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"

In the military the people in charge have responsibility and delegate authority.

Civilians have the authority to delegate blame...

Seriously sad...

Is the constant denigration of public service by those with an ax to grind. If you want the best people in government, you don't constantly whine about incompetent, overpaid, and lazy government employees.

Of course, too many people haven't got the sense to realize that...

If business promotions were based on the military model, business would be much more efficient than it is, because the best workers would be promoted much more often than not.

From what I've seen, business promotions are based more on butt-kissing than anything else. Heck, most managers I've known in private business couldn't hack the military because they aren't capable of subordinating their egos to the mission..

Funny this comes up now. Just yesterday I found out other co-workers got bonus checks last year, when I did not. I was told it wasn't in the budget. Than 7 months later, I find out other co-workers got bonuses.
I'm a DBA. I work 24/7. The programmers I work with, do not. They leave at 5:00 and don't think about this place till 8:00 the next day. And when I found out they got bonuses and I did not, I went through the roof. Sadly, my business practice tells me to NOT bring this to management' attention. It's none of my business if they got a bonus check. And it's none of their business if I did not or did.
It's no one' business, but your own, what you make/don't make at your company. Especially co-workers. I've never divulged a raise, bonus, or anything like that. That's my take on it. It only causes friction and bad blood.

above DBAs, it's a much harder job.

You've just come out with the management argument for keeping remuneration secret. Based of your anecdote you are saying it would have been better had you not found out those jobsworth programmers you work with (or against ) are getting paid differently to you.

I'm not seeing the logic. I could excuse that because I'm a programmer, but I've been a DBA as well.

I don't agree. As I stated...these programmers work 8-5, walk out the door & don't think twice about work till 8:00 the next morning. If a database goes down at 0 dark 30 in the morning, who's getting called?? Sure ain't the programmers. If you've been a dba before, you should already know this. I shouldn't be telling you anything you don't already know.
And I don't agree at all about it being a harder job. It's different, I will say that. When I have to show a programmer how to write t-sql code, or interface with sql server, who's got the harder job?
And not understanding how you don't see the logic. Than again...There are 3 DBA's handling over 160 programmers some of which complain they have nothing to do at times. I always have work to do...generally it's called "cleaning up crappy t-sql code the programmers are writing".

You tell me who works harder? Oh, that's right...the programmers do.

I'm not seeing the logic.

Your employer values them more than you. You haven't done anything about it, you are still there, you are still being paid less.

So they are right.

While you are restricting your response to your situation with anonymous whining you deserve the salary you are getting.

Got to get off your arse mate, I know it's hard, I know times are hard, but no one is going to give you something for nothing. Do more, be more, leave for more, but act.

I am off my arse. And I am far from whining. Answering the topic' question is all. And I'd like to see these holier than thou programmers deal without the DBA's for 1 week. The database architecture would be a mess, everyone would have owner privileges to all the databases and no one would take responsibility of who did what to what database.
If ANYONE whines in my area, it's the programmers. OMG, don't get me started on that.
Anyways...you comments have been read. That is it. They have been read. I don't expect something for nothing. I've been in this industry way too long for a young person to come in & tell me something I heard when they were still in diapers...or probably not even around yet. I don't go in to my manager' office demanding a raise or bonus. I went in asking, "What do you need me to do to make me more valuable to the company come yearly pay raises?"

Get off your high horse. Albeit programmers make the computer world go round, let's see you do it without a database...mate.

He called you young, Tony!

The rest of the post, wasn't too clever though.

Stop projecting, I don't work at your place.

If you want to be to paid as much as them because you perceive them as less valuable, you are expecting something for nothing.

They are paying you now, for them to agree to pay you more, you are going to either have to do more, or get what you do perceived as more.

The only thing that's likely to happen if management agreed they shouldn't be paid more than you because they are bunch of incompetent jobsworths, is to pay them less.

No wonder you are getting done up the back, they saw you coming from a mile off.

I agree, workers who are willing to come in and fix a database problem during off hours should be compensated accordingly, if not with a higher pay maybe with some other incentive such as two or three extra vacation days. Just an example. Don't really know which one works harder.

Who says working harder (whatever that means) for someone else gets you more money.

If it doesn't say in your contract that you get paid more for call outs, then you don't.

The entire premise that you should is flawed anyway, and from both sides.
You don't have to be Mr Trump before you figure out that the way to make your next car payment is to get a few extra hours in on account o "something" went wrong, do you?

