Stallion Spotlight

Sir Donnerhall_02Beelitz

Real Estate Spotlight

Backyard3
  • Welcome to the Chronicle Forums.
    Please complete your profile. The forums and the rest of www.chronofhorse.com has single sign-in, so your log in information for one will automatically work for the other. Disclaimer: The opinions expressed here are the views of the individual and do not necessarily reflect the views and opinions of The Chronicle of the Horse.

Announcement

Collapse

Forum rules and no-advertising policy

As a participant on this forum, it is your responsibility to know and follow our rules. Please read this message in its entirety.

Board Rules

2. Conversations in horse-related forums should be horse-related.3. Keep conversations productive, on topic and civil.
Discussion and disagreement are inevitable and encouraged; personal insults, diatribes and sniping comments are unproductive and unacceptable. Whether a subject is light-hearted or serious, keep posts focused on the current topic and of general interest to other participants of that thread. Utilize the private message feature or personal email where appropriate to address side topics or personal issues not related to the topic at large.

4. No advertising in the discussion forums.classifieds site and through the purchase of banner ads. The tightly monitored Giveaways forum permits free listings of genuinely free horses and items available or wanted (on a limited basis). Items offered for trade are not allowed.

Advertising Policy Specifics
When in doubt of whether something you want to post constitutes advertising, please contact a moderator privately in advance for further clarification. Refer to the following points for general guidelines:

Board members may ask for suggestions on breeding stallion recommendations. Stallion owners may reply to such queries by suggesting their own stallions, only if their horse fits the specific criteria of the original poster. Excessive promotion of a stallion by its owner or related parties is not permitted and will be addressed at the discretion of the moderators.

Members may use the forums to ask for general recommendations of trainers, barns, shippers, farriers, etc., and other members may answer those requests by suggesting themselves or their company, if their services fulfill the specific criteria of the original post. Members may not solicit other members for business if it is not in response to a direct, genuine query.

While members may ask for general opinions and suggestions on equipment, trailers, trucks, etc., they may not list the specific attributes for which they are in the market, as such posts serve as wanted ads.

5. Do not post copyrighted photographs unless you have purchased that photo and have permission to do so.

6. Respect other members.7. We have the right to reproduce statements made in the forums.
The Chronicle of the Horse may copy, quote, link to or otherwise reproduce posts, or portions of posts, in print or online for advertising or editorial purposes, if attributed to their original authors, and by posting in this forum, you hereby grant to The Chronicle of the Horse a perpetual, non-exclusive license under copyright and other rights, to do so.

8. We reserve the right to enforce and amend the rules.Terms of Service and Privacy Policy for more information.

Thanks for being a part of the COTH forums!

(Revised 5/9/18)
See more
See less

discussion of pay forbidden

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #21
    Originally posted by gottagrey View Post

    The linked article talks about Obama's executive order which applies to federal contractors and federal employees...
    The article says clearly that the executive signing is to highlight existing law:
    But here's the thing: Under a nearly 80-year-old federal labor law, employees alreadycan talk about their salaries at work, and employers are generally prohibited from imposing "pay secrecy" policies, whether or not they do business with the federal government.
    https://www.npr.org/2014/04/13/30198...-misunderstood
    "Random capitAlization really Makes my day." -- AndNirina

    Comment


    • #22
      Originally posted by SonnysMom View Post

      One employer I received a credit for not electing their health insurance so in essence my salary was higher. There are so much to a benefit package beyond salary. We tend to talk only salary and not the vacation, benefits, tuition reimbursement etc... so it can be hard to compare apples to apples.
      Usually the benefits package is pretty similar from employee to employee, and you either take advantage of it or you don't. Most companies don't give you extra pay because you are not using the health insurance, or life insurance, etc. Once you get to upper level executives, they may have a car, spending account, etc.
      "When a true genius appears in the world, you may know him by this sign, that the dunces are all in a confederacy against him."

      Comment


      • #23
        Originally posted by Palm Beach View Post

        Usually the benefits package is pretty similar from employee to employee, and you either take advantage of it or you don't. Most companies don't give you extra pay because you are not using the health insurance, or life insurance, etc. Once you get to upper level executives, they may have a car, spending account, etc.
        I have been in corporate for 29 years. I have had 2 out of 5 employers where I got additional pay since I did not elect the health insurance. They utilized a "cafeteria" type plan. The employer provided a set amount per month for benefits for each employee. The monthly benefit amounts reduce the allowance. Once the allowance is exhausted the employee pays the difference. In my case since I did not elect health coverage I received the amount of the allowance that I did not spend with the other benefit elections such as Voluntary ADD, Dental, Vision, long term disability etc...

