[Closed] Salary shared to every team member - should I be a bit cross?

I'd be rather annoyed...

Sounds like a breach of GDPR info?

Are you a director or CxO? If so, it’s often public if people know where to look.

Standard employee in the UK. Would be rather upset and look to take action.

A Return on Investment report regarding my role and impact,

Aren't you part of the "investment" surely without declaring all costs it can't be a complete report.

Are you public sector and/or unionized?
Are you permitted to discuss salary with your co-workers?

Depends if you're under or over-paid. If overpaid then all your colleagues now know you don't deserve your excessive salary. If underpaid they're probably laughing at you for being a mug.

Seriously though I always wonder why people get bothered by this. If everyone was open about what they get paid then the bosses wouldn't be able to play people off against each other. Perhaps talk to your colleagues and encourage them to declare their salaries too so you can all know if your bosses are being fair or not?

Pay should be transparent, otherwise it breeds cronyinsm.

I'd be more concerned about their spelling of best practice to be fair ...

Yeah, my first thought was that it's a bigger problem for the people paying you!

I had an old boss who hired me back when I returned to the country, but my previous salary forced him to pay me uncomfortably (for him) close to more senior employees who had been with the company longer. But since everyone was an adult, nobody ever found out and it was never an issue.

Where I work the salary band of every employee is in the staff database!
So I can find out how much, within about £8k, all 10,000 or so staff are paid.
That’s in a quasi-public sector company.

It's quite common to be told not to talk about renumeration, like an unspoken rule.
I'm pretty sure it's unlawful, but what you gonna do?

I'm semi retired, but work in IT, and this practice really galls me..people quit for better money because you never get a good raise without jumping ship.

Then the company has to bring in new hires for more money anyway.

What does your company privacy notice say? Your firm could claim their legitimate interests outweigh your rights. As it's not large scale processing or sensitive data I doubt they've done a DPIA., but you could ask your DPO for one and the LIA if it exists.

My salary is published on my employer's website.

Am I being unreasonable to be a bit hacked off, or am I being precious?

You are entitled to be hacked off.
Who give the person the rights to share your earning? They can share the grade scale but not individual pay.
Either they show everyone's earning or they don't.
Nothing in between.

Any employer asking their employees not to discuss salary isn't doing it for the employee's benefit...

It's a fascinating subject but in short, yeah, I'd be pretty angry if my salary got shared in this way. Whether pay should be transparent is not as straight forward as you might think.

If you make all salaries transparent then one unintended consequence of that would be to severely restrict the job market. People don't tend to move unless they get a decent lift in salary, it's not always the case but it is one of the factors, so if you make all such pay increases transparent then ultimately you're going to create either resentment or else you're going to limit the ability to award such pay increases.

You might argue that limiting the movement of people in this way shouldn't be anything to worry about, but in an Anglo Saxon economy such as ours, that would be a real problem. Because the way our form of capitalism works, it relies very heavily on there being relatively high levels of movement between companies - it stimulates radical innovation for example (and is why Anglo Saxon economies are so good at inventing new things, whereas Alliance models of capitalism, where there is very little movement of people, tend to excell at process refinement. Germany and Japan are good examples of this and why their cars are so much better than ours!)

So yeah, pay transparency might seem like a good thing but it creares a whole host of problems.

I've never understood why companies don't operate a simple pay band structure. Any of my staff will know the range I and my CEO are on, or any of thier colleagues.
For the op, depends on what company policy is and why you might want to be shy about your salary.

I wouldn't be upset by it. Use it to your advantage.

I’ve never understood why companies don’t operate a simple pay band structure.

Because it's limits their ability to hire talent when they find it. Good people cost more than mediocre ones. I will however add that most organisations are woefully bad at identifying talent and to some extent performance outcomes among work forces are the result of factors other than talent.

Because it’s limits their ability to hire talent when they find it. Good people cost more than mediocre ones.

That's a generous way of looking at it.

I think it's more because it would limit their ability to underpay people.

I think it’s more because it would limit their ability to underpay people.

That would suggest you're coerced into accepting a low salary, at least relative to your peers. No one forces you to accept the offer. Now please don't get me wrong - there is a LOT wrong with the job market and the distribution of income right now; but salary transparency isn't the answer to that problem.

That would suggest you’re coerced into accepting a low salary, at least relative to your peers.

If you don't know what other people are paid, you can't make an informed decision about whether it's a low salary or not.

