Discussion on:

Would you want to know your co-workers' salaries?

I had to get over having my salary disclosed to everyone. I worked in the government sector and the local paper loved to publish our salaries and compensation citing the freedom of information act. So not only did my coworkers know what I made, all my friends, and the general public new.

Speaking of gender (in)equality, I once interviewed at the company where my husband was employed. The morning of my interview, they gave him a spontaneous raise because if they hired me, my salary would have been higher than his. It was a win-win all around. I learned how that company operated, declined the job offer, and my husband got to keep the raise!

Hi Linda,
Im keen on knowing what u learnt in "how they operated". I am from Malaysia and the business ethics here is very very different.

While it could generate animosity, it could also make you aware of the environment faster than if you have to discover it piecemeal. Isn't it better to know whether advancement is based on connections or on achievements?

It tells me whether to look for advancement within a company or elsewhere. It tells me which managers I would rather have or avoid. It tells me which positions are more desirable.

It also encourages a company to nurture its employees if it wants to keep them.

Publishing (internally) what everyone is paid without supporting information is an invitation to infighting. Publishing what everyone is paid - and WHY - is something I brainstormed back in 2006:
https://sjdorst.wordpress.com/2006/02/26/pay-equity/

Would love your thoughts!

It can just open up a larger can of worms, somethings upt out in the open it will fix, but most likely it will make things worse!
Companies will need to install swinging doors, for all of the employees heading out to go work for a different company. remember "You can please some of the people some of the time, but you never can please all the people all of the time!"

I worked in state government, in a department that was centralized administrative services for a number of locations. Not only did local newspapers occasionally publish salaries, the IT people saw the payroll reports, the finance people computed budgets based on them, and the HR people set the salaries in the first place. So we all knew what everyone else's salary. Since it was all a matter of public record, there was no sense in trying to hide it.

Although certain head-scratching anomalies were exposed and made for great gossip, the net result was good. The pecking order was displayed for all to see. In most cases, the salaries made sense. With the salary mystery totally solved, there was nothing to speculate about.

A few people were seriously overpaid or underpaid, but there was less griping than you might expect. At the end of the day, either YOUR salary makes sense to YOU or it's time to look for another job. If you can't find better money elsewhere, then you have the right salary after all. If you CAN find better money, by all means accept the offer and solve the problem.

Secret salary information is just one more point of control for HR. Their rationale is that exposure will force additional spending to rectify unfair situations -- as if covering them up is a long-term solution. This is more about control than anything else.

1) you are paid by the people, they have a right to know if you are overpaid...

2) most gov't jobs are scaled on time served, not skills, so most gov't employees already expect the guy who has been there for 30 yrs is making more than everyone else.

My experience is that the typical employee will always remember the day he made a great decision and his production was head and shoulders above the rest - eight months ago. They never seem to remember the number of Mondays they called in sick or came in late hung-over or the number of times they come in late and four other people on the team are waiting for him to get there (and wondering if he's even going to come in) so they can get going efficiently or even get going at all.

those -1s are from the same people you talked about.

Favors, kickbacks, others variables that go into a person's salary or amount of compensation, can't be evaluated at the time of disclosure. I would rather know the reason behind why he/she got more or less money, not how much they make exactly.

If you work in a large company that has pay bands and steps for each job, or any unionized environment where the pay is set based on your job title, then everyone knows what everyone else is making anyway.

Been in a job for three years? Well then you're at step 4 of pay grade 22 which is exactly $50,000 per year. It's pretty much the same thing as publishing it.

One thing about openness, by the way, is that it forces management to be fair and to think before they do things. If their work is open to scrutiny, they will have to take the subjectivity out of it. I think it's a neat idea (I'm a manager, by the way).

it may not be too much of an issue - the ones where you know if someone has a particular job title then their salary must be between x and y as that's the scale for that title. However the majority of companies I've worked for or been involved with this isn't the case, and I can't see any good coming from knowing my colleagues salary details. As dcavanaugh said, if your salary makes sense to you that's all that should matter, if not then it's time to look elsewhere.

any company that would publish (or otherwise make available) salary info probably also has a real 'open door' policy, which would allow you to discuss perceived discrepancies

my other comment is: without a publish salary policy, where does the data for "women make less than men" and "new hires make more than old timers", etc come from?

Maybe it's my military background, where what someone gets paid is literally worn on their sleeve. I don't care what others make, and don't particularly care who know what I make.

