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

341–350 of 624 posts

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

#341

Post by throwaway3699 »

neilwilson wrote: post #337
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…

"So naive." Depends on the law. If I'm female, and you're male, then equal pay laws may force it to be the same for equivalent work. Most of the rest of the world forces business to compete for labour - which is as it should be. Jobs, not people, should wait.

Enforcing this kind of equal pay law will result in a mass shifting of jobs to 3rd world countries the likes the world has never seen before.

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

#342

Post by renewiltord »

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?

Companies can't stop you from unionizing. They can choose not to accept the collective agreement and they can hire permanent replacement for strikers.

As for whether anyone should have a problem, you're welcome to have a problem. It's a free country. Whether that will lead to an outcome you desire is independent, though.

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

#343

Post by NovemberWhiskey »

a_imho wrote: post #332
NovemberWhiskey wrote: post #292

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 th…

Because purchasing power parity has nothing to do with selling labour and work is what should be compensated. Purchasing power is none of the employer's business. Purchasing power means what you want it to mean. Will Apple adjust it prices to reflect on the local markets?

You said this was a compelling moral argument. I don't believe the moral content is at all clear and give examples of why not. Would you mind responding to those?

Apple prices have converged quite a lot - but note that the labor content of their products prices changes very little as everything is made in same factories in China.

McDonalds (another multinational with a quite standardized product offering across markets) charges very different prices for the same product depending on local markets.

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

#344

Post by 2Xheadpalm »

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…

In general I agree with you. As you point out, the company is under no obligation to do what is 'fair' for my work and it is my negotiating skills/power that will dictate how much I get paid. Fine, I accept this. However, on the flip side, a company should not expect my undying loyalty, working for free after hours, or take one for the team to get that release out etc. And no I will not be joining them on those bonding, team-building zoom meetings and/or retreats (will they still be a thing in a post-covid world?). Sorry its just business, maybe if you paid me equally for my work I would be more open to the above.

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

#345

Post by ars »

neilwilson wrote: post #337
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…

"So naive." Depends on the law. If I'm female, and you're male, then equal pay laws may force it to be the same for equivalent work. Most of the rest of the world forces business to compete for labour - which is as it should be. Jobs, not people, should wait.

> Depends on the law. If I'm female, and you're male, then equal pay laws may force it to be the same for equivalent work.

It already is, despite all the press claiming it isn't. In summary the difference in pay is caused by different choices men and women make in how much they value flexibility at work.

See: https://harvardmagazine.com/2016/05/reassessing-the-gender-w...

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

#347

Post by ukoki »

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.

Your cost of living is not the floor -- just ask Uber drivers. An income of less than the cost of living is still better than nothing. The floor is the next best thing you have available, or the minimum wage if applicable.

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

#348

Post by iaw »

coward8675309 wrote: post #311
disgruntledphd2 wrote: post #296

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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).

I've been at startups where we experienced 90% engineering turnover over 12 mo. due to M&A or change of leadership. We got by. I'm sure Fb could cope.

I've worked at a startup and a very large company that grew from a startup. The former could survive, the latter most definitely would not (or at least not in the highly profitable form it existed).

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

#349

Post by jedberg »

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.

> Just because I'm in Atlanta doesn't make me inherently worth less than my peers in SF.

I think the mistake you are making is assuming that your salary represents your worth to the company.

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

#350

Post by larrik »

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…

> Some people, in fact, manage to get the same pay even when working remote, because they're "highly employable". Others don't.

When I took my remote job 8+ years ago, it was a big pay increase, plus my expenses went way down.

Post reply on HN