@chewkw

You are entitled to be hacked off.
Who give the person the rights to share your earning? They can share the grade scale but not individual pay.
Either they show everyone’s earning or they don’t.
Nothing in between.

The scenario you've described is counter-intuitive. The OP has given a reason why their salary was revealed. If other staff members salaries aren't used in a similar process then revealing their information would serve no purpose.

What is your view on the OP being named in the document, is that OK?

Oh, I misread. Your salary alone rather than the whole team? Yeah, I'd be a little put out by that.

Probably a mixture of both but as my salary if available online I’m probably not really seeing it from the same perspective.

If you don’t know what other people are paid, you can’t make an informed decision about whether it’s a low salary or not.

I changed jobs at the end of last year and made a 33% jump in basic salary. I have no idea if that is what others in the same role as me are earning or not but I know it's a salary I am happy to accept and that really is all there should be to it.

You are your own agent in salary negotiations and your value and worth are there for you to set. I agree that knowing what everyone else is earning would make it more likely that everyone ends up earning the same but that's why communism didn't work (and why the public sector is so much more ineffecient - and I have no problem with that, it's neccessary for this to be the case - than the private sector).

Again, all of this is not the same as saying that things are working effeciently and fairly at the moment - they are not. Social mobility has gone into reverse and to some extent there is a sort of 'serfdom' emerging among the millenials and Gen Z populations, which is the result of an indirect form of coercion, largely the result of the ridiculous property market.

Any employer asking their employees not to discuss salary isn’t doing it for the employee’s benefit…

I disagree

I started with a company in 2004. Straight away colleagues were telling me how bad pay rises and bonuses were.

Within a couple of years I had a couple of big rises and bonuses. I quickly realised that the folk who complained about compensation never did enough to warrant a decent rise or bonus.

Do well, and you'll be compensated accordingly. Do the bare minimum and you'll receive commensurate compensation.

Over the years as I've progressed up the ranks I understand why that is, and why you need people at different levels. not everyone climbs the ladder and as such compensation will vary across teams for people soon the same day to day job, but over time ability, potential and success will create salary differentials

I quickly realised that the folk who complained about compensation never did enough to warrant a decent rise or bonus.

Have you read about/heard of Price's law?

I agree that knowing what everyone else is earning would make it more likely that everyone ends up earning the same

I don't think that's true.

I think it's fairly obvious that some people contribute more/are more skilled than others. The aim isn't to have everyone paid the same, it's to have people paid *fairly*. The more information that you have, the more possible that is.

I disagree

I started with a company in 2004. Straight away colleagues were telling me how bad pay rises and bonuses were.

I'm not sure how you think that works in the employee's favour.

Do well, and you’ll be compensated accordingly. Do the bare minimum and you’ll receive commensurate compensation.

That's true of some companies, but not all. And not for all people.

I’m not sure how you think that works in the employee’s favour.

It stops the successful employees being resented and disliked by their colleagues that can't grasp why they're not being paid the same.

The aim isn’t to have everyone paid the same, it’s to have people paid *fairly*. The more information that you have, the more possible that is.

It's an interesting thought and I'll admit I haven't thought it through from that angle before. I guess the obvious question is who decides what is 'fair'?

Oh, I misread.

Me too. I thought you had been forced to share your salary with the whole team.

It stops the successful employees being resented and disliked by their colleagues that can’t grasp why they’re not being paid the same.

I don't think it really works like that.

I don't think people get upset with the individual being paid more than them, but the employer.

Just your salary or everyone else's? If just yours, then yes you might like to complain. Unless you are one of the staff who's remuneration is public (doesn't sound like it). On the other hand, it's a good opportunity for some open discussion...

Everyone has an inbuilt ranking of themselves against others. Based on skills, experience, grade, but not normally salary. If you are one of the stars and you are more highly paid for that, then having it public is likely in your interest. Other team members won't resent an obvious star being better paid. It's seldom in the company's interest, however.

If you want to know what you are worth apply elsewhere and ask for a decent rise (20% is a decent rise for the same role).

Are you permitted to discuss salary with your co-workers?

Since you can't ban this I guess it's an implicit yes.

Wouldn't bother me, but I already know what my colleagues earn and vice-versa (if they were bored enough to want to look).

Are you a good return on investment? Argue for a pay rise.

Ask for a pay rise.

I'd be more worried that someone saw fit to commission and publish a full report into whether I was worth the money or not.

Did they find you were value for money?

