For anyone curious about the real roots of #talkpay, software developer Lauren Voswinkel kicked it off on Model View Culture: https://modelviewculture.com/news/lets-talk-about-pay (Background: http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2015/may/01/talkpay-hasht... ) So basically, a software dev announced a Twitter campaign on a Silicon Valley startup's website. Naturally, it only hits Hacker "News" when some white man placat…
Talking About Money
131–140 of 412 posts
Re: Talking About Money
#132Earlier quoted context omitted.
IANAL, but I don't see why that would be illegal. There are very few things that it's actually illegal for an employer to ask about. (Though it would obviously be a bad idea to ask a candidate about their status in a protected class, it's not technically illegal to ask.) That said, this is a bad idea because it would scare off plenty of people who aren't bluffing about their salary (like me). And there are already em…
> There are very few things that it's actually illegal for an employer to ask about. I guess it depends on your definition of "very few things" but this list[1] of Unlawful vs. Lawful questions seems pretty long/wide ranging. And I know that the small business I worked for violated it on a regular basis. I actually had it sent out to each person who does interviewing (since the company didn't have a formal policy on…
My understanding is that it is illegal to use any of those things to discriminate against someone for purposes of hiring. It's not technically illegal to ask the question, but if you do, and you don't hire the person, have fun in court trying to prove that you didn't hire them for some other, valid, reason. So don't ask them, because there's no upside in it for you.
Re: Talking About Money
#133Earlier quoted context omitted.
Glassdoor.com seems to have fairly accurate salary reports across different companies, jobs, and geographies.
Glassdoor has never been accurate about any firm I had firsthand knowledge of.
Re: Talking About Money
#134Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's a pretty strong signal that they want people who won't negotiate and aren't assertive. In some businesses, it's just counterproductive to hire an assertive employee: the business processes are in place, the command structure is well-established, and they just need bodies to fill places in the org chart. If it's one of those companies and you're one of those people, getting hired there will likely be painful for…
Hmmm, but this was the recruiter, not the company. The recruiter itself would want me to be assertive and negotiate as their compensation is calculated based on my starting salary. And this company was a very small and fast growing firm that would require a lot of hustle and assertiveness. My entire in person interview process was based on a case study that took 12 hours where I spent a large part of that arguing wit…
So... They are interested in providing candidates that are, in as many parameter's as possible, within the employer's range -- and towards the favorable end.
As to the ur-child-level idea that "good CEO's" will "clamp down" or whatever the term was on this practice...
"Good CEO's" generally have NO interest in tackling the details of HR policy except when they are quite visibly causing problems and/or a big, bold initiative sweeps them into its fold ("Mind the Gap", or whatever the flavor du jour is).
HR is a... well, in many ways and all the more bureaucratically so in larger firms, a nasty, detailed business. Endless quantities of compliance. "Fair" as a tool of constraint as often if not more so than enablement. Secrecy and emotions and politics, all needing to be whitewashed.
The kind of details CEO's don't want to micromanage, and that the smarter ones know to stay away from -- or at least, at arm's length.
There are individual exceptions -- some brave. But looking across the landscape of business, I don't think is there is any great movement to buck HR and attendant policy. It is a bureaucracy now well rooted in and growing from a depth and maze of regulation and law. Not all of which is bad -- worker safety and y and z and... have been much needed.
But, don't expect your average CEO to "go there".
Re: Talking About Money
#135@Patio11, I met you once on a trip to Tokyo. When/why did you decide to live in Tokyo other than the fact that your wife is Japanese? Any takeaways in terms of culture and operating a SaaS business from that region? Thanks.
It's not specific to the questions you ask, but it might answer some of them.
Re: Talking About Money
#136@Patio11, I met you once on a trip to Tokyo. When/why did you decide to live in Tokyo other than the fact that your wife is Japanese? Any takeaways in terms of culture and operating a SaaS business from that region? Thanks.
We live in Japan, as opposed to the US, mostly because I've been there for my entire adult life and kind of enjoy it. We might at some time decide to split our time between the US and Japan.
I wrote a long blog post about doing business in Japan which talks about running a SaaS company here in more depth than I can reasonably go into in a comment: http://www.kalzumeus.com/2014/11/07/doing-business-in-japan/
Re: Talking About Money
#137Objection 2: To the extent that perceived relative pay is the variable that actually matters for determining how happy someone is with their compensation (ask someone in NYC versus someone in Mumbai with the same cost-of-living-adjusted salary how rich they each feel), then releasing salary information can be welfare-reducing even if it does cause salaries to rise in general. This is one of the strongest arguments opposing income inequality: the existence of very rich people makes everyone worse off by making them _feel_ poorer.
Related hypothetical question: If every worker were paid exactly proportional to their actual productivity, how much would the standard deviation of labor earnings increase? (http://econlog.econlib.org/archives/2015/04/meritocracy_ble....)
Re: Talking About Money
#138If people knew everyone's salaries there would always be discontent. There will be people making less thinking that are better/more experience/worth more than person B making $X more than them.
I think it's reasonable to believe that the employer should have a good answer to the question "why is s/he making more than me, what does s/he do better?"
Re: Talking About Money
#139To those who don't know, most large companies already have a structured pay table. Try working at AT&T or McDonalds, and you can probably predict where your salary will be in the next 5-10 years. Real negotiation for most people in most positions mainly happens in small firms and startups.
Lack of salary negotiation will only scare away well qualified candidates who don't fit some arbitrarily made rubric (which will almost always back out to years worked, which is a terrible standard). Imagine if by paying 20k extra, you can get one of those mythical "10x rockstar" engineers. Would you remove your ability to hire him?
By opening up everyone's salaries, it will only hurt the startup culture, as it will only make people dislike each other. I often found engineers and business development people devalue each others work, in large part because neither party can understand the work of the other. Imagine them knowing each others salaries! Each side can find a justification on why they are being under-compensated while the other over-compensated. Startups need cohesiveness to survive.
Lastly negotiation is a valuable skill in the workplace. Interviews reward people who can handle stress and negotiate. Imagine a shipping date is imposed upon you, and not all the features can be included. You're going to want a leader on the engineering team to negotiate with the strategy makers to find an equitable solution. De-emphasizing negotiation is de-emphasizing a critical human skill.
Re: Talking About Money
#140> I’m not a Marxist —
Yes, you said that in the opening sentence... Americans are very defensive about coming off as "Marxist"/"socialist".