This is fundamentally one of the biggest cultural changes we have to make. You have to be ok with talking about your personal earning. In a lot of places talking about earnings is more taboo then talking about sex, and sex is generally taboo.

Company culture of not talking about earnings only helps the company. It allows them to pay lowest market value for anyone, under the (often true) hopes that they don't know their value. In short talk about it, and get other people to talk about it.

I would talk with your co-workers get them to open up about what they make, or have the breach subject in the conversation group while the other person can hear. Talk about what you used to make and what you make now. The key if to give everyone more context. Its important to remember that someones value as a person is not their market price.

The more information a person has available, the better the choices they can make.

[$47/hr, 2 years out of college, east coast]

The big reason for the taboo against talking about income is jealousy. Almost every job feels harder than it looks, and almost everyone feels more skilled at their work than they look.

So if you tell someone your salary, your job probably feels more difficult to you than it looks to them, and you probably feel more productive than they think you are. If you make the same or more than they do, there is a very high risk that they will think you are overpaid.

This is obviously a risk to the company, which is why most companies (at least in the US) have a policy against it. But it is also a risk to you and your relationship with that other person, which is why few people share their salary information with their friends.

You are right that this is a fundamental problem for equality. But it is not an easy or safe thing to change, which means it will take a lot of time and effort.

I am not saying that the status quo should remain. I'm just pointing out the reason it is difficult to change.

Read patio11's words on this: "We have strong cultural training to not ask about salary, ever. This is not universal. In many cultures, professional contexts are a perfectly appropriate time to discuss money... If I were a Marxist academic or a conspiracy theorist, I might think that this bit of middle class American culture was specifically engineered to be in the interests of employers and against the interests of employees."

(Don't Call Yourself a Programmer: www.kalzumeus.com/2011/10/28/dont-call-yourself-a-programmer/)

> This is obviously a risk to the company, which is why most companies (at least in the US) have a policy against it.

What's amazing to me is that every company I've ever known of has a policy along those lines, yet it is illegal to sanction employees for talking about their pay with coworkers under the National Labor Relations Act and has been for a long, long time.

I also wonder to what extent the jealousy argument applies in the real world. It makes sense, and I'm sympathetic to it, but I've worked at two jobs where it was pretty well known what everyone made. There were huge disparities in what people made for doing the same work in both cases. It didn't cause any resentment issues I know of - but I suspect it did make people more likely to ask for a raise when they knew what was possible, which I think is the problem that management really has with it, because it becomes much harder for them to justify to the employee why they can't or won't pay them more, even though there may be valid reasons for it.

From the other side of the curtain, most companies have "salary bands" that they apply semi-uniformly, i.e., as a "junior developer" you can make from X1-10% to X1+10%, as a "senior developer" you can make from X2-10% to X2+10%, and as a "project manager" you can make from X3-10% to X3+10%.

The invisible hand of the market will lead prople to companies with the highest value for X2, which are usually also those where the productivity (i.e. contribution to company revenue) per person is highest.

I started my career in the public sector where salary is published and set in stone before you even apply for a position. Everyone knows everyone's pay grade. I never once saw any kind of jealousy about someone making more than someone else for doing the same job title.

This has two effects (1) Saves me a lot of time on the negotiation front. If the announcement doesn't pay what you want, don't apply to it. Saves me and the hiring manager a lot of wasted time if I were to apply to a post thinking I'll get paid $X when it will really pay $Y. And (2) Since it's all public anyway, everyone knows that if you want to make $X then you need to train into position Y and you have a pretty concrete list of knowledge/skills that you can hack away on to achieve that. None of this blind guess work.

Someone I know who worked in public education got hired at a school district the year before a pay freeze; which did not lift during her 9 years there. She was jealous that teachers with 1 year of experience were getting hired at higher pay scales than she was making.

[I have no explanation for why she stayed there for 9 years]

I don't believe the jealousy argument is correct. I've been in a position a long time ago early in my career where I was severely underpaid. I found out when me and my colleagues shared salary information. It didn't cause me to become jealous, or change my perception of them the tiniest bit, in fact, I was grateful to them to have hard facts on how much more I should earn.

Their salaries gave me the incentive to demand a big raise from my employer. Which I did and didn't get, so I quit and got myself a much better paid job.