Saw a great lecture two years ago by a guy who ran a company with a very different structure - for annual pay review, everyone stated what they thought their pay should be, then colleagues and peers voted on whether that was too little, just right, or not enough. He used it to illustrate how women frequently undervalue themselves in the workplace.

That sounds crap!! Allow all the mediocre workers to vote to undercut you! No thanks

I’ve never understood why companies don’t operate a simple pay band structure

Where I work planned to but then bottled it - I think the excuse was the bands would have to be so wide (and overlapping) that they'd be meaningless. There is some truth in that as we grow a lot through acquisition and outsourcing contracts so there's a lot of people coming in via TUPE.

Salary transparency might help with some of the pay discrimination cases that still make it to court every so often.

I was at a meeting of the middle and senior managers with HR talking about pay, and suggested I’d be very happy my  pay to be published in my peer group, along with everyone else’s, and preferably with an indication of what I needed to do to get paid more next year than to person ahead of me and to stay ahead of those snapping at my heels.
The interest from some and the uncomfortable shuffling from others spoke volumes.  HR looked uncomfortable.

Are you permitted to discuss salary with your co-workers?

Of course, no law against it.

We all know what we are paid but only due to a permissions cock up on a server which meant a spreadsheet with everyone's salary was publicly available for a short period...

All our share option allocations are on Companies house website as part of the official filings, so anyone can see how staff are effectively ranked. The allocation is very unfair IMO (to certain other people).

No resentment that I know of, although we do get the odd jokey comment eg 'they almost earn as much as you' etc....

That sounds crap!! Allow all the mediocre workers to vote to undercut you! No thanks

It worked the same for everyone, including him as CEO - he exampled (is that a word?) a woman who was almost unanimously voted as having asked for too little, was invited to submit a higher salary request and that second request was again voted too low. I can understand it might not work as well if your company is made up of dicks! If he needed someone to do what I do, I'd work there, no problem, it sounded ace. 🙂

@judetheobscure economist?

it stimulates radical innovation for example (and is why Anglo Saxon economies are so good at inventing new things, whereas Alliance models of capitalism, where there is very little movement of people, tend to excell at process refinement. Germany and Japan are good examples of this and why their cars are so much better than ours!)

I had noticed this phenomenon but I hadn't realised that would be a factor. Fascinating. I had thought it was something to do with the fact that in Germany engineering or technical disciplines are valued, whereas they aren't here.

I’ve never understood why companies don’t operate a simple pay band structure.

We do, up to a certain grade at any rate.

I can't understand why more don't.

It would cut out all the £competitive shite for a start and if they were up front about salaries then they could figure out that someone from a higher paid job might not be just chasing money.

I’ve never understood why companies don’t operate a simple pay band structure.

I guess in the private sector you could argue it reduces flexibility. e.g. a neighbour is a director at a local tech company, he just lost an employee with 7 years experience to Google who offered him £450k! Pretty sure they just paid what it took to get the skills they wanted.

it stimulates radical innovation

Disagree. It stimulates gaming of the system by people who are good at the process of moving between jobs. What's more valuable to an employer? A talented engineer or technical person who wants a stable, secure and fulfilling career, or someone who's good at marketing themselves, doing job interviews and negotiating their salary?

I’ve never understood why companies don’t operate a simple pay band structure.

We do, 7 or 8 bands i think. Takes you from shop floor operator to a sort of lower management grade. They have parallel bands in different parts of the organisation, Senior Engineer is the same band as Senior Sales Exec or Senior HR Officer. 25000 direct employees in 13 or 14 countries IIRC.

The further up you go, the less manageable it is. My grade covers from about 38k to over 65k.

On the plus side we have a fairly/moderately well explained way to get more pay, become a subject matter expert, do extra training, get a qualification, move into a specialist or core competency area.
Eventually you'll tick enough boxes and you'll get promoted (which brings another payrise).

Alternatively, you could just sit around and wait. Or transfer somewhere with a weighting (that they'll take off you when you transfer back).

Oh, everyone in the country can find out exactly how much i earn. It's all online.

Would be funny if said report just said "Salary: Competitive" 😂

IMO thats very bad practice. However.

based on the ROI, if its good you can justify why (if) your getting paid more than your peers and you should also ask for a pay rise.

If its poor ROI then start looking for another job but still ask for the pay rise.

