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

[NumLock21]

13 minutes ago, wanderingfool2 said:

$50k starting salary isn't bad (where after a year it can raise to $65k)

$50K isn't bad, it's pretty decent. There must be many out them out there that earn a lot less. I wonder how much those that thinks $50K is pathetic or not a lot. Like how much do they expect to be earning annually. $100K, $250K, $500K, $1M.

[IkeaGnome]

20 minutes ago, wanderingfool2 said:

To an extent it can discourage getting into a bad behaviour concept (where it's like, well that guy is getting paid as much as me but doesn't put in as much effort). 

To expand on this. I'm lucky in that my bosses realize what is done daily and haven't thrown more at me. I came into this job and took it over from two guys in their 70s. I've done things to automate for myself and make my job easier. 12 hour job takes about 4 hours. My supervisors know this, but also know that I still "put in the effort" of those before me. They know I mess around on the clock a lot, but they don't care since I do what used to be a 12 hour job in well under 12 hours. While still running off an Excel sheet, there has been Excel style "automation." Mechanics grab parts, write it on a piece of paper. I go, count it, adjust my inventory, then based on my min/max numbers I get flags. A separate sheet gathers these flags and tells me what needs to be ordered. No sitting and doing math. No worrying about lead times. My numbers have been bumped up since the pandemic hit. We had a rough month or two, but it settled back down. 

 

When the miners walk in, they see me "just sitting around and not doing much." To them it seems like I get paid to sit here and not work all day. They don't see the full story. The mechanics and supervisors know that I have my ducks in a row and keep them in parts. They know I get grumpy and need to be left alone from time to time, but they just take that as a side effect of me doing my job. WHAT ONE PERSON SEES ANOTHER DO ISN'T A FULL REFLECTION ON WHAT THE OTHER PERSON DOES IN A DAY. Emphasis not towards you, but a lot of the other comments in this thread.

 

20 minutes ago, wanderingfool2 said:

Now in regards to the reddit post, a $50k starting salary isn't bad (where after a year it can raise to $65k).  It is a good way to assess whether or not someone is there for the job or because they enjoy it.  I don't see an issue where it's averaging 1 script a week either.  Honestly, it seems like it was just someone salty...it's evident by his post where he talks about Linus not having a real job in a decade.

$50k starting salary is pretty good depending on other things. If you just count our straight time pay, we have many miners who work much harder jobs for less. Of course there's overtime and bonuses wrapped in after that. Our salaried supervisors start at $60,000 US a year. To be away from home half the year. They also typically have 10+ years in mining maintenance before becoming a base level supervisor. I was lucky and turned that job down. Went to what I call my retirement job. 

12 minutes ago, NumLock21 said:

That's was the reason I gave that example, since some just see it from a employees point of view and expects everyone to be paid equally. Like I mentioned earlier, a new worker that expects them to get the same pay as a CEO? Please...

That's not how that works. Just to clear things up, I'm far from a CEO. On paper I'm still a mechanic. In actuality I'm one of the two warehouse guys for the maintenance shop down here. In theory, I'm the "supervisor" of the two of us. He works when I'm on my days off, but I've been here longer and put in more effort. Generally when he has questions about our job, none of his supervisors will know the answer. We can get clear up to corporate and they still won't understand how this warehouse keeps parts or how my min/maxing works. So I'm the one he goes to for questions and the people farther up the chain have given me that lead man pay to compensate. I'm hourly. I'll answer the phone and "work" on days off when I'm with family or with my partner. I don't get directly paid for that. It gets more than made up for while I'm at work though. 

 

Get into a company and make yourself someone that they know they can't replace. You'd be surprised how much companies will throw at people like that. I warned them I was getting ready to move countries and my time here was limited. Royalties went up to help compensate for airfare. I'm just a peon at this company too. People here do get the shaft, but they're people that make themselves disposable. 

[Omni-Owl]

53 minutes ago, NumLock21 said:

So you have claim to this research?

