Why salaries shouldn't be secret

[Celldweller]

All I can say is, I hear these discussions regularly in the medical sales world I've been in for 12 years. It gets outright ridiculous when you have a regular bonus structure added to a base salary. The average annual salary increase in this world averages between 1.5-3%. Not a huge jump when you're starting at 40k but noticeable when one reaches a base of say, 80k plus.

However, nobody reaches that juicy base without jumping ship a few times and selling yourself on why you should be paid a base of 12-15% higher for leaving your current employer.

Point being, if my industry released everyone's salary (which is, thankfully, negotiable upon getting hired), those hiring managers would spend countless hours having to justify why Billy was hired at X vs Sally who was hired at Y and YOU are being offered Z.

The college grads? They could care less, they're just happy to have a job. It's the seasoned workers I'd worry about. Envy is a nasty "sin."

 

[AthenaAwakened]

http://www.salon.com/2014/05/14/jill_abramson_fired_for_seeking_equal_pay_report/

The announcement, today, that Jill Abramson was departing her job as executive editor of the New York Times prompted much speculation across the media. Abramson, appointed in 2011, had enjoyed a relatively brief tenure and one riven by nasty, critical coverage, particularly in Politico. Howard Kurtz, a Fox News media reporter, noted that there’s “Gotta be a backstory there.”

Ken Auletta of the New Yorker has reported on Abramson in the past, and today reports that there indeed was: that Abramson recently learned her pay package was not commensurate with that of her predecessor, Bill Keller, and sought parity. Auletta reports: “‘She confronted the top brass,’ one close associate said, and this may have fed into the management’s narrative that she was ‘pushy,’ a characterization that, for many, has an inescapably gendered aspect.” The counterargument to Abramson’s pay request, predictably, is that ownership did not want to outlay more money in a difficult time for print media, but in an update, Auletta notes that a deputy of Abramson’s, a man, made more money than she did while she was managing editor.

Auletta also indicates that Abramson clashed with the paper’s publisher over hiring decisions, particularly as relates to the digital side, and offended managing editor Dean Baquet by not consulting him. (Baquet has been named Abramson’s successor.)

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

advertisement

 

[Toni]

Well, this is part of the mystification of money, isn't it?

I teach two weeks each summer at a UU camp. In the evenings, the campers like to gather in the living room of main building on campus and have a discussion group. Every year, the most popular topic, even more popular than sex, is money. The kids are fascinated by it but their parents never talk to them about. Since the beginning of on line banking, I have had kids who don't know where their family bank is; because of debit cards, they can't balance a check book or count back change to a customer without a calculator. They can't tell you a ballpark figure of what their parents make, what a week's worth of groceries cost for their family, what the average electric bill is, none of that.

Parents would rather read aloud to a preschooler from Masters and Johnson than tell a middle schooler about budgeting and paying bills. And this unwritten rule about NOT talking about money follows these kids well into adulthood. So you wind up with an employee pool of people scared to talk about money and wondering why they don't make more.

This is not a function of online banking. It was the prevailing attitude when I was growing up. I had absolutely ZERO idea of what my parents' income was. ZERO. And no idea of context, either. I can remember when I was about 7 or 8 being upset that I was going to have to ask my parents for some small amount of cash (under $1 and probably under $0.50) for a pair of scissors for school. We had just moved and there was a new baby and so I was vaguely aware that money was tight. Now, as an adult, I realize that sure, it was tight but not that tight. But I hid that necessity for months because I didn't want to seem greedy. By the time I was in high school, I was aware of what my family spent on groceries. I had had an allowance for years, increasing as I got older and picked up extra cash by doing extra chores and also by babysitting and doing odd jobs around the neighborhood, the only jobs my father would allow me to pursue. When it was really a pain is when I was about to go to college. Almost all of my expenses were covered by two academic scholarships and almost all of the rest was made up by money I earned at my summer job. But my parents did need to kick in a little bit and it was really tight: one sibling had just graduated (and paid for most of her college with scholarships and summer jobs) and the next one was only a couple of years behind me. My father was going ballistic about money but refused to discuss his income or to simply say to me: this is how much we can afford to help you out. You need to come up with the rest. With my kids, I was much more up front: this is how much we can afford to give you for college. They were all willing and able to make good choices with that information: they could go to university with no student debt if they went where they could get in state public university tuition. If they wanted to go private, it would be student loans to make up the gap between what we could afford, financial aid, what they had saved themselves, and the actual cost of going. Two elected to go to more expensive schools but it was clear that the loans were THEIR loans. And also we refused to allow them to consider schools where student loans would have been more than a very minimal amount. One kid was quite upset with me because I insisted I would not allow massive student loans. But then the school suddenly 'found' some extra money to reduce costs to that magic number I had said we could afford.

