It's fairly common knowledge that hiding that information is part of the wider power imbalance between employers and employees. That's why employers have that no sharing rule - if everyone is...
It's fairly common knowledge that hiding that information is part of the wider power imbalance between employers and employees. That's why employers have that no sharing rule - if everyone is getting paid what they are worth, it shouldn't matter if people know. Especially if you're an ethical employer and actively develop your team, rather than hide where they are doing well/poorly.
The only negative I see coming out of this is kneejerk reactions to pay gaps caused not by businesses being against certain groups, but because reality causes those groups to yield less business value. For example, if a parent was to take 2 years of parental leave, their skills are rusty and their performance is poorer - it shouldn't fall on the business to pay them the same as someone who provides more value, that should be a social cost. That's a pretty toxic call for some reason though (the general idea that social burdens should be paid for socially, rather than the burden being on the business).
Here is Sweden parents get 18 months paid maternity leave between them (per child), of which, the husband has to take at least 3 or they lose them. And you can use those days whenever you want up...
Here is Sweden parents get 18 months paid maternity leave between them (per child), of which, the husband has to take at least 3 or they lose them. And you can use those days whenever you want up until the child is 8. There is no problems with lost/rusty skills, or anything like that. The system works perfectly well. People are hired on temporary contracts designed specifically to cover this type of leave. The majority of the burden is on the government, but then again that's why taxes are high. At unionised companies there's usually a common agreement on salary anyway, so these types of issues don't really arise.
If you take a block of time off, then yes there is. If you're out of a field for 18 months you're at a minimum rusty - at worst the industry has left you behind entirely. No amount of financial...
There is no problems with lost/rusty skills, or anything like that
If you take a block of time off, then yes there is. If you're out of a field for 18 months you're at a minimum rusty - at worst the industry has left you behind entirely. No amount of financial support could possibly change that fact.
Sure, your skills are rusty, I meant it's not an issue in terms of cost to the company not so much that it justifies a reduction in salary, but I suppose that depends on the industry.
Sure, your skills are rusty, I meant it's not an issue in terms of cost to the company not so much that it justifies a reduction in salary, but I suppose that depends on the industry.
The problem with this mentality, at least at a macro level, is that it incentivizes certain kinds of behavior that are potentially costly long-term. If it’s too costly to have children, and...
The problem with this mentality, at least at a macro level, is that it incentivizes certain kinds of behavior that are potentially costly long-term. If it’s too costly to have children, and everyone stops having children, what is the cost? This is a straw-man, sure, but I’m using it as an example of incentivizing choices that need to be considered. A more realistic micro-level effect would be that maybe the employee who has kids is more fulfilled in their life and will be less prone to burn-out, or will be more likely to remain loyal to a company as they raise there kids, meaning they will have a long, dedicated career with the company. The employee who doesn’t have kids may feel freer to uproot and move somewhere else if they get bored, burnt-out, or get wind of an opportunity elsewhere.
If this is your interpretation I haven't explained myself clearly. I don't believe it is a cost to be borne by the individual - whether a person or an organisation. I believe it is the sort of...
If it’s too costly to have children, and everyone stops having children
If this is your interpretation I haven't explained myself clearly. I don't believe it is a cost to be borne by the individual - whether a person or an organisation. I believe it is the sort of thing that should be paid for by taxes, spreading the burden around to some equitable level across the whole of society - the whole of society who benefits from people having kids to then enter the workforce.
If you place the burden on the individual (pure laissez-faire) you end up incentivising not having kids. If you place the burden on the organisation, you force them to go against their profit motive and have yet another thing to (inefficiently and inequitably) police: those who do the wrong thing and get away with it have just been granted a competitive edge. However, if everybody pays taxes (the burden of policing this already exists) and those who have kids get paid equitably less by the employer who is getting less out of them, which is then supplemented by the government to the correct level they would otherwise be paid (government often gets that side of it very wrong and pays flat) you end up with BOTH people being happy to have kids and organisations happy to employ people whether they will or won't.
