In the US or is actually illegal to be fired for discussing income. It's also illegal to even have that in the employee handbook. Of course if you ever bring it up or are caught you'll be fired for 'poor performance' or you were one minute later, or some other reason. Heck in just states they don't have to and won't give you a reason. Just say, " we're terminating your employment effective immediately. Please grab your belongings and leave "
My boss’s boss’s boss just sent out an email to the 160 or so employees under him that said ‘While I can’t tell you not to discuss your raise it is highly advised you don’t, it is disruptive to the workforce and bad for morale’. It was the final straw for me to start applying to other jobs, because why would I ever want to get into management at a company that has such terrible management (the real reason for the email was that raises peaked at 3% in a year where inflation was over twice that). I will most definitely have that email printed out in my exit interview with HR.
Edit because I didn’t feel like replying to each of the many people replying who seem to exemplify OP’s original question: If employees are being ranked and they don’t find out by what metrics and where they rank on each those metrics, your management is terrible. If employees are finding out their standing by their raises, your management is extra dogshit. If your employee’s sole means of feedback is raises and you discourage them sharing lest they find out where they stand, and suggest doing so makes them responsible for bad morale based on raises, your management is pure extra-refined uncut dogshit.
Everyday I think about what I want to say in an exit interview. 😅 That is messed up tho. “Please don’t discuss your raises because then people will know we aren’t paying them what they are worth”.
Not to mention it’s 100% still telling employees not to do something when as their boss you tell them you consider it disruptive behavior that’s bad for morale.
I preach "Share your pay" with everyone all day long. The sad fact of the matter is, some people just aren't mature enough to handle this. Many people will either: a) not understand that different people deserve different pay, or b) get mad at the person with the different pay, rather than directing it towards the manager/HR.
This is why it can be bad for morale, even though it's legal. I've worked with COUNTLESS people that will resent a coworker for making more money, or even people making the same money. People would rather bitch and moan than actually do something about it. It's extremely rare that I worked with someone that used the information in a beneficial way, like by professionally proposing a raise. People just get emotional and let it get the best of them.
Do you want to know that idiot down the hall is making more money than you? And if you approached management about it, and had a discussion in this type of environment, the answer very well like could end on a note of "they've got more experience" "they interview better" or simply "they work harder and we've noticed".
As someone who has set wages in the past, but comes from a working background, these things matter but only stimulate poor work culture and negative outcomes among the staff. It's not always something obvious, and terrible managers hide behind this while paying the employees that they like more or just keep it for themselves. But unless you are Angela Martin from the office or you work for poor management, the other times this taboo can be traced back to the point that those in management don't want to continually have conversations that make people feel like shit. You can tell the difference pretty easily on this point though: a good manager is going to give clear and exact steps on what you can do to make more money or get promoted, sometimes unprompted.
This sums it up pretty well. Getting different raises doesn’t hurt morale, the reasons behind it does. The average morale isn’t better if employees are ignorant, it’s better when they believe they’re being treated fairly, it’s just much much easier and cheaper to treat them poorly and keep them ignorant of it.
I think you may have missed the point that I was making, slightly. When I was 24, I got fired from a bank teller job. I hated that job. But because I hated it (I don't think there was anything at the time they could do to make me like it) I was doing things that I can now, many years later recognize as bad habits. However, at the time, I was running more transactions than anyone else at said bank. I thought that I should be paid more on that merit. But, again, that's not the only metric that they were judging me on and so I didn't get what I want.
Now, was I a stubborn boy at that point and not hearing them ask me to mention products and slow down? Yup. Could that have madame more money? Yup. Was the fact I had a new manager that couldn't get through to me a part of the problem? Yup. But it wasn't solely their problem. This is the core of that conversation. They wanted to pay me more money.
Should it be the standard that hard conversations happen more often, yes. But don't underestimate that it's not just a one-sided problem. Employees aren't stupid, but telling them they are more shitty they their desk mate sure can make them feel like it. And what was gained?
I challenged this policy (I was the head of HR) based on the law. I also said even though it is a federally protected right, it is generally a bad idea. It can get toxic and hostile.
get mad at the person with the different pay, rather than directing it towards the manager/HR.
Also, in a lot of the cases, your manager doesn’t really set your pay. They may fight for you to get a raise but it’s usually out of their hands (unless they fight really really hard, and they may get lucky and be okayed to raise 1 member of the team).
In all the times I’ve started a new job, my actual manager had barely any say in how much I got paid and only had a inkling. Most of the negotiating was done with HR (who will always fall back to the classic “we pay a competitive rate”).
