Why salaries shouldn't be secret

[laughing dog]

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.

No it isn't. Even if Bob doesn't wish to share it, his employer may wish to share it or they may be allowed to get it through other indirect means. So your options are incomplete. Nor does anyone have to logically prefer one option over another one, especially when the two options are incomplete representations of reality.

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.

No, since your options were incomplete.

 

[fromderinside]

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.

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 lives in a situation where law covers the subject. There are reasons for the law. Discrimination, favoritism, fear, all contribute to the need to provide access to people's pay. Objecting to a law is moot since the law was enacted for a reason which met with the approval of representatives of the people and it wasn't overturned after the next election. In Minnesota Bob doesn't have the options you present so they're moot.

Choice, IMHO should only be reconsidered for things that change or conditions surrounding things change. Human nature, the primary reason pay is often made public, changes very slowly, whilst personal pride, a strong reason for pay to remain private is generally considered an obstacle to humanization.

There you have it. No more need to needle or cajole or repeat. Its a done deal.

 

[Jason Harvestdancer]

I see you declined to answer the question again laughing dog. Dodging, weaving, not even wrong answers really don't advance the discussion. "The employer wishes to share the information" can fall under Option 2, so are you choosing Option 2? Probably not, because you haven't been willing to give a direct answer to any questions.

fromunderinside, laws can change. Supposing a majority of people agreed with the proposal of all salaries being public knowledge, there can be a law passed to do so. Saying "but the law says..." is a dodge. I should not have to say "so assuming a large enough majority in the right places to make it happen, do you choose option 1 or option 2". I really shouldn't have to say that. Your reaction is an interesting one, though. From now on, in every single thread where the topic is "should the law be changed to XXX" can I assume you will be there to jump in and write "that's not the way the law is written now" as the final answer?

 

[fromderinside]

fromunderinside, laws can change. Supposing a majority of people agreed with the proposal of all salaries being public knowledge, there can be a law passed to do so. Saying "but the law says..." is a dodge. I should not have to say "so assuming a large enough majority in the right places to make it happen, do you choose option 1 or option 2". I really shouldn't have to say that. Your reaction is an interesting one, though. From now on, in every single thread where the topic is "should the law be changed to XXX" can I assume you will be there to jump in and write "that's not the way the law is written now" as the final answer?

The whether question is relevant given the one you with whom entertain yourself in the present soliloquy lives in a place and works for an entity where option two is required.

My preference is for openness regardless of the law which is why I piped up with the notion that your proposition was moot when I consider it.

BTW I acknowledged that laws can change. I even said the law wasn't changed in the next session after the one where it was approved. Its one of those things where we are becoming more inclusive in things important to our social well being like fair salaries. Some are hoping knives come back into vogue so they can scoop up their peas and challenge hosts as parties with them. Etiquette along that line seems to have contributed to a reduction in murder over the past three hundred years.

Your argument is with the spirit of the times.

 

[dismal]

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.

It's odd but when ideals such as "transparency" and "perfect information" were getting bandied about one might have concluded they were interested in seeing a system that maximized transparency and available information.

But it seem to be the case they either don't understand what these words mean or aren't really committed to achieving them.

 

[laughing dog]

I see you declined to answer the question again laughing dog.

Once again, you are wrong. I answered the question. Even others have acknowledged I have answered the question. If you lack the ability to comprehend or accept that as an answer that is not my problem.

Dodging, weaving, not even wrong answers really don't advance the discussion. "The employer wishes to share the information" can fall under Option 2, so are you choosing Option 2? Probably not, because you haven't been willing to give a direct answer to any questions.

I have no idea what you think would fall under either option. In your previous posts, you made it clear that Option 1 was that Bob did not wish to share it. Bob's wish is irrelevant if his employer or gov't wishes to share it. Now, you are saying that falls under option 2. So what exactly does not "not allowed" under Option 1 mean? For example, does "not allowed" mean under no imaginable circumstances are outside parties to have access to Bob's compensation or does it mean Bob has the right to keep his compensation secret from the public (i.e. no other person or institution can release it) or does that it mean something else? Please be as specific as you can in the fading hopes of having a meaningful discussion.

- - - Updated - - -

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.

It's odd but when ideals such as "transparency" and "perfect information" were getting bandied about one might have concluded they were interested in seeing a system that maximized transparency and available information.

But it seem to be the case they either don't understand what these words mean or aren't really committed to achieving them.

Since the notion of "perfect information" was brought up and parroted by the people against the notion of revealing salaries, one wonders if you are even reading the posts in this thread.

 

[Jason Harvestdancer]

Look, the PREMISE of the question is "Bob does NOT want to share" and every time you answered you wrote "Bob won't be punished for sharing."