        For one small employer I worked for they financially helped an employee with her apartment deposit and her electric bill to help her get out of crappy Section 8 housing. As a bonus I was given time share credits and extra vacation time to use at any Disney resort. I am sure he gave out other weird perks to other employees that essentially qualify as benefits.

        Larger corporate employer tend to not have many differences in benefit packages. However the small and mid-sized employers I have worked at sometimes provide more flexibility in the benefits packages as creative ways to attract and keep employees. Sometimes this is instead of providing a higher salary or a cash bonus.
        Oh, well, clearly you're not thoroughly indoctrinated to COTH yet, because finger pointing and drawing conclusions are the cornerstones of this great online community. (Tidy Rabbit)

        Comment


        • #24
          OP, if you give us your general location and anticipated responsibilities, I'm pretty sure we can come back with an idea of what the position 'should' pay.

          I once worked for a gazillionair who said he trusted me and I could name my price. He meant it.
          did some research on similar facilities --there were none, but the job description transferred well enough-- and came back with a price that was about 10% higher than what a FT gig would be; he was hiring me as sole charge and I had to be on call 24/7 and live on the property. When I told his accountant, he didn't bat an eye. Later he admitted I came in $10k cheaper than the previous employee in that position.

          My point is, if your'e working for someone who's more concerned with peace of mind and quality of work, don't be afraid to charge for it. But have the integrity to do some honest self-reflection. If you know you absolutely need to be off the property for X hours every.single.week., then adjust your rate accordingly. If it truly is sole charge, 24/7 where you'll be woken at 2 am. to ask what hind foot of the favorite steed is in fact white, then be sure you're making enough that you won't become resentful.

          And be very sure you know exactly what is to be expected of you before you state what you need to make. In my case, I thought it was just boss and occasional single guest. It was omitted that an additional 8 horses were shipped in twice a year from another ranch so the "whole family" could come and ride at once. Nevermind the pony parties of 6 y.o.s with 72 hours notice and only one pony. And 30 kids...

          Comment


          • #25
            Originally posted by Isabeau Z Solace View Post
            Recent experiences have demonstrated clearly that I do not know enough about employment law.

            I certainly want to de better this time 'round.

            So I don't know about the idea that I can't consult with "others " to advise me.

            "Others?" As in nobody on the planet?

            It is a farm job. But for a very well off person. I was told they " trust their professionals but don't want to be robbed. "

            Sounds like I sure as heck do need the help of "others."



            going out on a limb here - if you are looking for some input from others regarding this job offer, I would go ahead and do it - but would be cautious in any event who I share info with. They cant dismiss you if you aren't hired yet. They can decide not to hire you if they hear thru grapevine that you were discussing around town. Generally these clauses are to discourage employees comparing notes in the feed room or the coffee room or anywhere else.

            Comment


            • #26
              Sansena makes a good point above about what will be expected of you. Ads don't always indicate total responsibilites.

              Nor do communications pre-hire.

              Example: I was hired by a well off family to essentially be a part-time barn worker. Mostly feed, turnout, clean stalls.

              30+ brood mares and 1 stallion who was sold and moving on. All very high quality, high dollar horses.

              Within a few weeks of being hired, a new stallion appeared, then another, then another. We eventually had 8 stallions

              on property and 1 proper turnout pen so poor horses had to stay stalled a lot. Some of these horses had very little

              handling, some were almost feral. So now by necessity I've become a trainer of sorts. Fast forward, same happened

              with babies, usually 12-14 at a time. I was sole employee and family was hands off horse people. Wealthy family didn't like spending money on vets so I became on site medical

              provider. Are you seeing the picture here?

              Family use to travel internationally and leave me with full responsibility- then wouldn't answer phone or emails in

              emergencies when horses really needed a vet. Vet would not come out without owner confirming.

              When you're a responsible, skilled barn employee, owners can often take advantage of you monetarily. I stayed 3

              years mainly because I cared about the horses and worried about them not being properly cared for.

