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

[abit-sean]

1 minute ago, starsmine said:

The ONLY issue open discussing pay is an issue for management having to explain why they decided to fuck over a worker and under pay them. Its almost like this has been gone over in this thread already in the first few pages.

"caused so many problems" my ass. 

If you agree, that they should not be punished, take it out of the handbook. 

Maybe you're right. I bet if it was removed from the handbook you would probably find most would still avoid discussing pay anyway.

 

It's almost never about under paying people, but more the perception of being under payed. But either way I'm done. I'm too old to care. Peace be with you.

[LAwLz]

On 3/20/2023 at 3:49 PM, abit-sean said:

From my point of view and working in the UK, transparency has never worked. Personally I wouldn't want my salary and bonuses shared amongst my co-workers. Its a private contract between myself and my employer. Being open does not work for everyone and saying it does without knowing what LMG employees think is a bit of a pointless argument.

I think it is important to note two things here.

1) This is not about forcing employees to reveal their salaries. It's about giving employees the option to do so if they so desire.

It's important to understand that few if any people upset with this revelation are demanding that everyone reveal their wages. They are against the idea and practice of forbidding people from revealing it if they want to.

 

2) According to the UK Equality Act 2010, in the UK you are free to discuss your wage in the UK regardless of what your employee says. LMG would not be allowed to do what they are doing if they were based in the UK. In the UK it is referred to as a "pay secrecy clause" and it was deemed unenforceable because it lead to discrimination.

 

 

Your post is missing the issue. This is like if ice cream was banned and people said "I want to be able to eat ice cream if I want to!" and your response was "we should not force feed everyone ice cream. I don't like ice cream so why should anyone else be able to eat it?".

It's about choice and freedom. It's about giving employees the options to discuss and compare IF they want to. Even if no employee wants to discuss their wages it's still bad to remove that option from everyone.

[dalekphalm]

3 hours ago, LAwLz said:

I think it is important to note two things here.

1) This is not about forcing employees to reveal their salaries. It's about giving employees the option to do so if they so desire.

It's important to understand that few if any people upset with this revelation are demanding that everyone reveal their wages. They are against the idea and practice of forbidding people from revealing it if they want to.

 

2) According to the UK Equality Act 2010, in the UK you are free to discuss your wage in the UK regardless of what your employee says. LMG would not be allowed to do what they are doing if they were based in the UK. In the UK it is referred to as a "pay secrecy clause" and it was deemed unenforceable because it lead to discrimination.

 

 

Your post is missing the issue. This is like if ice cream was banned and people said "I want to be able to eat ice cream if I want to!" and your response was "we should not force feed everyone ice cream. I don't like ice cream so why should anyone else be able to eat it?".

It's about choice and freedom. It's about giving employees the options to discuss and compare IF they want to. Even if no employee wants to discuss their wages it's still bad to remove that option from everyone.

Exactly. This sums it up nicely.

 

No regulation (unless it's anti-worker) would FORCE an employee to disclose their salary to their coworkers or anyone else they didn't want to. That's insane and a real big misread of the situation.

 

But that employee should have the right to decide themselves if they wish to tell anyone their salary.

[Some Random Canuck]

Complacency of horrible labor practices is how we remain with horrible labor practices.

Forbidding wage discussion is a horrible practice. Period. There are no ifs no buts no what-ifs.
The UK and Canada are not comparable. Not even in the slightest.

Averages per employer:
UK covers a maternity leave of 50 weeks; Canada covers like 17.
UK has an average of 6 sick days per employee, Canada has 3-5.
UK jobs offer 5-6 weeks of paid vacation per year, Canada 1.5-3 weeks.
UK employees have the right to discuss their salaries, Canada doesn't cover that right.

They're not comparable. We're way closer to the US than anyone wants to admit. But with substantially lower salaries. That's why there's so many American tech companies in the US. We're cheap exploitable labor.

So, we need to fight for every tidbit we can get and denounce shitty practices.

Which is what I'll keep doing. It's a horrible practice and we need to keep pushing.

[crazzp]

1 hour ago, Some Random Canuck said:

UK covers a maternity leave of 50 weeks; Canada covers like 17.
UK has an average of 6 sick days per employee, Canada has 3-5.
UK jobs offer 5-6 weeks of paid vacation per year, Canada 1.5-3 weeks.

