• Ralph (unregistered)

    When I've been a hiring manager, I haven't had the option of paying whatever I want to a candidate. It isn't my money; I'd happily give you $200K if I could. Instead, the HR people define a range and the budget people say you can spend up to $XXX and that's that.

    So my goal is to get the best candidate I can find who will accept $XXX. I don't care if that is a male, female, robot or Martian, just so long as they know their stuff and can do the job. I'm going to design interview questions in hopes of teasing out as much detail about your knowledge and skill as I can in a few short minutes. Then comparing all the candidates I'm going to make an offer to the one that seems most qualified. Why would I do otherwise?

    Of course I know that some people will insist on negotiating, so my first offer is going to be a few thousand lower than my limit. I can negotiate up to that limit. After that, if you say no and walk away, there's nothing I can do but move on to the next candidate.

    So I would say no matter what you're offered, ask for about $5000 more. Then see what they counter-offer. That's probably about as high as they can go.

  • ping floyd (unregistered) in reply to golddog
    golddog:
    ... I can't see how people in this industry can possibly spend the kind of money we make.

    Have a couple of kids and you'll find out quickly.

  • bene (unregistered) in reply to anon
    anon:
    boog:
    Latty:
    women don't enter the industry
    Who cares? I don't see a lot of female auto mechanics either. I don't see a lot of male interior decorators.
    Clearly you need to watch more TLC.
    Great job diffusing the issue. I'm sick and f***ing tired of people ignoring obvious facts and trying to PC every issue that exists. Certain career paths don't appeal to women.
  • (cs) in reply to Brad
    Brad:
    This female pay discrepancy has been thoroughly debunked. Employers in this country aren't paying women less. The average pay for women is less in large part due to the fact that women often take the middle portion of their careers off to raise kids (thank God for the women who do that) and as such their career average salary is lower and also because women *in general* aren't as motivated to advance to tech-lead and such. There are differences between men and women (vive la differnce). This one women *might* not be getting her fair share, but there is no systemic problem.
    I worked for a company that was completely unfair to women compared to men. It should also be noted that they treated their employees as sub humans in general. The company was run like a frat and all secretaries were blond with stilleto heels. The company was very mad men in style.
  • jhriv (unregistered) in reply to urza9814

    I work for a public university. Not only do we lack rules against asking about salaries, every year the Sacramento Bee publishes our salaries.

  • (cs) in reply to ping floyd
    ping floyd:
    golddog:
    ... I can't see how people in this industry can possibly spend the kind of money we make.

    Have a couple of kids and you'll find out quickly.

    Truer words haven't been spoken since humanity invented money.

    la Forge:
    My workplace is unionized. Our facility is raking it in for the owners (75 workers; c. $30,000,000 profit per annum.) We earn 50-100% more than workers at similar, non-unionized workplaces in the same area. ... /anecdote

    Where do you work and do you have any openings?

  • Sociopath (unregistered)

    I work for a public university. At this place, employee salaries (all of them, including mine) are a matter of public record. Nobody need guess if they are making significantly less than their co-workers.

  • Slapout (unregistered)

    I won't say that the pay gap doesn't exist. I can say, however, that it doesn't exist where I work. Here, every position is assigned a pay rate. Everyone working in that position makes the same thing. The pay rate is set before anyone is even interviewed for the position, so it doesn't matter if they're male or female, they are paid the rate assigned to the position.

  • (cs) in reply to Slapout

    I think one thing you'll find is that: a) older, established companies with a high sensitivity to risk b) companies that have a large amount of union labor (even if the IT jobs aren't unionized) c) government offices

    all tend to be places where the pay-gap is much more controlled. My day job fits (a) and (b), and as a result, it's very aware of how people get paid. There are salary "bands", and if you're hiring for one band, then most of the work of picking a salary is done, minus a little flex for negotiation.

    It probably helps that most of our "greybeard" mainframe coders are women, as is most of the middle management. As a result, a lot of our out-of-college recruiting brings in female candiates.

  • (cs) in reply to Ralph

    The big problem with this whole thread is that nobody can see beyond their own experiences. "Unions suck," says the guy who has only observed union fraud and waste. "Unions rule," says the guy who's grandmother was saved by a union. "Don't ask about salaries," says the lady who would get fired if she did that. "Go ahead, ask about salaries," says another. Business practices vary among countries, market sectors, and personalities. It's very hard to generalize

    I would say this thread has been hijacked, but I think Remy hijacked the article itself. Let's revisit BH's original question:

    BH:
    I’m honestly worried that I really am making only 71% of what my male co-workers are making. How can I know if this is true?

