

Could Millennials End Salary Secrecy? - cantbecool
http://www.theatlanticwire.com/business/2013/04/could-millennials-end-salary-secrecy/64317/

======
jasonkester
The whole taboo about talking about salary isn't really about salary. It's
about the end result of what happens several steps down the line from people
talking about salary.

Say, for example, you and Steve have the same job description and Steve tells
you that he makes $40k more than you. You naturally feel screwed, so you go
talk to the boss about it. Now, one of two things might happen. It might turn
out that you're actually as good as Steve, and just weren't as good at
negotiating. That's the best case, and maybe you'll get yourself the raise
that everybody always talks about when this topic comes up.

But more likely, you're just not as good at your job as Steve. And now your
boss has no choice but tell you so directly. So now you feel even worse, your
boss is uncomfortable, and Steve is all self-conscious.

Your boss has thought all this through, so he put that silly policy in place.
(Notice how _he_ loses in either case.) The fact that such a policy exists is
probably an indicator that you're not actually as good as Steve (or possibly
that Steve isn't as good as you), and that no real good will come from
discussing salaries with each other.

If you want to talk salaries, do it with people working at _other_ companies.
Figure out your real market rate and if your current employer won't match it,
go find somebody who will.

Incidentally, a corollary to the above is that you should avoid working at a
place where all salaries are public and they pay all their developers the
same, based on a few "tiers" or whatever. Unless you expect you're either bad
enough at what you do or bad enough at negotiating that you'd normally end up
with a salary below the "tier" level, you're guaranteed to leave money on the
table in this situation. Probably about 50% of your actual value if you're
genuinely good at what you do and can negotiate your way out of a paper bag.

~~~
Udo
This system is broken.

Just have discrete salary levels that are well understood and public. That way
you _know_ what levels everyone is on, there is _no negotiation necessary_
(which is an amoral practice anyway) and everybody can focus on actual work
instead of secretly wondering if they're getting screwed compared to some
random no-talent clown on their team. You wouldn't need that many different
levels either, maybe ten in total. In my country, government jobs already kind
of work this way, and the military does, too.

When we were doing our startup, we had three tiers for a company of about 15
people. Everybody in the same tier made the same.

~~~
jasonkester
As I said in the comment you're replying to, that's a terrible idea. For,
well, the reasons I gave in the comment you're replying to.

It's the same reason that Unions are such a bad idea for professions with wide
variation in individual skill (such as software developers). I (and likely
you) don't want to be lumped in with whatever the "average" worker of my years
experience and skillset is making or able to negotiate. Unless you're in the
bottom 50th percentile, you can do better on the open market.

To use your example, the system you advocate would ensure that you were
earning _the same_ as that no-talent clown on the next team. Me, I'd prefer to
make twice his salary.

~~~
Udo
As I implied in the comment you're replying to, _yours_ is a terrible idea ;)

I advocate transparency and simplicity not because it's a perfect system for
getting the exact amount of compensation appropriate (no such system exists) -
I advocate its use over the alternative which is based on empowering the
employer only and unfairly rewards people for being good at negotiation. I
allege the whole thing is a philosophical artifact created by the idea that
unregulated free markets can solve every problem: "just let the workers fight
over it, the best will get the most!"

Interestingly, a wide variation is skill is _not_ something that is addressed
at all by this don't-ask-don't-tell lottery scheme. If anything, it is _based_
on the idea that two given people with the same skill set end up getting
disparately compensated. In what world can that look right to anyone? People
wonder why women and minorities get paid less than white males: that is the
reason why right there.

The truth is, I'd rather rest well _knowing_ I get the same compensation as a
coworker than spending energy wondering whether I'm getting ripped off or not.
And here's the shocker: I don't want my coworker to get ripped off either! Now
if a team member happens to be awful, and he keeps on failing upwards through
the ranks of the company, I prefer to have some visible indicators for that as
well. You say you prefer to make twice the salary as that guy, but under the
system you're advocating you couldn't even _know_ whether that is indeed the
case.

 _> I (and likely you) don't want to be lumped in with whatever the "average"
worker of my years experience and skillset is making. _

That really depends on the company and the kind of colleagues you are dealing
with. I'd prefer to work in a team where I'm not above everyone else. I like
being surrounded by people who inspire me and whom I can maybe inspire in
turn. Being lumped together with comparatively untalented coworkers is not
just a compensation issue, it also creates an environment where one part of
the team has to constantly shoulder additional workload and carry the
underperformers (who by the way are almost always better at politics).

Getting back to my levels proposal: it already works elsewhere, it's just not
used that much in our industry for cultural (and probably philosophical)
reasons. Yes, skills vary, but the negotiation-based system addresses this in
an even worse way than compensation levels do. My experience with running a
level-based system has been overwhelmingly positive. It was pleasant from an
administrative point of view, and it created zero contention among employees.

