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

[jeo]

22 minutes ago, SansVarnic said:

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

I don't understand why this matter?

 

22 minutes ago, SansVarnic said:

Here I will type it out for this time, (my daughter has left the room she doesn't understand why you're not getting this, she's 14). Not a dig at you but she's frustrated at reading this far.

I am struggling to imagine image what kind of horrific act your daughter was involved in which would justify you subjugating her to read something so boring.

 

22 minutes ago, SansVarnic said:

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.

An employer in Canada cannot prevent an employee from asking question (federal legislation prevents this).

 

22 minutes ago, SansVarnic said:

I am so glad I am no longer a c level exec...

I too grow tired off the c suite, why just the other day I was speaking with one my many super model mistresses. I asked her if she remembers what it feels like to fly commercial (business of course, I wouldn't dare to mingle with the unwashed masses in economy). I fear may be losing touch with the plebs, alas uneasy is the head that wears a crown.

 

 

My apologies for the snark, it is all in jest

[Omni-Owl]

10 minutes ago, SansVarnic said:

Here I will type it out for this time, (my daughter has left the room she doesn't understand why you're not getting this, she's 14). Not a dig at you but she's frustrated at reading this far.

So if it's not a dig, nor something that's relevant, why even bring it up at all? What a weird thing to say. Completely irrelevant comment.

11 minutes ago, SansVarnic said:

"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.

If this is the entirety of what your argument hinges on (I have no clue whatsoever, I'm just speculating) then I am unsure why you presented it as this earlier:

 

2 hours ago, SansVarnic said:

This photo destroys your whole argument.

That to me indicates you went into this with a mentality of "I'm going to win this." which was not at all what this was based on. I wanted clarification from LMG staff. Not just speculation that happens to disagree with me. Because at that point it's just your word against mine, really. Legalese or not, the wording is quite clear cut:

 

Wages are considered highly confidential and are not to be discussed or left out where co-workers or third parties can see it.

 

The above is not ambigious. It's fairly cut and dry.

18 minutes ago, SansVarnic said:

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.

This reads like patronising to me. Being talked down to. Especially the line about entitlement. I see that too the older I get, a lot of it from older generations who believe younger generations are not entitled to *anything*. No one here is trying to "find cracks in LMGs armor" or making Linus out as something he isn't. I am literally asking for clarification from LMG about this. The *why* to this policy and why something so anti-worker is even included when LMG and Linus tends to call these sort of practices out. There is no villification here, there is no "oh you let yourself be fooled". This is asking for clarification and expecting that there is a reason to this that isn't maliciously charged.

 

Please stop loading this thread with intent that isn't there. It's not helpful.

[jeo]

45 minutes ago, SansVarnic said:

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

I fear you may have missed my point (or I may have failed to state it clearly).

 

It does matter how the audience and more importantly the staff feel toward LMG management.

LMG could operate while following the bare minimum standards laid out by local laws, but then they would only be able to expect the bare minimum from their staff. When I watch LTT content I (usually) get the sense the people involved care deeply about their work.

It is really hard for most people to put in 100% if they feel they are not being treated fairly.

 

I also get the sense that Linus fundamentally wants to do the right thing. He may have a different idea of what is fair, but the academic literature is extremely clear on the topic of pay transparency (spoiler, it's a good thing).

 

[Omni-Owl]

1 minute ago, jeo said:

I also get the sense that Linus fundamentally wants to do the right thing.

 

I want to second this. I believe so as well. That should be made clear.

Though the takes lately have me worry.

[Spotty]

9 hours 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.

The discussion is about wages. The thread title says wages. The reddit post says wages. The employee policy handbook that was posted to reddit says wages.

Most of the employees are probably on an hourly wage, except for maybe the team managers or C-suite staff. The salary staff likely also have the same requirement in their employment contracts as well.

 

Quote

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. 

That is not how salary or wages work.

 

9 hours ago, SansVarnic said:

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.

