Obviously it wouldn't outright prevent negotiating - you could still ask for $15k above what they listed in the job posting - but it WOULD help candidates navigate some of the smaller moments during the interview process that can unknowingly undermine their negotiating position (e.g. "How much did you make in your last role?").
Publicising that a new unproven hire is earning more than existing proven staff is simply going to cause people to leave, which is even worse for the business than not hiring new staff.
Work hardness (how do you measure this, anyway?) and salary are weakly correlated above the minimum in most work places.
There's always things you could be doing, but they're often not critical (or even necessary). If someone is staying late to do those things (or doing them during the day and staying late to do the critical stuff) then they deserve no additional recognition. People should go home when the important stuff is done.
If people can't fit all the important work in to their day then they're either not good enough at their job or their manager is giving them too much to do. Either way, there is a problem.
It's a complex issue and you should avoid people on either side who try to scrunch it down to one sound bite.
Half my team are women and they make more money on average then the guys because they don't take shit from anyone.
It doesn't matter if you are a man or a woman. You will never get what you don't ask for. It's in the best interest of every company to pay as little as the employee will take so every employee has to stand up for themselves.
We can't keep blaming "society" for things we need to do as individuals for ourselves.
It's in the best interest of every company to pay as
little as the employee will take so every employee has
to stand up for themselves.
Otherwise I kind of agree with you.
Dismissing the anecdotal evidence of the women on your team, you have no idea of the differences in environmental stimuli women experience vs men.
GENERALLY speaking, and no, it's not universal, but on average, women are much less aggressive and assertive in situations where there is risk to social standing or cohesion. And it's not just their self-perception, others (including other women!!) perceive women as negatively for acting in ways that is rewarded in men.
I'm sure you've never done it yourself, but the fact is it exists, and it will not go away if we pretend that there is no bias, there is no further progress to be made.
Similar to how claiming we live in a post-racism society promotes racism.
At least his comment was based on personal experience of successful women on his team.
And when social pressure increases, more people drink alcohol, eat fast food, keep up with celebrities, etc.; when it decreases, people do these things less.
Going against the social current entails loss and risk of loss. It's strange that libertarian types don't understand economic incentives, since they expect them to alone hold society together.
With sports, people are payed differently even if they fill the same position on a team. Why? They aren't the same. They bring different skillsets. It's the same with movies. The main character will make more than someone 20 spots down in the credits list. Someone with a well-known name will make even more. All of this wage difference that can occur across genders.
But with tech everyone should be paid the same if you share the same title regardless of how different you are or how much value you bring to the table.
Edit: To clarify, I have no issue with a company removing any pay difference between employees. I only have an issue with those who think paying people differently is inherently a problem.
Why? Different people bring different value. The same title can have wildly different roles, some positions with the same titles can be much harder to replace than others.
For example: at my company my team has a very specialized role that is far outside the domains of all other developers (we're talking about a large multinational here, with thousands of employees). You bet your ass we make a decent chunk more than most other devs, replacing any one of us would cost a ton of money and require over a year of learning about our stuff; replacing one of the devs who works on our main product? In half a year you could get someone to full productivity.
In other words: some employees are more expensive to replace than others, either shower them with €€€ or pay a much higher cost when they go work elsewhere.
I didn't actually mean that. I thought the rest of my comment would give context that statement is what the opposing side is saying.
Mechanisms like publishing salaries allows for a fairer salary whether you are cooperative or competitive. If you earn more, you probably can justify it in front of colleagues and bosses.
Some say cooperation over competition is a 'female' trait, but personally, I feel the same. I am successful at negotiation, but I'd rather know that my colleagues earn the same when they work the same, which is why I try to encourage talk about salaries.
The problem with open salaries is that it spurs continual second-guessing. And if anyone thinks that open salaries are less susceptible to popularity contests, they're wrong.
Assessing value is hard. We'll always get it wrong somehow. Encouraging people to become better negotiators may be the best way to handle salaries. When people make a case for their value and are rewarded in money for it there is at least an extremely grounded avenue for correction. The company will continually look at whether a person is worth that amount of money.
If wage disparity follows gender lines then it is a gender issue.
I think is much more ethical to treat people like this but maybe your colleague isn't doing such a good job as you.
He told me that I was worth the extra money but if I hadn't asked for it, he wouldn't have given it to me extra money.
Correlation is NOT causation.
I think, given what I've seen so far, women are given less leverage to start with, they are subject to the chilling effects of gender biases, and they are discouraged from negotiating more often than not.
Sure, a woman can overcome these obstacles, but she shouldn't have these extra obstacles in the first place. The "pay gap" is almost certainly not due to managers thinking "oo I'll pay her less because she's a woman," but it is still indicative of some (more complex) gender inequality.
What you are saying might be true if most hiring was done by CEOs and not department managers.