Alleged Pay Discrimination at Google Makes Marc Benioff and Salesforce Look Amazing...

Back in late 2015, I reported on proactive moves by Salesforce to do pay equity increases across its workforce to eliminate any and all gender pay issues, job by job. Here's a rundown from the post:

"In a panel at a conference organized by Fortune last week, Marc Benioff, the CEO of the cloud-based software company Salesforce, said that he recently ordered a review of all 17,000employees’ salaries to see if female employees’ pay was in line with those of male employees doing similar jobs. According to Fortune, Benioff said that the company is spending about $3 million extra this year on its payroll to make these adjustments. “We can say we pay women the same that we pay men,” he said the conference. “We looked at every single salary.”

Salesforce has declined to clarify the $3 million figure or provide further details—the size of the average adjustment, how many employees saw their salaries changed, and how they reacted—but is going to put out a report with more information next year."

At the time, I thought the move was brilliant, as it changed the conversation about workforce diversity to one of workforce equality - an equal goal that once achieved, was bound to change the narrative related to how much slack the world was going to give Salesforce for having some work to do on the diversity front.

Well, here's another reason to go for pay equity if you're a company like Salesforce - to keep the DOL from knocking on your door and playing hardball, like they just did at Google.  

"In their efforts to bring wage equality to Silicon Valley, government officials have accused one of the tech industry's anchor firms of large-scale gender discrimination.

According to the U.S. Department of Labor (DOL), available data suggests that women who work at Google suffer from "systemic compensation disparities" compared to their male peers. As part of an ongoing lawsuit, the DOL alleged that the company, a frequent recipient of federal contracts, has violated federal law by discriminating against female employees in the salary department.

In recent years, Google has reportedly been well averse to sharing such data with the DOL, which seeks to compel the company to disclose wage and other information under federal employment laws. Testifying in San Francisco on Friday, DOL regional director Janette Wipper told the court that the government had uncovered "systemic compensation disparities against women pretty much across the entire workforce" in its investigation of available company data from 2015, The Guardian reported."

The fact that Google's taken this DOL charge show's how brilliant the 2015 move by Salesforce and Benioff was.  Not only did they change the narrative related to diversity (important, but so it equality, people!), they didn't get sued.

Did Google have the money to do something similar to the Salesforce move on pay? Of course they did. But leading means you're proactive, even when you don't have to be.

Well played, Salesforce.  Good luck, Google.  You'll likely end up making the same equity increases Salesforce did, but it will look forced and you won't get credit for leading.

VP of Equality Is The Rationalized Replacement for VP of Diversity at Salesforce...

Capitalist Note - I originally posted this a couple of weeks back over at Fistful of Talent. While some of you read both FOT and the Capitalist, not all of you do - so I'm reposting here. Take a look, interesting stuff from Salesforce as they seek to change the narrative from Diversity to Equality.  Some will be frustrated, some will think it's brilliant. Here's what I know - Salesforce is playing OFFENSE, not defense, on this issue.

If you don’t like the answer, you can always change the question. Especially if you have money. Lots of money.

There’s a lot of companies across America that struggle with Diversity hiring.  They’re under-utilized in multiple job families, and even as they try to attract diverse talent, it hasn’t gone great.  After all, not everyone wants to work for your company.  Throw in the fact that you can’t pay new hires anything they want without messing up your comp equity, and most companies don’t make the progress they’d like to.

So Salesforce did what any company with loads of cash would do.  They changed the answer, and thus the question.  Turns out the answer isn’t more DIVERSITY, it’s more EQUALITY.

Confused?  You’ll get it soon. More from TechCrunch:

“It’s important for tech companies to have at least one voice at the senior leadership table that advocates for issues around equality, diversity and inclusion. Unfortunately, that’s just not the case for many companies in the tech industry. Salesforce, a company that said a year ago that a major focus for it was “the women’s issue,” recently became an exception to the rule with the hiring of Tony Prophet, its first-ever chief equality officer. Two weeks into his role, Prophet sat down with me to chat about Salesforce’s evolution from a focus on diversity and inclusion to an overall focus on equality. 

“The notion of being chief equality officer — now that was very thoughtful and deliberate on Salesforce’s part and on Marc’s [Benioff] part versus being chief of diversity or chief of inclusion because you can have a diverse workplace or a diverse culture in many parts of America that are very diverse but are hardly inclusive and there’s hardly equality,” Prophet told me. “We want to go beyond diversity and beyond inclusion to really achieve equality.”