You haven’t addressed my micro-example in this case. Maybe the employer gets less out of the parent in the short term, but have they balanced that against the long-term? Maybe, over the course of...
and those who have kids get paid equitably less by the employer who is getting less out of them
You haven’t addressed my micro-example in this case. Maybe the employer gets less out of the parent in the short term, but have they balanced that against the long-term? Maybe, over the course of their time with the company, the parents contribute more. Either because they are more invested in their career, or because the part of their career they spend with the company is longer than non-parents.
Maybe someone will have a stroke which destroys their ability to work, or somehow eliminates a part of their brain that was holding them back - there's no way to know, no way to pay it...
Maybe someone will have a stroke which destroys their ability to work, or somehow eliminates a part of their brain that was holding them back - there's no way to know, no way to pay it appropriately for your prediction, and therefore no point in trying to embed it into financial calculations. You get paid based on what you're doing now, not what you're doing later.
I have worked in places across the entire spectrum of 'rules' regarding employees speaking about pay. Bar far and away the best company was where all salaries were standardised and public across...
I have worked in places across the entire spectrum of 'rules' regarding employees speaking about pay.
Bar far and away the best company was where all salaries were standardised and public across the board, up to and including Directer/Owners. You had a positions (Office, Support, Engineer, Management, etc) and within 3-5 payment levels. It was always very clear where you were at within the company, and more importantly, what was expected of you if you wanted to increase your salary.
The worst was being in a start-up and actively told not to talk about wages with anyone. Although actually disallowing anyone doing so is illegal here in, it was still very much taboo. I felt as though it created resentment and even discovered that my own manager didn't know my pay when we changed from a bonus-related scheme to higher-base pay. He told me a ball-park figure that my salary should be after the change, and I said that he might want to revise that info as I was already making more. From then on he because a lot more argumentative with me in general, and dismissive of my work and contributions. It would not surprise me to find that the company was under-paying him, as he technically should be 'worth' more since he is doing similar work to me plus organising the team I was a part of. Obviously his ire should have been directed to his employers, but because he didn't want to discuss salary he took it out on my work and it quickly because toxic.
I know this is all very anecdotal, but I think it is very important for companies to be open in their payments, at least to employees. Even then, public wage level should well drive competition for attracting the best employees. Openness and transparency puts a demand on the company to justify its actions, which I feel is only fair and helps reduce issues like nepotism.
Practicing open compensation and pay transparency communication within the workplace is successful when its part of the company's culture and that the compensation/performance management system...
If it comes into effect, it’s bound to be either the type of workplace disclosure that results in greater fairness among team members or, counterproductively, greater discontent. My money’s on the latter. I only think that way because this all reminds me of a time I came perilously close to being fired. All I’d done was tell a colleague – someone I’d actually considered a friend – the size of my bonus. He erupted and immediately went to my manager’s manager demanding his be doubled. The bedlam and discipline that ensued have since stuck with me, especially the harsh lesson most companies seem to enforce: that people must never disclose their pay to their peers at work.
Practicing open compensation and pay transparency communication within the workplace is successful when its part of the company's culture and that the compensation/performance management system has been communicated and viewed just by the employees. Of course if I told everyone at my workplace how much I made, some would probably feel really good about themselves and others would feel bad or resentment towards me, but that's because the negotiation for their salary came after their benchmark of what their peers are making.
Compensation as a practice relies heavily on company's knowing what is being paid out to people in similar roles and functions, within the same geographic location, within the same business area. The company already starts out negotiating using salary data that costs way more than what you would be able to afford for yourself and negotiate properly. It would be way more worker friendly to have the same compensation and salary information as the organization has when negotiating a salary upon offer of employment. If you know how much your future co-workers are making, you can assess what is fair for you based on your knowledge, skills, and experience.
