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

[Omni-Owl]

2 minutes ago, IkeaGnome said:

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.

I have no idea what "the safe route" means in this scenario. However:

3 minutes ago, IkeaGnome said:

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.

So if everyone gets them what's with that one department that somehow doesn't? If anyone can get that, then the animosity worry is void, no?

That's a contradiction.

 

Perhaps something is missing from the explanation that would clarify.

[IkeaGnome]

1 minute ago, Omni-Owl said:

I have no idea what "the safe route" means in this scenario. However:

Not walking out with the rest of us. 

 

1 minute ago, Omni-Owl said:

So if everyone gets them what's with that one department that somehow doesn't? If anyone can get that, then the animosity worry is void, no?

That's a contradiction.

 

6 minutes ago, IkeaGnome said:

ow, there are a few people out here who get these royalties.

The royalties aren't the raises, tool allowance increases, or the flight stipend. 

[Omni-Owl]

Just now, IkeaGnome said:

Not walking out with the rest of us. 

 

 

The royalties aren't the raises, tool allowance increases, or the flight stipend. 

So if I'm understanding this right; whoever walked out got to get paid more because you walked out (Dept A).

Whoever stayed did not (Dept B). Dept A then fought for benefits and pay via walking out. Dept B did not receive that, because they, I guess, didn't do that?

What dept A fought for will be extended to all new employees and existing, except Dept B.

 

There is a disconnect here I am not following. If Dept B is still in this, why are they not extended the same benefits and pay? They are still employees no?

[Speedstack79]

22 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.

OK with me if either 1) they are at the same level, 2) this 17.50$ increase is the result of a company wide increase, or 3) the salary increase is a result of the industry wide average salary. It took me ~ 2 years to get promoted (which maps to a ~80-90k USD yearly compensation increase) at my company, but there are a few exceptional new grads that get hired straight into that level, and I have no problem with that. Just because it took me X years to get to some level (not just level on paper, but level in terms of actual skill), doesn't mean it will take everyone the same amount of time. Simply put, some people are just better, they don't need the same amount of training / years of experience to get up to your skill level.

[Omni-Owl]

1 minute ago, Speedstack79 said:

It took me ~ 2 years to get promoted (which maps to a ~80-90k USD yearly compensation increase) at my company, but there are a few exceptional new grads that get hired straight into that level, and I have no problem with that. Just because it took me X years to get to some level (not just level on paper, but level in terms of actual skill), doesn't mean it will take everyone the same amount of time. Simply put, some people are just better, they don't need the same amount of training / years of experience to get up to your skill level.

Exactly this. I have been in similar situations on both sides.

[IkeaGnome]

1 minute ago, Omni-Owl said:

So if I'm understanding this right; whoever walked out got to get paid more because you walked out (Dept A).

Whoever stayed did not (Dept B). Dept A then fought for benefits and pay via walking out. Dept B did not receive that, because they, I guess, didn't do that?

What dept A fought for will be extended to all new employees and existing, except Dept B.

 

There is a disconnect here I am not following. If Dept B is still in this, why are they not extended the same benefits and pay? They are still employees no?

Because as far as corporate was concerned, department B was fine with their wages and the pay cut going from 8 months of work a year to 6. This happened back in 2014. In 2021, we had what was going to be another site wide walk out that turned into this.

13 minutes ago, IkeaGnome said:

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. 

Maintenance is the only department that can get the tool allowance. Miners and everyone else have their tools provided. For IT it comes out of their budget. Specialty tools are bought by me for the shop out of the maintenance budget. Laptops, SiS, Insite, etc. Every department got the rest of that raise during covid as well as the general bonus restructuring and travel stipend. That is also in effect for all new hires. The 20% that I get on top of that is based on the schedule I hired on for. A schedule they took from us and no longer offer to anyone. So it will never be available to get. If I quit, mine is gone. If I come back after I quit, I don't get it back. Same as any other new hire.

