Blue Bombers Forum
February 02, 2023, 01:10:51 PM *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
News:
 
   Home   Help Login Register  
Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 ... 7  All
  Print  
Author Topic: Salary Disclosure, NDAs and NCAs  (Read 2986 times)
Jesse
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 15036



« Reply #30 on: November 25, 2022, 05:30:45 PM »

I knew everyone underneath me's salary, but not those above or the same as me. Salaries weren't posted but salary bands were, so folks knew if they were in the bottom, middle, or top of their band.

I know some folks were being paid too much just because they'd been with the company for a long time and others weren't being paid enough considering their contribution to the workload.

As a Director, I'm sure you'd hate having to justify everyone's salary and hate everyone knowing what your salary was. As I've said before, not talking salary is great for those who are at the top and those who are deciding other peoples salaries, but it's bad for the workers. As there are more workers than management, I'd err on their side.

On a side note... I think NDA's should be illegal.

All of this.
Logged

My wife is amazing!
Blue In BC
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 28840


« Reply #31 on: November 25, 2022, 05:33:36 PM »

I'm not calling you out at all - I am simply saying that including that as part of an NDA is corporate BS.

It is 100% protecting the company at the expense of the employee.

Fair enough but how is the salary of any executive at the expense of the employees? I've hired staff at minimum wage and I've hired staff based on previous salary and / or abilities. It all depends on what work is expected of them and their responsibilities.

The salary of a shipper / receiver has no reflection of an RD engineer.

I remember a union representative ( as one of the union workers  suggesting ) that the receptionist and / or an employee sweeping the floor should all earn exactly the same amount as an engineer or accountant. All those positions were union positions with different job classifications.

Logged

2019 Grey Cup Champions
Blue In BC
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 28840


« Reply #32 on: November 25, 2022, 05:36:28 PM »

I knew everyone underneath me's salary, but not those above or the same as me. Salaries weren't posted but salary bands were, so folks knew if they were in the bottom, middle, or top of their band.

I know some folks were being paid too much just because they'd been with the company for a long time and others weren't being paid enough considering their contribution to the workload.

As a Director, I'm sure you'd hate having to justify everyone's salary and hate everyone knowing what your salary was. As I've said before, not talking salary is great for those who are at the top and those who are deciding other peoples salaries, but it's bad for the workers. As there are more workers than management, I'd err on their side.

On a side note... I think NDA's should be illegal.

Wanting NDA's or thinking they should be illegal is just a WOW comment. Those inevitably include protecting IP from competitors. Normally that includes non compete clauses for that same reason.

I can see we're no where near being on the same planet of thought. NDA's is something that exists and has existed longer than we've been around. Not sharing salary info is not new either.
« Last Edit: November 25, 2022, 05:39:11 PM by Blue In BC » Logged

2019 Grey Cup Champions
blue_gold_84
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 29928


For The W


« Reply #33 on: November 25, 2022, 06:19:49 PM »

I thought about that. Some teams are public owned and others are private. So some salary information might be available for the public teams like the Bombers. Or it may just show up as a total cost line item. The profit and loss is available for the public teams and the SMS determines which teams under spend to the floor or over spend to the cap.

But all players are unionized employees of the CFL. And all teams, irrespective of ownership structure, have to operate within the framework of the SMS, which is publicly disclosed. It seems incongruent to share the SMS limit (or budget) while keeping player salaries (which are in effect budget figures) secret.

We see other professional leagues operate with transparency regarding its team budgets and player salaries. I'm simply at a loss to understand why the CFL is an exception; it seems like nothing more than status quo.

NDA's is something that exists and has existed longer than we've been around. Not sharing salary info is not new either.

This doesn't justify keeping something in place, though. Status quo or "that's just the way it is and has always been" isn't a sturdy defense, IMO.
Logged

#forthew

Slava Ukraini!
Blue In BC
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 28840


« Reply #34 on: November 25, 2022, 06:35:10 PM »

But all players are unionized employees of the CFL. And all teams, irrespective of ownership structure, have to operate within the framework of the SMS, which is publicly disclosed. It seems incongruent to share the SMS limit (or budget) while keeping player salaries (which are in effect budget figures) secret.

We see other professional leagues operate with transparency regarding its team budgets and player salaries. I'm simply at a loss to understand why the CFL is an exception; it seems like nothing more than status quo.

