LMG forbids their workers from discussing wages, not just with outsiders but even amongst each other. Clarification needed.

[Omni-Owl]

EDIT: New information seemingly has come out from an ex-worter at LMG. It would be nice to hear what LMG has to say about that too:

-----

I WANT TO MAKE THIS VERY CLEAR: THIS IS NOT A CALL TO ACTION OR TO GET OUT THE PITCHFORKS AND TORCHES. I WANT CLARIFICATION AND UNDERSTANDING. THIS IS NOT AN ATTEMPT TO VILLIFY LINUS SEBASTIAN OR LMG AS A WHOLE. I ASSUME THERE WAS INTENTION BEHIND THIS THAT ISN'T MALICIOUS, EVEN IF THE PRACTICE IS GENERALLY FROWNED UPON.

So I just stumbled over this thread on /r/LinusTechTips:

In the thread, we get the following pictures from the latest WAN Show:

Spoiler

[Description of the picture: A picture of an LTT backpack with the big orange text next to it saying "Thanks, Anonymous!". Underneath the big orange text the question from a Merch Message reads: "As employers, what is your opinion on employees sharing their salaries? I live in an at-will state, and my boss told me that won't be tolerated because it spreads animosity when people aren't paid the". The message cuts off before the rest of the merch message can show. The picture is time stamped February 17th, 2023, 11:24 PM.]

 

Which gets answered like so:

Spoiler

[Description of the picture: The official staff LTT Logo appears on screen where the Merch Message was with a Reply for the previous message. It reads: "Reply @Anonymous! It is frowned upon here, not allowed. The picture is time stamped February 17th, 2023, 11:24 PM.]

 

Now this could have been a joke. Tone is impossible to tell from the text alone. But then OP of that thread also includes the following picture seemingly from the LMG Handbook that they received a copy of. The source of that handbook is, far as I can tell, unconfirmed though perhaps it is accessible somewhere and it was sent their way? I'd love clarification on this. The picture of the handbook in question is this:

Spoiler

[Description of the picture: A white page with several different points to it using the LMG Orange color for each title is shown. Each of the titles in sequence are: "34. Wages", "35. Employee Classifications", "36. Seniority", "37. Promotions" and finally "38. Progressive Discipline". The relevant point from the picture that OP of the reddit thread wants to point to is "34. Wages". Underneath the title it reads: "Wages are determined on a case-by-case basis and will be determined at the sole discrection of management. All wages, wage structures including any kind of bonus or commission or other, and wage adjustment information is considered highly confidential. It is not to be shared, discussed, or left in a place that can be seen by co-workers or third parties outside LMG."]

 

What I find jarring here is that even co-workers can't share it with each other. This to me sounds like suppressing information about wages internally. It is well-known that employees knowing what each person earns is often considered empowering the worker and while I don't want to accuse or call a "cancel mob" upon LMG or Linus and Co I do want clarification and understanding of the *why* for this decision. We have already heard Linus' stance on unions and other workers rights issues like it so this is troubling. I understand that legally you can do this according to Canadian law in your area (at least I think so from what I could read, I am not a lawyer). But given that you fight for what is right so often on the WAN Show and in your videos I, and I suspect others, would expect that the same amount of time and effort that goes into things like "Right to Repair" also go into "Worker's Rights". Even if you can't address this today, it would be good to see it talked about on the next WAN Show to understand the justification and keep pushing transparency as LMG seems to agree is the way to go.

[crazzp]

It says frowned upon, dont think they are legally not allowed to discuss.

 

Quantifying a person's work and time is extremely difficult. Even when 2 workers have the same title doesn't mean they should be paid equally; often it depends on the efficiency, quality and difficulty of the job. Compare Alex and Anthony, how would you actually fairly judge who gets more pay? It's a total grey area.

 

Thus I believe the recommendation is for workers not to discuss it to prevent workers coming to your office asking you to explain how is he/she paid $5 less than the other guy. Spoiler alert: it's difficult.