I whole heartedly agree brother.

Semper fi brotha! well said!

Who let the jarhead in?

said the zoomie!

Unlike the other branches, in the AF the enlisted men stay in the rear; it's the officers who get sent up front to die.

But I agree.
Because to say I should be paid as much as her, is to say she should be paid as much as me.

I'm dubious about the latter half of the equation...

You get paid what you are worth to the people paying you. If you disagree with the value you do something about it, not sit their whining about stuff not being fair.

Hey sarge I think I should get paid more.

Leeeeeeftt...

person voted me down.

Waaagh. It's not fair.

...minimum wage than? Or do you think you should be paid what you are worth?

I see no logic in why you must dig into everyone that believes they should be paid what they are worth? You probably say this because you are already being paid "what you are worth." But if you were in the same boat as everyone else, your tune would change. And if you say it wouldn't, I'll call you a liar. Just sayin'.

in.

I am and always have been paid what my employers think I'm worth to them.
That's all I or anyone else "deserves". The only time entitled creeps in to the situation is if they or I are not fulfilling the terms of the contract we signed.

If I'm in need of a job and sign up for minimum wage which admittedly is tad less than I'm getting now. Then that was the deal. What has changed? I found out little BiIlly isn't on minimum wage? He wasn't before, and they knew that. Have they negotiated in bad faith? No. Have I been taken advantage of? Of course I have, It's a business. not a charity.

If you bought a top range car for the price of low range one, and the dealer popped round a week later and said I should have charged you more for that. You might agree, you aren't going to give him the money though, not even if he sits on your drive wailing about it not being fair.

It's the wrong mindset. Our employers don't believe in it, and all they'll do to people who think this way is do them up the back at every opportunity. Get rid of it. Last week I worked these hours, I stopped this and saved the company that. I've an offer from Acme corp for X, stuff this, I'm off to flip burgers it pays more, any of these are reasonable attempts to improve your salary, and I've used all of them. I've never used it's not fair, waaagh, which is why I'm not now and as yet never have been on minimum wage.

The only two things I expect from my employer, are that they will meet the terms of the contract and that they'll try to minimise the cost of it.

The only two things they should expect from me, is that I meet the terms of the contract, and that I'll try to maximise the contract.

All else is lies and drivel designed and promoted by them to get you to accept less for longer.

Having you believe in this entitled crap is good for them. It's part of their strategy, no different to car salesman selling you a rust bucket as the absolute best car you can buy for $50,000.

It's your job to get him down to $50, not his, and waagh it's not fair isn't going to get you that.

I think a lot of us have a knee-jerk reaction against open disclosure of salaries, but maybe that's just how we were trained. There are a number of good points in the responses. Toni, are you giving it some more consideration?

I already know what a lot of them make, and it kind of ticks me off, especially when your boss makes a lot more but can't do a thing right and doesn't want to learn anything knew so I end up doing his job for him, even though he makes a lot more. Funny how he gets the money and the credit, and I get **** on. Oh well that's life I guess.

I gave you a +1. Not because I want to encourage bitching in discussions, but because this is a real-life response to knowing other people's salaries. It's human nature to compare ourselves to others. And we always think we are better than others.
"I deserve more because I work longer hours"
"I deserve more because I get more done"
"I deserve more because I've got more qualifications"
"I deserve more because I've been with the company longer"
"I deserve more because I have more responsibility"

All of these (and more) are genuine reasons why we might deserve more than the next person. And human nature is to weigh the things that are true for ourselves more heavily than the other things (ie. "Sure he works more hours but he's the new guy, so I should get paid more than him").

I think we all have our own mental picture of what we *think* everyone else earns. What's the harm in letting employees keep this model instead of being pissed off to find out that Jane from marketing earns more than me?

To put it in a shorter way: We all think we are more valueable than the average employee, but on average we're not. Therefore by disclosing salaries most people will be upset.

"All of these (and more) are genuine reasons why we might *** think *** we deserve more

Doesn't matter what we think, never has. Can you persuade the people who've assigned this value to yourself that they are wrong.

The problem with going down the parity route is it works both ways. Employer's will put a ceiling on your salary because you are as valuable as person/role X.

All it does is level people. Go down this route and managem,ent come back with this one.

Well we'd like to pay your more, but if we did we'd have to raise the alary of every one above you...

Parity is a prime argument used by unions, pretty much all you need to know about it.

