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?

30 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 AmiMoJo · · Score: 3, Informative

      Are there any examples of where this has happened? Because there are lots of counter examples, e.g. entire counties where salaries are public information.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    4. Re:Dunning-Kruger by tgeek · · Score: 5, Funny

      I bet if I was paid more I would know who or what Dunning Kruger is - should I find out before of after I ask for a raise in the morning?

    5. Re:Dunning-Kruger by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Sure, pay is hard, particularly if you don't have a job that can be directly attributed a share of receivables.

      But what makes you think the people currently deciding salaries *are* experts working with current, valid information? Why should we assume that the status quo is "correct" in most cases, as opposed to being subject to the same limitations you note as applying to open salaries? If this is something you can easily train many people to do we could just offer the same training to employees, and if it's hard to learn or do we shouldn't assume that all managers magically have the skills and knowledge to make it happen.

      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?

    6. 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.

    7. Re:Dunning-Kruger by Darinbob · · Score: 5, Informative

      Duning-Kruger is about people thinking that they are better at random fields than they really are. Or as often stated "incompetents don't realize they are incompetent." However this is often misunderstood - it is not talking about someone's competence in their area of expertise, their job, etc. Instead it is about people misjudging how good they are at a different field from their normal competence. Ie, an above average engineer who thinks they're also above average at wine tasting on their first try. An engineer who is incompetent at engineering will quickly learn that they are indeed incompetent.

      The original results were based on people being given some tests (humor, logic, grammar, etc). Afterwords they were asked to rate how good they thought they did on it. Those who were in the bottom of the ranking tended to rate themselves a bit above average. The hypothesis was that if they're bad enough at it that they scored low, they're also bad enough to not be able to effectively rank themselves. After some minimal tutoring they tended to become much better at estimating their own abilities.

      Additionally, those who ranked near the top also assumed they were closer to average. Presumably because they thought everyone else did better because the tests didn't seem hard.

      That's the background anyway. But the Dunning-Kruger effect has sort of taking on a life of its own with the general public, and is misused a lot. Such as being misused by slashdot right now. The Dunning-Kruger effect is not the same as the Peter principle. Being "incompetent" does not mean that the person is an idiot, instead it's more that they're ignorant of a particular subject.

    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
    9. Re:Dunning-Kruger by apoc.famine · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Well, if you can do anecdotes, so can I!

      Transparent salaries aren't a problem anywhere I've worked. That includes local government, public university, and state government. And private industry, although they were a fair bit less transparent there.

      In none of those cases did I find a hostile work environment related to salaries. Most of the people I've worked with have been well-adjusted, down-to-earth people, and generally wouldn't raise a stink unless there were some real shenanigans going on. And in general, there weren't any, because of the transparency.

      I don't know what psychopaths you've spent your life working with, but it sounds awful. Where have you worked and in what fields? I'd like to avoid those if I can.

      --
      Velociraptor = Distiraptor / Timeraptor
  2. No choice by Roger+W+Moore · · Score: 3, Interesting

    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.

    1. 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?
    2. 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?
    3. Re:No choice by chill · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Are you aware that the current head of OPM has not released the data for 2017, claiming it is exempt from FOIA? They've been releasing it for 11 years, but all of a sudden it is private information.

      --
      Learning HOW to think is more important than learning WHAT to think.
  3. Sure, you first by shanen · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Actually I think it should be done in a way that protects privacy, but the privacy-protecting entity must NOT be under the control of the employers. That's what's wrong with such websites as GlassDoor.

    Let me try to reframe the question from a higher perspective: You can't know if you are being paid fairly without valid data on what other people are being paid for similar work. However you cannot know the truth when the underlying objective is to lower your pay (and all the other employees' pay) as much as possible.

    Or in philosophic terms, there needs to be a balance between the needs of the customers, the employees, the managers, and the corporations themselves. As things are evolving, the cancerous corporations are running roughshod over ALL the human participants.

    --
    Freedom = (Meaningful - Coerced) Choice != (Speech | Beer^2), and sad sock puppets' bad mods avail them naught.
  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. YMMV by Notabadguy · · Score: 4, Interesting

    YMMV:

    In my experience, Fortune 25 companies don't have fixed salaries for positions or roles, but rather pay the least amount possible within a range. For example, the salary range of a lead professional at my company is $70,000 - $121,000. That's a pretty big swing.

    I took a paycut to get into this company, and a few years into it, I gathered salary data from my peers (within my professional grouping only), then assembled a short presentation for my manager - our performance is metric driven, with quite clear revenue, margin, scope, and customer satisfaction expectations - showing that my professional output was near the very top, and my pay was near the very bottom. He didn't even realize - and I think most managers aren't intimately familiar with what their employees make.

    But the data helped me negotiate for a higher salary, which I wouldn't have been able to do if I didn't have a federally protected right to discuss it with my peers.

