Support NeoGAF

[mustafa]

Transparency is bad because it creates a hostile work environment. If everyone knows what everyone else is making, it is absolutely a bad thing because it creates an environment of jealousy and envy. My salary is my business and is not something I'm interested in sharing with the rest of my coworkers, and I would hope that my employer feels the same way.

Equal pay for equal work is awesome, but as far as I'm aware there isn't a substantial amount of evidence that shows that it is not already being reasonably achieved. We don't need more laws regarding this issue - it is a non-issue.

 

[AntoneM]

again, you're just going to cause stratification.
In my company there aren't many job titles. You take a title such as "consultant" well that could mean anyone from fresh out of college to five+ years of experience. Under this I'd either have to pay them all the same (nice for the entry level folks but crappy for the higher level folks) of start splitting them off into different job titles. Even people in the same "job" don't come close in pay, for example a director of sales will make far more than a director of IT because they're generally closer to the bottom line than IT is. But they're both "directors"

Besides many companies already do something like this to try and keep pay close, but that's in bands and those bands tend to be large (like spanning 20k).

Again to say that I have to pay everyone the same is like saying everyone performs at the same level. That's just not true. Some will perform better and others will perform worse.

Except this law specifically allows experience (among other things) to be an acceptable factor in determining pay; so no, you wouldn't have to pay them the same. Try again.

 

[AntoneM]

Transparency is bad because it creates a hostile work environment. If everyone knows what everyone else is making, it is absolutely a bad thing because it creates an environment of jealousy and envy. My salary is my business and is not something I'm interested in sharing with the rest of my coworkers, and I would hope that my employer feels the same way.

Equal pay for equal work is awesome, but as far as I'm aware there isn't a substantial amount of evidence that shows that it is not already being reasonably achieved. We don't need more laws regarding this issue - it is a non-issue.

All federal employees know what each other make because it's public information. It does not create a hostile work environment.

 

[Schattenjäger]

If two people have the same job and responsibilities shouldn't they be paid the same anyway?

If you're not fucking over your employees you shouldn't have to worry.

No they shouldn't

theres much more to the equation including need, experience, and even negotiation skills

 

[Enron]

Why even quote someone if you are going to jump into unrelated, silly statements about these wage gaps really being about experience and value? Just about every job gives raises based on performance and tenure. That is far from being the topic or what this bill targets.

Here's an excerpt from the article you defended:

Do you sympathize with this head-in-ass view on sexual politics lifted straight from O'Reilly's playbook?

I didnt read, respond about, or defend any article. Not sure why you are trying to pin that on me (oh wait, I have a pretty good idea) I responded to a poster making an argument about how we should be paying people equal wages for the same job, ignoring everything else because it was as he said "bullshit to keep you from making a decent wage", and then i responded to some other ideas that have been put forth in the last 30 posts or so.

 

[Swordsman VII]

jesus fucking christ Republicans..... just.... why?

 

[kirblar]

All federal employees know what each other make because it's public information. It does not create a hostile work environment.

And one of the massive complaints workers have about government jobs is that it's very difficult to reward merit due to the pay structure, both in terms of rewarding performance and in terms of not rewarding underperformers.

Private businesses do not want to end up in a situation like that, which transparency across the board would push toward.

 

[Enron]

And one of the massive complaints workers have about government jobs is that it's very difficult to reward merit due to the pay structure, both in terms of rewarding performance and in terms of not rewarding underperformers.

Private businesses do not want to end up in a situation like that, which transparency across the board would push toward.

You have pay grades, and then you have CoL increases. The benefits are fairly nice though and its nearly impossible to get fired and that's the tradeoff you make for your crap salary.

Merit-based pay please.

 

[Balphon]

All federal employees know what each other make because it's public information. It does not create a hostile work environment.

Federal jobs are going to be a poor example, as public sector salaries, particularly on the federal level, are (a) comparatively low and (b) highly inflexible.