Every time I pointed out that your answer doesn't fit the question, you complained about not having enough options.

The options are constrained by Bob's desire to not share. Bob doesn't want to share. Bob declines to share. Bob doesn't wish to share. Bob has no desire to share. Bob has a desire to not share. Bob wishes to keep his pay private. Bob wishes to not talk about it. Bob wishes to not share.

Understand that point. Saying "Bob won't be punished for sharing" is a completely irrelevant answer, because sharing is not his goal. Not sharing is his goal. Is your answer "Bob won't be punished for not sharing"? That doesn't address the point. Not even a little.

Bob does not wish to share. That is a premise, not an option. Frank and Susan wish to know. That is a premise, not an option. The options are derived from Bob not wishing to share and Frank and Susan wanting to know the information Bob does not wish to share. Do you now understand that Bob does not wish to share? These are not options, these are the premises.

Here are the options derived from the premise. These are not the premises, these are the 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

Those are the options. Saying "Bob can share" is to go back and change a premise. You cannot change a premise and say you answered the question. You take the premises as premises, and then after that is done you go to the options. You see how the options are derived from the premises. You choose which of the two options fits both the premises and your own opinion on this matter.

The options fit the premises. You do not change the premises. Bob doesn't want to share, so only those two options exist. You cannot answer "Bob can share" because that doesn't address that he does not want to. Bob doesn't want to share, Bob wants to keep his information private. Saying he can share doesn't address his desire for privacy. The two options address his desire for privacy, by either saying that he has privacy or that he doesn't have privacy.

Your choice isn't to say he can share, your choice is to say either that he has privacy or that he doesn't have privacy. If you answer that he can share if he wishes doesn't address the premise that he doesn't wish to. It doesn't matter how many times you repeat that NOT EVEN WRONG answer, you still haven't actually given an answer to the question.

Oh I suppose in a philosophical way you did answer, like the trouble-maker in 2nd grade who insists on answering every question on his math test with "lollipops". In a way that is an answer. That does seem to fit how well you are dodging and weaving by insisting that Bob can share when the point of the question is that he doesn't WANT to. Answering that he can share, given that he does not want to, makes me wonder if you've even read any of the posts in this thread.

 

[laughing dog]

Look, the PREMISE of the question is "Bob does NOT want to share" and every time you answered you wrote "Bob won't be punished for sharing."

Every time I pointed out that your answer doesn't fit the question, you complained about not having enough options.

The options are constrained by Bob's desire to not share. Bob doesn't want to share. Bob declines to share. Bob doesn't wish to share. Bob has no desire to share. Bob has a desire to not share. Bob wishes to keep his pay private. Bob wishes to not talk about it. Bob wishes to not share. .....

I have answered that with that in mind. . Others are "allowed" access to the information if another entity releases it. Instead of spending the effort on expansive illogical responses, read with a bit more focus and comprehension. I'll make it easier for you and repeat what I wrote above:
So what exactly does not "not allowed" under Option 1 mean? For example, does "not allowed" mean under no imaginable circumstances are outside parties to have access to Bob's compensation or does it mean Bob has the right to keep his compensation secret from the public (i.e. no other person or institution can release it) or does that it mean something else?

 

[Jason Harvestdancer]

I was about to ding you for dodging again, which you did, but I do see where your answer lies even though you don't want to put it clearly.

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

You could have said "Option 2" and been done with it a long time ago. You're trying to hedge your answer so it won't be clear and plain to all, by gingerly talking around "well, hm, the company might release it."

Ok, option 2. But that brings up ANOTHER can of worms since you're trying very hard to not be plain with your answer.

Bob doesn't want to share. Bob's boss (and let us assume that describes all the way up) doesn't want to share. Frank and Susan still want to know. This means that not only is "Bob is allowed to share" isn't an answer, this also means that "the company is allowed to release the information" isn't an answer.

Just to be clear, I'm not talking about the company keeping the information from the tax agencies. Your rather fanciful "under no imaginable circumstances" is an attempt to derail yet again. I'm asking the question about the norm, not the exception. Don't bother with the exceptions right now. Just the average cases. The tax man doesn't enter into it.

Bob doesn't want to share. Bob's boss (and let us assume that describes all the way up) doesn't want to share. Frank and Susan still want to know. What now?

 

[laughing dog]

I was about to ding you for dodging again, which you did, but I do see where your answer lies even though you don't want to put it clearly....

Thank you for publicly acknowledging your pedantry and reasoning problems. That is the first step in progress.

Ok, option 2. But that brings up ANOTHER can of worms since you're trying very hard to not be plain with your answer.