 

Of course, some companies abuse this rule to outright pay people less but LMG employees are talented. They would know how much they are worth and if they think they are unpaid, they can always ask for a payraise.

[Omni-Owl]

4 minutes ago, crazzp said:

It says frowned upon, dont think they are legally not allowed to discuss.

 

Quantifying a person's work and time is extremely difficult. Even when 2 workers have the same title doesn't mean they should be paid equally; often it depends on the efficiency, quality and difficulty of the job. Compare Alex and Anthony, how would you actually fairly judge who gets more pay? It's a total grey area.

 

Thus I believe the recommendation is for workers not to discuss it to prevent workers coming to your office asking you to explain how is he/she paid $5 less than the other guy. Spoiler alert: it's difficult.

 

Of course, some companies abuse this rule to outright pay people less but LMG employees are talented. They would know how much they are worth and if they think they are unpaid, they can always ask for a payraise.

Nah dude, it literally says in that handbook picture, assuming it's legitimate:
"Wages are determined on a case-by-case basis and will be determined at the sole discrection of management. All wages, wage structures including any kind of bonus or commission or other, and wage adjustment information is considered highly confidential. It is not to be shared, discussed, or left in a place that can be seen by co-workers or third parties outside LMG."

 

So "it's frowned upon" is only technically true. It's not actually allowed according to LMG, period.

 

Also Glassdoor reviews seems to point at "not that impressive" pay? But I can't confirm that.

[crazzp]

2 hours ago, Omni-Owl said:

Also Glassdoor reviews seems to point at "not that impressive" pay? But I can't confirm that.

Linus mentioned that their starting pay is on the lower side. But that's nothing wrong.

 

2 hours ago, Omni-Owl said:

All wages, wage structures including any kind of bonus or commission or other, and wage adjustment information is considered highly confidential. It is not to be shared, discussed, or left in a place that can be seen by co-workers or third parties outside LMG."

That may be true but that's their company policy. The question shouldn't be if they have such policy but why did they have such policy.

[Omni-Owl]

17 minutes ago, crazzp said:

Linus mentioned that their starting pay is on the lower side. But that's nothing wrong.

 

That may be true but that's their company policy. The question shouldn't be if they have such policy but why did they have such policy.

That is exactly what I asked for? Why is this the case? This seems very anti-workers rights.

[crazzp]

6 minutes ago, Omni-Owl said:

That is exactly what I asked for? Why is this the case? This seems very anti-workers rights.

I gave you one possible reason:

 

2 hours ago, crazzp said:

Quantifying a person's work and time is extremely difficult. Even when 2 workers have the same title doesn't mean they should be paid equally; often it depends on the efficiency, quality and difficulty of the job. Compare Alex and Anthony, how would you actually fairly judge who gets more pay? It's a total grey area.

 

Thus I believe the recommendation is for workers not to discuss it to prevent workers coming to your office asking you to explain how is he/she paid $5 less than the other guy. Spoiler alert: it's difficult.

 

[Andreas Lilja]

Not being allowed to discuss wages is illegal in Canada, and I'm pretty sure most US States. 

[Ripred]

No it's not, business is business and other people business is not yours nor yours there's. 

Want more money do better, and ask for it

[Ultraforce]

24 minutes ago, Andreas Lilja said:

Not being allowed to discuss wages is illegal in Canada, and I'm pretty sure most US States. 

LMG and I think all of their businesses are provincially regulated businesses and as such that would be a matter for the British Columbia Government and I believe technically they don't have any rules about employers restricting workers from discussing wages unlike the federal government where I believe the wage discussion ban only exists when related to picketting.

[Omni-Owl]

4 hours ago, crazzp said:

It says frowned upon, dont think they are legally not allowed to discuss.

 

Quantifying a person's work and time is extremely difficult. Even when 2 workers have the same title doesn't mean they should be paid equally; often it depends on the efficiency, quality and difficulty of the job. Compare Alex and Anthony, how would you actually fairly judge who gets more pay? It's a total grey area.