  6. Be careful by crow · · Score: 3, Informative

    My company told me when I was hired (buried in some document) that salaries were considered trade secrets, and we weren't allowed to discuss them. I don't know if they have any legal footing there, especially when discussing them within the company. Also, we've been acquired by another company since then, so I don't know the current policy. But in any case, you may risk some retribution from your employer if they find out you're sharing salary information (potentially forcing them to pay more when the underpaid workers find out).

    1. Re: Be careful by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

      If you are in the US your employer is in violation of federal law specifically section 7 of the national labor relations act, where discussion of salary is a protected act.
      https://www.nlrb.gov/resources/national-labor-relations-act
      RIGHTS OF EMPLOYEES

        Sec. 7. [Â 157.] Employees shall have the right to self-organization, to form, join, or assist labor organizations, to bargain collectively through representatives of their own choosing, and to engage in other concerted activities for the purpose of collective bargaining or other mutual aid or protection, and shall also have the right to refrain from any or all of such activities except to the extent that such right may be affected by an agreement requiring membership in a labor organization as a condition of employment as authorized in section 8(a)(3) [section 158(a)(3) of this title].

      https://www.shrm.org/resourcesandtools/tools-and-samples/hr-qa/pages/prohibitdiscussingsalaries.aspx

    2. 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...

  7. 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.

    1. Re:Make It Open by slew · · Score: 3, Interesting

      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.

      Your salary is never "secret". It is likely your boss and all the superiors up to the CEO and all the people in HR and payroll know your salary and besides it is reported to the IRS.

      The question is simply if you want your salary generally known to your colleagues so it can be used for their advantage in negotiating their salary. This is a question that can be partly answered with game theory.

      Unfortunately, game theory tells us that lying is dominate strategy. If others are honest, it makes sense to lie since you get the same benefit without any risk. And if others lie, you have nothing to gain and honesty comes with a risk. Therefore, everyone lies.

      So rather than put every in the position of wanting to directly lie, out of politeness we offer everyone the opportunity for a passive lie of omission.

  8. 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/
  9. Yes, but you should lie. by HornWumpus · · Score: 4, Funny

    Double your income when speaking with 'workers' you'd love to see quit and women you want to fuck.

    Halve it, when speaking with competitors, in hope that they will think raises are impossible and move on.

    --
    John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
  10. It is in your own self-interest. by gurps_npc · · Score: 3

    Either you make a lot (relative), and you get to brag.

    Or you are getting underpaid and you need to know that when you negotiate your next salary.

    The business owner doesn't want you to tell your salary, but remember they already KNOW all the salaries. They have all the knowledge and are trying to keep you ignorant and underpaid.

    --
    excitingthingstodo.blogspot.com
  11. 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.

  12. 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.

  13. You're in IT .. by CaptainDork · · Score: 5, Funny

    ... and you have the keys.

    Just sayin'.

    --
    It little behooves the best of us to comment on the rest of us.
  14. $125/hr - was my last billing rate by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

    $125/hr - was my last billing rate before I retired at age 42. I was a consultant, paid hourly and was taking about 8 weeks off a year.

      I always billed for every hour, period. The client sent me to a conference and I billed 8 hrs a day. The flights back home, the client's policies prevented me taking a 1st class seat which cost less than a coach seat and had better connections. I billed 16 hrs that day when I could have been home in 6 hrs had the 1st class seat been approved ... on a commuter jet.
    I got a new boss, who tried to suggest that I should only bill 40 hrs a week but work more to be a "team player." I pointed out that he was asking me to violate US labor laws. Seems he'd asked all the other contractors in the group the same thing. I was limited to 40 hours, which suited me fine.

    My first "real" job paid $3.35/hr ... washing dishes at Big Boy. I got fired.

    My first salaried job paid just under $30K/yr - about $14/hr - but it was common to work 60+ hrs/week, which dropped the hourly average pay drastically. I ran the numbers and promised I'd try to minimize "exempt employee abuse" the rest of my career.

    Worked at a 100 person company in the late 1990s. Found a spreadsheet with all the salaries, bonuses and stock option grants for everyone in the company. I copied the file off and took it home - studied it. It was very fair. I wasn't "highly compensated" at the time, but managed a small team of software developers. The option grants made perfect sense based on who not only worked the hardest, but who provided real results for the company. A few of my team had 3x more options than I did. They deserved it. I was paid more - not too much more, but more. The company hired a new President who was given options - like 40x more than I had. His prior track record was impressive, but he failed completely at our company. He left after about 11 months, 13 months before any options vested. The sales team had terrible salaries, but huge bonuses and some added options when they made a sizeable sale. About half the sales team made huge money yearly. The other half earned below the poverty line. Marketing guys would ruin my team's schedules, holidays, vacations constantly. The sales guys were always fairly demanding when at a client location, with good reason.

    Oh ... and I've never lived in NYC or anywhere in California.

  15. 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.