January 16, 2009 at 10:15 am
I think that full disclosure is nicer for employees. They can use the salary ranges as grounds for complaint.
I think that full disclosure is a nightmare for managers - who will hear the complaints.
In the end, under private circumstances, there will always be a secret portion to your pay. Instead of being your pay rate, it may be your merit bonus that is secret.
As a non-manager, I am voting for full disclosure. And I am ready and willing to complain about everything I see. :hehe:
Mia
I have come to the conclusion that the top man has one principle responsibility: to provide an atmosphere in which creative mavericks can do useful work.
-- David M. Ogilvy
January 16, 2009 at 10:17 am
Alan Vogan (1/16/2009)
Maybe we should be looking at this from the point of establishing and legitimizing IT as an actual profession in our society, like teachers, doctors and engineers.
This is the sort of thing you mean, and for me it's what the British Computer Society is for.
January 16, 2009 at 10:17 am
divison (1/16/2009)
Wow... lots of posts on this already...I think there are lots of advantages to openness, and I would prefer it... but TO PREVENT RESENTMENTS, I would also institute a "POWER OF 10" policy... meaning no employee can earn more than 10 times another.
So, as in your situation, this in not typically done as a *change* to an existing company.
The "power of 10" approach is usually done when the owners of the company have a deep dedication to economic justice as a principle... and it clearly has disadvantages. Ben & Jerry's ice cream started out that way, but when they grew the company, went public, and wanted to hire an exceptional CEO ("Chief Euphoria Officer")... well, to offer a CEO salary that was competitive, they dropped the "power of 10" policy.
Link, FYI:
http://www.answers.com/topic/ben-jerry-s
I'd love to see the "power of 10" policy grow as a movement.
Hear, hear! I would join that movement. I just can't believe that some VP (or Pres for that matter) is worth a couple of million in compensation, plus bonuses which can more than double that, and an entry level person makes under $40k.
January 16, 2009 at 10:18 am
I would have to vote against making the salaries public.
Even with the negotiations for starting salaries, there might be disparities in raises during the review cycle
I saw that my co-worker got a 10% raise when I only got 5% it might cause resentment.
What about resentment between perm employees and consultants? That would be another issue to be considered. I know on a total cost basis the cost to the employer might be similar (with benefits and time off considered) but from a purely income standpoint, it could cause resentment.
January 16, 2009 at 10:23 am
I'm finding myself agreeing with Steve on this. I'm also wondering why some folks are so opposed to their salary being exposed. From looking at the discussion I'm starting to feel it is because they are afraid they are being "unjustly" paid on the high side and fear backlash from others being paid less. I also see, just as null<>null that DBA<>DBA. My skills and responsibilities are not the same as the next persons. Those who look at salary and cry wolf should only cry wolf if they know that the discrepency goes beyond salary. I'm seeing a number of folks in this discussion coming to a similar conclusion. As for the person that suggested writing the skillset along with the salary, perhaps this would be worthwhile, but if someone feels the salary unjust they should investigate for themselves. On the otherhand where I previously have worked my manager couldn't tell you what I did despite daily reports and annual reviews.
January 16, 2009 at 10:24 am
Ray Hastie (1/16/2009)
I would have to vote against making the salaries public.Even with the negotiations for starting salaries, there might be disparities in raises during the review cycle
I saw that my co-worker got a 10% raise when I only got 5% it might cause resentment.
What about resentment between perm employees and consultants? That would be another issue to be considered. I know on a total cost basis the cost to the employer might be similar (with benefits and time off considered) but from a purely income standpoint, it could cause resentment.
I already have resentment at my job. Most of the managers that I have had are almost completely useless. Or maybe just lost. Without knowing their exact salary I know that they make more than me. So, there can be resentlment without even knowing someone's salary. Resentment is already there.
Mia
I have come to the conclusion that the top man has one principle responsibility: to provide an atmosphere in which creative mavericks can do useful work.