 

Thus I believe the recommendation is for workers not to discuss it to prevent workers coming to your office asking you to explain how is he/she paid $5 less than the other guy. Spoiler alert: it's difficult.

 

Of course, some companies abuse this rule to outright pay people less but LMG employees are talented. They would know how much they are worth and if they think they are unpaid, they can always ask for a payraise.

Okay I'll respond to the "possible reason" you gave, then.

 

"Quantifying a person's work and time is extremely difficult. Even when 2 workers have the same title doesn't mean they should be paid equally; often it depends on the efficiency, quality and difficulty of the job. Compare Alex and Anthony, how would you actually fairly judge who gets more pay? It's a total grey area."

 

This is irrelevant to the question "Why can't workers talk about wages with each other internally or at all?"

 

"Thus I believe the recommendation is for workers not to discuss it..."

It is not a recommendation. It's a rule. You are not "discouraged" from talking about it. You are contractually obligated not to talk about it. It would be reason for firing, the way it's been laid out in that handbook.

 

"...to prevent workers coming to your office asking you to explain how is he/she paid $5 less than the other guy. Spoiler alert: it's difficult."

This is not a good excuse. This is exactly what an exploitative environment is built upon. If you have to skirt around answering that question, then you are trying to cut costs in a way that is deeply unethical to your workers and makes an environment that isn't transparent nor fair.

 

"Of course, some companies abuse this rule to outright pay people less but LMG employees are talented."

This is a non-sequitar. The part that comes before "But they are talented" has nothing to do with them being talented.

 

"They would know how much they are worth and if they think they are unpaid, they can always ask for a payraise."

No, that's not how that works. There are plenty of hardworking people who don't know their worth at all, and it is also pure speculation that people can easily ask for a payraise if they believe they are paid unfairly. You know why? Because they don't know how they are paid compared to their peers. That's *exactly* why sharing wages is empowering the employee and why businesses that can forbid it can benefit from being opaque about it.

 

This is also a big reason why I want to understand this choice by LMG. I want the why.

 

1 hour ago, Andreas Lilja said:

Not being allowed to discuss wages is illegal in Canada, and I'm pretty sure most US States. 

It is handled by the local area. The area that LMG is in does not have any laws prohibiting the practice.

 

44 minutes ago, Ripred said:

No it's not, business is business and other people business is not yours nor yours there's. 

Want more money do better, and ask for it

That does not take into account that you have zero idea how you stack up against your peers in terms of pay.

With that being opaque, you stand so much weaker in pay negotiations. This is only advantageous for the employer, and massively disadventageous for the worker.

[Ripred]

6 minutes ago, Omni-Owl said:

That does not take into account that you have zero idea how you stack up against your peers in terms of pay.

With that being opaque, you stand so much weaker in pay negotiations. This is only advantageous for the employer, and massively disadventageous for the worker.

It's the opposite actually, everyone knowing each others pay is grossly unfair to the workers, the exceptional are forced to take a lower pay or go elsewhere because less skilled work in the same position drags it down and lower skilled workers are payed higher than they're worth, giving them unrealistic expectations, this is why majority of union companies put out mediocre work, anyone who thinks otherwise are typically a) low skilled work who've grown accustom to higher than their worth pay rate or b) CEOs that knows they'll be able to force lesser pay rates for top tier jobs, showing there share holders how much they saved in margins and get their gross bonus all because everyone wants to feel good for ten minutes patting themselves on the back over so-called equal pay

[Ripred]

23 minutes ago, Omni-Owl said:

That does not take into account that you have zero idea how you stack up against your peers in terms of pay.

With that being opaque, you stand so much weaker in pay negotiations. This is only advantageous for the employer, and massively disadventageous for the worker.

Further more, to simplify when water-cooler bob and no nothing Nancy are making the same money as you, what's your argument for higher pay?

