Why salaries shouldn't be secret

[bilby]

My phone number is not in the phone book. But it is not a secret either - I give the information to whomsoever I choose, and I do not risk being fired for doing so. I have to option to have the number published in the whitepages; or to not have it published; or, if I only wanted to use the phone for outgoing calls, I could even decide to keep the number completely secret, known only to me and the phone company.

This insane insistence that information must either be published in a database, or kept completely secret, with no other possibilities, does nothing to advance the discussion; a fact which I am beginning to suspect is not accidental.

 

[fromderinside]

This was appropriate 52 years ago and its appropriate now....the times they are a changin'.....

 

[Juma]

It doesn't work that way. It is technically impossible for all employees to have an advantage. That would be a even playing field.

It is an advantage versus the management.

Management believes they have an advantage, but like a lot of things managers depend upon, this is an illusion.

Management have the information, the employees has not. That is a factual advantage.

 

[Jayjay]

It is an advantage versus the management.

Management believes they have an advantage, but like a lot of things managers depend upon, this is an illusion.

Management have the information, the employees has not. That is a factual advantage.

Technically, the management has limitations in sharing such information with other companies. Consider the recent settlement in Silicon Valley hiring collusion case for example.

It would be a level playing field if, somehow, employees of the same company could share information with each other, but still could be forbidden to do so outside their company. Or if all salaries were public knowledge to everyone, employees and employers alike.

 

[coloradoatheist]

To sum up why salaries shouldn't be secret:

Should not be secret:

Some employees will have an advantage when negotiating their salary with management.

Should be secret:

Management believes they will have an advantage when negotiating salaries with employees.
Management does not want to have to justify why some employees are paid more or less than others.
Feelings will be hurt.
Some employees consider this to be personal information and don't want to share.

Did I miss anything?

I think you forgot to add the advantage under secret of being good to aggressive and top workers. It's a step back for those two groups. It's definitely an advantage to underachieving workers of not having it secret.


I think it's hard to say what exactly is a level playing field. Both potential employees and employers have their advantages and disadvantages.

 

[laughing dog]

I think you forgot to add the advantage under secret of being good to aggressive and top workers. It's a step back for those two groups. It's definitely an advantage to underachieving workers of not having it secret.

Why?

 

[coloradoatheist]

I think you forgot to add the advantage under secret of being good to aggressive and top workers. It's a step back for those two groups. It's definitely an advantage to underachieving workers of not having it secret.

Why?

The first part, or the second part?

 

[arkirk]

Secrecy is the hallmark of getting screwed for the working man or woman. If your pay is even roughly equivalent with your neighbor for roughly equal output, there really is no need for secrecy...especially if the employees are doing the same kind of work. If you put out twice the output of the boss's son and he gets paid twice what you do, it must MAY benefit the boss's son that his salary is secret. Daylight spawns attempts at fairness. Secrecy usually just means somebody is getting screwed.

 

[coloradoatheist]

Secrecy is the hallmark of getting screwed for the working man or woman. If your pay is even roughly equivalent with your neighbor for roughly equal output, there really is no need for secrecy...especially if the employees are doing the same kind of work. If you put out twice the output of the boss's son and he gets paid twice what you do, it must MAY benefit the boss's son that his salary is secret. Daylight spawns attempts at fairness. Secrecy usually just means somebody is getting screwed.

Yes and no. You are comparing similar work, and there is a lot of time where that is easier said then done but for employees it's harder to see the differences. Another issue is the difference of timing when people come in, combined with very hard to lower salaries. So if a new position opens up they need to find the person they need and that's very dependent on the number of candidates, the timing of the hiring, and what they have to offer the candidate to get onboard. There's is many times when an employee gets overpaid to come on, but there isn't an easy way for companies to lower salary to match output after they see what happens.

 

[laughing dog]

I think you forgot to add the advantage under secret of being good to aggressive and top workers. It's a step back for those two groups. It's definitely an advantage to underachieving workers of not having it secret.

Why?

The first part, or the second part?

Why is it an advantage to underarchieving workers? An employer could point to them and say "You are not as productive".

 

[fast]

Daylight spawns attempts at fairness.

Why strive for fairness? If I'm on the winning side, I'm good, and if not, I need to work on getting there. Everyone shrewd enough to adapt to unfairness can make strides to be on the winning side. For instance, if my pay is unfairly lower than another, then combatting the unfairness is a needless battle to fight when my priorities shouldn't be on sweeping at the back door of others but instead working to take advantage of opportunities --be they those that come my way or those I actively seek out. If my boss makes twice what I do for doing half the work, or if my co-worker gets paid three times what I do because she's cute, then I'm clearly unsuccessful in navigating the turbulent waters of unfairness, so my course of action isn't to right the wrongs of others in jealously or envy; I should set my sights on taking advantage of opportunities to better MY situation. It's a matter of focus. My energy should be spent on looking out for myself and my family. Once I'm over 60 and having successfully secured my families future, then I can take a stab at correcting the wrongs of the world and spawn some attempts at fairness.

 

[bilby]

Daylight spawns attempts at fairness.

Why strive for fairness? If I'm on the winning side, I'm good, and if not, I need to work on getting there. Everyone shrewd enough to adapt to unfairness can make strides to be on the winning side. For instance, if my pay is unfairly lower than another, then combatting the unfairness is a needless battle to fight when my priorities shouldn't be on sweeping at the back door of others but instead working to take advantage of opportunities --be they those that come my way or those I actively seek out. If my boss makes twice what I do for doing half the work, or if my co-worker gets paid three times what I do because she's cute, then I'm clearly unsuccessful in navigating the turbulent waters of unfairness, so my course of action isn't to right the wrongs of others in jealously or envy; I should set my sights on taking advantage of opportunities to better MY situation. It's a matter of focus. My energy should be spent on looking out for myself and my family. Once I'm over 60 and having successfully secured my families future, then I can take a stab at correcting the wrongs of the world and spawn some attempts at fairness.

