Discussion on:

Would you want to know your co-workers' salaries?

Seriously sad...

Is the constant denigration of public service by those with an ax to grind. If you want the best people in government, you don't constantly whine about incompetent, overpaid, and lazy government employees.

Of course, too many people haven't got the sense to realize that...

If business promotions were based on the military model, business would be much more efficient than it is, because the best workers would be promoted much more often than not.

From what I've seen, business promotions are based more on butt-kissing than anything else. Heck, most managers I've known in private business couldn't hack the military because they aren't capable of subordinating their egos to the mission..

Funny this comes up now. Just yesterday I found out other co-workers got bonus checks last year, when I did not. I was told it wasn't in the budget. Than 7 months later, I find out other co-workers got bonuses.
I'm a DBA. I work 24/7. The programmers I work with, do not. They leave at 5:00 and don't think about this place till 8:00 the next day. And when I found out they got bonuses and I did not, I went through the roof. Sadly, my business practice tells me to NOT bring this to management' attention. It's none of my business if they got a bonus check. And it's none of their business if I did not or did.
It's no one' business, but your own, what you make/don't make at your company. Especially co-workers. I've never divulged a raise, bonus, or anything like that. That's my take on it. It only causes friction and bad blood.

above DBAs, it's a much harder job.

You've just come out with the management argument for keeping remuneration secret. Based of your anecdote you are saying it would have been better had you not found out those jobsworth programmers you work with (or against ) are getting paid differently to you.

I'm not seeing the logic. I could excuse that because I'm a programmer, but I've been a DBA as well.

I don't agree. As I stated...these programmers work 8-5, walk out the door & don't think twice about work till 8:00 the next morning. If a database goes down at 0 dark 30 in the morning, who's getting called?? Sure ain't the programmers. If you've been a dba before, you should already know this. I shouldn't be telling you anything you don't already know.
And I don't agree at all about it being a harder job. It's different, I will say that. When I have to show a programmer how to write t-sql code, or interface with sql server, who's got the harder job?
And not understanding how you don't see the logic. Than again...There are 3 DBA's handling over 160 programmers some of which complain they have nothing to do at times. I always have work to do...generally it's called "cleaning up crappy t-sql code the programmers are writing".

You tell me who works harder? Oh, that's right...the programmers do.

I'm not seeing the logic.

Your employer values them more than you. You haven't done anything about it, you are still there, you are still being paid less.

So they are right.

While you are restricting your response to your situation with anonymous whining you deserve the salary you are getting.

Got to get off your arse mate, I know it's hard, I know times are hard, but no one is going to give you something for nothing. Do more, be more, leave for more, but act.

I am off my arse. And I am far from whining. Answering the topic' question is all. And I'd like to see these holier than thou programmers deal without the DBA's for 1 week. The database architecture would be a mess, everyone would have owner privileges to all the databases and no one would take responsibility of who did what to what database.
If ANYONE whines in my area, it's the programmers. OMG, don't get me started on that.
Anyways...you comments have been read. That is it. They have been read. I don't expect something for nothing. I've been in this industry way too long for a young person to come in & tell me something I heard when they were still in diapers...or probably not even around yet. I don't go in to my manager' office demanding a raise or bonus. I went in asking, "What do you need me to do to make me more valuable to the company come yearly pay raises?"

Get off your high horse. Albeit programmers make the computer world go round, let's see you do it without a database...mate.

He called you young, Tony!

The rest of the post, wasn't too clever though.

Stop projecting, I don't work at your place.

If you want to be to paid as much as them because you perceive them as less valuable, you are expecting something for nothing.

They are paying you now, for them to agree to pay you more, you are going to either have to do more, or get what you do perceived as more.

The only thing that's likely to happen if management agreed they shouldn't be paid more than you because they are bunch of incompetent jobsworths, is to pay them less.

No wonder you are getting done up the back, they saw you coming from a mile off.

I agree, workers who are willing to come in and fix a database problem during off hours should be compensated accordingly, if not with a higher pay maybe with some other incentive such as two or three extra vacation days. Just an example. Don't really know which one works harder.

Who says working harder (whatever that means) for someone else gets you more money.

If it doesn't say in your contract that you get paid more for call outs, then you don't.

The entire premise that you should is flawed anyway, and from both sides.
You don't have to be Mr Trump before you figure out that the way to make your next car payment is to get a few extra hours in on account o "something" went wrong, do you?