I think you're misunderstanding what salary and wage is. The difference is how the pay is calculated. Salary employees agree upon a fixed yearly salary. Wage employees agree upon a fixed hourly rate of pay for hours worked. For example: A salary employee gets paid 50k per year. A wage employee gets paid $24 per hour.

When you negotiate a salary contract you negotiate what your responsibilities will be and your compensation for performing those tasks. You're being paid to perform those tasks not for the hours it takes you to complete those tasks.

When you negotiate a wage contract you negotiate how many hours you will work on a weekly/monthly schedule and what you will be paid for each hour worked.

 

Whether you are being compensated with salary or wage you still have an employment agreement in the form of an employment contract. The employment contract will include what the compensation is regardless of if you are salary or wage.

 

9 hours ago, SansVarnic said:

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.

You're contradicting yourself. The employee policy handbook that was shared says that they cannot openly discuss their wage. If an employee breaches company policy then that may be grounds for termination.

"All wages... is considered highly confidential. It is not to be shared, discussed..."

 

 

7 hours ago, SansVarnic said:

"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.

Salary or wage you still have an employment agreement with the company you work for.

I think you are confusing a wage for what in Canada is known as a Collective Bargaining Agreement.

https://www.canada.ca/en/treasury-board-secretariat/services/collective-agreements/collective-bargaining/collective-bargaining-process.html

 

In Australia we have something I believe that is similar that is called an Industry Award (negotiated for entire industry) or Enterprise Agreement (negotiated for individual business, typically based off the Industry Award but may include additional employee benefits such as a higher pay rate). I'm basing this on my experience with the system in Australia, so it may not be correct for Canada, but my understanding is...

 

With a Collective Bargaining Agreement the union will negotiate a collective agreement on behalf of all employees in that industry or company for a standard employment contract. It will outline things like the pay, holidays, sick leave, parental leave, etc.

 

Since a collective bargaining agreement would include the hourly wage employees are entitled to in the agreement there's not really much point in preventing them from discussing how much they earn since everybody else on the same agreement would know how much they're earning because they have the same contract. I think this is where you're getting the [incorrect] idea that wage employees are allowed to discuss what they earn but salary employees are not.

 

Since a salary is receiving pay for performing a task, it needs to be individually negotiated depending on the tasks and duties that individual employee has to perform. Salary pay isn't used in collective bargaining agreements since it's dependant on the specific person and tasks. Edit: Was corrected, Collective agreements can use salary pay.

Since a wage is paid by the hours worked it can apply to anybody and it is used in collective bargaining agreements.

Companies that do not use collective bargaining agreements can make their own employment contracts that pay their employees by either salary or wage. You can have an individual company contract or individual employee contract that pays a wage.

 

I think that's where you're getting confused thinking that all employees paid by wage are union negotiated collective bargaining agreement contracts. I think you're also making the mistake of thinking that if you don't negotiate the individual contract yourself (as is the case with a salary position) that there is no contract. With a Collective Bargaining Agreement the contract has already been negotiated on your behalf by the union. You just sign and agree to the standard contract when you accept the job offer.

 

 

I can understand why people might confuse a collective agreement with wage contracts since collective agreements are always* wage and salaries are always* individual contracts (*AFAIK) But there are also individual employee or company contracts that pay a wage, particularly in companies that want to offer a higher pay rate than minimum wage/the competition to attract better employees or companies where their employees aren't represented by a union.

I'm guessing you have probably worked both salary and wage positions, where in the salary position negotiating and agreeing on the contract was a lot more involved than the wage position where you were likely just handed a copy of the agreement and said "Sign here to accept the job offer". You probably didn't think of it as being a contract when accepting the job and you never had to renegotiate it since the union did it on your behalf every few years instead of renegotiating it every year like you might do with a salary contract.

 

 

LMG does not have union representation so it's very unlikely they would be using Collective Bargaining Agreements. Linus Media Group would have their own employment contract which could pay in either wage or salary. If employees want to renegotiate those contracts they will need to negotiate their own individual contract themselves instead of using a union to negotiate on behalf of all employees.