-- David M. Ogilvy
January 16, 2009 at 10:27 am
fhanlon (1/16/2009)
I think there are many benefits to having salaries public and no downside. Remaks is correct with the comments that it is better to " work from a position of knowledge versus speculation" I used to work at a consulting company where the consultants salary's were negotiated and completely open. We had consultants making anywhere betweeen $30000 and $180000. This was based on their skills, experience and negotiating ability. We had at least one instance where one consultant making about $40000 quit primarily because he felt he could get better pay elsewhere. He told me after he left he liked his job but the company payed too little. He wasn't aware that many consultants with his same skill level and experience were getting $10000 to $20000 more than he was. Had he been aware of this he could have renegotiated his pay. Had management known the primary reason for his leaving was pay I'm sure they would have offered him more. Ignorance is not bliss, ignorance can be dangerous and counter-productive. We lost a good employee and in turn he lost a good job because everyone was too afraid to discuss money. If someone who is working at a sub-par level is making more than me then sure I might be resentful but I can use that information. Surely management does not want to create resentments like this and can be prevailed upon to correct this in some way. Mangement that fails to do this can expect to lose employees. However, I must also realize that I don't know everything about someone else's job and perhaps others don't realize the benefits of my job or why many DBA's can command such a good salary. So unless I understand the job market well I may have no good reason to resent someone else higher salary.
If he was really a great employee, needed by the company, then it was management's fault that they lost him. I have twice had direct employees give in their notice, but retract it after consultation showed it was money related, which led to the company offering them a raise in pay grade and salary increase. Just because someone says they are moving on doesn't mean you have to let them go without a fight.
January 16, 2009 at 10:34 am
Bill Richards (1/16/2009)
...the amount you earn is a contract between the employer and the employee and no one else.If overtime, the employee thinks he should be paid more, the employee can renegotiate with the employer.
I generally agree with you. However, it is not always true that you can renegotiate in following years (unless you have another job to go to).
I was desperate to change jobs to get away from the place where I reported to a real b****, so I lowballed my salary requirements to make sure I got the job. I figured that I would work hard and get a nice increase the next year. That didn't work, though, because the new boss said the corporate level HR department would not permit pay increases of more than 5% a year, regardless of level of qualifications. Since I didn't have another place to go, I was stuck with a low salary while I looked for a new position elsewhere.
January 16, 2009 at 10:43 am
divison (1/16/2009)
Wow... lots of posts on this already...I think there are lots of advantages to openness, and I would prefer it... but TO PREVENT RESENTMENTS, I would also institute a "POWER OF 10" policy... meaning no employee can earn more than 10 times another.
In that case, I would love to have CEO's making at least $10 MM coz that will ensure I get my first 7 digit paycheck as well 😉
January 16, 2009 at 10:53 am
f3pal (1/16/2009)
If all companies followed a grad system then there should be no problem in any one finding out what the others are earning. However, some earn more than others even if they are doing the same job, because you have to value each individual based on experience, knowledge and so on. As other mentioned here, having the salary info readily available to all will cause lots of issues and would cause the managers lots of headache.
I hate to say it, but some of the pay differential is also based on personalities. I don't mean that if you are not professional you will be paid less; I take that as a given. What I have observed over the years is that employees also get pay increases, upgrades, and promotions when they are like the person doing the evaluation: go to the same church, play golf with the boss, like the same sports, etc.
:angry:
It isn't fair, but I have seen it happen.
January 16, 2009 at 11:13 am
Ewan Hampson (1/16/2009)
Alan Vogan (1/16/2009)
Maybe we should be looking at this from the point of establishing and legitimizing IT as an actual profession in our society, like teachers, doctors and engineers.This is the sort of thing you mean, and for me it's what the British Computer Society is for.
It's pretty much up there with the top 5 in demand recession resistent professions. I guess in most people's mind, IT means something to do with computers, despite there being so much variety within it than with other professions.
