Become a fan of Slashdot on Facebook

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Businesses The Almighty Buck

Reddit CEO Ellen Pao Bans Salary Negotiations To Equalize Pay For Men, Women 892

sabri points out that Reddit CEO Ellen Pao plans to ban salary negotiations in an attempt to equalize pay for men and women. "After losing a sex-discrimination lawsuit in Silicon Valley last week, Ellen Pao continues on her crusade to bring gender equality to the tech world, but this time with a focus on her home turf. As Reddit’s interim CEO, Pao said she wants to eliminate salary negotiations from the company’s hiring process. In her first interview since the lawsuit, Pao told with the Wall Street Journal Monday that the plan would help level the playing field. 'Men negotiate harder than women do and sometimes women get penalized when they do negotiate,' she said. 'So as part of our recruiting process we don’t negotiate with candidates. We come up with an offer that we think is fair. If you want more equity, we’ll let you swap a little bit of your cash salary for equity, but we aren’t going to reward people who are better negotiators with more compensation.'"
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Reddit CEO Ellen Pao Bans Salary Negotiations To Equalize Pay For Men, Women

Comments Filter:
  • Hmm (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday April 08, 2015 @07:35PM (#49433811)

    Penalising better negotiators is hardly a good thing regardless if it's trying to promote equality. Really all they're doing is saving money.

    • Re:Hmm (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Crashmarik ( 635988 ) on Wednesday April 08, 2015 @07:41PM (#49433857)

      Really all they're doing is saving money.

      Yep. I will bet good coin, that the average salary as a whole goes down over this.

      • by duckintheface ( 710137 ) on Wednesday April 08, 2015 @08:32PM (#49434301)

        If the ability to negotiate aggressively is not a talent required for the job, there is no reason why someone who negotiates well should get a higher salary. The same skills that make for aggressive negotiation (affinity for conflict situations for example) may make a prospective employee perform less well in team situations.

        An interview should give the employer a chance to describe the job and the prospective employee a chance to describe their relevant talents. Each side should then know the market value of the applicants skills with respect to the job. If the company's offer does not match the applicants pay requirement, them should part ways. What does a negotiation accomplish?

        • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

          by Crashmarik ( 635988 )

          if the ability to negotiate aggressively is not a talent required for the job,

          Aggressively is how the person eliminating negotiations framed it. The negative light is not surprising seeing as she obviously wanted to get rid of the practice.

          • by TranquilVoid ( 2444228 ) on Wednesday April 08, 2015 @10:05PM (#49434905)

            Spot on. How about calling it the ability to negotiate well or successfully? For a whole bunch of reasons, men on average are more inclined to sell themselves and their abilities. If Reddit is too naive to see past this or they truly have a problem with aggressive/bullying negotiators then they need to become tougher negotiators themselves or stop hiring aggressive people.

        • by turbidostato ( 878842 ) on Wednesday April 08, 2015 @09:37PM (#49434739)

          "If the ability to negotiate aggressively is not a talent required for the job, there is no reason why someone who negotiates well should get a higher salary."

          Maybe you are right.

          But how funny that the "solution" this CEO proposes to avoid negotiation is "I'll make an offer and you'll take it" instead of, say, "you'll make an offer and I'll take it".

          "What does a negotiation accomplish?"

          Last I reviewed, a hiring contract is still a contract. You know, that stuff about "meeting of the minds", "consensus ad idem", "mutual assent"...

          And this specific kind of contracts are basically about exchanging labour for *money*. It's difficult to reach that "meeting of the minds", "consensus ad idem", "mutual assent"... about the exchange of labour for money when one party is void to bring the issue about money onto the table. Oh! and how convenient for the hirer while, at the same time, inconvenient for the hiree.

    • Re:Hmm (Score:5, Interesting)

      by ArmoredDragon ( 3450605 ) on Wednesday April 08, 2015 @07:42PM (#49433873)

      I think that in the end they might make it harder for themselves to recruit talent.

      E.g. they find a really talented person who already has a job, but they REALLY want THIS person, so they make an offer. This person already makes at or near the amount offered, so he/she wants to negotiate for more before considering taking the position. End result is they don't acquire the talent they want and settle for something else.