A lot of the above is based on my understanding of the Australian system, please correct me if it's different in Canada/USA

 

7 hours ago, SansVarnic said:

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.

I'm not sure where you are getting this from but that is not what LMG's policy handbook that was posted to reddit says.

Edited February 19, 2023 by Spotty
Was corrected, collective agreements can include salary pay

[SansVarnic]

7 minutes ago, Spotty said:

I'm not sure where you are getting this from but that is not what LMG's policy handbook that was posted to reddit says.

Based on the US not the lmg handbook.

 

 

 

 

It wasn't my intent but I will admit, my reactionary comment was rather blunt.

57 minutes ago, Omni-Owl said:

If this is the entirety of what your argument hinges on (I have no clue whatsoever, I'm just speculating) then I am unsure why you presented it as this earlier:

I did but I wasn't wanting to drag it out. I was using the photo showing that title as my point, it just missed its mark as you thought i was pointing out the whole article rather than the title portion, I had in my quote I was referring to.

 

57 minutes ago, Omni-Owl said:

The above is not ambigious. It's fairly cut and dry.

This reads like patronising to me. Being talked down to. Especially the line about entitlement. I see that too the older I get, a lot of it from older generations who believe younger generations are not entitled to *anything*. No one here is trying to "find cracks in LMGs armor" or making Linus out as something he isn't. I am literally asking for clarification from LMG about this. The *why* to this policy and why something so anti-worker is even included when LMG and Linus tends to call these sort of practices out. There is no villification here, there is no "oh you let yourself be fooled". This is asking for clarification and expecting that there is a reason to this that isn't maliciously charged.

It wasn't meant to be patronizing, I am sorry if you took it that way.

Edited February 19, 2023 by SansVarnic

[jeo]

3 minutes ago, SansVarnic said:

Based on the US not the lmg handbook.

LMG is based in beautiful British Columbia, which when I lasted check was part of Canada and not the United States of America.

So why would anything to do with US labour law matter?

Sorry if I am missing something.

[SansVarnic]

3 minutes ago, jeo said:

LMG is based in beautiful British Columbia, which when I lasted check was part of Canada and not the United States of America.

So why would anything to do with US labour law matter?

Sorry if I am missing something.

I can only use the US as my examples, im not stating fact based on Canada as I mentioned several times now.

1 hour ago, SansVarnic said:

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.

 

[jeo]

2 minutes ago, SansVarnic said:

I can only use the US as my examples, im not stating fact based on Canada as I mentioned several times now.

 

But the example are meaningless when they are from different legal jurisdictions.

You can see how this might add confusion to the topic at hand?

[SansVarnic]

13 minutes ago, jeo said:

But the example are meaningless when they are from different legal jurisdictions.

You can see how this might add confusion to the topic at hand?

Examples of point are just that, examples to make a point. I made it clear I was using examples by stating how I did, to reduce any confusion. I also clarified in the last comment how I interpreted the paragraph in the LMG handbook. I made several attempts to make sure I clearly was using US examples to point out it works and how I expected similarities to Canada... even went so far as to point out

1 hour ago, SansVarnic said:

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

why are you making this harder than it needs to be?

 

29 minutes ago, Spotty said:

Whether you are being compensated with salary or wage you still have an employment agreement in the form of an employment contract. The employment contract will include what the compensation is regardless of if you are salary or wage.

We said the same thing.

Edited February 19, 2023 by SansVarnic

[Lomac]

To be clear, the wording in the handbook (assuming it's legit) was likely cleared by a local labour lawyer and is perfectly legal in BC.  LMG isn't a unionized shop, so anyone who would quote section 8 of the Labour Relations Code as a counterargument would be incorrect.

 

Keep in mind that this is fairly standard wording in most handbooks around here.  It was in mine, yet only a couple weeks ago a dozen of my coworkers and I stood around - with two big bosses in the midst - and we all chatted about our wages.  There's often a lot of fine print that usually isn't enforced unless a blatantly egregious event occurred.

