Poll: Would you mind if your terms of employment were public?

[Jamieson 90]

No, simply for the fact that I wouldn't want people to know how much I'm earning. Maybe it's just a cultural thing but from where I'm from asking how much someone earns is a pretty personal and taboo subject. It's - just - not - done.

I hear it's the opposite in the States though?

 

[wildstars]

I was hired at a company as the senior most dude on a 20 member team of similar dudes. I was paid well. Almost a year after my hire, a spreadsheet with all of our salaries was leaked. It turned out I was making considerably more than anybody else. This was a surprise to me, and began a sucktacular next couple of years. I went from being accepted to being a pariah, and I never got a raise for the rest of my time there. I eventually left and took a ~30% paycut to do something new that I had very little experience in.

I suppose that this experience could be used to argue either side. Personally, the experience soured me on sharing salary info. Way too many people feel their salary is a direct reflection of their value as an individual. The reality is that your salary is only a direct reflection of your ability to negotiate salary.

 

[RoonMian]

What an awful idea.

The issue of inequality of pay is already in the foreground. It's not like people don't know that CEOs are getting paid millions in bonuses...there's just not much political will to do anything about it. What you're proposing doesn't help the issue at all; people already know that CEOs get paid a ton and part-timers get shit on. All this does is create more tension inside the workplace because "oh my God, can you believe John gets paid more than I do? All he does is sit around all day!"

I for one would not like my salary and benefits to be made public. The last thing I need is for some colleague to get jealous that my end-of-year bonus was $1000 higher than his even though he "swears he worked harder." This may surprise you, but people don't often compare themselves with mega-million CEOs...they most often compare themselves with their direct colleagues of similar rank and pay. The average guy might get upset about a CEO's high pay in an abstract sort of way, but he'll much more likely get upset about the fact that Bob or Mary in the next cubicle got a slightly higher bonus. People are shitty that way.

But that is the point. If the guy in the next cubicle gets 1000$ more than me for the same work I wanna know why. Especially if the reason he gets more is that I am a woman/minority/disabled/gay or I have a different political opinion.

 

[Ubiquitous Duck]

I work in HR/People/Personnel and I think that distributing this sort of information would only cause unrest.

People have a deep-seated belief in their own worth and monetary valuation can be very personal.

I can imagine the disputes that would come out of this and there would be so much arguing on perceived self-worth and in comparison with other people's pay. People in the same position are often paid different amounts dependent on things other than gender, but publicising the details of this could serve up a lot of demotivation and angered employees.

If you are worried about UK law, there are plenty of cases of equal pay disputes that go through the motions and end up with payouts, so it's not like things are not already occurring. Obviously more needs to be done, but I'm just saying that in the UK there are plenty of equal pay disputes on the basis of gender.

If you want a case relevant at the moment, look up a the case against the supermarket ASDA. There are a group of, I think, 400+ women who are disputing the rate they have been paid in comparison with male workers who are working jobs that they are claiming are of comparable skill, but are being paid more. This highlights how it does not have to be the 'same' job within the company but can be one of 'comparable skill level' that can equate to an equal pay dispute.

Here is a Guardian article on the subject:

Spoiler

http://www.theguardian.com/money/2014/apr/11/supermarket-staff-equal-pay-cases-asda

May be worth watching what the result of this is, since you are interested in the subject matter.

 

[dyre]

But that is the point. If the guy in the next cubicle gets 1000$ more than me for the same work I wanna know why. Especially if the reason he gets more is that I am a woman/minority/disabled/gay or I have a different political opinion.

Have you ever worked in a corporate setting? I don't mean that to be insulting; it's just that if you haven't you probably won't realize the practical implications of these proposals. A lot of people on this site haven't worked in a serious professional setting yet so they might not understand these issues from a real life perspective (rather than a theoretical one).

Your bonus is dependent partly on your performance (as described by your boss), partly on your rank in the company, partly on your division's performance, and partly by your company's performance. So many factors go into it that two equally hard working, white males (to remove the "controversy") in two different parts of the company might easily receive two totally different bonuses. When you say "I wanna know why," you mean, "I wanna make paranoid excuses why I'm being 'mistreated,' thereby harming my relationship with my fellow coworkers and my company."

Even culturally, it's impolite among working professionals to ask each other's salaries...this has nothing to do with the law, and everything to do with avoiding petty jealousy and paranoia.

