Keeping your Salary Confidential 19

[Dirtguy4587]

I was just thinking back to my previous employer. When it came time to review salaries, my supervisor would ask us to keep our new salaries confidential from the other employees. Personally, I didn't see an issue with this - I feel my salary is my own business. However, I had a co-worker who felt compelled to share his salary, with the attitude that it was his salary, and he could disclose it if he so chose. Our supervisor was not impressed, and we learned that (after all discussing salaries) there were significant discrepancies between level of experience and compensation.

I'm curious if others have encountered this, and what opinions are out there.

 

[youngstructural]

Dinosaur:

I understand the desire to go it alone to get what you deserve, however I think that education and open salary knowledge is much better for our Profession; The stratification of our specialist knowledge into a multitude of suppliers is tremendously dangerous, and certainly not in our best interest.

I believe the engineering profession, but perhaps even more particularly our specialisation ie Consulting Structural Engineers, as I believe we both are, is so poorly paid compared to fifty years ago precisely because of everyone going it alone. The market sees us a mature commodity style service, and the competitive bid process ensures that there is always a temptation to cut rates to get work. I do not, however, see this as simply supply versus demand, it is in fact supply plus stratification vs. demand.

Every person who "goes it alone" does two things, the first of which is pull in better take home pay through profits than they had been in salary, while the second is to further reduce the overall profitability throughout their field of works by adding another bidder to the basket of tenders.

Just my personal opinion.

Regards,

YS

B.Eng (Carleton)
Working in New Zealand, thinking of my snow covered home...

 

[mauricestoker]

Management should never reveal salaries, while indivduals should (and generally can, unless the contract spells otherwise) have every right to discuss their salaries and make comparative judgements as to their respective worth. It would be inadvisable to compare their relative worth to other employee's respective salaries during negotiations, as they might not be advised of any specific talents, familial relations, bias, individual preference, or barnyard pictures. If salary was based solely on merit, equal opportunity laws would never exist (as one example). Fair or not, pay does not always relate to value. If you're co-workers are willing to share their salaries, then that gives a better opportunity to substantiate your negotiation position. If you can make a good case, good for you. If it is still unequal (in your eyes, as it is your salary) then look for new employment.
Having been on both sides, the more ammo you have going in, the better off you are. If you base your case on a specific individual, look to get blind sighted. Having worked for a family owned energy consulting business, then seeing them nearly go bankrupt after turning in contracts after walking, dollars aren't always the bottom line, and some people will go for a pyrrhic victory.

 

[Bribyk]

Before going into a negotiation you should always look for benchmarks to see where you stand or should be. On the other hand, if your employer doesn't have an employee performance benchmark and they know the average wage, that's what you're gonna get. Ask me how I know...

 

[MedicineEng]

Like one professor once told me:" If you want to start a riot, go to the lounce of an airline and start asking how much the persons there paid for their tickets. You will find that non has paid the exact same amount of the other".
With salaries is the same.
AS I mentioned in other post, I never felt underpaid until I find my current job. It was then that I found that my previous job was underapid fo rhte responsibilities that I was taking. Or that my current job is largely overpaying me... shhh.... Don´t tell anybody...
Regarding discussing salaries, I only do it with my wife and a some very close friends which are not in the same industry or even country, so no direct comparison can be made.

 

[swivel63]

salaries should be confidential. it's VERY bad form.

who defines what is under and what is overpaid? oft times we have a very inflated sense of our abilities and accomplishmentts in relation to our coworkers.

 

[swivel63]

if you need the information, go to a source outside of your company. there might be some mititgating factors that could contribute to salary differences. worry about what you're getting paid and what you're worth.

 

[ScottyUK]

Mitigating factors like the HR dept want to pay you as little as they can get away with? It's harder for that to happen in an open and visible salary structure.

Personally I'd be happy with a pay grade structure being made visible to employees and knowing the salary range for my position within the company. I don't particularly need to know to the last penny what colleagues are paid, but I expect to be paid at a similar rate to colleagues when I'm doing a similar role.


----------------------------------

If we learn from our mistakes I'm getting a great education!

 

[swivel63]

that could be one. or they might think you either a. suck or b. are great which could explain pay discrepancies.

 

[ScottyUK]

Yeah, I agree which is why I think a salary range should be published rather than specifics. If you are near the bottom of the range and you've been there a while you probably suck and if you're near the top after a year then you are probably great.


----------------------------------

If we learn from our mistakes I'm getting a great education!

 

[swivel63]

but knowing who sucks and who's great doesn't exactly help office morale. that's between the managers and individual employees.

 

[opmgr1]

I dont think scotty is saying to publish the range of individuals, but the range as it relates to the various job function so for example there might be 3 ranges with a management clasiffication. Two individuals may be classified as managers but none know what level the other is at. Knowing the range also helps in determining if a job is worth-while interviewing for. In the organisation that I work there were ranges, however this was eliminated by a recent reclassification. What this is saying is that it is either your are competent to be at that level or if you are not then you should not be there. This serves to also eliminate the subjectivity that can exist in moving within a particular classification.