[SansVarnic]

23 minutes ago, Lomac said:

To be clear, the wording in the handbook (assuming it's legit) was likely cleared by a local labour lawyer and is perfectly legal in BC.  LMG isn't a unionized shop, so anyone who would quote section 8 of the Labour Relations Code as a counterargument would be incorrect.

 

Keep in mind that this is fairly standard wording in most handbooks around here.  It was in mine, yet only a couple weeks ago a dozen of my coworkers and I stood around - with two big bosses in the midst - and we all chatted about our wages.  There's often a lot of fine print that usually isn't enforced unless a blatantly egregious event occurred.

My next point was going to say that I was sure LMG would have had the handbook reviewed by and approved by a lawyer or legal advisor of sort. Thank you for this extremely helpful information.

 

 

But regardless we are all speculating at this point, and we are arguing to void unless either we get proof of the wrongdoing or LMG decides to address themselves to clarify any of this. Anyhow I think I'm stepping away. 

[Omni-Owl]

2 hours ago, Lomac said:

To be clear, the wording in the handbook (assuming it's legit) was likely cleared by a local labour lawyer and is perfectly legal in BC.  LMG isn't a unionized shop, so anyone who would quote section 8 of the Labour Relations Code as a counterargument would be incorrect.

 

Keep in mind that this is fairly standard wording in most handbooks around here.  It was in mine, yet only a couple weeks ago a dozen of my coworkers and I stood around - with two big bosses in the midst - and we all chatted about our wages.  There's often a lot of fine print that usually isn't enforced unless a blatantly egregious event occurred.

That's all well and good until one day it's used against you our a co-worker because there was no labor law in place to protect that kind of speech in the workplace. It's like the warranty thing and the backpack. That's anti consumer even if they went above and beyond their legal duties until they have the warranty in writing.

 

I think it's important to underline that at no point did I question the legality. Like, nowhere.

 

What I question is the reasoning. Which I have consistently put focus on. Because not being able to share you wages with each other is very anti worker. That's a discussion about ethics not one about lawfulness.

 

@SansVarnic

I feel you came in here trying to look like you knew it all, yet didn't actually address the topic at hand, talked down to us multiple times, even being patronising, and using a ton of speculation using American labor law when that's completely unrelated and then when called out for all this by your fellow mod @Spotty and subsequently community member @jeo you doubled down on making sure that you were definitely not wrong, it was all just a misunderstanding.

 

That was all handled quite poorly.

 

I hope this topic gets addressed next wan show by Linus to clear things up. Because I doubt that lmg and Linus are evil here. They likely are just doing what businesses in the area does. But as with any anti worker practice they call out, I want to understand how they justify this.

[leadeater]

5 hours ago, Spotty said:

Salary pay isn't used in collective bargaining agreements since it's dependant on the specific person and tasks.

This is actually quite common. Many job sectors here are like this for example teaching where the relevant unions negotiate collective agreements (NZEI & PPTA etc) and teachers are paid salary not hourly wage. The collective agreements have salary scales and you start out in the scale band based on tertiary qualifications and industry certifications, then over time you move up scale bands based on years experience and any other qualifications you may attain etc.

 

 

 

My work place is the same, I am on an induvial contract however the union here is very strong and anything they negotiate gets applied to all individual contracts (so long as you agree to the change). We also have pay scales and bands and your job role is points assessed and each scale band has a points requirement. Every year our pay has a standard increment as well as the pay scale band incrementing, the standard increment is higher than the scale increment (inflation adjustment basically). So basically after a while you will hit the top of your pay scale band and your salary pay will only increase with the scale increment.

 

The  pay scale information is public information and every job position assigned pay band is also public information. The exception being top level manager and executive positions who are not eligible to be part of the union and have employment contracts not based on the collective agreement and they negotiate their own pay. The highest academic positions also have no cap to their pay scale band so... you just never leave lol.

 

Anyway collective agreements with salary pay is actually quite common and large numbers in the workforce have these employment agreements. I would be surprised if this is not the situation in Australia.