Translation?  Tech companies have huge issues finding enough females and minority to work at their company, especially in the bay area.  If you can’t figure out diversity but can afford to achieve equality when it comes to pay, odds are people are going to be less critical of you.

Earlier this year,Salesforce chairman and CEO Marc Benioff revealed that his company spent about $3 million in 2015 to equalize compensation across the company, closing the tech giant’s gender pay gap.

Here’s a chart showing Salesforce’s workforce diversity (email subscribers click through for graph):

Salesforce diversity

Translation – The company still has a lot of work to do, but by changing the conversation to equality, not diversity, they’ve effectively changed how they’re measured by the outside world.

I’m not saying diversity hiring in tech isn’t important. I am saying that Salesforce is working towards a related, equally important goal and now will be considered in a different light than other major tech companies, whom I would expect will follow suit soon enough.

If you can’t find enough diverse hires, it makes sense to ensure the ones you have (including women) are paid on equal footing to everyone else.

Then you obviously want to get your message out.

At Salesforce, that message includes the fact they’re changing the conversation from diversity to equality, with an emphasis on pay equity.

Again, I’m not saying either approach is right – but Salesforce has created a master stroke to relieve some of the diversity hiring pressure and is going all in, with first mover advantage and everything that comes with it.

I’m a cynic on most things.  Even the cynic in me has to respect how Salesforce is controlling the narrative here.

Glassdoor Just Gave You A Gift, HR. It's In a Brown Paper Bag and on Fire Just Outside Your Door...

Ah yes, Glassdoor.  As people like to say when they're in relationship of questionable health - it's complicated.

Many of you saw the new tool Glassdoor rolled out last week, but if you didn't, here's your notification since you missed the PR blitzkrieg.  Glassdoor is launching a tool called "Know Your Worth" designed to (in their words) help US Workers find their current market value.  In the interest of balance, here's Glassdoor's description:

For anyone who has ever wondered if they are being paid fairlyGlassdoor, the leading jobs and recruiting marketplace, has launched a new, free tool that uses patent-pending technology to calculate the Know-your-worth-desktop-exampleestimated market value, or earning potential, of an individual, right now, based on characteristics of his or her current job, work experience and the local job market.Know Your Worth by Glassdoor, currently in beta, is designed to not only help people determine if they are being paid fairly, but also whether they should attempt to negotiate their current salary and/or explore better paying jobs.

Know Your Worth uses sophisticated data science and machine learning algorithms that leverage millions of salary reports shared by employees on Glassdoor, while analyzing real-time supply and demand trends in local job markets, and typical career transitions of people doing similar work. Each person’s market value, and pay range, is unique to them and private, and will be recalculated weekly and tracked over time.

To use Know Your Worth, an individual simply needs to enter a few basic details, including their current job title, employer, current salary, location and years of relevant work experience.  When enough relevant data exists, Glassdoor uses its proprietary Know Your Worth algorithm to instantly calculate the individual’s personalized market value, which is the estimated median base pay he or she could earn in their local job market, right now. To make it easy to monitor over time, Glassdoor plots each individual’s 12-month market value on a chart, and compares it to the median pay of similar workers in their local market.

Most of you who read this space are HR or Recruiting pros/leaders. That means a couple of things.  First, you've dealt with plenty of salary issues in your time and generally have a take on which people in your organization might be undervalued or overvalued in their role.  You've also probably been solicited by Glassdoor to become a customer, with the pitch being they can help manage your company reputation or develop candidate flow as Glassdoor seeks to monetize it's business by becoming a new age job board.  Some of you have signed up. Some of you haven't. I get it.

But becoming a new age job board is where the rub is. To monetize, Glassdoor has to have someone pay for the service.  That's you, the HR or Recruiting leader.

And that relationship is becoming increasingly complicated.

First, let's call the new service out for what it is.  Glassdoor needs to keep your employees coming to the site.  The employee eyeballs/attention are really the product.  For a long time that's been employee reviews.  While this post is critical of Glassdoor's latest direction, the company is intelligent and worthy of our scrutiny.  Evidence of that intelligence is the fact that when employees create reviews, they're given the opportunity to provide their salary.  Glassdoor's been aggregating salary data for a long time.

While that salary data is growing in accuracy, it's far from perfect. But that's not going to stop Glassdoor from launching Know Your Worth and showing HR and Recruiting Pros how they really feel about them.