@jeodug these up as an example earlier in the thread.
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

[Donut417]

1 hour ago, NumLock21 said:

can also see why employers don't want their employees to discuss their pay, as it creates a unstable work environment,

It's believed that when employees discuss wages, it prevents employers from discriminating against employees. For example Women in the US get paid less than men. That being said it all comes down to the law. Im not versed in Canadian labor laws but here in the states the discussion of wages it protected Federally. 

[Omni-Owl]

46 minutes ago, IkeaGnome said:

I have a problem personally with that part. Besides my partner and I, it's no one's business how much I make. She doesn't even care to know. Part of my wages are royalties from working at the same company for coming on 10 years. I have benefits that were phased out, but I'm grandfathered in. I also have a higher tech level than we're allowed to get now that our salaried supervisors have been restructured. Used to be 2 of them, neither worked nights, so each crew had a "lead man" that acted as supervisor on nights. We now have a supervisor attached to each crew. They didn't take that tech level from those of us that had it, but no one else can get it until they restructure the supervisors again, if they ever do.

 

I wouldn't really call that fair to compare my wages with someone else. That would create a lot of animosity, and it's not like they can just remove pay from me or fire me. If they shared my wages with co workers, it created animosity and their only way to solve it is to fire me, they better have a damn good reason to fire me or it's wrongful termination/retaliation. Even in an at will state you can have wrongful termination. 

 

At the end of the day, I'm in a position where it's advantageous to myself to not have my wages shared. My base wages are shared and public knowledge in the company as all tech levels are. How much I make beyond that in royalties and monthly bonus isn't known to other people in general out here. 

 

The transparency requested should be optional for you to participate in, though and that is what is talked about and requested here. No one is requiring that you must make your pay public at work. Of course, the company could choose to make pay brackets open for anyone to see and question but that's a different matter. As long as payroll can answer the question of "Why do they get paid X and I Y?" then there is no problem...unless what's happening is actually unfair and at that point the issue is not transparency, it's shitty business practices.

 

If you truly believe that you should protect bad practices because transparency is a perceived threat to your pay, then I don't know what to say.

 

What is being asked here and discussed is the ability to let those who want to talk about it, do so without repurcussions.

[Omni-Owl]

1 hour ago, wanderingfool2 said:

I actually don't have too much of an issue of workplaces putting limits on discussing wages/bonuses.  To an extent it can discourage getting into a bad behaviour concept (where it's like, well that guy is getting paid as much as me but doesn't put in as much effort).  Then the people who do put in the effort or climbing the ladder are also likely ones who wouldn't talk about their salary anyways (just observations from experience).  So at that stage you have the lower people getting in a tizzy when someone gets paid more for work that others might not feel like it's justified.  It can make for tense office politics, and then also the office politics where some people feel pressured into telling how much they made (I've seen that happen before).

What you claim might have happened, though is anecdotal at best. Actual research on this topic has shown the opposite. It empowers employees and make for a much more fair pay system and setup for *everyone*.

 

1 hour ago, wanderingfool2 said:

Now in regards to the reddit post, a $50k starting salary isn't bad (where after a year it can raise to $65k).  It is a good way to assess whether or not someone is there for the job or because they enjoy it.  I don't see an issue where it's averaging 1 script a week either.  Honestly, it seems like it was just someone salty...it's evident by his post where he talks about Linus not having a real job in a decade.

Should be said, far as I understand, these are *Canadian* dollars. Not American. Meaning 50k is more like 37k USD due to the Canadian dollar being quite weak lately. From what some posters have said, living in BC for 37k is pushing it.

 

1 hour ago, wanderingfool2 said:

I think it speaks volumes that the poster is complaining about having to work 15 minutes extra or sometimes 5 minutes over and not getting paid for it...I've known 9-5'ers before that insisted that they be packed and leaving strictly on time...they are a pain to work with.  Those types of people I find are the ones who bring in an attitude that can quickly turn a profitable company into a flaming dumpster fire. (I've watched it happen before).