Giving all the IT people in a company with the same level of experience a similar amount of money would cause resentment between different groups. I'm not sure what other IT guys in my department with my similar experience level make, despite not being DBA's. I guess I don't care so much as they don't rub it in and we all get along pretty well.
As for management...
Gaby________________________________________________________________"In theory, theory and practice are the same. In practice, they are not." - Albert Einstein
January 16, 2009 at 11:17 am
"Well there is nothing stopping employees from telling each other how much they make, so if this is something that employees really wanted they could make it happen with or without management. I think this shows that most employees like it closed. "
I don't know about the rest of the country, but it's not uncommon for employers in my state of Georgia to make divulging your salary to a co-worker a firing offense. Many, if not most, medium and large Georgia companies actually include a statement to that effect in their employee handbooks.
Those arguing that divulging worker salaries to company employees is a form of Marxism, with due respect, are forgetting that transparency is a fundamental component of the free enterprise system. Most employers naturally don't want potential and existing employees to know what they're paying other employees because such lack of transparency gives the employer a stronger negotiating position when hiring and during performance reviews. Such lack of transparency is the antithesis of the way that free enterprise is supposed to work.
(Incidentally, I'd prefer salary data be disclosed in a format that associates compensation amounts with responsibilities, skills and experience rather than associating such amounts with specific individuals and titles.)
January 16, 2009 at 12:31 pm
Any company should have posted and distributed pay scales/ranges...this lets employees know what their potential is, drives some to obtain additional skills for promotion or job changes, etc.
The problem is that everyone thinks they could/should make more money, especially if they work to gain more skills, but in the end pay should be a measure of contribution to the organization. While some contributions can be measured objectively, in the end the measure of the contributions themselves is also a subjective matter.
Someone with a Masters degree may feel they deserve more money because of the degree, someone at the company for 20 years may feel they deserve more because of their longevity, when a 5-year counterpart with only OJT may actually make a larger contribution to the organization's success measured by output, teamwork, attendence, etc.
If everyone is ranked/paid on the same exact objective requirements, then yes...everyone would already know how much others are making. But today's negotiations regarding salary are more often than not a subjective negoatiation between supervisor & subordinate...with the latter always "deserving" more money, but the former being boxed in by other factors driven mostly from above. So the final negotiated result of annual increases/initial starting salaries is always affected by subjective measures that are usually not applied fairly across all employees of a given job.
Thanks for listening 😉
January 16, 2009 at 12:41 pm
salman.samad (1/16/2009)
divison (1/16/2009)
Wow... lots of posts on this already...I think there are lots of advantages to openness, and I would prefer it... but TO PREVENT RESENTMENTS, I would also institute a "POWER OF 10" policy... meaning no employee can earn more than 10 times another.
In that case, I would love to have CEO's making at least $10 MM coz that will ensure I get my first 7 digit paycheck as well 😉
Works for me! :w00t:
Seriously, I'm not intending to be "righteous" about this -- I think of wages as pure negociation, not right or wrong... and I appreciate rewarding high achievers highly...
...AND...
... Consider: would the rewards of participation in a society that works really well, for everyone, "compensate" you somewhat... if for example, choosing $300,000 a year as a maximum compensation meant that more people got jobs, and poverty was cut by 1/4th?... or a $200,000 maximum meant poverty was cut by 2/3rds?
I don't think this is something to legislate... I think it would be best created as a *movement*... people and companies inspired to do it.
Off-topic, I guess -- but economic "justice" may be the ideal cure for "salary envy" 😉
January 16, 2009 at 12:59 pm
I work in a large corporation that gets most of it's funding from state government, so all our salaries are open and set on scale. No one really talks about it or cares. I don't think it's all that big of a deal.
My thoughts are if everyone is being paid fairly for the job they do, it shouldn't matter.
Viewing 15 posts - 76 through 90 (of 121 total)
You must be logged in to reply to this topic. Login to reply