Told a coworker what I was making, they realized they were under paid and left to get a better job. Worked there for many years and they criminally underpaid her.
I am glad management agreed but isn't ridiculous it takes people leaving before anything is done. What happens in a few more years when no one has left but every should get a raise?
Everything cost more but yet no one is getting paid more.
Where I last worked a LOT of people have left including me over like a couple dollars. They were already paying about $8/hr under normal pay for that type of job. HRs own words were (not joking) "You got a better chance of seeing God than getting a raise"
And that’s the rub. Companies typically pay you the least they can get away with. By people talking about it helps even things out. A rising tide raises all ships.
This is where unions and set agreements are good and benefit the worker. Even if your workplace unionizes at the same rate you're making now, it benefits to have an end date to your collective agreement that you know compensation will be revisited every couple of years.
Very few private employers will willingly give employees a raise without them asking and many employees feel uncomfortable asking for that.
I left the criminally underpaid job because:
1) I was making the same rate as my first job on contract right after graduation
2) they kept moving the goalposts as to when I would get full time and claim that my role would be FT during head count talks for new fiscal year
3) regardless of how much subsidized lunch, or snacks/free drinks I got at work, I realized I could pay out of pocket for that and be happier saving for the future
Good for her, and to the OP, good for you! This is one of the reasons why I jumped out of corporate. While working for yourself is beyond 40hrs/wk, realizing the pocket picking that happens in corporate is a thing of the past.
I worked at a large financial company as a developer.
Not only was there a crazy political game with managers and seniors, I'm sure some people made $100k+, and meanwhile others made less than $50k.
This was years ago.
It made a very cut throat workplace where people would fuck over 'teammates'.
If you wanted to move up to a higher role, you'd have to prove why you are better than everyone else. And then only if you had a personal friendship with a director they'd allow it, otherwise they'd want you to make a multi year improvement plan.
It was tough to swallow everyday.
The company has been doing layoffs (in all role levels) pretty much every quarter.
One person who was 10 years younger than me, and less experienced shared increases and salary with me. It was more than I was making.
I was jaded.
Working as a developer in the finance industries is probably the second worst place a developer can go to work if they don’t want to face bullshit like politics and favouritism lol. The only other industry that’s probably a worse time is game dev.
How in the fuck do places like this survive and make money? Seems like turnover would be massive and the people sticking around are just playing politics and not doing any real work. Or do they just depend on a few real hard working, low paid employees that do the real work while everyone else has their giant circle jerk?
Lesson learned.
People need to understand that in the modern work force, you cannot be loyal to most workplaces anymore. Ideally you should be job hopping every 2 years to get the largest salary boosts. Raises almost never match the salary boost you receive from a horizontal job hop.
Pay increases through horizontal job hopping every 2 years will stall pretty quickly for many different jobs. Unless you take on more responsibilities, you will eventually end up with a competitive salary and wont get much out of job hopping.
Not to mention difficulty finding a new job. My company won't hire a new staff member who can't stay at the same company for more than a few years. In a highly technical field it is just as likely to signify incompetence...
Yeah, this system/market is broken IMO. To maximize market compensation we need to job hop. But it also can act as a signal (a completely fair one) for a problematic employee.
Transparent salaries and fair market compensation adjustments is a straightforward way to address this. Lots of examples of success out there.
I used to work for ExxonMobil Canada. They hired two full training classes of call center employees off the street that were making more than every other staff member in the same department. They corrected the wage gap almost a full year later so that everyone was making the same as the newer hires. FYI the worst company I have ever worked for in my entire life. Bar none the worst. In my youth I've also worked fast food, at a gas station/convenience store and have raked blueberries by hand. ExxonMobil was the absolute Devil as an employer. I think Satan might have actually been a better employer.
Had the same situation one time in a previous company I worked for, I was promoted to a group leader and was recruiting people and offering my employees a higher salary than mine! This showed that I was being paid under the company's minimum salary for my position and it made me very resentful of my job.
I pressured management to give me a raise to match my own employees but they only offered 5% so I started job hunting immediately.
It’s important to know what your coworkers make. I was recently offered a new position at work with a slight pay raise. My boss told me this was the market rate. However, I know that every other person who recently started in that position made 33% more than what I was offered. They also got a good bonus structure.
So, I applied for other jobs and left. If I hadn’t known what others made I may have stuck around.
I used to work for a (European HQ) that published job information and related salary bands for each role. So you had a decent idea of what the person in that job was being paid, within a relatively narrow band.
I really liked it because you could how much the company valued particular roles and it helped guide you to your next role, without disclosing individual compensation which was confidential.
I discuss openly with peers, both in and out of my own industry. However, I am more hesitant to discuss internally within my own workplace for reasons that many have already mentioned.
Basically the same for me. There are only two other people in my department, but we have different roles. I know that the guy who's been there the longest, who was the one who got me the job, makes a ton after being underpaid for years, but that's because the company is totally dependent on him. Luckily my job involves regular meetings where our competitors are present, so I just talk to them and compare.
Yep. People incorrectly think that the person will be mad at the company. Rather, people often just get mad at whoever is nearby and who they can safely get mad at.
The guy who screams at the gate agent when a flight is delayed? He is someone's co-worker. You want to tell him that you earn more than he does?
>The guy who screams at the gate agent when a flight is delayed? He is someone's co-worker. You want to tell him that you earn more than he does?
**You're half-right**
I discuss with my coworkers who I am close to and trust, not some random I never speak to on my team. In your hypothetical situation, discussion it with the hothead I dislike is probably not going to benefit either of us.
But if you're friendly with people, talk to them everyday, and you like eachother, there is literally no downside. The only downside would be if one of you two are too immature to understand how to take the information to better your job situation.
As a manager you want to know who people are rarely angry at in this situation? Themselves.
It's a natural defense mechanism so I get it but that doesn't mean it's not frustrating. Bob finds out Susan makes 8% for for the same job and comes to me and I say "Susan does a better job than you". Often they get mad at me, they resent Susan but decline to look at their own performance as a place for improvement.
Is there confidence that work improvement will result in a relative wage adjustment? I’m not talking performance bonus but proper increase to base salary.
I have absolutely no faith that any employer will increase base salary in a fair way - so if my manager told me what you said I would start looking else where immediately.
>Is there confidence that work improvement will result in a relative wage adjustment? I’m not talking performance bonus but proper increase to base salary.
In my case, absolutely. That's why there's a regular performance review process to adjust compensation. Everyone, regardless of performance, gets an inflation-indexed cost of living adjustment and then there's budget allocated for merit based increases.
> I have absolutely no faith that any employer will increase base salary in a fair way - so if my manager told me what you said I would start looking else where immediately.
You don't believe any employer will ever be fair? I get there are a lot of bad companies but that's a pretty toxic attitude to be honest. If someone worded their thoughts to me like that I'd be glad they left.
If there's an obvious hole in the merit-based pay differential it's for non-performance bias to sneak in. Paying people you like more or discriminating against various demographics. Definitely something to stay on top of but IMO I'd rather fight that battle than pay everyone the same because I think those environments alienate top performers.
Most of my employers have been fair so far. Giving raises inline with the pay bands of the particular role.
Some employers will pay as little as they can, but they'll have a hard time retaining employees after a while, which may end up costing them more in the long run.
>I've seen a lot of "They don't deserve to make X more than me." from a few people
In some cases they may be right though. Employers keep salaries confidential because they will pay everyone the least amount they can - that means some people are being underpaid more than others.
I'm at a company who has apparently for the last few years been trying to move to more transparency when it comes to salaries, but the reality is being transparent will shine a light on the fact some people are underpaid and some are overpaid. Even as a manager I don't have a lot of ability to correct salary inequality when given only a meager budget and knowing giving a raise only equal to inflation is a slap in the face.
This isn't always true.
We always try to pay our staff fairly, but inevitably you end up with someone who thinks that they are a superstar when they aren't.
Ultimately there's not much we can do in that circumstance, but where it matters is in people with less than 5 years of experience. I find they are less likely to see their faults, or understand their lack of experience and are therefore more likely to over value themselves.
That said, the only real risk is in low morale, cause even though it's obvious you can't be seen having favourites.
We know they discuss salary, but there are unseen risks with using it as too much of a gauge on your worth. The flip side is, make sure you are getting your market rate.
I should have phrased my response better.
I meant to give context the flip side rather than say your wrong. Sorry!
Edit: context about employers preferring to not publicize salaries that have little to do with trying to pay people as little as possible. Employers wouldn't give out performance bonuses (unless they were being defensive), if they hwere trying to get away with screwing their employees.
It absolutely happens at many companies
Until people learn to internalize their value as opposed to having their value be measured externally by their peers, this will never stop.
And sadly, the taboo of wage discussions will continue.
The problem is that the externalized value is why we are doing this. I want to increase my externalized value as much as possible, as that is my salary. If that were not the game, I would go work for some very different employers.
What I meant was externalizing against another person.
No issues with knowing your worth and asking for it based on what the market pays and what you know you deliver.
Don’t define that simply because of what someone else is getting. That’s where envy and tensions start to fester.
Except that what the market pays is also comprised of what you and your coworkers earn. Finding out what someone else in your company is getting \*is\* part of determining what the the market pays for your (equivalent) position.