You should get paid on the basis that there will be no call outs. If that turns out not to be true, then you get to come in because you screwed up. Reward good behaviours.

"...workers who are willing to come in and fix a database problem during off hours should be compensated accordingly,..."

If I had a DBA coming in at 3:00 am to repair databases on a semi-regular basis, I'd be asking why these databases keep breaking and looking for a DBA who can fix them permanently.

...
The only proviso being when it's precieved as cheaper to pay a DBA to fix it (or better still not pay them) than to invest in more reliable kit and systems.

I know when I was doing it I got paid for being available for call, whether I ended up being called was mostly down to my dilligence during the day.
So effectively I got paid more when the systems didn't break, course the place was 24/7 , which can make management focus their thinking a little better.

Good point and that is exactly why they should be compensated accordingly.

There's a lot more to job value than being available. There's probably a lot of on-call positions that are making a lot less than you and being called in more. Maybe their set of skills is less valued in the job market.

The programmers have no reason to come in at midnight, so they don't. But they probably have a lot of other things to worry about that you don't.

But if programming is an easier job and they're being compensated more, maybe you should consider applying for a programming job.

Questioning assumptions is a major part of programming...

I've worked for the bosses so driven to create and build (which we did), but could not appreciate those in the background who kept existing systems working smoothly, kept documentation, tidied up. In both cases, the growth was not sustainable because he had treated the maintainers with derision or ignored their efforts.
Of course, I've also worked for those bosses who were so focused on keeping everything organized, twiddling with existing systems, and afraid to break eggs, that no big cool projects were every undertaken and we became irrelevant.

Good management means having the right balance and appreciating both the programmers and the administrators.

I work for the Federal Government. Our salaries are also public record. That causes great consternation amongst some workers when an incompetent gets hired at, or above, your pay level. No, it isn't fair but then again, you were looking for a job when you found this one. Is security your main motivator. Go Government, shut up and color.

Just so I can see how much more there bumbling earns.

I remember being upset when a co-worker that often was not able to complete their projects got promoted. This was not someone that I disliked. But I knew from experience that they were always complaining that their assignments weren't interesting. They would get a plum assignment, and then someone else would have to finnish it. I should have been happy for them, but I wasn't. Looking back I should have blamed their boss.
Imagine finding out that someone else that needs constant hand holding is making almost as much as you.

Nearly all my managers have got paid more than me.

For those of you who happen to be Christians, I refer you to Mat 20:1-16.

Which ones were christians then, when exactly does the landowner turn into a camel, and when do tthe boys who started work early inherit his earth because camels aren't big on passing on their worldly goods.

While I would agree that a company shouldn't be ashamed for people (including employees) to know what the salaries of their employees are, in my experience it's not great for the employees to know too much about such matters. There's a reason why the policy of non-disclosure exists for most companies. Accept that there will always be someone who makes more than you do, even more than they should; it's up to the employee to decide if their compensation is fair, and if it isn't, to seek a raise or a new position.

exists so management can operate unfairly. How is this good for employees?
Keeps their stress levels down???

How the perception of unfairness is dealt with is another question, but to claim that it's better to be ignorant about being treated unfairly, is ridiculous.

Care to elaborate on what that reason might be?

An employer cannot prohibit employees from discussing their salaries amongst themselves to prevent animosity. The reason for this is equal opportunity and fairness in pay. This is actually part of the Wage & Labor laws. So, employers need to keep in mind that preventing salary discussion can bring on a lawsuit.

I've been involved with the preparation of detailed budgets for that last 12 years, so I've had access to this information about all employees and management for years.

Beyond an initial curiosity, I haven't taken any notice of them for years. It's like any professional situation, you put your personal thoughts to one side and act in a professional manner.

I don't give a ****.

I work in an environment where everyone votes on what the raises will be; yet almost no one but the Financial Secretary and a few others know what each of the Union members and Referral Hall members make. Therefore it produces a lot of negative responses from some folks who are constantly wondering what others are making. Usually these folks were the same ones that weren't prepared for the financial crisis that hit the country in 2008 but didn't affect our industry until almost 18 months later. The show must go on right?
I am a registered Independent with very fiscally conservative leanings. I don't necessarily support or not support Unions in this country. I have been working for Local 322 for 13 years and it has been very good to me for the last 7. I am able to work about 1000-1200 hours a year and I find myself in the 25-75% of income of our nation. The amount of free time that this allows is wonderful.