 

I get the feeling very many people do not understand employment contracts, employment law and company policies like these and it always seems to end up in long misguided conversations. The reddit post to me feels like someone with an axe to grind who similarly lacks these understandings. Personally I know my limits and I am very sure I have huge knowledge gaps to be discussing this and anyway it's a very uninteresting discussion for two reasons, 1) It just is that type of topic and 2) Knowing almost everyone discussing also has large knowledge gaps makes the entire thing rather pointless.

 

One thing for sure is that everyone being open about their pay is a good thing, I simply cannot agree with any arguments for why it could be bad. Knowing what each other gets paid does not prevent negotiating better pay nor require everyone is paid the same.

[Aeternalis]

11 hours ago, Andreas Lilja said:

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

It's federally illegal in the USA to forbid discussion of pay with coworkers.

[Blue4130]

7 hours ago, Omni-Owl said:

't. I am literally asking for clarification from LMG about this.

Do you work for lmg? Why should they clarify it to anyone outside of their company? How would it benefit the greater public?

[Aeternalis]

8 minutes ago, Blue4130 said:

Do you work for lmg? Why should they clarify it to anyone outside of their company? How would it benefit the greater public?

Accountability to both workers and the general public is important. People don't want to support a company that treats their workers poorly. More transparency is always better, regardless of who or what it is.

[Needfuldoer]

If these accounts are accurate, it seems like LMG's hitting that stage where a small business outgrows its early, quick-and-dirty solutions to operations problems. That can get to the point where it's very easy to trip over your own feet.

 

Eventually, it's better to just implement "real company" solutions like a workforce management platform (for time tracking and payroll) and Active Directory (for account management and Group Policy) than it is to buckle down and force the "easy" solution to keep up. It's tough to allocate a budget for things that don't directly generate revenue, but they'll reduce the amount of busy work that needs to be done to keep all the wheels turning.

[Ultraforce]

7 hours ago, jeo said:

An employer in Canada cannot prevent an employee from asking question (federal legislation prevents this).

Federal legislation doesn't apply here as Linus Media Group is in a provincially regulated industry which means that federal workers rights do not apply and instead there are provincial rules that they follow instead.

[TetraSky]

Friday just passed and I'm already looking forward to next Friday for the drama to unfold.

 

48 minutes ago, Ultraforce said:

Federal legislation doesn't apply here as Linus Media Group is in a provincially regulated industry which means that federal workers rights do not apply and instead there are provincial rules that they follow instead.

Actually not true due to Paramountcy, unless the province make use of the notwithstanding clause (which is what Quebec did with the religious symbol law).

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paramountcy_(Canada)

In the case where a provincial law conflict with a federal law, the federal law will prevail.

Federal law > Provincial law. Regardless of where they work in Canada, workers have the same basic rights. A specific province may not take these away, but they can add to them.

[Ultraforce]

 

16 minutes ago, TetraSky said:

Friday just passed and I'm already looking forward to next Friday for the drama to unfold.

 

Actually not true due to Paramountcy, unless the province make use of the notwithstanding clause (which is what Quebec did with the religious symbol law).

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paramountcy_(Canada)

In the case where a provincial law conflict with a federal law, the federal law will prevail.

Federal law > Provincial law. Regardless of where they work in Canada, workers have the same basic rights. A specific province may not take these away, but they can add to them.

Maybe I should have worded it better.

What I mean is that the Canadian Labour Code which I presume the person is using as a source explicitly only covers federally regulated sectors. Which covers 12,000 businesses and 820,000 employees. Linus Media Group is not within that realm.

Though someone noted that this piece of the British Columbia Labour Code indicates that they need to allow wage discussion.
64 A trade union or other person may, at any time and in a manner that does not constitute picketing as defined in this Code, communicate information to a person, or publicly express sympathy or support for a person, as to matters or things affecting or relating to terms or conditions of employment or work done or to be done by that person.

[dalekphalm]

I can say that it's incredibly common for businesses to have a policy (whether formal or informal) against employees discussing wages.