[Omni-Owl]

4 minutes ago, IkeaGnome said:

Because as far as corporate was concerned, department B was fine with their wages and the pay cut going from 8 months of work a year to 6. This happened back in 2014.

So, this is where I'd argue that unions should step in and make sure that this "corporate was fine with not paying them more" (of course they are) thing would be sanctioned and changed.

 

I do happent to live in a country that has an over-abundance of unions and they would protect against exactly something like this via bargaining. (which funnily enough, the walk-outs and all you describe is exactly what unions also enable and do.)

Yes, I know that some American's tend to be extremely anti union. Though the US had really strong unions in the past that were thwarted by politicians and big tech. The union busting tactics used are likely one of the biggest crimes against the American working class.

 

But that's a whole different can of worms of course.

[IkeaGnome]

1 minute ago, Omni-Owl said:

So, this is where I'd argue that unions should step in and make sure that this "corporate was fine with not paying them more" (of course they are) thing would be sanctioned and changed.

This is where mining gets interesting. Unions in mining don't work. Partly because 

 

1 minute ago, Omni-Owl said:

I know that some American's tend to be extremely anti union

and 

1 minute ago, Omni-Owl said:

union busting tactics used are likely one of the biggest crimes against the American working class.

. I know unions have their place, but when you have a workforce that acts like a union without a union, where's the problem with not being unionized. You just have to speak up for yourself more. 

 

Us, in a non union mine, make more than our neighboring mine that is unionized. We don't have lead exposure, they do. They don't get as much hourly (last I heard they're like $1.50 less an hour at each tech level). They don't get travel stipends. The union won't fight for them to match our wages and benefits, and because they're union, their hands are mostly tied. In mining, the worker has way more control over what happens then someone in an office from a union or a different company. 

Make me a disgruntled employee? I could shut this place down in about an hour. A union can't do that. Especially not in the same way. 

[Omni-Owl]

4 minutes ago, IkeaGnome said:

This is where mining gets interesting. Unions in mining don't work. Partly because 

 

and 

. I know unions have their place, but when you have a workforce that acts like a union without a union, where's the problem with not being unionized. You just have to speak up for yourself more. 

 

Us, in a non union mine, make more than our neighboring mine that is unionized. We don't have lead exposure, they do. They don't get as much hourly (last I heard they're like $1.50 less an hour at each tech level). They don't get travel stipends. The union won't fight for them to match our wages and benefits, and because they're union, their hands are mostly tied. In mining, the worker has way more control over what happens then someone in an office from a union or a different company. 

Make me a disgruntled employee? I could shut this place down in about an hour. A union can't do that. Especially not in the same way. 

I would argue all of this is because the unions you do have only can work under a system that actively has destroyed them over the past couple of decades and actively does not want them to exist, since a powerful union is a danger to business. There is a whole systemic can of worms behind that. It's kind of like how competition is bad for business but great for customers. Good unions are great for employees, but bad for employers. Only because the whole system is setup to benefit employers first of all. Money above all.

 

I like to compare it to public transportation. A lot of Americans do not like or want public transportation...because all they've ever experienced is bad public transportation. So why would you want more of the bad? Fuck that. American infrastructure has been built up around this notion, so that everywhere is car-first thinking. This allows for a cascade of things like car dealers getting monopolies, car insurance getting their pockets full too, etc.

Though in a lot of European countries, we do have amazing public transport. Yeah it's not perfect. But it beats not having a car in most cases. Because if an American's car is bust? You are fucked. There is no public transport net to catch you. This can be so inhibiting that not having a car means being unable to even get a job. That's an insane barrier for entry.

 

Similarly, bad unions are a-plenty in the US because the whole system has been setup to discourage the practice of unionsed workers. The US has already had uniosed workers and historically, that was a net good for workers. Bad for employers at the top. So if you've only ever had bad unions, why would you want a union? But that's kind of my point right? The union isn't the issue here. The systemic way that unions have been made terrible, is the issue. Because unions as a concept and pro-worker tool does work well in a lot of other countries.