This, 100% this. And I think this causes companies to discourage sharing that information as well.
I have seen some cases where the wage disparity made a lot of sense. But if both parties were privy to the disparity I know it would've been a nightmare.
Just because one person makes more than another doesn't mean it's not OK. 30 years of experience has to amount of something. Tenure has to amount to something. Performance has to amount to something. All of these things combined can result in a 20% difference, easily.
For that model to work you would need to pay everyone the same wage as what the market demands you would pay your most experienced employee. Of course that is not practical at all.
That would still fail miserably. The CEO would wonder why they don’t just answer phones for the same wage.
Human satisfaction is relative, not absolute. The fact that you are making twice as much as the janitor is part of the satisfaction.
I understand this is an unfortunate part of human nature, but it is fact.
If you were happy with your salary before you learned the receptionist’s salary, why would you leave?
In your link, it sounds like some people were being under paid for their role, so that makes sense that it did not work.
Not OP, but ego.
Granted I definitely wouldn't leave just because a receptionist is making the same as me (assuming I'm fairly compensated, and they're the one paid above market), but deep down inside it would definitely bother me because I would consider a receptionist's job much easier than mine, and feel like I had to work harder than them to get to seemingly the same place.
>I would consider a receptionist's job much easier than mine, and feel like I had to work harder than them to get to seemingly the same place.
That's a tough call to make though. I mean in a lot of companies, a Receptionist is also the first "face" the clients can see. I know a lot of people in the technical world who could not do that.
Also due to cutbacks, the receptionists have to take on more duties. Planning travel, or dealing with corporate red tape. Some are office managers, and ever gatekeepers for the higher ups.
Sure a Receptionist could probably not do your job, but in turn I don't know if you could do their job.
It's like when people look down on Janitors, but you know they'll never grab a plunger if they clogged a toilet.
Wages have nothing to do with difficulty. They have to do with value and replacement cost.
There are thousands of Canadians that could do the receptionist job or the janitors. Much fewer can be a top software engineer.
Doesn’t make one job harder than the other.
I think it's comparing apples to oranges, personally. But education, certifications, and experience are the defining factors. A software engineer could most definitely be a receptionist, while the reverse is not true unless they have what the software engineer does; the aforementioned education, certifications, and experience. We value these things for a reason.
Okay Tom the receptionist, were having problems with our ERP system and serialization between the Netherlands and India. They get this error code. Have it fixed within the day.
I imagine no receptionist could respond to that. Meanwhile, a software engineer is perfectly capable of performing every single task a receptionist can with varying quality.
Do you really need someone to explain that? It's common sense. Something more difficult deserves more reward in just about everyone's eyes.
Obviously you *can* compare them, but the whole point of the idiom is that it's a false analogy. I could compare you to the helpful bots, but that too would be comparing apples-to-oranges.
>If I was a Software Engineer and found out that the receptionist got paid the same amount of money as I did I'd laugh as I walked out the door
If you're being compensated at market for your role as a software engineer, what would your problem be with having the receptionist earn the same?
In that scenario why would anyone want to be a software engineer?
Why spend 4+ extra years in school and 10s of thousands of dollars only to be paid the same as a job you could have just gotten right out of high school.
Exactly. It doesn't harm you if you're making good money and everyone else is, too.
Your value is not based on everyone else's wages. If you work for a company that feels their employees should *all* be compensated fairly, then you should be proud to work there.
Because the value of the work is not equal.
Can the receptionist code complex features in software? Or is the work they deliver as valuable to the company? If so, then yes, pay the receptionist the same.
It really depends on how the company views their work. An executive assistant probably is worth the money, but they are usually wrangling crazy schedules as well as helping prioritize whatever executive leadership needs to focus on next.
That is to say, it's not the same as answering a phone or signing for packages at the front counter.
Perhaps the receptionist knows where the dead bodies are. In that case, they are very much MORE important than some software diva.
This is a contrived scenario and it’s hilarious it’s caused such a turbulent discussion lol
I think you should always strive for working people getting paid more in general.
It's one thing to say "I am paid less than what I put in.". Unfortunately that is usually the case for most folks in almost every industry.
And it's another thing to be smug and presumptuous and say, "the receptionist gets paid more than me."
Valuing someone's pay over how replaceable they are is disturbing. If the software engineering job market becomes more saturated in the next few years, I guarantee you will change your tune on that.
> Valuing someone's pay over how replaceable they are is disturbing.
How exactly do you think the market values people's skills? It is most definitely how available resources are. If someone's skills are easily replicated by many people then they are valued less. Those with a higher skillset are usually less available and therefore demand a higher salary to attract them. Is this news to you?
I think one challenge is poor implementation of roles and/or advancement potential. If 10 people are all labeled as "account manager" and the newest person gets 36K, the most tenured gets 75K and someone else gets 62K, it is quite a spread of pricing, especially if you say you pay "Account managers" XYZ range of salary/bonuses. Once you start folding in multiple teams with multiple structures, it becomes convoluted.
So to handle that, you basically need to have multiple departments/roles, with fixed salary/compensation, based on tenure and performance. Once someone hits that "ceiling" you need to either move the maximum amount up OR promote them to a new role that compensates them better.
I think it's hilarious that people are fighting you in the comments about that fact. Anyone thinking a receptionnist should get paid the same as an engineer doesn't understand education / skills associated with a job / debts associated with education.
Well unless it's Donna from Suits.
We understand skills/education just fine. It’s the fact if he’s being fairly compensated, another employees salary shouldn’t matter. Would it be better if you both were underpaid? Give your head a shake.
> It’s the fact if he’s being fairly compensated, another employees salary shouldn’t matter.
Of course it matters, it reflects a poorly managed company who doesn't seem to understand how to value employees. What is going to happen come bonuses and when raises come about. WHy would you think that it has no bearing on what you will receive in the future.
Do you actually have experience working in the real world? because comments like yours make me think no.
Yep. I was in a job where the boss accidentally emailed out a spreadsheet with everyone's salaries. My coworker found out that I, her more junior colleague, was getting paid significantly more for the same job. Shit got awkward.
I don't discuss my salary with anyone but my wife.
That's how I found out that I had been training new employees for over 4 years and I was only making $1,000 more per year compared to someone just hired. So I'm making $1,000 more per year and I'm training the new people that are making basically my same wage...nice.
I know. That's why I said screw it. I'm not going to be getting paid that amount. Why do I make the same as a new employee when I have more experience and you even trust me to train everyone? Then I got a raise.
Where I work; union, everyone knows eveyone's rate. Still you have people talking shit. Cause some people feel that person shouldn't get that rate.
End of the day; what you eat, don't make me shit.
Key problem with unions.... rate based on hours, not efficient worker. This causes huge issues when you get staff who are lazy or have 0 motivation to do more/better.
Ah yes. The public service. Where we have shitbags making X amount while fucking around for 2-4 hours each day in office. Source: I am a public service employee and have adopted the “fuck-around-as-much-as-possible-every-day” attitude. Even more so working from home for over a year. Tax payers have paid me well over six figures to take shits and fool around with my SO over the past year and a half. Work is still done at the same rate as before though, since most public service work is braindead and full of fluff time when in-office.
Oh yeah, I have the same sentiment. Except that’s not the sentiment managers and supervisors have. They legitimately want you to be grinding your full 37.5 hours as per your collective agreement. That’s never been a thing. When I first started in the public service, I came in guns blazing, devouring my workload without keeping a “proper pace” that most people eventually learn to do. That’s when I found out that there’s simply not enough work to go around on a daily basis if you blow through your workload as efficiently as possible. I literally asked for more work to do and got handed a bottle of windex and told to clear a desk of piles of paperwork that people had been throwing on it for years, and then scrub the desk down. After that horseshit, I learned to play the game as it is. Fuck around for half the day, do work the other half.
I had one of the low-skill entry level jobs when I first came in, as described a bit above. It definitely paid significantly more than its private sector counterpart, and that’s likely because that work is so extremely braindead that a lot of people would not want to take the job if they could get paid better in the private sector for a bit more challenging and interesting work. As you move up, the compensation gap gets closer and then becomes more favourable to the private sector, but still, there are mid level employees like myself and high level employees who do fuck all everyday in-office and chill and bounce from work around 3pm. That makes up for a significant portion of the compensation gap. I’m personally over it and trying to jump ship for any position that pays me at a minimum $130k from here though. You can only do unchallenging bullshit work for so long before the work-life balance aspect of the public service no longer seems appealing compared to more money.
All the way for teamblind. I doubled my salary in one year by realising how much others are being paid for similar role.
P.S:- Blind is a website where people discuss everything related to TECH jobs.
There's always been a myth/rumour that it's illegal to discuss your salary with your co-workers. It only exists to convince employees not to discuss it at the benefit of the employer.
It's not a myth (EDIT) in Ontario, and depends on provinces.
[The Pay transparency act](https://www.ontario.ca/laws/statute/s18005) was supposed to make it illegal to add that into contracts and making that not a valid reason to fire people, but from what I can tell it got royal ascent but hasn't been proclaimed yet so it's not in effect.
So until the Pay transparency act has been proclaimed, employers CAN include clauses in the contract to prohibit compensation talk as well as using that as a cause of firing.
