Why knowing your colleague’s salary cuts both ways

[WORLD] In Singapore’s fast-moving tech sector, a casual dinner conversation turned unsettling when a newly hired employee discovered he was earning S$400–S$500 less than a colleague hired at the same time. Posting anonymously on r/askSingapore, he asked: should he raise the issue with HR, or just accept that he had agreed to his contract? The online debate quickly divided—some argued he had no standing since he signed his offer, while others suggested it was time to leave and leverage his market value elsewhere. This small case shines a light on the bigger workplace tensions around pay transparency, market forces, and employee agency.

1. Pay Transparency: A Double-Edged Sword

Pay transparency is increasingly common, but it comes with complex emotional and strategic costs. On one hand, sharing salary information helps expose hidden inequities and allows employees to benchmark their worth. Studies show that companies with transparent pay structures often experience higher employee trust and lower turnover. But transparency can also sow dissatisfaction, especially if individuals realize they accepted lower offers than peers.

In Singapore’s competitive tech scene, salaries can vary widely depending on negotiation, past experience, and momentary market conditions. Two candidates starting the same job at the same time may still land on very different salary bands simply because one negotiated harder or was poached from a rival firm. Transparency doesn’t automatically fix this gap—it merely makes it visible, forcing workers to decide if they want to fight, stay, or leave.

2. The Limits of Contractual Fairness

Legally, salary contracts are clear: you get what you sign for. Yet emotionally, the idea of “fairness” goes beyond contract terms. Workers often assume, sometimes naively, that companies will reward loyalty or align pay internally. But business reality is harsher. HR departments are tasked with managing company costs, not maximizing individual employee happiness.

Singaporean online forums reflect this tension. Many commenters remind workers that employment is transactional: you agreed to the offer, so you can’t claim injustice just because someone else got more. Others, however, argue that once you gain new market information (like peers’ salaries), you should advocate for yourself—even if it means awkward conversations with HR or managers. Importantly, the employee in this case now holds new leverage: knowledge. The question is whether he can use it effectively.

3. Job Hopping as the Modern Salary Reset

In a labor market defined by fluid talent flows, job hopping has become the default path to pay raises. Singapore’s technology sector mirrors global trends: many workers jump companies every 1–3 years to secure better packages, rather than waiting for internal adjustments. According to regional data, switching jobs can yield pay increases of 10–20%, far exceeding standard annual increments.

The anonymous poster’s dilemma highlights this shift. Rather than petitioning HR for a raise—an action often perceived as weak or confrontational—many commenters recommend leveraging his newfound awareness to negotiate with external employers. In other words, the best response to internal pay inequity may be external competition. This strategy reframes loyalty not as a virtue but as a risk.

What We Think

The Singapore tech worker’s story is a cautionary tale about the changing nature of pay dynamics in today’s transparent, hypercompetitive job market. While knowing colleagues’ salaries can fuel resentment, it also equips employees with critical market data. But here’s the rub: companies rarely self-correct inequities just because they’re revealed. Employees must act—either by negotiating assertively or by jumping to firms that value them more.

We believe the real takeaway is this: employment contracts are no longer fixed promises but evolving market transactions. If workers want to stay ahead, they must treat their careers like negotiable assets, not static deals. Pay transparency may sting, but for the savvy, it’s also a signal to move, rethink, and recalibrate. Companies that fail to recognize this shift risk losing their best talent—not because of unfairness, but because of inertia.