Paycheck Fairness Act

[Arbo]

Should Employers Be Allowed To Prevent Workers From Sharing Their Salary Information? - Forbes

What do you think?

No, they should not. Though there are many out there that do, some will fire employees over it.

But even aside from employers, there are a lot of people who will never discuss what they make... no doubt the reasons vary, but it is something I have never understood.

 

[Mach]

Yes I have, you just don't like it. It takes away from the bargaining aspect of it. You just deny it, but that is the truth especially with younger or less experienced workers. When the worker DOES finally get the experience of a seasoned worker, they still might not get close to fair pay for their work.

Fair pay? Oh lordy. If an employer can find people willing to take less for labor, that's a competitive advantage. Requiring them to pay more would simply mean they hire fewer people, or go overseas, or not be able to afford that business model.

You can bargain all you like individually. Collective bargaining, I'd rather just close by doors than deal with such destructive individuals.

 

[Redress]

I ask, simply because your salary is no more personal than the other terms of your employment contract, such as your job duties, vacation allotment, etc.

Job duties is kinda an odd one out there. Job duties can include propriatory(sp?) process information. Salary and benefits don't, they are personal information.

 

[sangha]

They do not dictate it. You either agree to it contractually and keep your word...or you violate your contract agreement. Claiming after the fact that "they don't have the right" is absurd.

Indentured servants also contractually agreed to their servitude. Eventually, the govt forbade such agreements in order to protect liberty, which is something that is inconsistent with any form of slavery

Limits on free speech, except where necessary to protect a legitimate business interest, are inconsistent with liberty

 

[TheNextEra]

The employee should not be able to dictate the terms of their employment; they are free to turn down and leave any job for which they feel is not paying them fairly. The employer is only "forcing" the terms of their willingness to continue to employ you - it is still your option to refuse to work (for that employer) under those terms.

It's amazing seeing the right support the dictation of free speech on an employee.

 

[American]

I think employees should be free to discuss how much they make with anyone they please. I see no reason other than corporate greed why they shouldn't be allowed to.

Sorry, don't understand this allegation. How is this corporate greed?

 

[KevinKohler]

President Obama would disagree with you, vis-a-vis Edward Snowden.

Obviously company secrets, copy written information, etc, does not apply. My comment still stands.

 

[TheNextEra]

Collective bargaining, I'd rather just close by doors than deal with such destructive individuals.

I'd rather you close your doors too. Good riddance. We already have an oppressive government, we don't need more oppressive employers. Talking about wages should not be dictated to by an employer.

 

[Mach]

I'm not saying you are incorrect, but I haven't seen that listed in any handbook. AGain, I don't think the employer should have such a power. Not only that is many resumes require to list what your salary was.

The big box HR service I use included it in our employee handbook. The employer only has the power you contractually agree to in this regard.

 

[American]

It's amazing seeing the right support the dictation of free speech on an employee.

The right supports contract law. This is hardly a free speech issue.

 

[CanadaJohn]

Yes I have, you just don't like it. It takes away from the bargaining aspect of it. You just deny it, but that is the truth especially with younger or less experienced workers. When the worker DOES finally get the experience of a seasoned worker, they still might not get close to fair pay for their work.

What you haven't done is provide a reasonable excuse why an employer should be able to use this power.

You conveniently ignored the very important question I asked you - so I'll ask it again.

Do you believe that if your coworkers salaries were all disclosed and you were the highest paid, that would enhance your ability to make more next time you negotiate?

 

[sangha]

Terms of contracts are terms of contracts, period. Someone outside the signatories has no right or authority to abrogate those terms unless the terms are illegal or contenance illegal actions.

There are many businesses where the wages of employees could easily be of proprietary value to the company. Outside knowledge of that information could unfairly penalize the operations and/or ability to secure business for that company.

Nonsense. The terms of contracts can be legally abrogated for a variety of reasons. Compensation info can hardly be considered proprietary when it's given to people who are not (yet) employees (ie prospective hires)

 

[KevinKohler]

Yes, they do. If their employee handbook lists discussion of personal compensation with other employees as against policy, you can be fired. (Well, sans contract, you can be fired for having blue eyes.) IOW, that may be your opinion, but it's not factual.

Not yet, but then, companies used to be able to refuse to hire a person on the grounds of them being female, too.

 

[TheNextEra]

The right supports contract law. This is hardly a free speech issue.

The right would support sexual harrassment if they still could get it on the contract as well.

