

Discuss with HN: salary confidentiality - mannicken

Hi,<p>Is it me or do all the non-disclosure of salary agreements seem a bit out there? I mean, anyone else recalls monopolies, which push out their high prices and block competition? Does anyone else see this as an attempt to prevent free discussion of rates, as well as healthy workings of supply/demand, similar to close-sourced software? Isn't it similar to blocking unions? Or firing people for being in relationships inside of a company?<p>And mainly: should we do anything about it?
======
sh1mmer
You should read Fog Creek's take on this
<http://www.joelonsoftware.com/articles/fog0000000038.html>

~~~
tptacek
And HN's take on that article:

<http://apps.ycombinator.com/item?id=542173>

------
pradocchia
You should read up on Semco, a Brazilian company run by Ricardo Semler. Quote
from their website:

 _The Semco Group seeks to involve people in discussions regarding what is a
fair salary for each employee. Of course, there are times when people think
their salaries should be higher and the company believes it cannot pay more.
What is important is to always provide an opportunity for discussions
regarding this type of issue._
[http://semco.locaweb.com.br/en/content.asp?content=3&con...](http://semco.locaweb.com.br/en/content.asp?content=3&contentID=567)

Also try one of Semler's books, like _Seven Day Weekend_ , excerpted here:
<http://www.inc.com/articles/2004/03/7dayweekend.html>

His methods might never fly in America, but it's useful to know that open
salaries are within the realm of possibility.

------
wallflower
I'm always aghast at the cover stories of magazines like SmartMoney where they
include a couple's household income.

Salaries are confidential because disclosure of them can damage the
company/team dynamic ("Why is she making $5k more than me?!"). It's one of the
most private numbers people have.

And if you really want to know what people at a fairly large representative
sample of companies make, reference the H1-B database or glassdoor.com

<http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=570952>

~~~
zain
If she is doing the same work as me, why _is_ she making $5k more than me?

The problem here is unfair payment; by not disclosing salaries, the problem is
hidden, but it doesn't go away.

~~~
Evgeny
I don't think there is such thing as fair payment at all.

From boss point of view: me and her are doing same work, payment is equal.

My point of view: I always deliver my work within deadlines, she is late
sometimes, I should get $5K more

Her point of view: I stay extra half an hour most days, he leaves at 5PM
sharp, I should get $5K more

Solution? Well, not disclosing salaries more or less works so far.

~~~
frossie
I don't work anywhere where NDA's apply, but I go out of my way not to find
out what anybody else gets paid (and for my own team, I only let HR tell me
within certain bands).

Here is a non-cynical explanation (not that I believe that the cynical view
that it is for salary suppression is necessarily wrong)

I realise a lot of people here work in startups or other kind of hothoused
environments. The reality elsewhere is that a company needs people with all
kinds of ability - they need the reliable but unimaginative person (let's call
them the plodder programmer) that will come in and tie up all the lose ends
that the hero programmer left behind before they got distracted by the latest
shiny. The hard truth is the hero programmer will get paid much _much_ more
than the plodder, for obvious reasons. If the hero goes around telling
everybody what they get, that is demoralising to the plodders - it just rubs
their face into it, because they will never be the hero. But they can offer a
company years of valuable service and dedicated work. As a geek herder, just
because my HPs are _worth_ more, it doesn't mean I _value_ my plodders less.

So I would prefer not to discuss renumeration, though in my world that would
be done out of politeness rather than contractually enforced.

------
ryanwaggoner
I feel like I recently read that these kinds of NDAs are not enforceable in
certain states, but my Google-fu is failing me now. Anyone else know if this
is the case?

Edit: bingo! From Joel's Inc. article:

 _Some companies even make it a fireable offense for employees to compare
salaries, or they write something into the standard employment contract
prohibiting workers from disclosing their pay. (In the United States, this
kind of rule is unenforceable, by the way, but some bosses hope their workers
won't know that.)_

[http://www.inc.com/magazine/20090401/how-hard-could-it-be-
em...](http://www.inc.com/magazine/20090401/how-hard-could-it-be-employees-
negotiate-pay-raises.html)

~~~
blogimus
Does anyone know which laws (or laws) make this rule unenforceable? Joel (or
the journalist) might very well be right, but I'd think one would prefer to
know the law before crossing that line.

------
quoderat
I think it's an attempt by companies to hold down costs, but it doesn't work;
most people within six months of working anywhere, if they are clever at all
(no hacking, other than the social kind) knows what everyone else makes, thus
causing even more resentment than just revealing it publicly would.

And having salaries out in the open would have a democratizing effect, which
would at first be bad for most companies.

It's easy to see why most companies hide them, as counterproductive behavior
is often rewarded, especially if it appeals to our monkey-brain instincts.

If I ever start a company, though (which is likely), all salaries (including
my own) will be posted in a public place.

~~~
tokenadult
Some law firms operate on the principle of transparency of compensation and
transparency in how many billable hours each associate is putting in, and
those law firms tend to thrive in very competitive fields of law. Sometimes
people do work harder if they all know they are part of the same team, playing
by the same rules.

~~~
tptacek
That works because the partners (and even the associates) at those firms have
a lot of control over how many hours they're going to bill, and because some
semblance of a meritocracy assigns lawyers to the most lucrative accounts.

Those conditions do not often hold in dev shops.

------
wooster
If you're in California, salary NDAs aren't binding, mostly because they're
totally illegal.

A lot of people make a lot of noise about California being very business-
unfriendly due to taxes, etc, but it's very employee-friendly due to things
like disallowing most non-compete clauses[0], disallowing salary NDAs, etc. To
balance that, we are an at-will employment state.

[0] Unless you, yourself, are a trade secret. Which is pretty rare.

~~~
moe
_A lot of people make a lot of noise about California being very business-
unfriendly due to taxes, etc, but it's very employee-friendly_

These two are closely linked. Or, as a former boss of mine put it: Tendencies
towards democracy are the certain death of any commercial endeavour. (with
tongue in cheek)

------
tow21
I understand the rationale behind such things, but my feeling tends to be that
salary NDAs are basically unfair; they boil down to a way to reward people who
are better at negotiating. The promise a salary NDA makes is basically

"you & I have cooked up an agreement to increase your salary more than those
around you, and this NDA will let us avoid the social awkwardness that would
otherwise result."

(and the implicit message is always "more than", whatever the facts)
Meanwhile, of course, you'll always be looking at your colleagues, wondering
how much more than you they might be making.

Unless you're working in an environment where negotiation is a part of the
job, then I don't see why rewarding it makes any sense.

Of course, there's nothing to stop your better negotiators going and finding a
better deal elsewhere - but I see no reason why "better negotiatiors" equates
to "better programmers", and there's always going to be some reason why some
of your employees might want to move on.

------
asmosoinio
Wow, never heard about salary-NDAs before this, sounds totally odd to me. Are
they really commonly used? Where?

------
noodle
the best reason, in my opinion, is to make it so that a company only has to
pay the least amount possible to keep an employee on staff.

its not particularly "fair", but thats how it works. helps improve bottom
lines of companies. always at least try to negotiate :)

~~~
arnorhs
Not just that...

It's also good to compensate excellent performers without every other member
of staff getting jealous... :-)

~~~
noodle
thats what i'd use bonuses for :p