[SansVarnic]

4 hours ago, Omni-Owl said:

So I just stumbled over this thread on /r/LinusTechTips:

This photo destroys your whole argument. Wages can be discussed, contractual or salary cannot. I think that covers it.

 

[Omni-Owl]

1 hour ago, Ripred said:

It's the opposite actually, everyone knowing each others pay is grossly unfair to the workers, the exceptional are forced to take a lower pay or go elsewhere because less skilled work in the same position drags it down and lower skilled workers are payed higher than they're worth, giving them unrealistic expectations, this is why majority of union companies put out mediocre work, anyone who thinks otherwise are typically a) low skilled work who've grown accustom to higher than their worth pay rate or b) CEOs that knows they'll be able to force lesser pay rates for top tier jobs, showing there share holders how much they saved in margins and get their gross bonus all because everyone wants to feel good for ten minutes patting themselves on the back over so-called equal pay

Factually wrong about this. It does in fact not make it unfair to the workers. It informs them on how to get their fair pay for the work they do.

As I live in a country that has an over abundance of unions, what you say is simply not true.

 

Though Union Busting tactics have been efficient for a while now in giving the false impression you preach.

 

1 hour ago, SansVarnic said:

This photo destroys your whole argument. Wages can be discussed, contractual or salary cannot. I think that covers it.

 

What are you talking about? There are three images on the post. According to the "Wages" section it clearly states:

"Wages are determined on a case-by-case basis and will be determined at the sole discrection of management. All wages, wage structures including any kind of bonus or commission or other, and wage adjustment information is considered highly confidential. It is not to be shared, discussed, or left in a place that can be seen by co-workers or third parties outside LMG."

So can't share with co-workers, can't share with parties outside of LMG. I have no idea what you are referring to. It explicitly states that Wages cannot be talked about, at all. In no uncertain terms.

[airborne spoon]

My question is is that legal up there in America's hat?

 

Well this turned into a soapbox, sorry. Also join the military the pay is excellent just learn how to balance a budget.

 

In the US it's federal law that wages can be discussed amongst workers and anyone regardless of any "policy" the business has.

 

I would think something like this would be a common law in any first world country. Like the Magnuson–Moss Warranty Act that is the same in the US as it is in Canada and from what I can tell it's the same for the EU as well.

 

This is why I like working for the federal government anyone can see how much I make and that's the way it should be (E7, 19 years). I DGAF, also it allows for people to see how I am able to live the extravagant lifestyle I have. I should be able to Google random business x, worker title x pay is this.

 

Pay transparency should be a lot more common that it currently is. I mean I don't care how much the Jones' nextdoor make to live like that but if I did I'd know they were drowning in debt because they don't get paid shot

 

Now you can make the argument that people in the same position one may get paid more than the other and in the civilian world that makes sense based on stuff like Jane has more responsibility than Dave type of situations. But in the army we just put people with more rank in higher positions of authority thus means Susan makes more than Johnny because she is a Staff Sergeant and Johnny is a Sergeant. Regardless people should be allowed to discuss their pay that way they can understand why they make less than someone else and can work to show they should be that person's peer in pay.

 

Also sometimes peers will have different workloads. Like I currently have a very chill position that doesn't require a hell of a lot of work, and I get to drive around and just talk to people and help solve their problems all day. But some other SFC (peers) have a large workload and are constantly working hard. However, the majority of the time the guy that's working harder, usually is short staffed or is very bad at delegating tasks. Even in all the other positions I've held in the last 20 years I will delegate that way the workload is separated according to rank/position and I mean plenty of time since some work that was several steps below my grade but it's good to be in the trenches with the people you are in charge of. It keeps you grounded and up to snuff on the basics and also shows your subordinates that you know what you're talking about when you say to do something a certain way.

[Omni-Owl]

15 minutes ago, airborne spoon said:

My question is is that legal up there in America's hat?

 

Well this turned into a soapbox, sorry. Also join the military the pay is excellent just learn how to balance a budget.

 

In the US it's federal law that wages can be discussed amongst workers and anyone regardless of any "policy" the business has.