 

The issue with workers acting like a union without unionzation is that it's like a house of cards. With no safeties but just hope that it'll work out means it takes very little to break up that unofficial union.

 

And to your last point: "I could shut this place down in about an hour. A union can't do that. Especially not in the same way. "

If that is possible, I'd argue the whole place has systemic issues. No one employee should have that much power, unless we are talking like...nuclear facility perhaps

[IkeaGnome]

4 minutes ago, Omni-Owl said:

I would argue all of this is because the unions you do have only can work under a system that actively has destroyed them over the past couple of decades and actively does not want them to exist, since a powerful union is a danger to business. There is a whole systemic can of worms behind that. It's kind of like how competition is bad for business but great for customers. Good unions are great for employees, but bad for employers. Only because the whole system is setup to benefit employers first of all. Money above all.

On the flip side of that, we've proven at this site that you don't need a union to have better than union benefits. When my partner and I were talking about moving to be closer to her family I'd make less doing the same job there. Even without factoring in my 20% royalties. My base pay would be lower, my time away from home higher, my PTO lessened, and shorter working days. Yes only working a 10 hour day would be nice, but that overtime still cuts into your bottom line at the end of the year. And that's in a skilled, unionized industry in a country with good unions and good public transportation ;). Even if you figured for cost of living differences, which are lower there, I'd have less spending power. 

23 minutes ago, Omni-Owl said:

And to your last point: "I could shut this place down in about an hour. A union can't do that. Especially not in the same way. "

If that is possible, I'd argue the whole place has systemic issues. No one employee should have that much power, unless we are talking like...nuclear facility perhaps

The place doesn't have systemic issues, it's the nature of the industry. Truckloads of explosives, tens of thousands of gallons of diesel on property. And really, because of the oversight we have from the federal level it wouldn't even take that. 

[Omni-Owl]

51 minutes ago, IkeaGnome said:

On the flip side of that, we've proven at this site that you don't need a union to have better than union benefits. When my partner and I were talking about moving to be closer to her family I'd make less doing the same job there. Even without factoring in my 20% royalties. My base pay would be lower, my time away from home higher, my PTO lessened, and shorter working days. Yes only working a 10 hour day would be nice, but that overtime still cuts into your bottom line at the end of the year. And that's in a skilled, unionized industry in a country with good unions and good public transportation ;). Even if you figured for cost of living differences, which are lower there, I'd have less spending power.

Ah I guess you got me there. You have a single example that would support your view, so I guess all the unions should pack up here where I live right?

Jokes aside, this does not sound like it accounts for what taxes are actually spent on and what is meant by spending power in this context.

[Lomac]

2 hours ago, Omni-Owl said:

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.

 

2 hours ago, Aeternalis said:

$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.

 

$50k CAD to start is fine in the area that LMG is located, especially if it jumps up to $65k after the first year.  I know, I live there.  Stay away from places like the British Properties, Metrotown and High Point Estates and you'll be fine...

 

2 hours 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?

TBF, not even union shops have a pay structure like that.  It's all based on hours worked.  You're paying the 1-year employee more because they theoretically have more experience and can potentially help out elsewhere or knows how to solve issues more quickly. 

 

At my actual job, I know what all my guys make.  There's a $60k salary gap between the lowest and highest earners, even though they theoretically all do the same job.  Why?  Because some have literal decades of experience on rare and obsolete hardware that might pop up once in a blue moon and would be able to breeze through the repair like it's nothing, whereas some others would have no clue what to do and could do far more harm than good.  Some people are coming in with no experience in the field, and others might have ten years working at a competitor's shop.  I can send an experienced, high earner off to YVR or YXX knowing that their pushback tractor will be back up and running in record time and won't impact any flights, or I can send a six month new hire who has no experience working repairs at an airport and potentially fuck up flights for the rest of the afternoon.  No way in hell we're paying both of those guys the same wage.

