Paycheck transparency

[Bronzeage]

Yes.
Is this a problem? If so, why? What do you _lose_ if someone else knows your pay band or pay rate?

We had a situation a while ago where two of our employees surreptitiously went through the mailboxes of their coworkers and snuck peaks at everyone else's paystubs. WHY they did this, we will probably never know, but having learned the payrate of their coworkers, they immediately ran and complained to the management that THEY deserved raises because three new employees were starting at a lower pay than they started 6 years earlier. They also complained bitterly -- and eventually openly -- about two employees they didn't personally like making more money than they thought was fair. This helped kick off an inter-office hissy fit that lasted a little over eight months and culminated in a mass-firing of just under half our staff, including one of the general managers.

Point being: sometimes that disclosure causes more harm than good.

Do you mean "were starting at a HIGHER pay" ?

This is exactly why managers prefer to keep pay rates a secret. It allows them to pay less than an employee could demand, if the facts were known.

I can tell you why they did it. They suspected other employees were paid more than them and felt they were being treated unfairly. An employee's starting pay depends upon a lot of factors and it's very common for a new hire to start at a higher rate than current workers.

 

[Tom Sawyer]

We had a situation a while ago where two of our employees surreptitiously went through the mailboxes of their coworkers and snuck peaks at everyone else's paystubs. WHY they did this, we will probably never know, but having learned the payrate of their coworkers, they immediately ran and complained to the management that THEY deserved raises because three new employees were starting at a lower pay than they started 6 years earlier. They also complained bitterly -- and eventually openly -- about two employees they didn't personally like making more money than they thought was fair. This helped kick off an inter-office hissy fit that lasted a little over eight months and culminated in a mass-firing of just under half our staff, including one of the general managers.

Point being: sometimes that disclosure causes more harm than good.

the point there is that transparency from the beginning would have not allowed that problem to begin with

Ya, especially for those new employees who had been particularly screwed. Their knowing what the other people's starting salaries were would have gone a long way towards management not undercutting their compensation and keeping the extra money for themselves.

 

[arkirk]

I've always been bothered by paycheck secrecy. I understand why some employers would want it - trade on ignorance to exploit lowest possible salary to any worker - but I don't understand how anyone could call that honest or desirable in a society.

Do they argue similarly that sales should be handled the same way? You negotiate for the price of a movie ticket and it is revoked if you compare your cost to someone else in the line? How about lunch? or rent? Why not bank interest rates?

No, I don't think secret salaries are good for a workplace or for society. This story shows that it doesn't matter how high up the ladder you go, there remains non-work-quality reasons that employers will try to depress some salaries more than others.

http://thinkprogress.org/economy/2015/01/12/3610424/charlize-theron-pay-gap/

I approve of the premise for Obama's executive order to end this practice of paycheck secrecy.

http://thinkprogress.org/economy/2014/04/06/3423399/obama-secrecy-salary/


What are your thoughts?

It clouds such things as union negotiations over wages. Employees with secretly higher wages split off from the others in trying to keep their wages secret and we end up not knowing enough to deal fairly with wages. I say amen to your statement.

 

[laughing dog]

Without getting into the details, an employee has a recognized privacy right in his employment/personnel file. Generally the employer may not disclose this sensitive information, including pay, without being required to do so, e.g., SEC disclosure mandate, ordered by a court, etc.

The cultural and legal idiosyncracies of your nation are dependent on the desires of the legislators and hence, to some degree, the people. Your laws are not laws of nature.

Especially since public employee's wages can be made public. So clearly Trausti's claim is very incomplete.

 

[Togo]

You're a public employee; your pay is a public expenditure.

So? CIA employees do not have their pay published in the paper. I suspect whether or not it is legal to publish private employees pay depends on state law.

Certainly there are many many employees, whose pay is a public expenditure, who are employed by a private shell company and thus whose pay is not public expenditure.

 

[Crazy Eddie]

We had a situation a while ago where two of our employees surreptitiously went through the mailboxes of their coworkers and snuck peaks at everyone else's paystubs. WHY they did this, we will probably never know, but having learned the payrate of their coworkers, they immediately ran and complained to the management that THEY deserved raises because three new employees were starting at a lower pay than they started 6 years earlier. They also complained bitterly -- and eventually openly -- about two employees they didn't personally like making more money than they thought was fair. This helped kick off an inter-office hissy fit that lasted a little over eight months and culminated in a mass-firing of just under half our staff, including one of the general managers.

Point being: sometimes that disclosure causes more harm than good.

the point there is that transparency from the beginning would have not allowed that problem to begin with

Quite correct. It would have created a whole different set of problems and hamstrung the management's ability to negotiate payscales with new, qualified employees just because previous employees, accustomed to a certain degree of favoritism, would not tolerate anyone being paid more than them.