 

I would think something like this would be a common law in any first world country. Like the Magnuson–Moss Warranty Act that is the same in the US as it is in Canada and from what I can tell it's the same for the EU as well.

 

This is why I like working for the federal government anyone can see how much I make and that's the way it should be (E7, 19 years). I DGAF, also it allows for people to see how I am able to live the extravagant lifestyle I have. I should be able to Google random business x, worker title x pay is this.

 

Pay transparency should be a lot more common that it currently is. I mean I don't care how much the Jones' nextdoor make to live like that but if I did I'd know they were drowning in debt because they don't get paid shot

 

Now you can make the argument that people in the same position one may get paid more than the other and in the civilian world that makes sense based on stuff like Jane has more responsibility than Dave type of situations. But in the army we just put people with more rank in higher positions of authority thus means Susan makes more than Johnny because she is a Staff Sergeant and Johnny is a Sergeant. Regardless people should be allowed to discuss their pay that way they can understand why they make less than someone else and can work to show they should be that person's peer in pay.

 

Also sometimes peers will have different workloads. Like I currently have a very chill position that doesn't require a hell of a lot of work, and I get to drive around and just talk to people and help solve their problems all day. But some other SFC (peers) have a large workload and are constantly working hard. However, the majority of the time the guy that's working harder, usually is short staffed or is very bad at delegating tasks. Even in all the other positions I've held in the last 20 years I will delegate that way the workload is separated according to rank/position and I mean plenty of time since some work that was several steps below my grade but it's good to be in the trenches with the people you are in charge of. It keeps you grounded and up to snuff on the basics and also shows your subordinates that you know what you're talking about when you say to do something a certain way.

The problem is that the area LMG is in is supposedly covered by British Columbia meaning there are no protections in place for workers to have the right to discuss wages as would be the case in some other areas of Canada.

[Omni-Owl]

New information has come out from an, allegedly, ex-employee at LMG. I have added it to the top post, but here it is:

https://www.reddit.com/r/LinusTechTips/comments/115ucm3/ltt_isnt_a_great_employer_has_a_lot_of_antilabour/

[jeo]

55 minutes ago, Ripred said:

It's the opposite actually, everyone knowing each others pay is grossly unfair to the workers.

Almost all academic research would say you are completely incorrect. One of the biggest finding on compensation transparency is that it help to remove the gender pay gap. You can check out the following studies:

https://www.nber.org/papers/w25834

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41562-022-01288-9

https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/0886368719833215?journalCode=cbrb

https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3682949

 

The core issue is asymmetry of information, if you don't know your are being underpaid when compared to your peer, you will not be able to take corrective action.

 

Fundamentally if you believe in fairness you also have to believe in transparency.

I would be happy to provide more details if you would find it helpful!

 

[Omni-Owl]

3 minutes ago, jeo said:

Almost all academic research would say you are completely incorrect. One of the biggest finding on compensation transparency is that it help to remove the gender pay gap. You can check out the following studies:

https://www.nber.org/papers/w25834

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41562-022-01288-9

https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/0886368719833215?journalCode=cbrb

https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3682949

 

The core issue is asymmetry of information, if you don't know your are being underpaid when compared to your peer, you will not be able to take corrective action.

 

Fundamentally if you believe in fairness you also have to believe in transparency.

I would be happy to provide more details if you would find it helpful!

 

Thank you. It's incredible how bad of a take it is that transparency somehow is unfair to the worker.

[jeo]

7 minutes ago, Omni-Owl said:

Thank you. It's incredible how bad of a take it is that transparency somehow is unfair to the worker.

Lol, yeah it is a really bad take.

That being said I don't think LMG is acting with malicious intent. My best guess is they are using boilerplate language which is designed to provide the maximum amount of protection and benefit to the employer.

It should be a really easy fix for them to remove the offending text, and let the staff know it is their choice to share comparison information and they should not feel pressure one way or the other.

