U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Work and Employment
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 04-09-2014, 11:41 AM
 
Location: Vermont
10,309 posts, read 11,230,213 times
Reputation: 14194

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mack Knife View Post
You are not a contractor and contractors can't big against your salary and if they win, get you fired.

You missed the point.

Contractor A bids
Contractor B intends to bid.

Contractor B solicits salary information from Contractor A's employees. Those employees divulge their salaries to Contractor B. Contractor B now has the labor costs for Contractor A.

Contractor B now bids a lower price than they would have because they know the labor costs for contractor A.

Once the contract is let and someone wins it, then who cares but often contractors in a contract are also bidding on new contracts.

Maybe you don't see the issue but there was a reason it was put into the executive order. There was an easier way to obtain pay equality for women and men. This only created other problems.
This isn't the point at all. Why would an employee of Company A tell Company B what they're making?

The point is that businesses use prohibitions on disclosing salary as a way to prevent their own employees from comparing their salaries and then agitating for increases because they conclude they are underpaid. As at least one of the other posters pointed out, this is what kept Lillie Ledbetter from discovering that she had been systematically underpaid for many years.

This doesn't force people to disclose their pay to anyone, or enable Employee A to find out what Employee B is making if Employee B doesn't want to tell, but it protects employees from being fired or otherwise disciplined for trying to get paid more based on what other employees doing the same job are making.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 04-09-2014, 12:09 PM
 
Location: USA
7,478 posts, read 5,793,513 times
Reputation: 12322
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mack Knife View Post
You are not a contractor and contractors can't big against your salary and if they win, get you fired.

You missed the point.

Contractor A bids
Contractor B intends to bid.

Contractor B solicits salary information from Contractor A's employees. Those employees divulge their salaries to Contractor B. Contractor B now has the labor costs for Contractor A.

Contractor B now bids a lower price than they would have because they know the labor costs for contractor A.

Once the contract is let and someone wins it, then who cares but often contractors in a contract are also bidding on new contracts.

Maybe you don't see the issue but there was a reason it was put into the executive order. There was an easier way to obtain pay equality for women and men. This only created other problems.
Eh.... I'm not seeing this as a huge issue since either Company B succeeds at a lower price or they fail and thus don't get future bids.

I also don't see why the workers should be targeted for firing - target the companies that grossly underbid contracts. Solve the problem at it's source vs. trying to nail somebody for what should be a harmless action. I mean, heck, it's not as if one can't dig up close-enough salary info on a lot of government contractors without even asking anyone specifically for their exact pay.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-09-2014, 12:16 PM
 
1,158 posts, read 1,050,491 times
Reputation: 846
Quote:
Originally Posted by jackmccullough View Post
This isn't the point at all. Why would an employee of Company A tell Company B what they're making?

The point is that businesses use prohibitions on disclosing salary as a way to prevent their own employees from comparing their salaries and then agitating for increases because they conclude they are underpaid. As at least one of the other posters pointed out, this is what kept Lillie Ledbetter from discovering that she had been systematically underpaid for many years.

This doesn't force people to disclose their pay to anyone, or enable Employee A to find out what Employee B is making if Employee B doesn't want to tell, but it protects employees from being fired or otherwise disciplined for trying to get paid more based on what other employees doing the same job are making.
^^^ This

Management sometimes doesn't like employees talking to each other.

This would all be solved if companies had transparent pay grades and performance goals
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-09-2014, 12:16 PM
 
10,026 posts, read 9,243,433 times
Reputation: 5896
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mnseca View Post
Sorry, but this is explicitly about eliminating unfair gender pay disparity. Since I actually worked for a contractor and had that very prohibition, only to discover after a couple of years that ALL women were making less than ALL men, at every level, (i.e. in my department there were two men and two women - the men had bachelor's degrees and no significant prior experience and the women had master's and a couple of years of relevant experience, and after quitting I found out that both men were making 7-10K more than both of us). I later found out from a former manager that paying men more was the actual, unwritten (but not unstated) policy. That prohibition was nothing but a way for a bunch of fat old boys to revel in their discrimination while knowing they could not be held accountable.
I dealt with this too. I was paid less than my male coworkers, though I had more experience and education. Their reasoning was because I was a woman I would just quit and have babies while the men would support a family. I never had babies but if I had, I never would have quit.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-09-2014, 12:21 PM
 
