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

Survey of workers’ views on salary transparency

resumebuilder.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

171–180 of 281 posts

Re: Survey of workers’ views on salary transparency

#171

Post by valdiorn »

digitalsushi wrote: post #138

I'm getting really old cause I am starting to see this from both sides If you found out your cube neighbor is out-earning you and you do the same work, you (probably) are safer when the next wave of layoffs comes around. That little disparity can feel like a giant shield. This is the most anti-worker thing I have ever typed. I hate myself for sharing how I rationalize this.

well, it's true. The first people to go in every layoff operation, at every company I've worked for, were always the "rockstar programmers". The guys that came in with reputation, because they are known in the tech world. The conference speakers, bloggers, open source heroes, etc.

They come in, command a huge salary, and give a big PR/awareness boost to the company. But then turns out they're about as productive as everyone else, which makes them the first to go during layoff season.

Re: Survey of workers’ views on salary transparency

#172

Post by medo-bear »

ajsnigrutin wrote: post #139
medo-bear wrote: post #130

Earlier quoted context omitted.

vastly different. you pay off your apartment as you work. the apartment is owned by the state corporation you work for. the corporation has very little power to let you go. its more like a very favourable home loan

> you pay off your apartment as you work You do, if you buy the apartment and get a loan/mortgage. If you're renting from the government, you're just renting... you didn't become an owner of the apartment here, until the end of socialism, a new capitalist government, and politicians not wanting to deal with the upkeep of those buildings. Before 1991, you were renting as you are renting now in any other (capitalist) c…

you keep repeating yourself without providing any sources. here is a quote from scholarly article on the topic that counters what you are saying. Pay attention to the final sentence

   Yugoslavia’s blue-collar workers were less likely to receive a socially owned flat than white-collar and skilled workers who were systemically favoured in the allocation process (Živković 1968; Bobić and Vujović 1985; Petrović 2004; Le Normand 2012; Archer 2016). Housing allocation thus forged novel social inequalities, a phenomenon observed by scholars in other state-socialist contexts (Szelenyi 1983; Bodnár and Böröcz 1998; Kulu 2003; Pelikánová 2012; Fehérváry 2013, 74–75; Gentile and Sjöberg 2013; Harris 2013, 112; Dalakoglou 2017, 137). In contrast to capitalist societies where wealthier strata were more likely to own their own home, in socialist states like Yugoslavia white-collar employees and managers were significantly less likely to own property than poorer workers, instead enjoying the more prestigious use of a socially owned flat. This was arguably more advantageous than property ownership as socially owned flats ‘ … were acquired without incurring personal costs, while in terms of their use, inheritance and even trading there were practically no differences between the holders of tenancy rights to state/socially owned housing and private owners’ (Petrović 2004, 270).
- Archer, Roy: The moral economy of home construction in late socialist Yugoslavia

https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/02757206.2017.1...

so, in terms of use, inheritance, and trading rights it was legally equivalent to owning a house. this is not surprising since yugoslavia had a radically different legal structure about property rights. this is also why people living in those flats could buy it for peanuts when the system collapsed. it certainly wasn't the case that the new government was feeling super generous

tldr. social housing in yugoslavia was government owned in a very weak sense of the word

Re: Survey of workers’ views on salary transparency

#173

Post by endisneigh »

valdiorn wrote: post #168
endisneigh wrote: post #129

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is a meme but it’s not really how it works, not entirely anyway. Take meta. If you joined today vs a year ago and everything else was the same you’d be making over 30% as much. Companies generally don’t pay tenured people as much as new hires across the board. It’s not about negotiating.

> Companies generally don’t pay tenured people as much as new hires across the board. It’s not about negotiating. But that IS negotiating. If you show you're willing to stick around in the same role for an extended period of time, for the same pay, you have implicitly negotiated that deal for yourself. Why TF would your employer be incentivised to pay you more if you show yourself to be happy with the status quo? Hav…

Why are you comparing drinking coffee to switching jobs? It’s not the same at all.

Re: Survey of workers’ views on salary transparency

#174

Post by jbuhbjlnjbn »

robertlagrant wrote: post #34
jbuhbjlnjbn wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Work assignment does not equal ability. A phd can be assigned lowly management work, lets say tracking stuff, creating excel sheets and powerpoint presentations. That decision is made by the company and department. Does that mean they should not be compensated for the skills they posess? Surely not. Lets not even start with the metrics used to gauge someone's results. If they even exist, they are consistently useless…

Ability doesn't equal value to the company. If you have Einstein in and all he does is sweep your floors, you pay him a floor sweeper's wage. You pay for value.

No I agree, but if you hire Einstein for Physics lectures, but for whatever reason let him mop the floors, you still take into account his abilities.

Fellow floor moppers might say "Einstein mops slower and worse then me, I want more than his salary", but that would not attribute abilities and that it is not his first choice to mop floors, the company made that strange decision.

