Slashdot Mirror


Ask Slashdot: Should You Tell Your Coworkers How Much You Make?

An anonymous reader writes: Asking someone how much money they make is often -- if not always? -- considered impolite. But over the years, there has been a movement in toward more salary transparency. Some say salary transparency can make workplaces more equitable by helping to eliminate the gender and racial pay gaps. Even in companies that haven't decided to officially make all salaries open, some employees are taking matters into their own hands and sharing their pay rate with their coworkers. What's your take on this?

20 of 357 comments (clear)

  1. Dunning-Kruger by omnichad · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I think this is a variation of Dunning-Kruger. Lower-paid workers cannot understand what value the higher paid workers actually provide. Sometimes the higher pay is valid, sometimes not. But unless you are already an expert, you won't know. So while you help with race/gender pay inequality, you're also making a hostile work environment for managers and subordinates.

    1. Re:Dunning-Kruger by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Please tell us how unfair it is that your degree in African Women's Studies in Underwater Basketweaving doesn't qualify you for a six-figure salary in the real world.

    2. Re:Dunning-Kruger by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Insightful

      Yeah, the hourly employees always have a chip on their shoulder.
      But I think when we talk about Salary, we're talking about exempt employees.
      I.e. people smart enough to not get paid overtime for their hours of work after 40...
      errr, wait. that doesn't sound right.

      Maybe when disclosing salary with coworkers that have similar roles, they should also state number of hours worked?
      But yeah. I've been one of those "lucky" enough to get hired during a recession, so my salary is always going to lag, or at least it feels that way. I don't know, it might help with morale to know just how I do come out compared to coworkers in similar roles, or if the grass is greener in a different role (mechanical engineer).

      It's always the negative nancy's though. Wahwahwah, why does he get paid more and get to come in at 9, and I'm here at 7? (uhh, because he stays super late working on stuff, and you're off running for the door every day at precisely 3:30 PM).

    3. Re:Dunning-Kruger by Lab+Rat+Jason · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Spoken like a true "Lower-paid worker" </snark>

      All kidding aside, I think what the GP is saying is that regardless of whether or not the lower paid worker *ACTUALLY* has a valid grievance, they will in every case *PERCEIVE* that they have one. Personally I don't think I would engage in that kind of talk with any of my co-workers because while it is easy to understand the equal pay part, I think it's nearly impossible to objectively assess the equal work part. It might be easy in a factory setting where you each pump out 100 widgets a day, but no two people on my team have the exact same skill set... that's kind of the point: different skills make for a well rounded team.

      --
      Which has more power: the hammer, or the anvil?
    4. Re: Dunning-Kruger by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      So the fact that half of my workload is fixing the other guy's fuckups means I should be paid... the same?

    5. Re:Dunning-Kruger by Aristos+Mazer · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I disagree with this. It is entirely possible to have two people with the same title and workload and for there to be qualitative differences. If both of them finish their job with the same quality but one finishes faster, I'm more interested in retaining the faster one... if the economy picks up and employees are getting headhunted, I may increase the pay of the more versatile one. I may not have more workload to drop on them right now, but I want to hold onto that A class talent because when the economy turns around and I'm having to lay people off, I want that talent to still be there. There's a thousand situations like this. If you're going to be public about salaries, you have to be prepared to explain that some people are worth more than other people, even for the same work, because of the long-term flexibility that the person supplies.

    6. Re:Dunning-Kruger by Shados · · Score: 2, Insightful

      And why isn't this "hostile work environment" a problem for all the places that do have open salaries, like every government and union shop in the world

      It is. The professors at the public college I went to were ALWAYS bitching about this. I also worked in the IT department of a manufacturing company and watched the shop workers cheer and applaud as they signed the dismantlement of their union, partly because of this.

      The reality is that almost everyone thinks they deserve more than the next person. No one will ever admit they're second rate even if they are. With hidden salaries, there's just 2 people "fighting" with each other. The company to pay as little as possible, the employee trying to get everything they can.

      When everyone knows, then everyone starts looking at each other. "Well, I'm better than THIS person. The 10 people I play pingpong with during lunch TOTALLY agree". It's already bad enough that this happens with titles. To properly gauge why I make a certain amount of money, everyone comparing themselves to me need to know not only my salary, but everything I've done, all my contributions, all of the deals I might have made (eg: special vacations or waving certain benefits I can legally wave). There's also plenty of other things that can affect compensation that are simply no one's business (maybe someone has some health issues that reduce productivity and they made a deal to work smaller days and don't want the world to know).

