He also assumes employers are always fair, Often, employers will take advantage of things like a person's family status, or the job market in order to extort workers into accepting less pay.
Maybe Sally was a better negotiator during the hiring process
Shouldn't matter at all. Negotiation has nothing to do with the actual work you're doing.
To DoofusOfDeath's point, it's still to the employer's benefit to discourage information sharing because when Alice hears that Sally is being $n thousand more per annum, she's not going to remember that she was hired when the market was flooded with tech writers or that she's pretty bad about taking initiative despite constant prodding from her boss. The drama and/or legal headaches that follow hurt the bottom line.
So you think the company is completely justified in hiding that information for the end goal of simply fucking Alice over? Why the fuck should the labor conditions when Alice was hired matter now, especially if she's been with the company for a while? If they're both doing the same work, why should Sally get paid more, everything else being equal?
If Person Y is really better than Person X, then it should be easy to justify why Person Y gets paid more, and thus disclosing salaries is not a problem. However, in the situation where Person Y is getting more money "just because", or due to favoritism or some other bullshit, then no, you're not going to want to disclose the salary.
I think employers that share your attitude that employees should accept what crumbs you give them (a.k.a. "bleed me dry" from the opposite perspective) find themselves out of business shortly
Why is it that people like you always jump on the "entitled" bullshit? Is it that inconceivable to you that someone would actually be screwed over on pay?
To be fair, most government agencies would like to decide which contractors to use based on their abilities and merits, not the bid price. However, people who bitch too much about taxes have got it in their minds that governments have to use the lowest bidder, otherwise they're "wasting money", regardless of how much paying the higher priced contractor to do the job competently in the first place would save over the long run.
If everyone got the same, vast swathes of society would take the lazy/easy way out and just be a burger flipper or walmart greeter, and make just as much as the einstiens and goddards trying to get to the stars.
So fucking what? Are we really better off by forcing these people to do something they likely have no interest in, or even hate, just to survive?
If you don't like it, you're more than welcome to not work there. And not everyone is going to be fighting for the "easy" jobs. There still are people who enjoy challenges, and actually doing work, and these people would generally be happier at a company that was extremely up front about salary discussions than one that obscures them.
You know, somewhere in Africa, some dirt farmer is playing the world's smallest violin for you.
You're basically saying that, since it makes your job harder, it's completely fine for this deception to occur, which leads straight to huge amounts of abuse.
Also, when people know each other's salaries, it tends to make people discontent, when they'd previously been happy. Everyone wants to make more than everyone else. When people don't know each other's salaries, they're generally happy if they think they're making market rate. Want a recipe for a nasty workplace? Negotiate different salaries for each employee, and then let them all know who's making what.
Two things here: One, this is why I tend to shy away from discussions about how much I make, unless I'm already at a high enough rate that I don't care. Knowing that information is only going to make me more depressed, or it's only going to make someone else resent me. Many times it's not worth it.
Second is the idea of posting everyone's salaries. There are places where this is done, and everyone knows what everyone else makes. And so there's a lot more pressure on you to perform up to the level of that salary, in order to justify what you're making.
That's why I always laugh whenever people complain about the salaries janitors and garbagemen make. There's a reason they need to offer those salaries, and those that do the job usually earn what they make.
No, there are many people who agree with the idea of throwing drug users, regardless of the drug or the criminal history of the defendant, behind bars for a long time. And those people generally vote in higher numbers than those of us who don't feel this way.
Quite simply, some issues shouldn't matter who is elected, because civil rights should not be up for debate or vote. However, they are. Time and again we have to go all the way back to the people on civil rights.
This is true, but the Judicial system is usually a pretty good balance against this. Prop 8 in California never should have been on the ballot in the first place. However, the courts are doing what they are supposed to be doing, and throwing it out.
Nothing short of a revolution is going to fix this system. It may not produce one that will never find itself needing to be overthrown, but, such is the cycle of abuse.
We have a revolution every 2 years or so, when we vote in new officials.
No, much of it is because you have no fucking idea how to run a business. You're trying to have at least 4 employees on your retardedly small amount of capital. That is not the state of California's fault, it's your fault.
People in the city would be concerned about that, however. Again, there are two sides to the coin. You see it as a success story, whereas someone in the city would see it as a failure that these people were forced to leave in order to advance themselves.
So according to you, those with money deserve things more than those without? That they are better people?
What about money makes someone more deserving of living somewhere? And don't bring out that bullshit about hard work; those without money are usually some of the hardest working people around.
No, we fail to see why someone with more money deserves these things, simply because they have more money. All your "Supply and Demand" ranting is doing is saying that those with money are better, and therefore deserve things over people who don't have money. You still haven't given any actual reason why someone with money deserves to live in that city over someone who doesn't.
No, only a sick, sick fuck. You may or may not be the latter, but if you consider someone killing an intruder a Happy Ending, you are definitely the former.
You act like people can't do more than one thing at a time. And that we should ignore ACTA/SOPA/PIPA stuff until the other things are fixed, at which time it will be far too late.
That's not the fault of the judicial system. That's largely the fault of the legislative branch, who enacts laws mandating certain levels of sentencing. And that blame can largely be brought back to the people who voted for those representatives, who demanded that people be "tough on crime."
If they'd even take the time read music lyrics that were being sung 50 years ago, they'd easily see that things are even worse now than they were before.
Citation needed, pal. I'm sure 50 years ago people were moaning that young people then didn't have any interest in history, and that things were "worse than they were before."
So why no mention of the city's propensity to make being a landlord miserable?
Because it's just not true? And much of those policies you bitch about are direct results from landlords fucking over people, and abusing the power they had?
Slashdot Mirror
And why the fuck should that be accepted?
