protip: "shouldn't be secret" =/= "public"
-
Features
Why salaries shouldn't be secret
- Thread starter ksen
- Start date
protip: "shouldn't be secret" =/= "public"
So, explain your system whereby receptionists are able to get transparent information about what other receptionists are making but people who hire receptionists are not.
laughing dog
Contributor
Is it possible for you to make a post that is not some sort of straw man? All ksen remarked is that employees should not fired for discussing their compensation with each other.
What is your system?
Jason Harvestdancer
Contributor
Freedom of speech includes the freedom to remain silent. Freedom of speech merely means that the government cannot force you to remain silent. If you think that having a third party interfere in the private contract between myself and my employer is freedom of speech, no wonder you've never understood anything any libertarian ever has ever written.
Saying "what the hell are you third party doing taking my information without the consent of either myself or my employer and publishing it" isn't a freedom of speech issue.
On the other hand, by arguing that the free market needs the information on everyone's salaries - so that people can see what their coworkers are making - is actually a variant of the "perfect information" argument. The market does just fine with imperfect information. Information is a commodity just like all other commodities, and the market efficiently allocates even information.
I understand someone who doesn't believe in markets making the "perfect information" argument, but I don't understand someone who makes that argument without knowing what that argument is.
Seriously, if you're going to keep on criticizing free markets, please do read up on them. It would help your arguments immensely. You really can't argue against a proposition you know nothing about, no matter how well you know the alternative. I see creationists try that all the time, and they always fail because they know nothing about what they argue against.
Of course having everyone's salary be public would never be an open invitation to criminals to see who has the money and therefore who they should target. There's no such thing as an "unintended consequence."
laughing dog
Contributor
You are arguing against a straw man. ksen and I are arguing against the policy of firing employees who discuss their salaries. Neither he nor I advocated a pubic database of compensation information. Nice Squirrel pointed out that in our state, public employee compensation is public information (i.e. there is a database) and those does not appear to lead to disaster.
The problem is that I do understand what self-proclaimed libertarians write. It appears they do not.
I agree. But I have no idea why you continue to harp on that straw man.
No one said the free market needs information on everyone's salaries. I said markets operate more efficiently when more relevant information is available. Markets operate with imperfect information, but they tend not to reach economically efficient outcome.
Your responses are based on straw men.
And yet, here you are doing just that. LOL.
You really are stuck on that straw man.
Jason Harvestdancer
Contributor
"Strawman".
I'm glad to see you learned a new word. I wish you would use it correctly.
I'm glad to see you learned a new word. I wish you would use it correctly.
arkirk
Veteran Member
Arguing for wage secrecy is arguing for ignorance. Who is kept ignorant? The worker. Jason, Jason, Jason! Have you EVER worked for a living? Have you ever been cheated out of a fair wage? Don't try to answer this question. In the world you want for us all, you would not be able to answer. You have classified this important (to the worker) information as a commodity...something that can be bought and sold...something that can be hoarded and hidden by the rich and powerful.
Having many workers' salaries public would also exclude some workers from being "targets" of criminals. They would go after the few guys with the big salaries, who can probably afford some sort of security. Wake up! You are selling the idea that some people "deserve" to be kept ignorant.
Having many workers' salaries public would also exclude some workers from being "targets" of criminals. They would go after the few guys with the big salaries, who can probably afford some sort of security. Wake up! You are selling the idea that some people "deserve" to be kept ignorant.
I want you to be ignorant of how much money I make.
I also want my employer to be ignorant of all the other people they could hire for less than me.
Doing away with wage secrecy policies.
laughing dog
Contributor
Until you can show that either ksen or I advocated a public database of salaries, your responses remain irrelevant. Anyone with basic reading comprehension would see that flawed concept was introduced by a self-proclaimed libertarian and denied by ksen and myself.
Would this be a matter of labor law?
Nice Squirrel
Contributor
- Joined
- Jun 15, 2004
- Messages
- 6,083
- Location
- Minnesota
- Basic Beliefs
- Only the Nice Squirrel can save us.
Laughing Dog and I cannot request our salaries not be private. A major news organization publishes this data, yearly. We don't even work for the same organization.
]I noticed that you failed to respond to my response while asking others to respond to it. We have already established that such databases already exist. Since a large amount of this data is already public and has been for decades, you'll have to address how common it is for burglars to use this information. So far I can find 0 cases.
In doing so, you'll need to account for the fact that different people have different lifestyles. There are these things called "banks" where people keep their money. There are also things called, "investments" that people put their money into. It may surprise you, but people don't necessarily spend all their money on material or luxury goods, nor do they keep cash lying around their homes. A poorer person can have more material things to steal than a richer one. Also, a lot of people are not living in single income relationships. A person may make less than another, but the household can have more income. Any burglar worth his/her salt knows this.
Would you like me to continue to address your strawman?
If it needs to be. Should be simple enough to add a protection that says it is illegal to fire someone for talking about wages/salaries in the workplace.
Nice Squirrel
Contributor
- Joined
- Jun 15, 2004
- Messages
- 6,083
- Location
- Minnesota
- Basic Beliefs
- Only the Nice Squirrel can save us.
ksen said:
"At will" employment.
The problem with making a list of illegal reasons to fire someone is, in an "at will" state, the employer does not have to give a reason to fire someone.
I have fired plenty of people in the past. I always had a good reason, but I didn't have to give a reason. It was usually irrelevant, anyway. Employers get into legal trouble when they lie about the reason, thinking this will prevent their unemployment tax assessment from rising. In my state, there is a short list of reason a person may be fired and not be eligible for unemployment benefits. These are chiefly, absenteeism, theft, and insubordination.
Strangely, incompetence or inability to perform the task is not one of them. A person can drive forklift through the business office and still collect his unemployment benefit check. All he has to say is, "I did the best I could."
Your plan is a nice idea. I would institute it in my shop, if I'm ever in that situation again, but I don't think a law requiring it, or protecting workers who talked about other people's pay would have any real effect in the real world.
It doesn't take much creativity to say, "We don't need you anymore. Here's your check."