Blizzard workers share salaries in revolt over wage disparities • Hacker News Board

Re: Blizzard workers share salaries in revolt over wage disparities

#221

Post by hardsoftnfloppy » Tue, Aug 04, 2020, 12:47 PM UTC

ncallaway wrote: post #37

perl4ever wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That only matters if someone is dumb enough to fire you and writes down somewhere "s/he was fired for discussing salaries". I can't remember the exact phrasing but years ago my boss said at the team meeting something about not discussing salaries, and someone said later "I don't think you can say that" and he was like "oh, ok". The message was delivered though.

Here's the thing, though. Wrongful termination lawsuits aren't "proof beyond a reasonable doubt". Most civil actions—including wrongful termination—need to show a "preponderance of evidence". That is, you need to convince a jury that the claim is more likely to be true than not true (e.g. 51%). So, assuming you have evidence of the chain of events: - Group shares salary openly - Employer says: "you cannot do that", s…

By the time it’s reached this point you’ve already lost to your own lawyer.

Re: Blizzard workers share salaries in revolt over wage disparities

#222

Post by onemiketwelve » Tue, Aug 04, 2020, 1:05 PM UTC

john-shaffer wrote: post #9

I boycotted Blizzard after their censorship regarding Hong Kong. It was a great decision since it saved me from the dumpster fire to end all dumpster fires that was Warcraft III Reforged [1]. I would strongly suggest that if anything about Blizzard pisses you off, just be done with them entirely. The people who created the great games of the past don't work there. Blizzard is no longer capable of producing good produ…

Isn't it going to be hard to stay away from both blizzard and Activision? They made/make really good stuff.

The concept that if anything about x pisses you off, just be done with it entirely would be great in theory if a large portion of the market felt the same way but in the end it's vidja games and a lot of people are sucked in and don't want to give up something fun for some high minded ideal that doesn't really impact them

Re: Blizzard workers share salaries in revolt over wage disparities

#223

Post by tortasaur » Tue, Aug 04, 2020, 1:07 PM UTC

ryandrake wrote: post #198

woodruffw wrote: post #92

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Why shouldn't the more aggressive, more strategic people earn more on average? I'd argue they give more of a damn by definition. The ability to project social force is a positive trait if used well, and can directly benefit the work if turned in that direction. One potential reason: being aggressive and strategic, as qualities, are orthogonal to one's skills. They're just as good signals for being an abusive manage…

Maybe I'm just an amateur, but this whole idea of negotiating your salary being some complex, strategic parlay--like you're brokering peace in the middle east--doesn't really match my experience with getting job offers. It's not like there are a lot of dimensions to bargain around. You get an offer from the company, and you can basically do one of three things: 1. Accept the offer 2. Walk away 3. Say "How about more…

If you just ask for more money, chances are the answer is going to be more. To successfully negotiate a higher salary, you generally have to point to some value you are delivering or will deliver that justifies the bump in compensation. "I want more money, please" isn't very persuasive.

Re: Blizzard workers share salaries in revolt over wage disparities

#224

Post by spaetzleesser » Tue, Aug 04, 2020, 1:09 PM UTC

foogazi wrote: post #91

spaetzleesser wrote: post #68

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"It doesn't benefit top earners to share salary information. If I'm making more money than everyone else and the consequences of sharing salaries is equity " And we all are top earners, right? Statistics tell me most of us aren't. The consequence of sharing salaries is not equity but people being able to negotiate better so most likely average salaries will go up. CEO salaries have been public for a while now and I h…

> The consequence of sharing salaries is not equity but people being able to negotiate better so most likely average salaries will go up. The people that already negotiate have no incentive to share salaries The people that can’t negotiate won’t be able to just ask for a higher number

And then people who think they are making way more than their peers will be able to keep living in their dream world.

Re: Blizzard workers share salaries in revolt over wage disparities

#225

Post by TeaDrunk » Tue, Aug 04, 2020, 1:17 PM UTC

MaximumYComb wrote: post #127

TeaDrunk wrote: post #108

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Statistically women ask for raises just as much and as aggressively as men, but they’re less likely to be granted. The idea that aggression is a skill recurved the same between men and women is very much false...

A quick search revealed only one study that said this, and a ton of studies that said the complete opposite. Oh, and articles showing faults in that one study. i.e. for masters students entering new jobs, men were 8x more likely to negotiate on salary.

Could you show me that women receive raises when asking for them at the same rate as men?

Re: Blizzard workers share salaries in revolt over wage disparities

#226

Post by bo1024 » Tue, Aug 04, 2020, 1:34 PM UTC

dorgo wrote: post #203

bo1024 wrote: post #75

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yeah, you can make this a lot better by just making the random number in the range 1 billion - 1 trillion.

No. If the first person writes 1000050000 then the second person knows that the first earns <= 50k. Same problem at the other end of the interval.

Right, but the chance of this happening is a lot smaller.

Actually, I should have realized, what one should do is draw a random Gaussian (or Laplace) with very large variance -- see "differential privacy".