He also assumes employers are always fair, Often, employers will take advantage of things like a person's family status, or the job market in order to extort workers into accepting less pay.
Maybe Sally was a better negotiator during the hiring process
Shouldn't matter at all. Negotiation has nothing to do with the actual work you're doing.
To DoofusOfDeath's point, it's still to the employer's benefit to discourage information sharing because when Alice hears that Sally is being $n thousand more per annum, she's not going to remember that she was hired when the market was flooded with tech writers or that she's pretty bad about taking initiative despite constant prodding from her boss. The drama and/or legal headaches that follow hurt the bottom line.
So you think the company is completely justified in hiding that information for the end goal of simply fucking Alice over? Why the fuck should the labor conditions when Alice was hired matter now, especially if she's been with the company for a while? If they're both doing the same work, why should Sally get paid more, everything else being equal?
If Person Y is really better than Person X, then it should be easy to justify why Person Y gets paid more, and thus disclosing salaries is not a problem. However, in the situation where Person Y is getting more money "just because", or due to favoritism or some other bullshit, then no, you're not going to want to disclose the salary.
I think employers that share your attitude that employees should accept what crumbs you give them (a.k.a. "bleed me dry" from the opposite perspective) find themselves out of business shortly
That doesn't really seem to be the case.
Why is it that people like you always jump on the "entitled" bullshit? Is it that inconceivable to you that someone would actually be screwed over on pay?
To be fair, most government agencies would like to decide which contractors to use based on their abilities and merits, not the bid price. However, people who bitch too much about taxes have got it in their minds that governments have to use the lowest bidder, otherwise they're "wasting money", regardless of how much paying the higher priced contractor to do the job competently in the first place would save over the long run.
According to Republicans, they're called "Job Creators".
If everyone got the same, vast swathes of society would take the lazy/easy way out and just be a burger flipper or walmart greeter, and make just as much as the einstiens and goddards trying to get to the stars.
So fucking what? Are we really better off by forcing these people to do something they likely have no interest in, or even hate, just to survive?
If you don't like it, you're more than welcome to not work there. And not everyone is going to be fighting for the "easy" jobs. There still are people who enjoy challenges, and actually doing work, and these people would generally be happier at a company that was extremely up front about salary discussions than one that obscures them.
You know, somewhere in Africa, some dirt farmer is playing the world's smallest violin for you.
You're basically saying that, since it makes your job harder, it's completely fine for this deception to occur, which leads straight to huge amounts of abuse.
Also, when people know each other's salaries, it tends to make people discontent, when they'd previously been happy. Everyone wants to make more than everyone else. When people don't know each other's salaries, they're generally happy if they think they're making market rate. Want a recipe for a nasty workplace? Negotiate different salaries for each employee, and then let them all know who's making what.
Two things here: One, this is why I tend to shy away from discussions about how much I make, unless I'm already at a high enough rate that I don't care. Knowing that information is only going to make me more depressed, or it's only going to make someone else resent me. Many times it's not worth it.
Second is the idea of posting everyone's salaries. There are places where this is done, and everyone knows what everyone else makes. And so there's a lot more pressure on you to perform up to the level of that salary, in order to justify what you're making.
That's why I always laugh whenever people complain about the salaries janitors and garbagemen make. There's a reason they need to offer those salaries, and those that do the job usually earn what they make.
No, there are many people who agree with the idea of throwing drug users, regardless of the drug or the criminal history of the defendant, behind bars for a long time. And those people generally vote in higher numbers than those of us who don't feel this way.
Quite simply, some issues shouldn't matter who is elected, because civil rights should not be up for debate or vote. However, they are. Time and again we have to go all the way back to the people on civil rights.
This is true, but the Judicial system is usually a pretty good balance against this. Prop 8 in California never should have been on the ballot in the first place. However, the courts are doing what they are supposed to be doing, and throwing it out.
Nothing short of a revolution is going to fix this system. It may not produce one that will never find itself needing to be overthrown, but, such is the cycle of abuse.
We have a revolution every 2 years or so, when we vote in new officials.
No, much of it is because you have no fucking idea how to run a business. You're trying to have at least 4 employees on your retardedly small amount of capital. That is not the state of California's fault, it's your fault.
People in the city would be concerned about that, however. Again, there are two sides to the coin. You see it as a success story, whereas someone in the city would see it as a failure that these people were forced to leave in order to advance themselves.
So according to you, those with money deserve things more than those without? That they are better people?
What about money makes someone more deserving of living somewhere? And don't bring out that bullshit about hard work; those without money are usually some of the hardest working people around.
No, we fail to see why someone with more money deserves these things, simply because they have more money. All your "Supply and Demand" ranting is doing is saying that those with money are better, and therefore deserve things over people who don't have money. You still haven't given any actual reason why someone with money deserves to live in that city over someone who doesn't.
No, only a sick, sick fuck. You may or may not be the latter, but if you consider someone killing an intruder a Happy Ending, you are definitely the former.
No, I won't.
You act like people can't do more than one thing at a time. And that we should ignore ACTA/SOPA/PIPA stuff until the other things are fixed, at which time it will be far too late.
That's not the fault of the judicial system. That's largely the fault of the legislative branch, who enacts laws mandating certain levels of sentencing. And that blame can largely be brought back to the people who voted for those representatives, who demanded that people be "tough on crime."
If they'd even take the time read music lyrics that were being sung 50 years ago, they'd easily see that things are even worse now than they were before.
Citation needed, pal. I'm sure 50 years ago people were moaning that young people then didn't have any interest in history, and that things were "worse than they were before."
So why no mention of the city's propensity to make being a landlord miserable?
Because it's just not true? And much of those policies you bitch about are direct results from landlords fucking over people, and abusing the power they had?