How does Glassdoor really feel about HR and Recruiting leaders?  Let me walk you through a couple of components to the Know Your Worth launch/product specs.  You tell me how they feel about you:

1. Remember when Glassdoor told you - both customers and non-customers - that promoting company reputation/reviews to your employee base was important?  I agree with that notion and have wrote about it before.  You bought into it (rightfully so) and with or without Glassdoor's help began asking employees to consider writing reviews of your company.  Guess what? Glassdoor just sent an invite to all reviewers (aka your employees) telling them you might be underpaying them and they should fact check whether they should trust your company or not.  All of them.

If this movie had subtitles, that scene would say, "Thanks for ramping up our network, suckers."  But I digress. Back to evaluating the Know Your Worth launch/product specs...

2. The Know Your Worth product is incomplete, but that won't stop Glassdoor from telling your employees it gives you a 100% accurate read. True story here - my company's business is recruiting, and our core position has total comp that's 50% base and 50% commission. We have employees that earn a very good living working for us.  So when I got the aforementioned email asking me to Know My Worth, as an HR leader I wanted to know what employees in our core positions would see. Good news!  When I played the role of a recruiter at our company, Know Your Worth gladly accepted my commission target as part of my total compensation potential. Bad News! Know Your Worth ignored that input when it evaluated if that position was compensated fairly, evaluating the base salary only with no mention of the input of commission that I made, or qualifier that they weren't evaluating the information in its full context I'll talk about shortly - total comp or total rewards.

Translation - Thanks for helping us grow our database to a larger degree by putting all those inputs in, kids!  But all we're prepared to give you is an evaluation of your base salary. And we'll tell you your underpaid by 6K on a salary of 50K even though your target total compensation is 85K, and many in the same position in your company exceed that total target compensation. Note - I used a Salesforce Account Executive in San Francisco to test the outputs and analysis again, entering total comp information.  Same result, analysis of base salary only.  

3. But Wait! Glassdoor shows they care about HR and Recruiting Leaders by providing a whitepaper during the Know Your Worth launch campaign called "Glassdoor's Guide to Salary Conversations".  This proves they're here to help you, HR and Recruiting leaders!  They care so much about you they've created the guide to help your line managers navigate the tough conversations the Know Your Worth campaign is sure to generate. You know the conversations -the ones caused when Glassdoor emailed every employee who has created a review on your company to question their compensation - the same reviews that were generated using Glassdoor templates and communication tools you paid Glassdoor to provide when you said yes to being a paid corporate customer of Glassdoor.  Wow.

But I again digress.  Glassdoor is showing they care by creating this guide.  Until you open it and see the following sage advice (email subscribers click through to see image from guide):

Glassdoor Pro Tip

PRO TIP FROM GLASSDOOR! If your employees are in an uproar about their compensation due to the Know Your Worth campaign, you should get your s##t together and get a total rewards and compensation strategy together.  You know, like the one Know Your Worth fails to evaluate, even when an employee gives it their entire picture of total comp.  

Translation - Communication of total comp is your responsibility.  It's only Glassdoor's responsibility when it benefits them - like when it's time to lecture you, not when it's time to drive eyeballs to the site and continue to collect profiles, page view and free data generation from your employees. 

Final Notes: I'm on record for believing in Glassdoor, more specifically the fact that the review economy is a reality and HR/Recruiting leaders have to acknowledge the presence/power of Glassdoor and have a strategy to engage.

But Glassdoor isn't being a partner with launches like Know Your Worth.  They're attempting to drive more eyeballs, build a database and generally reach critical mass to do what's required to maximize their primary objective - get a slice of your recruiting budget.

All Glassdoor had to do in the launch of Know Your Worth is have better information on total compensation and present it to employees using this tool.  That data is available by partnering with a professional compensation firm.  If that wasn't possible, they could provide warnings related to total compensation that help employees understand the limitations of the data being presented.

Put another way - Glassdoor's business on the employer side is to sell you things like reputation management and job postings.

Glassdoor's business on the EMPLOYEE side is EMPLOYEE DISSENT.  And in that regard, business seems to be good.

4 Simple Things for HR Pros To Remember as Overtime Laws Change...

As many of you know, new overtime rules under the Fair Labor Standards Act (“FLSA”) are coming. Given the basic economics of the workplace, the new rule—which raises the salary threshold under which an employee is entitled to overtime—is just as likely to create less work for individual employees as it is to increase the amount of overtime American employees collectively earn.

