I'm surprised. In a technical PM role a few years ago I found out that I earned 20-40% less than other PM's at the company. There were more than a dozen PM's and I was the only woman who was mid-level seniority. My male direct report made almost the same as me, while my female direct reports made a lot less. In my case it was not due to lack of initial negotiation, but that at each promotion I didn't get a sufficient bump (and since I was getting a raise, I felt grateful instead of negotiating in middle of promotion/raise!) Second reason, was that a lot of the male PM's had threatened to leave in the past and negotiated their raises that way, whereas I had never done that. Since then, I have negotiated HARD for every position I've taken and have not hesitated to turn down jobs if I'm not confident that they are offering me 50th percentile relative to men in the role. I've also encouraged women to find out salary data for their peers in order to get raises. Often when someone leaves the company they will openly tell you their salary or if you are friends they will just tell you. In so many cases, where a woman is one of only 1-2 women out of 15-20+ men, it turns out that she is making far less than men who have previously held her role or been in same role. It's strange to me that HR never seems to pick up on things like this!! Seems like the first thing you'd check given all the publicity on issue. Anyway I've only seen negotiation work well (even where a woman is making way less than peers) where the woman has also gotten a competing offer, so that's number 1 thing I encourage.
> It's strange to me that HR never seems to pick up on things like this!!
I don't think it is strange at all -- after all, it is in the company best interest to pay the employees as little as necessary. Engineers benefit company by building products. HR benefit company by (among other things) figuring out how to save money on salaries.
It's actually in the name. You are a resource for a purchasing department. I can't understand how people come to assume HR is on their side: it's not a union.
Yeah I (wrongly) figured that HR would do scans of salaries based on gender, race, disability etc to make sure there were no statistically significant differences that could lead to ammo in a lawsuit situation.
I'd expect that PR or Legal or Compliance would know more about this if they routinely search things they anticipate having to defend against.
BTW all of what you described is not unique to women. I have at least few friends that don't negotiate, don't seek alternative offers and because of that are disadvantaged when it comes to earnings. Periodic pay rise is just a device to dissuade employees from seeking their market value and appropriate compensation. The main reason for its existence is to profit from what happened to you.
The best way to fix this is to create a social pressure to be open about salaries. Some want to fix this by teaching better negotiation skills to those who are poor at it, but as long as the social pressure is to hide this data, it is going to keep being a problem regardless if the cause is racism, sexism, classism, or just difference in negotiation skills.
Fully agreed. In some countries there is a taboo about openly discussing salaries, but keeping them secret only helps employers and hurts the negotiating power of employees.
>>> keeping them secret only helps employers and hurts the negotiating power of employees
And saves from a lot of unnecessary drama. This is one of the things that seems great when assuming that everyone's acting rationally but that's not how the world works.
It's not rational but a lot of people are very sensitive to what they make in relation to others. For example, Joe thinks he's as good as Josh but Josh makes 25% more (be it that one's better at negotiating, false perception, not being aware of something and tons of other reasons). This scenario is extremely typical. As the result, it would provide enough distraction and hurt egos and all so that can have serious long term damage.
It can work if it's done from day 1 (e.g. at Buffer) but it might have disastrous consequences otherwise.
I'm not saying that sharing salary with a few colleagues is bad, it's pretty natural to share with some trusted ones and totally fine. But not doing it company wide once the company is in business for a few years.
It's true some people are very sensitive. This is the cultural/taboo part of the issue. From what I've been told, for some reason this taboo is especially strong in the US (correct me if I'm wrong).
In the end, regardless of the taboo, keeping salaries secret only helps employers. They are playing with a full deck of cards, while you -- the employee -- aren't. Not having access to this information is detrimental. For example, you do not know if you're being short-changed.
In your scenario, Joe's employer will have to explain why Josh deserves more money. The problem here is that employers prefer to avoid confrontation, and that sometimes there just isn't any reason beyond "because Josh asked for it and you didn't" or "because I like Josh more than you". This is why hidden information empowers employers but not you -- because you simply don't know when their decisions are justified or arbitrary. By making this information public, you make it more likely that your employers will be forced to provide non-bullshit justifications.
I think people get frustrated by salaries of others because people don't feel like they have power to contribute to the decision making process of how much any specific role should make.
DemocracyAtWork [1] is an organization that helps companies with the legal process of collectivizing and democratizing companies. A great way to fix the taboo of sharing salaries while simultaneously equalizing gender and other identity related pay/power disparities would be to democratize the workplace business decisions.
So just hire for "culture fit" where people aren't so damn sensitive about their own salary and understand and are content with others being paid more.
...and be prepared to explain in clear terms why some people are being paid more than others. If you have a good, fair explanation (e.g. "he/she has more responsibilities"), everything should be fine!
Could this perhaps be solved by anonymising the data? For negotiation purposes you only need to know whether you are at the top, middle or bottom in terms of income.
Personally I think it'd be a pretty big distraction if everyone knew exactly how much everyone else made. I don't really care to know what the head of accounting is making, or what the customer support lead is making. If the company needs someone with a super-specialized skill and has to pay them 3x what I'm being paid, what business is it of mine?
If the company needed my skills desperately and I was offered 3x the salary that a current new hire is getting, I don't see how that's helping or hurting anyone else. If anything, I think knowing about it would lead to other company issues that are just a distraction from the overall business.
Salary information is public knowledge in several countries, and even in the US, government salaries are public.
That experience shows that this information does not cause a big distraction.
Public salary helps level the power imbalance between the employer (who has more experience in negotiation and more knowledge about what people are willing to accept) and the employee, and makes it harder to hide systemic wage discrimination.
You do not care about the salary of the head of accounting, and that's fine (though it doesn't hurt to know). But you should care how much your buddies and other people in similar positions are being paid. Otherwise, how do you know if you aren't being short-changed? You'd be surprised.
very good advice and applies to guys too. the goal for both management and HR is to pay as little as possible (to the point that we see the outright collusion of the apple/adobe/google price fixing). so get competing offers and then play hardball
Where I work they're trying to combat this by creating tighter, more objective definitions of levels and putting people in those. The salary bands within a level are relatively small.
This cuts out a lot of the crap. You can still negotiate but not outside of band.
So outside of a few large companies and a few types of jobs with fairly consistent job titles/responsibilities, Glassdoor is fairly poor for employees conducting their own salary research.
Have you found any services or tools that are more accurate that you'd recommend?
I recommend looking up the company and job title on an h1b jobs database. There are several sites online that pull from public data. You get both start date and title information. It only shows base salary but the nice thing is that it is an accurate number.
I've found two methods to be fairly accurate. Find the average for you job on Glassdoor and add 20%. Or find someone that has a similar job at the company and ask them what they make.