My ROI showed a positive return of 530% (not a typo-five hundred and 30) The document was shared as a model formula and so my salary is the only one to be have been shared amongst 22 people of differing roles, qualifications, experience and pay grades. The person who shared it also changed the title so that it looked like he was the author and is now wanting to share further on a much wider platform 🤨 .

Thanks to everyone for their input, truly appreciated.

Disagree. It stimulates gaming of the system by people who are good at the process of moving between jobs. What’s more valuable to an employer? A talented engineer or technical person who wants a stable, secure and fulfilling career, or someone who’s good at marketing themselves, doing job interviews and negotiating their salary?

The way capitalist systems work is hugely complex and nuanced and my simple statement of 'it stimulates radical innovation needs context.

Radical innovation comes when you have a relatively fluid work force; people moving between companies gives rise to new ideas because new ways of thinking are constantly intersecting with each other. I can't share this with you now (because the data is archived somewhere), but there is analysis of patent applications between countries that show how Anglo Saxon models of capitlaism operate more effectively for radical innovation than Alliance models, which operate more effectively for process innovation.

It's not so much that uplifts in salary promot radical innovation so muchas it is that releatively low levels of commitment between employer and employee result in a more fluid job market; radical innovation is a product of that fluidity, one might say a conicidence but when all the coincidences align to give you a competitive advantage (of nations) then you have a system rather than a coincidence.

Maybe there are isolated exampels of people 'gaming' the system as you say but I doubt that operates as a systematic level and it certainly didn't appear as a material factor in my research when I wrote my dissertation on this subject.

Good people in my experience cost the same as mediocre...

If people want to know what I earn they can get a pretty good idea by looking at my tax documents that are publicly available. What's extra interesting is that I can see who's had a look as well.... No, it doesn't bother me too much

A high degree of fluidity , low level of commitment between employer and employee doesn't just encourage a high level radical innovation (and that needs to be proven), it also allows for scenarios where low paid people stay poor, and have high levels of job insecurity. It is a fine line between the exciting world of consulting for everyone, and zero hours wage slaves

" a relativly fluid workforce" Take that out of right wing babble and what yo actually mean is insecure jobs with poor terms and conditions allied with appalling low worker protections and benefits levels

Take that out of right wing babble and what yo actually mean is insecure jobs with poor terms and conditions allied with appalling low worker protections and benefits levels

First off, it's not 'right wing babble', it's simply an area of academic study as to how capitalism works in a given environment. It's observational data gathered with the express purpose of explaining, not justifying. I know well your socialist credentials TJ and i do respect them and even share a few, but sometimes I think you let your political beliefs get the better of you.

Second, yes, you could easily see it that way. Anglo Saxon models of capitalism are very much characterised by low levels of commitment between employers and employees and can result in some very extreme and highly disenfranchising behaviour, a good example being P&O and IAG (which made everyone at Gatwick shorthaul redundant in 2020 and is now launching a new lower cost service there!)

However the level of security you experience is not entirely related to the law; companies always want to keep their talented people even if the law allows them to be made redundant. In this regard, the way our system of capitalism works is not a question of better or worse, just different.

Germany isn't known for radical inventions but they are known for process refinement; high commitments between employer and employee mean that the people building the VW Golf are the same ones now as were doing it 30 years ago and so there's little they don't know about doing that process well. But you don't tend to find blocbuster drugs companies in Germany; they are typically British and American and for good reason. New drugs are the result of radial innovation, which is itself stimulated by having a relative fluid work force.

salary promot radical innovation

Well with that nonsense I can already tell you're paid too much.

But you don’t tend to find blocbuster drugs companies in Germany

No, not at all. There was some wee outfit called BioNTech that did something recently but for the life of me I can't remember what it was.

Well with that nonsense I can already tell you’re paid too much.

As I said, I have data that supports this, just can't be bothered to dig it out. You really don't have to take my word for it though; makes no difference to me.

No, not at all. There was some wee outfit called BioNTech that did something recently but for the life of me I can’t remember what it was.

First off, the use of the word 'tend' is key in that sentence. It means 'mostly but not exclusively'. Well done done for citing BioNtech but is not a pharmaceutical compnay, it's a biotechnology company and they are very different (thankyou because the example highlights my point).

Biotech as an industry is very much assoicated with process refinement - big molecule treatments (as opposed to drugs which are small molecule treatments) are grown in cultures, not chemically engineered. This ability to grow them is a process refinement skill. BioNtech is also tiny with revenues in 2020 of less than EUR500m. List out all the other very large drugs companies and you will find that they are overwhelmingly US/UK based with some exceptions.

