Quote from: fresasconnata on April 07, 2016, 01:34:43 AM
I'm divided on this.
On one hand, it's obvious that this is the case IRL. It would be stupid for them to kick you out if you contribute more than the average employee. It could still happen, of course, but at least you'd have the relief of having done all that you could.
On the other hand, my feminist side cries out DISCRIMINATION! on this. Self-discrimination, which is even worse. Why should I work more hours and/or have to accept a lesser salary? I'm a person above all, equally capable than any other with my skills, independently of the curves of my body or the colour of my skin.
It is not discrimination for the more valuable employee to be paid more.
Being a person grants you the basic rights of self-defense, the right to worship whatever god you wish, and to seek happiness. Nothing about GETTING happiness... Nor anything about "equal" treatment when compared to someone who works twice as much, twice as hard, or even is just twice as successful getting things done.
Step up and learn those skills. I'd make a lousy manager - so I work with someone who is a good manager. He can't do the technical scheming I can do; can't code as well as I can.
But I can't manage the dates like he can.
I'm paid more, I'm told. Now, do I trust THAT manager? Not really, there's always a reason to appeal to vanity. So he's likely overstating things.
But without BOTH me and my direct manager, this team falls apart.
Since I can come close to my manager's abilities? I can manage the dates for a month, whereas he looks at the technical issues and it'll take him a week just to get his head around it? I'm more valuable, overall. So I get paid more (if we take the other manager's word as true.)
Should the people in India get the same salary as I do?
No - even if they WERE as good as I am. (They're not. But they're indispensable, I'm not knocking them - they don't have the cultural background of an American, nor do they have the additional 20 years in the field.) WILL they be as good as I am? Maybe - depends on what they work to learn and achieve. At that point, they STILL don't deserve my salary - we'd have all the training and effort to get them to that level, and we'd be distorting the Indian economy by pumping in dollars. That defeats the whole purpose of going to lower-cost labor centers. (I'm all for ending offshoring, BTW, no matter how good the guys are. It's the time lag. Make the products they work on run concurrent to their day. Don't share tasks and projects around the globe, everyone is a cog in the machine, all interchangeable - all EQUAL...)
If you work out the economics - you should be paid what you're worth. Irreplaceable skills means higher pay - IF you negotiate on that basis. If you don't negotiate? It's on you. (That's one of my weak spots...)
If you want time with kids, or time off, or bonuses....? You'll have to give something else up. You can't demand to be paid for 50 hours a week, and only work 40. At the annual review, you'll have those two people move apart (presuming management knows... We all know of people whose primary strength is shmoozing and being visible - not technical or managerial skills. And they get rewarded for their inadequacy, basically.)
YOU are YOUR brand - now go make that mean something. If you're parallel is K-Mart, expect K-mart wages. IF you're skills are Neiman-Marcus, you'll command more.
Don't compare yourself against the others - just be the higher brand. The rest will sort itself out. USUALLY... (See my OTHER post - lots of irreplaceable people getting fired anyway.)
-Dianna
