Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

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

Posted by msmash on from the let's-get-going dept.

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?

14 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 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?
    3. 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.

    4. 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. 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?
  3. 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.

  4. 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.

  5. 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/
  6. 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.

  7. 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.

  8. 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.

  9. 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?
  10. 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...