    Remy paraphrases this question:

    Remy Porter:
    The real core of your question is this: “Is my salary fair?”

    That doesn't seem like the core of the question at all; in fact, that looks like a very different and much more subjective and argumentative question.

    One answer to BH's question is quite simply to find out what other people in her group are making. Nobody has exactly the same ability and credentials, so comparing salaries is still quite subjective, but that is the actual "core" of BH's question.

    BH can learn those salaries by asking, of course, but most people I know would not tell their salary to anybody but a family member or trusted friend. Another tactic -- if this is a small company -- is to become buddies with somebody who knows salaries: owner, project manager, HR, payroll, the office gossip, etc. Go out to lunch with that person or get some drinks together.

    A slightly different, but more direct approach is for BH to share those concerns with her manager. I personally like direct approaches.

  • (cs) in reply to Delve
    Delve:
    D-Coder:
    Delve:
    Anketam:
    One slight problem with the second part of your argument, there are quite a few politicians (in both parties) and bureaucrats I would love to see thrown in jail. Killing them just makes them martyrs.

    Anarchy has room for neither jail nor martyr.

    Oh, now we're making up rules for our anarchy? If I want jails and martyrs in my anarchy, then by FSM I'll have them!

    My anarchy could kick your anarchy's ass. Assuming it could be bothered to stop kicking its own citizens' asses long enough to try.

    My anarchy is ass-free. Perhaps you should think about why your anarchy is assful.
  • Dave (unregistered)

    I'm unable to speak to the pay gap from experience, but I can speak to the benefits of at least asking for your salary to be re-examined.

    At my last job, I felt like I could ask for a bump pursuant to some really stellar stuff I'd done that year. As background, my team had been moved under a new reporting chain and merged with another team just a few months before. So I just casually asked my boss if there was any room for an increase; he said he would have HR review my grade/position against the other similar ones across the company.

    Well, before HR could finish that review, the boss discovered that when my team had merged with his, we were not assigned the appropriate new positions for the new job functions (or something)! The boss canceled the HR review also, since they were reviewing my salary against the wrong peers, and simply had them correct my position in the system. That correction alone landed me, and the other guy on my team in a similar position, something like a 15% raise on the spot!

    Always worth at least getting some eyes on your situation.

  • Kevin (unregistered) in reply to Christy

    You are very right. Any company that isn't interested in an employee because of gender, religion, race, or anything else that has zero impact on your ability to contribute to the bottom line doesn't deserve the benefit of your talents. Let those companies find themselves losing out to those that hire good people and treat their people well.

  • (cs) in reply to D-Coder
    D-Coder:
    Delve:
    My anarchy could kick your anarchy's ass. Assuming it could be bothered to stop kicking its own citizens' asses long enough to try.
    My anarchy is ass-free. Perhaps you should think about why your anarchy is assful.

    I already know. Because it's populated with real people and real people are asses. What've you got in your anarchy? Or do you force a strict assectomy policy?

  • jay (unregistered)

    I don't doubt that women on the average make less money than men do. The question is whether this is the result of discrimination or different lifestyle choices.

    Like, as someone pointed out, many women take time off in mid-career to raise children, while men rarely do. Similarly, at least among people I've worked with, women are far more likely to put in their 40 hours a week and then go home to take care of house and family or other interests, while men are more likely to be willing to put in extra hours.

    Is it better to spend more time with your kids and make less money? If on their deathbeds Alice is surrounded by her loving children with fond memories of all the time they spent together as they were growing up, while Bob dies alone in a nursing home, is Bob really better off because he made 20% more money in his life?

    I've seen studies that have found that women who do not have children and who put in the same hours that men do make slightly more than the average man.

    I think the reality is that people who devote their lives to their jobs make more money than people who split their lives between work and time with family, community, or even hobbies. You make your choices and you accept the pros and cons. It's rather unfair to say that you want all the advantages that come from spending more time with your family and then complain because you do not make as much money as the person who devotes his life to the company.