~~~
jasonkester
I like to think I'm _full_ of terrible ideas :). Here's another one.

I don't agree with your idea that negotiating is "amoral", nor that rewarding
people for being good at negotiation is "unfair", nor that you can get "ripped
off" by receiving a salary that you agreed to, nor that a "don't-ask-
don't-tell" workplace need be a "lottery".

I think it's fine that people can negotiate with one another, and that being
good at negotiating has advantages. I think the most productive thing to do in
a world where people negotiate is to learn some basic negotiation skills so as
to live in that world.

I think the least productive thing you can do in that world is to try to make
everybody stop negotiating for things. Doing so can only make things worse for
you, since everybody else will continue negotiating after you stop.

~~~
theorique
Nowhere is negotiation and politicking more aggressive than in a scenario
where it is "officially" disallowed. When you have a "transparency" or "no
negotiation" policy you just push this underground.

------
arocks
Job market is just like any other market - governed by supply and demand.
Currently, it is not efficient. In fact, not even close to being efficient.
This is because, a key characteristic of an efficient market is perfect
sharing of information.

This is why ending Salary Secrecy is a good thing - for both the employer and
employee. It might seem that the employer is most affected (as the article
suggests), but that is not always true. If there is an equally talented person
who is not paid well, someone would eventually make a better offer. He would
take that offer thinking that his current company would never pay that well.

While tweeting your salary might be quite unlikely, most employees today don't
mind sharing their salary details with their friends. It simply helps to
understand what the market demand is and improves efficiency of a broken
system.

~~~
theorique
_equally talented person who is not paid well_

People are naturally going to disagree about things like _equally talented_
("Of course my UI was equally difficult to make as Bob's graphics engine!
Maybe even harder!") and _paid well_ ("Are you serious? I made 30% than that
at my last job!")

~~~
arocks
You are right, such terms are ambiguous. But I would be happy even if
employees playing the _same role_ achieving the same results get paid the
same. But that is often not the case.

------
jheimark
It's a ridiculous one-sided advantage to suppliers of labor if we keep our
mouths shut. Perhaps by speaking "that which must not be spoken," we can make
salary decisions more open and fair across the board.

------
vidarh
In Norway, taxable income is public information. It used to be that it was so
public that newspapers would put up searchable databases where you could enter
name and postcode to get a list of everyones income and fortune. It's been
restricted a little bit. The idea is that it acts as a deterrent to tax
evasion and money laundering (your neighbour gets suspicious about that new
Ferrari you bought) etc..

I don't really have much of an opinion about whether it's good or bad - people
mostly don't care other than 5 minutes of excitement when the numbers were out
when online news sites still published them.

~~~
disbelief
When I first heard about how easy it was to look up a person's income in
Norway, I was blown away. I'd personally hate for that information to be
public. I think perhaps in Norway, there is a bit less disparity in incomes,
it's a little closer to equal. The wealthy are also heavily taxed. So it makes
things a little less uncomfortable when your friends, colleagues, family
members, etc. know exactly how much you make.

~~~
vidarh
That's true. I'm Norwegian, but live in England now, and I make a lot more
here than what I would in Norway, and my neighbours make a lot less here than
what they would in ordinary "blue collar" jobs in Norway. But I think also the
novelty wears off very quickly. It was fun to "spy" on friends and neighbours
once or twice, but then it just starts feeling a bit icky.

------
cturner
Coworker pay is irrelevant. The contract is between you and your employer.

I've seen people tie themselves in terrible knots over this. It's a losers'
game. Instead of getting organised and creating the life they want, they take
the lazy option and get caught up over what people in their immediate context
are doing.

When you apply for work, you need to have a good idea of what you're worth in
the broader market, and what kind of work environments you'd like. Having done
that, look broadly, negotiate thoroughly, and get something that works for
you. When you're not happy, make new arrangements.