This doesn't justify keeping something in place, though. Status quo or "that's just the way it is and has always been" isn't a sturdy defense, IMO.

Sports unions are a bit of an oddity. In the NFL there are players making $50M a season. IMO those unions are more about setting safety and generalized rules about minimum salary levels.

There is no comparison or benefit for a 3rd string QB knowing what the # 1 QB earns although in the NFL that info is often disclosed. At best transparency is interesting but not actionable.

NDA's are a protection for IP and entirely warranted. It has nothing to do with maintaining status quo. Are you going to argue that patents shouldn't be legal either?  Business need to protect IP and other competitive advantages.
Logged

2019 Grey Cup Champions
theaardvark
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 31264



« Reply #35 on: November 25, 2022, 09:54:52 PM »

Another point of contention...

Community owned team, does the community that owns the team have the right to know what the players are individually paid?

Again, I see no downside to the information being public, only upside.  Players/unions that are too embarrassed to let anyone know how little they make should be glad to have those numbers known, so that they can bargain better, and garner fan support of their cause for increased compensation.

If a fan thinks player a is getting $90K but is only getting $65k, their opinion of the value of that player, and how well the GM is doing his job might change.  On the other side, if a player is thought to be getting $125K but is actually getting $175k,  a fan may think they are a bargain when they aren't...

Again, most of the pertinent contracts are exposed by reporters eventually.  And most of the offers players received / turned down are also found out.  Look at the whole AH33 fiasco last year.  Why do his numbers become public knowledge, and other player don't?

Logged

Unabashed positron.  Blue koolaid in my fridge.  I wear my blue sunglasses at night.  Homer, d'oh.
TBURGESS
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 8840



« Reply #36 on: November 25, 2022, 10:09:59 PM »

Wanting NDA's or thinking they should be illegal is just a WOW comment. Those inevitably include protecting IP from competitors. Normally that includes non compete clauses for that same reason.

I can see we're no where near being on the same planet of thought. NDA's is something that exists and has existed longer than we've been around. Not sharing salary info is not new either.

NDA's and not talking about salary have both existed for a long time. Both are good for companies and bad for workers.

NDA's that say you can't share your salary aren't about protecting the company from competitors. NDA's sometimes protect companies from litigation for illegal things they've done. Non compete clauses are to hold on to your services even if you don't want to be there any more or if you are offered more money elsewhere.

In a far world, and I know the world isn't fair, NDA's to protect anything other than company secrets would be illegal & talking about salary would be something that everyone does to make sure they aren't being taken advantage of by the companies.

Keeping salaries secret allows companies to say whatever they want about a candidates or employees salary expectations. Folks who are looking for a job should have access to the actual salaries of folks who do what they do. Folks who work for a company should also have access to the companies salaries. All this would put the workers on even footing with companies when it comes to salary, benefits, etc.

Companies would fight tooth and nail to make sure that doesn't happen, but they can't stop employees from sharing their salaries except by NDA's, which most folks don't have to sign. Imagine a world where everyone knows how much they are worth to companies? Probably sent a chill down your spine! This could happen at a lower level than NDA folks starting today.

FTR: I'm not a commie. I don't think everyone deserves the same amount of money. I don't agree with equal pay for work of equal value because someone has to decide what equal value is. I don't believe that race, sex, religion or lack thereof, or skin colour or where you ancestors were born should have anything to do with how much make or don't make & therefore shouldn't be on any resume.
Logged

Winnipeg Blue Bombers - 2019 Grey Cup Champs.
theaardvark
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 31264



« Reply #37 on: November 25, 2022, 10:23:23 PM »

NDA's are there for a purpose, and if you want the job (and an obvious reason would be the pay) then you sign the NDA...

It works both ways... You may think that you signed a great deal, and the NDA keeps you thinking that, even if the person in the next office is making twice what you are... and the person in the next office may expect you are making more than you are, and expects you to earn it...
Logged

Unabashed positron.  Blue koolaid in my fridge.  I wear my blue sunglasses at night.  Homer, d'oh.
Blue In BC
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 28840


« Reply #38 on: November 25, 2022, 11:38:42 PM »

Another point of contention...

Community owned team, does the community that owns the team have the right to know what the players are individually paid?

Again, I see no downside to the information being public, only upside.  Players/unions that are too embarrassed to let anyone know how little they make should be glad to have those numbers known, so that they can bargain better, and garner fan support of their cause for increased compensation.