Please stop conflating your inability to comprehend written responses with the absence of an answer.

Just to be clear, I'm not talking about the company keeping the information from the tax agencies. Your rather fanciful "under no imaginable circumstances" is an attempt to derail yet again. I'm asking the question about the norm, not the exception. Don't bother with the exceptions right now. Just the average cases. The tax man doesn't enter into it.

Bob doesn't want to share. Bob's boss (and let us assume that describes all the way up) doesn't want to share. Frank and Susan still want to know. What now?

Then they must find another way to get the relevant information.

Of course, none of this addresses the original point which is that employees ought to be able to discuss their salaries without the threat of being fired. Do you agree with that or not?

 

[Bronzeage]

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?

 

[Juma]

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?

Dont keep secret:
All employees will habe advantage before those who doesnt know.

Keep secret:
Gives management a big advantage when negoating salaries.

 

[Canard DuJour]

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?

Yeah : that employees who think they're thus advantaged probably aren't. They're bidding their relative wage up by bidding wages in general down.

The ole divide and conquer

 

[Bronzeage]

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?

Dont keep secret:
All employees will habe advantage before those who doesnt know.

Keep secret:
Gives management a big advantage when negoating salaries.

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

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

 

[Jason Harvestdancer]

Thank you for publicly acknowledging your pedantry and reasoning problems. That is the first step in progress.

Thank you for publicly acknowledging that you were doing your utmost to avoid a direct answer. That is the first step in progress.

Bob doesn't want to share. Bob's boss (and let us assume that describes all the way up) doesn't want to share. Frank and Susan still want to know. What now?

Then they must find another way to get the relevant information.

What other way?

Of course, none of this addresses the original point which is that employees ought to be able to discuss their salaries without the threat of being fired. Do you agree with that or not?

Of course I agree with that off-topic tangent derail question. But you're drawing us off-topic again. None of my discussion was about the ones willing to share, all of your discussion was about the ones willing to share. My discussion was about those who would undo this entire proposal by not being willing to share. So, what other way?

Of course, "what other way" is a question about the mechanics of the proposal, and nobody wants to discuss that. It's considered a rabbit hole.

 

[laughing dog]

What other way?

Don't know, don't care and it doesn't matter. I am not advocating mandatory reporting.

Of course I agree with that off-topic tangent derail question.

Took you long enough. I hope now a rational discussion can move forward.

But you're drawing us off-topic again. None of my discussion was about the ones willing to share, all of your discussion was about the ones willing to share. My discussion was about those who would undo this entire proposal by not being willing to share. So, what other way?

Back to the pedantry and mischaracterizations. Clearly, I got my hopes up too soon.

Of course, "what other way" is a question about the mechanics of the proposal, and nobody wants to discuss that. It's considered a rabbit hole.

Nope.

 

[Jason Harvestdancer]

If Bob doesn't want to share his salary information, and Bob's employer doesn't want to share it, and we're not talking about exceptional cases, how will Frank and Susan find it out?

You don't know, I do care, and it very very much matters. But then, I know why you say you don't know, don't care, and that it doesn't matter.

I know, how this proposal will work is the least important detail. I still want to know how this proposal will work.

 

[laughing dog]

If Bob doesn't want to share his salary information, and Bob's employer doesn't want to share it, and we're not talking about exceptional cases, how will Frank and Susan find it out?

You don't know, I do care, and it very very much matters. But then, I know why you say you don't know, don't care, and that it doesn't matter.

I know, how this proposal will work is the least important detail. I still want to know how this proposal will work.

It's not another proposal. It is a statement of reality. Just because someone has to find another way, it doesn't mean they will find it.

 

[Jason Harvestdancer]

Ok, you've just changed your mind. You finally, after much work, reluctantly said that you agree with option 2, now you say that you don't you agree with option 1.

Why do you keep changing your mind? To stall the conversation? To derail the conversation? Or do you suspect that my intention is once I get an answer that you are willing to commit to that we might discuss - much to your horror - the mechanics of this?

I wish you would just try to answer a simple question. It would make this whole discussion so much easier on everyone.

 

[laughing dog]

Ok, you've just changed your mind. You finally, after much work, reluctantly said that you agree with option 2, now you say that you don't you agree with option 1.

Why do you keep changing your mind? To stall the conversation? To derail the conversation? Or do you suspect that my intention is once I get an answer that you are willing to commit to that we might discuss - much to your horror - the mechanics of this?

I wish you would just try to answer a simple question. It would make this whole discussion so much easier on everyone.

I do not feel like playing another round on "mindless mischaracterizations and boring derail" course.