You should get paid on the basis that there will be no call outs. If that turns out not to be true, then you get to come in because you screwed up. Reward good behaviours.

"...workers who are willing to come in and fix a database problem during off hours should be compensated accordingly,..."

If I had a DBA coming in at 3:00 am to repair databases on a semi-regular basis, I'd be asking why these databases keep breaking and looking for a DBA who can fix them permanently.

...
The only proviso being when it's precieved as cheaper to pay a DBA to fix it (or better still not pay them) than to invest in more reliable kit and systems.

I know when I was doing it I got paid for being available for call, whether I ended up being called was mostly down to my dilligence during the day.
So effectively I got paid more when the systems didn't break, course the place was 24/7 , which can make management focus their thinking a little better.

Good point and that is exactly why they should be compensated accordingly.

There's a lot more to job value than being available. There's probably a lot of on-call positions that are making a lot less than you and being called in more. Maybe their set of skills is less valued in the job market.

The programmers have no reason to come in at midnight, so they don't. But they probably have a lot of other things to worry about that you don't.

But if programming is an easier job and they're being compensated more, maybe you should consider applying for a programming job.

Questioning assumptions is a major part of programming...

I've worked for the bosses so driven to create and build (which we did), but could not appreciate those in the background who kept existing systems working smoothly, kept documentation, tidied up. In both cases, the growth was not sustainable because he had treated the maintainers with derision or ignored their efforts.
Of course, I've also worked for those bosses who were so focused on keeping everything organized, twiddling with existing systems, and afraid to break eggs, that no big cool projects were every undertaken and we became irrelevant.

Good management means having the right balance and appreciating both the programmers and the administrators.

I work for the Federal Government. Our salaries are also public record. That causes great consternation amongst some workers when an incompetent gets hired at, or above, your pay level. No, it isn't fair but then again, you were looking for a job when you found this one. Is security your main motivator. Go Government, shut up and color.

Just so I can see how much more there bumbling earns.

I remember being upset when a co-worker that often was not able to complete their projects got promoted. This was not someone that I disliked. But I knew from experience that they were always complaining that their assignments weren't interesting. They would get a plum assignment, and then someone else would have to finnish it. I should have been happy for them, but I wasn't. Looking back I should have blamed their boss.
Imagine finding out that someone else that needs constant hand holding is making almost as much as you.

Nearly all my managers have got paid more than me.

For those of you who happen to be Christians, I refer you to Mat 20:1-16.

Which ones were christians then, when exactly does the landowner turn into a camel, and when do tthe boys who started work early inherit his earth because camels aren't big on passing on their worldly goods.

While I would agree that a company shouldn't be ashamed for people (including employees) to know what the salaries of their employees are, in my experience it's not great for the employees to know too much about such matters. There's a reason why the policy of non-disclosure exists for most companies. Accept that there will always be someone who makes more than you do, even more than they should; it's up to the employee to decide if their compensation is fair, and if it isn't, to seek a raise or a new position.

exists so management can operate unfairly. How is this good for employees?
Keeps their stress levels down???

How the perception of unfairness is dealt with is another question, but to claim that it's better to be ignorant about being treated unfairly, is ridiculous.

Care to elaborate on what that reason might be?

An employer cannot prohibit employees from discussing their salaries amongst themselves to prevent animosity. The reason for this is equal opportunity and fairness in pay. This is actually part of the Wage & Labor laws. So, employers need to keep in mind that preventing salary discussion can bring on a lawsuit.

I've been involved with the preparation of detailed budgets for that last 12 years, so I've had access to this information about all employees and management for years.

Beyond an initial curiosity, I haven't taken any notice of them for years. It's like any professional situation, you put your personal thoughts to one side and act in a professional manner.

I don't give a ****.

I work in an environment where everyone votes on what the raises will be; yet almost no one but the Financial Secretary and a few others know what each of the Union members and Referral Hall members make. Therefore it produces a lot of negative responses from some folks who are constantly wondering what others are making. Usually these folks were the same ones that weren't prepared for the financial crisis that hit the country in 2008 but didn't affect our industry until almost 18 months later. The show must go on right?
I am a registered Independent with very fiscally conservative leanings. I don't necessarily support or not support Unions in this country. I have been working for Local 322 for 13 years and it has been very good to me for the last 7. I am able to work about 1000-1200 hours a year and I find myself in the 25-75% of income of our nation. The amount of free time that this allows is wonderful.

