more realistically, “friend 1 gets a promotion or friend 2 gets a promotion.”

At any rate, for smaller things, my experience is that most folks will not throw you under the bus. At high stakes, it really just depends on whether the relationship with you (and folks you might complain to) and/or relationship to whatever intrinsic value system matters more or less than the stakes.

Re: "Equal pay for equal work" in remote jobs

#230

Post by bumby »

Dirlewanger wrote: post #194
bumby wrote: post #171

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Besides the obvious point made by another commenter that two completely equivalent people won't exist, it's not just negotiating skill it's more about negotiating leverage . A real example that I've seen: two workers work for the same employer and have been given offers from other companies located in a different State. The single mother in the group had significantly less leverage because she (and presumably her emp…

Right, and employers are going to exploit these leverage imbalances in any way possible. It's why I don't think we'll ever see "equal work for equal pay" as seen in the article. You're just not going to get high COL wages while living in a low COL area.

Not to mention that the original intent of "equal work for equal pay" was about gender disparities. The importance being: gender (technically, 'sex') is a protected class, low-COL-resident is not.
Post reply on HN