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

351–360 of 382 posts

Re: What happens when you talk about salaries at Google

#351

Post by eropple »

msutherl wrote: post #349
eropple wrote: post #338

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If a company decides that exercising one's rights is "troublemaking", that company should be utterly destroyed without hesitation or remorse. The corporation exists solely at the sufferance of the society that grants it its charter. Someday maybe we'll remember this instead of throwing our hands up in the air and giving up.

You seem to be equating 'acting within the law' with both moral conduct and efficacy (from the perspective of the charter). This is denying that efficacy from the perspective of the company, contra the law, moral code, or the charter could have a positive outcome. In fact, it appears that successful corporations are constantly pushing on all 3 restraints, and in the marketplace, corporations that ride the edge are mo…

> How then does it make sense to immediately dismantle a corporation that breaks the rules even in a small way (destroying huge amounts of value)?

It determines the values of your society. Fuck with the powerless at your own, extreme risk. If your values are more important than your spreadsheets, then the violation of the rights of the weak must take precedence. And, for me, it does; I'm proud to say that I've been pretty on-point about hewing to that in my adult life, even when balancing managerial responsibilities to an employer.

We can argue about the level of impact that must be assessed; I'll bend on something like the revocation of a charter for this (though there are plenty of corporate crimes for which it's a fair response). But suppression of worker rights should involve a very, very harsh penalty that makes the company not simply think twice from, but recoil in utter fear about, doing so again. (Perhaps a personal consequence to the actor involved; I don't really believe in the fictional person of the corporation and I'm okay with holding its agents responsible for its bad behaviors.)

> It seems that you're advocating a 'punishment as deterrent' strategy for society along the lines of capital punishment.

Essentially, yes, but there's a multiplier involved that makes this comparison fuzzy. Organizations, which are not people, should be held to significantly higher standards of moral rectitude than any individual due to their geometrically (even exponentially?) greater power and ability to impact others. Impacts that would be "small" on the individual scale are seismic at Google-scale, and the punishments must reflect this.

I think there are better strategies for encouraging lawfulness (and, more important, ethical behavior) at the individual scale, and even at the societal level. But the modern corporation's entire schtick is being above that society--look how many useful idiots speak positively of the "amorality" of a corporation. If an appeal to the better nature of which people celebrate its non-existence, I'm okay with giving fear a go. I mean, we already live in the cyberpunk dystopia of the eighties, minus the mohawks and shoulderpads--at this point, inaction is acceptance.

Re: What happens when you talk about salaries at Google

#352

Post by eropple »

msutherl wrote: post #350
eropple wrote: post #343

Earlier quoted context omitted.

An employer is the power-holder in almost any employer/employee relationship. And so even the "discussion" exists to have a chilling effect upon that worker. The act of having that uncomfortable and fraught discussion is in itself a threat. You have those "discussions" to get a worker to stop exercising their rights. There's no other reason to have it. When your employee does something that is entirely legal and prot…

Isn't it possible that employee and employer can have a non-antagonistic relationship? What if the "discussion" was intended entirely in the interest of the employee? In any event, it seems to me that it was good advice given the context.

> Isn't it possible that employee and employer can have a non-antagonistic relationship?

I'm skeptical, given the vastly divergent goals of employer and employee. I'm borderline-dismissive at Google scale, where there's no meaningful employer/employee relationship to be found at most levels of the hierarchy (and a relationship with a manager isn't the same thing). Of course, there are models of organization (co-ops and the like) where one can have a mutualistic relationship with the other stakeholders, but--these aren't that.

> What if the "discussion" was intended entirely in the interest of the employee?

The interest of the employee just happens to involve not rocking the boat, not ensuring that everybody's got an accurate picture of the market, and depressing workers' negotiation position so that the company can profit? To me the possibility of this what-if is so remote as to be laughable.

Re: What happens when you talk about salaries at Google

#353

Post by eli »

tempodox wrote: post #124
eli wrote: post #86

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's nonsense. The person who wrote the tweets retains ownership, they have simply licensed Twitter to display them in a certain way with certain requirements.

Slight variations in legal details don't make the article any more readable. Even the reasons why it can't be formatted otherwise stay exactly the same. The difference you're pointing out makes no difference at all.

Totally disagree. The article is hard to read because the author is lazy, it has nothing to do with "Twitter's display rules." The author could have quoted the tweets or asked permission to reprint them in another format or used them as the source for original reporting instead of posting them verbatim. It's the difference between embedding the PDF of a legal ruling vs writing an article about what it means.

Re: What happens when you talk about salaries at Google

#354

Post by emodendroket »

cpncrunch wrote: post #346
emodendroket wrote: post #201

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Certainly it's damning if it's an accurate depiction but I agree with you that just using Storify on a bunch of tweets isn't really anything like "journalism."

I'm not sure how it's damning except against Erica herself. She strongly implies racism is involved, but it sounds like she just doesn't understand the PB system. (The fact that her white friend got multiple PBs for the same thing seems more like his manager also didn't understand how it works).

Well what she's insinuating is that she was retaliated against for sharing salary information, which is against the law. I'm not sure how you intuit from the information available that she "doesn't understand the PB system."