              So my advise to you is, make sure you understand ALL the job entails. Ask loads of questions. Even then, once

              owners trust you they may add on more and more responsibilities. Good Luck to you.



              "There is no fundamental difference between man and animals in their ability to feel pleasure and pain, happiness, and misery." - Charles Darwin

              Comment


              • #27
                Originally posted by oldernewbie View Post

                Hokey doke, lets try another article then:

                https://smallbusiness.chron.com/conf...ies-12554.html

                google as I might, I still can't find an article that says you can legally prohibit people from discussing their pay. There may be a strong company culture against it, and it might be in the company handbook, but it is not illegal.

                Again, a discussion with an attorney specializing in labor law would be definitive.

                ETA:

                https://www.insperity.com/blog/when-...discuss-wages/
                I think you missed the part where I stated that
                While there are laws against terminating an employee for discussing salaries, I've had several jobs where it was stated in the employee manual that salary discussions were forbidden.

                Comment


                • #28
                  Originally posted by PeteyPie View Post

                  The article says clearly that the executive signing is to highlight existing law:
                  You forgot to also quote where Ag jobs are excluded. Does the OP's job qualify as an AG job? who knows and who knows what her actual job is. There are so many variables with barn jobs. One barn manager job might include stall mucker, feeding, turning out and another might be overseeing the whole operation from an office in the barn. Ditto with trainers and assistant trainers.

                  Comment


                  • #29
                    Prohibitions against discussing wages are considered a violation of the 1935 National Labor Relations Act, because they are considered a protected collective bargaining activity.

                    The Obama era executive order re: federal contractors prohibited retaliation against those employees who chose to discuss pay.

                    That doesn't change the fact that the policies still exist in a lot of company handbooks. And that a lot of employment law and good HR practice does not trickle down to horse industry jobs.

                    I would ask myself two questions about this job offer: 1.) Why do they want my wages kept secret? Coworker jealousy or covering their butts? 2.) How bad do I want this job?

                    i would also bear in mind that the interview and hiring process is like dating. The employer is on their best behavior. They aren't going to treat you better after you're married/hired; they're going to relax a little and you'll see their true colors. If you're uncomfortable NOW, at the first date stage, imagine what it will be like later!
                    Last edited by McGurk; Sep. 7, 2018, 12:41 PM. Reason: typos, word choice, clarity
                    The plural of anecdote is not data.

                    Comment

                    • Original Poster

                      #30
                      Lots of good points here. Especially concerning schedule description/ hours.

                      Job is for'horse person#2'. I had initially spoke n with horse person #1 who stated a set# of hours.

                      But someone at a different management level is the one who conveys the offer. that person indicated a different schedule/ needed availability.
                      "Friend" me !

                      http://www.facebook.com/isabeau.solace

                      Comment


                      • #31
                        Originally posted by Isabeau Z Solace View Post
                        "I think the offer we have for you is in line with our past communications.
                        It's important that I note that information concerning pay must be kept confidential and if shared with others can be grounds for dismissal. "

                        Is this common?
                        I would think so. Many companies have rules about non-disclosure of salary.

                        Is it enforceable? It depends. If you are in an "at will" state where an employer may discharge you for any reason or no reason (limited only by the various Civil Rights laws) then probably yes. If there is either common law or statutory law to contrary then no. You'd have to ask a local attorney this question (on both the policy and its enforcement).

                        G.
                        Mangalarga Marchador: Uma Raça, Uma Paixão

                        Comment


                        • #32
                          Originally posted by Isabeau Z Solace View Post
                          It is a farm job. But for a very well off person. I was told they " trust their professionals but don't want to be robbed.
                          Did anyone else double take at this? I don't see how the depth of the employer's pockets impact the employee's market value.

                          Comment


                          • #33
                            Originally posted by PeteyPie View Post

                            The article says clearly that the executive signing is to highlight existing law:
                            The Federal law the NPR article cited was the National Labor Relations Act and when collective bargaining under the Act is involved employers are limited in their actions. But "water cooler talk" about wages is NOT "collective bargaining" as defined by Federal law. If there is unionization campaign underway then such talk might be protected. Without one, however, it's not applicable. Assertions that there is a general Federal law prohibiting employer retaliation for discussing wages is quite wrong.