The main change in the FLSA rules, effective this Dec. 1 is an increase in the minimum weekly salary to the 40th percentile of weekly earnings for full-time salaried workers, based on the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) data. Under the new rule, anybody making a salary of less than $47,476 ($913 a week) will automatically qualify for overtime pay when he/she works more than 40 hours a week. This is twice the previous overtime pay threshold of $23,660 a year, which had remained unchanged for more than a decade.

Employers need to consider the rule, its impact on labor costs, and the best way to respond.

With that in mind, here's 4 simple things you need to remember as you'll likely have people not used to being hourly, working past 40 hours:

--You can and probably should ask folks to get overtime pre-approved.  It's messy, because you've asked a lot of these people on the professional and managerial exemption to run their own shop and desk.  Now they're hourly, and we're telling you to ask them to get OT approved.  Too bad - if you want to get fiscal control, asking people to pre-approve OT is something you have to do.  The good news this puts inherit pressure on them (assuming OT is not a preferred outcome for your company) to be more productive with the hours they have.

--When non-exempts work OT without approval, you're required by law to pay them.  Doesn't matter if you have pre-approval as you're process or not, if they work past 40 hours, you have to pay them - even if they didn't get the OT approved.  The tricky part here is why you have to pay them, you can put them in progressive discipline for not following the OT pre-approval rule you have.  So if there's a problem with pre-approval, pay them and figure out when to send the message.

--Remote work by a lot of your professional workers under the threshold just got trickier.  It's true - the time they reply to work emails outside of work needs to be compensated.  So you'll need to tell them that and set the expectations on how you want them to handle that.  Good times.

--Most professional grade workers still want to be exempt rather than non-exempt.  Sure they want to get paid, but they'll hate the hour counting.  Keep this is mind as you communicate what's up... And if they hate it, have them write a letter to their congressman.  

Remember some of these basic things, be open and honest in your communication with employees moving from salary to hourly status and you'll be fine.  Good Luck!

Here's the Best Minimum Wage Increase Idea I've Ever Heard...

Can't take credit for this but it's gold - A recent episode of the Recode/Decode podcast featuring Bradley Tusk, the 3rd Party Legal Counsel for Uber, included a great idea for a minimum wage hike Tusk thought would bring both sides to the table:
1. Raise the minimum wage to $15-20 per hour. Min wage
2. Figure out the delta to business and give tax credits that directly give back the money to businesses.
3, This was Tusk's logic - Citizens get most of every dollar as opposed to inefficient government services, where they might see ten cents on the dollar if they're lucky.
4. The theory is that people who need social services won't need them at $20 per hour, so tax credits become the way to force/get both sides to the table.
As a moderate, I loved the idea of this solution.  Will it ever happen?  Probably not - The democrats who have pushed for the increase can't deal with the thought of government losing control of increased funding, and the GOP who has traditionally hated the idea can't give up on the free market narrative to look at a solution that makes senses.
Small business owners? They'll be stuck in the middle with super high turnover and impossible recruiting challenges.
A great idea that will likely never see the light of day.  That's a shame.

3 Candidates Walk Into a Bar and a Recruiter Asks Each One Of Them What They Make...

I love all of you who read this blog - Thank you!

But you've lost your minds if you think the reason we want to ask for salary is so we can lowball someone and perpetuate discrimination. Greatvalue1

I'm posting about this based on the reaction to my post on the Massachusetts law that outlaws asking a candidate what they currently make. See the post and some comments (received many more via email) here.

Some of this comes down to whether you view the world as an HR person or a recruiter.  I've always had to be both. 

If you're a recruiter serving a client, you get paid for a higher level of service. The expectations aren't the same as your internal recruiting group, who are more conservative and risk adverse as a rule.

Say you have 3 candidates with different sets of experience and different abilities to impact the business. Assume for now - and I know it's hard for a lot of you - that protected class has nothing to do with it.

Knowing the salary that it's going to take to land each of those candidates means opportunity for a candidate. Let's say you're an  up-and-comer and there are some things we like, but you don't have all the things we need. You needing 70K in salary instead of 95K can make a difference in you getting the job. And no, you won't add the same value that the more experienced candidate will provide in most circumstances.  You're not as deep.

But if my client likes the potential and can save money to deploy elsewhere on their staff, that's a viable option.

For a recruiter worth their salt who has to plow through the market, having salary info specific to the candidate isn't about screwing someone. It's about making the best match possible.