Re: What happens when you talk about salaries at Google

#355

Post by deadmik3 »

eropple wrote: post #343
deadmik3 wrote: post #341

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But they didn't actually do anything to her! What did they do? Please, I am clearly missing it. Yes they can absolutely be unhappy that their employees are causing a problem, that's why they tried to discuss it with her. But they didn't do anything to her for it.

An employer is the power-holder in almost any employer/employee relationship. And so even the "discussion" exists to have a chilling effect upon that worker. The act of having that uncomfortable and fraught discussion is in itself a threat. You have those "discussions" to get a worker to stop exercising their rights. There's no other reason to have it. When your employee does something that is entirely legal and prot…

First off, all we know is that it was a question "Do you know what could happen?", not some scary "discussion". Such a chilling question to ask someone, so intimidate, very trigger.

It's good to know that my employer can never question anything I do legally without being hostile, though.

Re: What happens when you talk about salaries at Google

#356

Post by dbg31415 »

saiya-jin wrote: post #63
dbg31415 wrote: post #23

So... here's A problem with this. Are you verifying that the users are actually who they say they are when they share salaries? What if I were to go into the form and say that I was you, and that you made a billion dollars more than everyone else. Would that cause drama? This just seems like a horrible idea. Feelings will be hurt. Productivity will be lost. Someone will quit. Maybe someone will benefit, but it's almo…

naive and oversimplified view... are you an employee or employer? I don't have issue negotiating salaries hard, but I personally know very bright people, who for various reasons failed at that, and once they learned other people's salaries (which happens eventually to most), they got extremely frustrated, felt strong injustice and some left. I have more sympathy for community-based approach rather than selfish everyb…

Well I manage a team, I have direct reports. I can tell you that Sally and Steve and Joe all have the same job title, but Joe is a rockstar and earns more, and Steve is a slacker who got the job because he knew someone. So when the averages come out, and Sally gets pissed because she's not making what Joe is making... that's what causes drama.

Pay really does, more often than not, reflect the individuals contributions. Why? Because as Joe's manager, I want to keep Joe. I know what market rate is for his position, and I do what I can to make sure he is paid above it. Steve... fuck that guy, let him make below average... he didn't deserve the job in the first place, and we'd all be better off if he quit.

Anyway the fact that it's not by name (so you can compare yourself to another person) makes it worse in my mind. If you are just going to share the salary for your position, we'd need to make different positions for Steve, Sally, and Joe... It would be Title Blah, Rank Joe. Everyone is different.

All names changed of course.

Re: What happens when you talk about salaries at Google

#357

Post by cpncrunch »

emodendroket wrote: post #354
cpncrunch wrote: post #346

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm not sure how it's damning except against Erica herself. She strongly implies racism is involved, but it sounds like she just doesn't understand the PB system. (The fact that her white friend got multiple PBs for the same thing seems more like his manager also didn't understand how it works).

Well what she's insinuating is that she was retaliated against for sharing salary information, which is against the law. I'm not sure how you intuit from the information available that she "doesn't understand the PB system."

The PB guidelines apparently say you can only get one PB for each task, but she expected to receive multiple. See the other comments here for details.

Re: What happens when you talk about salaries at Google

#359

Post by nsfyn55 »

Bartweiss wrote: post #228
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 -…

I have no problem with Erica Joy's approach here. She told a fairly comprehensive story about a concern she had with Google, and ended it with a fairly unassailable moral (doodles do not an 'ethical' company make). Wired, on the other hand, stooped to about the journalistic level of Gawker with this. If you're going to run social media content as an article, that deserves background and confirmation. If you're going…

I am largely in agreement with you, but I can't help but feel Erica Joy is skirting some gray areas here.

In one breath she states its "illegal to retaliate for sharing salary information" yet a spreadsheet she implies clearly evidences discrimination hasn't found itself in the hands of a qualified attorney. If the former is true barring legalities I may not be familiar(disclaimer not an attorney) the participants would seem to be protected.

In addition she strongly implies damning evidence can be demonstrated with some "spreadsheet magic" but is very careful not to use specific language. This could be construed as someone avoiding accusations of libel.

I'm interested though if this spreadsheet has the level of adoption she claims(thought I don't quite understand the bit about 5% of former co. if she means google that'd be 2,500 people) It will certainly leak then we can run the pivots ourselves.

Re: What happens when you talk about salaries at Google

#360

Post by raisedbyninjas »

aaronem wrote: post #157
raisedbyninjas wrote: post #141

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

I can imagine a number of downsides to publishing pay rates. Not every workplace is a beacon of maturity and comfortable upper-middle-class wages. Some offices have politics, gossip, and troublemakers.

Immediately employees would be calling meetings with their manager to hear the justifications for pay rates they felt were unfair. This could repeat with each new hire, promotion, raise, bonus, and change in responsibilities. This generates wasted time and increased turnover. My wife's design company would virtually grind to a halt for a few days. Even after everybody is placated with their pay rate, each doling out project assignments would be a new opportunity for friction over who deserves to do what. Then let's consider accusations of sexism, racism, ageism. The number of discrimination lawsuits would likely be non-zero. There are also social introverts who don't want to turn half of their co-worker interactions into awkward conversations.

So once profitable workplaces that kept everybody moderately polite and happy could face several obstacles. Handing out raises wouldn't solve all of these problems either. I'll admit some worker bees would probably get paid a little more.

Post reply on HN