You sound like the higher these numbers are the better the country is. Sure it is good for the employees to have to be paid doing zero work but how good is it for the economy? Maybe that's why GBP is much weaker now vs USD. 

[Erioch]

10 hours ago, dalekphalm said:

No regulation (unless it's anti-worker) would FORCE an employee to disclose their salary to their coworkers or anyone else they didn't want to.

I have a government job and all of our salaries are publicly knowledge.  We don't get to say no.

 

That said, I do think it's extremely anti-worker to say they aren't allowed to disclose their wages.  That just screams that they're hiding something.

[DeerDK]

2 hours ago, crazzp said:

You sound like the higher these numbers are the better the country is. Sure it is good for the employees to have to be paid doing zero work but how good is it for the economy? Maybe that's why GBP is much weaker now vs USD. 

Or maybe all the brexit shenanigans may play a part. Economy is a complex thing and putting that much emphasis on one aspect seems a little one sided. 

Many European countries have better vacation and maternaty conditions for the workers than the US. Is the Euro significantly weaker than the USD. 

And what does the "strength" of the currency even say about the overall conditions of a country's economy? 

 

Further more, what good is a strong USD to the average employee if they can't get time off to spend with their families? 

 

Follow up question: IS the USD much stronger than the GBP?

[crazzp]

1 hour ago, DeerDK said:

 Economy is a complex thing and putting that much emphasis on one aspect seems a little one sided. 

Further more, what good is a strong USD to the average employee if they can't get time off to spend with their families? 

Of course I'm not saying more holidays = weaker currency. My point to the person I'm replying to: bringing up number of vacation/leave days is pretty pointless. I would love to have lots of paid leave but is it really good for the country? 

1 hour ago, DeerDK said:

Follow up question: IS the USD much stronger than the GBP?

Well, just ask those people who bought tech stuff who are seeing same exact literal price number with a different currency symbol. 

[DeerDK]

16 minutes ago, crazzp said:

Of course I'm not saying more holidays = weaker currency. My point to the person I'm replying to: bringing up number of vacation/leave days is pretty pointless. I would love to have lots of paid leave but is it really good for the country? ...

As the country is the people, I'd say it is  Also, happy workers are productive workers, but we are entering a political discussion and if I recall correctly thats against the forum rules.

I'd say though, as a Dane, we are doing pretty well with high taxes, pretty adequate public services and good vacation/parental leave. Could we output more if we worked more, possibly, but as a nation of people, the wellbeing of the people should very much be taken into consideration alongside the illusive beast "the economy". Do we serve it, or does it serve us?

16 minutes ago, crazzp said:

...

Well, just ask those people who bought tech stuff who are seeing same exact literal price number with a different currency symbol. 

Have you included sales tax as well as transportation costs in these numbers?
Speaking as a citizen of a country with 25% flat sales tax and with sales tax always included on the price lable.

[Seccedonien]

On 3/20/2023 at 4:08 PM, abit-sean said:

I agree they shouldn't be punished but I also agree employees shouldn't be openly discussing pay. I've seen it cause so many problems in the past.

I personally only see it cause problems if people are not paid equally for the same work or at least you can't motivate the difference in pay properly. Of course there always will be people who throw a tantrum if someone else gets paid more but then it is on them to explain why they deserve the same pay, if they have a fair point then it's on the employer and if they don't have a valid reason because that other person does more/has more responsibility/does their job better overall I don't see why there would be a problem besides someone being mad and acting like a child.

[Omni-Owl]

14 hours ago, crazzp said:

You sound like the higher these numbers are the better the country is. Sure it is good for the employees to have to be paid doing zero work but how good is it for the economy? Maybe that's why GBP is much weaker now vs USD. 

You can hardly compare when the USD has special status as the worlds reserve. They get to do things other fiat money simply does not get to do.

[Some Random Canuck]

17 hours ago, crazzp said:

You sound like the higher these numbers are the better the country is. Sure it is good for the employees to have to be paid doing zero work but how good is it for the economy? Maybe that's why GBP is much weaker now vs USD. 

You... You realize Canada is CAD not USD, right? Lol.
Also, GBP is stronger than USD... 

This has to be a troll at this point. I don't see the point in trolling employer work conditions though.

[TargetDron3]

On 2/18/2023 at 8:05 PM, Omni-Owl said:

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

You don't have a right to work for LMG. If you don't like their rules/salary structure go somewhere else. 