 

[Toni]

Aren't most salaries public knowledge anyways? I know they have data along the lines of computer programmers get an average of X dollars in this city and nurses get an average of Y dollars in that city. They can't have that unless the data is already available for them to compare.

Well, there's data available about what the average person at this level in this field in this city/area earns and then there's the specific salary for a specific person. The thing about averages is that some people earn above, some below.

Where I work (it's a major employer with tens of thousands of employees), jobs are posted internally and also for external candidates, along with the minimum compensation for that particular position. You could be offered more than the minimum, depending on education and experience and special certifications held. If you are an internal candidate, your salary would be based on what your current salary is. If you are going up for promotion, there is a range of salaries for that new position. While I don't know exactly what any of my co-workers is earning (except a new hire who asked me to help him figure out how to make some choices for benefits and had his hourly up--which I knew anyway as it was what is being offered for new hires for that job), I know pretty close to the exact dollar what my co-workers earn. And they know about what I earn: It's a bit more than the few people hired the year after I was hired and a bit less than those who were hired before me (depending on how long before me they were hired). Wage increases are open knowledge and are almost completely across the board/category of employee. While I might be getting a 3% raise and Joe only getting a 2.5% raise, we're getting the same dollar amount of raise but Joe's base is higher than mine because he's been with the company longer. It's not secret but there sometimes is a bit of grumbling that "I don't see why So and So gets the same raise I am getting when I obviously work so much harder." Even though that is rarely true.

And there is periodic discussion of if any one of us would be better off if we took a job with (competitor or just likely employer for someone with our skill set/education/blah blah). We all get the exact same set of benefits offered to us, although we can choose what level of health insurance we wish, how much beyond the free company minimum in life insurance we want to purchase, how much to contribute to the company retirement fund, etc. It's all public within the company and the same from janitors to the CEO. Benefits, not salary.

What is a little uncomfortable is when the salaries of job categories or sometimes high profile individuals are public. My employer is the largest, by far, in the region and also pays better than anyone else, on average. And is kind of a 900 lb gorilla in the community, albeit usually a benign one. So, some in the community can get a bit pissy about all of the 'rich' people working for my company because really, they are about the best paying most stable jobs around. Some other employers use the info and probably pay some categories of workers more because of my company. Some also use it as: If you don't like it, why not go work for X company?" knowing that the company employs mostly people with particular skill sets which are not that generic.

 

[Jason Harvestdancer]

Since that's not my system I think I'll pass.

What is your system?

It is true that proponents of this system never mentioned any database. In fact, no mechanism at all was mentioned, and any attempt to discuss the mechanism was rebuffed. Proponents of this system want to talk about how great it would be if you knew how much the guy next to you is making, but never want to discuss how you would know how much the guy next to you is making. Some caution that it might be used to hold wages down, but no mention of how the employer would know what the wage of other people is in order to hold wages down.

Only those who recognize the absurdity of the idea bring up the question of how it might be accomplished, and any attempt to drag them into discussing how it might be accomplished is "dragging them down the rabbit hole".

Here's another thread by the same author where "how will it be accomplished, what are the mechanics of this, what are the details of this?" was considered off-topic. He said "here is my idea" and I said "what are the details of your idea" and said "asking for the details of my idea is off topic." Same author, same problem.

So, let us assume, for the sake of argument, that dismal an I both agree that this initial proposal by ksen is an absolutely wonderful idea, the best idea ever, that even if there are problematic details we'd consider them worth it for the sake of the idea itself. What, then, are the details that were left out? HOW will this idea be accomplished?

If the actual proponents of this wonderful fabulous idea were to step forward with that, instead of saying that they don't want to go down the rabbit hole of how this idea works, then they will lose the ability to say "strawman" every time someone says "but this is a problem with the implementation."

As for my burglar example, let us take out the database. Assume that this burglar knew by the exact same mysterious mechanism that all the other examples used. Not a database, of course. Something else not described, since describing it brings us down a rabbit-hole. Probably osmosis or divine revelation. Whatever the mechanism, he's using it. Now can people talk about the burglar example?

