U.S. Pay Reform

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Debate & Discussion > U.S. Pay Reform

Eldragon: Feb 22, 2003

Infinite Karma posted:

If Jenny is more senior, or has a more demanding set of projects, then it's a good justification for paying her more. A 2K difference between employees makes sense when subjective measures are taken into account. But if Jenny was making twice as much as you, you'd be right to get pissed off when you found out, no? Right now it's a discussion that doesn't happen at all, and I can't think of a better way to get fairer pay than making it transparent that nobody is getting a sweetheart deal.

It's obvious why employers keep the info secret presently. What I don't think is obvious, is what the repercussions would be to make it public.

The number of people who overestimate their worth and abilities probably exceeds the number of people getting sweetheart deals.

Some employees are more productive and work harder than other people; and they deserve to be compensated for it. Imagine two workers, and overachiever Alice and underachiever Bob. Despite Bob and Alice working the same job, Alice gets paid 30% more than Bob.

Bob doesn't really acknowledge Alice's achievements and expects to be paid the same (For simplicity, chalk it up to cognitive dissonance). After all, they work the same job. Bob complains until he gets a pay raise to that of Alice's. Meanwhile Alice, seeing Bob receiving a pay raise, despite the extra work she puts in, no longer has an incentive to work harder, and just lets herself become an underachiever like Bob.

I'm not against the idea of more openness in employee compensation, but I expect it to cause more problems than it would solve.

I also don't like how the concept of preventing employers from retaliating for employees discussing pay got turned into a gender-equality debate. The bill proposed is gender neutral, and seems to me very unlikely to make any kind of dent in the wage-gap. It strikes me as wishful thinking at best.

# ¿ Apr 15, 2014 21:38

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ¿ May 22, 2024 11:40

Eldragon: Feb 22, 2003

cafel posted:

In this scenario the boss points out that Alice is 30% more effective than Bob because of the way she handled x, y and z projects. They offer Bob a raise of x where x is whatever they feel is worth to retain him. He can then take it or leave it. You know, a proper negotiation. In your scenario why would the company feel compelled to match Bob's salary to Alice's if they felt he wasn't worth it? If they are willing to pay that much to keep him then clearly he is worth it.

I think the much more plausible and commonplace scenario is one in which Alice doesn't know what Bob makes and thus can't accurately judge her worth to the company in comparison. Whatever offer they make involves a leap of faith in which she tries to determine her worth with no outside reference points, allowing the company to pay her a much closer salary to Bob.

I agree that your scenario is the more rational one. But people just are not rational. Petty jealousy, self-doubt, inflated sense of self-worth, etc. would rapidly culminate into a lot of infighting and arguments over pay. Eventually management would just have to pay everyone the same just to make the complaining come to an end.

Again, I do think more information is a good thing (and I do like outlawing retaliation for sharing pay info), but I don't think total transparency is the answer. Something more akin to "This is your pay, and this the average pay for people in your position" would work out a lot better.

Paycheck Fairness Act really seems like a hodgepodge of several different goals, presented as separate bills individually they would probably pass. But the manner it is written turns it into a giant "gender politics" issue that is primarily written to generate headlines (and thus votes) for the 2014 elections.

# ¿ Apr 16, 2014 00:42

Eldragon: Feb 22, 2003

VitalSigns posted:

Well, this is the first time I've heard anyone argue that efficient markets thrive best on secrecy, insider information, chokepoints, and a ban on open price discovery.

Points for creativity and originality I guess

I'm not necessarily arguing the market is most efficient with secrecy. Only that many people let emotion rather than logic rule their decision making, giving people specific numbers will only fuel those emotions.

Main Paineframe posted:

Why are information jobs less sensible to unionize? The only real reason I've heard (besides "some workers just suck so much compared to my brilliant and flawless skill that I'd be making three times what they do for the the same job if not for BIG UNIONS") is that information workers see themselves as superior to other workers and believe that unions are only for the poor, uneducated lower workers - basically, a status thing. Which would explain quite well why low-status information fields (like teaching) were able to unionize.

The reason young people switch jobs so often is precisely because companies don't reward seniority and in fact encourage job-switching by offering higher salaries for a position to new employees than to people promoted from inside. If you go ten years without switching jobs, you'll find your pay lagging significantly behind the market value for what you ended up doing. So young people have to switch jobs every few years in order for their salary to keep up with their responsibilities. It's not just something they do because they like it.

Even the well-compensated still have plenty to gain from unions, and if all the young workers are well-educated and well-compensated then I don't see how they could possibly lose out by forming a union. Maybe if they're all just waiting for a chance to double-cross and abandon their fellow workers at the first opportunity, throwing the union under the bus in order to get the raise they feel they deserve? I dunno. I feel like anti-union arguments get awfully close to "welfare queens" rhetoric sometimes, in that they both acknowledge the ideas might possibly be solid if not for a vast and entirely fictional army of lazy incompetents who'd milk the systems for all they're worth and drag down us motivated hardworking ~~whites~~ people for our own benefit.

I think it has more to do with the job market is very different now than it was when unions were at their peak. The modern "information worker" has a much lower unemployment rate, more job stability, higher pay, and institutional knowledge that is hard to replace. In short, things are going much better for educated workers now than for blue collar workers.

Unions start to look like a better deal when employees are pissed off and have nowhere to go; for the most part information workers aren't pissed off enough, its easy for them to jump ship to a new job.

Furthermore, gains like weekends, paid time off, medical benefits, and paid overtime, are standard benefits today in any workplace, and owe their existence to unions.

In the meantime, unions did themselves no favors between their prime and today. Open alliances with political parties, years of corruption, etc. Essentially they became "part of the problem".

Warning, Anecdote ahead:
I was a teamsters union member in high school, and I must admit, it didn't leave a good impression. I'm not against being in a union today, but it would have to be structured very differently than what I experienced in the past. (Short version of being a teamsters member: "Got a problem? Get hosed")

# ¿ Apr 16, 2014 21:53

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Debate & Discussion > U.S. Pay Reform