Hacker News Reader

Comment by neilwilson | Hacker News Reader

It's down to what you think salaries are for. If market value is supposed to equate to social value and ensure a fair distribution of the output of society, then you need open prices or the market won't work properly.

I need to know what you are paid so I can balance what I am paid against what I think you are worth.

Closed salaries only benefit the other side of the negotiating table - the employers - who then divide and conquer.

Which is why they play upon the doubt and insecurity in people's minds that they are actually worth what they have negotiated.

It's the basis of why unionisation works and why it ensured that workers got their fair share of productivity increases. Right up to the point when unionisation was defeated and 'individualists' got to play their game. Since then the productivity gains have gone to the top of town.

Extreme individualism is always defeated by those who know how to share and work as a team.

View on HN

> Closed salaries only benefit the other side of the negotiating table - the employers - who then divide and conquer.

Closed salaries might also benefit some employees. I think most people will agree that across any job title, or team, there are people who're favored in some way - better at their job, fun to be around, great motivators or mediators, whatever it is. It might be possible for these people to get better pay for themselves because the company doesn't have to give a commensurate increase to everyone.

Closed salaries would've helped me in a recent salary negotiation. The company's open salaries in combination with their tiered salary concept contributed to their refusal of a raise in starting base salary. "Everyone knows what a Tier 4 FTE starts at, so if I start you higher then I have to give everyone a raise". No problem if we could just keep my salary a secret.

On the other hand, I don't think it's my employer's business with whom I share my salary, though I could see this secrecy being part of an employment contract.

Open salaries is not the root problem in your example, it's the rigid "tiers."

Rigidity in salaries is a natural end result of open salaries, as otherwise everyone demands explanations of why someone else is making more.

Even in this thread you already see people calling for unionization and collective bargaining to ensure everyone gets their "fair share."

If you're going to be open about salaries, it makes sense to be open about the explanations for them too. You seem to want to keep them secret?

I think the fundamental issue here is that "luck" is very often the explanation.

It might be possible for these people to get better pay for themselves because the company doesn't have to give a commensurate increase to everyone.

So long as the reason why someone is paid more is also public then it's fine. People could use that as motivation to improve - seeing someone else rewarded for something is a brilliant driving force to do it yourself as well.

So long as the reason why someone is paid more is also public then it's fine.

You're assuming perfectly rational behavior, which is... not human.

I'm not arguing against open salaries (I am in such condition), but assuming rational actors is not realistic.

In particular, an example justification along the lines of "X takes more because is a better programmer than you are" is very dangerous, not only in the obvious way.

I don't know about you, but I have a number of more experienced but less productive colleagues who have been known to gripe about bonuses and raises not being directly tied to seniority. They often pine for unions, where time in grade leads inexorably to higher salary and these young hotshots would have to wait their turn.

"Extreme individualism is always defeated by those who know how to share and work as a team."

Holy shit, that's it! That's why the individual always loses out in negotiating for their salary--the company is already one big team (HR, accounting, all the business processes, etc) and you're just some guy on the other side of the table.

Even for hot shots, a union would only be a benefit. Look at the Screen Actors Guild--hot shot actors bring in bank, they're not constrained by the union, but everyone involved gets the basic union protections.

Wow, that's it. Individuals always get defeated by the team, and that's exactly what it is when you go up against a company to negotiate your salary.

You're a bit enthousiatic about that, but it's basically why many animals from groups (are gregarious), including humans. Groups are stronger than individuals.

Lone hunters can get one individual out of a herd but they'll never be able to kill the whole herd. And some herds of certain species can kill a lone hunter.

I'm sorry, I think your analysis of the cause of the power disparity is wrong. It's not due to numbers.

It's because power disparity is inherent in hierarchical organizations. The CEO is just one person, but their position at the apex of the hierarchy gives them power over everyone else in the organization. Power disparity is baked into the hierarchy—it's not a hierarchy without it.

Unions are a way to balance the power of the employee group against the management hierarchy. Unfortunately unions are also subject to the corruption that accompanies power.

> unionisation works and why it ensured that workers got their fair share of productivity increases

Considering that most unions encourage rigid salary bands, this is a ludicrous statement to make.

It's obvious that different workers have different productivity levels (and those levels don't correspond directly to years of experience). Considering that, I consider it highly unfair to force people into having the same salary.

> unionisation was defeated

Did I miss something?

Granted, the most powerful and corrupt unions are public sector unions, where salaries are more or less publicly known. Just look at how many police have been indicted for murdering innocent people.

So the balance is clearly necessary -- there is no such thing as a collectivist utopia.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com