If a fan thinks player a is getting $90K but is only getting $65k, their opinion of the value of that player, and how well the GM is doing his job might change.  On the other side, if a player is thought to be getting $125K but is actually getting $175k,  a fan may think they are a bargain when they aren't...

Again, most of the pertinent contracts are exposed by reporters eventually.  And most of the offers players received / turned down are also found out.  Look at the whole AH33 fiasco last year.  Why do his numbers become public knowledge, and other player don't?



The downside is friction between players or employees. If you think you are worth more than someone doing a similar job that makes more, that makes it a difficult in the workplace.  Money is not a motivational tool. It doesn't lead to an increase in productivity.

Even among fans. As I asked does it really matter if we know that Gauthier is making $80K or $120K? We only want to know he's playing well at any level. Management determines his worth and their need. How that compares to Briggs for example is subjective. On field performance and leadership are measured by the coaches. They may be equal or one may be lessor.
« Last Edit: November 25, 2022, 11:46:31 PM by Blue In BC » Logged

2019 Grey Cup Champions
Blue In BC
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 28840


« Reply #39 on: November 25, 2022, 11:45:45 PM »

NDA's and not talking about salary have both existed for a long time. Both are good for companies and bad for workers.

NDA's that say you can't share your salary aren't about protecting the company from competitors. NDA's sometimes protect companies from litigation for illegal things they've done. Non compete clauses are to hold on to your services even if you don't want to be there any more or if you are offered more money elsewhere.

In a far world, and I know the world isn't fair, NDA's to protect anything other than company secrets would be illegal & talking about salary would be something that everyone does to make sure they aren't being taken advantage of by the companies.

Keeping salaries secret allows companies to say whatever they want about a candidates or employees salary expectations. Folks who are looking for a job should have access to the actual salaries of folks who do what they do. Folks who work for a company should also have access to the companies salaries. All this would put the workers on even footing with companies when it comes to salary, benefits, etc.

Companies would fight tooth and nail to make sure that doesn't happen, but they can't stop employees from sharing their salaries except by NDA's, which most folks don't have to sign. Imagine a world where everyone knows how much they are worth to companies? Probably sent a chill down your spine! This could happen at a lower level than NDA folks starting today.

FTR: I'm not a commie. I don't think everyone deserves the same amount of money. I don't agree with equal pay for work of equal value because someone has to decide what equal value is. I don't believe that race, sex, religion or lack thereof, or skin colour or where you ancestors were born should have anything to do with how much make or don't make & therefore shouldn't be on any resume.

That's a very narrow view. COMPANIES have owners and businesses are for profit enterprises. Employees are not generally owners.  You just defined free enterprise in a capitalistic society.

To suggest that two people doing similar jobs could potentially be worth equal amounts is unrealistic in the real world. Equity is salary anywhere determined by the employee ask and the company offer. Two sides to every coin but no two positions are exactly the same. Motivation, work ethic, self actualization, knowledge and productivity are all part of the spectrum being analyzed by employers. Some employees just show up and do the minimum required. Recently media has spoken about " quiet quitting " which I think was the term used.

In 1988 I worked within a unionized purchasing team of about 12 people in Burnaby. All long term staff at the top of the union set wage. I saved $3M usd which was more than the other 11 in total or any individual in 2 other company manufacturing plants ( also unionized ). All this was formally documented as " accounting proof " of those savings.

There were no bonus's aside from an invitation to a company dinner and info published in company newspaper. Whenever there were either short or long term layoffs it was done purely by seniority. Life is not fair.

In 2009 as a manager in a global company I saved about $4M usd in the last year of employment. The company had been sold in 2008 and we all knew that everybody from CEO down to Manager would be displaced in 2009. I was displaced in August 2009. Not only no bonus but not even enough to save my position. Locally about 350 employees 30 year old company. Acquired by a company with $30B usd in revenue with over 100,000 employees in about 100 countries.

It made perfect sense for the company to centralize / globalize many functions elsewhere. I've been caught in that dynamic 3 or 4 times being acquired by multi billion $$ companies.

For those that like the work from home idea. No doubt that's an advantage for employees which I support and don't dispute. However a bit of info shared from the company mentioned above. For every RD engineer we move from Burnaby to India we save about $50K USD. That's the problem retaining those that can work remotely in large organizations. Remotely can be anywhere in the world.