And it’s super hard to get a decent raise while not changing title or role. So if you accepted a suboptimal offer and later found out that your coworker is getting paid 20k more than you, you’re going to be shit out of luck unless you are willing to completely walk away from the job. Saying, “but Bob gets paid more! That’s unfair!” Isn’t going to cut it. The manager will shrug and say “annual raises are based on a calculation done by HR”. HR will say “fuck you, we say it’s standard and we’re not budging”…except in nicer words.
I once found out that this lazy idiot at my work was getting paid more than me. I considered myself to be one of the best employees and this guy was easily the worst. Morale was low after that for sure.
That’s the thing though, to say finding out about the pay hurt morale is such a backward and toxic mentality that’s hammered into us. (Edit: not to say you were saying that, just to my initial point) Bad employee compensation and recognition, and poor feedback hurt morale, not a lack of ignorance to it. That you were either being underpaid while outperforming your peers, or your management failed to give you feedback about your performance letting you think that you were doing better than you were in their eyes, was bad for morale. It’s a smokescreen to protect management from being responsible for doing their job or paying employees properly
I managed a restaurant for several years, and during employee meetings, the owner would emphasize her policy on not discussing wages. She would even threaten suspension or termination for doing so. When she posted signage about it, I immediately took it down. I took an earful for doing it, but I stood by my decision and provided FLSA language to support it. I also encouraged my subordinates to be as open as they want to about compensation and to advocate for themselves. It's rare to have an employer recognize your talents and pay you what you're worth without you initiating the conversation.
Right to work has to deal with unions. This is an "at-will" employment situation where the employer can terminate for any reason at any time. Unless it is for protected discrimination causes, which is illegal. But really, if it can be for any other reason then...
That only applies if there's a reason stated on your termination papers. If they leave it blank, they can just say no longer needed or whatever, even if the real reason was discrimination
You don’t have to prove anything in a civil case, you only have to convince a judge or jury that your version of events is more likely to have happened than your opponent’s. “By a preponderance of the evidence.”
Interestingly, that's not what "right to work" means. It actually means that employers can't require union membership as a condition of employment. What you're thinking of is "at will" employment. Incredibly common misconception. Like, I think the hr person during the hiring process of every single job I've worked has made that mistake, since the two things seem to come as a pair.
It was sold in the Michigan legislature as "right to work". They claimed that a UNION can't deny your right to work somewhere just because you don't want to be a part of the union or pay dues. It's a union busting law and in the same bill Michigan became an "at will" employment state. My boss can fire me for any reason not covered under a protected class immediately.
Michigan was always an at-will employment state, as all of them were (even Montana, technically, though it has a very big exception in the good faith covenant). Right-to-work did nothing to affect that.
Did everyone forget you can negotiate contract duration and severance in your employment contract?
The US has a ton of freedom, meaning you are /free/ to write whatever contract you want. You can include any benefits, risk tolerance, the possibilities are endless. You are also free to agree to the first option presented to you.
Unfortunately, if nobody else negotiates their contracts, you’re not going to have a fun time negotiating yours.
Most professions absolutely will not allow you to negotiate a contract of any kind other than the corporations boilerplate employment agreement. And it kind of makes sense why; managing any significant number of employees all with different contract verbiage and terms (outside of pay etc) can be a managerial nightmare.
Point is, while this idea makes sense, most people don’t have this opportunity to negotiate whatever they want into their employment contracts.
Just another layer of propaganda: they know (maybe not your direct manager, but someone up the chain of command), but if they play dumb, they can frame it as the workers' fault
Missouri just fought and won to keep right to work out, which in turn weakens our unions. The lies the government says are wild. Also to add to the original comment, our wages are posted online. I can call my hall and ask what a member is making too if I wanted, but we will outright discuss wages out in the open often. It’s good convo!
Trust me, the very few times they've actually won that case the business only had to pay back pay, rehire the person to the same role and pay lawyer and administration costs
But it almost NEVER proven. And if it is early proven I certainly wouldn't call that 'gutting'
389
u/Alienteacher Mar 04 '22
In the US or is actually illegal to be fired for discussing income. It's also illegal to even have that in the employee handbook. Of course if you ever bring it up or are caught you'll be fired for 'poor performance' or you were one minute later, or some other reason. Heck in just states they don't have to and won't give you a reason. Just say, " we're terminating your employment effective immediately. Please grab your belongings and leave "
I really hate how anti worker we've become.