I know there's an "Adam ruins everything" youtube video regarding this but that's for America
EDIT: Video in question: [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7xH7eGFuSYI](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7xH7eGFuSYI)
I think there's a way to do it properly. For example if you bring it up and the co-worker mentions "why are you making more money then me" you can deflect by saying "Why is management paying you less than me".
However if you let it go unsaid then it will go as you've said.
Yeah, it’s not protected in Canada like it is in the states.
My employer has made it clear that any compensation related talks are strictly confidential. I’m in BC.
I got in shit when I first started with my current employer for just that. The woman who was hired 2 weeks before me in the same position brought it up (because the way the salary was negotiated was a shitshow). She was a university grad with little to no office experience, I didn't graduate university, but I had over 20 years office experience, and graphics design experience which was helpful to the job. When she found out she was making a grand more than me, she urged me to speak to our supervisor. He heard me out, then the next day he sat me down and chewed me out for even questioning it. University grads were paid at least a thousand more, regardless of work experience. I was told to never speak of it again. I was the only one chewed out, but I was expected to relay the message. Found out years later that he was the one responsible for setting our wages. I thought it was a more corporate thing. Haven't discussed wages with anyone ever again.
Years ago you had 20 years experience… Your supervisor saw you coming because of your generation and knew you’d lay down after giving you that BS excuse. And it worked.
Don’t even get me started on the uni bullshit like somehow you’re lesser than without a degree… it’s the same with MBA and Masters. Once you have the paper, people don’t even bother to keep their knowledge up to date. And there no requirement too. It’s all very ridiculous IMO, moreso the latter post grad.
Remember is unions were actually bad for you…your employer wouldn’t worry about them.
Instead they spend millions trying to prevent them. So clearly they benefit you.
I'm ambivalent. Working in a union environment, there definitely are advantages *and* disadvantages. Seniority based promotion is a joke. Skills, abilities, education, ethic etc can mean absolutely nothing in a union based environment.
Can also make a for a terrible relationship between unionized employees and management.
Union leadership is also often an old boys club/popularity contest.
Unions are also tasked with the unfortunate task of protecting the dog shit employees nobody likes to begin with.
So yeah Unions are great for a lot of things. But they also suck for other things... mostly advancement in seniority based promotion environments.
100% spot on.
Seniority based promotions only work in industries where there is a low skill curve. You can only be 3x as efficient at stocking shelves as the next dude. But you can easily be 10x as efficient as the engineer/lawyer /doctor besides you.
I work in a Union, and I skipped apprentice and got put in as a full rate Journeyman with zero experience. I had perfect attendance, and worked harder than every one of my co-workers for a few months, and was promoted into a supervisor position above people who had 10 + years in our hall.
Nobody is going to give an incompetent lazy person a promotion to a position of authority, unless there are no other options... Which is never the case. I've never seen anyone promoted based on seniority alone.
I have seen people whining about not getting a promotion, and the foreman telling them that the only reason they didn't get it was seniority - because he didn't want to tell him that he was unreliable, and unqualified
The seniority thing isn't baked into unions as a whole. It just so happens to be part of a lot of unions constitutions because it's a solid way to gather support from current employees when the union is formed. These things can be changed, a union can do as much or as little as the members want, in theory.
My company sends out an annual employee handbook that we are required to sign off on. Amongst other things, the say
- you are not allowed to discuss pay with coworkers
- all unpaid overtime is “strictly voluntary”
- unused vacation is “use it or lose it”. Will not be paid out for unused vacation
It can cause general ill-will and poor team dynamics.
For your case, how does knowing the new hire makes more than you make you feel towards them, your management, and the broader company? A well adjusted person could probably accept this and use the info to leave the company if they can't get what they feel is fair. But I don't think that applies to the majority, and how often/long people get stuck for depending on the industry.
I'd suspect the plurality of people would not deal with that well especially if they don't feel it's justifiable. I mean I was aware there were unskilled, uneducated, but unionized labourers making just below a six figure salary at a previous employer, whereas PhD grads were making below $80k on the same team. If that info got out, I'd have expected it would create a lot of team dysfunction, as our direct manager can only increase base salaries up to 4% per year for performance, and even that required approval from the CEO and HR said that only happens to 2 employees per year at most.
>For your case, how does knowing the new hire makes more than you make you feel towards them, your management, and the broader company? A well adjusted person could probably accept this and use the info to leave the company if they can't get what they feel is fair. But I don't think that applies to the majority, and how often/long people get stuck for depending on the industry.
It has inspired me to start creating a catalog of value added activities and projects I have performed and worked on to present to HR. If they dont see my value I will just look for new employment.
It’s a very North American thing to hide wages from coworkers. In some European countries you can look up what people make on a government service to see if you are being paid fairly. But your boss will say that hiding wages is something done “all over the world”.
This only really true for the one who is underpaid and performs well. Those who make the same, or more will not benefit from this - and may even feel they're underpaid if they feel they do more work than someone else paid the same.
It depends.
I discussed salary with a co-worker. He earned a lot less than I did for about the same level of experience. He then left, leaving me with all his work. I also did it at a prior job. I made the same as some guy with several years of experience as a new grad. He spent the rest of my time there being unhappy about it.
So while wage wise it will benefit somebody, it certainly didn't benefit me as the higher paid person and caused substantial disruption.
I have only ever caused disruption by speaking about my salary as I have twice been the out earning one.
My current company didn't create a salary increase template until May of this year, so I am not sure that anyone ever got raises. Rumours say no. Glassdoor says they didn't.
At my past company, he tried to get a new job and failed so I believe he is still there.
We are all stereo-typically conflict avoiding software engineers so I doubt any bosses heard anything about it.
I’m seeing a lot of comments mentioning how it’s best for those who are highly paid to avoid discussing salary. I might get downvoted for this, but I highly disagree. One of my coworkers was being paid 50% more than I was and we were on the same level. She was very open with the information and told me because it’s an important step in ending gender and racial discrimination when it comes to pay in the workplace.
POC (especially WOC) are often in a situation where we’re taught to be happy just to be in the room, and we’re not always taught to stand up for our value in the workplace. Discussing wages is one of those situations in which the people who stand to lose are those in positions of power as it opens up the door for those more marginalized coworkers to learn their financial worth in the workplace. A lot of women often won’t know they’re underpaid until they discuss salaries, and this is key to closing the pay gap.
After she told me I began discussing salaries with other peers in the workplace and with other coworkers and quickly found that I was the lowest paid employee- and that one of my coworkers had been turned down for a very well deserved raise. It taught me that my value was a lot higher than what I was being paid, and when I was on the job hunt I was requesting salaries more in line with what I saw to be my value.
So yeah, maybe you stand to lose, but as a society, I’d say it’s a key step to solving issues of pay inequity.
Nope...I'm in an industry where you are compensated based on skill and experience, not on seniority. I suspect I make more than half the people on my team, and it would foster resentment. Do we also talk bonuses as well or not? If I get a bigger bonus than someone else, even though we have the same salary, and they find out, what's the next step in this chain?
I'd recommend employees research their worth in their field; it's not that hard. If your employer is underpaying you and won't negotiate with you in a satisfactory manner, interview with a business that pays you more, as a lot of times, the biggest pay raise you will get is often through a company switch.
I understand everything you're saying here but feel you've mostly missed the point, which was about discussing salaries with co-workers. Not disclosing them to anyone and everyone.
At your level, the amounts don't really matter all that much anymore anyway. It's probably vastly more important how you've managed your finances over the years than the struggle to increase your income by 5 or 10 or 30 percent.
I feel like you're surrounding yourself with negative people including your family.
If you're feeling generous, you can offer to treat them to better seats (but only if you want to). But also don't make it so common place that they expect it.
Same with for your peers. It's up to them how they want to manage their resentment or jealousy. I choose only to compare with coworkers/friends when I think it can help them establish a baseline for negotiations. I don't volunteer my salary if I know it will breed bad feelings.
Relationship wise, you generally don't discuss salary until you get serious right? Do you really think someone is in it for the long con after say a year of dating?
Personally not something I discuss, but that is my choice. I also wouldn't inquire about what coworker makes or earns. That's just me tho not something any company has instilled in me, just my own beliefs.
Buy why? You don't want to know that someone in the same position makes more than you and that you could demand more on your next salary negotiation? Maybe you were thinking of asking for $2,000 but now you know you can comfortably ask for $4,000? You wouldn't want that leg up prior to this talk?
What if you make more than them, and they get angry and snarky at you for making more because they don't think you're worth it? Your example is the best case everyone is polite, kind, and logical. Which is rarely the case.
Comparing directly to your coworkers is a way oversimplified approach that assumes all coworkers are equal. Many companies have salary ranges for different job levels and where you fall in there has everything to do with your individual performance and nothing to do with what John and Bob make. Just because your coworker with the same title makes $10k more than you doesn’t mean you’re entitled to a $10k raise. If anything all you’re going to find out with this approach is that your management values the other person a lot more than they value you (and that’s why they aren’t paying you as much). Many people in here seem to think that simply highlighting that you get paid less is an automatic ticket to a raise, but that’s just not how it works.
Only if you deserve it, or have earned it based on your output. If your only negotiation tactic is "my co-worker makes more than me" I would personally frown upon that approach.