You know what make people value their time? What brings them value in their day to day life. The issue is not the person who meets up at 9 and leaves at 5 sharp. It's the people who insist that your work should get to dictate your life outside of it. That is not how this works. That would be like demanding extra magazines from a subscription you paid for, for no extra charge because you feel like that's fairer. The company paid for a portion of the time so the person has valued that the time they spend at the company cannot outweigh the value they get from leaving at 5 and respecting their private time. If you truly believe that people being that punctual about it are the problem, then I'd suggest looking inwards. There is a management problem here, not an employee exercising their rights problem.

[Omni-Owl]

53 minutes ago, NumLock21 said:

That's was the reason I gave that example, since some just see it from a employees point of view and expects everyone to be paid equally. Like I mentioned earlier, a new worker that expects them to get the same pay as a CEO? Please...

That's not a real thing though? Please source this.

Besides, transparency is not about equal pay for all, it's about fair pay for all.

[NumLock21]

Just now, Omni-Owl said:

That's not a real thing though? Please source this.

Besides, transparency is not about equal pay for all, it's about fair pay for all.

There is no source for that, it's just a scenario, where some are too ignorant to realize that when you start off at the bottom of the ladder, you can't expect a higher pay. Like you work at McDonalds and work at the fries station do you expect your pay to be equal to your manager. So your saying fair pay for all. So what is fair pay for all?

[Omni-Owl]

6 minutes ago, NumLock21 said:

There is no source for that, it's just a scenario, where some are too ignorant to realize that when you start off at the bottom of the ladder, you can't expect a higher pay. Like you work at McDonalds and work at the fries station do you expect your pay to be equal to your manager. So your saying fair pay for all. So what is fair pay for all?

Fair Pay does not mean I, as a burger flipper to use your example, get to be paid the same as my manager, who does hiring, inventory, meetings, promotions, and work schedules. We have two fundamentally different roles, working hours and responsibilities.

 

However if you flip burgers and I flip burgers, and you get paid more than I do, there is no reason other than seniority for why you get to make $17.50 an hour and I only get to make $15 and that doesn't track in terms of fair pay for the same work. If you are a master flipper and you can do twice my work and there is  pay structure like that, sure, you could get more than me. But if I can do what you do? There is no reason for me not to get paid the same. Sure you could say that a probation period exists to make sure you are a good match for the company and all (burger flipper example aside), but after that period, if we are doing the same work, why is it not being paid the same? Wouldn't it be unfair that you get arbitrarily paid more than me for the same work?

 

The example you bring up is caricature. It's not real.

[IkeaGnome]

  

13 minutes ago, Omni-Owl said:

 

The transparency requested should be optional for you to participate in, though and that is what is talked about and requested here.

You didn't read how each of those paragraphs started did you? 

"I personally.." Paragraph 2 expands on that. "I wouldn't..." " I'm in a position where.." I didn't say it shouldn't happen. 

You also are only reading parts of what's said.

1 hour ago, IkeaGnome said:

My base wages are shared and public knowledge in the company as all tech levels are.

 

14 minutes ago, Omni-Owl said:

If you truly believe that you should protect bad practices because transparency is a perceived threat to your pay, then I don't know what to say.

Interestingly enough I get what I get because we fought for it in 2014. They moved us from a 14 on 7 off schedule to a 14 and 14. This caused massive pay cuts. We went from working 8 months a year to 6 months a year. We signed up for 8 months a year, not 6. They asked if we wanted a schedule change to have more than 5 days at home (once you count travel time) and we said we wanted a 20 and 10 or a 4 and 2 so we'd keep the 8 month's a year pay. We got forcibly moved to a 14 and 14.

We are not a union. We don't have a union, ironically mining employees are very very anti union. We have more say than unions. We had a month where no work happened on site. We all went that month with no pay. We all put our jobs on the line for that month for 2 months pay. Those of us that stayed with the company after the walk out went to a 14 and 14 and gained a % in royalties on each paycheck to compensate for the lost pay each year. 