 

[JasonKaotic]

I've never really even understood why it's considered rude to ask someone how much they're paid.
I don't see any reason to keep my terms of employment private, there's nothing sensitive or embarrassing on them.

 

[RoonMian]

But that is the point. If the guy in the next cubicle gets 1000$ more than me for the same work I wanna know why. Especially if the reason he gets more is that I am a woman/minority/disabled/gay or I have a different political opinion.

Have you ever worked in a corporate setting? I don't mean that to be insulting; it's just that if you haven't you probably won't realize the practical implications of these proposals. A lot of people on this site haven't worked in a serious professional setting yet so they might not understand these issues from a real life perspective (rather than a theoretical one).

Your bonus is dependent partly on your performance (as described by your boss), partly on your rank in the company, partly on your division's performance, and partly by your company's performance. So many factors go into it that two equally hard working, white males (to remove the "controversy") in two different parts of the company might easily receive two totally different bonuses. When you say "I wanna know why," you mean, "I wanna make paranoid excuses why I'm being 'mistreated,' thereby harming my relationship with my fellow coworkers and my company."

Even culturally, it's impolite among working professionals to ask each other's salaries...this has nothing to do with the law, and everything to do with avoiding petty jealousy and paranoia.

If you read the rest of this thread you'll see that my personal situation is completely different anyway. And I'm glad about it because communicating with each other about stuff like that is one of the first steps you need to take to alleviate problems I alluded to in my post. Besides, bonuses are not the same as salary. I'm not a fan of incentives like that in general and I strongly disagree with you on the notion that bonus criteria shouldn't be absolutely transparent because in my opinion THAT would be a much bigger factor in office backstabbing. You can go to your boss and say: "Hey, all that work our team completed... That was all me and not that guy Dan because he's lazy/black/jewish, you should pay me his bonus but not tell him about it." Made up examples like that have no bearing on reality, I can make up one saying the complete opposite just as easily.

 

[Bertylicious]

I work in HR/People/Personnel and I think that distributing this sort of information would only cause unrest.

People have a deep-seated belief in their own worth and monetary valuation can be very personal.

I can imagine the disputes that would come out of this and there would be so much arguing on perceived self-worth and in comparison with other people's pay. People in the same position are often paid different amounts dependent on things other than gender, but publicising the details of this could serve up a lot of demotivation and angered employees.

If you are worried about UK law, there are plenty of cases of equal pay disputes that go through the motions and end up with payouts, so it's not like things are not already occurring. Obviously more needs to be done, but I'm just saying that in the UK there are plenty of equal pay disputes on the basis of gender.

If you want a case relevant at the moment, look up a the case against the supermarket ASDA. There are a group of, I think, 400+ women who are disputing the rate they have been paid in comparison with male workers who are working jobs that they are claiming are of comparable skill, but are being paid more. This highlights how it does not have to be the 'same' job within the company but can be one of 'comparable skill level' that can equate to an equal pay dispute.

Here is a Guardian article on the subject:

Spoiler

http://www.theguardian.com/money/2014/apr/11/supermarket-staff-equal-pay-cases-asda

May be worth watching what the result of this is, since you are interested in the subject matter.

Oh there would be massive unreast, without any shadow of a doubt. Lots of people would be very upset and people like you and me would have a miserable time trying to wade through all the mess. I'm not saying total transparency would be in any way elegant or pleasant. The result of this kind of requirement would be to force employers to adopt standardised terms and conditions for all employees, not just those on a shop floor. It is a blunt, nasty, instrument but one that would work.

I know what you mean when you say it would demotivate people. I had a conversation with a friend the other day about a new job he was starting at KPMG. He'd worked there originally after finishing university and left after several years to go to a different firm when they'd offered him more money. He returned to KPMG because they offered him more money. I asked him what he wanted the money for and he just shrugged. More worthless money, it was as if he was thinking about it like the high score in the original Grand Theft Auto games.

My point is that the only people who would be demotivated are dickheads. Fuck 'em. If people like us need to bodge together some manner of job spec that justifies their inflated salaries by afirming their broad experience in integrated vertical market sectors then at least everyone will be able to see the vast, steaming, pile of bullshit their remuneration is perched upon. Then they can make their own decisions about what to do.

snip

Thank you very much for the insight into the German labour market and unions, RoonMian. Sometimes from the other side if the negotiating table it can feel like unions are just an obstacle to neccesary change but it is important to remember that unions have a very important role to play in economies and society as a whole. I suppose the key is balance.