      I personally haven't tried to bargain for more, but I'm still rather fresh out of college so I've been rather satisfied with the offers I've received.

      • Re:Hmm (Score:5, Insightful)

        by ShanghaiBill ( 739463 ) on Wednesday April 08, 2015 @09:10PM (#49434589)

        I think that in the end they might make it harder for themselves to recruit talent.

        Or easier, now that the initial offer is also their best offer, rather than a low-ball. This may also encourage more resume submissions from people that don't like to haggle.

      • Re:Hmm (Score:4, Insightful)

        by Daemonik ( 171801 ) on Wednesday April 08, 2015 @09:14PM (#49434609) Homepage

        Or, conversely, they find a strong willed individual who's great at negotiating but sucks at the actual job and their overpowering personality always derail's team tasks.

        Negotiating skill does not equate to job performance, unless your job is being a negotiator.

        • by tnk1 ( 899206 )

          Then someone failed to properly screen the candidate for the job to begin with. You need to figure that sort of thing out before the offer, not during.

          As I told someone who I was negotiating with on a salary once:

          "When I walk in that door, I work for you and this company, but right now, I am here on my own behalf and I need to look out for myself and my family."

          Just because you negotiate doesn't mean you're a team-killing egomaniac. You're looking out for yourself and yours, which no one is going to do fo

      • "I think that in the end they might make it harder for themselves to recruit talent."

        Yes, you're rationale is quite convincing. But don't fool yourself thinking this haven't been already thought of by them. Two possible outcomes I see:

        1) They plan on reaching non-poaching/salary rates' collusion agreements with their competitors (not as if it was the first time).

        2) For the ones they really like, they won't negotiate, but they'll throw "clues":
        -I won't negotiate but, of course, before I make you an offer y

    • by Urkki ( 668283 )

      Penalising better negotiators is hardly a good thing regardless if it's trying to promote equality. Really all they're doing is saving money.

      Unless being able to negotiate benefits for themselves at the expense of others (there's usually a fixed amount of money for raises etc) improves quality of their work, I don't see why being a better salary negotiator is reason to have higher salary. On the contrary, a good negotiator is likely to be able to push their inferior solutions through over better solutions from less good negotiators. Also if it leads to poorer salary (as well as envy) and therefore higher attrition rate for people whose skills li

  • These days... (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday April 08, 2015 @07:35PM (#49433815)

    "Men negotiate harder than women do"

    Let's punish people who are good at something! Diversity!

    • Re:These days... (Score:5, Insightful)

      by rudy_wayne ( 414635 ) on Wednesday April 08, 2015 @07:42PM (#49433885)

      "Men negotiate harder than women do"

      So everyone is penalized because women are inferior to men. Nice.

      But the bigger issue is why negotiating even exists at all. Too many companies want to make the hiring process like buying a used car, offering you a low figure, hoping you'll take it, and only offering more if you "negotiate harder".

      • Re:These days... (Score:5, Insightful)

        by Cereal Box ( 4286 ) on Wednesday April 08, 2015 @07:52PM (#49433977)

        It exists because you've got two parties with two different goals. One wants to get paid as much as possible, the other wants to acquire something for as little as possible.

        • by erice ( 13380 )

          It exists because you've got two parties with two different goals. One wants to get paid as much as possible, the other wants to acquire something for as little as possible.

          All monetary transactions are like that. Yet we don't negotiate for toothpaste, gas, etc.

          Negotiations helps both sides find the middle ground that is acceptable in transactions where the stakes are high enough to be worth the trouble. Which side of that middle band the deal lands on depends on the skill of the negotiators. In the case of hiring, "no negotiation" means the employer needs to make a better first offer than with negotiation because there is plan B if the candidate refuses the first offer.

          • "All monetary transactions are like that. Yet we don't negotiate for toothpaste, gas, etc."

            You contradict yourself.
          • Re:These days... (Score:4, Insightful)

            by pixelpusher220 ( 529617 ) on Wednesday April 08, 2015 @08:38PM (#49434353)
            Actually most things can be negotiated for. What determines it is the relative price. If it's 5 bucks, they aren't likely to negotiate because they have very little profit margin.