>This is obviously a risk to the company, which is why most companies (at least in the US) have a policy against it.

These policies are actually often illegal due to the National Labor Relations Act.

People need to be ok with talking about it, but at the same time, it still should ultimately be each person's choice to talk about it.

[$67/hr, 2 years of experience, senior frontend engineer, Palo Alto]

Charge more. Just humor me and pitch the next client at $125/hr, which is more in line with market in your neck of the woods. (And the necessity for this post, folks, is one of the many, many mechanisms by which a norm of salaries being hidden screws over employees via information asymmetry.)

I'm not a contractor - if I were contracting, I'd definitely charge around that rate.

That's the first time I've ever heard a US-based engineer quote their salary as an hourly number. My mistake. Assuming my mental math is correct and your package is described as "$120k annual salary plus the standard benefits for white collar employees", I withdraw my objection.

If OTOH you're not billing 160 hours a month or you're not getting the standard benefits (healthcare, etc), then you're contracting whether you describe yourself as a contractor or not, so the objection would stand in that case.

(This distinction made for the benefits of other HNers, since I have from time-to-time run into people who think they are employees but who are actually consultants who just happen to have a very thin client list and substandard rates.)

Well, it's $140k + $9k signing bonus + equity + standard health & dental insurance - I'm already looking at a potential raise in compensation in about 2-4 months or so with a promotion to lead engineer.

Personally, I'm at the point where I don't care as much about the money, it's more about the people I work with. For those not at my point though is why I provide salary info though - it is a nice data point to use to assess for others.

Varies by job; currently around that but as a consultant/contractor my rack rate was $150/hr with discounts for big projects down to $100/hr. [30 yrs experience, embedded, network and wireless, midwest ]

Not to pry, but is this typical on the West Coast or are you contracting/including bonus in your hourly? I think I do pretty well for my age but you're killing it.

[$46/hr, 5 years of experience, Software Engineer, Boston]

You have to adjust for cost of living. There is a lot of cost of living over there then compared to around Boston.

I did not include a signing bonus or equity in that number - I am probably an unusual case admittedly due to my speed of learning and speed of execution

On my first day at one job, HR called me into a conference room to review my compensation package and everything. The HR rep wrote a number on a Post-It and handed it to me, saying, "This is your salary. Here at BigCo we hold salary in confidence between you and the company. In other words, please do not discuss this number with any of your co-workers." I responded, "Don't worry, ma'am. I'm just as ashamed of that small number as you are." [low 6 figures, 28 years experience, Upper Midwest]

Agreed 100%. I find the "don't talk about it" culture surrounding pay in companies pretty disgraceful. In a more civilised future, I'm pretty confident all pay will be totally open and public, and a swathe of problems will be solved as a result. Sure, there will be an awkward transition period, but progress is usually challenging.

[38K, ~15years experience, tiny non-technical startup in London]

British Pounds or USD? If most of the people are talking in USD, then you're making roughly 76k USD.

Less roughly 38k GBP ~= 61k USD. It's been a good half-decade since it was two dollars to the pound.

Also taxes.

https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/rates-and-allowan...

Company culture of not talking about earnings helps me not feeling bad if I were to find out that my colleague who does the same job is paid more, or be on the reverse end. I'd rather not know. On the other hand, differences between different companies I can explain/comprehend/think are useful.

But what if knowing lets you make moves that improve your salary (if you are on the lower end) or encourage your coworkers to ask for a raise (if you are on the higher end)?

I started out making 10% more than what I was initially offered since I knew what coworkers with similar experience made and asked for that amount. And I know what coworkers with much more experience (10+ years to my 2 years) make, so I can gauge whether I am on the right track.

Congratulations. Salary negotiations is not an area I am good at, and I guess I don't need a constant reminder about that wondering what if because the benefits a job gives us is a complex issue.

And in response to the valuation, they could of changed their math; But in the last two years most economies have had growth, so that value to go up to adjust for growth and inflation. The only real reason I can think of that value going down is much more supply to the work force, which I know isn't that true.

A lot of people are just plain uncomfortable talking about it because in a lot of places your projected image is tied to how much you make. [$25/hr, software developer, 6 months until graduation, midwest]

Are there other male workers getting hired right now at the same rate you were? 2 years is a long time and it's entirely possible they changed their pay scale in that time. If there are other males being hired right now for higher pay with the same experience level then that is indeed a problem. But I wouldn't jump in without knowing as much information as possible.