[Omni-Owl]

2 minutes ago, Lomac said:

At my actual job, I know what all my guys make.  There's a $60k salary gap between the lowest and highest earners, even though they theoretically all do the same job.  Why?  Because some have literal decades of experience on rare and obsolete hardware that might pop up once in a blue moon and would be able to breeze through the repair like it's nothing, whereas some others would have no clue what to do and could do far more harm than good.  Some people are coming in with no experience in the field, and others might have ten years working at a competitor's shop.  I can send an experienced, high earner off to YVR or YXX knowing that their pushback tractor will be back up and running in record time and won't impact any flights, or I can send a six month new hire who has no experience working repairs at an airport and potentially fuck up flights for the rest of the afternoon.  No way in hell we're paying both of those guys the same wage.

Clearly these people are not doing the same work. I don't understand your example. It sounds extremely contrived to try and make a "gotcha" point.

[Lomac]

2 minutes ago, Omni-Owl said:

Clearly these people are not doing the same work. I don't understand your example. It sounds extremely contrived to try and make a "gotcha" point.

My guys are paid to do a very specific, singular type of repair on vehicles, just like burger flippers are paid to flip burgers.  Single type of job, though sometimes instead of cooking burgers on a french top, a BBQ is used instead.  Or a cast iron pan on a power burner.  They're still flipping burgers at the end of the day, yet a new guy may not know how to cook a burger medium rare on the cast iron but the 1-year experience burger flipper does.

[crazzp]

4 hours 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

But what is fair? Even when you and the person are flipping burgers there are differences. There nuances in everything; the efficiency, the quality, the attitude when you serve customers, the help you bring to the company. How do you quantify that? 

 

Hot take: There are no absolute fairness in paying employees because most jobs are not as simple as Pay = $1 x times how many burgers you flip.

 

Sure pay transparency will help those who are severely underpaid, but it might also bring tonnes of problems to the company and society in general because everyone is gonna compare and feel they ought to be paid more because of certain reasons which may or may not be justified. 

[NumLock21]

4 hours ago, Omni-Owl said:

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.

It's sad for you to draw to that conclusion. If a new employee comes and got a higher pay than me, there must be some valid reasons for that, but I would care less about it as I have work to be done, and don't have time for this nonsense. So what if the new guy gets more, it's not my business or any of my concerns, am I going to lose sleep over it, No.

 

[leadeater]

4 hours ago, Omni-Owl said:

Clearly these people are not doing the same work. I don't understand your example. It sounds extremely contrived to try and make a "gotcha" point.

That scenario is very common. Take for example my job sector and position. I work in IT and I'm a Senior Systems Engineer, there are multiple other Senior Systems Engineers in my team as well as Systems Engineers. Senior System Engineers are on pay scale 7 and Systems Engineers are on pay scale 6. Each pay scales spans for example sake $20k.

 

People in the team with the same job title are paid differently even within the same pay scale with the same job skill evaluation points, this determines what job position gets which pay scale.

 

Everyone in the same pay scale has, can and will reach the top of the pay scale however at different times based on where they started in the scale when they got hired which is based on qualifications and experience, then how long you have been employed for.

 

This is completely fair since I who have been working here for 10 years knows more about our systems and can be more effective in the job than a newly hired Senior Systems Engineer even though that new person might be just as qualified, talented and industry experienced as me. I would have been involved in numerous projects within the business providing value improving business outcomes and that is recognized through the yearly pay increments we are all entitled to and cannot be withheld by any manger or team leader or performance evaluation. Not receiving your pay increment is only possible through disciplinary and misconduct proceedings through the proper business/HR process.

 

Basically people with the same job title doing similar or the same work getting different pay is fine and fair so long as the opportunity is fair, which the pay scale and pay increments ensure.

 

Job titles and job roles rarely encompass the full amount of what an employee does and this is very applicable to positions that require more experience and qualification and high skill job sectors. While it is easy to argue a line cook in a fast food restaurant cooking burgers all do the same job even to the same standards and abilities that is not possible for positions like Systems Engineers who could in reality be doing very different things while having the same job title and job description i.e. everyone in my team.