            If it's $100K, there's going to be multiple 1000s in wiggle room.

            But mostly, you list examples of buying 'goods' and not services. Services are inherently more negotiable since it's time vs money instead of stuff vs money. (basically the same as above)
          • Re:These days... (Score:5, Informative)

            by s0nicfreak ( 615390 ) on Wednesday April 08, 2015 @08:50PM (#49434437) Journal

            All monetary transactions are like that. Yet we don't negotiate for toothpaste, gas, etc.

            That's because nowadays, we (in first world countries) rarely interact with anyone that has the power to charge a different price for toothpaste and gas.
            Back when the store/station workers were also the store/station owners, we did negotiate for toothpaste and gas. And this negotiation can still be seen in less "developed" countries where the person doing the selling is the person that sets the price of the items.

          • by pla ( 258480 )
            Yet we don't negotiate for toothpaste, gas, etc.

            Of course we do - We just do it in a way less blunt than "A shekel for that, you must be mad!".

            Do you pay $6 for your toothpaste at 7-11, or $4 for the same brand and size at Walmart? Similarly, do you fill your car at the closest QwikyMart charging $0.15 higher than everyone else, or do you plan ahead to get gas at the average-priced Shell/Mobil/Major-Brand-X, or do you go out of your way to get gas at Sams for $0.10 less than everyone else has? We "ne
      • Re:These days... (Score:5, Insightful)

        by Anrego ( 830717 ) * on Wednesday April 08, 2015 @08:16PM (#49434159)

        I feel like it exists for a few main reasons:

        - People have different priorities. Some are all about the money, some want the retirement contribution, some want equity, some want vacation, etc. People also proportionally value these things differently. How much do you value an extra week of vacation to say, more retirement contribution or more salary? Negotiation solves this problem.

        - As has been said, the employer and candidate have two directly opposing goals. The employer wants to pay the least they can while not feeling like you'll get a higher paying opportunity a few weeks later, and the employee wants the most money.

        - Negotiation keeps things competitive. If every company stopped allowing negotiations, it would either become a race to the bottom or the top (I'm actually not even sure which, but the cynic in me thinks bottom).

        Ultimately, I think this whole thing is stupid. I'm a guy, but I have to imagine this is patronizing as all hell to women. Isn't this the kind of shit feminists have been fighting forever?

        • Re:These days... (Score:4, Informative)

          by tlambert ( 566799 ) on Wednesday April 08, 2015 @08:29PM (#49434267)

          How much do you value an extra week of vacation to say, more retirement contribution or more salary?

          Vacation accrual rate and initial vacation balances are generally non-negotiable. Most of silicon valley outsources their human resources to a couple of companies, and, posing as a company interested in obtaining the services of those of both Apple and Google, and in the middle of considering options, neither company could handle an initial balance.

          The Apple one (ADC) could handle a different accrual rate, but given business rules and set-limits, they would have had to have pretended I was at Apple 5 years to give the extra week of accrual, and it would top out exactly the same point as anyone else who had been there for sufficient years to top out, as soon as I hit "sufficient - 5". In addition, there would have been sabbatical triggers, stock vesting triggers (I'd vest month-to-month, instead of a one year cliff).

          In the Google case, I delayed my start date as an "unpaid absence" to get the vacation. In the Apple case, the boss stepped in and said "just take the week; let me know when it will be ahead of time, and don't schedule it through the system, and I'll ignore it if you will" (worked until the second manager change happened).

          Payroll systems are generally set up on a "minimal business rules" basis, and are stupid hard to change.

          So no, some things are not in the bucket with everything else as "everything's negotiable".

        • It's old news but in PA they ruled setting auto insurance rates by gender wasn't 'fair' so PA made starting insurance rates the same for everybody.

          linky [philly.com]

          End result? Women's rates when up and men's went down...totally what they were going for I'm sure
        • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

          by Idimmu Xul ( 204345 )

          Ultimately, I think this whole thing is stupid. I'm a guy, but I have to imagine this is patronizing as all hell to women. Isn't this the kind of shit feminists have been fighting forever?