If they are doing the same job, no you wouldn't. If I was working for a company that paid me less for doing the same job I would be walking. It's not performance, it is responsibilities and duties. If they are the same, then they should be paid the same, regardless of their age or career stage.

That's a bit of an odd tack to take, since even this bill specifically names experience and education as examples of "bona fide factors" justifying pay differentials between employees doing the same work.

 

[rocketknight]

Federal jobs are going to be a poor example, as public sector salaries, particularly on the federal level, are (a) comparatively low and (b) highly inflexible.

Flexibility apparently results in women getting paid significantly less than men.

 

[LaserBuddha]

I didnt read, respond about, or defend any article. Not sure why you are trying to pin that on me (oh wait, I have a pretty good idea) I responded to a poster making an argument about how we should be paying people equal wages for the same job, ignoring everything else because it was as he said "bullshit to keep you from making a decent wage", and then i responded to some other ideas that have been put forth in the last 30 posts or so.

My bad, I misread the other poster and thought they were responding to the article posted around the same time. I made a mistake but I'm intrigued by the words "oh wait, I have a pretty good idea."

I work for a private corporation with the same pay structure as the government, pay grades and merit increases. There is transparency to point of individuals' pay grades being open information, just not their exact pay with merit increases included. None of these problems described in government jobs are a problem here. I have a very well-informed opinion that complete transparency wouldn't cause chaos and discord. There is no trade off in crap salaries here either. A lot of what is being said over these last two pages is not true, or at least isn't self-evident and intrinsic to the system.

 

[Balphon]

Flexibility apparently results in women getting paid significantly less than men.

I'm not sure what you're responding to, since I was commenting on the notion that transparent pay information wouldn't create acrimony in the workplace.

But if you insist, the gender pay gap is a complicated issue created by many different social and systemic factors. It's not a result of HR departments being filthy with sexists hiring women to do the same jobs as men in the same places for $0.75 on the dollar. I think that basic premise is going to need to be accepted as fact before meaningful efforts at fixing the problem can be made.

 

[kirblar]

Flexibility apparently results in women getting paid significantly less than men.

It does not. The 77% figure is unadjusted and not a number that would be used in any real debate. If someone brings it up, they're playing politics, not policy. Yes, you pay a price in salary for choosing to have children. Yes, you pay a price for choosing a career with greater flexibility. But those are things not taken into account in the raw number. The adjusted number (factoring in education, number of hours worked, type of career etc.) brings us into the 92-96 % range. While not perfect, it's not very far off where we'd want it to be.

 

[old]

Transparency is bad because it creates a hostile work environment. If everyone knows what everyone else is making, it is absolutely a bad thing because it creates an environment of jealousy and envy. My salary is my business and is not something I'm interested in sharing with the rest of my coworkers, and I would hope that my employer feels the same way.

That's just patently false speculation. Professional sports and federal employees have wage transparency. It does not create hostile work environments.

 

[Balphon]

That's just patently false speculation. Professional sports and federal employees have wage transparency. It does not create hostile work environments.

Do you really think professional athletes and federal government workers are typical employees in typical work environments?

 

[Stinkles]

That's just patently false speculation. Professional sports and federal employees have wage transparency. It does not create hostile work environments.

are you presenting the two most polar examples of meritocracy and bureaucracy as normal workplaces?

 

[Joni]

That's just patently false speculation. Professional sports and federal employees have wage transparency. It does not create hostile work environments.

Your suggestion is basing all pay on experience and job title leaving out all personal skill?

 

[Dead Man]

That's a bit of an odd tack to take, since even this bill specifically names experience and education as examples of "bona fide factors" justifying pay differentials between employees doing the same work.

If my position was that the bill is a perfect solution, sure. It isn't my position.

 

[SyNapSe]

I'll be honest.. wage transparency sounds fucking awful.

 

[2real4tv]

Your suggestion is basing all pay on experience and job title leaving out all personal skill?