 

[laughing dog]

It is true that proponents of this system never mentioned any database. In fact, no mechanism at all was mentioned, and any attempt to discuss the mechanism was rebuffed. Proponents of this system want to talk about how great it would be if you knew how much the guy next to you is making, but never want to discuss how you would know how much the guy next to you is making.

This is observably untrue. At least two posters consistently referred to the possibility of employees discussing salaries with each other without the penalty of dismissal.

 

[Jason Harvestdancer]

It is true that proponents of this system never mentioned any database. In fact, no mechanism at all was mentioned, and any attempt to discuss the mechanism was rebuffed. Proponents of this system want to talk about how great it would be if you knew how much the guy next to you is making, but never want to discuss how you would know how much the guy next to you is making.

This is observably untrue. At least two posters consistently referred to the possibility of employees discussing salaries with each other without the penalty of dismissal.

Yes. No.

The "system" you just described relies entirely on voluntary compliance, and a single employee wishing to not discuss it eliminates all the "isn't this great" benefits described throughout the thread by those who refuse to discuss the mechanism.

If this is such a great idea, and someone doesn't wish to participate, how will his co-workers reap the benefit of this great idea?

 

[laughing dog]

It is true that proponents of this system never mentioned any database. In fact, no mechanism at all was mentioned, and any attempt to discuss the mechanism was rebuffed. Proponents of this system want to talk about how great it would be if you knew how much the guy next to you is making, but never want to discuss how you would know how much the guy next to you is making.

This is observably untrue. At least two posters consistently referred to the possibility of employees discussing salaries with each other without the penalty of dismissal.

Yes. No.

The "system" you just described relies entirely on voluntary compliance, and a single employee wishing to not discuss it eliminates all the "isn't this great" benefits described throughout the thread by those who refuse to discuss the mechanism.

Not necessarily. More information is better than less information. Unless there are only two employees and only one does not wish to participate, the participants will have more information. And more information is better than less information.

If this is such a great idea, and someone doesn't wish to participate, how will his co-workers reap the benefit of this great idea?

Because they can still discuss their salaries without getting fired. One would think that a self-proclaimed libertarian would not argue against a voluntary scheme that helps markets operate more efficiently.

 

[Jason Harvestdancer]

Yeah. That's because you're not discussing the mechanism. I have no problem with people being able to discuss their salaries, but there is nothing in your attempt to make up a mechanism that addresses the proposal by the OP.

Go back to post 22 by Tom Sawyer.

About the only situation where it would be a problem is where you were paid significantly more than your team mates.

And that's not even a problem if there's a good reason why you're paid significantly more. If your boss can say that Bob did X, Y and Z and his salary reflects that, then while Bob's coworkers may be annoyed about getting less, they can see that doing X, Y and Z will translate into a raise. If it turns out that Reason X is "Bob gave his boss a really good blowjob during a business trip, videotaped it and threatened to send a copy to the boss's wife unless he got money" then that's something that Frank and Susan also should know in case they're also really good at giving blowjobs.

See, in order for Bob's co-workers to find out that Bob makes more, either Bob is willing to share or Bob is forced to share. And you refuse to give a mechanism whereby Bob's co-workers can find out if Bob refuses to share. The mechanism has been a "rabbit-hole" according to ksen.

I know what the mechanism is. So do you. But for some reason you are pretending that as long as you refuse to name it therefore it isn't it. Just because you're willing to pretend that nobody knows what the mechanism is, why do you think I'm willing to pretend that nobody knows what the mechanism is? Don't bother answering, the question answers itself.

So, Bob's not talking about his pay. How will Frank and Susan reap the benefit of knowing Bob's pay if Bob's not talking about his pay?

 

[laughing dog]

Yeah. That's because you're not discussing the mechanism. I have no problem with people being able to discuss their salaries, but there is nothing in your attempt to make up a mechanism that addresses the proposal by the OP.

Of course there is.

Go back to post 22 by Tom Sawyer.

About the only situation where it would be a problem is where you were paid significantly more than your team mates.

And that's not even a problem if there's a good reason why you're paid significantly more. If your boss can say that Bob did X, Y and Z and his salary reflects that, then while Bob's coworkers may be annoyed about getting less, they can see that doing X, Y and Z will translate into a raise. If it turns out that Reason X is "Bob gave his boss a really good blowjob during a business trip, videotaped it and threatened to send a copy to the boss's wife unless he got money" then that's something that Frank and Susan also should know in case they're also really good at giving blowjobs.