          This is the Social Justice Warrior brand of feminism rather than the egalitarian brand of feminism.

    • Re:These days... (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Yoda222 ( 943886 ) on Wednesday April 08, 2015 @07:52PM (#49433975)
      There is no good reason to pay a good negotiator more than a bad, except if you want to hire someone for a position where you need negotiation skills.
      • Re:These days... (Score:4, Insightful)

        by squiggleslash ( 241428 ) on Wednesday April 08, 2015 @09:44PM (#49434781) Homepage Journal

        Moreover the OP missed (as did most of the readers here) a too-subtle point made in the summary: it's not about who's better at negotiating, it's about the fact that culturally we (usually) are comfortable about men being pushy about their salary, while women tend to be treated negatively if they do the same thing. It's likely not a conscious decision on the part of those they try to negotiate with, more an unconscious reaction to a difference in expectations, but ill intentioned or otherwise it does actually happen.

        I know women I work with who are considered "difficult" by all the (male) colleagues around me, simply because they do actually try to get ahead. For the example I'm thinking of, there's literally nothing she does that isn't done by far less qualified male colleagues who end up in more senior positions. But nobody wants to work with her, because she's "pushy".

        We're rewarding people of one gender when they negotiate a salary. We're punishing people of the other when they negotiate a salary. Surely even Slashdot's current infestation of MRAs must see the problem with that.

    • Re:These days... (Score:5, Informative)

      by LessThanObvious ( 3671949 ) on Wednesday April 08, 2015 @08:14PM (#49434143)

      Saying men negotiate harder than women do is about the most sexist thing I've heard lately from an executive.

      • Re:These days... (Score:5, Insightful)

        by TheGratefulNet ( 143330 ) on Wednesday April 08, 2015 @08:48PM (#49434425)

        maybe its not about men vs women. that's a red herring.

        in the bay area, at least, job salary negotiations exist mostly for non H1B's. H1B's will take what they can get and be thankful for that.

        US born and raised folks have had more options and they won't be manipulated (as much) as foreign workers let themselves be.

        which do you think companies want more of? those that can walk and go elsewhere vs those that are indentured?

        the same for salaries. those who are indentured won't be able to negotiate salaries. those few of us who are left, 'need' to be stripped of that right, too (according to her).

        this is CEO vs common man, not man vs woman.

        war on the middle class, just with a distraction tactic added.

        same old, same old (sigh) ;(

  • Negotiation (Score:5, Insightful)

    by TechyImmigrant ( 175943 ) on Wednesday April 08, 2015 @07:37PM (#49433829) Homepage Journal

    We come up with an offer that we think is fair.

    That's a pretty poor negotiating strategy if you're trying to hire the talent you want rather than the gender you want.

    Why wouldn't I spend the time to fly out and interview if there was a significant chance I wouldn't like whatever number it was that they considered 'fair' and I couldn't negotiate from there?

    • Re:Negotiation (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday April 08, 2015 @07:45PM (#49433911)

      Because you should know what they are offering beforehand, otherwise why go? You are paid for your ability to work, probably at a technically challenging job, not for your skill at negotiation and self marketing. If you have more skill go for a better job or try for a "senior" version of the same post but dont expect better pay for the same work.

    • We come up with an offer that we think is fair.

      The truth is that everyone negotiates, even women.

      Need a relocation package to minimize the risk you're taking? Now a woman or a man can't even ask for one because the CEO has tunnel vision and doesn't want hear your needs. Need special hours, either much earlier or much later, to avoid being stuck in traffic for one hour and a half on the 101 (instead of breezing by in 42 minutes)? Now you're out of luck, because the CEO is demanding that HR sticks their fingers in their ears and says "Take it or leave it!