Once again,

40 minutes ago, IkeaGnome said:

WHAT ONE PERSON SEES ANOTHER DO ISN'T A FULL REFLECTION ON WHAT THE OTHER PERSON DOES IN A DAY

Anyone who signed on after the swap to 14 and 14 doesn't get the royalties and rightfully so. They didn't sign up to work and be gone from home 8 months a year. I did. And you know what? If they want to work more than 6 months a year, they can. They can work overtime. You can work extra hours in a day, you can work extra days in a month. Those that signed up after the swap don't generally know how much a month the royalties are, but they know our base wages. Our base wages are their base wages. There is no pay gap. Everyone, even the females on site make the same tech wages in each department. Surface jobs make less since they aren't underground with us. Maintenance makes more than miners, sparkies make slightly more than we do in maintenance. Tech services make the least. Everyone on site knows that. Pay scales are posted in our cafeteria. The only unknowns to others are how much my royalties are and how they effect my monthly bonus that everyone in each department get regardless of how long they've been here. 

 

They don't have to know my specific pay to know whether we get paid fairly or not. As I was referencing to this post.

1 hour ago, NumLock21 said:

I guess LMG can have a meeting on pay day where they show the ranking of each employee and how they get paid so, those got less can be motivated to work harder so they climb up and get the same amount as who ever is ranked #1.

I know @NumLock21wasn't being literal in the way they implemented transparency in this post, but there can be circumstances around different workers. I doubt they do, but say someone like Jake has a situation similar to me. For what ever reason he stuck his head out there and fought to get more pay or more working hours. Why should other employees have to see a number next to his name that they physically can't hit for different circumstances? As long as they can hit his base pay, it's fair, right? 

[Aeternalis]

59 minutes ago, NumLock21 said:

$50K isn't bad, it's pretty decent. There must be many out them out there that earn a lot less. I wonder how much those that thinks $50K is pathetic or not a lot. Like how much do they expect to be earning annually. $100K, $250K, $500K, $1M.

$50k Canadian isn't decent. Canada's housing market is a disaster and their currency isn't as powerful as USD.

 

$50 CAD is around $37 USD. Keep that in mind.

[NumLock21]

1 minute ago, Omni-Owl said:

Fair Pay does not mean I, as a burger flipper to use your example, get to be paid the same as my manager, who does hiring, inventory, meetings, promotions, and work schedules. We have two fundamentally different roles, working hours and responsibilities.

 

However if you flip burgers and I flip burgers, and you get paid more than I do, there is no reason other than seniority for why you get to make $17.50 an hour and I only get to make $15 and that doesn't track in terms of fair pay for the same work. If you are a master flipper and you can do twice my work and there is  pay structure like that, sure, you could get more than me. But if I can do what you do? There is no reason for me not to get paid the same. Sure you could say that a probation period exists to make sure you are a good match for the company and all (burger flipper example aside), but after that period, if we are doing the same work, why is it not being paid the same? Isn't that fair?

 

The example you bring up is caricature. It's not real.

Taking the flipping burgers, that employee who has "seniority" getting $17.50 also started out where you were at $15. They stayed and the company added a bit to his pay, so now it's at $17.50. If you were to start off at $15 and do the exact same thing as he did, you'll also get your $17.50 too. So isn't that fair pay?

[Omni-Owl]

5 minutes ago, IkeaGnome said:

  

You didn't read how each of those paragraphs started did you? 

"I personally.." Paragraph 2 expands on that. "I wouldn't..." " I'm in a position where.." I didn't say it shouldn't happen. 

You also are only reading parts of what's said.

 

Interestingly enough I get what I get because we fought for it in 2014. They moved us from a 14 on 7 off schedule to a 14 and 14. This caused massive pay cuts. We went from working 8 months a year to 6 months a year. We signed up for 8 months a year, not 6. They asked if we wanted a schedule change to have more than 5 days at home (once you count travel time) and we said we wanted a 20 and 10 or a 4 and 2 so we'd keep the 8 month's a year pay. We got forcibly moved to a 14 and 14.

We are not a union. We don't have a union, ironically mining employees are very very anti union. We have more say than unions. We had a month where no work happened on site. We all went that month with no pay. We all put our jobs on the line for that month for 2 months pay. Those of us that stayed with the company after the walk out went to a 14 and 14 and gained a % in royalties on each paycheck to compensate for the lost pay each year. 