  • Arvind (unregistered) in reply to Brad
    Brad:
    Employers in this country aren't paying women less.
    TRWTF is assuming that everyone lives in a specific country. Let me guess, US of A? A bigger WTF is that the comment becomes a featured comment on an article which talks about discrimination.
  • jay (unregistered)

    Frankly, every place I've ever worked has struggled hard to get more women in IT. I've rarely known what my co-workers are paid, but at least in terms of hiring people in the first place, I have never seen any sign of discrimination against women. If anything, they are given extra consideration and preference.

    But I'll tell you what, if you're really convinced that women are underpaid, here's an idea I'll give you absolutely for free on how you can fight the problem and at the same time get rich yourself:

    Start a business hiring exclusively women, and pay them 90% of what the average man makes. Then if women are really paid only 75% of what a man gets for the same work, you should easily be able to get the most qualified women to flock to your company for an immediate 20% pay raise. Plus you'll still be paying 10% less than your competitors for the same work. Thus, you'll have the most qualified people AND significantly lower labor costs. You should be able to trounce the competition.

    The fact that there aren't a thousand companies out there doing this is strong evidence that women are not underpaid. You can't expect me to believe that EVERYBODY is biased against women. Including the companies owned by women.

  • (cs) in reply to Delve
    Delve:
    D-Coder:
    Delve:
    My anarchy could kick your anarchy's ass. Assuming it could be bothered to stop kicking its own citizens' asses long enough to try.
    My anarchy is ass-free. Perhaps you should think about why your anarchy is assful.

    I already know. Because it's populated with real people and real people are asses. What've you got in your anarchy? Or do you force a strict assectomy policy?

    How could I? It's an anarchy.

  • jay (unregistered)

    RE asking co-workers how much they make: I recall when I got my first real job the boss made a comment about not discussing salary with co-workers, and he added that if two people do tell each other their salaries, whoever is making less is going to be unhappy, so what's the point? (I suppose it's really a little more complicated than that: If someone with a demanding job, lots of responsibility, required to put in long hours, many years experience, etc, found out he was making just $1000 a year more than a part-time, newly-hired clerk, he might be upset that he wasn't making ENOUGH more, but you get the point.) I understand why companies routinely tell employees not to share salary information. It's just asking for trouble.

  • (cs) in reply to golddog
    golddog:
    First, I think I must say that I'm in the category of Remy's friend: “I like having more money, but I was making enough before.” So my viewpoint may be skewed; I can't see how people in this industry can possibly spend the kind of money we make.

    You don't have children, do you?

  • Paul (unregistered) in reply to jay
    jay:
    Start a business hiring exclusively women, and pay them 90% of what the average man makes. Then if women are really paid only 75% of what a man gets for the same work, you should easily be able to get the most qualified women to flock to your company for an immediate 20% pay raise. Plus you'll still be paying 10% less than your competitors for the same work. Thus, you'll have the most qualified people AND significantly lower labor costs. You should be able to trounce the competition.
    Exactly. End of thread. Any alleged discrimination, if true, is an opportunity for someone else to come along and ultimately delete the discriminating company.

    Unless, of course, the D.C. is protected by bailouts, or laws against competition, or similar legal barriers to the necessary cleansing action of the free market.

  • C-Derb (unregistered)
    BH:
    Dear WTF, I am a female web developer. That’s not the WTF. I’m honestly worried that I really am making only 71% of what my male co-workers are making. How can I know if this is true? -BH
    TRWTF is that Salary.com knows if you are female or male and automatically adjusts salary ranges up or down accordingly.

    Oh. Wait. They don't have that feature?

    Then I guess TRWTF is BH: Find out the salary range you should be at and compare it to the salary you are at.

    This is almost as stupid as people who type "Who is Neil Armstrong?" into Twitter instead of Google.

  • jay (unregistered) in reply to Delve
    Delve:
    Oh, yes. I'd be outraged if I had top pay dues to an organization so that they could bring the full strength of the workforce to bear against the natural greed of the employers in salary negotiations.

    Has it occurred to you that people who do not want to join a union may take that position because they do not agree with the unions goals, or do not think that the union is pursuing those goals in the right way?

