What happens when you talk about salaries at Google • Hacker News Board

Re: What happens when you talk about salaries at Google

#151

Post by deadmik3 » Tue, Jul 21, 2015, 1:31 PM UTC

aaronem wrote: post #67

deadmik3 wrote: post #47

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…

Yes. Heaven forfend staff should behave in a way potentially inimical to the interests of management, instead of the other way around.

Staff works for management. While it's nice to have times where the management "works for" their employees, the whole point is that management is supposed to be happy.

Re: What happens when you talk about salaries at Google

#152

Post by smcgivern » Tue, Jul 21, 2015, 1:32 PM UTC

deadmik3 wrote: post #140

mhluongo wrote: post #94

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?

They didn't retaliate, they just didn't give her the bonuses.

Perhaps you could clarify what you think:

> exactly what you would expect when you're intentionally stirring shit up at any company

is?

From this reply, it appears that you think Google did nothing wrong - regardless of whether she was 'stirring shit up' or not.

Re: What happens when you talk about salaries at Google

#153

Post by vog » Tue, Jul 21, 2015, 1:32 PM UTC

caskance wrote: post #127

EStudley wrote: post #111

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And those stories are.. also completely unverifiable?

I guess, if you're willing to stretch the definition of unverifiable far enough that it becomes completely meaningless.

Indeed.

Well, rigorous proof is possible within mathematics[1]. However, applying that measure to verifying reality is nonsense. Even within maths, rigorous proofs require decoupling of the abstract proposition (what you prove) from reality (your assumptions).

[1] and "theoretical X" for X in {"computer science", "physics", "chemistry", ...}, which all are essentially math as well.

Re: What happens when you talk about salaries at Google

#154

Post by [deleted] » Tue, Jul 21, 2015, 1:33 PM UTC

malchow wrote: post #118

mhluongo wrote: post #94

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?

"retaliation is illegal" 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…

[deleted]

Re: What happens when you talk about salaries at Google

#155

Post by toyg » Tue, Jul 21, 2015, 1:33 PM UTC

amelius wrote: post #12

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...

To be fair, Google respects robots.txt (and the atrocious "right to be forgotten"), and they won't stop you from using GMail if you encrypt everything with PGP. Unlike others (cough-Facebook-cough), they usually don't feel the need to trick users into sharing more than they'd want. The classic "if you've done nothing wrong" attitude is more a personal opinion of certain individuals (a certain Eric Schmidt comes to mind) than intrinsic to Google culture. So I don't think you're being fair here; it's not like they actively try to distribute salary details of all other companies...

Re: What happens when you talk about salaries at Google

#156

Post by lagadu » Tue, Jul 21, 2015, 1:34 PM UTC

msutherl wrote: post #53

bakhy wrote: post #30

i hope things like this serve as a wake up call to all young talents willing to sacrifice their lives for these companies, enamored with some idealized visions of what they are and do. a company is a company. an agent for making money, first and foremost. any positive change they bring is a side-effect, and due to their ever greater power they must constantly be policed, at least by releasing unpleasant information l…

What does "making money" mean?

What they pay. I didn't sign off 37 of my hours each week because I like a company's logo. I did it because they pay me for it.

Re: What happens when you talk about salaries at Google

#157

Post by aaronem » Tue, Jul 21, 2015, 1:34 PM UTC

raisedbyninjas wrote: post #141

aaronem wrote: post #84

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm pretty sure the "telling her manager to fuck off" comment was a reference to refusing to be illegally intimidated over salary information sharing. Assuming that's an accurate reading of GP's comment, I think it's quite telling that, again, an employee's refusal to be illegally intimidated should be constructed as "telling her manager to fuck off". The sympathies and attitudes thus revealed make me very glad that…

It's a fuck off comment because the manager asked an open-ended question and tweeter bluntly retorted that retaliation is illegal. The manager could be ascertaining the awareness and intent behind stirring up this substantial turmoil. It would be polite to give the manager the benefit of doubt until threats are actually made.

It would be polite for the manager not to allude to threats which would be unlawful to make outright. Where else do you see something like "Don't you know what could happen?" going in a situation like that?

And let's be clear here. There is absolutely no downside to the sharing of salary information from the employee's perspective, and absolutely no upside to same from the perspective of management. So when it comes to hauling the employee into a private meeting with higher-ups, who are already outright declaring their displeasure with the situation, I think the "benefit of the doubt" boat has sailed.

Re: What happens when you talk about salaries at Google

#158

Post by jaawn » Tue, Jul 21, 2015, 1:35 PM UTC

murbard2 wrote: post #109

What happens is that your spreadsheet won't be properly adjusted for all factors, people will look for bias, claim discrimination, and get a big bully to fine your company (and look caring and compassionate while doing it)

If a manager and company have any justification for pay differences that are not due to protected classes, then they have nothing to fear. If they do pay people differently because of protected classes, they may run into trouble, but I think that's okay.

If most companies were transparent, employees would be a lot more knowledgeable about what leads to more pay. I think we would see more negotiation and engagement and healthier conversations about money. People would be upset at first, but once we start collectively understanding the legitimate reasons for pay discrepancies, and we eliminate the illegitimate ones, I think most people would be happier.

Re: What happens when you talk about salaries at Google

#159

Post by golemotron » Tue, Jul 21, 2015, 1:35 PM UTC

relet wrote: post #103

bronxcoder wrote: post #43

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…

It is a negotiating problem, and I think that that is an issue (be it gender-related or not). It rewards competitive thinking over cooperative thinking - people who'd rather work in a fair and equal environment are more likely to accept the same salary they perceive others will get - i.e. usually the proposed salary. Competitive minds have less qualms about claiming higher rewards. Mechanisms like publishing salaries…

We need to get out of this mindset that competitiveness is wrong. Competitiveness is a creative force. It's a way of seeking and incentivizing value.

The problem with open salaries is that it spurs continual second-guessing. And if anyone thinks that open salaries are less susceptible to popularity contests, they're wrong.

Assessing value is hard. We'll always get it wrong somehow. Encouraging people to become better negotiators may be the best way to handle salaries. When people make a case for their value and are rewarded in money for it there is at least an extremely grounded avenue for correction. The company will continually look at whether a person is worth that amount of money.

Re: What happens when you talk about salaries at Google

#160

Post by deadmik3 » Tue, Jul 21, 2015, 1:36 PM UTC

dataker wrote: post #102

>"Don't you know what could happen?" >Nothing. It's illegal to retaliate against employees for sharing salaries. This answer in fantastic and I wish more technical people learned with this. As a programmer, some managers assume(often rightly so) that you have no clue about laws, finance and business in general.

I think this shows how selfish her goals really were. As if her manager asking "Don't you know what could happen?" implied that bad things could happen to only her. Why would she assume they were saying she would be retaliated against (or that anyone would be retaliated against)? What about the other 5% of the company this affected?