I've been working for 30 years and since my first job I've been told don't talk about salary with co-workers. 

Also people lie. Are you going to ask to see people's pay stub to verify what they tell you they make?  

Salary has always, in my experience, been based on your value to the business. If you don't like what they think you are worth, you can negotiate or go somewhere else to see if your can earn what you think you are worth. Business are not in business to create jobs and have well paying jobs with good benefits. Those just happen to be ways to attract better workers. 

[Omni-Owl]

20 hours ago, TargetDron3 said:

You don't have a right to work for LMG.

Already your premise for your argument is off to a bad start. No one is arguing it's a right to work for LMG. Literally no one.

20 hours ago, TargetDron3 said:

I've been working for 30 years and since my first job I've been told don't talk about salary with co-workers.

Well sorry to hear that. It's incredibly anti-worker and literally *only* benefits shady employers. I have worked for a while now too and everywhere I go it's not only legal it's also not weird to talk about pay.

20 hours ago, TargetDron3 said:

Also people lie. Are you going to ask to see people's pay stub to verify what they tell you they make? 

Sure people lie. I wouldn't ask for a pay stub. I'd go ask HR if I had suspicions that they lie. But employers are also people and they also can lie when they tell you what you get paid is fair or the same as others in your position

20 hours ago, TargetDron3 said:

Salary has always, in my experience, been based on your value to the business. If you don't like what they think you are worth, you can negotiate or go somewhere else to see if your can earn what you think you are worth.

 

Sure it has. Though if you don't know your relative worth compared to your peers, then you have practically no way of knowing if what you get paid is fair or if what you want to get paid is a good ask either. It gives *all* power to the employer which is not fair to you who generates most of the worth in the company.

20 hours ago, TargetDron3 said:

Business are not in business to create jobs and have well paying jobs with good benefits. Those just happen to be ways to attract better workers. 

I'm sorry what? Businesses are not in business to create jobs? What a wild take.

[Birblover12]

Wow this thread is a mess, funny how posts like this can suddenly make people become experts on employment laws and such lol. Anyhow, after reading what felt like a college thesis worth of replies, did Linus/LTT ever respond to any of this? In one of his recent videos he said "if they feel like they (employees) feel the need to unionize then I'll feel like I failed", but I think he said that already on the Wan Show almost a year ago. (Which, in my opinion, not sure how that's meant to consolidate anyone, since Linus feeling a little upsetti spagheti doesn't fix the topic at hand.)

 

I'm also really curious as to if the post from the "employee" was even true or not, as in, if they were actually an employee and if that handbook was real and actually something created by LMG. Which, if true, I feel like the fact that it was leaked perhaps is the bigger fault here...

[Stahlmann]

3 hours ago, Birblover12 said:

In one of his recent videos he said "if they feel like they (employees) feel the need to unionize then I'll feel like I failed", but I think he said that already on the Wan Show almost a year ago.

It's what Linus always said.

 

And tbh i don't see an issue with this statement. No one is standing the their way if the employees want to unionize. He is legally not allowed to. And i do agree with the sentiment that a union only exists because employees fear they're overheard individually. In big businesses this fear makes sense, as people are easily replaced for the most part. But in smaller businesses like LMG i don't see the lack of a worker union as a problem. And imo, if anything, it speaks for the work conditions and HR management, not against it.

 

3 hours ago, Birblover12 said:

I'm also really curious as to if the post from the "employee" was even true or not, as in, if they were actually an employee and if that handbook was real and actually something created by LMG. Which, if true, I feel like the fact that it was leaked perhaps is the bigger fault here...

Afaik there was no confirmation that the original reddit post was real or fake.

[Avocado Diaboli]

5 hours ago, Stahlmann said:

And i do agree with the sentiment that a union only exists because employees fear they're overheard individually. In big businesses this fear makes sense, as people are easily replaced for the most part. But in smaller businesses like LMG i don't see the lack of a worker union as a problem.

You haven't grasped the issue then. It's not about Linus at all, it doesn't matter if having his employees unionize hurts his precious feelings. The power imbalance exists whether he chooses to abuse it or not and it's honestly quite disconcerting that he can't muster up the empathy to put himself in the shoes of his employees.