It is right wing babble. why not say what you mean? Insecure jobs, low worker protection and low benefit rates allowing employers to abuse workers?

thats what your "fluid workforce" actually means. Its calling it a "fluid workforce" that is the right wing babble as its words used to obfuscate the real meaning and make it sound something desirable

BTW - Assume makes an ass of you and me. I am not a socialist ( ask Ernie 🙂 you share nothing philosophically with me. I abhor your right wing philosophy and no one sharing anything philosophically with me would come out with your "Libertarian" shtick

List out all the other very large drugs companies and you will find that they are overwhelmingly US/UK based with some exceptions.

Bayer AG

That sounds crap!! Allow all the mediocre workers to vote to undercut you! No thanks

Depends if people understand why they get paid what they get paid and what the route for getting paid more is.

The mediocre (and worse) people that worked for me in the last tech team lead role i had understood exactly why i was moved into that role, and why i got paid more than them. Several actually asked the manager to put me in that role, as it benefits them as well.

I provided chances to stretch themselves with increasingly more complex tasks and more responsibility, get trained (and coached) in new skills and (eventually) get paid more/promoted or move on to other roles.

If your company doesn't have that sort of structure and ethos, it won't work.

Obviously can't do it in all fields, because not all fields attract the sort of person who plays well with others.

I don't know the sort of work everyone does here, but I have found individual rewards aren't that great in most of the work I do (software development and engineering), rewarding teams is a lot better. Even if one person is more productive than the others, there's often a team of people behind that.

Individual rewards tend to result in people trying to be protective of their work and not sharing / collaborating. They may look better relative to their peers, but objectively, everyone is worse off.

It's also worth remembering what happened with the "up or out" compensation culture (where the lowest performing employees are fired) like at Enron. Although it is still used at some Law Firms and the like where team work is far less important than software and engineering.

thats what your “fluid workforce” actually means. Its calling it a “fluid workforce” that is the right wing babble as its words used to obfuscate the real meaning and make it sound something desirable

OK sure, if you say so 🤷‍♂️

But you don’t tend to find blocbuster drugs companies in Germany; they are typically British and American and for good reason

Boehringer Ingelheim, with it's four blockbusters, would beg to differ. Not the largest by any means, but the largest privately owned Pharma. Being in that industry, there's a pretty fluid workforce and job transfers can be pretty easy. Playing off the two UK Pharmas can be a bit of a game for salary and career progression.

Based on an over-optimistic entire career salary and remuneration, my ROI would be well in excess of 10,000%.

Bayer AG?

Maybe there are isolated exampels of people ‘gaming’ the system as you say but I doubt that operates as a systematic level and it certainly didn’t appear as a material factor in my research when I wrote my dissertation on this subject.

Isolated examples? The practice of punishing employees for wanting to stay in a job long term is completely endemic. I've been told unambiguously by senior managers that if I want more money I should leave because that's the only chance you get to negotiate your salary in today's job market. It's standard management practice almost everywhere.

You can use all the fancy language you like to obuscate the real purpose of this destructive management philosophy but we all know what it means. It allows businesses to underpay their staff on the safe assumption that they won't want to go through the upheaval of moving jobs every year or two. The only people I've seen who believe in this 'radical innovation' nonsense are MBA types and management consultants.

Dazh - you forgot the "britannia unchained" right wing fundamentalists

My company (a Software as a Service company with roughly 35 staff) went employee owned just over two years ago now, and as part of that process all salaries were made transparent. This transition seemed to go pretty smoothly all in all, to be honest where it gets sticky is the process for deciding who gets what raise every 6 months.

This has not been perfected yet, and probably never will be. What we aim for in general though, is to provide a set of attributes or behaviours that you need to take on to earn more money (stuff like taking responsibility for unusual situations, or forming strategy in a particular area, that kind of thing).

This kind of works, but mostly I suspect because as a company (and as teams within the company) we aim to provide the sort of environment that mert described earlier, that is to say:

chances to stretch themselves with increasingly more complex tasks and more responsibility, get trained (and coached) in new skills and (eventually) get paid more/promoted or move on to other roles.

Even so, there's always the odd person who feels like their contributions haven't been recognised when the updated salaries are published.

Even so, there’s always the odd person who feels like their contributions haven’t been recognised when the updated salaries are published.

They get a chance (everyone does) to argue the toss if they feel they've been overlooked.