The key is pay transparency. Imagine a justice system where no one knew the punishment lengths for different crimes. Or imagine if individual pricing was a thing and you didn't know how much an item would cost until you were brought to register to check-out. Its unfair because the knowledge for negotiation is lop-sided. If we had pay transparency and a culture that were willing to talk about it, we could have much more consensus I feel on issues like gender wage gap.
It is interesting that the ire would be directed towards the employee, as though he or she were solely responsible for the wage. The company is the one with the far greater power in determining...
others would feel bad or resentment towards me
It is interesting that the ire would be directed towards the employee, as though he or she were solely responsible for the wage. The company is the one with the far greater power in determining salaries. Our ire should be directed at the hiring managers for their decision. This is either an interesting facet of human nature, or a very insidious culture paradigm that has been cultivated over the years.
Also, we do have many instances of individual pricing. Purchase a new car, for example, and your final payment is going to be largely dependent on your ability to negotiate, much like your salary. Yet, we have very little compunction about discussing in casual conversation how much we paid or saved on our car purchases.
It's fairly common knowledge that hiding that information is part of the wider power imbalance between employers and employees. That's why employers have that no sharing rule - if everyone is getting paid what they are worth, it shouldn't matter if people know. Especially if you're an ethical employer and actively develop your team, rather than hide where they are doing well/poorly.
The only negative I see coming out of this is kneejerk reactions to pay gaps caused not by businesses being against certain groups, but because reality causes those groups to yield less business value. For example, if a parent was to take 2 years of parental leave, their skills are rusty and their performance is poorer - it shouldn't fall on the business to pay them the same as someone who provides more value, that should be a social cost. That's a pretty toxic call for some reason though (the general idea that social burdens should be paid for socially, rather than the burden being on the business).
Here is Sweden parents get 18 months paid maternity leave between them (per child), of which, the husband has to take at least 3 or they lose them. And you can use those days whenever you want up until the child is 8. There is no problems with lost/rusty skills, or anything like that. The system works perfectly well. People are hired on temporary contracts designed specifically to cover this type of leave. The majority of the burden is on the government, but then again that's why taxes are high. At unionised companies there's usually a common agreement on salary anyway, so these types of issues don't really arise.
If you take a block of time off, then yes there is. If you're out of a field for 18 months you're at a minimum rusty - at worst the industry has left you behind entirely. No amount of financial support could possibly change that fact.
Sure, your skills are rusty, I meant it's not an issue in terms of cost to the company not so much that it justifies a reduction in salary, but I suppose that depends on the industry.
The problem with this mentality, at least at a macro level, is that it incentivizes certain kinds of behavior that are potentially costly long-term. If it’s too costly to have children, and everyone stops having children, what is the cost? This is a straw-man, sure, but I’m using it as an example of incentivizing choices that need to be considered. A more realistic micro-level effect would be that maybe the employee who has kids is more fulfilled in their life and will be less prone to burn-out, or will be more likely to remain loyal to a company as they raise there kids, meaning they will have a long, dedicated career with the company. The employee who doesn’t have kids may feel freer to uproot and move somewhere else if they get bored, burnt-out, or get wind of an opportunity elsewhere.
If this is your interpretation I haven't explained myself clearly. I don't believe it is a cost to be borne by the individual - whether a person or an organisation. I believe it is the sort of thing that should be paid for by taxes, spreading the burden around to some equitable level across the whole of society - the whole of society who benefits from people having kids to then enter the workforce.
If you place the burden on the individual (pure laissez-faire) you end up incentivising not having kids. If you place the burden on the organisation, you force them to go against their profit motive and have yet another thing to (inefficiently and inequitably) police: those who do the wrong thing and get away with it have just been granted a competitive edge. However, if everybody pays taxes (the burden of policing this already exists) and those who have kids get paid equitably less by the employer who is getting less out of them, which is then supplemented by the government to the correct level they would otherwise be paid (government often gets that side of it very wrong and pays flat) you end up with BOTH people being happy to have kids and organisations happy to employ people whether they will or won't.