It is absolutely not your problem to comment on this matter. It's actually none of your business.

Also, admitting that you were looking at offer letters when you should have known straight away from first glance that it was none of your business could bring some heat on you and your career that you certainly won't appreciate.

Mind your own business.

Agreed fully. It was a bad move to look at the letter (even if it was in the open). Don't follow up with another move that's even worse. Not only will your slip-up become known but you're boss and the new hire will be be mad at you.

Plus, as someone else said: unless you know what male new hires get paid now, there is no evidence of any wrongdoing.

Also: maybe they get some other benefit (e.g. relocation money) you don't receive or you just negotiated better.

This fear of sharing income information is crazy. Get over it.

Parallel construction. Become friends with the relevant coworker, casually ask one day how much they make, and that's a great opportunity to point out that you were making more when you were that experienced so maybe they should ask for a raise.

I would personally be pretty offended if you read my offer letter even accidentally, despite being very happy to tell you how much I make.

Can you blame someone just glimpsing at something you carelessly just leave in the open.

If it's that private why would you just leave in the open like that?

I never understood the problem with shearing how much you earn but apparently it's taboo so i don't share unless somebody asks.

There could be other reasons that affected the decision for the wage for your coworker.

It might be that we are in a recession at the moment and works are not that plenty ( at least where i am ). Someone might have noticed something on your CV or on the interview and did decide that you were worth a bit more.

Salaries have decreased dramatically in the company that i am in. Some position as 2 years ago is 300Euro lower.

But i believe the right approach for that is the one that sweettea has mentioned. Casually bringing it up.

> I accidentally discovered the hourly wage that some of my newly hired female coworkers make (offer letter left in the open)

When you say "some" of your female coworkers, do you mean "one"? As others have said, you can't compare without also knowing what your new male coworkers (if any) are getting paid; but one man versus one woman also wouldn't be strong evidence for anything.

Two, my supervisor mentioned that he made them the same offer when hiring them.

Just because you get paid one dollar more doesn't prove discrimination. Your need another sample from a male is newly hired as well.

> that I was a couple years ago

Here you go. You don't know how much they would pay you now.

> our company also claims that our salaries are pretty algorithmic based on experience level

It sounds like the algorithm has changed

caveat: I am by no means an employment lawyer, careers guidance councillor, or anyone with any relevant qualifications! I merely offer this as my own personal opinion, as someone who has been employed in a variety of organisations.

I respectfully disagree with the commenter who says this "is absolutely not your problem". You are right to care about the wellbeing of your colleagues, that's one of the differences between a company (and dare I say it, a 'team') and a collection of freelancers. As far as you know, you've - inadvertently - uncovered evidence that your company discriminates according to gender, and that's a serious matter. Maybe it's not illegal, maybe the company has no real problem with it, but you do, so I feel you have every right to bring it up.

What might happen as a result, of course, depends on the company culture and the opinion of your supervisor (and their supervisor, etc.) The best case is that they've made a mistake, will be very grateful to you for bringing it to their attention, and your colleagues will thank you for your intervention. In the worst case, they'll fire you for meddling where you shouldn't and, if that's illegal in your jurisdiction, you'll need to decide whether to open a claim against them - either way, that case doesn't sound like fun.

Another option is to have a candid discussion about salary with one of your female colleagues. Your company might well discourage that kind of behaviour, but I'm pretty sure there's nothing illegal about it, and it's certainly not immoral IMO. If you're talking to the person you know is being paid less, they might appreciate you empowering them to deal with it however they wish, rather than fighting their battle on their behalf. Although be prepared to offer support if it's requested. After all, if it's really an insignificant amount, they might want to leave it, and you might be OK with that.

Ultimately, I think you need to tread carefully, but evaluate a) what sort of company you want to work for (if they react badly to you raising this, maybe they're not worth it, if you can afford such principles) b) what sort of colleague you want to be.

>you've - inadvertently - uncovered evidence that your company discriminates according to gender

Wait you're able to divine that from one anecdote about one person? What if they are explicitly discriminating only this person(still bad but not sexism). Is it possible the company is only paying her less because of some other deal on the table? Have you ever had a company accidentally pay you the wrong amount(it's never a good sign, but it happens), have you ever made a typo?

