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

What happens when you talk about salaries at Google

wired.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

241–250 of 382 posts

Re: What happens when you talk about salaries at Google

#241

Post by vonmoltke »

onion2k wrote: post #190
bronxcoder wrote: post #106

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I would agree but I think there is something about a person who believes in themselves enough to negotiate that can be a differentiator. For instance, my coworker is a total slacker, comes in late and leaves early. I come in early and leave late and take on extra work. Someone who is determined enough to feel they are worth more money will probably statistically work harder. I know it isn't the same for all people, b…

People who are genuinely good at what they do don't need to spend extra time doing it - putting in longer hours is a sign that you're not very good at what you do. Either that or you're going 'above and beyond' (gold-plating in project management terms) and doing things that the client hasn't agreed to pay for. That's actually worse - you're giving revenue away.

I have a near endless stream of work to do. I could easily put in 70+ hours a week doing things that need to be done, not struggling and not gold-plating. Where have you worked that does not always have a "next thing to do"?

Re: What happens when you talk about salaries at Google

#242

Post by aaronem »

vonmoltke wrote: post #214
aaronem wrote: post #157

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

> absolutely no upside to same from the perspective of management Are you asserting that 95%+ of companies in the US have, and sometimes enforce, a policy that actively hurts them? I know companies do stupid shit from time to time, but you are basically saying salary confidentiality policies are some sort of mass MBA psychosis. After all, if there is "absolutely no upside" to management, why do we need labor laws to…

Where on Earth did you get the idea that labor laws prohibit employees from discussing remuneration with one another?

Re: What happens when you talk about salaries at Google

#243

Post by nathan_long »

deadmik3 wrote: post #151
aaronem wrote: post #67

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

> the whole point is that management is supposed to be happy

What? Workers sell their labor to a company for a price. The whole point of any transaction is to satisfy both parties. Sharing market information is something that both buyers and sellers do. Why do you think this should be unilateral?

Re: What happens when you talk about salaries at Google

#245

Post by fyolnish »

vonmoltke wrote: post #214
aaronem wrote: post #157

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

> absolutely no upside to same from the perspective of management Are you asserting that 95%+ of companies in the US have, and sometimes enforce, a policy that actively hurts them? I know companies do stupid shit from time to time, but you are basically saying salary confidentiality policies are some sort of mass MBA psychosis. After all, if there is "absolutely no upside" to management, why do we need labor laws to…

You need to read parent again

Re: What happens when you talk about salaries at Google

#247

Post by vonmoltke »

woah wrote: post #240
vonmoltke wrote: post #214

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> absolutely no upside to same from the perspective of management Are you asserting that 95%+ of companies in the US have, and sometimes enforce, a policy that actively hurts them? I know companies do stupid shit from time to time, but you are basically saying salary confidentiality policies are some sort of mass MBA psychosis. After all, if there is "absolutely no upside" to management, why do we need labor laws to…

Re read the comment.

Aw crap, early morning parser failure.

Re: What happens when you talk about salaries at Google

#248

Post by pessimizer »

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…

>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."

The only reason this argument makes sense to you is that you relate to retaliating against employees who exercise their rights in opposition to the employers goals. There isn't a crime that this argument couldn't be cited as a defence of, from double-parking to serial killing.

Re: What happens when you talk about salaries at Google

#249

Post by fixermark »

Anechoic wrote: post #231
chasing wrote: post #171

This is not journalism. Do not treat it as such. Molly McHugh and Wired need to reach out to this woman and ask a few questions. They need to reach out to Google and ask a few questions. Otherwise, this information is just a shade better than useless. There's a lot of detail missing in these tweets. There's a lot of handwaving where the audience is essentially invited to fill in the blanks with whatever stereotypes -…

Molly McHugh and Wired need to reach out to this woman and ask a few questions. Erica has explicitly written that she's not interested in speaking to reporters about the story: https://twitter.com/ericajoy/status/622154558140080128

It's generally considered journalistically correct to mention that in the story. Similar to "We reached out to Google for followup, but they declined to comment."

Of course, if this were a news story and not a copy-paste of a Twitter timeline, it would probably follow those expected patterns.

Re: What happens when you talk about salaries at Google

#250

Post by paulhauggis »

mikehearn wrote: post #83
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…

I'm sure there are plenty of ways for this to backfire, but I've always thought one of the most effective ways to eliminate salary bias is for companies to list a role's salary up front, in the job posting, before they've begun interviewing. That way the salary is roughly set before the gender, race, height, physical attractiveness (i.e. any qualities that can cause unconscious bias) is known about whatever candidate…

Why would the company want to do this? Its a contract negociation.
Post reply on HN