    You appear to think that other people should be forced to join an organization that you like, so that it will have more political power and thus be better able to accomplish the goals you favor. Regardless of the opinions of the people who where forced to join against their will, perhaps forced to give their money to further goals that they, in fact, oppose. Yes, I understand that YOU think the unions goals and methods are just obviously good and right. But obviously other people do not -- such as the poster that you just criticized.

    How would you react if, say, the Republican Party proposed that all Americans should be forced to become dues-paying Republicans because, after all, that party is trying to make the country a better place and needs more support. I'm sure the Republicans are just as convinced that their goals are good and right as the unions are convinced about theirs.

    Freedom is such a pain when other people want to do things that you disagree with.

  • AN AMAZING CODER (unregistered)

    I have issues with the whole gender pay gap issue. It assumes that "because males and females are doing the same job, they're doing it at the same value." That may or may not be true. You can't say that because developer A and developer B do the same job (have the same title and grade) that they are worth the same salary. And what does "same job" even mean?

    There are certainly industries where you can easily measure the pay gap, but service industries aren't it. You can certainly show that women working shipping docks are paid less for the same amount of work, but there's no way to show the value add of a female network administrator over a male network administrator even when their job titles are the same.

    But I would be silly to suggest that there is NOT bias in IT. My point is, stop using salary to show bias.

  • AN AMAZING CODER (unregistered) in reply to jay
    jay:
    I think the reality is that people who devote their lives to their jobs make more money than people who split their lives between work and time with family, community, or even hobbies. You make your choices and you accept the pros and cons. It's rather unfair to say that you want all the advantages that come from spending more time with your family and then complain because you do not make as much money as the person who devotes his life to the company.

    This, goddamnit. This.

    Similarly, I recently got into an arugment with someone after I said "don't choose IT or Software just for the money, you'll never make it." My point was similar -- you won't make over-the-curve salary in this field if it's not a lifestyle choice instead of a job.

  • jay (unregistered) in reply to just stop it
    just stop it:
    Let's take UPS drivers, for instance. After 78 years they make about $80k (before overtime) and have great benefits. they require no higher education and you can learn their job in a week. Literally. Is that fair? I think it isn't. $80K plus benefits for doing a grown-up version of a paper route?

    Who is to say what is "fair"? There are many factors that go in to determining salary besides years of education required.

    Every now and then someone will point out that garbage collectors in their city make more than teachers, and they will say how unfair and generally screwed up this is.

    My response is always, Okay then, why don't you quit your job as a teacher and become a garbage collector?

    I've never gotten a straight answer to that question. I strongly suspect the real answer is either, (a) What?! I wouldn't want a dirty, smelly job like that! Or (b) Because being a teacher enables me to help mold the next generation, to perform a valuable service to society, etc.

    In other words, (a) because that job is unpleasant, and (b) my current job is more interesting and rewarding. Which is exactly why garbage collectors are paid more. The job is unpleasant, boring, unrewarding, brings no social status, etc etc. The only reason anyone would do it is for the money.

  • (cs) in reply to D-Coder
    D-Coder:
    Delve:
    D-Coder:
    Delve:
    My anarchy could kick your anarchy's ass. Assuming it could be bothered to stop kicking its own citizens' asses long enough to try.
    My anarchy is ass-free. Perhaps you should think about why your anarchy is assful.

    I already know. Because it's populated with real people and real people are asses. What've you got in your anarchy? Or do you force a strict assectomy policy?

    How could I? It's an anarchy.

    Then either your anarchy has a population of 0, you lie, or people are never asses. Which is it?

  • (cs) in reply to jay
    jay:
    In other words, (a) because that job is unpleasant, and (b) my current job is more interesting and rewarding. Which is exactly why garbage collectors are paid more. The job is unpleasant, boring, unrewarding, brings no social status, etc etc. The only reason anyone would do it is for the money.

    Logic away migrant farm workers then.

  • Mike (unregistered)

    Every computer class I've ever taken (and there have been a lot) have been at least 90% male. There's no discrimination there, just self selection. Pay the tuition and you're in.

    Sure guys may ask you for dates -- but there's an easy solution to that. Retaliate. Punish them. Do unto others the horrible things they are doing unto you. Ask them for dates, since that seems to be so awful.

    Unless you don't believe in equality. Unless you think males and females are fundamentally different somehow. You sexist pig.