                            Again, this will all vary widely from state to state and unless, and until, you can invoke some Federal Civil Rights rule.

                            G.
                            Mangalarga Marchador: Uma Raça, Uma Paixão

                            Comment


                            • #34
                              Originally posted by Bicoastal View Post

                              Did anyone else double take at this? I don't see how the depth of the employer's pockets impact the employee's market value.
                              I've heard that sentiment more than a few times from people who are (or appear to be, anyway) uber rich and constantly suspicious that other people -- trainers, grooms, barn managers, etc -- are over-charging them because everyone knows they can afford it. Maybe it has happened in the past (people padding their bill or using their stuff on other horses, that kind of thing), maybe they are just paranoid, maybe they have no idea what the market value is and just want to pay as little as possible, maybe they under-value farm work (or any so called "unskilled labor") and, to them, paying a little more than minimum wage or even market value or a living wage feels like being robbed. Some super wealthy people are super cheap when it comes to paying people, though 6-figure horses, private plane, etc is well within their means and they will write those checks no problem.

                              But IDK what this has to do with employment laws or ability to discuss wages.

                              Comment


                              • #35
                                Originally posted by Isabeau Z Solace View Post
                                Lots of good points here. Especially concerning schedule description/ hours.

                                Job is for'horse person#2'. I had initially spoke n with horse person #1 who stated a set# of hours.

                                But someone at a different management level is the one who conveys the offer. that person indicated a different schedule/ needed availability.
                                This sounds like a pre-rehearsed script so they can play bait and switch.
                                Tread very cautiously with this gang.

                                And, if they are leaving it up to you to state what you've been making, then tell you you're not allowed to discuss pay rate, they are again showing you they're playing games. Make them give you an offer. In writing. With a full job description.

                                Just because someone is telling you they have scads of money "but don't want to be taken advantage of" does NOT mean they possess the integrity to pay you fairly. This "What did you make before hand?" question rubs me the absolute wrong way. I'd write a thank you note after the interview stating you'd be happy to discuss employment with them once they submit a job description in writing along with the compensation package.

                                Don't be surprised if you don't hear back.

                                Comment


                                • #36
                                  When I worked for a large company in Colorado, I was told that management couldn't forbid us from talking about our pay because it was a first amendment issue--they could not suppress our freedom of speech to talk about something that pertained to us. But I never saw a source for this position.

                                  Regardless, it was something I just never wanted to disclose to anyone at work or outside of work.

                                  Rebecca

                                  Comment

                                  • Original Poster

                                    #37
                                    Originally posted by Bicoastal View Post

                                    Did anyone else double take at this? I don't see how the depth of the employer's pockets impact the employee's market value.

                                    I interpreted it it as 'attempts at negotiating
                                    will likely be interpreted as malicious.'
                                    "Friend" me !

                                    http://www.facebook.com/isabeau.solace

                                    Comment


                                    • #38
                                      Originally posted by Guilherme View Post

                                      The Federal law the NPR article cited was the National Labor Relations Act and when collective bargaining under the Act is involved employers are limited in their actions. But "water cooler talk" about wages is NOT "collective bargaining" as defined by Federal law. If there is unionization campaign underway then such talk might be protected. Without one, however, it's not applicable. Assertions that there is a general Federal law prohibiting employer retaliation for discussing wages is quite wrong.

                                      Again, this will all vary widely from state to state and unless, and until, you can invoke some Federal Civil Rights rule.

                                      G.
                                      The NPR article explicitly stated that discussing pay was covered. From the article: 'Compensation is one of those things you can talk about. The National Labor Relations Board, says Estlund, "has long held that these pay secrecy policies that many employers have in writing violate the National Labor Relations Act."'

                                      (Although, again, not clear that OP is covered since agriculture jobs are excepted from the NLRA.)

                                      Comment


                                      • #39
                                        Never assume, that because your potential employer is (or appears to be) wealthy that they are honest, or that they are the kind of folks you will want to work for. If you have legitimate concerns about the prospective employer, and it seems that you do, unless you are desperate... move on.

                                        Comment


                                        • #40
                                          On what planet is it acceptable to discuss pay with people you work with? These stipulations never bothered me because I think it is completely tasteless to discuss what one makes with coworkers.

                                          Comment

                                          Working...
                                          X