Prove me wrong and I will gladly shame this anonymous company, but OP hasn't talked with the friend and we're going off of one offer letter, not even a paystub.

What if its not discrimination at all, but her lesser negotiation skills? There's no rule that you have to pay anybody any set amount. The company says they use a range by experience and level; is she in the range? Then there you are.

Perhaps times were different a couple years ago when you were hired. If the company is not quite as strong right now (or other reasons), they may be offering less to new employees. Generally, companies try not to reduce existing employees' pay... but do change the base starting pay of new employees. And companies usually have a bit of a salary range. $1.00 (an hour I presume) is only slightly more than $2k/yr. Perhaps these new employees did not interview quite as well... making them ever so slightly less appealing (while still being good enough to hire, obviously). There are many valid reasons why one person might be paid less than another person. There is not enough info here to point at "female" as the reason.

Edit: That is not to say there is not an on going problem with women getting paid less. There is. But not every woman getting paid less than a man is getting paid less because she is a woman. It only takes a tiny variance in any of the other variables to make one person's salary different than another's. We can't blame sexism for every bad thing that happens to a woman.

It's been hinted but to make it explicit: we are in more difficult economic times than when you were hired. Maybe every new hire is getting less than back then, irrespective of gender. So, if you feel incredibly strongly about this, you as a minimum need to gather much more evidence before you can even be sure there is a problem. But you might be better just letting the people more directly concerned identify and address any problem that may exist for themselves - or are they inferior in some way that means you have to do it for them?

... and the next time someone leaves private correspondence in the open, cover it or turn it over without reading it, and tell them at your first opportunity. That way, maybe they'd pay you the same courtesy.

It's a difficult matter, because there's often a taboo around comparing income - and whether that's a good or a bad thing is up for debate. Good because you get less jealousy (X earns Y but I don't believe s/he deserves it), bad because you can get inequality (same pay for same job / skill level, etc).

I'm inclined to believe it's none of your business and it's something between HR and the new hires (there may be reasons beyond what you can see - did you have much more experience or side-projects out of college for example?), but at the same time I'd like equality or at least to sate my curiosity if I were you.

Ultimately, though, you should be able to eliminate jealousy because a) you pay everyone exactly what they're worth b) you don't hire irrationally jealous people :-)

(oh, and c) you pay everyone a decent base so that they really don't have anything to complain about anyway)

If jealousy is a common trait amongst humans, and it doesn't interfere with their ability to do their jobs, then why would you choose not to hire jealous people?

Probably because the second part of that sentence isn't entirely true. It's part of the reason it's generally seen as a bad idea to have "serious" relationships with coworkers.

Business isn't the place for emotion.

If the company claims that salaries are truly algorithmic and based on experience level, they should have no problem publicizing the salaries of each employee on an internal wiki.

I see a lot of HR departments put a huge effort into making salaries seem fair. They standardize job titles. They link job titles to salary scales (A,B,C,D) and then have sub scales (1-15) for 'experience' (years at the company) or performance (positive performance reviews). The problem is there are always huge loopholes:

"Ok, the experience scale can also count time at similar positions at other companies" Well, that sounds reasonable... "Also if you have a lot of industry connections we'll count that as experience" Um, okay... "also if management is impressed by a junior hire's capabilities we can apply that towards the experience scale" wait... and "Well Jane, you performed really well but management only allows us to give out so many exemplary performance reviews per year" what?

The result is that you have a beautiful salary scale in your employee handbook and a nice basis for hand-waving (your job puts you in scale B, and you've been here three years, so that's why you're at B3!), but everyone is just paid whatever they can negotiate. It's been shown time and time again that this disadvantages women, immigrants, minorities (and probably also more introverted types).

It sounds like you accidentally saw something you probably shouldn't have; I would keep my mouth shut.

There are a lot of factors in any compensation plan, and salary is just one. I'd be cautious about judging too quick based only on a single factor.

It is possible that the company is giving themselves negotiating room.

always speak up, never keep your mouth shut, there are laws in place to protect against retaliation for speaking up. One of the unspoken factors in a compensation plan is that women tend to work for less (ie they typically don't negotiate for more). I am a woman, and I've learned to ask for more, but I used to just take what i was offered for face value. It is possible the company expects no one to speak up- and so it goes.