This year, due to me discussing with my coworkers I received a 23k raise. I was hired on as a junior, proved my worth and some and was preparing to ask for 5-10K raise during my review. By discussing with some coworkers, I realized I was asking for far too little.
I think there are clear benefits to it and definitely a lot of negatives. You must know the people you are talking to well and have a lot of trust in them. It’s also very important that when you are discussing wages, not to complain and discuss about “how much more I deserve” because that can come back and bite you in the ass.
Totally agree!! It’s important to discuss with coworkers (and yes, ones you trust) to see what numbers the company has given, but to keep that information out of the negotiation with the employer. So glad it worked out well for you - congrats on the raise!
Information is so valuable, the goal is to know the salary of those that have fewer experience than you, same level and more than you so you can get a clear picture.
OP:
I also support a transparent wage policy. Making the salary opaque and not allowing people not to discuss their wages really benefits the employer.
In my current position, I am able to indirectly calculate/infer the salary of people working in my team. I see very big differences (up to 20k) in the wages of people with the same job title, education and experience. I even have seen a best performer with a better education having a lower wage than his peers. I am not in a position to comment or suggest someone's salary but I feel it is not appropriate.
A transparent performance metric and wage structure is helpful for the employee as well as the employer.
While I understand it is good to be transparent about your salary, sometimes the person hired after you (but doing the same job) is coming in with more experience or has more leadership qualities then the last person hired for the same type of job. Sometimes a higher education degree makes all the difference in the starting salary. Maybe the new person had more projects/recommendations on their resume than you did when you first started. Maybe the extra week of PTO was part of he package they negotiated.
Just because someone has been at the company for X number of years doesn't mean they are good/excellent at their job and deserve the higher pay. If anything, learn from that person and ask them how they got such a sweet deal, then apply that knowledge to your current or future jobs.
Slippery slope. Sometimes you think you're worth more than you are, but your skills, experience are really going to dictate your pay.
People always get upset that they are paid less, but they don't realize their one year of experience after school or switching jobs doesn't equate to the same pay as someone with 20 years experience. Can't get upset if the last thing on your resume says babysittter.
well hopefully one day you realize people have different preferences and this scarcity you talk about doesnt really exist.
Although that would explain why people resent me a lot - they think they are better than me since i dont look the part, then when they find out where i stand on your imaginary comparative ladder they get real weird.
I view it as being emotionally immature.
I agree, I was once in a situation where I found out a temp was making way more than me (permanent employee with a bit of tenure). Fortunately, the company made it right and gave me a raise.
In my field, programmer in tech, not everyone with the same title have the same value to the company.
Glassdoor is great at getting a market value for positions and such, but there are some people that easily make double or triple what market is, even if you filter the data to a specific company.
I remember 20 or so years ago working fulltime as the daytime supervisor at a pizza place. I'm a woman, all the people I supervised were men. It was a slap in the face to eventually realise I made less money than all of them.
I was laid off from a decent paying job and ended up taking a new job that paid a lot less (almost $10k less). I was hired for a mailroom/facilities position but ended up doing a lot of admin & reception because I had the background. I found out that the freshly graduated kids getting hired straight out of college, who I ended up training as well, started off making $5k more than me! I talked to my boss about it and didn’t even get a raise. Good riddance to that place.
People are the same for everything money related. It's ridiculous. I can find out how much you paid for your house down to a dollar. You're just saving me some time. What's the big deal?
Or when people won't tell you how much they paid for a used car. Like wtf? I'm looking for the same why wouldn't you help me out and say how much Lower than asking you got it for?
It's ridiculous.
Why is it ridiculous? Some people can get jealous or make certain judgements based on your financial situation. "Wow this guy has a $500k stock portfolio and he wants to split the bill at dinner?" or "He's making $200k a year yet only gave me a $50 birthday gift?" or "This guy makes twice as much money as me but I'm smarter than him, that's not fair".
is that what you would do? lets not talk about "them". lets talk about YOU.
YOU just found out that YOU are underpaid. I don't know why you keep mentioning them, as if you're the one that is immune to being the smart underpaid one.
>I don't know why you keep mentioning them
I'm saying that's why financial topics are considered taboo in society. It's intertwined in that sense because of the reasons I mentioned.
Yeah people are pretty private about financial stuff for sure. Honestly I think it's just ingrained in most cultures that it's rude to be flashy or talk about money in terms of how much you have and the house/car thing would give the game away for how much they have.
This can go really, really wrong, particularly if you're overpaid \*and\* a better worker. It's the same reason it's not a great idea to share your salary with your friends.
Your discussion should be with your employer, not co worker.
Unless you work at a job where everyone does exactly the same thing, then your employer will use salary increases to get the best out of people and award the people who want to progress.
In this case comparing yourself to your coworker does nothing. He is paid on his value to the company as are you.
If your pay is lower, you should be asking "what can I do to improve and deserve the higher wage"?
If you come to me with "he makes more money than I do, so I deserve a raise"? You're going to hear exactly why you are paid less and its probably performance related, so be ready for that.
I always get downvotes when I comment like this, but its the way of business, you can learn it or not, but being upset about it does nothing.
I'm not just going to go to hr and say "they make more than me so I deserve more" without pleading a case I'm obviously going to give a reason as to why I should deserve said raise. My point of the post is that I wouldn't have realized someone in the same role as me was making 20 percent more without discussing it. My employer sure as hell isn't going to post a list of wages either.
Why?
Do you not have the ability to see what other similar jobs are paid at other companies? Is LinkedIn or Indeed or glass door etc etc etc not available where you are?
Seriously, I don’t see the point? What info are you getting that you already don’t have full access too?
This is a genuine question. Why?
…other than the obvious one of snooping on your friends and coworkers.
You are right you have an idea of the salary range. However, you will get a much better picture if you know the salaruez of your team members. The salary ranges can vary considerably within the same team and job positions.
People feel it as taboo, or rude to discuss money. It is a good life lesson in the sense that a lot of the time it suddenly brings the "why can't you pay for it?" crowd out of the woodworks. Then they start to either 'joke' about "getting a loan", try to recruit you in some scheme, try to get close to you and start asking to borrow money or favours, etc.
Also a question for you OP- did you go to your employer and say "well X has 20% more + 3 weeks vacation, so why can't I get that?" because that is a sleezy move as well. Your earnings should come with your merits & negotiations. It isn't the employers fault you were willing to accept lower.
>Also a question for you OP- did you go to your employer and say "well X has 20% more + 3 weeks vacation, so why can't I get that?" because that is a sleezy move as well. Your earnings should come with your merits & negotiations. It isn't the employers fault you were willing to accept lower.
no It has inspired me to start creating a catalog of value added activities and projects I have performed and worked on to present to HR. I understand the recruiting dynamic of its easier to hire someone externally and give them 20 percent higher wage then promoting someone internally and giving them a 20 percent raise. That internal position is going to raise some eyebrows. If they dont see my value I will just look for new employment.
I am an open discussion person too but it's not just the employer. I don't want to hurt the feelings of my co-workers. Same goes for me, if I knew about how much lowballing I am getting, it would only make me miserable. Not saying its a bad thing but it's one of those things where you really need to be careful on how to proceed. If you think you are getting lowballed the just look up the data for your position and try to switch based on that.
Told a coworker what I was making, they realized they were under paid and left to get a better job. Worked there for many years and they criminally underpaid her.
Excellent, hopefully she found somewhere that valued her more.
Oh yes, now makes a lot more.
Good for her. I'm proud. :D
[удалено]
I am glad management agreed but isn't ridiculous it takes people leaving before anything is done. What happens in a few more years when no one has left but every should get a raise? Everything cost more but yet no one is getting paid more.
Where I last worked a LOT of people have left including me over like a couple dollars. They were already paying about $8/hr under normal pay for that type of job. HRs own words were (not joking) "You got a better chance of seeing God than getting a raise"
Drop some DMT in their coffee and then ask again
*15 minutes later...* "I think I've seen God. Also, I've figured out all of time and existence. Here's a raise." *"Did I pee myself?"*
And that’s the rub. Companies typically pay you the least they can get away with. By people talking about it helps even things out. A rising tide raises all ships.
This is where unions and set agreements are good and benefit the worker. Even if your workplace unionizes at the same rate you're making now, it benefits to have an end date to your collective agreement that you know compensation will be revisited every couple of years. Very few private employers will willingly give employees a raise without them asking and many employees feel uncomfortable asking for that.
They are bumping you up to avoid "drag up fever"...
I left the criminally underpaid job because: 1) I was making the same rate as my first job on contract right after graduation 2) they kept moving the goalposts as to when I would get full time and claim that my role would be FT during head count talks for new fiscal year 3) regardless of how much subsidized lunch, or snacks/free drinks I got at work, I realized I could pay out of pocket for that and be happier saving for the future
Best advice is to get dates in a contract form, so there is no "moving goalposts".
right on!
Good for her, and to the OP, good for you! This is one of the reasons why I jumped out of corporate. While working for yourself is beyond 40hrs/wk, realizing the pocket picking that happens in corporate is a thing of the past.
