-
Features
Paycheck transparency
- Thread starter Rhea
- Start date
You have the right to say, "none of your business," anytime you please. If you thought you were being paid less than a co-worker, for the same or more work, it would be to your advantage to know if it were a fact. Paycheck confidentiality is a management tool to pay people less than they are actually worth to the company. They don't really care about your privacy, one way or the other.
laughing dog
Contributor
Since none of that addresses the putative problem of corruption, one must wonder what exactly is your point.
Companies have gotten away with corporate-wide pay discrimination for decades.
If all pay rates were available, no one would have to ask you and you would never have to talk about it.
Even if it were ranges or bands of pay that were disclosed, that would be a start.
Some proposals, like the one in the OP, have suggested that the ;law change be that it is no longer legal to _ban_ employees from talking about it, so you could certainly say, "I don't want to talk about it," but likewise you could not be fired for being willing to talk.
What does church have to do with paycheck transparency? Is there an analog here?
The difference between public and private companies is that neither one is allowed to discriminate company wide about pay. No difference. So why should a company be able to protect that discrimination by making it a breach of contract to talk about your pay with another employee?
I earn over $100,000. So do many of the public sector people I face off against and work with every day. Why is paying them well a waste, but not me? Can you be specific?
Malintent
Veteran Member
I never agreed that this is a point that addresses 'corruption'. That is a red herring.
The Charlize Theron example made me laugh. I don't give a flying fuck what Hollywood movie stars think is a fair paycheck. Not only are they paid insane amounts of money, but they also hire specialist agencies who negotiate their salaries for them. Demanding equal pay between movie stars is an exercise in ego, nothing more.
I have no problem with preventing employers from banning staff from discussing pay, but employees should still have the ability to keep their employment agreement private.
The possible reasons for a pay difference do not fall neatly into the dichotomy of meritorious vs discriminatory. An employee may get a higher level of pay simply by negotiating for it, and you shouldn't legislate against that.
Malintent
Veteran Member
Are you trying to convince anyone that tying title to pay does not tie name to pay, if your title is also 'public' information within your company? That seems a little bit of a stretch, no?
You would talk about it - but by talk about it I mean bitch about it behind each other's backs. I would rather no-one knew how much I get paid so that it doesn't become a problem. I have experienced several cases of employees who are resentful of others whom they believe are getting paid too much. My response is always to tell them to ask for a raise if they think they do as good or better a job.
No, especially if there is a salary/wage range for each title.
The benefits of public knowledge of pay rates is it's harder to employers to discriminate with pay and it gives more power to the employee.
What do you see as the potential negatives to such a scenario?
Jayjay
Contributor
- Joined
- Apr 7, 2002
- Messages
- 7,173
- Location
- Finland
- Basic Beliefs
- An accurate worldview or philosophy
How does a company provide individual incentives for performance? For example, the company I work for gives annual company and group level performance-based bonuses which amounts to about 10% of the salary. Furthermore, raises depend on personal performance and merit (in principle anyway). There are pay grades but they are just a baseline. It would be difficult to put everyone on the same pay rate because every individual is different in my line of work. So if there was a law that the salaries would have to be public, should they publish every person's salary separately? Or just make the overall scheme and how it is applied public? Or something in between?
Companies also pay employees unequally for other reasons:
- Higher pay or better benefits when headhunting talent from a competitor
- A raise because the employee has an another job opportunity
- A raise to get an employee to work in a different location
- A raise to work on a special project for a short period, and then keep the raise afterwards
You answered your own question: performance incentive bonuses.
Why would a company want those kept secret anyway? Wouldn't you want the lower performing employees to know who the higher performing employees are so that they can try to learn from the better performing employees? The only reason I can think of to keep it private is in order to be able to reward favored employees without anyone else knowing.
I mean it shouldn't be that hard to come up with performance bonus standards and level of rewards and have that made public to employees so they know if they perform at X level they'll get Y financial incentives.
How can that do anything BUT help the companies become more productive?
I think either something in between or the overall scheme would suffice.
laughing dog
Contributor
I see. You had no point.
I think we agree that if someone is resentful of another being paid to much, they should ask for a raise and the company can explain why they deserve one or not.
And this would be exactly the right thing to prevent discrimination.
And that keeping salaries secret prevents them from knowing whether they are being paid commensurately or not.
- - - Updated - - -
If those salaries and incentives are public, then all of the employees can decide whether to go to a new job based on accurate views of compensation differences.
Nice Squirrel
Contributor
- Joined
- Jun 15, 2004
- Messages
- 6,083
- Location
- Minnesota
- Basic Beliefs
- Only the Nice Squirrel can save us.
And that's what I use the data for. It also helps in salary negotiation.
Malintent
Veteran Member
Violation of my right to privacy, as a private citizen.. Today, the amount of money I potentially have in my bank account is private. I would like it to remain that way, even if it means that negotiations for MY compensation are MY responsibility.
We have a minimum wage... it exists. That is everyone's guarantee that they will be paid a "fair" wage. Every penny more you make than that is on you.
I find it infantile and wholly a "first-world white-male issue" that people making $60,000 a year want to make sure that OTHERS are not making $70,000 for what they (probably erroneously) THINK that other person is doing is somewhat similar to what they are doing.
Everyone isn't a winner. Everyone is an individual. Everyone isn't entitled to a fucking trophy. Earn for yourself.
Malintent
Veteran Member
Sure. If YOUR point is the only point that matters.. I'm just not interested in riding your hijacked clown car to a discussion about anti-corruption methodologies. I actually get paid to do that in real life... and judging by your position, you can't afford my opinion. Why? because my compensation is in my own hands.. I have value. get some for yourself and see how much better control you have too.
This is why rich people are republicans and poor people are bleeding heart liberals... the needy need, and the prosperous prosper.