Once again,

Anyone who signed on after the swap to 14 and 14 doesn't get the royalties and rightfully so. They didn't sign up to work and be gone from home 8 months a year. I did. And you know what? If they want to work more than 6 months a year, they can. They can work overtime. You can work extra hours in a day, you can work extra days in a month. Those that signed up after the swap don't generally know how much a month the royalties are, but they know our base wages. Our base wages are their base wages. There is no pay gap. Everyone, even the females on site make the same tech wages in each department. Surface jobs make less since they aren't underground with us. Maintenance makes more than miners, sparkies make slightly more than we do in maintenance. Tech services make the least. Everyone on site knows that. Pay scales are posted in our cafeteria. The only unknowns to others are how much my royalties are and how they effect my monthly bonus that everyone in each department get regardless of how long they've been here. 

 

They don't have to know my specific pay to know whether we get paid fairly or not. As I was referencing to this post.

I know @NumLock21wasn't being literal in the way they implemented transparency in this post, but there can be circumstances around different workers. I doubt they do, but say someone like Jake has a situation similar to me. For what ever reason he stuck his head out there and fought to get more pay or more working hours. Why should other employees have to see a number next to his name that they physically can't hit for different circumstances? As long as they can hit his base pay, it's fair, right? 

All of this has nothing to do with transparency being bad for the workplace. None.

You can clearly answer the question of "why do I get paid more" and it sounds like, if the company has as clean hands as you say, that the transparency is not a threat to your pay nor a source for animosity.

 

Your whole lifestory in that company does not clash with the desire for transparency and the ability to talk about wages freely.

(And yes, I did read your whole thing. Otherwise I wouldn't have known what to quote would I?)

[Omni-Owl]

1 minute ago, NumLock21 said:

Taking the flipping burgers, that employee who has "seniority" getting $17.50 also started out where you were at $15. They stayed and the company added a bit to his pay, so now it's at $17.50. If you were to start off at $15 and do the exact same thing as he did, you'll also get your $17.50 too. So isn't that fair pay?

In a setup like that, the 17.50 worker would always be ahead, pay-wise, to the person who starts at 15. That isn't fair. Especially not if you are doing the same work.

You also didn't really answer; If you get paid more for the same work than I do, isn't that inherently unfair? It's the same work, why is it not paid the same?

[IkeaGnome]

1 minute ago, Omni-Owl said:

All of this has nothing to do with transparency being bad for the workplace. None.

You can clearly answer the question of "why do I get paid more" and it sounds like, if the company has as clean hands as you say, that the transparency is not a threat to your pay nor a source for animosity.

 

Your whole lifestory in that company does not clash with the desire for transparency and the ability to talk about wages freely.

When have I said transparency bad? I've said I don't want people knowing down to the penny what I make. There's multiple personal reasons for that. I think you've gotten some of what I've said mixed up with other people. That or I'm not explaining correctly, or you're not understanding me. 

[NumLock21]

Just now, Omni-Owl said:

In a setup like that, the 17.50 worker would always be ahead, pay-wise, to the person who starts at 15. That isn't fair. Especially not if you are doing the same work.

You also didn't really answer; If you get paid more for the same work than I do, isn't that inherently unfair? It's the same work, why is it not paid the same?

Let's say you are the owner of a burger shop and you have 1 employee. You gave him $15/hr. He has worked at your place for 1 year and now you gave him $17.50/hr. Now you hired a new employee and this one hasn't been here for a month, he comes to you and complains about fair pay, that he should also get $17.50/hr. How would you see the employee or handle that situation. Do you just give this person $17.50/hr?

[Donut417]

17 minutes ago, NumLock21 said:

There is no source for that, it's just a scenario, where some are too ignorant to realize that when you start off at the bottom of the ladder, you can't expect a higher pay. Like you work at McDonalds and work at the fries station do you expect your pay to be equal to your manager. So your saying fair pay for all. So what is fair pay for all?

