• 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
1 of 2 < >

Update to Forum Rules: Criminal Allegations

In our continuing effort to provide an avenue for individuals to voice their opinions and experiences, we have recently reviewed and updated our forum policies. Generally, we have allowed users to share their positive or negative experiences with or opinions of companies, products, trainers, etc. within the industry, and that is not changing.

When it came to overt criminal allegations, however, those discussions have in the past needed to stem from a report by a reputable news source or action by law enforcement or the legal system.

We are now expanding our policies to allow posters to share their own first-hand experiences involving overt criminal allegations, such as animal abuse or neglect, theft, etc., but only if they publicly provide their full first and last name along with the post. We still will not allow anonymous postings alleging criminal activity.

So, a user may now make a specific claim against a named individual or company, but it must be a FIRST-HAND account, and they have to IDENTIFY THEMSELVES. Users have always been legally responsible for their posts, and nothing has changed there, but we want to loosen the reins a bit and further allow the free flow of discussion and information relevant to the horse community.

We are not providing a free-for-all of anonymous rumor-mongering. As enduring advocates for the welfare of the horse, we want to provide a forum for those willing to sign their name and shine a light on issues of concern to them in the industry.

The full revised rules are posted at the top of each forum for reference.
2 of 2 < >

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

1. You’re responsible for what you say.
As outlined in Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act, The Chronicle of the Horse and its affiliates, as well Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd., the developers of vBulletin, are not legally responsible for statements made in the Forums.

This is a public forum viewed by a wide spectrum of people, so please be mindful of what you say and who might be reading it—details of personal disputes may be better handled privately. While posters are legally responsible for their statements, the moderators may in their discretion remove or edit posts, though are not legally obligated to do so, regardless of content.

Users have the ability to modify or delete their own messages after posting. Moderators generally will not delete posts, threads or accounts unless they have been alerted and have determined that a post, thread or user has violated the Forums’ policies. Moderators do not regularly independently monitor the Forums for such violations.

Profanity, outright vulgarity, blatant personal insults or otherwise inappropriate statements will not be tolerated and will be dealt with at the discretion of the moderators.

Users may provide their positive or negative experiences with or opinions of companies, products, individuals, etc.; however, accounts involving allegations of criminal behavior against named individuals or companies MUST be first-hand accounts and may NOT be made anonymously.

If a situation has been reported upon by a reputable news source or addressed by law enforcement or the legal system it is open for discussion, but if an individual wants to make their own claims of criminal behavior against a named party in the course of that discussion, they too must identify themselves by first and last name and the account must be first-person.

Criminal allegations that do not satisfy these requirements, when brought to our attention, may be removed pending satisfaction of these criteria, and we reserve the right to err on the side of caution when making these determinations.

Credible threats of suicide will be reported to the police along with identifying user information at our disposal, in addition to referring the user to suicide helpline resources such as 1-800-SUICIDE or 1-800-273-TALK.

2. Conversations in horse-related forums should be horse-related.
The forums are a wonderful source of information and support for members of the horse community. While it’s understandably tempting to share information or search for input on other topics upon which members might have a similar level of knowledge, members must maintain the focus on horses.

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.
Posts in the discussion forums directly or indirectly advertising horses, jobs, items or services for sale or wanted will be removed at the discretion of the moderators. Use of the private messaging feature or email addresses obtained through users’ profiles for unsolicited advertising is not permitted.

Company representatives may participate in discussions and answer questions about their products or services, or suggest their products on recent threads if they fulfill the criteria of a query. False "testimonials" provided by company affiliates posing as general consumers are not appropriate, and self-promotion of sales, ad campaigns, etc. through the discussion forums is not allowed.

Paid advertising is available on our 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:

Horses – Only general discussion about the buying, leasing, selling and pricing of horses is permitted. If the post contains, or links to, the type of specific information typically found in a sales or wanted ad, and it’s related to a horse for sale, regardless of who’s selling it, it doesn’t belong in the discussion forums.

Stallions – 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.

Services – 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.

Products – 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.

Event Announcements – Members may post one notification of an upcoming event that may be of interest to fellow members, if the original poster does not benefit financially from the event. Such threads may not be “bumped” excessively. Premium members may post their own notices in the Event Announcements forum.

Charities/Rescues – Announcements for charitable or fundraising events can only be made for 501(c)(3) tax-exempt organizations. Special exceptions may be made, at the moderators’ discretion and direction, for board-related events or fundraising activities in extraordinary circumstances.

Occasional posts regarding horses available for adoption through IRS-registered horse rescue or placement programs are permitted in the appropriate forums, but these threads may be limited at the discretion of the moderators. Individuals may not advertise or make announcements for horses in need of rescue, placement or adoption unless the horse is available through a recognized rescue or placement agency or government-run entity or the thread fits the criteria for and is located in the Giveaways forum.

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

6. Respect other members.
As members are often passionate about their beliefs and intentions can easily be misinterpreted in this type of environment, try to explore or resolve the inevitable disagreements that arise in the course of threads calmly and rationally.

If you see a post that you feel violates the rules of the board, please click the “alert” button (exclamation point inside of a triangle) in the bottom left corner of the post, which will alert ONLY the moderators to the post in question. They will then take whatever action, or no action, as deemed appropriate for the situation at their discretion. Do not air grievances regarding other posters or the moderators in the discussion forums.

Please be advised that adding another user to your “Ignore” list via your User Control Panel can be a useful tactic, which blocks posts and private messages by members whose commentary you’d rather avoid reading.

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.
The moderators may delete, edit, move or close any post or thread at any time, or refrain from doing any of the foregoing, in their discretion, and may suspend or revoke a user’s membership privileges at any time to maintain adherence to the rules and the general spirit of the forum. These rules may be amended at any time to address the current needs of the board.

Please see our full 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, 01:41 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.
                                          http://theotherboard.boards.net/ An OT forum for CoTHers to give our dear Mods a break

                                          Comment

                                          Working...
                                          X