 

Even so I have no problem with an employee at a fast food restaurant getting paid less than another who has been there longer so long as the opportunity for pay increase is fair and equal. Performance and pay reviews should be done yearly and performance should only impact bonuses and pay accelerations not general increases.

 

If there is one thing that will discourage a person in a job and result in poor output and effort along with poor job satisfaction is NEVER getting a pay raise.

[Jarsky]

Same position to @leadeater for a similar amount of time, so most of my thoughts just mirror what hes already said above. 

 

At the end of the day, you get paid for value you add to the company. 

Just because people have the same job title, doesnt mean they create the same value. 

If a writer is writing for the LTT channel and creating videos for the main channel that are engaging and interesting and unique...then its more work involved than say if a writer is exclusively (or majority) working on ShortCircuit or TechLinked videos...where its generally consolidating news or product reviews. 

Some may have multiple responsibilities, like Jake and Anthony practically being the "IT Support" for the company on top of their writing for some time. 

And of course some may just be more efficient due to experience, at getting projects done solo 

 

These kind of nuances are often why businesses try and discourage comparing remuneration. 

 

Personally I did have private conversations with some of my team outside of work a few years back, and found I was at the low end.

So I did some market research around my role and negotiated a pay rise with my employer.

We came to an agreement 2 years ago and i now make about 35% more than I was then and received substantial pay increases over my peers. This isnt something I discussed with them because it would come across unfair, despite me already being well below what others were being paid...mostly who are newer to the job and peers I essentially teach. 

But I also needed to keep in mind I have a lot of benefits compared to peers in other teams with similar roles, and also when comparing to other companies with higher salaries. 
Such as working from home 3 days a week which saves me driving across the city to the office. I also have the option that I can move anywhere, and work 100% remote which is a massive benefit for balancing personal and work life. My work also provides my phone, internet, health, life & income insurance. So i'm happy to trade some of my earning potential for that compared to offers from other companies. 

 

You cant always look at a job title or what someone else is making with the same job title and compare it oranges to oranges. 

It comes down to experience, time with a company (as hiring new staff is an expensive process) and the share of value you create for the company. 

[Anghammarad]

Without contributing to all the synthetical drama, like synthetical performace tests for PCs... 

 

Think about this. If LMG is such a bad place to work, why isn't the staff changing like a revolving door? Hm? 

 

The company I currently work for, for now 3.5 years, the employees that were there from where I started all changed up to 3 times per position, only 4 of the "OG" ones still there, not counting boss and his secretary...  THIS is a bad work environmant... and I also put in my notice and will cease to work there end of march, new job lined up already. 

 

Dang it... 

Let there be brain...

[LAwLz]

1 hour ago, Jarsky said:

At the end of the day, you get paid for value you add to the company. 

and @leadeater it is true that you can't really compare wages because there is varying degree of nuance to it.

But that is not the same thing as the employer forbidding you from mentioning your salary. Forbidding your employees from talking to each other about what they make is bad. Such a policy only exists to benefit the employer, not the employees.

The people who try and make arguments for why it might be a bad idea to discuss and compare wages are missing the point or deliberately trying to distract from the real conversation, which is restricting the freedom of employees. An employee should be free to discuss their wage if they want to. There might be reasons for why they might not want to do so, but it should be up to them to decide that, not the employer.

 

 

42 minutes ago, Anghammarad said:

Think about this. If LMG is such a bad place to work, why isn't the staff changing like a revolving door? Hm? 

I think part of it is because they seem to only or mostly hire people who dream of working there, and as a result might be willing to put up with some less than stellar things about the work environment.

 

I don't have a source for this so take it with a massive shovel of salt, but some people have said that they during some WAN show said that they pay pretty poorly for the first year, and then raise the wage. So people who agree to work there are already conditioned and has shown willingness to work for possible less than they deserve.

