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

261–270 of 624 posts

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

#261

Post by bumby »

KittenInABox wrote: post #254
bumby wrote: post #212

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Unfortunately, I think unions are culpable as well. When they protect bad employees, act to extend their power for it's own sake, refuse to concede despite potentially ruining the company etc. Ironically, they can end up displaying the same qualities they originated to prevent.

They can but they don't always. Ascribing all unions to the flaws of the most culpable ones is something we don't do for corporations or even governments, and if we did do this we wouldn't get anywhere as a society. People used to beat each other physically over their votes in the village square, but this doesn't mean democracy is culpable for violence.

You're right that it's a broad generalization, but I would disagree that a lot of the same rhetoric isn't applied to corporations or governments.

I should have been more specific to say 'unions with bad reputations are often culpable for those stereotypes'

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

#262

Post by cma »

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.

> without you being poached by a local competitor

There are other newly remote companies as well, but many of them were guilty of illegal anti poaching agreements in the past. Poaching is basically another word for "hiring away," that shows a strange employee ownership mentality.

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

#263

Post by tekno45 »

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…

Milk prices are regulated, thats why we don't pay 20 dollars a gallon.

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

#264

Post by mgh2 »

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…

It is funny how tech employees complain about this when it hits them personally, while employers have been discriminating for eternity.

That clause at the bottom of a job page: "no discrimination based on citizenship, origin, etc..."? Just corporate/legal mumbo jumbo.

This is how it feels for the non-elite, non-American. In a weird way, the pandemic is leveling the playing field. Democratize opportunities, increase competition, decrease wages- plain supply and demand.

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

#265

Post by yeetman21 »

KittenInABox wrote: post #257
yeetman21 wrote: post #180

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I am only qualified to speak about the tech sector in which I work. All of my coworkers make above six figures. We have every sort of benefit that we could want. Why would we want a union? Our company has convinced us that unions are a bad thing by giving us basically anything that a union could have, and more. Why would we want to agitate for more when we already have so much, and risk what we currently have (which…

I'm also a tech worker and I know plenty of things we can agitate for: * Better treatment against the rampant ageism in our industry (eg. access to lawyers when IBM decides to do mass layoffs of people above a certain age...) * Guaranteeing reimbursement for self-education materials, time off for self-education purposes like conventions and hacker spaces * Better treatment for H1B visa holders, a political push to st…

To reply to your point about H1B: Unions are normally very nativist and would be the last group pushing for better/ more H1B visas. The Union reaction to the TPP should have indicated something. I feel as if the ageism is more on the worker's shoulders. Many of us are young, and the field is on the younger side on average

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

#266

Post by KoftaBob »

One detail that's often neglected in these discussions: while the remote work trend opens up companies to a larger supply of workers, it simultaneously opens up the supply of jobs to the average applicant.

Google has more applicants applying because they don't need to live in California, but the average applicant is also no longer limited to applying to jobs in the area they can live.

The companies have a bigger pool of applicants, but the typical applicant now has more leverage because they're no longer geographically limited. In theory, this should lead to an equilibrium.

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

#267

Post by bumby »

satyrnein wrote: post #209
bumby wrote: post #92

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There is a pervasive misconception that you are paid for how much value you bring. In a market economy, you are paid commensurate to how much you can negotiate. The value you bring (real or imagined) is part of that negotiation, but so are other factors. It pains me to see people get frustrated by this fact.

The value you bring is the ceiling on your compensation; employers are not going to pay more than that. Your cost of living is the floor; you're not going to take less than that. The spread between the two is what you're negotiating over.

In a perfect world with frictionless information, sure.

But in the real-world, there are lots of examples of dead-weight or people who keep their job despite having limited (or even negative) value. Sometimes this is the result of weak leaders unable to bring themselves to fire people, sometimes it's because the litigation risk is too high. On the opposite end, there are lots of examples of people who accept jobs below their cost-of-living (those living off debt, for example).

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

#268

Post by Aunche »

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?

You can't amplify the negotiating power of employees without trying to keep newcomers out who are willing to work for less.

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

#269

Post by KittenInABox »

yeetman21 wrote: post #265
KittenInABox wrote: post #257

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm also a tech worker and I know plenty of things we can agitate for: * Better treatment against the rampant ageism in our industry (eg. access to lawyers when IBM decides to do mass layoffs of people above a certain age...) * Guaranteeing reimbursement for self-education materials, time off for self-education purposes like conventions and hacker spaces * Better treatment for H1B visa holders, a political push to st…

To reply to your point about H1B: Unions are normally very nativist and would be the last group pushing for better/ more H1B visas. The Union reaction to the TPP should have indicated something. I feel as if the ageism is more on the worker's shoulders. Many of us are young, and the field is on the younger side on average

Unions can be nativist but a tech union shouldn't have to be just because another labor union might've been.

Ageism is on the worker's shoulders, but those workers are also managers who choose to do bullshit like lay off workers above a certain age across a company. We need ways to protect ourselves from that.

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

#270

Post by [deleted] »

ajuc wrote: post #221
HarryHirsch wrote: post #80

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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).

[deleted]
Post reply on HN