      It's fine that HR and maybe my manager knows this. The rest of the company simply doesn't need to. Right right now that asymmetry is often used to discriminate against minorities, so people want to get rid of it. It won't always be that way (heck, right now in a lot of companies the other way around is happening). You don't want that shit public.

      Sure, some type of organizations do, and some have to, and they make it work. Doesn't mean it's optimal.

    7. Re:Dunning-Kruger by Darinbob · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Explain why the white male with a degree in communcations studies gets a 6 figure salary while watching kitten videos all day? Pay does not always have a strong correlation with a person's performance. There's lip service that pay is merit based but in practice it isn't.

      Your starting salary is the biggest factor. So if everyone gets roughly 3-5% raises every year, the people with the higher starting salaries will tend to have the largest paychecks. Seniority counts too, but I usually found that I got the biggest bumps in pay by changing jobs. The snag is that many minorities get smaller starting salaries.

    8. Re: Dunning-Kruger by dcw3 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      It doesn't matter how many people are "working their asses off", when most of those positions are mindless and can be accomplished by anyone. That's exactly why they have to work their ass off, because they don't have an in demand skill.

      --
      Just another day in Paradise
  2. No by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Three possible outcomes:
    1- You feel undervalued
    2- They feel undervalued
    3- You're surprisingly in alignment on the value of the work both of you do, your initial negotiating position, and other possible impacts that may have led to your compensation.

    I'd guess most people are not going to fit into the third category.

  3. Re:No choice by BitterOak · · Score: 5, Insightful

    The province where I work has mandated that all university employees paid over a certain amount must have their salaries publicly disclosed because they are, at least partly, publicly funded. While I don't have a problem with this per se I think it is unfair to single out those of us working at universities. This rule should also apply to all companies who accept government contracts too since, by extension, their salaries are also being paid for, at least in part, by government money.

    In the case of contracts, the amount of the contract should be made public, but how the contractor pays its employees is really their own business. All the public needs to know is the amount of the contract, and possibly, competing bids to ensure the public is getting a good value for its money. The employees of the contractor are not government employees.

    --
    If I can be modded down for being a troll, can I be modded up for being an orc, or a balrog?
  4. Yes. Absolutely. by The+Good+Reverend · · Score: 5, Insightful

    The idea of keeping wages secret exists mainly because employers don't want everyone knowing what others make. If they did, they might all want to be "more equal" (deservedly or otherwise). For the most, the secrecy is still a tool employers use to maintain low wages.

    Transparency puts the onus on employers to explain wage inequality.

  5. Make It Open by bistromath007 · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Your position is a key piece of information when negotiating, a piece that Americans almost never have because of this custom. The only reason you should WANT your salary to be a secret is that you think you make the most compared to your peers. That or tax evasion.

  6. Yes by rsilvergun · · Score: 3, Insightful

    it's "impolite" because we're told it's impolite. We're told that for a reason. It's yet another barrier to Unionizing and organized labor; the only two things that have ever made a widespread enough difference in the working classes quality of life to result in a 'middle class'.

    --
    Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
  7. No - Don't do it by E-Rock · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Nope. No one is ever happy. If you make less, you're pissed. If you make more, it's not enough more, and you're pissed.

  8. Game theory says... by ElizabethGreene · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Your employer benefits from the information asymmetry of not sharing your pay data with your peers. You do not.

    Unfortunately no-one wants to be the one that speaks first.

  9. Re:Tell a designated person by JustNiz · · Score: 4, Insightful

    That's great and all, until Trade Unions, just like any other person or group of people given representative power, inevitably transition out of acting on behalf of those who empowered them, and start acting on behalf of only themselves.

  10. Re:No choice by BitterOak · · Score: 3, Insightful

    The employees of the University are not government employees either

    That depends on whether or not we are talking about a public or private university. They are indeed government employees if they are teaching at a public university (which isn't the same thing as a publicly-funded university) such as a state college. Their employer might be the "University of Statesota" but they are working for the government. On the other hand, I don't think salaries of professors at private universities (even if they receive government funding) are required to publicly disclose their salaries.

    --
    If I can be modded down for being a troll, can I be modded up for being an orc, or a balrog?
  11. Re:Be careful by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Insightful

    It's bitztream the autism-hating, custom EpiPen-hating, Musk-hating, Qualcomm-hating, Firefox tabs-hating, Slashdot editors-hating Slashdot troll!

  12. Re:Be careful by hambone142 · · Score: 3, Insightful

    NLRB indicates that employers cannot prohibit employees from discussing wages with other employees.
    https://www.lexisnexis.com/leg...