  • by xmas2003 ( 739875 ) * on Wednesday April 08, 2015 @07:39PM (#49433837) Homepage
    Wouldn't the ability to negotiate be a useful skill for a Reddit salesperson?
  • Yeah, right. (Score:5, Insightful)

    by msauve ( 701917 ) on Wednesday April 08, 2015 @07:39PM (#49433845)
    "Men negotiate harder than women do"

    So, she makes a sexist statement to defend not negotiating in order to eliminate sexism? Fail. Would she use the same claim to defend hiring men over women for positions which involve negotiating contracts?
    • Re:Yeah, right. (Score:5, Informative)

      by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday April 08, 2015 @07:52PM (#49433979)

      In more specific terms it is a known and measurable effect that men who push and demand more are praised as go getting or leader types and women making the same moves are called names, bossy at best, and penalised for asking. So women learn not to push because others punish them for it, not because of any real difference in temperament or talent.

  • Crazy (Score:5, Insightful)

    by yog ( 19073 ) * on Wednesday April 08, 2015 @07:43PM (#49433895) Homepage Journal

    I thought she was a little off, because of her battle with her previous employer. But this is ridiculous. According to the WSJ, she is personally vetting potential candidates for their attitudes on diversity, and if a candidate says "I am not concerned about diversity" or "I don't consider diversity important" then they don't get hired. And now this salary non-negotiation thing. No one of any value is going to interview there.

    I suppose the ones who are already there are safe because if she starts firing, say, white men, she's going to eventually have a nasty lawsuit to deal with. But I know her type. She probably won't fire anyone; she'll just harass and hound them into quitting.

    I can't believe Reddit wants this person as their CEO; she's going to destroy the company.

    • Re:Crazy (Score:4, Insightful)

      by liquid_schwartz ( 530085 ) on Wednesday April 08, 2015 @07:53PM (#49433985)

      I suppose the ones who are already there are safe because if she starts firing, say, white men, she's going to eventually have a nasty lawsuit to deal with.

      My observation is that unless said white males are either gay or Jewish there's no hope for them to ever win a discrimination lawsuit.

  • by Harlequin80 ( 1671040 ) on Wednesday April 08, 2015 @07:46PM (#49433921)

    This is a stupid policy, but irrespective of that it will be circumvented by the direct line managers before it is even put in place.

    HR rule - All employees of a categorisation must be paid the same.

    Hiring Manager - OK HR. Please create the new position Systems Engineer Class 7a please. This role is paid X.

    HR - But you were hiring for a Systems Engineer Class 2.

    Hiring Manager - Correct but we have had some scope change and require a Class 7a which is exactly the same as a Class 2 but paid $3,600 a year more and happens to look exactly like Joe Blogs here.

  • by jklovanc ( 1603149 ) on Wednesday April 08, 2015 @07:57PM (#49434009)

    This reminds me of a policy that was caused the closure of Computer Science labs between 2AM and 6AM. The justification went something like this;

    There are women who are afraid to be on campus late at night and therefore will not access the computer labs during that time. If men have access to the labs at that time they will have an unfair advantage in completing their work. Therefore to keep access equal the labs will be closed

    It lasted about two months until they got security cameras in the labs. I think that was a face saving thing as many women on campus were upset about the closure too. This is the same faculty that shut off the phones in the labs because they could be used to make long distance calls (with some work). They forgot that those same phones could be used to call security if needed. This whole idea of making everyone equally bad is just stupid.

  • by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday April 08, 2015 @08:00PM (#49434037)

    Gay scammer husband who also sued for "discrimination", and will possibly spend time in prison for fraud. Real bitch on wheels that nobody at work liked, and she felt entitled to raises/bonuses/etc... Sues company nice enough to hire her in the first place, and which bent over backwards acceding to her crazy demands prior and during the lawsuit.

    She then gets a job as CEO at Reddit 'somehow' (some sort of shady nepotism), and proceeds to get revenge by basically turning the place into an SJW-only space.

    If I was a white dude working at Reddit I'd be looking around for other work.

    Oh, and she can't ban salary negotiation. She can only say Reddit won't budge on their first offer. The potential employee can just say "mm, OK, but X-Cotech just offered me 5% more - see ya."

  • by Press2ToContinue ( 2424598 ) on Wednesday April 08, 2015 @08:01PM (#49434055)

    ... as long as they agree with my opinion.