The workaround is obvious.  I'm going to tell them what my client can pay for their experience.  Then I'm going to ask them if they'll accept the offer at that level if we get to the end of the process and they're my candidate.

And yes, males get the same treatment.  Every time.

Great recruiters are like stock traders - we help clients understand whether someone's a buy or a sell based on their price.  

Massachusetts Loses Mind: Passes Law Outlawing Employers Asking For Salary History...

Massachusetts has lost its mind.  In a prime example of lawmakers not understanding business, the state has outlawed employers from asking interviewees about their salary history.  Here's a quick rundown from Forbes:

"Massachusetts has just passed the most comprehensive law regarding the subject of equal pay. Equal_pay

"The law was signed by Republican Governor Charlie Baker on Monday, making Massachusetts the first state to pass a law that prohibits employers from asking interviewees about their salary history, keeping them from basing someone’s pay on what they previously made, though anyone can volunteer that information if they so choose.

Think Progress writes that proponents of the law argue that the practice of requiring potential hires to divulge their earlier salaries places women in a cycle of low pay—if a female worker made less than her male counterpart at her last job, she’s more likely to make less in her next role as well.

The bill also prohibits companies from penalizing employees who discuss their salaries with their peers, or “salary secrecy,” a practice that has been outlawed in California and New York as well. Additionally, it requires that both men and women be paid equally for “comparable” work, a provision that was also included in the California law."

Before you slay me for being anti-pay equity, stop.    California and New York have laws that address pay equity on the books, which I support.  What they don't have is over-reaching laws that hurts companies from making matches.

Here's a laundry list of bad things that can happen to businesses (and candidates!) if our recruiters can't talk salary history:

  1. We can waste everyone's time, investing a lot of cycles in the interview process and then come with an offer that doesn't meet the candidate's expectations. That can happen with experienced and inexperienced candidates from both genders.
  2. We'll do less exploratory interviews with candidates who might be "stretch" candidates based on their experience.  If we can't understand their comp for limited experience, we're less likely to invest the time.
  3. Companies and recruiters who aren't great negotiators will become even less skilled in the practice of making correct matches.

That last one should scare you as an HR or recruiting leader.

I'm pro-equal pay.  Let the legal action fly for people who have been wronged in this manner in true "apple to apple" comparisons.

But you're going to limit my recruiter's ability to ask what someone makes?  Lame.  

What should you do if you face this law?  You've got to work around it, which means your recruiters have to assess the resume, understand what their client can pay, then use what I call "salary framing", which as a negotiation technique looks like this:

“Hey Sally, based on where you’re at in your career, if you end up being the right candidate for this job, the offer’s likely to come in somewhere in the 70-75K range.  If we get to the end of the process, will that type of offer work for you?”

You didn't ask her for her salary, but you're getting her reaction to what you can pay.  That's the right way to deal with this type of law.

Remember people - I'm PRO EQUAL PAY.  But I'm anti-stupid law.  There's a difference.

BUDGET SEASON: How Your Finance Team Treats Turnover REALLY Matters...

Welcome to the early days of budget season, American HR Leaders!!

Snuggled up to the friendly Finance and Accounting pros in your organization lately?  Great... Here's a little snigglet to make sure you have enough cash to fund all the hyped pay-for-performance initiatives you are cooking up in the test tube you call a laptop...

The type of budget model you have?  It matters. 

Duhhhhh, you say.  You get the budget.  Hold on there, Donald Trump, because I'm not talking about theTurnover_factor fact you have all the salaries loaded into the budget.  I'm talking about the FORMULAS the Finance quants are using underneath the names and the numbers. 

The big one you need to be aware of is this - Does your comp budget model have a Turnover Factor, or do the funds vacated by positions that are vacant remain in the comp budget, available for proper use?

It matters a lot.  A turnover factor projects the amount of turnover a company/division/department is going to have during the budget year, then automatically reduces payroll by the appropriate amount.  The logic used when putting a turnover factor in the budget model is that those funds should be unavailable in the budget since there won't actually be PEOPLE in those jobs (for that time period).

Details, details....

The effect of the Turnover Factor?  Your compensation budget gets a lot tighter, and you'll have a lot more variances to explain month to month.  And that kind of stinks... But it's actually the right way to do it from a business perspective...

Additionally, the Turnover Factor puts a LOT of pressure on the pay-for-performance system.  Have a lot of managers who have a hard time telling low-performing employees they're not doing that great with no raise or a limited increase?  A turnover factor means you are dealing with a truly zero-sum game.  For every dollar your manager gives to a low performer, he won't be able to give that dollar to the star. 