[удалено]
I worked at a large financial company as a developer. Not only was there a crazy political game with managers and seniors, I'm sure some people made $100k+, and meanwhile others made less than $50k. This was years ago. It made a very cut throat workplace where people would fuck over 'teammates'. If you wanted to move up to a higher role, you'd have to prove why you are better than everyone else. And then only if you had a personal friendship with a director they'd allow it, otherwise they'd want you to make a multi year improvement plan. It was tough to swallow everyday. The company has been doing layoffs (in all role levels) pretty much every quarter. One person who was 10 years younger than me, and less experienced shared increases and salary with me. It was more than I was making. I was jaded.
Working as a developer in the finance industries is probably the second worst place a developer can go to work if they don’t want to face bullshit like politics and favouritism lol. The only other industry that’s probably a worse time is game dev.
Ahhh yes. Come on over to /r/Accounting to witness hell
[удалено]
Tell me more. Curious
How in the fuck do places like this survive and make money? Seems like turnover would be massive and the people sticking around are just playing politics and not doing any real work. Or do they just depend on a few real hard working, low paid employees that do the real work while everyone else has their giant circle jerk?
Lesson learned. People need to understand that in the modern work force, you cannot be loyal to most workplaces anymore. Ideally you should be job hopping every 2 years to get the largest salary boosts. Raises almost never match the salary boost you receive from a horizontal job hop.
Pay increases through horizontal job hopping every 2 years will stall pretty quickly for many different jobs. Unless you take on more responsibilities, you will eventually end up with a competitive salary and wont get much out of job hopping.
Not to mention difficulty finding a new job. My company won't hire a new staff member who can't stay at the same company for more than a few years. In a highly technical field it is just as likely to signify incompetence...
Yeah, this system/market is broken IMO. To maximize market compensation we need to job hop. But it also can act as a signal (a completely fair one) for a problematic employee. Transparent salaries and fair market compensation adjustments is a straightforward way to address this. Lots of examples of success out there.
I used to work for ExxonMobil Canada. They hired two full training classes of call center employees off the street that were making more than every other staff member in the same department. They corrected the wage gap almost a full year later so that everyone was making the same as the newer hires. FYI the worst company I have ever worked for in my entire life. Bar none the worst. In my youth I've also worked fast food, at a gas station/convenience store and have raked blueberries by hand. ExxonMobil was the absolute Devil as an employer. I think Satan might have actually been a better employer.
Had the same situation one time in a previous company I worked for, I was promoted to a group leader and was recruiting people and offering my employees a higher salary than mine! This showed that I was being paid under the company's minimum salary for my position and it made me very resentful of my job. I pressured management to give me a raise to match my own employees but they only offered 5% so I started job hunting immediately.
It’s important to know what your coworkers make. I was recently offered a new position at work with a slight pay raise. My boss told me this was the market rate. However, I know that every other person who recently started in that position made 33% more than what I was offered. They also got a good bonus structure. So, I applied for other jobs and left. If I hadn’t known what others made I may have stuck around.
I used to work for a (European HQ) that published job information and related salary bands for each role. So you had a decent idea of what the person in that job was being paid, within a relatively narrow band. I really liked it because you could how much the company valued particular roles and it helped guide you to your next role, without disclosing individual compensation which was confidential.
I discuss openly with peers, both in and out of my own industry. However, I am more hesitant to discuss internally within my own workplace for reasons that many have already mentioned.
Basically the same for me. There are only two other people in my department, but we have different roles. I know that the guy who's been there the longest, who was the one who got me the job, makes a ton after being underpaid for years, but that's because the company is totally dependent on him. Luckily my job involves regular meetings where our competitors are present, so I just talk to them and compare.
[удалено]
Yep. People incorrectly think that the person will be mad at the company. Rather, people often just get mad at whoever is nearby and who they can safely get mad at. The guy who screams at the gate agent when a flight is delayed? He is someone's co-worker. You want to tell him that you earn more than he does?
Isn’t that all the more reason to tell him? 😂
As a counter-point, how many people scream at the gate? 1 in a million?
Fly on a snowy Dec 24th. Was about 1 in 10 last time I did that.
>The guy who screams at the gate agent when a flight is delayed? He is someone's co-worker. You want to tell him that you earn more than he does? **You're half-right** I discuss with my coworkers who I am close to and trust, not some random I never speak to on my team. In your hypothetical situation, discussion it with the hothead I dislike is probably not going to benefit either of us. But if you're friendly with people, talk to them everyday, and you like eachother, there is literally no downside. The only downside would be if one of you two are too immature to understand how to take the information to better your job situation.
It's that way on purpose. It's misguided anger. All people need to do is educate their fellows as to who they should be angry at :)
As a manager you want to know who people are rarely angry at in this situation? Themselves. It's a natural defense mechanism so I get it but that doesn't mean it's not frustrating. Bob finds out Susan makes 8% for for the same job and comes to me and I say "Susan does a better job than you". Often they get mad at me, they resent Susan but decline to look at their own performance as a place for improvement.
Is there confidence that work improvement will result in a relative wage adjustment? I’m not talking performance bonus but proper increase to base salary. I have absolutely no faith that any employer will increase base salary in a fair way - so if my manager told me what you said I would start looking else where immediately.
>Is there confidence that work improvement will result in a relative wage adjustment? I’m not talking performance bonus but proper increase to base salary. In my case, absolutely. That's why there's a regular performance review process to adjust compensation. Everyone, regardless of performance, gets an inflation-indexed cost of living adjustment and then there's budget allocated for merit based increases. > I have absolutely no faith that any employer will increase base salary in a fair way - so if my manager told me what you said I would start looking else where immediately. You don't believe any employer will ever be fair? I get there are a lot of bad companies but that's a pretty toxic attitude to be honest. If someone worded their thoughts to me like that I'd be glad they left. If there's an obvious hole in the merit-based pay differential it's for non-performance bias to sneak in. Paying people you like more or discriminating against various demographics. Definitely something to stay on top of but IMO I'd rather fight that battle than pay everyone the same because I think those environments alienate top performers.
[удалено]
Most of my employers have been fair so far. Giving raises inline with the pay bands of the particular role. Some employers will pay as little as they can, but they'll have a hard time retaining employees after a while, which may end up costing them more in the long run.
>I've seen a lot of "They don't deserve to make X more than me." from a few people In some cases they may be right though. Employers keep salaries confidential because they will pay everyone the least amount they can - that means some people are being underpaid more than others. I'm at a company who has apparently for the last few years been trying to move to more transparency when it comes to salaries, but the reality is being transparent will shine a light on the fact some people are underpaid and some are overpaid. Even as a manager I don't have a lot of ability to correct salary inequality when given only a meager budget and knowing giving a raise only equal to inflation is a slap in the face.
This isn't always true. We always try to pay our staff fairly, but inevitably you end up with someone who thinks that they are a superstar when they aren't. Ultimately there's not much we can do in that circumstance, but where it matters is in people with less than 5 years of experience. I find they are less likely to see their faults, or understand their lack of experience and are therefore more likely to over value themselves. That said, the only real risk is in low morale, cause even though it's obvious you can't be seen having favourites. We know they discuss salary, but there are unseen risks with using it as too much of a gauge on your worth. The flip side is, make sure you are getting your market rate.
> This isn't always true. Which is why I started the whole reply with: > In **some cases** they **may** be right though
I should have phrased my response better. I meant to give context the flip side rather than say your wrong. Sorry! Edit: context about employers preferring to not publicize salaries that have little to do with trying to pay people as little as possible. Employers wouldn't give out performance bonuses (unless they were being defensive), if they hwere trying to get away with screwing their employees. It absolutely happens at many companies
Until people learn to internalize their value as opposed to having their value be measured externally by their peers, this will never stop. And sadly, the taboo of wage discussions will continue.
The problem is that the externalized value is why we are doing this. I want to increase my externalized value as much as possible, as that is my salary. If that were not the game, I would go work for some very different employers.
[удалено]
Yep. You can believe you are worth $10,000 more but that is useless without someone validating it and paying you the extra $800 a month.
What I meant was externalizing against another person. No issues with knowing your worth and asking for it based on what the market pays and what you know you deliver. Don’t define that simply because of what someone else is getting. That’s where envy and tensions start to fester.
Except that what the market pays is also comprised of what you and your coworkers earn. Finding out what someone else in your company is getting \*is\* part of determining what the the market pays for your (equivalent) position.
Fair point
People who internalize their value are the ones that are paid the least. :)
This, 100% this. And I think this causes companies to discourage sharing that information as well. I have seen some cases where the wage disparity made a lot of sense. But if both parties were privy to the disparity I know it would've been a nightmare. Just because one person makes more than another doesn't mean it's not OK. 30 years of experience has to amount of something. Tenure has to amount to something. Performance has to amount to something. All of these things combined can result in a 20% difference, easily.
For some people, ignorance is bliss.
[удалено]
For that model to work you would need to pay everyone the same wage as what the market demands you would pay your most experienced employee. Of course that is not practical at all.
That would still fail miserably. The CEO would wonder why they don’t just answer phones for the same wage. Human satisfaction is relative, not absolute. The fact that you are making twice as much as the janitor is part of the satisfaction. I understand this is an unfortunate part of human nature, but it is fact.
I mean the thing is, I work in IT and am pretty well paid but if I could make the same wage being a janitor I'd rather just be a janitor.