You haven’t addressed my micro-example in this case. Maybe the employer gets less out of the parent in the short term, but have they balanced that against the long-term? Maybe, over the course of their time with the company, the parents contribute more. Either because they are more invested in their career, or because the part of their career they spend with the company is longer than non-parents.
Maybe someone will have a stroke which destroys their ability to work, or somehow eliminates a part of their brain that was holding them back - there's no way to know, no way to pay it appropriately for your prediction, and therefore no point in trying to embed it into financial calculations. You get paid based on what you're doing now, not what you're doing later.
So, no point in health insurance then? Everyone should just pay out of pocket if/when a health issue occurs?
I have no idea how that could possibly be relevant.
If I’m not sick right now, why should I pay for health services that I’m not benefitting from? That’s your argument as I understand it.
I have worked in places across the entire spectrum of 'rules' regarding employees speaking about pay.
Bar far and away the best company was where all salaries were standardised and public across the board, up to and including Directer/Owners. You had a positions (Office, Support, Engineer, Management, etc) and within 3-5 payment levels. It was always very clear where you were at within the company, and more importantly, what was expected of you if you wanted to increase your salary.
The worst was being in a start-up and actively told not to talk about wages with anyone. Although actually disallowing anyone doing so is illegal here in, it was still very much taboo. I felt as though it created resentment and even discovered that my own manager didn't know my pay when we changed from a bonus-related scheme to higher-base pay. He told me a ball-park figure that my salary should be after the change, and I said that he might want to revise that info as I was already making more. From then on he because a lot more argumentative with me in general, and dismissive of my work and contributions. It would not surprise me to find that the company was under-paying him, as he technically should be 'worth' more since he is doing similar work to me plus organising the team I was a part of. Obviously his ire should have been directed to his employers, but because he didn't want to discuss salary he took it out on my work and it quickly because toxic.
I know this is all very anecdotal, but I think it is very important for companies to be open in their payments, at least to employees. Even then, public wage level should well drive competition for attracting the best employees. Openness and transparency puts a demand on the company to justify its actions, which I feel is only fair and helps reduce issues like nepotism.
Practicing open compensation and pay transparency communication within the workplace is successful when its part of the company's culture and that the compensation/performance management system has been communicated and viewed just by the employees. Of course if I told everyone at my workplace how much I made, some would probably feel really good about themselves and others would feel bad or resentment towards me, but that's because the negotiation for their salary came after their benchmark of what their peers are making.
Compensation as a practice relies heavily on company's knowing what is being paid out to people in similar roles and functions, within the same geographic location, within the same business area. The company already starts out negotiating using salary data that costs way more than what you would be able to afford for yourself and negotiate properly. It would be way more worker friendly to have the same compensation and salary information as the organization has when negotiating a salary upon offer of employment. If you know how much your future co-workers are making, you can assess what is fair for you based on your knowledge, skills, and experience.
The key is pay transparency. Imagine a justice system where no one knew the punishment lengths for different crimes. Or imagine if individual pricing was a thing and you didn't know how much an item would cost until you were brought to register to check-out. Its unfair because the knowledge for negotiation is lop-sided. If we had pay transparency and a culture that were willing to talk about it, we could have much more consensus I feel on issues like gender wage gap.
It is interesting that the ire would be directed towards the employee, as though he or she were solely responsible for the wage. The company is the one with the far greater power in determining salaries. Our ire should be directed at the hiring managers for their decision. This is either an interesting facet of human nature, or a very insidious culture paradigm that has been cultivated over the years.
Also, we do have many instances of individual pricing. Purchase a new car, for example, and your final payment is going to be largely dependent on your ability to negotiate, much like your salary. Yet, we have very little compunction about discussing in casual conversation how much we paid or saved on our car purchases.