See, in order for Bob's co-workers to find out that Bob makes more, either Bob is willing to share or Bob is forced to share. And you refuse to give a mechanism whereby Bob's co-workers can find out if Bob refuses to share. The mechanism has been a "rabbit-hole" according to ksen.

Yes, because it is the straw man of self-proclaimed libertarians and actual conservolibertarians.

I know what the mechanism is. So do you. But for some reason you are pretending that as long as you refuse to name it therefore it isn't it. Just because you're willing to pretend that nobody knows what the mechanism is, why do you think I'm willing to pretend that nobody knows what the mechanism is? Don't bother answering, the question answers itself.

The answer is mandatory reporting of compensation by everyone. I have never advocated that position and neither has ksen, despite the persistent attempts of you and others to foist that straw man on either on of us.

So, Bob's not talking about his pay. How will Frank and Susan reap the benefit of knowing Bob's pay if Bob's not talking about his pay?

They won't. But they do reap the benefit of knowing each other's salaries without being fired. Clearly they are better off than before. For some reason, that seems to be difficult idea for self-proclaimed libertarians and actual conservolibertarians to process.

 

[Jason Harvestdancer]

It's hilarious how you keep trying to paint this as me being opposed to free speech. You keep using that word, I do not think it means what you think it means.

From the very start of this thread, the "openness" that you have been accusing me of opposing has indeed had Frank and Susan knowing what Bob was making. Until now. Now, for some reason, you are suddenly not going to allow Frank and Susan to know the information if Bob doesn't wish to share it. Which, technically means that you are agreeing with the libertarians and disagreeing with ksen.

Fascinating how all your attempts to paint me as the authoritarian, and your choices now come down to "Frank and Susan aren't allowed to have the information" versus "Bob is required to share the information." So which mandate do you wish to impose?

By the way, you do realize that "free speech" includes freedom to not speak if you so choose?

 

[laughing dog]

It's hilarious how you keep trying to paint this as me being opposed to free speech. You keep using that word, I do not think it means what you think it means.

Obviously you think that. Apparently that is an application of conservolibertarian "reasoning".

From the very start of this thread, the "openness" that you have been accusing me of opposing has indeed had Frank and Susan knowing what Bob was making. Until now. Now, for some reason, you are suddenly not going to allow Frank and Susan to know the information if Bob doesn't wish to share it.

Try to focus. Currently Frank and Susan do not know what Bob does not wish them to know. So I am not preventing anything from changing. What I favor is that Frank and Susan can discuss their salaries without being fired. For some reason, you have obscured your have inability indicate that is an improvement with this persistent straw man.

Fascinating how all your attempts to paint me as the authoritarian, and your choices now come down to "Frank and Susan aren't allowed to have the information" versus "Bob is required to share the information."

Where do you get these bizarre ideas? I never said Frank and Susan are not allowed to have the information. That would mean it was illegal or that they would face some penalty upon attaining the information. Nor I have said that Bob is required to share the information.

By the way, you do realize that "free speech" includes freedom to not speak if you so choose?

I really do not understand conservolibertarian "reasoning" because I fail to see the relevance of that question.

 

[Jason Harvestdancer]

You've seem to forgotten pages 1 through 4 of this thread. Frank and Susan knowing Bob's pay was part of the idea all along.

Oh, but when you said that Bob isn't required to share the information, you didn't actually say that Frank and Susan aren't allowed to have the information if Bob doesn't want to share. But either they aren't allowed to have it, or Someone Else shares it. But that Someone Else must remain undefined. So yes, you didn't actually say they aren't allowed to have it.

You're trying your best to leave as much undefined as possible. Typical of you though. If it isn't defined you can deny it.

 

[laughing dog]

You've seem to forgotten pages 1 through 4 of this thread. Frank and Susan knowing Bob's pay was part of the idea all along.

No, I suggest you actually read the pages with actual comprehension before responding. That is not part of the OP nor a chunk of the wide ranging discussion.

 

[Jason Harvestdancer]

So, if Bob doesn't want to share the information -

1) Frank and Susan aren't allowed to have the information because Bob doesn't want to share it
2) Frank and Susan are allowed to have the information even though Bob doesn't want to share it

Which of those two options do you favor?