Why should you give a crap if someone thinks they should be paid as much as you? Tell them to get off their arse and earn it, not ride on the coat tails of your effort.

"Doesn't matter what we think, never has. Can you persuade the people who've assigned this value to yourself that they are wrong"

I wasn't looking at this from the point of view of an individual employee making a case for why they deserve more money. I was looking at it from the point of view of the employer, and was asking myself "Why would an employer want to do this?". I can't see why they would want to. The fact is(*) disclosing everyone's salaries will lead to ill-will. Whether your employees really do deserve more, or whether they are just over-estimating their own worth doesn't matter. Either way, you'll have a whole heap of disgruntled employees

(*) Ok, that wasn't really a fact. It was just my belief. Between personal experience and replies in this discussion though I'm pretty confident I'm right.

Treat your employees like mushrooms is a given.

my attitude around salary disclosure within the company is based on the reasons why they have asked or even in some cases required me to keep it from my fellow employees.
It's "described as not wanting to cause upset". The upset being of course someone who feels they are as valuable as me going to management and saying I should be paid as much or even more than Tony.

While in my opinion that's a bollocks argument, a claim to parity, it's the sort of thing a union rep would come out with in their constant quest for imposed mediocrity, it is a prevalent one.

So I don't mind people knowing what I earn more than I mind other people wanting me to keep it secret.

Well said. However im curious to know how the US pays people - i think its fairly well compared to my country where we are paid ****. its who u know and how u get there that counts. PSP -pretty **** policy!

theres been issues where a $30 torch light was sold for $400 - only happends here!

Many people do work in places where it is who you know. But not all, or even most. It goes back to perception. People don't complain when they get the job based on qualifications, but they certainly do when they get passed over because the boss' kids play with that guy's kids.

Short story - don't confuse perception with reality.

The only morale problem an employee would have with full disclosure of everyone's salaries would be for the pathetically poor performing employee. And frankly, nobody gives a damn if they happen to have low morale. That's the whole point. To discourage them from staying in your company and dragging it down, while encouraging them to be seeking a job more suited to their skills and temperment.

Everyone in the military and the government knows how much everyone makes. That provides a certain drive to better yourself to reach the next level with absolutely known rewards for success.

I guess the problem then becomes the people deciding who is better than whom, and why. Rank and file don't work in every scenario.

My reaction to this is HELL NO.

Can you think of any organizations, large or small, more INefficient than the Federal Government, State Government or the US Military?

How are promotions achieved in government and military? Production? Ability? A healthy dose of brown-nosing?

Management recognizes my accomplishments, the revenue I generate and the help I give to my coworkers. I generally work from 7am to 11pm (with several long breaks throughout the day).

Should I be paid the same as someone who logs on at 9am (on the dot) and logs off at 5pm (on the dot)?

Should I be paid the same as someone who generated 3x the amount of revenue, travels constantly or has trained a generation of productive employees?

I view my employment as a private contract between me and my employer. Accent on the private.

Agree.

nt

Can you think of any organization, large or small, more inefficient in meeting its mission to serve the public than one that seeks to optimize savings (increase profits). In the corporate sector, the mission is maximize how much you get off the customer and to minimize how much you have to give the customer. This model does not work when the goal is to give as much service as possible while minimizing any leftover "profit" (since it isn't allowed to pile up money for future need or self-gain).

This requires hiring the very best people you can. Being able to keep people a long, long time helps agencies avoid repeating mistakes. Part of the reason term limits have been a failure -- new legislators come in and say "Hey, let's try this brilliant idea I came up with in the shower" and their staff roll their eyes because they remember when that was tried in the 1980's and all the unforeseen problems that it caused.

I've dealt with both government and corporate environments (several of both). Hands down the private companies were more wasteful and less efficient. State and federal government has waste and inefficiency, but much of it is due to extra legal requirements that private companies don't have to deal with.

To those who say government/military are not the models to follow have not done their homework on the underbelly of private policing and contracted security. THAT is waste, inefficiency, and ineptitude.

>> In the corporate sector, the mission is maximize how much you get off the customer and to minimize how much you have to give the customer

Two of the most successful retailers, Nordstroms and Zappos, do exactly the opposite. It's part of their formula for success.

>> This model does not work when the goal is to give as much service as possible while minimizing any leftover "profit" (since it isn't allowed to pile up money for future need or self-gain).

Visit the corporate executive offices of a non-profit organization or labor union. See if "non-profit" equals "give as much service as possible"