 

[Whispering Cynic]

Yes, I would mind, a lot. Employment information and terms of my contract are between me and my employer and under no circumstances should be publicly available (since they can be misused). Voluntary disclosure, sure, but I demand to be able to keep this info private if I so choose.

 

[Bertylicious]

I've never really even understood why it's considered rude to ask someone how much they're paid.
I don't see any reason to keep my terms of employment private, there's nothing sensitive or embarrassing on them.

I think it might be considered a form of bragging:

Spoiler

What I'm talking about would be more a kind of government website where companies would be required to post the details of their employees.

What an awful idea.

The issue of inequality of pay is already in the foreground. It's not like people don't know that CEOs are getting paid millions in bonuses...there's just not much political will to do anything about it. What you're proposing doesn't help the issue at all; people already know that CEOs get paid a ton and part-timers get shit on. All this does is create more tension inside the workplace because "oh my God, can you believe John gets paid more than I do? All he does is sit around all day!"

I for one would not like my salary and benefits to be made public. The last thing I need is for some colleague to get jealous that my end-of-year bonus was $1000 higher than his even though he "swears he worked harder." This may surprise you, but people don't often compare themselves with mega-million CEOs...they most often compare themselves with their direct colleagues of similar rank and pay. The average guy might get upset about a CEO's high pay in an abstract sort of way, but he'll much more likely get upset about the fact that Bob or Mary in the next cubicle got a slightly higher bonus. People are shitty that way.

It IS an awful idea, you're quite right, but what else could be done? Besides, maybe the person complaining about their pay relative to John has got a good point?

What if John's area includes larger customers whose higher turn over with the company automatically results in him hitting bonus month on month whilst Bob and Mary actually have to work for a living. With the pay structure fully transparent, Bob and Mary would realise what is going on and would flag it up to the management who would be forced to address the issue. Otherwise the company will carry on spanking money away to John under a flawed system without challenge in perpetuity.

By empowering people with this information they can flag up these problems and we can collectively build a more efficent business whilst also achieving fairness.

 

[duwenbasden]

OT: Yes, and very much so. I don't want to turn the team into a dick waving contest.

But that is the point. If the guy in the next cubicle gets 1000$ more than me for the same work I wanna know why. Especially if the reason he gets more is that I am a woman/minority/disabled/gay or I have a different political opinion.

Those answers will never be put on official records. HR isn't stupid and will not to put something that might jeopardise the company.

What if John's area includes larger customers whose higher turn over with the company automatically results in him hitting bonus month on month whilst Bob and Mary actually have to work for a living. With the pay structure fully transparent, Bob and Mary would realise what is going on and would flag it up to the management who would be forced to address the issue. Otherwise the company will carry on spanking money away to John under a flawed system without challenge in perpetuity.

Translation: Pissed off the boss, Bob and Mary will have a "fun time" working there hereon after.

 

[Diddy_Mao]

To some degree.

I think it's perfectly fine to make that information available within the company structure. Knowing the median pay scale at it compares to tenure and comparable employee evaluation scores is perfectly fine by me.

Yes I'm sure it would open up a can of worms that management and HR would rather not deal with. (Why is Robert scored as a 9.5 and I'm only at an 8 when everyone knows Robert's a lazy asshole and I'm liquid awesome on a cracker!) But if it can serve to reduce the frequency of pay grade discrimination I'm all for it.


I see no reason to make it public though.

With a long enough employment history I think most people have suffered in a completely toxic work environment, usually as a result of incompetent management and/or ineffectual HR and usually fairly early on in their careers.

If my employee evaluations from 15 years ago when I was reprimanded and marked as insubordinate for refusing to work unpaid overtime were made public, it's entirely possible it would continue to effect my present employment opportunities.

 

[Eamar]

I'd have no problem with people knowing how much I'm paid, and I've never really understood why people tend to be so cagey about it (unless they've got something to hide, I guess). Here in the UK it's considered a major faux pas to ask how much someone earns - I don't even know how much my parents make.

Maybe it comes with age, as my friends who are at the start of their careers have no problem letting me know their salaries.

 

[dyre]

What an awful idea.

The issue of inequality of pay is already in the foreground. It's not like people don't know that CEOs are getting paid millions in bonuses...there's just not much political will to do anything about it. What you're proposing doesn't help the issue at all; people already know that CEOs get paid a ton and part-timers get shit on. All this does is create more tension inside the workplace because "oh my God, can you believe John gets paid more than I do? All he does is sit around all day!"