  • Mark (unregistered)

    Finding out what co-workers make in order to give you confidence to demand more is risky. You can end up damaging your reputation and theirs. Besides, that's just substitution of another persons negotiating experience for your own. Maybe you are actually worth MORE. Do you just want what someone else makes, or do you want what you are worth? I think most people in an organization who are paid top salaries have had to learn along the way what their worth was and not be shy about proving and demanding it. It's another type of experience that needs to be gained on the job. It's analyzing the situation, drawing your own conclusions and being ready to take that chance when you make your demand. If you succeed, you'll also learn why it is hard to advise another person how to do the same thing. No one else is with you all the time and can see what you see.

  • (cs) in reply to jay
    jay:
    Delve:
    Oh, yes. I'd be outraged if I had top pay dues to an organization so that they could bring the full strength of the workforce to bear against the natural greed of the employers in salary negotiations.

    Has it occurred to you that people who do not want to join a union may take that position because they do not agree with the unions goals, or do not think that the union is pursuing those goals in the right way?

    Then they need to be part of a solution instead becoming a problem in their own right. In short, fix their union or start their own.

    jay:
    You appear to think that other people should be forced to join an organization that you like, so that it will have more political power and thus be better able to accomplish the goals you favor. Regardless of the opinions of the people who where forced to join against their will, perhaps forced to give their money to further goals that they, in fact, oppose. Yes, I understand that YOU think the unions goals and methods are just obviously good and right. But obviously other people do not -- such as the poster that you just criticized.

    Do not presume to read my 'agenda' from the contents of one obviously inflammatory sentence.

    jay:
    How would you react if, say, the Republican Party proposed that all Americans should be forced to become dues-paying Republicans because, after all, that party is trying to make the country a better place and needs more support. I'm sure the Republicans are just as convinced that their goals are good and right as the unions are convinced about theirs.

    Your analogy is fatally flawed in that there is a diametrically opposed group known as 'Democrats' to which a dissenter may flee. Indeed there is even a common middle ground known as 'Independants' to serve as a last resort should both of the aforementioned be deemed unsuitable. In the case of labor there is only the employee and the employer. And possibly the union. And in that relationship the employee has power if and only if

    1. said employee offers special benefits (a rare skill or notoriety) or
    2. said employee has a majority of the extant workforce willing to walk for them
    jay:
    Freedom is such a pain when other people want to do things that you disagree with.

    Like standing up for decent treatment. Such a pain when people want to be able to live a decent life. You could, perhaps, study the genesis of unions and contrast that with working conditions and union presence in various global economies. Perhaps you could then go on to consider whether we're really so far away from whence we come that we can afford to denigrate, revile, and and dismantle those structures that brought us across so short a distance.

  • Jack (unregistered)

    I work for a private company, not the government. So, we can't just print money whenever we feel like it. Every dollar I spend on your salary has to come from investors.

    Why do investors give us money? Only one reason. They're hoping we will give them more money back later. It's called Return On Investment.

    So the only way I can pay someone say $80,000 is if the company gets back more than $80,000 from that investment. If I pay you $80K and what you do ends up being worth only $79K then I'm losing money for my investors and failing to do my job. If I pay you $80K and you produce something worth $100K then sweet, and I'll keep as much as I can of the extra $20K because that's what the investors (indirectly) hired me to do.

    If you get wise to the $20K I'm making off you and ask for a cut, you may get it so long as there's enough left over. But the closer you get to taking 100% of what you produce, the more likely I can find someone else that will accept a little less. And I'll happily pay a hotshot who produces $140K a lot more than one who produces only $100K. It isn't about gender. It's all about Return On Investment. I'm not hired to care about anything else.

  • Joe (unregistered) in reply to Your Name
    Your Name:
    In the public sector, everyone's salary is public information, and somehow life still goes on.

    Salary, yes. The extracurriculars (bribes, or if you prefer a more gentle term "campaign contributions") are a closely-guarded secret.

    That's how you end up with a former assistant-DA who has been on public (and published) salary his entire career enter congress as a multi-millionaire.

    I'm sure it's entirely because he saved every penny he ever earned and got a legitimate 300% annual return.

    --Joe

  • (cs) in reply to Delve
    Delve:
    D-Coder:
    Delve:
    D-Coder:
    Delve:
    My anarchy could kick your anarchy's ass. Assuming it could be bothered to stop kicking its own citizens' asses long enough to try.
    My anarchy is ass-free. Perhaps you should think about why your anarchy is assful.