Also the reason why government jobs are a mess and inefficient.

 

[The Librarian]

I'll be honest.. wage transparency sounds fucking awful.

If it means it's easier for me to figure out if I'm being paid less for the same amount of work, then it's worth it.

 

[entremet]

I appreciate the sentiment, but how could it done? Wage secrecy is one of the biggest advantages the private sector has over employees.

I've only worked in the private sector, so it would be hard for me to imagine how this will be enforced.

 

[The Librarian]

I appreciate the sentiment, but how could it done? Wage secrecy is one of the biggest advantages the private sector has over employees.

I've only worked in the private sector, so it would be hard for me to imagine how this will be enforced.

Make it a law? Just because it's difficult to do doesn't mean that's an adequate excuse not to do anything.

I guess this matters less to you if you're a boy and you don't have to worry about these things, but I wanna make sure I'm being treated fairly.

 

[Dude Abides]

Why are people like enron and ronito talking as if this bill doesn't aallow for employers to account for wxperoence, skills, etc when it clearly does?

 

[Zoe]

All federal employees know what each other make because it's public information. It does not create a hostile work environment.

Maybe not hostile, but it sure did cause a huge uproar at my employer. Now there's a scramble for equity adjustments and a few heads have rolled.

 

[ShutEye]

I don't think this is really about women.

I'd wager the republicans are more against the wage transparency part. Wage transparency gives workers more information to make more informed wage negotiations which raises wages. The company already knows what everybody in a department is getting paid, thus they know someone's worth. By not letting the worker know what their worth and by discouraging workers from discussing or sharing their salaries with other workers, the company creates an uneven playing field where they have more information than the worker, which means they can lowball the worker and the worker will likely accept it because the worker simply doesn't know they're worth much much more.

I think this will increasingly be the actual battle line between Republicans and Democrats on legislation. The messaging will still be nonsensical garbage, but the underlying aim is going to be knife fights over small tweeks to various rules/taxes/programs about bargaining power.

For those suggesting wage transparency is bad, CEOs seem to like wage transparency just fine. They can all benchmark their pay to top paid guys. They use others pay in negotiations. And CEO's have done quite well using this open information. Better than you or I in all likelihood.

 

[speculawyer]

I don't think this is really about women.

I'd wager the republicans are more against the wage transparency part. Wage transparency gives workers more information to make more informed wage negotiations which raises wages. The company already knows what everybody in a department is getting paid, thus they know someone's worth. By not letting the worker know what their worth and by discouraging workers from discussing or sharing their salaries with other workers, the company creates an uneven playing field where they have more information than the worker, which means they can lowball the worker and the worker will likely accept it because the worker simply doesn't know they're worth much much more.

It is about both women and corporations. And when forced to choose between the two, you know who the GOP will back.

 

[Piecake]

It is about both women an corporations. And when forced to choose between the two, you know who the GOP will back.

Well, corporations are people too, and who knows, some of them might be women!

 

[Enron]

Why are people like enron and ronito talking as if this bill doesn't aallow for employers to account for wxperoence, skills, etc when it clearly does?

Mostly because other posters have put forward those ideas.

 

[ronito]

Why are people like enron and ronito talking as if this bill doesn't aallow for employers to account for wxperoence, skills, etc when it clearly does?

Several reasons:

1. There are a ton of intangible things that go into a salary than just work experience, education and skills. Things that are difficult to prove, like work ethic, communicative skills, overall efficiency of tasks, etc. Now you've made that the employer's responsibility for documentation and proving (lest they get sued). This will have a chilling effect. Employee A and B have the same work experience and education but employee A has a better work ethic, has a good attitude and great communications skills while B technically does the work, does it with a bad attitude and couldn't communicate to save their life. Now before A gets a raise it's going to stop an employer to think if they can prove it in a court of law before giving him a raise. How do you prove a bad attitude or bad communication skills in court? What if they only worked with you a few months before you could get documentation? You think annual performance reviews are a pain now?