~~~
yen223
"When you apply for work, you need to have a good idea of what you're worth in
the broader market"

Which is why coworker pay is _not_ irrelevant.

~~~
cturner
Through your wage, the employer is already communicating to you the point at
which they cut their losses on you and let you go. Maybe through hard
bargaining you could inch a bit more out, but to do it you have to introduce
an unpleasant penny pinching theme into your relationship with coworkers and
employer.

If you're working in a situation where you feel you're tied to a single
company needing to gouge out pay increases on the basis of what the guy next
to you is being, you're already screwing yourself from so many angles that you
have bigger problems to be thinking about. Instead of worrying about some
fractional adjustment to your wage, you should be worrying about becoming more
valuable, broader, flexible, self-sufficient.

This is an interesting topic because cultures have very different attitudes
about negotiating. Here's a wave from the London morning crowd. The English
tend to be silent-auction, sudden-death negotiators. It will be interesting to
see what the Americans have to say when they get in.

~~~
vidarh
> the employer is already communicating to you the point at which they cut
> their losses on you and let you go.

Have you ever been on the employer side? Because I have. I've been involved in
negotiating and setting salaries for the last 18 years, for dozens of
employees.

Your statement above has _never_ been true in any of the companies I've
worked. It would have been true if the employees were all perfect negotiators,
everyone had perfect information, and we were quite weak negotiators and ended
up being pushed until stretching.

In reality, hiring managers tend to have much more information - when hiring
_we_ know what we can hire others for, as well as what others have accepted,
and what a typical employee will bring in. We also know much better what the
market is like. You will likely get an offer that is low enough that some
candidates will walk away from it.

On top of that, most potential employees are _shit_ at negotiating. Most never
negotiate at all - they take the offered number or leave it, but they rarely
push.

But the first offer is _never_ my best. Why? Because it doesn't have to be,
and we'd be throwing money out the window if it was.

On the flip side, when I am the one seeking a job, I never, ever accept a
first offer. I've never had a job offer I couldn't negotiate up. Anything from
10% to 40%. For most type of professional jobs you're likely to get a 5%-10%
increase over the initial offer just from saying the offer is a bit on the low
end, and asking if that's the best they can do.

At the same time, raises are hit and miss. If someone does something that
really merits a raise, sure. But 90% of the time it is _not_ obvious, and
chances are we miss things that someone has done when we evaluate them that
could have led to a raise if they, or their co-workers told us. This is part
of the reason why people often get those "shock increases" when they apply for
a new job: Applying forces them to update their CV's, which forces them to
think about and formulate what value they bring. Most employees never actually
tell their managers about that, on the assumption they know. They're very
often wrong.

> Maybe through hard bargaining you could inch a bit more out, but to do it
> you have to introduce an unpleasant penny pinching theme into your
> relationship with coworkers and employer.

Frankly, I respect the employees that come to me and negotiate _more_, as long
as they have done their homework and knows what they are worth, and can
explain to me why. They are demonstrating that they understand their value to
the business. Those are the employees that also tend to actively try to
increase their value to the business.

~~~
GHFigs
_On top of that, most potential employees are shit at negotiating. Most never
negotiate at all - they take the offered number or leave it, but they rarely
push._

This is why the article sounded so strange to me. It seems like the idea
that's really being pushed is that negotiation is bad, which is an easy sell
because most people have a strong aversion to it. They're eager to find a
reason to not have to do it, even when they suspect they're underpaid.

It's the uncertainty that causes so much angst, not the money in absolute
terms, and appeasing that uncertainty by convincing the median earners that
it's okay to gossip seems like a great way to get them to never ask for more.
They will gladly continue leaving money on the table if only they can be
confident that nobody else is taking it.