I for one would not like my salary and benefits to be made public. The last thing I need is for some colleague to get jealous that my end-of-year bonus was $1000 higher than his even though he "swears he worked harder." This may surprise you, but people don't often compare themselves with mega-million CEOs...they most often compare themselves with their direct colleagues of similar rank and pay. The average guy might get upset about a CEO's high pay in an abstract sort of way, but he'll much more likely get upset about the fact that Bob or Mary in the next cubicle got a slightly higher bonus. People are shitty that way.

It IS an awful idea, you're quite right, but what else could be done? Besides, maybe the person complaining about their pay relative to John has got a good point?

What if John's area includes larger customers whose higher turn over with the company automatically results in him hitting bonus month on month whilst Bob and Mary actually have to work for a living. With the pay structure fully transparent, Bob and Mary would realise what is going on and would flag it up to the management who would be forced to address the issue. Otherwise the company will carry on spanking money away to John under a flawed system without challenge in perpetuity.

By empowering people with this information they can flag up these problems and we can collectively build a more efficent business whilst also achieving fairness.

Hmm, good thought, but I think it's not too relevant to modern corporate America. From what I can tell, corporate incentives are fairly well-evolved nowadays to address those kinds of issues. "Division performance" is more about overperforming expectations than just being in the cash cow division. Bonuses won't always be truly fair, but they are based on a fair set of rules, if that makes any sense. In the company I interned at / am going to work for, there's actually a group in, uh, Treasury, I think, that handles bonuses policies to make sure they reward the best performers. There's a moderate level of transparency regarding the policies that are applied to all employees, but individual bonuses are kept private to avoid petty jealousy.

Transparency is nice, but I'm sure you can imagine how this would create workplace strife as people came up with all kinds of self-righteous reasons that they deserve more than the next guy. Even if the company says "ok, John didn't deserve that extra $1000, decrease $1000 from his next bonus," is anyone really happy?

I guess I think the issue is that you are a little too cynical about management and a little too idealistic about regular employees. As much as I distrust management, I do think they're competent enough to handle these things in a reasonably fair way, and as much as I like the regular guy (I am one of them, after all), I recognized that people can be petty assholes. There's already enough shit around the workplace with people thinking they "deserve" promotions.

 

[RoonMian]

But that is the point. If the guy in the next cubicle gets 1000$ more than me for the same work I wanna know why. Especially if the reason he gets more is that I am a woman/minority/disabled/gay or I have a different political opinion.

Those answers will never be put on official records. HR isn't stupid and will not to put something that might jeopardise the company.

That's exactly the reason why it has to be transparent all the way. That way you can draw metrics and create statistics and after looking at them for example say "Wait a minute, why are people with six fingers earning less across the board in your corporation?"

You gotta outsmart shitty HR departments like that. Just like for example the council of experts fot migration and integration here in Germany did when they found out that having a Turkish name lowers your chances to be invited to an interview when applying for a job by up to 11%.

 

[dyre]

If you read the rest of this thread you'll see that my personal situation is completely different anyway. And I'm glad about it because communicating with each other about stuff like that is one of the first steps you need to take to alleviate problems I alluded to in my post. Besides, bonuses are not the same as salary. I'm not a fan of incentives like that in general and I strongly disagree with you on the notion that bonus criteria shouldn't be absolutely transparent because in my opinion THAT would be a much bigger factor in office backstabbing. You can go to your boss and say: "Hey, all that work our team completed... That was all me and not that guy Dan because he's lazy/black/jewish, you should pay me his bonus but not tell him about it." Made up examples like that have no bearing on reality, I can make up one saying the complete opposite just as easily.

No offense, but like you said, you work in a totally different culture. Bonus criteria is relatively transparent...but individual bonuses are not. And remember, even though criteria is transparent, there's no way to establish perfectly quantitative policies, because you can't quantify "hard working, creative, etc."

As for your made up example, you correctly state that it has no bearing on reality. So, I'm not sure why you brought it up...

 

[RoonMian]

If you read the rest of this thread you'll see that my personal situation is completely different anyway. And I'm glad about it because communicating with each other about stuff like that is one of the first steps you need to take to alleviate problems I alluded to in my post. Besides, bonuses are not the same as salary. I'm not a fan of incentives like that in general and I strongly disagree with you on the notion that bonus criteria shouldn't be absolutely transparent because in my opinion THAT would be a much bigger factor in office backstabbing. You can go to your boss and say: "Hey, all that work our team completed... That was all me and not that guy Dan because he's lazy/black/jewish, you should pay me his bonus but not tell him about it." Made up examples like that have no bearing on reality, I can make up one saying the complete opposite just as easily.