Re: Survey of workers’ views on salary transparency

#175

Post by mancerayder »

roody15 wrote: post #123
0xRusty wrote: post #102

It's not easy for people promoted into manager roles either. I'm a new manager who the first time is now exposed to salary details of my, now direct reports, former co-workers. For the past couple of weeks I've been walking around thinking "how the hell does he make that much?! When I was at that level of experience I was paid $40k less". It's really affecting me to be honest. I'm seeing people in different light and…

Did you ever ask for a raise or more money? If so did they ever say no? In my experience many who complain about salary often failed to ever try and negotiate on behalf of themselves.

It's almost impossible to negotiate anything unless you have leverage, and leverage only exists when there is a decision-point: "I'll pick this other job unless.." or in the beginning "I won't join your company unless..."

Randomly asking for a raise doesn't work.

Re: Survey of workers’ views on salary transparency

#176

Post by cumshitpiss »

0xRusty wrote: post #102

It's not easy for people promoted into manager roles either. I'm a new manager who the first time is now exposed to salary details of my, now direct reports, former co-workers. For the past couple of weeks I've been walking around thinking "how the hell does he make that much?! When I was at that level of experience I was paid $40k less". It's really affecting me to be honest. I'm seeing people in different light and…

No post body was provided.

Re: Survey of workers’ views on salary transparency

#177

Post by valdiorn »

puffybeignette wrote: post #120

4%??? Bro if you’re doing the same job as someone and they are getting paid more, you are quitting or getting a raise. This number should be significantly higher.

Define "same job".

I'm on a team of six people, all classified as "senior engineers". None of us do the same job, even if we all work on the same stuff. Some deliver tons of new features and code. Others think and design, and come up with resilient, well-engineered things. Some are great with stakeholder relationships.

Unless I find out there's some huge disparity in pay (as in, everyone else out-earning me 2:1), I have absolutely no problem with some getting paid more, some less.

If I were to find out I'm getting paid the least, I would:

1. Start by asking for a raise to correct that.

2. If denied, inquire as to why my manager thinks I'm worth less.

3. If he makes a good point that I can agree with, I will focus on improving in that area and then discuss again in 6 months.

4. If I disagree and think they are under-valuing my skillset, I walk.

For context, I've done #3 at least 3 times, where I've asked a manager "what do I need to improve to warrant a pay raise or promotion?", and they give me an actual list of things to improve. Once I'm satisfied I've improved those areas, and have a few months of work history to prove it, they have absolutely no valid reason to deny me a pay rise, and I've received a pay rise 3/3 of those times. This obviously doesn't work if your manager is an asshole, or if there's suddenly a budget cut, etc - you need to evaluate the chances of that happening, and consider option #4.

Re: Survey of workers’ views on salary transparency

#178

Post by medo-bear »

ajsnigrutin wrote: post #169
medo-bear wrote: post #154

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> In yugoslavia, you didn't own an apartment, but you rented it (from the government)... you paid it off to the corporation you worked for. it wasnt a lottery system. it was more like a generous homeloan https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/02757206.2017.1... >so almost noone had more than one apartment, noone had a too-large apartment actually the apartments were reletively very good quality, and often build…

You didn't pay it off, the government (who also owned the corporation) was the owner of it. You could build your own house and own it though, but not the "social" apartments. The option to buy the apartments from the government came only after the fall of socialism in 1991 (jazbinskov zakon/law) > actually the apartments were reletively very good quality, and often buildings were made as part of a grander urban proje…

> You could build your own house and own it though, but not the "social" apartments

you could not "own" it but you had all the rights one might want for their dwelling

Re: Survey of workers’ views on salary transparency

#179

Post by jbuhbjlnjbn »

Closi wrote: post #73
robertlagrant wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Ability doesn't equal value to the company. If you have Einstein in and all he does is sweep your floors, you pay him a floor sweeper's wage. You pay for value.

Ability and opportunity also doesn't equal output - There are plenty of 'high ability' people that will do the bare minimum, and plenty of 'lower ability' people that will push, work hard and deliver more.

Agreed. Yet it seems insanely hard to measure output...

If the bare minimum gets the job done the same as the overachiever grinding as if their life depended on it, fair judgement would rate the output the same, right?

Re: Survey of workers’ views on salary transparency

#180

Post by taude »

0xRusty wrote: post #102

It's not easy for people promoted into manager roles either. I'm a new manager who the first time is now exposed to salary details of my, now direct reports, former co-workers. For the past couple of weeks I've been walking around thinking "how the hell does he make that much?! When I was at that level of experience I was paid $40k less". It's really affecting me to be honest. I'm seeing people in different light and…

It's even harder when you're a manager, and you inherit direct reports who both make more money than you, and have more stock options than you, AND have been at the firm for a shorter duration than you, and they have minimal experience (but good tech chops).
Post reply on HN