 

Also, do we even know that their retention is good? My impression is that they don't disclose who works there except for a few notable ones. For all we know, they might have a really low staff retention rate for certain positions, but we are only seeing a few really high profile positions that do get treated nicely stay. Someone mentioned earlier that they have over 100 employees now, and I doubt viewers are exposed to more than a handful of them.

 

We shouldn't assume the worst, but probably not assume the best either. The truth is probably somewhere in between.

[mr moose]

21 hours ago, Avocado Diaboli said:

By that very simplistic definition,

Why over complicate what is actually quite a simple thing?

21 hours ago, Avocado Diaboli said:

cancel culture has been a thing since time immemorial.

Yes, I'd agree with that,  I'd say though that throughout history the social narrative was generally governed by those in power, not those with loudest lobbying voice.  Cancel culture of today is more a consequence of organizations being afraid of losing PR value because of a single entity, historically it wouldn't be so much cancelling out of fear but silencing to maintain power.   I recognize this might be what some would consider splitting hares,  and to be honest without citing half the historical records of the last 300 years neither one of us would be able to evidence our belief beyond "this makes more sense"..

 

21 hours ago, Avocado Diaboli said:

Social pariahs have always existed and disassociation was always a consequence. Therefore, it's not useful to get worked up about it or pretend that it's something novel or worth consideration. The only people getting upset about it are the ones standing still in an evolving world that threatens to change around them without the courtesy of stopping to not hurt their feelings.

I don't think it is something you can just ignore as if it has no consequences,  you have to remember some people are "upset" about it because they consider it to be leading to a dark place not because it is simply "evolving" beyond their comfort or understanding.  There are a lot of well educated and smart minds who have said it is not a good omen to see this sort of culture take hold.   Most of the complaints against what people seem to consider cancel culture centre around the concept that if you shut down or cancel people just because they don't agree with a loud minority, then the loud minority will govern with the power to shut down anyone.  That is not an unreasonable fear and I believe that is something most people in the western world hold to be a vital component of a free democracy.  

 

[Jarsky]

10 minutes ago, LAwLz said:

My impression is that they don't disclose who works there except for a few notable ones.

LMG publish their team on their website: https://linusmediagroup.com/our-team

They dont publish team members who are in probationary periods though, so no idea what the retention is in regards to new hires

[leadeater]

28 minutes ago, LAwLz said:

But that is not the same thing as the employer forbidding you from mentioning your salary. Forbidding your employees from talking to each other about what they make is bad. Such a policy only exists to benefit the employer, not the employees.

Neither of has said anything about forbidding employees, @Jarskydid mention it's commonly discouraged and that is true but that's not the same thing is outright not allowing it. Quite often that sort of policy also exists in writing because the business may be dealing with employees of different countries, contractors and external businesses or consultants and what you get paid may be felt as confidential or not appropriate to be openly sharing with everyone. 

 

For example Weta Digital I doubt would be keen for people outside of the organization to know what they pay and I know for a fact employees have confidentiality agreements on top of their employment contracts. Heck when we visited their data center we had to sign confidentiality agreements or no access or even communication with them or their employees.

 

You can have a policy and have expectations of working environment that do not strictly align with that policy and it's up to you the employee and your manager(s) to figure out what is actually appropriate. Pulling out an employee contract and bringing in a disciplinary discussion around pay disclosure probably means you were not being appropriate with information.

 

Discretion is key and that is typically what most business use those policies for, not to completely and outright prevent any and all pay discussions because anyone who thinks this is simply a fool. Business leaders rarely are fools.

 

Anyone solely focusing on pure outcomes rather than fairness of opportunity most often ends up arguing for or creating an environment of unfairness. There are good and effective ways to go about things and bad ways. Hammering down pay equality because everyone must be paid the same for the same job role/title is the bad way.

 

P.S. I suggest you go back through the pages of discussion and read what I have said about what you want to talk about, because the discussion you were replying to was addressing a specific concern with what someone was raising hence the subject matter of our two posts.

