• SpaceNoodle@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    293
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    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.

  • Taleya@aussie.zone
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    188
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

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

    • Bakkoda@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      15
      ·
      edit-2
      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
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        18
        ·
        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
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          15
          ·
          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.

  • Moobythegoldensock@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    152
    ·
    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.”

    • Crystal_Shards64@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      I’m currently being underpaid roughly 12 to 20k compared to my coworkers because my job title is slightly different. Yet I’m the one training all of them. I’m going to leave when I can but I’ve been stuck for a while. Might have to find a completely different job/career eventually.

      • cm0002@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        36
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        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
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          32
          ·
          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
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            14
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

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

              • 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.

          • LordOfTheChia@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            6
            ·
            1 year ago

            I usually average out the two salaries and use that as their “intended” starting pay.

            So (75 + 395)/2 = 235k a year avg starting salary for an average applicant.

            The top end I consider the pay if the applicant meets all the requirements listed in the job ad.

            • hightrix@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              2
              ·
              1 year ago

              Good call. That’s exactly what I do. I haven’t applied to a job like this m, but it seems like a good enough way to estimate.

        • Deconceptualist@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          20
          ·
          edit-2
          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.

      • qarbone@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        15
        ·
        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.

    • edric@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      22
      ·
      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
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        20
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        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.

        • Punkie@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          7
          ·
          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.

          • Redscare867@lemmy.ml
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            3
            ·
            1 year ago

            For a 700k salary I would 100% take the risk. Don’t change your lifestyle after you get the job and just pocket the extra cash. If you get fired having Netflix on your resume should allow you to find a new position fast enough to come out on top of the deal provided that you are able to make it a few months at Netflix.

            If you are fortunate enough to have 3-6 months of expenses in an emergency fund then there is very little downside as long as you are able to maintain the correct headspace.

            • Punkie@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              3
              ·
              1 year ago

              I suspect a lot of younger software engineers are doing this. I was talking to one who made it a point to latch onto companies in their death throes, usually by word of mouth, so he got laid off with severance, and thus can explain short job hops with the “fast paced industry.” He lived frugally, being in a country where a $200k+ USD salary was ludicrously wealthy, and he said he did very little actual programming except personal projects that he did just to make his github account look active. He was just hopping from company to company without any real love or attachment to where he worked. I was both appalled and impressed how matter of fact he was, plus his perspective on the US job market was dead on. He had it all figured out.

  • orcrist@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    92
    arrow-down
    10
    ·
    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.

      • 1847953620@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        46
        ·
        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
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          10
          ·
          edit-2
          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
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      48
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      1 year ago

      Taboo and illegal are not the same though

      It’s definitely been taboo within us companies

    • SnausagesinaBlanket@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      12
      ·
      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.

      • orcrist@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        1 year ago

        Yes of course. Companies can put a lot of things in their company handbooks if they want to, and that comes with legal risk.

  • Paddzr@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    24
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    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.

    • morgan423@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      27
      ·
      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
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        17
        ·
        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
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      12
      ·
      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?

      • shalafi@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        10
        ·
        1 year ago

        Companies are paying “market wages”. So what’s your complaint and/or solution?

        LOL, every shit job I ever had, “We’re proud to pay the going rate for this work!”

        Good jobs I’ve had, and have now? Yeah, no bullshit talk like that.

        • Moobythegoldensock@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          4
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          If you’re listing a job and no one’s applying at the price point, you’re advertising below market wages. If you’re paying your senior employees less than your new hires, you’re paying them below market wages. What a company wants to pay is not market wages: the laws of supply and demand dictate what market wages are. The wage that will interest new qualified workers and the wage that will retain experienced workers are the wages that the market are actually dictating.

        • gataloca@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          Nationalize your enterprise? Or better yet, convert it to a cooperative and give the profits directly to the employees?

    • spittingimage@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      7
      ·
      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.

  • surewhynotlem@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    25
    arrow-down
    8
    ·
    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.

  • derf82@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    10
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

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