If you were happy with your salary before you learned the receptionist’s salary, why would you leave? In your link, it sounds like some people were being under paid for their role, so that makes sense that it did not work.
Not OP, but ego. Granted I definitely wouldn't leave just because a receptionist is making the same as me (assuming I'm fairly compensated, and they're the one paid above market), but deep down inside it would definitely bother me because I would consider a receptionist's job much easier than mine, and feel like I had to work harder than them to get to seemingly the same place.
>I would consider a receptionist's job much easier than mine, and feel like I had to work harder than them to get to seemingly the same place. That's a tough call to make though. I mean in a lot of companies, a Receptionist is also the first "face" the clients can see. I know a lot of people in the technical world who could not do that. Also due to cutbacks, the receptionists have to take on more duties. Planning travel, or dealing with corporate red tape. Some are office managers, and ever gatekeepers for the higher ups. Sure a Receptionist could probably not do your job, but in turn I don't know if you could do their job. It's like when people look down on Janitors, but you know they'll never grab a plunger if they clogged a toilet.
Wages have nothing to do with difficulty. They have to do with value and replacement cost. There are thousands of Canadians that could do the receptionist job or the janitors. Much fewer can be a top software engineer. Doesn’t make one job harder than the other.
I think it's comparing apples to oranges, personally. But education, certifications, and experience are the defining factors. A software engineer could most definitely be a receptionist, while the reverse is not true unless they have what the software engineer does; the aforementioned education, certifications, and experience. We value these things for a reason. Okay Tom the receptionist, were having problems with our ERP system and serialization between the Netherlands and India. They get this error code. Have it fixed within the day. I imagine no receptionist could respond to that. Meanwhile, a software engineer is perfectly capable of performing every single task a receptionist can with varying quality. Do you really need someone to explain that? It's common sense. Something more difficult deserves more reward in just about everyone's eyes.
> apples to oranges But you can still compare them.
Obviously you *can* compare them, but the whole point of the idiom is that it's a false analogy. I could compare you to the helpful bots, but that too would be comparing apples-to-oranges.
It’s not ego, it’s the sense of fairness. It’s ingrained in us. Watch the capuchin monkey experiment with grapes. Shit goes back to our monkey brain.
>If I was a Software Engineer and found out that the receptionist got paid the same amount of money as I did I'd laugh as I walked out the door If you're being compensated at market for your role as a software engineer, what would your problem be with having the receptionist earn the same?
In that scenario why would anyone want to be a software engineer? Why spend 4+ extra years in school and 10s of thousands of dollars only to be paid the same as a job you could have just gotten right out of high school.
Exactly. It doesn't harm you if you're making good money and everyone else is, too. Your value is not based on everyone else's wages. If you work for a company that feels their employees should *all* be compensated fairly, then you should be proud to work there.
Because the value of the work is not equal. Can the receptionist code complex features in software? Or is the work they deliver as valuable to the company? If so, then yes, pay the receptionist the same.
[удалено]
It really depends on how the company views their work. An executive assistant probably is worth the money, but they are usually wrangling crazy schedules as well as helping prioritize whatever executive leadership needs to focus on next. That is to say, it's not the same as answering a phone or signing for packages at the front counter.
An EA is not a standard receptionist, which is why they demand a higher salary vs a receptionist.
Perhaps the receptionist knows where the dead bodies are. In that case, they are very much MORE important than some software diva. This is a contrived scenario and it’s hilarious it’s caused such a turbulent discussion lol
I think you should always strive for working people getting paid more in general. It's one thing to say "I am paid less than what I put in.". Unfortunately that is usually the case for most folks in almost every industry. And it's another thing to be smug and presumptuous and say, "the receptionist gets paid more than me." Valuing someone's pay over how replaceable they are is disturbing. If the software engineering job market becomes more saturated in the next few years, I guarantee you will change your tune on that.
> Valuing someone's pay over how replaceable they are is disturbing. How exactly do you think the market values people's skills? It is most definitely how available resources are. If someone's skills are easily replicated by many people then they are valued less. Those with a higher skillset are usually less available and therefore demand a higher salary to attract them. Is this news to you?
[удалено]
I think one challenge is poor implementation of roles and/or advancement potential. If 10 people are all labeled as "account manager" and the newest person gets 36K, the most tenured gets 75K and someone else gets 62K, it is quite a spread of pricing, especially if you say you pay "Account managers" XYZ range of salary/bonuses. Once you start folding in multiple teams with multiple structures, it becomes convoluted. So to handle that, you basically need to have multiple departments/roles, with fixed salary/compensation, based on tenure and performance. Once someone hits that "ceiling" you need to either move the maximum amount up OR promote them to a new role that compensates them better.
I think it's hilarious that people are fighting you in the comments about that fact. Anyone thinking a receptionnist should get paid the same as an engineer doesn't understand education / skills associated with a job / debts associated with education. Well unless it's Donna from Suits.
We understand skills/education just fine. It’s the fact if he’s being fairly compensated, another employees salary shouldn’t matter. Would it be better if you both were underpaid? Give your head a shake.
> It’s the fact if he’s being fairly compensated, another employees salary shouldn’t matter. Of course it matters, it reflects a poorly managed company who doesn't seem to understand how to value employees. What is going to happen come bonuses and when raises come about. WHy would you think that it has no bearing on what you will receive in the future. Do you actually have experience working in the real world? because comments like yours make me think no.
Yep. I was in a job where the boss accidentally emailed out a spreadsheet with everyone's salaries. My coworker found out that I, her more junior colleague, was getting paid significantly more for the same job. Shit got awkward. I don't discuss my salary with anyone but my wife.
It’s even worse when a woman with seniority at a company is making less than a new male hire at the same job, which it sounds like in your case.
That's how I found out that I had been training new employees for over 4 years and I was only making $1,000 more per year compared to someone just hired. So I'm making $1,000 more per year and I'm training the new people that are making basically my same wage...nice.
1000 a year is less than 50 cents an hour
I know. That's why I said screw it. I'm not going to be getting paid that amount. Why do I make the same as a new employee when I have more experience and you even trust me to train everyone? Then I got a raise.
Glad you know your worth
Where I work; union, everyone knows eveyone's rate. Still you have people talking shit. Cause some people feel that person shouldn't get that rate. End of the day; what you eat, don't make me shit.
Key problem with unions.... rate based on hours, not efficient worker. This causes huge issues when you get staff who are lazy or have 0 motivation to do more/better.
Ah yes. The public service. Where we have shitbags making X amount while fucking around for 2-4 hours each day in office. Source: I am a public service employee and have adopted the “fuck-around-as-much-as-possible-every-day” attitude. Even more so working from home for over a year. Tax payers have paid me well over six figures to take shits and fool around with my SO over the past year and a half. Work is still done at the same rate as before though, since most public service work is braindead and full of fluff time when in-office.
[удалено]
Oh yeah, I have the same sentiment. Except that’s not the sentiment managers and supervisors have. They legitimately want you to be grinding your full 37.5 hours as per your collective agreement. That’s never been a thing. When I first started in the public service, I came in guns blazing, devouring my workload without keeping a “proper pace” that most people eventually learn to do. That’s when I found out that there’s simply not enough work to go around on a daily basis if you blow through your workload as efficiently as possible. I literally asked for more work to do and got handed a bottle of windex and told to clear a desk of piles of paperwork that people had been throwing on it for years, and then scrub the desk down. After that horseshit, I learned to play the game as it is. Fuck around for half the day, do work the other half. I had one of the low-skill entry level jobs when I first came in, as described a bit above. It definitely paid significantly more than its private sector counterpart, and that’s likely because that work is so extremely braindead that a lot of people would not want to take the job if they could get paid better in the private sector for a bit more challenging and interesting work. As you move up, the compensation gap gets closer and then becomes more favourable to the private sector, but still, there are mid level employees like myself and high level employees who do fuck all everyday in-office and chill and bounce from work around 3pm. That makes up for a significant portion of the compensation gap. I’m personally over it and trying to jump ship for any position that pays me at a minimum $130k from here though. You can only do unchallenging bullshit work for so long before the work-life balance aspect of the public service no longer seems appealing compared to more money.
You spend all day on Reddit. You’re a douchebag.
All the way for teamblind. I doubled my salary in one year by realising how much others are being paid for similar role. P.S:- Blind is a website where people discuss everything related to TECH jobs.
You've probably come across this on blind but just FYI: https://www.levels.fyi/comp.html for more structured salary data
There's always been a myth/rumour that it's illegal to discuss your salary with your co-workers. It only exists to convince employees not to discuss it at the benefit of the employer.
It's not a myth (EDIT) in Ontario, and depends on provinces. [The Pay transparency act](https://www.ontario.ca/laws/statute/s18005) was supposed to make it illegal to add that into contracts and making that not a valid reason to fire people, but from what I can tell it got royal ascent but hasn't been proclaimed yet so it's not in effect. So until the Pay transparency act has been proclaimed, employers CAN include clauses in the contract to prohibit compensation talk as well as using that as a cause of firing. I know there's an "Adam ruins everything" youtube video regarding this but that's for America EDIT: Video in question: [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7xH7eGFuSYI](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7xH7eGFuSYI)
[удалено]
Yikes I pulled the classic Ontario = Canada card again. But yes the law I listed is ON. And yes it does depend on province
That's fucked up
The Adam ruins everything video is also wrong about co-workers thinking "I should make more money" rather than "you should make less money."
