"Equal pay for equal work" in remote jobs • Hacker News Board

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

#291

Post by Dirlewanger » Wed, Nov 18, 2020, 4:59 PM UTC

yeetman21 wrote: post #180

plutonorm wrote: post #158

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It is irrelevant. But somehow companies have convinced most that unions are a bad thing. They have leveraged their greater influence to further their power. They are now in an essentially unassailable position. For the great majority of the workforce they have no bargaining power. This toxic modern world should pop like the noxious little bubble it is. We need a new 60s only this time we need to win.

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 in the same boat as you, but think about this: these cushy developer jobs in the Western world are on borrowed time. FAANG companies are investing billions to teach people how to code and brand it as if it's some noble humanitarian effort when it's really just to further lower wages. When the time of FAANG companies actually offshoring key development teams comes (and it is coming), I have 0 faith the federal government will give a shit to protect US workers. So maybe a union is the best way to stop this.

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

#292

Post by NovemberWhiskey » Wed, Nov 18, 2020, 5:02 PM UTC

a_imho wrote: post #226

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 arg…

>But the moral argument about equal work should be equally compensated is nigh unchallengable.

I don't the think premise is at all clear, never mind 'unchallengeable', especially if you take 'be equally compensated' to mean 'have the same nominal cash pay'.

Why is 'nominal cash' equivalence superior to 'purchasing power parity' from a moral perspective, for example? Is it moral for some workers to receive rewards that are richer than others (in terms of what they will buy) purely on the basis of local economics?

Why is it moral for workers in locations with generous government programs to receive the same nominal cash pay as those who might have to pay out of pocket for some of those same services in different locations?

"All other things being equal, equal pay for equal work" sounds reasonable, but when you're not holding all other things equal, the moral position is more tenuous.

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

#293

Post by abeppu » Wed, Nov 18, 2020, 5:02 PM UTC

I think it's especially hard to swallow the COL adjustments that employers want to use if they have to justify their prices to clients in terms of the value provided. E.g. if a SaaS company is trying to negotiate a contract with a prospective client, it does so on the basis of the benefits or ROI that the client would get ("you spend X with us, but we'll help you generate Y"). If a competitor offers a comparable service, the conversation focuses on the difference in product offerings, not whether their HQ is in a lower cost city or a higher tax state or whatever.

For the employees who are making these value-based arguments on behalf of their employer to then be told that they should be payed less based on where they live seems hypocritical at best.

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

#294

Post by Aunche » Wed, Nov 18, 2020, 5:02 PM UTC

toomuchtodo wrote: post #282

Aunche wrote: post #281

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why is it inherently better to protect one middle class job in a first world country rather than lift 2 families out of poverty in the developing world? I'm not pretending that outsourcing is ethical thing to do, but neither is opposing outsourcing.

I vigorously support those with more wealth than they'll ever spend (billionaires and such, the wealthiest in the world) to take efforts to lift the poorest out of poverty. We're talking about a nation's labor policies to protect it's own citizens. Why would a nation disadvantage it's own citizens for the benefit of another country's citizens? If you're not protecting the income and ability to accumulate wealth of yo…

I'm talking about multinational corporations, not individuals or nations.

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

#295

Post by bumby » Wed, Nov 18, 2020, 5:03 PM UTC

TeMPOraL wrote: post #271

x87678r wrote: post #189

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I wonder if and when we'll see remote unions appearing. Forming a group and going on strike is easy - perhaps easier - in a remote setting. Picketing offices could be done by overloading the company VPN, and DDoSing the company Exchange server would be the equivalent of a harder "picketing inside the plant, preventing work" strike.

>overloading the company VPN, and DDoSing the company

This is illegal in most countries, no?

I don't believe picketing is illegal as long as certain conditions are met (not blocking egress, etc.)

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

#296

Post by disgruntledphd2 » Wed, Nov 18, 2020, 5:04 PM UTC

coward8675309 wrote: post #240

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.

Yes, pretty spot on. Would these Facebook employees be happier if Fb decided the equilibrium point was way below SV/SF subsistence and reset everyone's salary accordingly? "We're being fair. Work from wherever you like. Happy now?" I don't see that scenario hurting Fb. In fact, if I were Zuck, I might do it to clean house. There are plenty of talented people outside SV/SF and I bet they might be less focused on work…

The loss of institutional knowledge caused by a mass exodus at the same time would cripple them (and pretty much any company that doesn't have incredibly rigorous standards for documentation).

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

#297

Post by zepto » Wed, Nov 18, 2020, 5:05 PM UTC

a_imho wrote: post #274

zepto wrote: post #249

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Except remote/female is not interchangeable. Remote = lower costs. Female ≠ lower costs. I’m not arguing against equal pay for equal work. I’m arguing that it’s a bad analogy to compare being remote with being female.

If you are not arguing against equal pay for equal work Remote = lower costs does not hold. It also depends on what you think about wage gaps and why do we need equal employment laws in the first place?

Facts don’t depend on what I’m arguing for.

I’m arguing against comparing remote work to the gender pay gap.

Being female is not comparable to being remote.

Most people have more choice about where they live than their sex or gender, for example.

I assume you are not arguing that sex and gender are just preferences.

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

#298

Post by cmrdporcupine » Wed, Nov 18, 2020, 5:05 PM UTC

claudiulodro wrote: post #287

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…

> You want to pay $2 dollars for milk, instead of $20? That's thanks to competition between companies. It's not though. "The support granted to U.S dairy producers represented approximately [...] 73% of the farmers' marketplace revenue. USDA data also reveals that US dairy farmers operate at a loss, and have a cost of production that is higher than what they earn from the marketplace."[1] We're subsidizing the low co…

It's sort of the opposite here in Canada, where dairy production is managed on a quota system (you need quota to produce and sell) and the quota is regulated such that the price remains stable (and more expensive than in the US) for the benefit of the farmers who have quota and in theory the public, who has a reliable "reasonable" price.

It's dubious on many levels, but has its defenders.

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

#299

Post by bumby » Wed, Nov 18, 2020, 5:06 PM UTC

KittenInABox wrote: post #275

bumby wrote: post #261

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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'

I will be honest I've never seen an across the board "but that's a corporation, we don't want anything to do with that" to corporations the way that's done with unions at least on HN. No one's languishing a " is a corporation? I don't know, look at nestle and its human rights abuses. I don't think we should support ". FWIW I don't think unions are a silver bullet. I'm just pointing out that if you look at it from a n…

In the U.S. at least, there are quite a few pockets who think corporate structures are bad in general. I know HN tends to skew towards the entrepreneurial-minded, so it's quite a bit less here.

To be clear, I deliberately use the word "can" in my previous statement i.e., they may abuse their power, but also may not

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

#300

Post by jerf » Wed, Nov 18, 2020, 5:06 PM UTC

echelon wrote: post #164

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'm certainly not pro-union in tech, but this is something that could hasten its arrival. Just because I'm in Atlanta doesn't make me inherently worth less than my peers in SF.

Something everybody involved ought to understand before going too far down this road; you're not going to spread Silicon Valley prices all around the US and internationally. If you force the companies to pay a flat wage, you're going to get an averaging out at best, and nobody's going to be paid Silicon Valley's current wages.

Whether this is good or bad is beside my point, as are what other second-order effects may arise. I'm simply pointing out, "everybody in the world gets paid SV rates" simply isn't on the table. So don't go into this process expecting that outcome.