But I still wouldn't want to know what my co-workers really make - otherwise I might be drawn into the pondering of who makes more than I do and why.

It's not my business. If a colleague has the negotiating skills that resulted in a better salary, then good for them. If I found out that a colleague's salary is higher, it's not going to alter my morale. Forget about what someone else is making and ask yourself this question "Am I content with my salary". If the answer is Yes, great. If the answer is No, do something about it. That something should consist of actions that result in turning the No into a Yes.

Pay confidentiality is only ever there to protect poor HR processes. Fair slaries motivate people and allowing people to know what they earn and how the earnings are set in relation to other people is a good indicator that the company is not just fair but seen to be fair. If salaries aren't fair don't be surprised if people walk - whether they are published or not.

I heard of one case where a company was trying to shed people and, as if by magic, there was a 'slip up' in HR that revealed exactly how much less the people they were wanting to get rid of were paid than the people in charge. All of a sudden, getting volunteers for redundancy wasn't such a problem after all.

I think it despicable that a "boss" would suggest raises based upon someones gender, family circumstances; nonetheless, I know it happens. That said, performance reviews and salary information should be private. To the point, managers need to learn to manage (and motivate) people more than things and projects; take proper care of people and the projects will significantly care for themselves. From my (admittedly old-school) experience, I tell nosey employees to worry more about doing the job well -- if you are are that worried about someone else's pay, perhaps you are not adequately able to focus on the important metrics needed to complete tasks on time and within budget; we can help you adjust your focus or you can adjust where you work; with employment being treasured in this ecconomy, perhaps we need better-focused employees.

I just happened across a piece called ...

In a recent past life I was on a team that was evaluating everyone's salary and as a result we had available all the salary information but anonymity was preserved by not providing names linked to each salary. As a result we could look at a team of people and understand the average salary + bonus +profit sharing + commissions.....assumptions could be made about which one compensation number would be Joe Jones, but quite frankly we had well over 100,000 people to look at so there was never time to really worry about if Joe made more than Suzy etc.

What did come out of the study was unpleasant to me. Firstly I discovered that neither performance nor tenure seemed to drive $$$ across most of the organizations. Secondly, there was a huge range between compensation paid for people doing the same job. I had always thought I was reasonably paid for the work I did, always had top evaluations, had tenure if you will ,and was senior in my position. Imagine my surprise when I discovered I was the 2nd lowest paid person on my team, and it appears as if my near associate was compensated at nearly 3x my rate.

Trust tends to go out the window, doubts creep in, and human nature tends to make matters worse, not better. Ultimately I left for greener pastures where I was compensated more like my former associate.

I had a job programming in COBOL. I had the major project of putting in a new system that utilized inputs from scales, bar coding, etc. It ended up saving the company a lot of money by reducing pilfering. I forgot how I found out, but a coworker, who the boss would only allow to do RPG programming and create reports, was making thousands more than I was. I approached my boss and said that if they moved me up to her salary that I would guarantee at least two more years. His response was that they were overpaying her and he couldn't do it. So I left the company.

there will always be some that get mad because they believe that their 10 yrs of service automatically qualifies them for higher pay than the person who has only been there for 2.
I think the best approach is pay banding and sharing that with everyone. Its like sharing everyones salary without having to giveaway the actual numbers.

In my organization (a large software firm), I supervise an entry-level call center. All new agents are hired as temps and have to prove themselves worthy of permanent employment.

The permanent job pool is run very much like a lottery - depending on the pay rate of the position that becomes available, the employee filling in that position could be over- or under-compensated. Now there are benefits that come with that permanent position. However, the vacancy pay rate is capped at whatever was paid the it's former occupant. There is very little room for negotiation - unless the vacancy is truly a promotion.

In this environment, where permanent positions are few and temporary agents are ambitious, publicizing salaries (with the current lottery formula) would create a hostile environment where employees would find ways to sabotage each other. We already have enough behavioral issues and contention to keep the leaders well occupied.

I know that as a supervisor, receiving that title during the "crisis with the economy" meant that all I was getting was a title. I didn't get an increase until several years later, and it was only about 21-cents per hour. Maybe the publicity would benefit me. Or it would be a warning to other leads that they need to step up their game.

Full disclosure would have to bring with it a different system for compensating employees. Our current model would not benefit from it.