 

[fromderinside]

So, if Bob doesn't want to share the information -

1) Frank and Susan aren't allowed to have the information because Bob doesn't want to share it
2) Frank and Susan are allowed to have the information even though Bob doesn't want to share it

Which of those two options do you favor?

Nonsensical.

The point is already made. Salaries are public.

If we should share salaries to keep whatever under control then if some don't like it is in the interest of all to make a legal point of it. Now Bob, Frank, Susan, whoever's opinion is moot.

 

[laughing dog]

So, if Bob doesn't want to share the information -

1) Frank and Susan aren't allowed to have the information because Bob doesn't want to share it
2) Frank and Susan are allowed to have the information even though Bob doesn't want to share it

Which of those two options do you favor?

I prefer the option where Frank and Susan are allowed to discuss their salaries without penalty. I think the costs of accurate and comparable compensation data for all employees (public and private) probably outweighs the benefits. I do not have a strong objection to option 2. I, along with every public employee in the state of Minnesota, currently live under option 2. It is annoying but it is not a terrible burden.

 

[Jason Harvestdancer]

So, if Bob doesn't want to share the information -

1) Frank and Susan aren't allowed to have the information because Bob doesn't want to share it
2) Frank and Susan are allowed to have the information even though Bob doesn't want to share it

Which of those two options do you favor?

Nonsensical.

The point is already made. Salaries are public.

If we should share salaries to keep whatever under control then if some don't like it is in the interest of all to make a legal point of it. Now Bob, Frank, Susan, whoever's opinion is moot.

Bob's opinion counts (in my opinion) because it is Bob's pay that is under discussion. Frank and Susan want to know, Bob wants to keep it secret. You choose point 2.

At least you are honest and brave enough to actually answer the question. Kudos.

So, if Bob doesn't want to share the information -

1) Frank and Susan aren't allowed to have the information because Bob doesn't want to share it
2) Frank and Susan are allowed to have the information even though Bob doesn't want to share it

Which of those two options do you favor?

I prefer the option where Frank and Susan are allowed to discuss their salaries without penalty.

Irrelevant and dodging the question.

I think the costs of accurate and comparable compensation data for all employees (public and private) probably outweighs the benefits.

So is that a vote against option 2?

I do not have a strong objection to option 2. I, along with every public employee in the state of Minnesota, currently live under option 2. It is annoying but it is not a terrible burden.

So you didn't come out and SAY "I prefer option 2", you merely said you don't object to it. But do you have the courage to come out and say "I prefer option 2"? Or say "I prefer option 1"?

Seriously, trying to get you to answer a simple question is like trying to nail Jello to the wall.

 

[laughing dog]

Irrelevant and dodging the question.

Not if you are capable of thinking rationally. It is not a matter of "allowing" anything. Susan and Frank might be able to get Bob's salary via an indirect route (through the employer or union records), so your question was so incomplete as to make it irrelevant. It should be obvious to the most obtuse that I prefer voluntary disclosure that does not have the consequence of being fired. For some reason, you are unable to grasp that simple concept.

So you didn't come out and SAY "I prefer option 2", you merely said you don't object to it.

I said I don't have a strong objection to it. I did not say I preferred option 2 because I do not prefer it. Duh.

But do you have the courage to come out and say "I prefer option 2"? Or say "I prefer option 1"?

Courage has nothing to do with it. Apparently, you are unable to parse responses that are aimed above the 1st grade level.

Seriously, trying to get you to answer a simple question is like trying to nail Jello to the wall.

Nailing Jello to a wall is easy - I did it when I was 8 years old. So, what exactly was your point?

 

[Jason Harvestdancer]

So, what exactly was your point?

Do you prefer Option 1 or Option 2?

You answer is "I prefer that Bob be able to tell Frank and Susan what his salary is without worrying about being fired." That's not an answer, that's a dodge. In this question, Bob has decided that he doesn't want to tell Frank and Susan what his salary is. That leaves two options.

1) Frank and Susan aren't allowed to have the information because Bob doesn't want to share it
2) Frank and Susan are allowed to have the information even though Bob doesn't want to share it

Direct routes, indirect routes, all tangential to the question. If they can access it through "indirect means" that means they can access it, which means Option 2. Anything other than "Option 1" or "Option 2" is either a dodge, a derail, or a tangent.

Saying "Bob is allowed to tell them what his salary is without fear of being fired" is even worse than a dodge, it is not even wrong.