Edited February 21, 2023 by leadeater

[LAwLz]

11 minutes ago, Jarsky said:

LMG publish their team on their website: https://linusmediagroup.com/our-team

They dont publish team members who are in probationary periods though, so no idea what the retention is in regards to new hires

That's about half of their employees though. So even if we go by that list, which I kind of doubt people who say they got great retention do, about 40% of their employees are not accounted for.

And like you said, they don't list people in their probation period so we don't know what their retention is for those. 

 

6 minutes ago, leadeater said:

P.S. I suggest you go back through the pages of discussion and read what I have said about what you want to talk about, because the discussion you were replying to was addressing a specific concern with what someone was raising hence the subject matter of our two posts.

I see.

So you were engaging in a separate conversation about some rather specific thing, and not making a comment on the overall story that this thread is about, which is Linus not allowing employees to discuss their wages among each other? Fair enough. I haven't read the thread so I jumped to conclusions and thought you were trying to change the subject in order to distract from the overall discussion, kind of like how some threads about Apple doing something bad can devolve into "they are allowed to do this according to the law" rather than the discussion of "should they do this even though they are allowed to".

 

I think the discussion of "should they do this" is often more important so I'd like to ask you what your opinion is on employers who forbid their employees from discussing wages with their coworkers. Do you think employers who do that are doing a morally good thing and should be encouraged? Or do you think employers shouldn't restrict their workers from discussing wages if they so desire?

[leadeater]

4 minutes ago, LAwLz said:

I think the discussion of "should they do this" is often more important so I'd like to ask you what your opinion is on employers who forbid their employees from discussing wages with their coworkers. Do you think employers who do that are doing a morally good thing and should be encouraged? Or do you think employers shouldn't restrict their workers from discussing wages if they so desire?

 

This should pretty much fully cover off everything, the long and short of it is getting in to a specific conversation about LMG itself and the currently laid out accusation to me is a bit pointless because the information and claims cannot be verified and there isn't a fairness in that information so the foundation of the discussion is itself unfair. And if we want to have a discussion that centers around fairness, like pay, then awareness of fairness around the discussion shouldn't go unconsidered.

 

So I can't really be bothered because I know nothing will change, we won't get any proper information or response so going there is quite fruitless in my mind. I can only express my opinion in general and that's it, nothing more.

 

Anyway see below (in time order):

Spoiler

On 2/20/2023 at 2:59 AM, leadeater said:

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.

 

On 2/20/2023 at 2:59 AM, leadeater said:

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.

 

 

On 2/20/2023 at 12:22 PM, leadeater said:

Viewers don't have any right to pry in to private and employment matters of those who they watch on YouTube. Unless it's actually something serious and egregious it's none of their business. Hence the issue here is someone trying to drum up drama and not any country's standards or people from that country.

 

I can have my opinion that openness in wages is best and is the case in my country but I do not care to argue about it with a company and employees from another country when there isn't actually a problem. Nothing I can say will change Canadian law so 

 

 

On 2/20/2023 at 1:05 PM, leadeater said:

You and everyone prying in to private matters you have zero business doing to me is also unethical. You being unable to recognize that actions can and do cause harm and playing off your assumptions to do so is far more unethical than your opinions about a company policy in country you likely know little about when it comes to employment relations and laws.

 

Having a discussion about something like this is fine and one thing, but to make the decision that there is actually a problem and to demonize a company and demand change or actively discredit the company is a very different thing.

 

The story here that I see is someone actively trying to discredit a company and has an axe to grind getting to frame the situation how they like knowing that a proper rebuttal from LMG is likely not possible or itself improper to do so for a lot of legitimate reasons. So they and everyone else gets to complain and attack with impunity with all the self satisfaction they want to feel about it while refusing to acknowledge the harm they are doing.

 

You will get no objection from me that openness about wages is best and proper, what you will not get from me is agreement that LMG need to change their company policy if it's in there at all because I lack the knowledge about Canadian employment law and the working environment at LMG to do so. If LMG/Linus wishes to comment about this then great but I suspect it's not going to be a satisfactory response other then "Keep out of it" so I would actually prefer nothing.