No wonder the world is fucked up with attitudes like that.

You have so many opportunities that you are incapable of conceiving that some people do not; you are so immersed in vast seas of opportunity that you honestly think that all that is needed to get out of an unfortunate situation is a little hard work.

It is truly sad; all the more so because it appears to be such a common misconception. There is no such thing as a self-made man; everyone needs someone else to help them up, or they stay down. That many who have an easier than average ride to the top fail to even notice the huge level of external assistance they get is one of the worst failings of humanity.

 

[fast]

Daylight spawns attempts at fairness.

Why strive for fairness? If I'm on the winning side, I'm good, and if not, I need to work on getting there. Everyone shrewd enough to adapt to unfairness can make strides to be on the winning side. For instance, if my pay is unfairly lower than another, then combatting the unfairness is a needless battle to fight when my priorities shouldn't be on sweeping at the back door of others but instead working to take advantage of opportunities --be they those that come my way or those I actively seek out. If my boss makes twice what I do for doing half the work, or if my co-worker gets paid three times what I do because she's cute, then I'm clearly unsuccessful in navigating the turbulent waters of unfairness, so my course of action isn't to right the wrongs of others in jealously or envy; I should set my sights on taking advantage of opportunities to better MY situation. It's a matter of focus. My energy should be spent on looking out for myself and my family. Once I'm over 60 and having successfully secured my families future, then I can take a stab at correcting the wrongs of the world and spawn some attempts at fairness.

No wonder the world is fucked up with attitudes like that.

You have so many opportunities that you are incapable of conceiving that some people do not; you are so immersed in vast seas of opportunity that you honestly think that all that is needed to get out of an unfortunate situation is a little hard work.

It is truly sad; all the more so because it appears to be such a common misconception. There is no such thing as a self-made man; everyone needs someone else to help them up, or they stay down. That many who have an easier than average ride to the top fail to even notice the huge level of external assistance they get is one of the worst failings of humanity.

Well, I was kinda just messin' with arkirk a lil bit there.

Although some eye-opening light on wages earned would likely ease some of the unfairness, I do kinda think in the back of mind sometimes that a lot of people in my neck of the woods probably could do a bit better if they wouldn't just settle for where they're at in their financial lives. I do really think if people put some conscientious effort into applying themselves with at least a tiny bit more vigor, they might not become millionaires perhaps, but I bet they could boost their standard of living a couple notches. What brings dismay is the time spent complaining about unfairness, which unfortunately seldom leads to a real improvement, could actually bring some real results if they would just apply themselves with a healthy dose of passion ... Again, in my neck of the woods.

 

[coloradoatheist]

I think you forgot to add the advantage under secret of being good to aggressive and top workers. It's a step back for those two groups. It's definitely an advantage to underachieving workers of not having it secret.

Why?

The first part, or the second part?

Why is it an advantage to underarchieving workers? An employer could point to them and say "You are not as productive".

Because I think for many jobs that's easier said than done. It's also combined with the fact that people tend to avoid confrontation and both sides hate doing performance review. And when this salary structure is done in practice (aka pay schedule), the worst performer gets the same pay as the best peformer.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Whenever someone gets an award around here, there's an instant deconstruction of their effort on whatever project is mentioned in the award. Doesn't last too long ,usually, though feathers have been ruffled by people wondering aloud how holding a coffee cup and asking 'how's it going' is contributing to the project enough to get an award, while everyone else's efforts didn't get the same attention or mention at higher levels.
It has sometimes led to people storming off for an afternoon or closeted discussions with the manager, the team leader, the project boss.

I would worry that a transparent payroll would have the same sort of drama, but on a more regular basis, involving more people. Sheer jealousy and resentment taking up workers' time, managers' time, leads' time and so on.

Agreed. The fact of the matter is people are very bad at rating their own abilities when there is no clear yardstick to measure against. I would expect a lot of ruffled feathers.


Also, consider what happened with my wife years ago. Her agreement with her employer was a flat 50% of money collected from her billings, no salary. (But she did get things like insurance.) Another employee there got very jealous as he only saw the billed amounts, not the collected amounts and he didn't think about the lag times involved. He made enough of a fuss that he was offered the same deal--and then was furious when the checks weren't what he was expecting and he soon left.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

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."

Note, though, that the need to jump ship periodically is an indication that there is something wrong with the pay structure.

 

[laughing dog]

I think you forgot to add the advantage under secret of being good to aggressive and top workers. It's a step back for those two groups. It's definitely an advantage to underachieving workers of not having it secret.

Why?

The first part, or the second part?

Why is it an advantage to underarchieving workers? An employer could point to them and say "You are not as productive".

Because I think for many jobs that's easier said than done. It's also combined with the fact that people tend to avoid confrontation and both sides hate doing performance review. And when this salary structure is done in practice (aka pay schedule), the worst performer gets the same pay as the best peformer.

If you cannot document someone is an "underachiever", you really don't have much of basis to make such a claim about their performance.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

If you cannot document someone is an "underachiever", you really don't have much of basis to make such a claim about their performance.

Groups generally know who pulls their weight and who doesn't even without complex measurement systems.

 

[laughing dog]

If you cannot document someone is an "underachiever", you really don't have much of basis to make such a claim about their performance.

Groups generally know who pulls their weight and who doesn't even without complex measurement systems.

Whether that claim is true is one thing.