    I already know. Because it's populated with real people and real people are asses. What've you got in your anarchy? Or do you force a strict assectomy policy?

    How could I? It's an anarchy.

    Then either your anarchy has a population of 0, you lie, or people are never asses. Which is it?

    Wow, you're really concerned about assness. Perhaps you're taking this entire thread too seriously.

  • GoodDog (unregistered) in reply to ping floyd
    ping floyd:
    golddog:
    ... I can't see how people in this industry can possibly spend the kind of money we make.

    Have a couple of kids and you'll find out quickly.

    Well, not that quickly -- he won't really find out until they start driving and go to college.

    But, yeah, it is entirely possible to spend "the kind of money we make" and then some, when you have a family to support.

    That said, I'm in agreement with the rest of golddog's post, in that I don't know how much my teammates make, and I don't want to know. I do want to know the median salary for my position in my geographical location, so I can tell when I'm being severely underpaid. Other than that, I make what I make. If it's enough to meet my family's needs, awesome. If it's not enough, I improve my skillset as needed and look for another job where I can make more. If it's still not enough, I cut down on my expenses. Simple as that. We women are such a rare beast in IT that it's really hard to say if we as a group are being underpaid because of our gender or not. But even if we are, there's not much we can do about it. I prefer to do the best I can with the skills I've got, and not worry about what everyone else makes compared to me.

  • (cs) in reply to jay
    jay:
    just stop it:
    Let's take UPS drivers, for instance. After 78 years they make about $80k (before overtime) and have great benefits. they require no higher education and you can learn their job in a week. Literally. Is that fair? I think it isn't. $80K plus benefits for doing a grown-up version of a paper route?

    Who is to say what is "fair"? There are many factors that go in to determining salary besides years of education required.

    Every now and then someone will point out that garbage collectors in their city make more than teachers, and they will say how unfair and generally screwed up this is.

    My response is always, Okay then, why don't you quit your job as a teacher and become a garbage collector?

    I've never gotten a straight answer to that question. I strongly suspect the real answer is either, (a) What?! I wouldn't want a dirty, smelly job like that! Or (b) Because being a teacher enables me to help mold the next generation, to perform a valuable service to society, etc.

    In other words, (a) because that job is unpleasant, and (b) my current job is more interesting and rewarding. Which is exactly why garbage collectors are paid more. The job is unpleasant, boring, unrewarding, brings no social status, etc etc. The only reason anyone would do it is for the money.

    Or they do it because they are an ex-felon and that is the best job they can get. Just because I would not want to do it, does not mean you should pay someone else more to do it.
  • Karl (unregistered) in reply to Joe
    Joe:
    Your Name:
    In the public sector, everyone's salary is public information, and somehow life still goes on.

    Salary, yes. The extracurriculars (bribes, or if you prefer a more gentle term "campaign contributions") are a closely-guarded secret.

    That's how you end up with a former assistant-DA who has been on public (and published) salary his entire career enter congress as a multi-millionaire.

    I'm sure it's entirely because he saved every penny he ever earned and got a legitimate 300% annual return.

    --Joe

    But "campaign contributions" go to the "campaign" not to the politician's own pocket. There are extensive reporting requirements designed to show that it is spent on the "campaign" not on yachts etc.

    Politicians make most of their money by insider trading -- knowing in advance where the government's hammer is going to land next. For example in my city a local pol knew they were planning a new stadium. So he bought up the real estate at the probable site. Then he sold it to the taxpayers at a substantial markup.

    (We'll skip for now the question of why the taxpayers have to furnish a business place for the sports industry. I can't get them to build a structure for my use.)

    Anyway, about the only way to really prevent abuse of power like this is to take away the power from the abusers. Smaller government! It improves things for everyone, except the thieves. But then we don't really want to improve things for the thieves, do we?

  • (cs) in reply to GoodDog
    GoodDog:
    ping floyd:
    golddog:
    ... I can't see how people in this industry can possibly spend the kind of money we make.

    Have a couple of kids and you'll find out quickly.

    Well, not that quickly -- he won't really find out until they start driving and go to college.

    But, yeah, it is entirely possible to spend "the kind of money we make" and then some, when you have a family to support.