Again. Life is not fair.



« Last Edit: November 26, 2022, 12:10:08 AM by Blue In BC » Logged

2019 Grey Cup Champions
TBURGESS
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 8840



« Reply #40 on: November 26, 2022, 02:30:14 PM »

That's a very narrow view. COMPANIES have owners and businesses are for profit enterprises. Employees are not generally owners.  You just defined free enterprise in a capitalistic society.

To suggest that two people doing similar jobs could potentially be worth equal amounts is unrealistic in the real world. Equity is salary anywhere determined by the employee ask and the company offer. Two sides to every coin but no two positions are exactly the same. Motivation, work ethic, self actualization, knowledge and productivity are all part of the spectrum being analyzed by employers. Some employees just show up and do the minimum required. Recently media has spoken about " quiet quitting " which I think was the term used.

In 1988 I worked within a unionized purchasing team of about 12 people in Burnaby. All long term staff at the top of the union set wage. I saved $3M usd which was more than the other 11 in total or any individual in 2 other company manufacturing plants ( also unionized ). All this was formally documented as " accounting proof " of those savings.

There were no bonus's aside from an invitation to a company dinner and info published in company newspaper. Whenever there were either short or long term layoffs it was done purely by seniority. Life is not fair.

In 2009 as a manager in a global company I saved about $4M usd in the last year of employment. The company had been sold in 2008 and we all knew that everybody from CEO down to Manager would be displaced in 2009. I was displaced in August 2009. Not only no bonus but not even enough to save my position. Locally about 350 employees 30 year old company. Acquired by a company with $30B usd in revenue with over 100,000 employees in about 100 countries.

It made perfect sense for the company to centralize / globalize many functions elsewhere. I've been caught in that dynamic 3 or 4 times being acquired by multi billion $$ companies.

For those that like the work from home idea. No doubt that's an advantage for employees which I support and don't dispute. However a bit of info shared from the company mentioned above. For every RD engineer we move from Burnaby to India we save about $50K USD. That's the problem retaining those that can work remotely in large organizations. Remotely can be anywhere in the world.

Again. Life is not fair.
I knew you wouldn't like the idea of workers sharing salary information. You know that it would decrease profit, while giving more money to those who are at the non-management level of companies. Redistributing money from the best paid to the less paid is a very good idea for the economy & a very good idea for most people.

Employee ask and company offer is only fair if both have access to the same information & we both know that's not true unless employees share that information.

Two employees doing the same job should be in the same salary band. The one doing the job better should be paid more. If one isn't worth being in the pay band replace them. Just because there are salary bands doesn't mean that you have to stick to them. You could and should pay your stars more than the pay band.

Quiet quitting is doing what's in the job description for the pay you are getting. It's fair from an employee standpoint as they are doing what they're being paid for. Those folks should be paid the minimum as per the job description. Folks doing a job over and above the job description should get a good raise and an expanded job description.

Doing a great job doesn't save your position, but it does make the company more money, you should personally gain too. Down sizing, right sizing, off shoring are all ways that companies can reduce costs to make more money. None of them are reasons not to share salary information.

I'm not talking about unions, who have their place. I'm talking about fair compensation based on real information instead of upper management saying 'how little can I pay this guy/gal and still retain them'?

Anyway, this has been interesting to the two of us, but it's a football forum, so we should shut this one down.
Logged

Winnipeg Blue Bombers - 2019 Grey Cup Champs.
Throw Long Bannatyne
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 8921



« Reply #41 on: November 26, 2022, 03:24:55 PM »

I think all salaries should be public. Companies would have to justify everyone's salary. You'd know where you stand within your company & you'd know who was paying more for the job you do.

It would be great for the worker's to simply look at the list and say 'I'm worth more' or 'X isn't worth that' or maybe even 'Why does my boss make so much more than I do'.

It would be a lot more work for Companies and they'd hate having to justify anyone's salary, which is the reason they tell us you shouldn't talk about how much you make.

Agree, it's better from a player perspective if they can compare their value to similar positional and talented players in the league and ask to get paid accordingly.  I don't know if there are still any shysters left controlling CFL teams, but people of this nature will always look for innocent or na?ve people they can exploit in the guise of making an extra buck. 