  • Sounds good to me. (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Seor Jojoba ( 519752 ) on Wednesday April 08, 2015 @08:18PM (#49434173) Homepage

    It means that in order for Reddit to be competitive in hiring, they will need to make a first offer (the fixed salary+benefits) that is at or above the market average. As a jobseeker, I can just look at what they have to offer and take it or leave it. No haggling. No drama. That sounds good to me! I'm decent at negotiating, but I don't enjoy it.

    For jobs where negotiating skill is NOT part of the job, the negotiation ban should make hiring decisions better correlate with merit. And generally, I want to be surrounded with people hired for relevant merits, and not just good self-promoters.

  • by tlambert ( 566799 ) on Wednesday April 08, 2015 @08:36PM (#49434335)

    A modest proposal for equal pay for title...

    How about you allow them to negotiate from a base from which the position is set.

    If they negotiate less high than everyone else who has negotiated, you give them the highest rate previously negotiated.

    If the negotiate higher than the previous high, everyone gets a raise.

    Solves the same problem, doesn't it?

  • Pao = Sexist (Score:5, Insightful)

    by uncqual ( 836337 ) on Wednesday April 08, 2015 @08:50PM (#49434445)

    Men negotiate harder than women do

    Is this because woman are unable to negotiate as hard? Because they are unwilling to? Because they are too stupid to? What is her explanation? Is it hormonal? Does it have to do with having different body mass distribution? Inquiring minds want to know.

    If it's to their advantage to negotiate hard and men and women are indistinguishable professionally, women obviously are just as able to negotiate hard (and, given negotiations I've been in, I have no reason to doubt they are not just as capable at this art).

    Pao is really insulting women by saying this.

    This really opens a Pandora's box. If she thinks women, by virtue of being female, are not as good at this important aspect of professional life, one wonders what other parts of their professional lives women are not as good at. She should give us a complete list - who knows what might be on it.

    I wonder what would happen if she ran a purchasing organization or a sales organization. Usually the willingness and capability to negotiate effectively (and, therefore, hard) are basic job requirements for these positions. Would she refuse to hire women because, as she has stated, they are not as good at negotiating hard (ouch, there's a sexual discrimination lawsuit waiting to happen)? Would she refuse to negotiate salary and lose the very people who would negotiate effectively on behalf of her company? In reality, negotiation is always a part of almost any senior job -- you have to negotiate for headcount, resources, approval for projects, even convincing a customer that they don't need something is "negotiating".

    Perhaps she has realized that she (the individual, not the gender) is not good at negotiating and this is a convenient way to avoid acknowledging this reality.

    Perhaps she doesn't realize that no party to a successful negotiation goes away unhappy - does she lack confidence in herself and her own staff being able to negotiate successfully?

    If Reddit has a candidate they really want and offers them $180K and they get an offer from another company for $200K (assuming similar fringe benefits and option valuations), how is it good for the company to walk away from the candidate instead of negotiate? Both $180K and $200K may be "fair" offers. Just because her company didn't happen to guess precisely what the FMV was for the person will she really stubbornly refuse to negotiate and start over from ground zero in trying to fill the position (which will likely cost tens of thousands of dollars in staff time and more tens of thousands of dollars in delay in filling the opening)?

    I also assume that if the board offers, unwisely, to keep her on as permanent CEO and she wants a better offer than they gave her, she will understand when she when the board says "sorry, we don't negotiate and since you don't appear happy with our offer and we want a CEO who is happy with their situation, we retract the offer -- don't let the door hit your ass on the way out".

  • by russotto ( 537200 ) on Wednesday April 08, 2015 @08:55PM (#49434497) Journal

    How does this work? Does Reddit give the same offer to all employees for a given job title? If so, and they make a single offer better than the market initial offer, they'll be paying non-negotiators more than they have to, and losing the best negotiators. This is likely to be costly.

    If they make the same offers they made before this policy, they'll lose negotiators to other companies. If negotiation is correlated with skill this is a loss; otherwise, it could be a loss or a win.