Location: Eureka CA
8,260 posts, read 11,124,485 times
Reputation: 12580
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mack Knife View Post
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/04/09/us...-pay.html?_r=0

I am specifically referring to the prohibition that contractors who have contracts with the Federal government can't take action against employees who discuss their salaries.

At first glance that would seem to be a good thing. Now think about this:

What is a major factor in the cost of doing business? Labor. If salaries are discussed, a larger more wealthy company can determine the labor costs of smaller or less wealthy companies and under bid for contracts.

The individual salaries are a very important source of information in an anti-competitive contracting environment. It is very easy for the wealthier company to cut costs to win contracts if they know the salaries the competition must pay for the same work.

This isn't about one family member telling another who much they are paid, it is about fairness in contracting.

This Executive order is nothing more than a veiled offering to those who can obtain the salary information of competitors simply by asking whereas before, the information could only be given out by violating company policies.

What good is there in this?
I don't see any problem at all.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-09-2014, 12:24 PM
 
1,158 posts, read 1,050,491 times
Reputation: 846
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rambler123 View Post
Eh.... I'm not seeing this as a huge issue since either Company B succeeds at a lower price or they fail and thus don't get future bids.

I also don't see why the workers should be targeted for firing - target the companies that grossly underbid contracts. Solve the problem at it's source vs. trying to nail somebody for what should be a harmless action. I mean, heck, it's not as if one can't dig up close-enough salary info on a lot of government contractors without even asking anyone specifically for their exact pay.
I agree.

It's simple economics. Company B couldn't keep underbidding contracts by cutting corners on labor and expect to keep senior employees. Obviously, with a mass voluntary exodus talent, quality would slip. The most successful companies would find the sweet spot of keeping good employees and finding the best price.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-09-2014, 06:43 PM
 
4,129 posts, read 4,144,593 times
Reputation: 2312
Quote:
Originally Posted by nicet4 View Post
Depends, we do some government work and it's easy to see what each and every worker makes right down to the penny.

For example we have a project at Hunter Field in Savannah and all you need to do is refer to the Davis-Bacon Wages for the county and

SFGA0669-001 07/01/2013
Rates Fringes
SPRINKLER FITTER (Fire
Sprinklers)......................$ 25.99 15.87

That totals $41.86/hour for every employee.

I am glad Obama is looking out for poor downtrodden workers like ours, trying to make it on $41.86/hr is really tough around here.

Quick crash course on how Davis-Bacon works.

The wage rate of $25.99 is non-negotiable. On top of the hourly wage I must pay for fringe benefits totaling $15.87/hr either in cash or actual benefit.

Let's say I pay 100% of an employees health insurance for his family which costs $1,200/mo.

$1.200*12=$14,400.

$14,400/2000 hrs = $7.20/hour. I get to subtract $7.20 from the $15,87 so I pay cash for $8.67/hr which means the employee gets a pay cut to $34.66.

On overtime I pay time and a half on only the $25.99, fringe benefits are not subject to being paid at time and a half rates.

Payroll reports are signed and notarized so one does not lie.

All pay rates are posted on job sites so any employee can immediately see what he should be paid.
At the same point however prevailing wages have limits. The rate between southern Ma near RI and Boston is a 15% difference. That's a pretty significant difference without even going out of state and this is still dealing with unions. Cost of living can vary dramatically domestically even within a state. Within a 20 minute drive I can go from seeing one million dollar hours down to less than 100k in value.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-09-2014, 07:17 PM
 
1,305 posts, read 1,319,780 times
Reputation: 1364
Is this another thread to find a reason to hate Obama?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Work and Employment
Similar Threads
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2019, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top