 

[Mach]

I'd rather you close your doors too. Good riddance. We already have an oppressive government, we don't need more oppressive employers. Talking about wages should not be dictated to by an employer.

And you'll be crying about offshoring and unemployment the very next day. Cake and eat it too.

 

[Helix]

Terms of contracts are terms of contracts, period. Someone outside the signatories has no right or authority to abrogate those terms unless the terms are illegal or contenance illegal actions.

There are many businesses where the wages of employees could easily be of proprietary value to the company. Outside knowledge of that information could unfairly penalize the operations and/or ability to secure business for that company.

oh, bull****. the purpose is to keep wages down.

when unions spread like wildfire again, it's going to be because of **** like this. personally, i hope it happens, and i'd gladly join a biotech union if there was one. the way they treat us as "independent contractors" with no job security, there might be one someday.

 

[polgara]

You, and others, have still not given any reasonable argument as to why not knowing what your coworker earns impedes your ability to make more money. Do you believe that if your coworkers salaries were all disclosed and you were the highest paid, that would enhance your ability to make more next time you negotiate?

Discussing salaries is a big No-No in business, because it causes resentment, and we are all warned against doing that. It might not make a difference in government, since most are Civil Service jobs and the pay scales are known, but it sure would make a difference in the real world the rest of us live in! Most of us get yearly reviews on how well we are doing on our job, and discussions about where we might improve are part of that. Attitude is also covered. Do government employees get annual reviews? I'm told it is almost impossible to get fired from a government job, which could explain why some act like they are doing the public a favor by doing what they were hired to do! Must be nice! :thumbdown:

 

[KevinKohler]

They do not dictate it. You either agree to it contractually and keep your word...or you violate your contract agreement. Claiming after the fact that "they don't have the right" is absurd.

Do you need money in order to live? And is working the primary means to getting money? There is a reason it's called making a living. In that since, when jobs, or means of making a living, are scarce, contracts for employment are signed under duress.

 

[ttwtt78640]

Law has nothing to do with making anything public. It has to do with allowing people to discuss personal information if they choose. Your comparison is nothing alike.

They obviously have a right to free speech but no right to expect to keep their "at will" job for disrespecting their employment contract or disclosing the private terms of arraingment made between themselves and their employer. If they wish to form a union and get different "rights" (terms of employment) then they have that right as well, but to have the gov't quasi "unionize" all employees simply taking advantage of the fact that employees outnumber employers is no more "fair" than allowing the majority to prevent SSM from being legal becuase they simply do not like it. In other words majority rule must not limit the rights of others, in this case employers, to keep employment terms (including salary) a private matter between them and each of their employees.

 

[rocket88]

Should Employers Be Allowed To Prevent Workers From Sharing Their Salary Information? - Forbes

What do you think?

No. An employee should be free to disclose whatever they want to. That is in the spirit of free speech (not a First Amendment issue, but it is within the spirit of it).

However, nobody should be allowed to disclose someone else's information. Just like medical stuff. If I have a condition and I tell my co-workers, that's up to me. My employer does not have the right to do so.

 

[American]

The right would support sexual harrassment if they still could get it on the contract as well.

Relevance?

 

[ttwtt78640]

It's amazing seeing the right support the dictation of free speech on an employee.

The employee is quite able to quit citing their "substandard" pay as the reason, but not to accept employment and then wish to change the terms of that employment without first negotiating those with the employer.

 

[CanadaJohn]

Job duties is kinda an odd one out there. Job duties can include propriatory(sp?) process information. Salary and benefits don't, they are personal information.

But information is not relevant without context. As an example, we may both have the title of Manager of Research Development, however, our actual duties/functions may be entirely different and proprietary to the business. My research department may be of more value to the company than your research department and thus I'm paid more although we both hold the same titled office.

It's not the best example, however, the point is that the contents of an employment contract are a package. The terms of that employment contract may be privileged in its entirety, solely at the discretion of the employer and you are free to accept the offer of employment, on those terms, or not.

People need to get over the view that once they sign contracts they can start whining and complaining their way out of the terms of the deal they don't like and keep the ones they do.

 

[TheNextEra]

Relevance?

All you care is what's in the contract, as long as it's in a contract you'll support it. Sexual harrasment included.

 

[TheNextEra]

The employee is quite able to quit citing their "substandard" pay as the reason, but not to accept employment and then wish to change the terms of that employment without first negotiating those with the employer.

Negotiating free speech. How so very "right" of you.