    If they make an individualized offer to each employee, negotiation will happen anyway; it'll just happen without explicit haggling. Candidates will try to signal that they'd require a lot to accept, in order to get a higher offer. I'd bet that candidates who would negotiate are probably better at that kind of signaling.

  • by EmperorOfCanada ( 1332175 ) on Wednesday April 08, 2015 @09:14PM (#49434615)
    One of the big problems with salary negotiations is that inevitably everyone knows everyone else's paycheque. So if you find out that the guy sitting beside you doing the same job is earning way more then you just look at your paycheque as a biweekly insult.

    I worked for one company that paid its programmers a perfectly round number and everyone went up at the same time. But bonuses were far more complicated with a huge factor being voting among the employees. The company literally had a rule that if anyone discussed who they were voting for then it was an instant firing. This way the outstanding employees got massive bonuses.

    What was interesting was that when some people came to the end of their interviews they would begin negotiating their salary after being repeatedly told that it was not negotiable. The ones who pushed this harder and harder tended to be douchebags and this pretty much always resulted in no job offer or a withdrawn offer. They genuinely seemed pissed.

    One douche summed it up as "When I heard that everyone was earning X, I just had to earn X+1 so that I could prove I was better." This was even after he was told how the bonuses worked.

    The cool benefit of bonuses was that it really weeded out the crappy programmers. Bonus time would come along. The results would be published and a few guys had literally zero votes and usually they were gone in a month or less. The only programmer ever fired for talking about bonuses went around with a sob story how he needed the bonus. Literally the next day he no longer worked for the company. This is the same company that didn't fire people after one threw a laptop through a window with the intent of hitting another worker. (they worked out their issues).
  • by swb ( 14022 ) on Wednesday April 08, 2015 @09:29PM (#49434685)

    There was a Planet Money story about this.

    A company decided to make everyone's salary open knowledge, posted on the wall for everyone to see.

    This would better solve gender pay equity than Pao's no-negotiation strategy. It puts more pressure on management to limit pay decisions to something defensable, prevents employees from pitting against each other for pay and minimizes management's ability to overpay or underpay. Employees know where they stand relative to other employees (and what they may need to do to make more). It motivates better paid employees to show they're worth it and makes it harder for well-paid employees to goldbrick.

    The problem with no-negotiation is that for any given hire there are a finite number of employees available to take the job and the best candidate is likely to either be a little better or a little worse than average. Without the ability to negotiate, the better candidates will be less inclined to take the job because it only offers average pay and the below average ones will be more likely to take the job because it pays above what they're worth. You'll end up trending towards below average talent for more than they're worth.

    Transparency allows for positioned to be negotiated for and if a given hire has an above average skillset and experience, you can agree to pay them more and won't have to worry about justifying it. The same is true the other way around -- it's justifiable to pay below average, too when you have legitimate reasons of skill or experience.

    Pao's strategy is right out of the socialist playbook -- arbitrary price controls, and it destroys the free market's ability to seek efficient pricing. This isn't a political complaint, but an economic one. Most current job markets with "secret" pay agreements now are also bad because they create an imbalance between seller and buyer by eliminating pricing information.

    It's also pretty sexist because it attributes a behavioral attribute to gender. I'm pretty sure Carly Fiorina, Meg Whitman, and other Fortune 500 CEOs don't have a negotiating weakness.

  • by Tom ( 822 ) on Thursday April 09, 2015 @02:35AM (#49435913) Homepage Journal

    Men negotiate harder than women do

    You see, that's the problem right there: Stereotypes.

    Some people negotiate harder than other people. Maybe statistically speaking, men fall more often into group 1 and women more often into group 2. You're trying to tell me that's the only factor? I'm quite sure introverts fall more often into group 2 while extroverts fall more often into group 1. Maybe redheads fall more often into group 1, or people born in August. Maybe tall people. Probably younger people fall more often into group 2. People shortly after a divorce, people with pets, people growing up with older siblings...

    It's so crazy that we focus on the sex thing when there are one thousand differences between person A and person B, most of which were not theirs choice, many of which are equally genetic.

Ya'll hear about the geometer who went to the beach to catch some rays and became a tangent ?

Working...