Just curious if people support no, partial, or full salary transparency. I've seen some companies with general transparency, saying things like this position will make between $x and $y a year, but the federal government has full transparency. Each position tells you exactly what the salary is, and there are official sources where you can see the full salary information for any federal employee. You know what all of your coworkers make, including the people above you, so you also know exactly what salary you'll get if you go for a promotion. Personally I really like the idea of full transparency. I know why management doesn't like it; it takes away some of their ability to negotiate, but from an employee standpoint I don't see any negatives.
How would it be any more difficult? State and federal governments that have full transparency offer bonuses as well, you don't see them listed in job postings, but do see them in the salary database. Even with just partial transparency where specific employees aren't identified bonuses could be listed, either as average bonus paid per employee, total bonuses paid, highest bonus paid, etc. Employees will know that if they barely avoid getting fired they will make a certain salary, but if they knock it out of the park they will see a share of those bonuses. I'd argue that it would work better for companies that are pay for performance. If you work somewhere where everybody gets the same, you'll see that doing a lot of hard work doesn't get you anything more than John Doe who barely does anything. Then the hard workers will either leave or just do the bare minimum.
I think it's fine to list individual numbers as long as there are absolutely no names or identities assigned to them
In my organization i make 40k more than some of my fellow engineers. Partly because I asked for it, partly because of my experience and background. The reason its bad for the company here should be obvious. However, people tend to hold things against you like that and it causes negative sentiment between team members. They feel like they do all the work they should get same pay (everyone thinks likek this). Showing pay ranges however i think is fair and actually a good idea. People should be able to see what youre willing to pay.
Very bad idea even from an employee perspective.
Ok, expound? I'm an employee, and I love Glassdoor, which is essentially a slightly untrustworthy version of what the op is proposing.
I’ve been in fed government for 10+ years. Typically you know your colleague’s GS level but you don’t know their step. That’s what determines your actual salary. (You can google the GS pay chart to see). It’s transparent in what the amounts are, but there is typically little you can do about what GS level or step you are unless you change jobs and either are eligible for a certain GS level or you can negotiate a higher step. I appreciate the transparency and rigid structure - particularly bc it’s already hard enough to get ahead in male-dominated agencies.
World Conflicts
Yesterday
608
Israeli precision-guided munition likely killed group of children playing foosball in Gaza, weapons experts say
World Conflicts
Yesterday
459
Why I Find Free Palestine Inspiring
Tech Industry
Yesterday
1122
This resume landed the guy a $500K job at Meta
Tech Industry
Yesterday
1632
Do people underestimate E6 role at meta?
World Conflicts
Yesterday
522
Is "From the River to the Sea" So Wrong?