593
top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[-] SpaceNoodle@lemmy.world 303 points 1 year ago

The point wasn't to just raise salaries, but to curtail deceptive practices. I'd rather know they're lowballing me before starting the interview process.

[-] anarchrist@lemmy.dbzer0.com 242 points 1 year ago

Alt headline: companies start posting more accurate salary descriptions after the government fucking made them.

[-] Zaktor@sopuli.xyz 10 points 1 year ago

"Companies stop lying after government institutes consequences."

[-] snooggums@kbin.social 38 points 1 year ago

You know they are always low balling you though, right?

[-] SpaceNoodle@lemmy.world 21 points 1 year ago

More than usual, obviously.

load more comments (1 replies)
[-] Taleya@aussie.zone 187 points 1 year ago

Lol 'lower salaries' they were never legitimately offering those salaries you boot gobbling fool

[-] Bakkoda@sh.itjust.works 15 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

Last place I interviewed, recruiter and I agreed with my qualifications etc I should ask for 90k. They hired someone for 67.5k with no qualifications. The person literally took a pay cut to take the job. I don't get it.

[-] winkerjadams@lemmy.dbzer0.com 18 points 1 year ago

Sounds like they hired someone unqualified cause it cost them less and the person with no qualifications took it because so would you if that was your best option.

[-] gataloca@lemmy.world 15 points 1 year ago

That's why they hate things like welfare or full employment. They need a desperate army of reserve labor to keep wages low.

load more comments (1 replies)
[-] Moobythegoldensock@lemm.ee 156 points 1 year ago

“While they were being very competitive externally, they were threatening internal equity and internal incentives,” Pollak said. “There needs to be some [salary] growth year after year to keep people around and to keep them engaged.”

Translation: “If we advertise at market rates, our employees might figure out they’re all being underpaid.”

[-] CileTheSane@lemmy.ca 17 points 1 year ago

These same companies: "Nobody wants to work."

load more comments (1 replies)
[-] radiohead37@lemmy.world 124 points 1 year ago

Salary range: $35k - $270k

[-] hightrix@lemmy.world 111 points 1 year ago

Was looking at a job posting for a role in CA and the range was, I shit you not, 75k-395k.

[-] cm0002@lemmy.world 36 points 1 year ago

I kinda want to give them the benefit of the doubt because that's just odd it seems as if someone just fat fingered the 3, because 75-95 makes a lot more sense

But then again corporate gonna corporate soooo

[-] hightrix@lemmy.world 33 points 1 year ago

Unfortunately, this level of job regularly pays 200k plus or minus a bit. So I doubt it was a fat finger unless they meant 175-395.

[-] DoomBot5@lemmy.world 14 points 1 year ago

Maybe they did fat finger it, but they didn't care because they weren't being paid enough?

[-] Tolookah@discuss.tchncs.de 10 points 1 year ago

Minimum wage, minimum effort

[-] uriel238@lemmy.blahaj.zone 7 points 1 year ago

We need to eliminate the expectation that underpaid workers will or should bust their butt for the potential of a raise.

You treat me right and pay me well (a sustainable income) then I'll move mountains for you. But treat me inhumanely or pay me a pittance and I'll assume you wish I wasn't here.

load more comments (2 replies)
[-] Deconceptualist@lemm.ee 21 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

It's no accident. I was out of a job for half the year and saw this so many times. In states where the laws aren't specific enough, posting an absurd salary range is how companies comply with the letter but not the spirit of it.

[-] sxan@midwest.social 13 points 1 year ago

You've never shopped for housing in California, have you? $95k doesn't give you rent for a room in a quad.

load more comments (2 replies)
load more comments (2 replies)
[-] qarbone@lemmy.world 15 points 1 year ago

What that says to me is they are not looking to fill a specific position. They are collecting resumes for whatever internal backlog and, should they have a need, they'll fill any necessary positions at those salary brackets from their resume pile.

[-] Osa-Eris-Xero512@kbin.social 22 points 1 year ago

Sounds like software engineering

load more comments (1 replies)
[-] scytale@lemm.ee 22 points 1 year ago

Lmao I literally just got a linkedin email of a job posting in Netflix for a role similar to my current job. The salary range? 100k-700k.

[-] radiohead37@lemmy.world 20 points 1 year ago

I thought I was already exaggerating a little with 35k to 270k. But now I feel it was realistic.

On a side note, please don’t even consider taking a job at Netflix. Everybody who works there is always under threat of losing their job. They constantly reevaluate employees and managers are forced to churn through people even when their team is working well. The culture is absolutely savage.

[-] punkwalrus@lemmy.world 7 points 1 year ago

I'm not saying you're wrong, never worked there, but if you're not worried about job stability personally, it doesn't matter. Do your best, learn everything you can, take no criticism personally, get fired for bullshit reasons, and learn from the experience. Just use them. They don't care about you, you already know you could be fired, and ride the wave as far as it takes you. The lifestyle is not for everyone, but a lot of younger people know this these days. They see the companies like stepping stones. Any company probably won't last ten years, anyway. Loyalty is bullshit on either side.

load more comments (2 replies)
[-] SpaceNoodle@lemmy.world 7 points 1 year ago

Their "flat" hierarchy also winds up pitting everyone against each other.