 

Linus could be the best boss in the universe and LMG the best company ever with fantastic work-life balance, exemplary perks and freshly baked cookies in the employee lounge every single day. The power imbalance is still there and a union is a valid counterweight. And that imaginary LMG having an employee union wouldn't be a failure of the management, because it's not about the management.

 

Unions aren't just needed when shit hits the fan. They're needed before that so it doesn't hit the fan, because no amount of goodwill can offset the inherent power dynamics, not unless employment laws get rewritten. Any competent boss who actually understands the needs of employees wouldn't feel threatened by unions, especially not one who claims he would feel so deeply hurt by his employees forming one and who'd see it as a sign of personal failure. It's a nonsensical and quite frankly schizophrenic stance to take.

[Stahlmann]

10 minutes ago, Avocado Diaboli said:

You haven't grasped the issue then. It's not about Linus at all, it doesn't matter if having his employees unionize hurts his precious feelings. The power imbalance exists whether he chooses to abuse it or not and it's honestly quite disconcerting that he can't muster up the empathy to put himself in the shoes of his employees.

 

Linus could be the best boss in the universe and LMG the best company ever with fantastic work-life balance, exemplary perks and freshly baked cookies in the employee lounge every single day. The power imbalance is still there and a union is a valid counterweight. And that imaginary LMG having an employee union wouldn't be a failure of the management, because it's not about the management.

 

Unions aren't just needed when shit hits the fan. They're needed before that so it doesn't hit the fan, because no amount of goodwill can offset the inherent power dynamics, not unless employment laws get rewritten. Any competent boss who actually understands the needs of employees wouldn't feel threatened by unions, especially not one who claims he would feel so deeply hurt by his employees forming one and who'd see it as a sign of personal failure. It's a nonsensical and quite frankly schizophrenic stance to take.

All of that relies on the assumption that the CEO or boss in question abuses his/her power. If that doesn't happen, a union isn't needed. Simple as that.

 

I have had bosses that took me seriously and ones that didn't care about me no matter if there was a worker union. I wouldn't see the lack of a union as an immediate red flag. The reason why it doesn't exist is much more important. And if the reason is that an employee get's taken seriously on his/her own then that's good enough for me.

 

And ultimately you are dependant on your bosses good will either way. You might be able to force their hand through a union, but working together will always have a bad aftertaste once you crossed that point. Working in such a position is not fun or healthy and one of the two parties will leave sooner or later.

 

Nothing is ever black and white. Everything is on a scale and context always matters.

And that's the important part reddit and twitter for some reason find very hard to understand.

[Avocado Diaboli]

8 minutes ago, Stahlmann said:

All of that relies on the assumption that the CEO or boss in question abuses his/her power. If that doesn't happen, a union isn't needed. Simple as that. I wouldn't see the lack of a union as an immediate red flag. The reason why it doesn't exist is much more important. And if the reason is that an employee get's taken seriously on his/her own then that's good enough for me.

In an ideal world, the potential for abuse wouldn't exist either. But it does. And as with many things, it's better to err on the side of caution, especially given that we can just turn around the argument and say that the existence of a union in itself needn't be a sign of animosity between management and employees, so erring on the side of caution and having a union creates literally no downsides for LMG.

 

It's not that the lack of a union in itself is a red flag, I'm not campaigning for LMG employees to unionize. It's Linus' tone deaf take on why his feelings on the issue should matter at all. 

[Stahlmann]

10 minutes ago, Avocado Diaboli said:

having a union creates literally no downsides for LMG.

It's another entity that you have to get most decisions through. That can be good or bad depending on what the decision is about, but it's a thing that will slow the business down nontheless.

 

10 minutes ago, Avocado Diaboli said:

It's not that the lack of a union in itself is a red flag, I'm not campaigning for LMG employees to unionize. It's Linus' tone deaf take on why his feelings on the issue should matter at all. 

Ok so overall we agree about the whole union red flag thing.

 

Linus knows that his feelings don't matter in this subject, which he acknowledges by mentioning that it's ultimately not up to him. But i also understand his take that if the employees would feel the need to unionize, that means he was an inadequade boss in some way or another. It's understandable that he can see this as a personal failure. Just because he openly says that doesn't mean he is trying to guilt trip people away from forming a union.

[Omni-Owl]

1 hour ago, Stahlmann said:

It's another entity that you have to get most decisions through. That can be good or bad depending on what the decision is about, but it's a thing that will slow the business down nontheless.