Is it worth bringing up the validity of "equal pay for equal work"? What if this woman isn't as experienced as someone else?

If people actually support equal pay for equal work, shouldn't this apply to every job and industry? Should bench warmers in the NBA be payed the same as LeBron James?

Really, you should be paying someone based on their position and performance rather than their experience. Of course, this is difficult to do right away. Anyway, the OP addressed this: his female coworker has exactly the same level of experience.

By definition bench warmers do less work (or the same work less well), so of course they shouldn't be paid as much.

My wife had a similar issue, except the other way around. She got paid a bit more than another person (male) who graduated at the same time and had the same amount of experience. When I inquired I was told it was because she was a better negotiator and negotiated a higher salary.

Don't get me wrong, I'm 100% for income equality opportunity. That is, on average, the same experience, education and job pay the same for both sexes, sexual orientations, races, religious and so on.

But taking a single case and making a cause of it is difficult, since it is just a single case.

>The pay difference is pretty small, about $1.00

Are you trolling?

$1.00 * 8 * 20 * 12 = $1920 per annum

I'm not following your numbers here.

Generally, the calculation I use is this:

$1.00 * 40(hrs/wk) * 52(wks/yr) = $2080 per year.

(Usually I'm working the other way to get an hourly number from an annual salary but the math works both ways.)

Yeah that's more correct than twelve twenty-day months. In my locale, wages are expressed monthly so I'm a bit more used to roughly divide by twenty, for instance when calculating the relative cost of daycare.

who in software gets paid an hourly wage?

People I know at Apple are hourly.

Is there a good reason to pay on a hourly basis?

overtime is normally $hourly * 1.5 or so depending on the company

No idea, I'm not even in the US, sorry.

I do.

I assume he means per hour.

$1/hr

One sort of rational explanation for a lower wage is that females might get pregnant and need leave for that, although that probably does not justify the difference (I haven't done the calculations). That is also why insurance prices offered to females / males are often different insofar the law allows it.

That's an outrageous reason to discriminate against someone. A man also might take leave after their child is born. A woman might not get pregnant. Someone might be predisposed to sickness, but you still wouldn't be justified in using your crystal ball and tarot cards in order to pay them a lower wage.

This is a matter of statistics and risk evaluation, it is a fact that health insurance companies take the risk of pregnancy into account when calculating the insurance premium, whether you like it or not. In the same way there is a risk to the employer and in principle it is fairly easy to assign a cost to it, too. For example, assume an employee makes 40k a year and will take 3 years off during her work life, due to pregnancy (not uncommon in Europe and often with almost full compensation). Assume she works 40 years, then the cost per year is 3k, so she should actually be compensated with ~37k per year. This is the most naive calculation, if you knew statistics on how many men vs. women take paid leave because of children and so on you can of course come up with a much better cost model.

If you assume that a company acts rationally there is no reason for arbitrary discrimination, but every reason to adjust wages according to possible costs. I'm sure in the case of wage inequality, this is not the main reason however.

you must really hate the insurance field, huh

Don't brush your teeth for a week, drink a diet coke immediately followed by a coffee right before the interview. This will give you the appearance of someone with bad teeth (and it is really bad for your teeth. Take something for the smell. Don't make a habit out of it).

Then you will know whether there is discrimination based on medical conditions or not.

We all know the outcome of this.

The same applies to appearing sick otherwise. I have a particularly white skin. Under the wrong light it can even appear a little gray. Interviews in sunlight go significantly better than under UV light, and I'm pretty sure it's-because they think I'll be ill soon.

Management, everywhere I've ever worked was a band of old boys, playing social poker with eachother. Even the bosses I've had that were minority themselves discriminate. And they were minority only in genes, for example one was a "Turk" ... A christian, grew up in Boston. But yes he's tall and darker and has that broad face. Enjoys football. Discriminates based on religion (granted, given what muslims are doing to Christians in Turkey, I understand. Especially after him showing me some articles concerning the still existing Turkish Armenian Christians)

But it's not like other bosses were different. The problem is the type of person that tends to fill middle management, nothing else.

Since I've started working the main difference is that they lie about it really hard these days.

Do nothing.

It is not your place to comment on what they are getting paid, unless they are your friends.

There is no problem there. Differences in individual employee productivity are likely to outweigh $1/hour difference in pay rate.