2. People are terrible at self assessment. I've talked about this earlier. Since people tend to have a limited view of how their skills really are and as such almost always rate themselves higher than they actually are. I do a ton of interviews and 80% of the time the person will rate their skills higher than they actually are. Now those skills drive the salary and raises they'll attain. Now it's a problem. You state the bill accounts for difference in skills but given that people tend to think they're better than they are, where does that leave us? Especially given the difficult to prove skills? How are you going to prove in a court that one employee is better aligned with the corporate culture than another? How do you quantify communication skills?

3. Companies are already doing something about this. As I stated before a lot of companies have "bands" where employees must fall into. Granted these bands tend to be rather wide (like 20k). Anyone who has asked for a high pay for a job has heard this excuse "Well, for your position the high point is x. We'd love to pay you more but that's where the band ends."

4. Having seen a ton of well meaning legislation passed and immediately worked around it's just a waste of time. Let me give you an example. Companies were charging the government far more than any other customers for the same part. The government passed a law stating that if you were to sell to the government that you had to give the same price per part that you would to a customer. Nice law right? Well, that just meant that all the companies just went out and slapped new government exclusive names on all their parts and continued selling at the same price (some instances more). The same thing will happen here. Companies that engage in wage discrimination aren't going to say "Welp, I think we're caught, we're just going to have to pay everyone fairly." They're just going to create a ton off different job titles. "Systems Analyst 1", "Systems Analyst 2" then when they get called out on it they're just going to be like "But it's not the same job!" Either companies will setup some sorta scheme like this (some already have it) or you'll have the chilling effect I detailed earlier or you'll just make it harder for companies to give out raises.

 

[LaserBuddha]

Ronito, the claims you're making are sort of from the same school of thought as libertarian economics: fact free and based on "logic" rather than data. It sounds logical to you but the reality is too complicated for you to reason out how things will go this way. There are real studies and real experts that profess the positive impacts of wage transparency.

But putting the rest of your post aside, one thing you should ask yourself is why you're measuring the self-awareness of employees by how they describe themselves in interviews. Can you think of a reason other than ignorance why people would overstate their ability in an interview?

 

[ronito]

Ronito, the claims you're making are sort of from the same school of thought as libertarian economics: fact free and based on "logic" rather than data. It sounds logical to you but the reality is too complicated for you to reason out how things will go this way. There are real studies and real experts that profess the positive impacts of wage transparency.

But putting the rest of your post aside, one thing you should ask yourself is why you're measuring the self-awareness of employees by how they describe themselves in interviews. Can you think of a reason other than ignorance why people would overstate their ability in an interview?

LOL that's right, I do tend to lean libertarian, just ask anyone. Right enron? As to a data based approach, I work with data. My whole job is around data and statistics and I'll tell you in working decades with data I've learned that "data based decisions" can only take you so far because they assume that the same thing must have happened to you before and you have a record of it. Hell, I learned this from the CEO of a company that deals in data and statistics. If data based decisions really worked Google+ would be killing facebook. When I'm doing a salary negotiation I don't have a history with that person. I don't have "data" for that person. Forcing me to impose others data on that person either screws them, or screws me.

About assessments, people overrate because they have a limited sphere of observation when compared to someone who has seen a lot of them. Think of it this way, before I went to college I was easily the best guitarist in my general area and could outplay anyone I knew and anyone they knew. I figured when I went to college it would be the same thing. But when I got there I wasn't even in the top 3. When you're an employee you have a set of experience around yourself and your immediate group. Your employer has seen tons of people and tons of groups. They have a bigger set to compare you against so your 10/10 becomes a 7/10 quickly. Again this is easy for things that are quantifiable, but not so for things that aren't.

 

[Balphon]

If my position was that the bill is a perfect solution, sure. It isn't my position.

I know that isn't your position. I was telling you that your position is a little strange.