    Don't forget the performance PC (plus upgrades), iPs, next year's iP, MMO subscriptions, and etc. ;)

    Nevermind the cost of trips to the museum and other sundry experiences that every child deserves.

  • Old fart (unregistered)

    in the eighties I was moonlighting for a gun shop that was on the cutting edge of technology, programming an inventory application on an Apple II in GW Basic. I went in one day and noticed that all the employees were pissed about something. Turns out that one of the disgruntled employees was upset about being the lowest paid employee. He had fished the carbon sheet from the payroll out of the trash and was able to read the amounts of all the employees paychecks from the carbon paper. He then typed up a list of all employees and their salaries and posted it in the breakroom bulletin board. Then everybody was upset.

    So maybe it's better if you don't go there.

  • (cs)

    I'm a government worker in a province with disclosure laws. Google "My Name" Salary, and it's the fourth goddamn result, along with expenses.

    It blows.

  • (cs) in reply to Delve
    Delve:
    jay:
    Delve:
    Oh, yes. I'd be outraged if I had top pay dues to an organization so that they could bring the full strength of the workforce to bear against the natural greed of the employers in salary negotiations.

    Has it occurred to you that people who do not want to join a union may take that position because they do not agree with the unions goals, or do not think that the union is pursuing those goals in the right way?

    Then they need to be part of a solution instead becoming a problem in their own right. In short, fix their union or start their own.

    So... you want me to form a union against unions? In that case I will call mine UAU (Union against UAU)! That should handle everyone creating counter unions.

    Delve:
    jay:
    Freedom is such a pain when other people want to do things that you disagree with.
    Like standing up for decent treatment. Such a pain when people want to be able to live a decent life. You could, perhaps, study the genesis of unions and contrast that with working conditions and union presence in various global economies. Perhaps you could then go on to consider whether we're really so far away from whence we come that we can afford to denigrate, revile, and and dismantle those structures that brought us across so short a distance.
    Unions serve a good purpose but the longer they stay around in a company the more corrupt they become (All power corrupts). They may be good for the first 30 years but the next people that come in will start abusing the power, and if not them then the next. If unions were created existed until it was sure that the culture has changed in the company to something that better protects and cares for its employees and then disolved I would be more inclined to support them. The fact they stay around for so long can cause long term damage and eventually kill the company.
  • (cs) in reply to Old fart
    Old fart:
    in the eighties I was moonlighting for a gun shop that was on the cutting edge of technology, programming an inventory application on an Apple II in GW Basic. I went in one day and noticed that all the employees were pissed about something. Turns out that one of the disgruntled employees was upset about being the lowest paid employee. He had fished the carbon sheet from the payroll out of the trash and was able to read the amounts of all the employees paychecks from the carbon paper. He then typed up a list of all employees and their salaries and posted it in the breakroom bulletin board. Then everybody was upset.

    So maybe it's better if you don't go there.

    And he did this in a gun shop?! Is he nuts?!

  • (cs) in reply to Anketam
    Anketam:
    So... you want me to form a union against unions? In that case I will call mine UAU (Union against UAU)! That should handle everyone creating counter unions.

    I meant a second worker's union. Don't like the UAW? Start your own auto worker's union.

    Anketam:
    Unions serve a good purpose but the longer they stay around in a company the more corrupt they become (All power corrupts). They may be good for the first 30 years but the next people that come in will start abusing the power, and if not them then the next. If unions were created existed until it was sure that the culture has changed in the company to something that better protects and cares for its employees and then disolved I would be more inclined to support them. The fact they stay around for so long can cause long term damage and eventually kill the company.

    The goal is to have balance in both sides. If one side of the relationship has more power than the other then eventually that side will, as you say, corrupt. Balance should keep them in check. Lacking a union or any form of organization the employees are naturally the weaker partner and thus ripe for exploitation.

    I think you might also be conflating the hierarchy of a union with the concept of organized labor. If the power of an organization, any organization, is compressed down to one or a few individuals without any oversight then you're going to have problems.

    In the ideal case you propose where a company 'reforms' and becomes a good partner to its employees a union should have no cause to make use of its power. In which case they cannot cause any harm to the company. Reality is, of course, much messier and divorced from such idealized considerations.

  • (cs) in reply to D-Coder
    D-Coder:
    Wow, you're really concerned about assness.

    Damn! Did you find my porn collection?