 

[jmw]

I wonder how many of you have found that the better you do your job the less likely management are to move you out of it i.e. promotion. So you may feel content with your pay knowing you are at the top and you may be content with your position, but some of you may feel you wanted to move up a grade to a better salary structure.

Of course management would never keep someone in a lower grade when they ought to be pushing them up the ladder to more responsible and productive positions.

JMW

http://www.ViscoAnalyser.com

 

[ScottyUK]

opmgr1,

Thank you, at least someone understood what I was trying and failing to say!

jmw,

Yes, seen that happen quite a bit. The decision process follows the lines of "Shall we move an experienced and talented engineer into a management position and leave a hole which is almost impossible to fill in today's recruitment market, or shall we move someone less capable into the management position and avoid weakening the engineering core by moving one of the best engineers?". I understand the logic which arrives at this decision, but am continuously surprised that the thought process doesn't continue into "What will we do when the talented and experienced guy gets so pissed off being passed over time and again that his motivation dies, he resigns and we lose the skills and experience entirely?".

In my simple non-manager view of the world - and as one of the guys who has caught the fallout when talented people left - I always thought it made more sense to keep the experience within the company in some role rather than lose it to a competitor.


----------------------------------

If we learn from our mistakes I'm getting a great education!

 

[davidbeach]

The way to make that happen would be a technical track that keeps up with the management track, but HR can never grasp that concept.

 

[diarmud]

There's no benefit to management making salarys public.

My Dad always said "At the end of the day, you and your employer had better be even because they will let you go with nothing if they have to".

As an engineer and then an engineering manager I have to admit it makes life EASIER for management if employees are in the dark.

As you get older, your value to most firms will be presumed to be less (they think they are paying you too much). Companies do not pay for experience. Experience is far underrated and poorly paid.

Like Dad said, "Your are marketing and selling yourself everyday . . . ." Which means you should be looking to move up or another job all the time.

Companies love the complacent (salary wise) engineer.

Regards

 

[jerry1423]

What you make when you are initially hired can affect you for the rest of your career at that company.
What you make when you are initially hired not only depends on your skills and knowledge, but also what kind of demand there is for people similar to you that are looking for jobs at the same time that you are. Obviously if the supply is low and the demand is high then the pay will be higher.
Salaries should always be confidential. There really is no benefit to knowing what somebody else makes.

 

[ScottyUK]

"As an engineer and then an engineering manager I have to admit it makes life EASIER for management if employees are in the dark."

And how is that in the interest of anyone but the employer? As an employee your comment is precisely why some salary data should be made public.

If today's employers ever wonder why there is no loyalty from their employees then this thread should be a useful starting point. By the admission of diarmud above it seems the loyal staff guy is a mug being taken for a ride. Faced with employers like you the only way to keep your pay competitive in a bouyant job market is to keep moving, to the long-term detriment of the company. If that's the new rules then I'll play by them, but it's not how I would like to see the game played. A bit of mutual respect goes a long way.


jerry,

Are you saying that you think it is reasonable for someone recruited when the job market was flat mean should make less for the rest of their career than someone recruited at another time when the job market is buoyant? That seems a little unreasonable.



----------------------------------

If we learn from our mistakes I'm getting a great education!

 

[diarmud]

ScottyUK,
Unfortunately, this is the world we live in. I've seen partners and owners mortgage their homes and cash in their IRA's to keep the firm going.

What I am trying to say is you have to remember, no one will take care of you except yourself, they cannot afford to for long. For the same reason you keep educating yourself through your career (to keep yourself useful to your employer and to learn) you have to recognize that this is the world you live in.

As far as long term detriment to the firm, in the USA where I am, no one looks further than the next few years. Few can look at the long term...bills have to be paid today.

These are not NEW rules. They are the rules the world has played for for thousand of years.

As far as mutual respect, engineering in the US has become a sort of back room operation. The front office is full of salesmen, lawyers and accountants. Get used to it.

Regards

 

[ScottyUK]

Man, things in the US must be bad. I mean, they ain't rosy in the UK by any means but I don't think it is as bad as what you're describing. If I was over there I think my attitude toward employers would be different. I'm not blindly loyal or anything close to it, but I'm different to the contractors who change job each week for a £1/hr raise.

The massive rise in the numbers of industrial prostitutes contractors in the UK is the result of management who, as a group throughout the nation, can't see further into the future than their next bonus, and the management themselves are a symptom of companies run by accountants and shareholders who are only interested in the five-year forecast and the next dividend. Neither group has any interest in investing in the long term future of the company. No wonder our economy is f_cked.



----------------------------------

If we learn from our mistakes I'm getting a great education!