 

[The Librarian]

4. Having seen a ton of well meaning legislation passed and immediately worked around it's just a waste of time.

So I should just accept that I'll be paid less than men for the same amount of work, education, experience, and number of hours? Uh huh.

 

[ronito]

So I should just accept that I'll be paid less than men for the same amount of work, education, experience, and number of hours? Uh huh.

1. Yes, this is totally EXACTLY what I said.
and
2. Yup, you're right. Passing this bill will fix the wage gap and wont result in any companies paying to the lowest common denominator or them working around with the legislation.

Uh huh.

 

[The Librarian]

1. Yes, this is totally EXACTLY what I said.

Well, what else is there for me if passing legislation is a waste of time?

2. Yup, you're right. Passing this bill will fix the wage gap and wont result in any companies paying to the lowest common denominator or them working around with the legislation.

Uh huh.

You could really make this argument for campaign finance laws, taxes, and a host of other issues. Passing this bill won't solve everything, sure, but it'll help.

 

[ronito]

Well, what else is there for me if passing legislation is a waste of time?

Enforce existing anti-discrmination legislation? Go into a STEM field where the pay gap is largely non-existent? Push for better pre-school/after school programs which require women to take excessive time off? Push for better healthcare benefits/free contraception? etc?

The pay gap is more about societal issues/a society that unfairly burdens mothers than companies twirling their villain mustaches and saying "mwa haha ha I can pay her 77% less than a man! It's all so perfect!"

You could really make this argument for campaign finance laws, taxes, and a host of other issues. Passing this bill won't solve everything, sure, but it'll help.

here's the thing, this law is more about placing barriers to rewarding employees and requiring documentation/paperwork than actually fixing a pay gap. Enforce the anti-discrimination laws we have. Push to change the societal things that can be changed.

 

[Random Painted HIghway]

All federal employees know what each other make because it's public information. It does not create a hostile work environment.

You must work with very different folks than I work with then. Wage transparency has led to very hard feelings every where I've worked including government. At times it is very paralyzingly to the workers particularly when raises are sporadic for the lower level workers combined with old dead weight at the top and the Peter principle you find in govt.

 

[CharlieDigital]

But it is, at best it's redundant.

I heard this argument in a radio clip that it's "redundant" and "not necessary".

Then why not pass it?

In the same clip, a Republican Congress person claimed it would lead to more litigation.

How can a new law lead to more litigation if it's redundant?

It must mean that there was a gap that was not covered by any other legislation previously.

 

[Yoda]

Just think they will control the Senate after this coming election .

 

[Hari Seldon]

Stupid bill based on flawed statistics. Republicans were right to shoot this down. The only beneficiary of this bill are the lawyers.

 

[Dude Abides]

Several reasons:

1. There are a ton of intangible things that go into a salary than just work experience, education and skills. Things that are difficult to prove, like work ethic, communicative skills, overall efficiency of tasks, etc. Now you've made that the employer's responsibility for documentation and proving (lest they get sued). This will have a chilling effect. Employee A and B have the same work experience and education but employee A has a better work ethic, has a good attitude and great communications skills while B technically does the work, does it with a bad attitude and couldn't communicate to save their life. Now before A gets a raise it's going to stop an employer to think if they can prove it in a court of law before giving him a raise. How do you prove a bad attitude or bad communication skills in court? What if they only worked with you a few months before you could get documentation? You think annual performance reviews are a pain now?

You prove a bad attitude or bad communication skills the same way you prove anything else, with testimony and documentary evidence. You would present testimony from his supervisors that the reason the person suing was paid less was because on X, Y, and Z occasions he showed a bad attitude or poor communication skills. This happens all the time in discrimination suits.

2. People are terrible at self assessment. I've talked about this earlier. Since people tend to have a limited view of how their skills really are and as such almost always rate themselves higher than they actually are. I do a ton of interviews and 80% of the time the person will rate their skills higher than they actually are. Now those skills drive the salary and raises they'll attain. Now it's a problem. You state the bill accounts for difference in skills but given that people tend to think they're better than they are, where does that leave us? Especially given the difficult to prove skills? How are you going to prove in a court that one employee is better aligned with the corporate culture than another? How do you quantify communication skills?