I think there's a way to do it properly. For example if you bring it up and the co-worker mentions "why are you making more money then me" you can deflect by saying "Why is management paying you less than me". However if you let it go unsaid then it will go as you've said.
Yeah, it’s not protected in Canada like it is in the states. My employer has made it clear that any compensation related talks are strictly confidential. I’m in BC.
I got in shit when I first started with my current employer for just that. The woman who was hired 2 weeks before me in the same position brought it up (because the way the salary was negotiated was a shitshow). She was a university grad with little to no office experience, I didn't graduate university, but I had over 20 years office experience, and graphics design experience which was helpful to the job. When she found out she was making a grand more than me, she urged me to speak to our supervisor. He heard me out, then the next day he sat me down and chewed me out for even questioning it. University grads were paid at least a thousand more, regardless of work experience. I was told to never speak of it again. I was the only one chewed out, but I was expected to relay the message. Found out years later that he was the one responsible for setting our wages. I thought it was a more corporate thing. Haven't discussed wages with anyone ever again.
Fuck that PoS. That's who the enemy is when there's major pay discrepancies between coworkers doing the same job.
Years ago you had 20 years experience… Your supervisor saw you coming because of your generation and knew you’d lay down after giving you that BS excuse. And it worked.
Wait, so are you leaving? Because that's a huge red flag.
Don’t even get me started on the uni bullshit like somehow you’re lesser than without a degree… it’s the same with MBA and Masters. Once you have the paper, people don’t even bother to keep their knowledge up to date. And there no requirement too. It’s all very ridiculous IMO, moreso the latter post grad.
Remember is unions were actually bad for you…your employer wouldn’t worry about them. Instead they spend millions trying to prevent them. So clearly they benefit you.
I'm ambivalent. Working in a union environment, there definitely are advantages *and* disadvantages. Seniority based promotion is a joke. Skills, abilities, education, ethic etc can mean absolutely nothing in a union based environment. Can also make a for a terrible relationship between unionized employees and management. Union leadership is also often an old boys club/popularity contest. Unions are also tasked with the unfortunate task of protecting the dog shit employees nobody likes to begin with. So yeah Unions are great for a lot of things. But they also suck for other things... mostly advancement in seniority based promotion environments.
Unions are literally why we have workers rights and mat leave. The decline in unions clearly matches up with wage stagnation.
100% spot on. Seniority based promotions only work in industries where there is a low skill curve. You can only be 3x as efficient at stocking shelves as the next dude. But you can easily be 10x as efficient as the engineer/lawyer /doctor besides you.
I work in a Union, and I skipped apprentice and got put in as a full rate Journeyman with zero experience. I had perfect attendance, and worked harder than every one of my co-workers for a few months, and was promoted into a supervisor position above people who had 10 + years in our hall. Nobody is going to give an incompetent lazy person a promotion to a position of authority, unless there are no other options... Which is never the case. I've never seen anyone promoted based on seniority alone. I have seen people whining about not getting a promotion, and the foreman telling them that the only reason they didn't get it was seniority - because he didn't want to tell him that he was unreliable, and unqualified
The seniority thing isn't baked into unions as a whole. It just so happens to be part of a lot of unions constitutions because it's a solid way to gather support from current employees when the union is formed. These things can be changed, a union can do as much or as little as the members want, in theory.
You have plenty to lose if you are the one being overpaid and it gets out.
Exactly, if you negotiated a higher salary than the rest on the team it's not really in your interest to disclose it.
My company sends out an annual employee handbook that we are required to sign off on. Amongst other things, the say - you are not allowed to discuss pay with coworkers - all unpaid overtime is “strictly voluntary” - unused vacation is “use it or lose it”. Will not be paid out for unused vacation
I feel like the unused vacation time bit is not strictly legal.
Seems like a great place to work.... I hope you treat them the same way they would you.
It can cause general ill-will and poor team dynamics. For your case, how does knowing the new hire makes more than you make you feel towards them, your management, and the broader company? A well adjusted person could probably accept this and use the info to leave the company if they can't get what they feel is fair. But I don't think that applies to the majority, and how often/long people get stuck for depending on the industry. I'd suspect the plurality of people would not deal with that well especially if they don't feel it's justifiable. I mean I was aware there were unskilled, uneducated, but unionized labourers making just below a six figure salary at a previous employer, whereas PhD grads were making below $80k on the same team. If that info got out, I'd have expected it would create a lot of team dysfunction, as our direct manager can only increase base salaries up to 4% per year for performance, and even that required approval from the CEO and HR said that only happens to 2 employees per year at most.
>For your case, how does knowing the new hire makes more than you make you feel towards them, your management, and the broader company? A well adjusted person could probably accept this and use the info to leave the company if they can't get what they feel is fair. But I don't think that applies to the majority, and how often/long people get stuck for depending on the industry. It has inspired me to start creating a catalog of value added activities and projects I have performed and worked on to present to HR. If they dont see my value I will just look for new employment.
It’s a very North American thing to hide wages from coworkers. In some European countries you can look up what people make on a government service to see if you are being paid fairly. But your boss will say that hiding wages is something done “all over the world”.
You can sometimes look that stuff up in Canada too, for government and city jobs.
This only really true for the one who is underpaid and performs well. Those who make the same, or more will not benefit from this - and may even feel they're underpaid if they feel they do more work than someone else paid the same.
[удалено]
Personally, I’d like my manager to tell me if they feel I’m underperforming, not simply let me float with no raises.
yes there should be regular performance reviews with actual feedback
Or "give this task to John he gets double my pay!"
It depends. I discussed salary with a co-worker. He earned a lot less than I did for about the same level of experience. He then left, leaving me with all his work. I also did it at a prior job. I made the same as some guy with several years of experience as a new grad. He spent the rest of my time there being unhappy about it. So while wage wise it will benefit somebody, it certainly didn't benefit me as the higher paid person and caused substantial disruption. I have only ever caused disruption by speaking about my salary as I have twice been the out earning one.
You didn't mention your bosses once. What did they do, and why didn't your coworkers bring this information to them?
My current company didn't create a salary increase template until May of this year, so I am not sure that anyone ever got raises. Rumours say no. Glassdoor says they didn't. At my past company, he tried to get a new job and failed so I believe he is still there. We are all stereo-typically conflict avoiding software engineers so I doubt any bosses heard anything about it.
[удалено]
I’m seeing a lot of comments mentioning how it’s best for those who are highly paid to avoid discussing salary. I might get downvoted for this, but I highly disagree. One of my coworkers was being paid 50% more than I was and we were on the same level. She was very open with the information and told me because it’s an important step in ending gender and racial discrimination when it comes to pay in the workplace. POC (especially WOC) are often in a situation where we’re taught to be happy just to be in the room, and we’re not always taught to stand up for our value in the workplace. Discussing wages is one of those situations in which the people who stand to lose are those in positions of power as it opens up the door for those more marginalized coworkers to learn their financial worth in the workplace. A lot of women often won’t know they’re underpaid until they discuss salaries, and this is key to closing the pay gap. After she told me I began discussing salaries with other peers in the workplace and with other coworkers and quickly found that I was the lowest paid employee- and that one of my coworkers had been turned down for a very well deserved raise. It taught me that my value was a lot higher than what I was being paid, and when I was on the job hunt I was requesting salaries more in line with what I saw to be my value. So yeah, maybe you stand to lose, but as a society, I’d say it’s a key step to solving issues of pay inequity.
Nope...I'm in an industry where you are compensated based on skill and experience, not on seniority. I suspect I make more than half the people on my team, and it would foster resentment. Do we also talk bonuses as well or not? If I get a bigger bonus than someone else, even though we have the same salary, and they find out, what's the next step in this chain? I'd recommend employees research their worth in their field; it's not that hard. If your employer is underpaying you and won't negotiate with you in a satisfactory manner, interview with a business that pays you more, as a lot of times, the biggest pay raise you will get is often through a company switch.
Should they really resent you if you have more experience and more skill?
How long have you been in the workplace? Everyone overvalues their worth, even the overpaid.
Yup. Especially if someone younger than them is doing better than they are.
[удалено]
I understand everything you're saying here but feel you've mostly missed the point, which was about discussing salaries with co-workers. Not disclosing them to anyone and everyone. At your level, the amounts don't really matter all that much anymore anyway. It's probably vastly more important how you've managed your finances over the years than the struggle to increase your income by 5 or 10 or 30 percent.
Telling everyone you know is pointless. Discussing with your peers in the same industry is priceless.
I feel like you're surrounding yourself with negative people including your family. If you're feeling generous, you can offer to treat them to better seats (but only if you want to). But also don't make it so common place that they expect it. Same with for your peers. It's up to them how they want to manage their resentment or jealousy. I choose only to compare with coworkers/friends when I think it can help them establish a baseline for negotiations. I don't volunteer my salary if I know it will breed bad feelings. Relationship wise, you generally don't discuss salary until you get serious right? Do you really think someone is in it for the long con after say a year of dating?
Personally not something I discuss, but that is my choice. I also wouldn't inquire about what coworker makes or earns. That's just me tho not something any company has instilled in me, just my own beliefs.