 

However, I would be extremely disappointed in LMG management if they took punitive action against staff for sharing comp info in the past.

[SansVarnic]

1 hour ago, Omni-Owl said:

What are you talking about? There are three images on the post. According to the "Wages" section it clearly states:

"Wages are determined on a case-by-case basis and will be determined at the sole discrection of management. All wages, wage structures including any kind of bonus or commission or other, and wage adjustment information is considered highly confidential. It is not to be shared, discussed, or left in a place that can be seen by co-workers or third parties outside LMG."

So can't share with co-workers, can't share with parties outside of LMG. I have no idea what you are referring to. It explicitly states that Wages cannot be talked about, at all. In no uncertain terms.

Look at the photo I quoted and the phrase in that photo.  Its fairly straight forward.

Wages and Salaries are not the same thing, at least not in N. America.

 

Under contractual salary you cannot chat about your salary, which is how a salary works.

Wages or in other words, hourly pay does not have the same restrictions. 

 

It seems your entire argument and position on this non-issue is a lack understanding of what a wage is and what a salary is. Contract pay is a salary. Both the employer and the employe agree on pay and both sign that agreement and the employee receives the salary.  The employee is made fully aware of the contract up front. There really is no mistake or misunderstanding in this, the employee cannot complain about this as they agree to the terms at the time of their employment. Breaching the contract breaches the employment, simple.

If LMG paid wages or in other words hourly pay, then employees are not under contract pay and can be open with what they make in discussion. This is as simple as I can explain this.

 

In the US (at least) it is required for a salary employee to initial each page of a salary agreement to show they have both read and agreed to the conditions of the contract. I am fairly certain the same or similar is true for Canadians (correct me if I am wrong). HR is required to read through the contract page by page with the potential employee. Everything is pretty transparent. That handbook is almost as hard evidence you need to show that LMG is open and transparent with their employees. 

*edit to add: if an employee does not read the contract or the handbook it would be the lack of due diligence on the part of the employee not LMG to be fully understood of the conditions laid out. Sad really.

 

Seems to me there is no case to be made against LMG on this subject. Also, this is not the first time LMG has been accused of this, and the practice is very common to protect the employer and employee. People need to stop watching the very misinformed and so-called tiktok pay (non)experts.

 

 

27 minutes ago, Omni-Owl said:

New information has come out from an, allegedly, ex-employee at LMG. I have added it to the top post, but here it is:

https://www.reddit.com/r/LinusTechTips/comments/115ucm3/ltt_isnt_a_great_employer_has_a_lot_of_antilabour/

This is funny to read tbh.

That is from an employee that was obviously at the bottom of the totem with no understanding of how companies work. Jealous and entitled probably. I have delt with employees like this from my previous job. Fired a few like them as well, had no clue, even accused me of making more than I did but that was ok, I showed them the door and told them they had a choice, grow up and educate themselves or leave. No need to have people jumping to a conclusion with nothing to back it up.

Edited February 19, 2023 by SansVarnic

[jeo]

8 minutes ago, SansVarnic said:

Under contractual salary you cannot chat about your salary, which is how a salary works.

Wages or in other words, hourly pay does not have the same restrictions.

 

I don't think I fully understand what you are saying and how it relate to pay transparency (the larger topic at hand).

My understanding is wages are paid hourly and a salary is paid annual (regardless of the hours worked). I am not seeing how this impact the ability of the staff to compare their comps?

 

I am be missing something.

[Omni-Owl]

15 minutes ago, SansVarnic said:

Look at the photo I quoted and the phrase in that photo.  Its fairly straight forward.

Wages and Salaries are not the same thing, at least not in N. America.

 

Under contractual salary you cannot chat about your salary, which is how a salary works.

Wages or in other words, hourly pay does not have the same restrictions. 

 

It seems your entire argument and position on this non-issue is a lack understanding of what a wage is and what a salary is. Contract pay is a salary. Both the employer and the employe agree on pay and both sign that agreement and the employee receives the salary.  The employee is made fully aware of the contract up front. There really is no mistake or misunderstanding in this, the employee cannot complain about this as they agree to the terms at the time of their employment. Breaching the contract breaches the employment, simple.

