111–120 of 382 posts
Other side of the story: https://www.reddit.com/r/technology/comments/3e05wg/what_hap... Either way both are completely unverifiable. Take both with a huge fistful of salt until both parties are interviewed and quoted and research is done into what happened.
No they aren't. Plenty of people here know someone who works at Google.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
TL;DR - Google operates in a parallel universe called "California", where employees can share each other's salaries on a company-wide shared spreadsheet without getting fired. Not only did Google NOT fire anybody for it, they haven't even removed the spreadsheet from their own internal network. They simply refused to approve some $150 "peer-recognition" bonuses, meant to reward the employee for creating the spreadshe…
http://www.govdocs.com/can-employees-discuss-pay-salaries/ TL;DR It's illegal to fire your employees for discussing salary in the US. California isn't special, neither is Google.
I'm not making a normative statement about the way things "ought to be", I'm making a positive statement about the way things "actually are" across most of the world (http://beta.tutor2u.net/economics/reference/positive-and-nor...). Shoot the messenger if you like.
Google is a company that wants to have access to all the information in the world. But if somebody rightfully publishes some information that is sensitive to Google, look what happens...
Those two things don't overlap as much as you think they do. Just because I want all the info for myself doesn't mean I want all the info public or for everyone (no matter what I say). In fact if getting info is getting money/an advantage/..., then wanting all of it while not wanting others to have it, and not liking yours being given away, makes total sense. Not taking side for or against Google here (and if I did,…
Well, the whole definition of being a hypocrite is to subscribe to a belief for others while doing something entirely for yourself.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This post isn't journalism by any stretch of the imagination. It's actually like a perfect caricature of whats wrong with digital publishing. Serious topic on a serious masthead with less than amateur treatment.
Someone sharing something on Twitter isn't supposed to be journalism. AFAIK the original author isn't a journalist, she's a technologist who got fed up.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I remember reading some studies that suggest that this alone, i.e. men being more likely to go and ask for a raise / negotiate their salary, can account for most of the "gender gap".
It can be, but , women are also socially pressured, by both men and women, not to negotiate salary. It's a complex issue and you should avoid people on either side who try to scrunch it down to one sound bite.
I hate that wage disparity is being heralded as a gender issue. It's really a negotiating problem. My coworker and I were hired together, same position, same experience, and offered the same salary. When I was offered the position, I asked for $15,000 more and they gave it to me. My coworker didn't ask for more and is therefore now making $15,000 less than me. After six months, I asked for a raise of $5,000. He never…
If your employer said to your colleague 'look bronxcoder asked for and received a raise and you both work equally hard so you will get the raise too' - would you be annoyed or happy ? I think is much more ethical to treat people like this but maybe your colleague isn't doing such a good job as you.
He told me that I was worth the extra money but if I hadn't asked for it, he wouldn't have given it to me extra money.
Was stringing together a couple dozen tweets really the best format to share a story like this? There is a lot that's left out. Once she vaguely mentions that another employee who was "involved" was still getting all of his peer bonuses (which may or may not have been PB's for his "involvement", we don't know), the whole thing just crumbled into a victim story for me. OF COURSE the MALE coworker can do WHATEVER HE WA…
> the whole thing just crumbled into a victim story for me Are you sure you're not being an Angry Jack[0] and using that as an easy excuse to reject the story firsthand? > Also, generally shit will hit the fan if you tell anyone to fuck off, especially if they're your manager. Again, we don't know that she told her manager to fuck off for being racist Were do you see her telling her manager to fuck off at all ? She's…
Was stringing together a couple dozen tweets really the best format to share a story like this? There is a lot that's left out. Once she vaguely mentions that another employee who was "involved" was still getting all of his peer bonuses (which may or may not have been PB's for his "involvement", we don't know), the whole thing just crumbled into a victim story for me. OF COURSE the MALE coworker can do WHATEVER HE WA…
> tl;dr she got exactly what you would expect when you're intentionally stirring shit up at any company. I'm not sure what she expected. What? Sharing salary information is a protected employee activity, and retaliation is illegal.. so maybe she expected there wouldn't be retaliation?
I'm not sure what world you think we inhabit. Are we humanoid automatons? The whole welter of human emotion more or less always outweighs a programmatic injunction like "retaliation is illegal."
Companies are still people working together. They'll probably never be anything but people working together. It does not matter how protected the activity allegedly is; a giant embarrassment campaign run against your company, especially if in pursuit of a particularly feeble branch on the tree of political correctness, means you're out. Or, at least, things won't be pleasant for you. Because your coworkers, above and below, don't like what you've done to their company. One can't write a law preventing that.
So here's a devils advocacy for not having transparency around money: On average everyone thinks they're above average ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Illusory_superiority#Reference... ) Two people of equal value and skill will both think they're better than the other person, and thus deserve higher compensation. How do you reconcile that with salary transparency? Seems like you'll be making more people unhappy. Woul…
However, the resolution is pretty simple. Employees can either accept the justification given by management or not. If they are disgruntled about it, they can try their luck at a different employer, or use the information to learn how they can get a raise. This last point is one of the benefits for employees—they learn what would get them more money at their current employer.
Example: person 1 makes 15% more than person 2, and now both are aware of it. Person 2 is upset and talks to their manager. They find out the reason is because person 1 has additional education/certification and a couple years more experience. Now person 2 knows they can pursue the extra education/certification and use it as leverage to get a raise, when prior to the transparency they would have had no idea and possibly gone awhile longer making less money.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> tl;dr she got exactly what you would expect when you're intentionally stirring shit up at any company. I'm not sure what she expected. What? Sharing salary information is a protected employee activity, and retaliation is illegal.. so maybe she expected there wouldn't be retaliation?
This is like telling me that water is wet. Water is wet. Assholes are assholes. Companies stretching or breaking the law with respect to retaliation are companies stretching or breaking the law with respect to retaliation. Smug HN commentators are smug HN commentators. None of this actually says anything about whether she acted correctly, or incorrectly, or whether the company behaved with propriety, or whether infor…