Ask HN: Do you prefer to work for socially conscientious employers?

Do you prefer to work for socially conscientious employers?

Sure. But there's always the competing option of "work for a socially ambivalent megacorp which pays more, then donate the delta to your cause of choice." Or more commonly, "I have three kids and medical bills, and am not free to arbitrarily take substantial pay cuts."

I think this question would be better phrased as, "How much of a pay or benefits cut would you be willing to take in order to work for a socially conscious employer?"

Studies have been done along these lines measuring consumer willingness to pay for eco-conscious products. Not surprisingly, it's a question of how much the premium is. See http://www.mckinsey.com/insights/manufacturing/how_much_will...

I imagine similar studies have been done on organic food.

Of course many of these studies go off what people say, and really we need to measure in all of these cases what people actually do when confronted with the actual choice.

One data point you should look at and look at hard: Companies that pay better have higher employee retention and this leads to both lowered costs for the employer in terms of turnover and an accumulation of internal knowledge/wisdom/experience that is difficult to measure the value of.

I am pretty tired of this idea that do-gooders should get paid less. I did a lot of volunteer work. I had a health site for a time and people either pissed on me and told me it was a worthless piece of shit or they told me it was wonderful but I should give away what I know out of the goodness of my heart. So both people who felt I did not know anything of value and people who felt I did know something of value felt I should not get anything in return for the value offered.

I think that's a broken model. I am well aware that we pay a premium to hit men or for people to ruin their quality of life by working long overtime hours, but if you do it right, creating value should come back to you. Yes, you have to not bleed the market. "Strip-mining" type business models can extract value until it runs out. There are situations -- mining certain minerals -- where, no, no more is being made. But there are also situations where taking too much at one time reduces the long term value (deforestation comes to mind). So being good stewards of the earth's resources can actually improve long term profitability and that should be a big part of socially conscientious businesses.

The other thing is that a lot of things humans value are not directly measurable in the way you seem to be framing things. I had a job where I worked 37.5 hours/week. It was a full time job and it was an evening shift, so they gave a bit of a bonus to make it pay about the same as the day shift. I wanted the evening shift because of my health issues and the slightly less long work week made a big difference for me in my ability to cope.

People who have kids or health issues or are going to school while working or have some hobby that matters a lot to them -- their job needs to accommodate the fact that they have a life, they don't just live to work. The work to live. So how a job is packaged can ultimately matter more than whether or not someone thinks a particular job is morally "good."

I agree with you. At least I think I do, where you are talking about the fact that higher pay equals better retention and thus lower long-term costs to employer.

Although I imagine since this is a sort of proposal or question as to "how do we change the status quo" where those companies with the best track record are in fact the leaders in their respective markets. In that other world I imagine pay would be better at these companies since they would be market leaders.

And I'm not even necessarily saying, though it may not be obvious in the original question, that people should need to chose between "GreenPeace" and "British Petroleum". I'm instead imagining, for example, that someone would be chosing perhaps between "Facebook" and "green Facebook" whatever that other company's name is.

We're still in a demand / supply economy so companies that do the same sort of thing would need to start differentiating themselves not just in how large and powerful they are, but also in how they impact the world in a larger way.

One idea here would be: Suppose a large pharmaceutical companies are trying to patent technologies to protect their businesses, but then a new kind of pharmaceutical company came into existence where they openly worked more for the greater good, not trying to patent things but trying to solve important health related problems and making those solutions open. Because people see the inherent good in what they're doing all of a sudden they are the ones who become the market leader in pharmaceutical companies because everyone wants to be their customers instead of those companies who try to stifle innovation through ridiculous patents and even more ridiculous marketing strategies.

Sigh.

I have a serious medical condition. I have spent 13 years getting myself well when doctors said that could not be done. I get a shitshow off of other people when I try to share information about what I did to get well.

I think real health companies include things like GNC and gyms and "green" construction companies. I am aware we will always need medicine (both the field of it and drugs) but the framing of what works is very different in my mind from how you are framing it. It isn't a case of "socially conscious drug testing" versus "blithely torturing animals to get product to market."

I am not trying to discourage you from creating a database to help people make job hunting decisions. I am just saying that this isn't and apples to apples comparison and isn't even necessarily an apples to oranges comparison. What kind of data/metrics you include matters. I am just trying to encourage you to think more broadly about the topic.

Best of luck.

I agree. I think the problem is a very nuanced one, and probably very difficult to get right. The critical thing, in my mind, is to find the specific "types" of things that matter most to people. Another critical thing will be to find the combination of things that are non-intrusive enough that a company would feel comfortable sharing. There will, in the end, I think be a sweet spot where certain companies will be willing to share or openly oblige themselves to certain rules / restrictions while others won't. And that refusal to discuss those issues, that their competitors are willing to discuss, will of course be noted in that company's profile.

In the end it may not even be a huge gap between different companies in different industries, but the public perception behind a company who openly discusses their willingness to push certain initiatives vs the company who refuses to take a stand or create transparent policy on certain issues will APPEAR to be a huge difference.

Suddenly once you have companies thinking about these things and informing public opinion about their decisions / policies, the needle starts to move and all of a sudden you have a thing that matters and makes a difference.

another example I like to think about would be where a large mega corporation makes a bet on a certain technology by buying up a bunch of patents and suing others for infringing, but then as folks in the industry become knowledgeable of these things they work hard to come up with an open alternative and the community begins to pour their efforts into this open alternative (those who truly know the field).

I think it's becoming obvious that this is the direction the technology industry is going. Many other industries will ultimately follow suit but until there is more transparency into the small differences (that currently exist) between how, for example, pharmaceutical companies or oil companies operate, no tangible competition or need to separate themselves from the pack will exist. Once employees truly understand in a more comprehensive way how their employer stands out from the pack in terms of that company's social conscience, they have a new way to gauge their decisions as to who to chose as their employer. I imagine this process (because of many of the ideas presented by others in this thread) would be a slow one, but I get the impression (if dome right) it could have an impact to help force the idea that you will in fact be more successful in the long run if you work hard to differentiate yourself as a socially conscientious employer.

You could put the need for social conscientiousness on a scale. Some people might be reluctant to work as a contract killer, but is perfectly happy to work in a cigarette company. Some people might not even consider a cigarette company, no matter the salary. I think if we see social conscientiousness as a continuum, everyone would consider lower pay for a more socially conscientious employer, to some degree.

In order of priority, it definitely ranks below salary, benefits, how enjoyable the work is, and where the job is located. If my employer happens to be socially conscientious, that's a nice bonus, but I can't see choosing a job based on it.

"Would such folks ever consider taking lower pay to work for what you'd consider to be a "socially conscientious" employer?"

c.f. the attraction of working at Wikimedia for far less than you might get at Google or Facebook.

another important question here too then is how do you currently gauge this kind of thing, and what specific things matter, when choosing who to work for?