 

This is largely for one simple reason:

The employer doesn't want employees to find out they're being paid less for a similar or same job as someone else (regardless of the reason there's a difference). Employers feel this can breed resentment among employees. It also helps to cut down on labour costs, because it disincentivizes employees from organizing and asking for more pay.

 

I work in Ontario - the Ontario Employment Standards Act explicitly forbids an employer from preventing, intimidating, or retaliating against an employee from discussing their wage - but even with that, it still happens all over the place.

 

I don't agree with such policies. Ultimately it only benefits the Employer and disadvantages the Employee.

 

Some arguments come down to "Well I work harder than x, so I should get paid more". True enough - but if you and x are working the same position and doing the same work, you should get compensated the same. And you can factor in experience and skill into such a system.

 

Using a Pay Grid, for example, can factor those things into which grid you slot into. And if you're doing more work than a coworker with a similar position, management should create a new position for you with higher pay.

 

Or just fire people who underperform. Yeah, you'll have to pay them severance (how much depends on each province, but Common Law rules in Canada so expect to pay a decent amount unless they're a new hire), but that's a small price to pay to get rid of an employee that doesn't work out.

 

IMO, LMG should scrap that policy, whether or not they legally have to. And BC should frankly regulate that policy into history anyway.

[Ultraforce]

1 hour ago, dalekphalm said:

I don't agree with such policies. Ultimately it only benefits the Employer and disadvantages the Employee.

 

Some arguments come down to "Well I work harder than x, so I should get paid more". True enough - but if you and x are working the same position and doing the same work, you should get compensated the same. And you can factor in experience and skill into such a system.

 

Using a Pay Grid, for example, can factor those things into which grid you slot into. And if you're doing more work than a coworker with a similar position, management should create a new position for you with higher pay.

 

Or just fire people who underperform. Yeah, you'll have to pay them severance (how much depends on each province, but Common Law rules in Canada so expect to pay a decent amount unless they're a new hire), but that's a small price to pay to get rid of an employee that doesn't work out.

 

IMO, LMG should scrap that policy, whether or not they legally have to. And BC should frankly regulate that policy into history anyway.

I remember after becoming an indeterminant employee the two people who started at the same time as I all checked and noticed that I was being paid one step higher than them and after talking a bit more we realized I was the only one who had worked as a student for the employer for 1 semester prior to us all getting hired in students that year so that likely was the reason.

[dalekphalm]

4 minutes ago, Ultraforce said:

I remember after becoming an indeterminant employee the two people who started at the same time as I all checked and noticed that I was being paid one step higher than them and after talking a bit more we realized I was the only one who had worked as a student for the employer for 1 semester prior to us all getting hired in students that year so that likely was the reason.

And IMO that's a fair reason to pay you more.

 

Either way, the employer should be able to explain WHY you're paid the way you're paid. And if two similar employees get paid different amounts, the employer should be able to explain that.

 

A lot of employers use a points based payment system anyway these days, so there's literally a calculation in a database somewhere that explicitly lays out how they determined your pay.

 

Pay transparency is important.

 

I think it would be fair to do the following:

Lay out all the Pay Grids, with the base and cap for each grid

List the grid for each position OR the formula for calculating which grid you fall on.

 

That way someone can see I work x position, and I'm on this grid. What they won't know is how far along the grid I am (which is usually determined by seniority/length of service), and even there they could probably ballpark it. I think that's fair.

[jeo]

3 hours ago, Ultraforce said:

Federal legislation doesn't apply here as Linus Media Group is in a provincially regulated industry which means that federal workers rights do not apply and instead there are provincial rules that they follow instead.

It is not as clear cut as that, rights which are laid in the Canadian charter of rights and freedoms superseded. The main example of this is freedom of movement.

Section 2 of the charter covers fundamental freedoms, which includes freedom of expression.

There is case law which clearly states that this freedom of expression is not protected in the workplace, however it is protected outside.

 

LMG would be well within their rights to banned conversations on pay transparency inside the workplace (assuming BC labor law does not prohibit this action), however what employee do outside is less clear. I am not aware of any cases which test this theory however I suspect the courts would side which the employee.