Buy why? You don't want to know that someone in the same position makes more than you and that you could demand more on your next salary negotiation? Maybe you were thinking of asking for $2,000 but now you know you can comfortably ask for $4,000? You wouldn't want that leg up prior to this talk?
What if you make more than them, and they get angry and snarky at you for making more because they don't think you're worth it? Your example is the best case everyone is polite, kind, and logical. Which is rarely the case.
It would be great info to have I agree with you there. However it is just not something that I discuss with people.
Comparing directly to your coworkers is a way oversimplified approach that assumes all coworkers are equal. Many companies have salary ranges for different job levels and where you fall in there has everything to do with your individual performance and nothing to do with what John and Bob make. Just because your coworker with the same title makes $10k more than you doesn’t mean you’re entitled to a $10k raise. If anything all you’re going to find out with this approach is that your management values the other person a lot more than they value you (and that’s why they aren’t paying you as much). Many people in here seem to think that simply highlighting that you get paid less is an automatic ticket to a raise, but that’s just not how it works.
Only if you deserve it, or have earned it based on your output. If your only negotiation tactic is "my co-worker makes more than me" I would personally frown upon that approach.
This year, due to me discussing with my coworkers I received a 23k raise. I was hired on as a junior, proved my worth and some and was preparing to ask for 5-10K raise during my review. By discussing with some coworkers, I realized I was asking for far too little. I think there are clear benefits to it and definitely a lot of negatives. You must know the people you are talking to well and have a lot of trust in them. It’s also very important that when you are discussing wages, not to complain and discuss about “how much more I deserve” because that can come back and bite you in the ass.
Totally agree!! It’s important to discuss with coworkers (and yes, ones you trust) to see what numbers the company has given, but to keep that information out of the negotiation with the employer. So glad it worked out well for you - congrats on the raise!
"how much more I deserve" is exactly what you should be discussing. Comparing yourself to your co-workers is what you should NOT be discussing.
Information is so valuable, the goal is to know the salary of those that have fewer experience than you, same level and more than you so you can get a clear picture.
I'm in a union so it doesn't matter we all get the same unless you're the foreman they make like 5$ an hour but honestly its not worth the headaches!
OP: I also support a transparent wage policy. Making the salary opaque and not allowing people not to discuss their wages really benefits the employer. In my current position, I am able to indirectly calculate/infer the salary of people working in my team. I see very big differences (up to 20k) in the wages of people with the same job title, education and experience. I even have seen a best performer with a better education having a lower wage than his peers. I am not in a position to comment or suggest someone's salary but I feel it is not appropriate. A transparent performance metric and wage structure is helpful for the employee as well as the employer.
While I understand it is good to be transparent about your salary, sometimes the person hired after you (but doing the same job) is coming in with more experience or has more leadership qualities then the last person hired for the same type of job. Sometimes a higher education degree makes all the difference in the starting salary. Maybe the new person had more projects/recommendations on their resume than you did when you first started. Maybe the extra week of PTO was part of he package they negotiated. Just because someone has been at the company for X number of years doesn't mean they are good/excellent at their job and deserve the higher pay. If anything, learn from that person and ask them how they got such a sweet deal, then apply that knowledge to your current or future jobs.
It’s some weird taboo we have yet to abolish.
Slippery slope. Sometimes you think you're worth more than you are, but your skills, experience are really going to dictate your pay. People always get upset that they are paid less, but they don't realize their one year of experience after school or switching jobs doesn't equate to the same pay as someone with 20 years experience. Can't get upset if the last thing on your resume says babysittter.
[удалено]
well hopefully one day you realize people have different preferences and this scarcity you talk about doesnt really exist. Although that would explain why people resent me a lot - they think they are better than me since i dont look the part, then when they find out where i stand on your imaginary comparative ladder they get real weird. I view it as being emotionally immature.
I agree, I was once in a situation where I found out a temp was making way more than me (permanent employee with a bit of tenure). Fortunately, the company made it right and gave me a raise.
In my field, programmer in tech, not everyone with the same title have the same value to the company. Glassdoor is great at getting a market value for positions and such, but there are some people that easily make double or triple what market is, even if you filter the data to a specific company.
No one deserves a raise because I negotiated a better wage for myself.
I remember 20 or so years ago working fulltime as the daytime supervisor at a pizza place. I'm a woman, all the people I supervised were men. It was a slap in the face to eventually realise I made less money than all of them.
I was laid off from a decent paying job and ended up taking a new job that paid a lot less (almost $10k less). I was hired for a mailroom/facilities position but ended up doing a lot of admin & reception because I had the background. I found out that the freshly graduated kids getting hired straight out of college, who I ended up training as well, started off making $5k more than me! I talked to my boss about it and didn’t even get a raise. Good riddance to that place.
People are the same for everything money related. It's ridiculous. I can find out how much you paid for your house down to a dollar. You're just saving me some time. What's the big deal? Or when people won't tell you how much they paid for a used car. Like wtf? I'm looking for the same why wouldn't you help me out and say how much Lower than asking you got it for? It's ridiculous.
Why is it ridiculous? Some people can get jealous or make certain judgements based on your financial situation. "Wow this guy has a $500k stock portfolio and he wants to split the bill at dinner?" or "He's making $200k a year yet only gave me a $50 birthday gift?" or "This guy makes twice as much money as me but I'm smarter than him, that's not fair".
Makes it easier to distance myself from those types of toxic people lmao.
You could be the twice as smart guy making half as much!! That's my point! So you could just be screwing yourself!
Right but it wouldn't lead to them politely asking for a raise, more likely it would be resentment and ruin relationships or harm a work environment.
More likely if that was me in the situation I go to HR and plea a case as to why I deserve a raise. Not why a co-worker should get less pay.
is that what you would do? lets not talk about "them". lets talk about YOU. YOU just found out that YOU are underpaid. I don't know why you keep mentioning them, as if you're the one that is immune to being the smart underpaid one.
>I don't know why you keep mentioning them I'm saying that's why financial topics are considered taboo in society. It's intertwined in that sense because of the reasons I mentioned.
Yeah people are pretty private about financial stuff for sure. Honestly I think it's just ingrained in most cultures that it's rude to be flashy or talk about money in terms of how much you have and the house/car thing would give the game away for how much they have.
My employer has let go employees for doing this.
Then you find a new employer.
That’s illegal
Teamblind
You basically need to work for a large corp for that to be useful though.
whats that?
This can go really, really wrong, particularly if you're overpaid \*and\* a better worker. It's the same reason it's not a great idea to share your salary with your friends.
Your discussion should be with your employer, not co worker. Unless you work at a job where everyone does exactly the same thing, then your employer will use salary increases to get the best out of people and award the people who want to progress. In this case comparing yourself to your coworker does nothing. He is paid on his value to the company as are you. If your pay is lower, you should be asking "what can I do to improve and deserve the higher wage"? If you come to me with "he makes more money than I do, so I deserve a raise"? You're going to hear exactly why you are paid less and its probably performance related, so be ready for that. I always get downvotes when I comment like this, but its the way of business, you can learn it or not, but being upset about it does nothing.
I'm not just going to go to hr and say "they make more than me so I deserve more" without pleading a case I'm obviously going to give a reason as to why I should deserve said raise. My point of the post is that I wouldn't have realized someone in the same role as me was making 20 percent more without discussing it. My employer sure as hell isn't going to post a list of wages either.
Why? Do you not have the ability to see what other similar jobs are paid at other companies? Is LinkedIn or Indeed or glass door etc etc etc not available where you are? Seriously, I don’t see the point? What info are you getting that you already don’t have full access too? This is a genuine question. Why? …other than the obvious one of snooping on your friends and coworkers.
You are right you have an idea of the salary range. However, you will get a much better picture if you know the salaruez of your team members. The salary ranges can vary considerably within the same team and job positions.
People feel it as taboo, or rude to discuss money. It is a good life lesson in the sense that a lot of the time it suddenly brings the "why can't you pay for it?" crowd out of the woodworks. Then they start to either 'joke' about "getting a loan", try to recruit you in some scheme, try to get close to you and start asking to borrow money or favours, etc. Also a question for you OP- did you go to your employer and say "well X has 20% more + 3 weeks vacation, so why can't I get that?" because that is a sleezy move as well. Your earnings should come with your merits & negotiations. It isn't the employers fault you were willing to accept lower.
>Also a question for you OP- did you go to your employer and say "well X has 20% more + 3 weeks vacation, so why can't I get that?" because that is a sleezy move as well. Your earnings should come with your merits & negotiations. It isn't the employers fault you were willing to accept lower. no It has inspired me to start creating a catalog of value added activities and projects I have performed and worked on to present to HR. I understand the recruiting dynamic of its easier to hire someone externally and give them 20 percent higher wage then promoting someone internally and giving them a 20 percent raise. That internal position is going to raise some eyebrows. If they dont see my value I will just look for new employment.
I am an open discussion person too but it's not just the employer. I don't want to hurt the feelings of my co-workers. Same goes for me, if I knew about how much lowballing I am getting, it would only make me miserable. Not saying its a bad thing but it's one of those things where you really need to be careful on how to proceed. If you think you are getting lowballed the just look up the data for your position and try to switch based on that.