 

Ok so overall we agree about the whole union red flag thing.

 

Linus knows that his feelings don't matter in this subject, which he acknowledges by mentioning that it's ultimately not up to him. But i also understand his take that if the employees would feel the need to unionize, that means he was an inadequade boss in some way or another. It's understandable that he can see this as a personal failure. Just because he openly says that doesn't mean he is trying to guilt trip people away from forming a union.

No I really can't see how you can understand that line of thinking other than agreeing with it.

Linus may say that if a union exists then the management has failed but ultimately, as mentioned earlier by @Avocado Diaboli, it has nothing to do with that. A union would not be needed if the government had made laws that made unions obsolete. But unions are necessary to level the playing field between management and employee. It's preventative and reactionary.

 

By saying he feels management failed if a union is needed he is definitely trying to make people feel guilty over thinking about it. Because if you thought about it then you would have implied that LMG has failed you and given how tightly some of these people know each other, that would imply you are trying to hurt someone you know. It's subtle but nontheless manipulative at worst and rather tonedeaf at best.

[Omni-Owl]

It's also really weird how unions work in NA. I don't understand.

In Denmark where I am from we have tons of unions that are not tied to a job, but an industry. Why would you want a union for every workplace instead of the industry as a whole? Sure you could argue that individual unions will make sure you only care about the stuff happening at that specific workplace, but you can still make provisions for that in a union that cares about the industry at large. I think it's a really weird way of keeping unions from gaining the kind of power that most employers are afraid of.

 

By having a bunch of "cells" that each are a small union they can never get the collective power that bad employers fear without merging together.

[Erioch]

35 minutes ago, Omni-Owl said:

It's also really weird how unions work in NA. I don't understand.

In Denmark where I am from we have tons of unions that are not tied to a job, but an industry. Why would you want a union for every workplace instead of the industry as a whole?

Those exist in the U.S. (I don't know about Canada).  There's the Teamsters Union, Teachers Union, unions for musicians and actors, etc.  It's not unheard of here at all.

[Omni-Owl]

10 minutes ago, Erioch said:

Those exist in the U.S. (I don't know about Canada).  There's the Teamsters Union, Teachers Union, unions for musicians and actors, etc.  It's not unheard of here at all.

Right but then why is it every time these things comes up it's a workplace that unionises not an industry? We have recent examples like Starbucks workers in a single location, for example. Or game developers at single locations. It's just so very strange.

[Avocado Diaboli]

2 hours ago, Stahlmann said:

It's another entity that you have to get most decisions through. That can be good or bad depending on what the decision is about, but it's a thing that will slow the business down nontheless.

You describe this slowdown as something that wouldn't already happen, given that Linus deems it a personal aspiration that his employees don't have to form a union. Well, plot twist, in order for that to be true, the considerations that a union would impose upon management have to already be sellf-imposed, otherwise a union would be necessary. So again, it's a zero sum game whether that union exists or not.

 

2 hours ago, Stahlmann said:

Linus knows that his feelings don't matter in this subject, which he acknowledges by mentioning that it's ultimately not up to him. But i also understand his take that if the employees would feel the need to unionize, that means he was an inadequade boss in some way or another. It's understandable that he can see this as a personal failure. Just because he openly says that doesn't mean he is trying to guilt trip people away from forming a union.

Again, I fail to see the relevance of his feelings in this entire debate. In fact, and this is something I don't think anybody has brought up yet, it paints a rather toxic picture of him. Look at it this way: We'll assume he's 100% sincere and all of the cynical stuff you could imagine as a reason for his plea to not unionize is completely off the table. If he thinks a union in his enterprise isn't necessary, he must believe that he does everything in his power for the well-being of his employees and doesn't leverage any of the inherent power the employer-employee dynamic has. That has to be the logical baseline of operation, you cannot see a union as a personal failure if you don't also already do everything in your power to make a union redundant in the first place.

 

But it also means that he thinks there is exactly one way to achieve that, his way. A union would be a voice he'd have to consider. Without one, he doesn't have to consider anything but what he wants. As long as his goals align with those of his employees, all's well. But would you be comfortable working for someone who for something as fundamental as your employment relationship would be unwilling to consult with organized third parties? That he'd object to that notion so much to see it as a personal affront?