  • BetterCallSaul (unregistered)

    Here is a salary checker that can give you a baseline for your area: http://www.jobsearchintelligence.com/NACE/jobseekers/salary-calculator.php

  • Meep (unregistered) in reply to BetterCallSaul
    BetterCallSaul:
    Here is a salary checker that can give you a baseline for your area: http://www.jobsearchintelligence.com/NACE/jobseekers/salary-calculator.php

    Try glassdoor.com for a baseline for your company.

  • Someone You Know (unregistered)
    G.F.:
    Geez and macaroni, it feels like I'm arguing with morons.
    Welcome to TDWTF. YHBT. HAND. And all that nonsense.
  • e (unregistered) in reply to jay

    I'm a woman developer, and I have 15 years experience in the industry. I am also the sole source of income for a family of 4, and even though I have a child still in grade school, I am willing (and do) put in extra hours, often more than my male counterparts, though I am salary and get no additional monetary compensation for it.

    I recently discovered that the amount I make now, with 15 total years experience and 5 with my company, is what they are willing to pay someone just starting, with 5 years experience in the field. I blame the headhunters, told me what to ask for, without telling me how much they were actually willing to pay me - no doubt because I'm a woman. While it was a substantial raise over my previous employer, it was still considerably less than what I could have ask for.

    However. Knowing I am the only support for a family of 4, and that I'm trying to send a child to college, my employers haven't made a move to correct the pay discrepancy. I know my fellow male coworkers make more than me. Substantially more than me. For doing the same job. I will hopefully rectify that soon, without having to seek other employment, because I like the people I work with directly, and the company in general.

    There is a pay gap. It has nothing to do with taking time off to raise kids - my youngest is 12, and I have worked her whole life, missing out on all those wonderful things you speak of, first steps and school plays and what not, not because I didn't want to be there, but because they need a roof over their heads and food in their bellies (their father jumped ship shortly after my last was born.)

    So explain then, since I'm missing out on hobbies, friends, and time with my family, why I should make 70% of what my male counterparts make?

    jay:
    I don't doubt that women on the average make less money than men do. The question is whether this is the result of discrimination or different lifestyle choices.

    Like, as someone pointed out, many women take time off in mid-career to raise children, while men rarely do. Similarly, at least among people I've worked with, women are far more likely to put in their 40 hours a week and then go home to take care of house and family or other interests, while men are more likely to be willing to put in extra hours.

    Is it better to spend more time with your kids and make less money? If on their deathbeds Alice is surrounded by her loving children with fond memories of all the time they spent together as they were growing up, while Bob dies alone in a nursing home, is Bob really better off because he made 20% more money in his life?

    I've seen studies that have found that women who do not have children and who put in the same hours that men do make slightly more than the average man.

    I think the reality is that people who devote their lives to their jobs make more money than people who split their lives between work and time with family, community, or even hobbies. You make your choices and you accept the pros and cons. It's rather unfair to say that you want all the advantages that come from spending more time with your family and then complain because you do not make as much money as the person who devotes his life to the company.

  • Loren (unregistered)

    I'm a lady, and a very well paid developer. If you are worried that you're not making the same amount as your co-workers check Salary.com. I've found their information to be solid. When you find out that you are underpaid ask for more. There is a fair amount of evidence that women are underpaid because they don't negotiate as hard as men. So ask for it, if they won't pay find another job that will - if you really want to stay you can go back to your manager with an offer letter and see if they'll top it.

    One advantage to being a woman in development is that I've never had trouble finding work. Generally us ladies get along well in male dominated departments, and folks like to be able to claim the diversity that we provide - it makes old white men feel protected from discrimination suits.

    After three jobs in two years I've finally found a keeper, and I've seen 8k plus raises with each change. If you're not being paid fairly go somewhere else, there are lots of jobs out there.

  • Loren (unregistered) in reply to e

    " I will hopefully rectify that soon, without having to seek other employment, because I like the people I work with directly, and the company in general. "

    That's your problem right there. Women are more loyal to their companies, and willing to take a hit for the team. If you ask for a raises and don't get it, know management doesn't respect your contribution and you need to find new management. There are lots of jobs out there, go get a better one.

Leave a comment on “Ask WTF: Salary”

Log In or post as a guest

Replying to comment #:

Log Out

« Return to Article