No offense, but like you said, you work in a totally different culture. Bonus criteria is relatively transparent...but individual bonuses are not. And remember, even though criteria is transparent, there's no way to establish perfectly quantitative policies, because you can't quantify "hard working, creative, etc."

As for your made up example, you correctly state that it has no bearing on reality. So, I'm not sure why you brought it up...

To show that yours hasn't either.

And making the alleged policies "transparent" while keeping the effects of those policies a secret is no transparency at all. It's like in that other thread where the FCC guy is saying "Yeah, we're all for net neutrality" and tries to secretly dismantle it behind the curtain you're not supposed to look behind.

Without transparancy who gets what bonus for what reason there is no chance to actually check if those awesome bonus policies are actually followed for even a single dollar in question.

 

[dyre]

If you read the rest of this thread you'll see that my personal situation is completely different anyway. And I'm glad about it because communicating with each other about stuff like that is one of the first steps you need to take to alleviate problems I alluded to in my post. Besides, bonuses are not the same as salary. I'm not a fan of incentives like that in general and I strongly disagree with you on the notion that bonus criteria shouldn't be absolutely transparent because in my opinion THAT would be a much bigger factor in office backstabbing. You can go to your boss and say: "Hey, all that work our team completed... That was all me and not that guy Dan because he's lazy/black/jewish, you should pay me his bonus but not tell him about it." Made up examples like that have no bearing on reality, I can make up one saying the complete opposite just as easily.

No offense, but like you said, you work in a totally different culture. Bonus criteria is relatively transparent...but individual bonuses are not. And remember, even though criteria is transparent, there's no way to establish perfectly quantitative policies, because you can't quantify "hard working, creative, etc."

As for your made up example, you correctly state that it has no bearing on reality. So, I'm not sure why you brought it up...

To show that yours hasn't either.

And making the alleged policies "transparent" while keeping the effects of those policies a secret is no transparency at all. It's like in that other thread where the FCC guy is saying "Yeah, we're all for net neutrality" and tries to secretly dismantle it behind the curtain you're not supposed to look behind.

Without transparancy who gets what bonus for what reason there is no chance to actually check if those awesome bonus policies are actually followed for even a single dollar in question.

What example did I give that you take issue with?

I don't mind you asking about your own bonus, or even the average/median bonuses of similarly rank employees in the same group (to see if the company views you as above or below average), but there's no benefit to knowing other people's individual bonuses. You might think that you can just compare the bonuses of an analyst in accounting vs an analyst in sales, but they're really not comparable.

And even if it's in your division, if you find that the other analyst got a higher bonus, then what? Nothing changes; the boss probably just likes him a bit more. Maybe the analyst brings him coffee every morning. But it probably says "motivated, high performer. Always brings his A game" on his performance review, not "brings me coffee. Always agrees with my opinions." With all your wonderful knowledge of other people's private finances, all you've done is make yourself jealous.

 

[AgedGrunt]

This wouldn't mean that senior or highly skilled people wouldn't receive better remuneration; merely that the reason that they did would be out in the open.

Actually, disclosing all of this information says exactly nothing about reasons, it's just data.

That's pretty much why the equal-pay issue is where it is: so many people have just made up their minds about very broad (misleading) data and pulled the equivalent to the race card on an issue that needs a lot more objective analysis and a lot less feminism.

 

[Aramis Night]

I think this is a good idea. Frankly all the issues people have against it would quickly solve themselves. If someone finds out that they aren't making as much as their co-workers, then they can try to renegotiate with their employer if they wish. The employer can explain the reasons for the discrepancy. If the employee is unsatisfied with those reasons, they are free to go elsewhere for work. If the employee finds the reasons to be a clear unlawful violation of equal pay laws, they can take the employer to court. If the employee actually considers that perhaps they are themselves responsible for the lower pay they receive than they can either accept the pay and perhaps work harder to bring their performance up if possible, or they can find a different employer who will perhaps value them more.

The only person who not disclosing salary's publicly would protect is employers who short change their own employees and petty individual's who value themselves based on income. Neither of which are deserving of consideration.

If the fallout among colleagues leads to problems or an inability to work together than an employer would lose nothing of value by firing the individual's creating the friction.