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

181–190 of 281 posts

Re: Survey of workers’ views on salary transparency

#181

Post by rroot »

iLoveOncall wrote: post #124
rroot wrote: post #84

4% quitting. But what effect does it have on the other 96%? Quitting is an extreme response (not wrong, and I totally understand people who'd decide to quit). But what's the response of the other 96%? No response? Lower productivity? Toxicity? Less helpful? Indifferent? Revenge? Destructive? I doubt the 96% will have no response.

How about you click the article link and find out? It's even at the very top of the article for once: - 88% of workers will demand to know the salary range for their current position, if permitted by law; 68% will demand the highest end of known salary range - 1 in 20 workers would quit if it’s revealed co-workers earn more money; 63% would demand equal pay - 85% say they’re more likely to apply to job that lists a s…

You're right. I worded my reply very badly.

I was thinking about the psychological effects. The article mentions it but doesn't go into it: "However, 63% do fear it will be problematic to know how much their co-workers make"

If you look at the list of problems I wrote you see they are psychological.

Re: Survey of workers’ views on salary transparency

#182

Post by ajsnigrutin »

medo-bear wrote: post #172
ajsnigrutin wrote: post #139

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 No…

> 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).

I have no idea where the author got this... this was maybe(!) true for very high ranking party members, but for normal people, there was no inheritance and trading, and the use was the same as with any other rental apartment. Also maybe only in what was left of yugoslavia in 1991 and then turned into 'serbia and montenegro'. If you died, the apartment went back to the state. To trade it (move elsewhere) you needed a good reason (usually, more kids or more rarely a new job).

I was born in yugoslavia and lived here/there until the fail, and now still live in the same city, just in a new country. My parents got a social apartment, I got born and they got another apartment and moved (1->2 bedroom apartment). They couldn't get a bigger one before, because 2 people meant 1 bedroom apartment, 3 people, two bedroom one. They couldn't even choose the floor (noone wanted the ground level or top level ones). No trading, no inheritance, no ownership until 1991 and the jazbinsek law, where every renter could buy off the apartment from the government.

Re: Survey of workers’ views on salary transparency

#183

Post by butterNaN »

nathias wrote: post #40
butterNaN wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The ethos of the credo is egalitarian, not restrictive. So in this particular case, "the need" is not being satisfied. The person defines what they need, not some third party who has obvious conflict of interest in down-estimating the needs.

for socialism (which is the ethos of the statement) of course its a third party that determines your needs and any third party has a conflict

It is not "of course" a third party at all. Socialism is not "when the government does stuff".

Re: Survey of workers’ views on salary transparency

#184

Post by goodpoint »

ClumsyPilot wrote: post #71
q-big wrote: post #64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I once had employer tell me that because I was single with no kids I did not "need" as much income as a co-worker with multiple kids... Why not rather: you don't have such a time-intense hobby such as raising kids, so you deserve more income.

Thanks to this attitude birth rates have collapsed in most of developed world and we have 2 pensioners for every child. Does that sound like a good plan, great for economy? Between this and climate catastrophy, neoliberals are creating a self-destructive civilisation

> birth rates have collapsed ... Between this and climate catastrophy

No, it's the other way around.

Lowering birth rates is the very best thing we can do to ensure sustainability.

Re: Survey of workers’ views on salary transparency

#185

Post by broadwaylamb »

Eddy_Viscosity2 wrote: post #72
phpisthebest wrote: post #12

I once had employer tell me that because I was single with no kids I did not "need" as much income as a co-worker with multiple kids... I noped out of that employment quickly

But you don't need as much money as your co-worker with multiple kids. This is true.

I didn't realize companies are charities now. A couple makes a private and typically self-serving decision to have children, therefore we ought to pay them more regardless of performance.

Re: Survey of workers’ views on salary transparency

#186

Post by Eumenes »

endisneigh wrote: post #129
wirrbel wrote: post #113

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It seems you didn’t negotiate hard enough on your behalf (or others negotiated at the right time). The question you should ask yourself as a manager now is not the question whether you expect others to negotiate like you did, but how can you reach a pay level across the team that is somewhat balanced . The company I am working in has fairly strict guidance based on competences and experience which I do like. It makes…

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.

This is why job hopping is so popular. You can get a phat raise by jumping ship every 2 years. You negotiate by getting a new job.

Re: Survey of workers’ views on salary transparency

#187

Post by vsareto »

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.

>You pay for value.

There is a ceiling - the company pays what it thinks it can get away with, you accept pay according to what you can get. It's almost never according to the monetary value you provide.

Re: Survey of workers’ views on salary transparency

#188

Post by goodpoint »

lo_zamoyski wrote: post #148
DoItToMe81 wrote: post #86

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Seems completely reasonable. Kids are expensive, and people should rewarded, not penalized for raising them.

1. It is good to have children per se. 2. Demographic decline per se is not in the interest of the state or society. 3. It is in the interest of the state to create incentives for marrying and having children and to support or defend a culture that is at least not hostile to family life and its flourishing. Does it follows that companies are obligated to pay a higher salary to someone with a family over someone who i…

> 2. Demographic decline per se is not in the interest of the state or society.

Are we facing underpopulation?!

Re: Survey of workers’ views on salary transparency

#189

Post by robertlagrant »

meheleventyone wrote: post #61
robertlagrant wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's not really based on location. It's based on competition. Location is one of the factors in salary competition.

Right but it's sold to employees as based on cost of living, quite a few remote companies do this for example to have flat rate salary bands but still pay less based on location. For example: https://about.gitlab.com/handbook/total-rewards/compensation... We could of course quibble about market rate and so on but that shouldn't be locally based in a global marketplace. The fact that a software shop down the road from…

> The fact that a software shop down the road from me pays peanuts when I'm looking for work with companies in other countries that otherwise pay their staff very well isn't important IMO and IME.

Of course it's important. It means you will, all other things being equal, go for the employer that pays the best rate. And that will drag your local wage up, or it might cause the local shop to close down because they can't pay well enough.

In general I keep seeing people very much like being paid a good salary, but not understanding the one thing that puts their salary high (or low): competition from other employers, and from other employees. Other employees lower it; other employers raise it. The fact that employers think they don't have to pay SF salaries globally is the same mechanism that created SF salaries in the first place.

Re: Survey of workers’ views on salary transparency

#190

Post by scarface74 »

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…

>I hate dealing with this aspect of my job. Everybody just wants wants wants and act like children when they don't get.

I go to work everyday for one reason: to exchange labor for money to support my addiction to food and shelter. All three things being nearly equal, my goal is to extract as much money for my labor as possible as long as my job choice doesn’t make me hate my life

Post reply on HN