Where that leaves us is that if their skills merit a certain level of pay but they are wrong, they will lose in court because the evidence will show that they aren't as skilled as they think they are.

3. Companies are already doing something about this. As I stated before a lot of companies have "bands" where employees must fall into. Granted these bands tend to be rather wide (like 20k). Anyone who has asked for a high pay for a job has heard this excuse "Well, for your position the high point is x. We'd love to pay you more but that's where the band ends."

I don't see what this really has to do with this bill.

4. Having seen a ton of well meaning legislation passed and immediately worked around it's just a waste of time. Let me give you an example. Companies were charging the government far more than any other customers for the same part. The government passed a law stating that if you were to sell to the government that you had to give the same price per part that you would to a customer. Nice law right? Well, that just meant that all the companies just went out and slapped new government exclusive names on all their parts and continued selling at the same price (some instances more). The same thing will happen here. Companies that engage in wage discrimination aren't going to say "Welp, I think we're caught, we're just going to have to pay everyone fairly." They're just going to create a ton off different job titles. "Systems Analyst 1", "Systems Analyst 2" then when they get called out on it they're just going to be like "But it's not the same job!" Either companies will setup some sorta scheme like this (some already have it) or you'll have the chilling effect I detailed earlier or you'll just make it harder for companies to give out raises.

This boils down to the position that we should not pass laws that people will tend to avoid. This is an argument for not having any laws at all. Is that your position? Employment law generally also has mechanisms to deal with situations where an employer does thing for reason X but asserts it is for pretextual reason Y.

 

[ronito]

You prove a bad attitude or bad communication skills the same way you prove anything else, with testimony and documentary evidence. You would present testimony from his supervisors that the reason the person suing was paid less was because on X, Y, and Z occasions he showed a bad attitude or poor communication skills. This happens all the time in discrimination suits.

If we're already doing this for discrimination suits why do we need this? And again that's the whole point, you're making companies legally liable for not paying every employee the same. They don't want to be. This will just make it harder for people within a job to get a raise beyond a cost of living raise.

Where that leaves us is that if their skills merit a certain level of pay but they are wrong, they will lose in court because the evidence will show that they aren't as skilled as they think they are.

Again, you're making them liable for that and as stated how do you show evidence about bad attitude? Or poor communication? I once was threatened with a discrimination lawsuit in an interview for a guy that was obviously unqualified for the job. He said he would file a discrimination lawsuit against us if we didn't hire him. I laughed and said "Bitch, I work for a consulting firm. 60% of us are Indian. Good luck getting that to stick." Luckily he didn't file, but if he had it would've cost us a lot of money to defend against it no matter how frivolous it was. Under this companies would have to worry "Am I going to get sued if I give Employee x a raise and employee y not?" The first thing that's gonna do is going to impose a "I just wont take the risk and just not give a raise this year"

I don't see what this really has to do with this bill.

Just pointing out that companies already have their own version of this but it's more flexible.

This boils down to the position that we should not pass laws that people will tend to avoid. This is an argument for not having any laws at all. Is that your position? Employment law generally also has mechanisms to deal with situations where an employer does thing for reason X but asserts it is for pretextual reason Y.

This is a bit reducto absurdum. Think of it like Sarbanes Oxley (SOX). It was made to catch the stupid criminals. Anyone still bent on cooking their books still does it and SOX doesn't do much to deter that. But it does create a ton of red tape and a load of cost for companies. Same thing here, you're not going to stop sexist companies, they'll just stratify their job titles as mentioned (and some already do), but you are going to make it more difficult for other companies.

That doesn't mean that you shouldn't pass any laws. Just don't pass laws that don't have such obvious workarounds for those that don't want to keep it and cost implications for those that do.