 While you legally cant discriminate against people at least those in protected classes (age, sex, race, etc) that does happen with pay. By discussing pay you can help put an end to discrimination. Over all discussion of pay can lead to higher wages for all. Not sure how it works in our neighbor to the north but again in the US all workers have the right to collectively bargain, union or no union. 

[Omni-Owl]

1 hour ago, IkeaGnome said:

I wouldn't really call that fair to compare my wages with someone else. That would create a lot of animosity, and it's not like they can just remove pay from me or fire me. If they shared my wages with co workers, it created animosity and their only way to solve it is to fire me, they better have a damn good reason to fire me or it's wrongful termination/retaliation. Even in an at will state you can have wrongful termination.

You constructed this scenario from the idea that it's no one's business to know how much you make, perhaps with the exception of your partner who supposedly doesn't really care to know. Then you state that it *will* create animosity if your wages were to be shared in the company. That to me is saying "This is probably not fair or okay to share, so better keep it secret so there is zero risk to my fortune."

 

This is a perceived threat to your pay. You believe that knowing how much *you* make, would make the situation for your pay worse for you.

That to me speaks very much against the idea of pay transparency. You then, after that, wrote a clarification paragraph where "Well, everyone knows the base wage of everyone." So what I'm getting is a "Well screw you, I got mine", attitude.

You are more then welcome to correct me, but this is how it comes across when presented.

[Omni-Owl]

5 minutes ago, NumLock21 said:

Let's say you are the owner of a burger shop and you have 1 employee. You gave him $15/hr. He has worked at your place for 1 year and now you gave him $17.50/hr. Now you hired a new employee and this one hasn't been here for a month, he comes to you and complains about fair pay, that he should also get $17.50/hr. How would you see the employee or handle that situation. Do you just give this person $17.50/hr?

More information is required here.

If the person does the same work as my 1-year guy? Yeah, why would I look at that situation and demand that they do more work for less pay?

Do you not see how unfair that is?

[NumLock21]

6 minutes ago, Omni-Owl said:

More information is required here.

If the person does the same work as my 1-year guy? Yeah, why would I look at that situation and demand that they do more work for less pay?

Do you not see how unfair that is?

So it's fair to your 1 year guy who took him that long to get that $17.50, but your new employee can get the same amount as him, right away.

[AllowMeToRetort]

You almost had a somewhat real argument here but then you went into crying about work from home like it's a right? I've been working all my life since highschool in various industries and never felt this since of entitlement you convey in your post. Your company founder started with crap videos in a garage and grinded with the help of others to a position where they could pay 60 people a decent wage and you think you deserve more for doing less? 

 

Don't get me wrong there are a lot of things I feel LMG or Linus himself get wrong but asking you to keep your pay confidential and wanting you to actually come into to work? No.

 

Now if what you say about the overtime is ture that is a fair gripe. I straight up quit a job because they simultaneously wanted us to get there early so we can be ready to work at exactly the time the shift started but they also didn't want us to clock in 3 to 5 minutes early. 

[Donut417]

5 minutes ago, NumLock21 said:

So it's fair to your 1 year guy who took him that long to get that $17.50, but your new employee can get the same amount as him, right away.

Valid point. My employer hires thru temp agencies. We were having issues getting temps, so they raised the temp wage $2 an hour more. All the currently hired in employees were then given a $2 an hour raises to compensate for that raise in the temp wages. 

[Omni-Owl]

2 minutes ago, AllowMeToRetort said:

You almost had a somewhat real argument here but then you went into crying about work from home like it's a right? I've been working all my life since highschool in various industries and never felt this since of entitlement you convey in your post. Your company founder started with crap videos in a garage and grinded with the help of others to a position where they could pay 60 people a decent wage and you think you deserve more for doing less? 

 

Don't get me wrong there are a lot of things I feel LMG or Linus himself get wrong but asking you to keep your pay confidential and wanting you to actually come into to work? No.

 

Now if what you say about the overtime is ture that is a fair gripe. I straight up quit a job because they simultaneously wanted us to get there early so we can be ready to work at exactly the time the shift started but they also didn't want us to clock in 3 to 5 minutes early. 