It allows businesses to underpay their staff on the safe assumption that they won’t want to go through the upheaval of moving jobs every year or two.

The irony of course is that if everyone did change jobs every couple of years as this management practice encourages, most businesses would be completely screwed due to constant staff turnover, recruitment costs, and the inherent unproductivity of staff who are not fully up to speed. The only people who benefit are managers, recruiters and HR people, which tells you all you need to know about why this ridiculous system is in place. It's the whole bullshit jobs thing on steroids.

I’ve been told unambiguously by senior managers that if I want more money I should leave because that’s the only chance you get to negotiate your salary in today’s job market.

It's very true! Not sure I like that situation any more than you, which is why I just changed jobs having remained with the same company for ten years. Interestingly I increased my base salary by 33%!

You can use all the fancy language you like to obuscate the real purpose of this destructive management philosophy

Well that's where you start to sound very angry and bitter. Perhaps you should consider changing jobs? The 'MBA types and management consultants' are probably doing something right, including their own original research to find out how things work rather than just getting angry at a situation. This tends to be reflected in their pay!

I did do my own original reseatch on this subject but as I said before, I really couldn't care less if you think it's nonsense or not; I do however feel for you if you are feeling disenfranchised by your current position as that is something I can empathise with. I sincerely hope you get some resolution there but suspect the only way you're going to do that is by finding a new job.

Sincerely, good luck with that.

They get a chance (everyone does) to argue the toss if they feel they’ve been overlooked.

We do that as well. We also rotate the people deciding the salary increases to try and even things out and provide representation from the different areas of the business. Money is such an emotive topic though, I suspect we'll never have it so that everyone is happy.

Well that’s where you start to sound very angry and bitter.

I'm neither angry or bitter, I just recognise the negative effect it has on both businesses and employees. I'll admit I don't want to change jobs, on the whole I like where I am, who I work with and (mostly) enjoy the work. That's an obvious benefit to the business yet this bonkers management practice is strongly encouraging me to leave even though it's not in my or my employers interest.

It's also a nightmare as a team/project leader. I lost a whole dev team over 6-12 months because my bosses refused to pay the market rates. Decades of experience lost at the altar of 'radical innovation' as you call it. We had to recruit staff who weren't as good as the ones we who left on higher salaries, and then my bosses wanted to know why we were doing less and costing more. It's utterly stupid quite frankly.

and then my bosses wanted to know why we were doing less and costing more

Well duh! It's cos everyone left, y'know the ones 'you' (the bosses) didn't want to recognise the value of their experience... It pisses me off when the ones making the grand gestures forget about who made them when the implications start to crystalise... Grrrr.

y’know the ones ‘you’ (the bosses)

I'm not a boss. I have no input into salaries, recruitment policy or promotions beyond saying to my bosses 'that guy is really good and we should do everything we can to keep him', which is exactly what I did repeatedly. The response was always 'our hands are tied' and 'it's not possible'.

Decades of experience lost at the altar of ‘radical innovation’ as you call it.

You're confusing 'radical innovation' with 'bad management'. Not everything bad or daft which happens in the West is the fault of Capitalism, most of it is just stupid people doing stupid things.

I wonder if Judes "thesis" looked at the relationship between worker security and engagement and productivity? Seems to me that the german model of secure jobs at high wages with workers invested in the company is one of the key reasons for their greater productivity and quality products

Jude - your thesis may well be right in that insecure work can increase innovation but the cost to the individuals is just so high in stress etc and the cost to the employer of unengaged and unproductive workforce is also high

its useful to note of course that the insecure jobs type setup the UK and The US are the outliers. the rest of the developed world follows a different model and whos economies perform the best?

I wonder if Judes “thesis” looked at the relationship between worker security and engagement and productivity?

I strongly suspect it made the usual (and erroneous) neo-classical economics assumption that workers/employees are self-interested automatons who are always seeking to maximise absolute financial gain. In the real world it's way more complicated than that as we all know.

I’m not a boss

@dazh Yeah sorry. That 'you' was not you but you bosses... I'm sure that make sense now... I know (well I think I know) you're not the culprit. It's the higher ups with the short memories that jump straight to blame mode. Tosseurs... 🙄

<edit> I read 'insecure' as highly mobile rather than constantly under threat. A mobile workforce is usually a good thing for the reasons Jude highlighted and this doesn't neccesarily always mean it is under constant threat of the sack.