If LMG paid wages or in other words hourly pay, then employees are not under contract pay and can be open with what they make in discussion. This is as simple as I can explain this.

 

In the US (at least) it is required for a salary employee to initial each page of a salary agreement to show they have both read and agreed to the conditions of the contract. I am fairly certain the same or similar is true for Canadians (correct me if I am wrong). HR is required to read through the contract page by page with the potential employee. Everything is pretty transparent. That handbook is almost as hard evidence you need to show that LMG is open and transparent with their employees. 

*edit to add: if an employee does not read the contract or the handbook it would be the lack of due diligence on the part of the employee not LMG to be fully understood of the conditions laid out. Sad really.

 

Seems to me there is no case to be made against LMG on this subject. Also, this is not the first time LMG has been accused of this, and the practice is very common to protect the employer and employee. People need to stop watching the very misinformed and so-called tiktok pay (non)experts.

"Look at the photo I quoted"

 

There is no photo. It quoted my entire post. I have no idea what you are talking about. There has to be some kind of misunderstanding here. You keep talking about salary when at no point did I mention salary. Not in my post. Not in the handbook picture that I included. Not in any of the messages I posted in this thread. In fact, you are the only person here so far who is using the word "salary" when the word here is clearly "wages". I don't understand why you are focusing on the distinction when that isn't what this thread is even about.

 

"If LMG paid wages or in other words hourly pay, then employees are not under contract pay and can be open with what they make in discussion. This is as simple as I can explain this."

 

This *directly* contradicts the handbook text which *explicitly* states that you cannot talk about wages. Like this is indisputable.

 

"Seems to me there is no case to be made against LMG on this subject. Also, this is not the first time LMG has been accused of this, and the practice is very common to protect the employer and employee. People need to stop watching the very misinformed and so-called tiktok pay (non)experts."

 

From what I read here, it feels like I'm being talked down to for no reason when what you bring up is not at all what I'm talking about. Besides, I don't even have tiktok. I have no clue what you even mean with "so-called tiktok pay (non)experts". Talk to me like a person. Not like I'm some caricature of an internet archetype you disagree with out of principle.

[jeo]

13 minutes ago, SansVarnic said:

Seems to me there is no case to be made against LMG on this subject. Also, this is not the first time LMG has been accused of this, and the practice is very common to protect the employer and employee. People need to stop watching the very misinformed and so-called tiktok pay (non)experts.

 

In the US there is federal legislation which protects the right of a worker to discuss their pay. I am pretty sure there are no equivalency federal laws in Canada which do the same thing. I know the province of Ontario has a law which protect pay transparency, but I have no idea where BC stands.

 

But I think this peoples feeling go beyond what the laws say, and instead are based on what they feel is right and fair.

[SansVarnic]

On 2/18/2023 at 11:57 PM, jeo said:

 

I don't think I fully understand what you are saying and how it relate to pay transparency (the larger topic at hand).

My understanding is wages are paid hourly and a salary is paid annual (regardless of the hours worked). I am not seeing how this impact the ability of the staff to compare their comps?

 

I am be missing something.

Salary is not paid annually, it's set at an annual rate. You still get paid weekly but the check each week is the same (as you said correctly regardless of the number of hours worked). It's set by contract. Example 50k a year divide 52 weeks you get paid 961.54 per check until your review and the salary is renegotiated to a new rate for that year based on your performance.

Hourly is just that, you get paid weekly or bi-weekly based on the number of hours you work, it's not set by a specific contract.

 

On 2/19/2023 at 12:00 AM, Omni-Owl said:

"Look at the photo I quoted"

 

There is no photo. It quoted my entire post. I have no idea what you are talking about. There has to be some kind of misunderstanding here. You keep talking about salary when at no point did I mention salary. Not in my post. Not in the handbook picture that I included. Not in any of the messages I posted in this thread. In fact, you are the only person here so far who is using the word "salary" when the word here is clearly "wages". I don't understand why you are focusing on the distinction when that isn't what this thread is even about.