That reddit post at the top of the post, is not me. Just fyi. Wanted to make sure you don't think it's me you are adressing :')

 

Though Working from Home should be an option where possible. There is little reason to confine people to a specific place to work, if they can do the job without it. Commuting to work is a lot of time spent not doing things with your life quite often and you aren't even paid for it. It's just free time for the company to take from you, while you go to and from work.

 

Besides, look at articles from the boomers generation. They wanted better conditions to work as well and those articles sound a lot like what millenials and gen z want today. And just like when boomers and people before that wanted better, they were also called entitled and whiny. It's not a new phenomenon.

[IkeaGnome]

2 minutes ago, Omni-Owl said:

You constructed this scenario from the idea that it's no one's business to know how much you make, perhaps with the exception of your partner who supposedly doesn't really care to know. Then you state that it *will* create animosity if your wages were to be shared in the company. That to me is saying "This is probably not fair or okay to share, so better keep it secret so there is zero risk to my fortune."

She doesn't care to know. She knows I make more than enough for us to live comfortably, save for kids' college, for me to retire early and her to not have to work. She doesn't care past that. I have my check book, she has hers. We have a joint account for the bills, that I deposit my part into and she deposits hers because she insists on paying part of them. 

Let's say you were to come down here. And now I'll start using numbers. You have no experience as a mechanic. You get put on the lube truck at $25 an hour. After your 90 days you start getting the maintenance bonus. As a newer employee, you can top out, currently, at $36 an hour. $39 if you get our lead man tech level, but with having 4 bosses you literally can't fill the criteria for it. So you find out someone is making that $39 an hour. They get the same bonus as you. This month it was 31.25%. So in March you'll get an extra 31.25% on the second paycheck of March for your February bonus. Now, there are a few people out here who get these royalties. Because they are part of our pay, if you and I are making $25 an hour, you'd get $25+31.25% of last month's wages. I'd get $25+20% to figure out my base gross pay, then the 31.25% bonus on top of that. Sounds like I get a 51.25% bonus, but it's compounding since they're not figured out at the same step. 

Since you hired on for our shorter schedule, there's no way for you to get that 20%. That 20% was given to us to keep the doors open when our hours got cut. 

11 minutes ago, Omni-Owl said:

This is a perceived threat to your pay. You believe that knowing how much *you* make, would make the situation for your pay worse for you.

That to me speaks very much against the idea of pay transparency. You then, after that, wrote a clarification paragraph where "Well, everyone knows the base wage of everyone." So what I'm getting is a "Well screw you, I got mine", attitude.

It's not a perceived threat to my pay. My pay is set in stone. Unless I get fired, or I quit, my pay will now always be the same, with only the maintenance bonus being what changes based on our bonus metrics, but your maintenance bonus will always be the same as mine. I also can't be fired for what I make. My pay is safe, my job is safe. The one place the animosity comes from is a different department. They kept working through the rest of us walking out. They didn't get the 20% even though they were here for the schedule change. They didn't fight for it, their bosses didn't fight for it. They went the safe route. 

 

In the mean time, we have fought for wage increases. When I hired on, an entry level mechanic was $17 an hour. We've got that up to $25. When I started we got $1000 a year in tool allowances. It's now $1500. We fought for that. When I hired on, we didn't get a travel stipend. We do now. Anyone who doesn't live locally gets flights mostly paid for, and any locals get an extra 4% on their bonus. We fought for those and EVERYONE gets them. New hires or not. Our hours got all funky during the pandemic, no one was ever home, so we threatened to walk out again. We got them to give everyone those new benefits. 

 

But you know. Screw you, I got mine. 

[Omni-Owl]

8 minutes ago, NumLock21 said:

So it's fair to your 1 year guy who took him that long to get that $17.50, but your new employee can get the same amount as him, right away.

Well yeah? Why is this such a mindblowing thing to you?

It's not about "how long it took him". It's about the fact that we are in a situation where I *can* afford it. You sound an awful lot like the people who believe that if they sufferred then others must too. That's just sad.