Especially if you have a Turnover Factor - because there's no built in slush fund.  Budget 4% for increases?  With a Turnover Factor in play, that's exactly what you have - with your active employees.  Without the TF in play, you've got some wiggle room from a budget perspective.

So give your Finance pro a pound today and learn more.  As your company grows, the Turnover Factor is a way of life, but maybe you can delay it a little bit longer.  Remember - you're doing it for the PEOPLE - and who could blame you for that?

4 Things You Can Say When An Employee Prints Out Salary Data From the Interwebs....

I'm on the record as saying you ought to get engaged with Glassdoor and figure out how to be more of a marketer with sites that include employee reviews.

HR people need to be in the game to win the game.  

But that doesn't mean it's all sunshine and puppy dogs.  Example - take a look at this charge on employee salaries for IBM consultants - and let's talk after the graphic (email subscribers click through for picture below)

Screen Shot 2014-09-16 at 2.34.44 PM

Ah yes, salary info.  IBM's going to be one of the better patches of salary data, and there you go - the range for a IBM consultant is 45K to 170K.

Which means you have to arm your managers with a plan to tell your employees how your comp strategy relates to fragments of competitive info they may find on the interwebs.  Here's some things you can arm your managers with to say when employees bring them pay data from a 3rd party site:

  1. The data being cited is mostly self-reported and that’s dangerous. Most of the new models are based on incumbents in the role in question self-reporting what they earn. That’s crowdsourced data, which is not exactly scientific in nature.

  1. The data being reported in a wide geography and most zip codes don’t have the volume to truly help you determine what’s real. Even if the data is accurate, in most cases, there’s not enough volume in the zip code in question to give you an accurate picture of a compensation range in the employee’s geographic area.

  1. The biggest challenge with accuracy is related to the match with your specific job. Many of the third-party sites rely on the end user to report what job they’re in and match it to a certain job description on the site. The challenges associated with that means that you’re not always comparing apples to apples. Sometimes there are multiple lemons thrown in there.

  1. The ranges being used on third-party sites are just that—ranges, and you shouldn’t assume that you should be at the max, or even at the midpoint based on your experience level in this job. You can go back to range theory and remind them that a range is used to progress someone through 15 years in the same job.

You have to get your managers prepped via the training you provide them.  

By the way, I heard that mailroom boys at Google make 100K.   I looked it up and they only make 90K - you can use that..

(but it's a lie - I made that up.  The rest of this post is real.)

LinkedIn Has a Beta Salary Reporting Tool (Code Name: Glassdoor Killer)

First up, let me say that I don't think LinkedIn can kill Glassdoor.  Buy them?  Maybe, but that would have been easier before the street hit their stock hard a few weeks back.

But back to the title of the post - LinkedIn has a beta product that's asking for Salary data.  Here's what it looks like when members get tagged for inclusion in the beta:

Screen Shot 2016-02-24 at 12.19.42 PM

What could go wrong?  Well, there's nothing wrong with LinkedIn making this play - it's an obvious extension into the employment game, as are other areas currently owned by Glassdoor more than anyone else - company reputation, reviews, etc.

The one little problem with this is privacy.  Glassdoor does a pretty good job of making anonymity their calling card.  While I can't say that LinkedIn has problems with that, it's not how they usually market and present member contributions.  For the most part, LinkedIn is all about the public side, as they should be - it's worked pretty damn well.  

But my sense is that a past focus on public identity will give LinkedIn members cause for pause on this type of salary reporting offer.

In addition, the LinkedIn community is smarter than ever about building the LinkedIn database on behalf of LinkedIn, only to have their rights restricted.  Issues with contacts, messaging and access to features that used to be free all but now aren't all combine to make me think twice on whether I would recommend sharing this type of data with the company.  

Here's what you get if you click on someone else's email offer to share your salary - thus, the knowledge that the product is in beta...

Screen Shot 2016-02-24 at 11.36.18 AM

Final note.  Indeed owns SEO and aggregation.  LinkedIn owns the candidate database.  Glassdoor owns company reputation.  All of them want to race to the middle to do it all - with a focus on selling you job postings.  That's why Indeed now has company pages and candidate profiles, Glassdoor has job postings and LinkedIn is moving into candidate data and sentiment.  CareerBuilder has product to do most of these things as well.

Everybody Wants Some... at least that's what David Lee Roth used to say...