 

"If LMG paid wages or in other words hourly pay, then employees are not under contract pay and can be open with what they make in discussion. This is as simple as I can explain this."

 

This *directly* contradicts the handbook text which *explicitly* states that you cannot talk about wages. Like this is indisputable.

 

"Seems to me there is no case to be made against LMG on this subject. Also, this is not the first time LMG has been accused of this, and the practice is very common to protect the employer and employee. People need to stop watching the very misinformed and so-called tiktok pay (non)experts."

 

From what I read here, it feels like I'm being talked down to for no reason when what you bring up is not at all what I'm talking about. Besides, I don't even have tiktok. I have no clue what you even mean with "so-called tiktok pay (non)experts". Talk to me like a person. Not because you think I'm some caricature of an internet archetype you disagree with out of principle.

 

"Discussing wages is a worker's right"  <- and as I said this is correct, discussing a wage is a right but only in countries where it's a right.

 

So, I will go further, you're taking this too literally. LMG uses the words wage in reference to confidentiality and to me that means there is or may be a contract involved. The way they word that paragraph tells me they use contractual employment (I do not know this for a fact though). It is possible to pay a salary based on hourly versus annual rates, but it's seldom used anymore. But besides that, the wording (legalese) tells me it's under contract (if I am wrong then I am wrong) But from that is what I get from that paragraph.

If LMG uses contracts for employment, then yes, they can dictate whether or not a wage/salary can and or cannot be discussed.

Canadian jargon vs US jargon., not always the same.

 

On 2/19/2023 at 12:05 AM, jeo said:

 

In the US there is federal legislation which protects the right of a worker to discuss their pay. I am pretty sure there are no equivalency federal laws in Canada which do the same thing. I know the province of Ontario has a law which protect pay transparency, but I have no idea where BC stands.

This is correct, but there is a stipulation, the employee may disclose their wage if they choose too, but they cannot be asked to do so or encouraged to do so by another employee as it can present a situation to reveal privacy intrusion by coercion, stupid I know but it's there. HR rules and privacy rules are becoming more of a headache each day. I am so glad I am no longer a c level exec...

 

I am no expert on Canadian law of course, why mentioned "I am fairly certain the same or similar is true for Canadians (correct me if I am wrong)". I don't purport to know but I expect it to be similar.

On 2/19/2023 at 12:05 AM, jeo said:

But I think this peoples feeling go beyond what the laws say, and instead are based on what they feel is right and fair.

And there lies the fallacy in the argument. What is versus what feels based on very circumstantial information.

 

What I get from this and the reddit post is someone is trying their best to make LMG look worse than they really are because they got their feeling hurt for being either a) poor employee or b) the job wasn't what they expected it to be. They won't be the last and from my example in my last comment, there are plenty more sadly ignorant people in the work force just like them. Unless hard evidence is presented [actual empirical evidence] I'm not sure I want to continue commenting on this topic. (I may or may not contiue to reply, still deciding)

 

It is fairly clear to me what is going on here. I've been on the top rung of the ladder at one point, and I will tell you even after stepping down from up there I still see it plenty. The whole thing is a sad turn of events. The older I get the more of the entitlement I see, and this is no exception from any other. The fact you have allowed yourself to fall for this is not funny, but I wish you could understand what I am telling you. You are so determined to find that crack in LMG's armor for some reason and turn Linus into something he certainly doesn't appear to be, at least you fighting a battle on someone else behalf without having the ful picture and for you that some big steps above what you can prove to hold any fair amount of water, at this time.

And to be clear I am no Linus Fanboy, I am just telling it as i see it, I have no bias towards Linus or against, I am actually fairly neutral about him. I have been close enough to his shoes to understand this situation from both sides. Unless the evidence is presented, I will continue to be warry of the claim.