Logged
Blue In BC
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 28840


« Reply #42 on: November 26, 2022, 04:47:06 PM »

I knew you wouldn't like the idea of workers sharing salary information. You know that it would decrease profit, while giving more money to those who are at the non-management level of companies. Redistributing money from the best paid to the less paid is a very good idea for the economy & a very good idea for most people.

Employee ask and company offer is only fair if both have access to the same information & we both know that's not true unless employees share that information.

Two employees doing the same job should be in the same salary band. The one doing the job better should be paid more. If one isn't worth being in the pay band replace them. Just because there are salary bands doesn't mean that you have to stick to them. You could and should pay your stars more than the pay band.

Quiet quitting is doing what's in the job description for the pay you are getting. It's fair from an employee standpoint as they are doing what they're being paid for. Those folks should be paid the minimum as per the job description. Folks doing a job over and above the job description should get a good raise and an expanded job description.

Doing a great job doesn't save your position, but it does make the company more money, you should personally gain too. Down sizing, right sizing, off shoring are all ways that companies can reduce costs to make more money. None of them are reasons not to share salary information.

I'm not talking about unions, who have their place. I'm talking about fair compensation based on real information instead of upper management saying 'how little can I pay this guy/gal and still retain them'?

Anyway, this has been interesting to the two of us, but it's a football forum, so we should shut this one down.

Company growth is not a direct line to employee salary. McDonald's didn't grow to a global empire by paying top wages to most staff. OTOH, they created thousands of jobs and opportunity to advance to people. Low cost food to the massed.

Even today companies like McDonalds have low entry wage jobs. That said many of these people taking these entry level positions at entry level wages are young and inexperienced.

So it's a hard line on company profitability versus growth that provides these jobs. Noting that increased profitability is also not necessarily a direct line to growth.

Owners of businesses are entitled to reap what they sow in a capitalistic society. Advantage has to be to the owner.

I can't dispute that in doing a great job, it improves the chances of the organizations success. A person should also enjoy that in some form or fashion that is not directly just a higher wage.

In my career I have had salary increases and / or promotion based on performance. In other situations a hybrid of those benefits as well as significant " freedom / latitude " to do whatever I wanted based on continued successes beneficial to the company.

The quiet quitting thing is employees doing just enough to get by. Technically doing what they are paid to do. That's the thing that gets those employees let go 1st when downsizing occurs. It doesn't promote incentive to work smarter not harder. 

A small idea / comment can be a significant solution to resolve some issue even if others carried the idea to resolution. Managers are facilitators as well as idea resource people.

Anyway. These conversations have been merged into a separate thread but we could also just move further conversations in PM's? I'm going to send you one example.

Logged

2019 Grey Cup Champions
TBURGESS
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 8840



« Reply #43 on: November 26, 2022, 10:34:48 PM »

I've got nothing against low paying jobs. I don't think that all jobs should be paid the same. That's not the argument.

If companies can't be profitable if employee salaries are shared then they shouldn't be profitable. If companies go under because they can't afford to pay people the going rate, they should go under.

If sharing salary information means a lot of employees are looking for more money or moving to get more money, then they are, by definition, being underpaid.

Owners remuneration should also be public. Let them justify their own salaries too.

Advantage to owners is where we are now and it's leading us to a dystopian future where the only thing that matters is how much money the richest in the world can hoard. Most of them aren't smarter or work harder, they are simply members of the lucky sperm club. IE: Born into the right family.

Wages make workers happier until they get to a point where they have enough to do everything they want to do. After that point it's about keeping score. I remember getting 'gifts' from my company and saying 'look what I got instead of a raise' my wife remembers the same thing and she worked at a different place. Employees want money as much as owners do.
Logged

Winnipeg Blue Bombers - 2019 Grey Cup Champs.
BlueInCgy
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 1779


« Reply #44 on: November 26, 2022, 11:58:57 PM »

And it?s going to be a looonnngggggg offseason with these type of posts.

I don?t care what CFLers make for the simple reason that most contracts (barring QBs and actual elite players) are in line with professional salaries common in the cities CFL teams reside.  And that?s also the reason I think most salaries in the CFL aren?t made public - these guys honestly aren?t (for the most part) making big money, and in a lot of cases are making unimpressive salaries.  You also don?t need a lot of shop talk in a low ceiling salary cap league, because it?s hard enough to field a team within those constraints.
Logged
Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 ... 7  All
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.2 | SMF © 2006-2007, Simple Machines LLC Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!