The point being, SOMETIMES it does more harm than good. In an ideal world where everyone behaved like mature adults and conducted themselves in a respectful and professional way it wouldn't really be an issue. But some people don't, and shit happens.

Do you mean "were starting at a HIGHER pay" ?

lol yes

This is exactly why managers prefer to keep pay rates a secret. It allows them to pay less than an employee could demand, if the facts were known.

Which is another thing that happens, because sometimes an employee's view of his/her own value is disproportionate from the employer's view and it's kind of a waste of time to sit there and argue qualifications with the person who is offering you a job: you can't really know how qualified you are until you actually start DOING your job, and THEN you can ask for a raise if you feel you deserve one.

An employee's starting pay depends upon a lot of factors and it's very common for a new hire to start at a higher rate than current workers.

Which, while true, isn't something you can really explain to an employee who has grown accustomed to a large amount of preferential treatment for one reason or another. Different people have varying interpretations of "fairness" and sometimes that is simply a managerial decision, not a company-wide one.

In situations where your employees are all dedicated professionals who see business AS business and not as a measure of their relative self worth, this is something that can be explained. But not all small businesses have that kind of office culture (I'm not even sure MOST of them do).

 

[Trausti]

You're a public employee; your pay is a public expenditure.

So? CIA employees do not have their pay published in the paper. I suspect whether or not it is legal to publish private employees pay depends on state law.

It not about whether it is legal to publish, its whether you have a right to know. If its a public expenditure you generally have a right now, as anyone can submit a FOIA request to the federal or a state government on most any subject. Except national security, of course. But there is no similar right as to a non-public enterprise. Ask ABC Company for the annual salary of Joe Blow, middle-level manager in Albuquerque. If ABC Company responds at all, it'll be a polite "move along." But if somehow the information gets out anyway, it's very unlikely that there would be legal consequence to publishing. Just recently Sony was hacked and embarrassing emails released. Did the media shy away from publishing? Note that there is federal and state law protecting employee privacy. The law is to protect the employee's confidentiality, not the employer's.

 

[Trausti]

Without getting into the details, an employee has a recognized privacy right in his employment/personnel file. Generally the employer may not disclose this sensitive information, including pay, without being required to do so, e.g., SEC disclosure mandate, ordered by a court, etc.

The cultural and legal idiosyncracies of your nation are dependent on the desires of the legislators and hence, to some degree, the people. Your laws are not laws of nature.

The law can answer the question 'May employee remuneration be made public?', but is incapable of answering the question 'Should employee remuneration be made public?'.

If the answer to the first is 'no', and the answer to the second is 'yes', then it is the duty of the legislature to bring the former into line with the latter.

Quoting the law is a poor defense against doing the right thing.

There is no right to privacy in any circumstances. Just varying degrees of expectation of privacy. Just ask the NSA.

Well, I don't know how they do things down under, but I'm glad to live in a country where I - not someone else - get to make that choice. Your predilection for getting your nose into other people's business notwithstanding.

 

[laughing dog]

So? CIA employees do not have their pay published in the paper. I suspect whether or not it is legal to publish private employees pay depends on state law.

It not about whether it is legal to publish, its whether you have a right to know. If its a public expenditure you generally have a right now, as anyone can submit a FOIA request to the federal or a state government on most any subject. Except national security, of course. But there is no similar right as to a non-public enterprise. Ask ABC Company for the annual salary of Joe Blow, middle-level manager in Albuquerque. If ABC Company responds at all, it'll be a polite "move along." But if somehow the information gets out anyway, it's very unlikely that there would be legal consequence to publishing. Just recently Sony was hacked and embarrassing emails released. Did the media shy away from publishing? Note that there is federal and state law protecting employee privacy. The law is to protect the employee's confidentiality, not the employer's.

While Federal employees do not have their pay published by name but some state employees do have their pay published. I do not think one can get a specific Federal employee's pay under FOIA (especially the CIA). Obviously that means there is no Constitutionall right to privacy when it comes to an employee's pay.

 

[Jason Harvestdancer]

Yes, I lose something if people know my pay, I lose my right to privacy.

So I want paycheck privacy for myself, and don't really give a damn about what other people are paid. What recourse do you supporters of transparency offer to me? Do you tell me to go fuck myself because you don't give a shit about what I want?

Really, so your company has some sort of obligation not to publish your pay? And you can sue them for publishing it?

Please tell me about this "right".

Is it in the agreement you entered into as freely negotiated contract?

I wonder if you're familiar with the Privacy Act of 1974.