~~~
bearmf
Negotiation IS bad. Why would a thing that most people have aversion be
considered good? There must be strong reasons for it to be good for the median
employee, and there is none.

------
throwaway130418
Regarding the HR comment, the Fair Labor Standards Act forbids employers from
forbidding employees from discussing their salaries.

~~~
dizzystar
Yep, but ask the average worker if they know this. That law doesn't keep this
clause from appearing in employment contracts either.

------
jstelly
I am generally in favor of transparency. In this case I am definitely in favor
of more high level transparency about wages. But when it gets to the specific
data about one person and their coworkers it gets more difficult due to
various cognitive biases (including the Dunning Kruger effect). I would be
interested in the results of experiments in complete transparency and how they
deal with these issues. I wouldn't currently undertake the experiment because
I don't know of a way to structure it that allows it to fail and not be
permanent.

------
Shivetya
Well my employer does tell us the median salary for our roles. If you have
clearly defined roles within your organization then salary woes should not be
an issue. It is part of being a professional organization. Then you back this
structure with a clear process for evaluation and advancement. Advancement
does not necessarily need to be upward.

------
michaelochurch
I think the most important thing to know about Millennials is that we're the
exact opposite of the smear thrown at us. Boomers call us "entitled" at work.
We're actually _disentitled_.

An entitled person expects a social contract to be upheld, and usually the
pejorative aspect of the word "entitled" implies that it's one-sided advocacy.

We're disentitled because we no longer believe in the corporate social
contract at all. We'd be entitled if we expected the other side to follow the
rules. We don't. We know they won't, so we break just as many rules. Sure,
it's bad for social harmony to people to figure out if they're getting
screwed. You know what? Fuck that! I find it worse that people are getting
screwed.

~~~
GHFigs
Cynically, Millennials can be coaxed into doing anything if they can be
convinced it's sticking it to The Man.

~~~
michaelochurch
There's a lot of truth in this. I can't stand hipsters because they're a bunch
of cargo-culters who have no idea why they're rebelling, or which targets
deserve it and which ones don't.

I've worked in corporations. I have the right to hate them. I have more
insight into corporate evil than 99.99% of people alive. If you dick around in
Williamsburg and haven't seen the morning sun since college, then you don't
understand why corporations do what they do and have no right to complain
about them.

Reflexively hating suburbia, for one example, is the epitome of being
suburban. I'm surprised by how many people don't get that.

------
roopeshv
no.

~~~
UberMouse
Excellent rebuttal. You had me convinced at "n".

~~~
greyman
Ok, so what are your perceived advantages of knowing your colleagues salary?

We also follow this so-called "taboo" in our office, and everything is
peaceful. There is a rule to not talk about it, but it is not strictly
enforced...if one really would like to reveal his salary, he could; but it
seems that there just isn't a motivation to do that.

~~~
philwelch
Harder for management to rip people off by underpaying them.

~~~
waterlesscloud
I suspect that a lot of people mostly don't want to confront potentially
unpleasant truths about how their employer values them in a relative sense.

Probably a self-confidence thing as much as anything.

~~~
zura
How their employer values them should be reflected _only_ in the title - be it
Sr. Whatever, Whatever or Jr. Whatever.

EDIT (meta): How many times it should be stated on HN that downvoting is not
for expressing disagreement...

Just reply your opinion and move on.

~~~
theorique
So everyone gets paid the same and is compensated with an increasingly fancy
title?

 _Someone_ will benefit from that arrangement, but it won't be the majority of
employees.

~~~
zura
I'm not a huge fan of fancy titles either. What I meant to say is that the
salary should reflect the contribution. So if two person contribute the same
value to the company, they should have same compensations.

Which is not necessary tied to titles, right.

The only entity which benefits from salary secrecy is the employer itself.

~~~
theorique
I see what you mean now.

I misunderstood the meaning from your original posting - I thought you meant
that the CTO should get paid the same as a junior programmer should get paid
the same as a janitor.