But I still wouldn't want to know what my co-workers really make - otherwise I might be drawn into the pondering of who makes more than I do and why.

It's not my business. If a colleague has the negotiating skills that resulted in a better salary, then good for them. If I found out that a colleague's salary is higher, it's not going to alter my morale. Forget about what someone else is making and ask yourself this question "Am I content with my salary". If the answer is Yes, great. If the answer is No, do something about it. That something should consist of actions that result in turning the No into a Yes.

Pay confidentiality is only ever there to protect poor HR processes. Fair slaries motivate people and allowing people to know what they earn and how the earnings are set in relation to other people is a good indicator that the company is not just fair but seen to be fair. If salaries aren't fair don't be surprised if people walk - whether they are published or not.

I heard of one case where a company was trying to shed people and, as if by magic, there was a 'slip up' in HR that revealed exactly how much less the people they were wanting to get rid of were paid than the people in charge. All of a sudden, getting volunteers for redundancy wasn't such a problem after all.

I think it despicable that a "boss" would suggest raises based upon someones gender, family circumstances; nonetheless, I know it happens. That said, performance reviews and salary information should be private. To the point, managers need to learn to manage (and motivate) people more than things and projects; take proper care of people and the projects will significantly care for themselves. From my (admittedly old-school) experience, I tell nosey employees to worry more about doing the job well -- if you are are that worried about someone else's pay, perhaps you are not adequately able to focus on the important metrics needed to complete tasks on time and within budget; we can help you adjust your focus or you can adjust where you work; with employment being treasured in this ecconomy, perhaps we need better-focused employees.

I just happened across a piece called ...

In a recent past life I was on a team that was evaluating everyone's salary and as a result we had available all the salary information but anonymity was preserved by not providing names linked to each salary. As a result we could look at a team of people and understand the average salary + bonus +profit sharing + commissions.....assumptions could be made about which one compensation number would be Joe Jones, but quite frankly we had well over 100,000 people to look at so there was never time to really worry about if Joe made more than Suzy etc.

What did come out of the study was unpleasant to me. Firstly I discovered that neither performance nor tenure seemed to drive $$$ across most of the organizations. Secondly, there was a huge range between compensation paid for people doing the same job. I had always thought I was reasonably paid for the work I did, always had top evaluations, had tenure if you will ,and was senior in my position. Imagine my surprise when I discovered I was the 2nd lowest paid person on my team, and it appears as if my near associate was compensated at nearly 3x my rate.

Trust tends to go out the window, doubts creep in, and human nature tends to make matters worse, not better. Ultimately I left for greener pastures where I was compensated more like my former associate.

I had a job programming in COBOL. I had the major project of putting in a new system that utilized inputs from scales, bar coding, etc. It ended up saving the company a lot of money by reducing pilfering. I forgot how I found out, but a coworker, who the boss would only allow to do RPG programming and create reports, was making thousands more than I was. I approached my boss and said that if they moved me up to her salary that I would guarantee at least two more years. His response was that they were overpaying her and he couldn't do it. So I left the company.

there will always be some that get mad because they believe that their 10 yrs of service automatically qualifies them for higher pay than the person who has only been there for 2.
I think the best approach is pay banding and sharing that with everyone. Its like sharing everyones salary without having to giveaway the actual numbers.

In my organization (a large software firm), I supervise an entry-level call center. All new agents are hired as temps and have to prove themselves worthy of permanent employment.

The permanent job pool is run very much like a lottery - depending on the pay rate of the position that becomes available, the employee filling in that position could be over- or under-compensated. Now there are benefits that come with that permanent position. However, the vacancy pay rate is capped at whatever was paid the it's former occupant. There is very little room for negotiation - unless the vacancy is truly a promotion.

In this environment, where permanent positions are few and temporary agents are ambitious, publicizing salaries (with the current lottery formula) would create a hostile environment where employees would find ways to sabotage each other. We already have enough behavioral issues and contention to keep the leaders well occupied.

I know that as a supervisor, receiving that title during the "crisis with the economy" meant that all I was getting was a title. I didn't get an increase until several years later, and it was only about 21-cents per hour. Maybe the publicity would benefit me. Or it would be a warning to other leads that they need to step up their game.

Full disclosure would have to bring with it a different system for compensating employees. Our current model would not benefit from it.