Re: Blizzard workers share salaries in revolt over wage disparities

#227

Post by scottLobster » Tue, Aug 04, 2020, 1:53 PM UTC

ryandrake wrote: post #198

woodruffw wrote: post #92

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Why shouldn't the more aggressive, more strategic people earn more on average? I'd argue they give more of a damn by definition. The ability to project social force is a positive trait if used well, and can directly benefit the work if turned in that direction. One potential reason: being aggressive and strategic, as qualities, are orthogonal to one's skills. They're just as good signals for being an abusive manage…

Maybe I'm just an amateur, but this whole idea of negotiating your salary being some complex, strategic parlay--like you're brokering peace in the middle east--doesn't really match my experience with getting job offers. It's not like there are a lot of dimensions to bargain around. You get an offer from the company, and you can basically do one of three things: 1. Accept the offer 2. Walk away 3. Say "How about more…

No, it's a matter of knowing what you want and getting as close as possible to that objective rather than accepting what's initially offered (unless what's offered is already good enough). Mainly through convincing other people that you deserve it.

Over the course of a career this behavior compounds into superior experience, superior interview performance (you have more examples to draw on/confidence in general), and secure enough position such that you have the ability to walk away.

For example, your perspective of "they have a long line of candidates if you try to negotiate". That may be true but your name arrived at the top of the list somehow. The fact that you're getting an offer alone gives you some leverage, and small increases in salary can matter over time. There's always a range of salaries for a given position, why not convince them you deserve the top of that range? Maybe it's through actual experience, maybe it's just by reading their personalities and being likeable in the interview, but at least try the hand you're dealt.

Granted this isn't always possible given an individual situation, but so many people simply throw away what leverage they have out of anxiety.

Re: Blizzard workers share salaries in revolt over wage disparities

#228

Post by scottLobster » Tue, Aug 04, 2020, 2:06 PM UTC

woodruffw wrote: post #92

scottLobster wrote: post #85

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'd argue your first example is actually fair. Someone who has trouble negotiating in professional circles is going to have issues far beyond the workplace, if nothing else they're going to get repeatably screwed buying a car, and they should work on that. Why shouldn't the more aggressive, more strategic people earn more on average? I'd argue they give more of a damn by definition. The ability to project social forc…

> Why shouldn't the more aggressive, more strategic people earn more on average? I'd argue they give more of a damn by definition. The ability to project social force is a positive trait if used well, and can directly benefit the work if turned in that direction. One potential reason: being aggressive and strategic, as qualities, are orthogonal to one's skills. They're just as good signals for being an abusive manage…

True, but I'd argue "(positively) aggressive in one's job" directly affects one's ability to be "aggressive during salary negotiations".

If you've just been laid off or are fresh out of college and "need" a job, then maybe being aggressive isn't worth the risk. But once you have an established career being positively aggressive on the job largely determines the opportunities that present themselves and the will/ability to exploit said opportunities. This in turn compounds into more favorable experience and a more secure position when applying for the next job. It's basically what the buzzword "leadership" is supposed to mean and why it's a buzzword in the first place.

To your point, filtering for those traits does filter out a large cohort that may be qualified for the job, but a company is more than just the job they offer. Do you want a worker who does his 40 and goes home every week, or someone who might bring extra dynamism and productivity to the company on top of his 40, and is only asking for 5-10% more?

Re: Blizzard workers share salaries in revolt over wage disparities

#229

Post by danaris » Tue, Aug 04, 2020, 2:16 PM UTC

asciident wrote: post #109

caymanjim wrote: post #102

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Sadly your pay has little to do with merit, and more to do with perception, connections, face time and ability to handle office issues better than your cohort. These are merits. They mean you're easy to work with, people want to work with you, you know how to make and maintain important relationships. You'd make a good leader. You can recruit talented people. You can get preferential treatment from vendors. Your pr…

All the things the OP listed are real merits. It's not even a game, but being a professional. Perception = you are good at communicating your work to others Connections = you have a strong network and stay informed and know who to talk to for different tasks Face time = you are easy to get along with Ability to handle office issues = you are a lubricant that make the group dynamic work If you don't do those things, t…

It is certainly possible to achieve these things by the methods you name. I'm sure some good employees do.

But it is also perfectly possible to achieve good perception, strong connections, lots of face time, and ability to handle office issues, while also being really bad at your actual job, and without any of the positives you mention (except for the fairly bland "easy to get along with").

The real problem, of course, is that what office politics optimize for is extraversion over performance, so anyone who's introverted (which a disproportionate number of programmers still are) is going to come in at a disadvantage.

And, um...if you're writing the code that's required of you, by the people who require it, and you're writing it well and in a timely fashion, it doesn't matter if you brag about it to everyone around, it's plenty useful to the company. I don't know where you've worked where the primary work you've done has been code that you've come up with on your own, which you've then had to "sell" to your own bosses and coworkers, but that's definitely not the norm.

Re: Blizzard workers share salaries in revolt over wage disparities

#230

Post by missedthecue » Tue, Aug 04, 2020, 2:53 PM UTC

mlthoughts2018 wrote: post #218

missedthecue wrote: post #107

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's basic economics. Everyone acts in their rational self interest, including your boss. Your boss doesn't get in trouble if you decide to leave. Your boss gets in trouble if his budget gets way out of control by giving promotions and raises left and right. On the converse, your boss doesn't pay the cost of hiring new people. It doesn't come out of his pocket. But giving 20% raises to everyone he has the suspicion o…

In every company I’ve worked in, a manager gets in much worse trouble if a good engineer reporting to them leaves rather than exceeding budget. Most typically middle managers are not allowed to significantly alter budget for bigger raises that retain important people, yet are then punished or admonished over the comparatively worse budget loss taken through recruiting and onboarding to hire a backfill, as well as get…

Acting rationally is not what I said. I said that they act in their rational self interest. That's a specific concept.