[-] orcrist@lemm.ee 83 points 1 year ago

The article is written by people who don't know history. Talking about salaries was never taboo, as the law clearly states, and of course unions always have done so, but companies tried to pretend the topic was off limits.

[-] unfreeradical@lemmy.world 55 points 1 year ago

I guess lying to employees about the law is just what families do.

[-] 1847953620@lemmy.world 49 points 1 year ago

we're like a family. The kind of family you move away from forever and drink to forget for the rest of your life.

[-] unfreeradical@lemmy.world 10 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

What matters most is understanding, even if we have our own doubts about the methods, that everything corporations do is done out of love.

[-] Evotech@lemmy.world 46 points 1 year ago

Taboo and illegal are not the same though

It's definitely been taboo within us companies

[-] snausagesinablanket@lemmy.world 12 points 1 year ago

Talking about salaries was never taboo

The employee handbook of Cobleskill Regional Hospital in Upstate NY in 2000 put talking about your pay with another employee as a fireable offense.

load more comments (1 replies)
[-] Semi-Hemi-Demigod@kbin.social 35 points 1 year ago

The real number I'd like to know is how much value my labor is actually producing versus what they pay me.

[-] paraphrand@lemmy.world 18 points 1 year ago

That would be some fun transparency. You could compare ratios and that ratio would be a number people talk about.

[-] nandeEbisu@lemmy.world 13 points 1 year ago

That's pretty difficult for a lot of jobs. For someone in sales, easy, you can look at the value of the contracts they bring in. For someone who works in facilities maintenance or tech support? Good luck figuring that out.

[-] Skates@feddit.nl 8 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

For someone in sales, easy, you can look at the value of the contracts they bring in.

I would argue against this. As someone whose sales guys overpromise just to get the contract signed, in order to see how much they actually bring in I would subtract the number of overtime hours/additional effort we need to invest compared to their initial sales pitch. Or, you promised feature X is delivered in the first 2 years? Well when the customer doesn't get it and complains about it, that's going to be subtracted from your next signing bonus.

Listen, I know the job is made so that they bring in the most contracts possible and then the techs need to figure out the rest. But if the company constantly gets in trouble with the same few big-name customers in the industry (making them not want to sign with us in the future because of unrealistic promises), maybe it's time to consider that Sales' approach is sometimes detrimental?

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (10 replies)
[-] lemming741@lemmy.world 9 points 1 year ago

The national average is $128,502 in 2017 dollars, $160k+ today. That's well over 3 times the median wage of $45k.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_GDP_(PPP)_per_person_employed

[-] r00ty@kbin.life 7 points 1 year ago

They do hold that data of course, where possible. I've heard it called personal P&L.

But tbh I reckon it would only be a new source of depression to know. :p

load more comments (18 replies)
[-] Paddzr@lemmy.world 26 points 1 year ago

Expected based on what? We're recruiting, we had to increase the advertised salary twice. This is public, everyone at the company notices these increases. If they don't come across to the existing people? It will be a riot and mass exodus. Something the company cannot afford to do. Replacing People costs an absolute fortune in time and money.

[-] morgan_423@lemmy.world 39 points 1 year ago

Replacing People costs an absolute fortune in time and money.

Something that corporate America seems to not care about for some reason these days.

[-] gimlithepirate@lemmy.world 24 points 1 year ago

Corporate America is operating on the Car Dealership model: there are enough rubes to fleece it’s not worth the effort to get quality customers/employees.

[-] Moobythegoldensock@lemm.ee 12 points 1 year ago

If they don’t come across to the existing people? It will be a riot and a mass exodus.

No shit. Maybe you should pay your staff market wages?

load more comments (3 replies)
[-] spittingimage@lemmy.world 7 points 1 year ago

This is public, everyone at the company notices these increases. If they don’t come across to the existing people? It will be a riot and mass exodus.

That's a feature, not a bug.

load more comments (2 replies)
[-] surewhynotlem@lemmy.world 19 points 1 year ago

This was never about raising salaries.

Now that the data is public, the companies can implicitly collude to keep them low. No one will offer more than any other, which will drive them down.

[-] Maggoty@lemmy.world 38 points 1 year ago

They were already colluding. At least now workers can see it and form unions to fight back.

[-] davemate@lemmy.world 16 points 1 year ago

Except if one chooses not to play ball and pay a little more, it can have the best of the pool. So others compete, I think that's how this is supposed to work

[-] knotthatone@lemmy.one 7 points 1 year ago

They share it amongst themselves via third party consulting firms already. This just gives the public visibility.

load more comments (2 replies)
[-] derf82@lemmy.world 13 points 1 year ago

That’s exactly what I would expect. The goal was largely to end the bait and switch.

load more comments
view more: next ›
this post was submitted on 30 Oct 2023
593 points (98.4% liked)

Work Reform

9857 readers
822 users here now

A place to discuss positive changes that can make work more equitable, and to vent about current practices. We are NOT against work; we just want the fruits of our labor to be recognized better.

Our Philosophies:

Our Goals

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS