3 ms·

I'm quite fortunate that I work for a company that's very transparent about pay now, but I've worked at a few places in the past where sharing your salary detai

I'm quite fortunate that I work for a company that's very transparent about pay now, but I've worked at a few places in the past where sharing your salary details was considered a serious offence. Obviously the point was to maintain paying as little as possible. I occasionally wonder what would have happened if the payroll database had ever been leaked, or if there was a leak from HMRC (UK version of the IRS). I strongly suspect it would have been the end of the company as a lot of people would have walked out. You'd think that risk would have been enough to equalize the wages a bit, but it definitely wasn't the case at any of the places I experienced. I guess the existential risk is less of a threat than the cost savings are a benefit.

trasz 5y ago
Doesn't law explicitly allow sharing this kind of data?
- onion2k 5y ago
  I don't know. I've never needed to talk to a lawyer about it thankfully. If it is something that's explicitly protected then plenty of companies are getting it wrong.
- benmanns 5y ago
  US law does. That may or may not be the case in the UK.
  - nly 5y ago
    My contract (in the UK) explicitly states that sharing compensation or bonus details is considered gross misconduct, which is a dismissable offense.
    - trasz 5y ago
      This looks like a typical lie that employers like to put into contracts, and it seems it is: https://metro.co.uk/2018/11/09/can-your-boss-stop-you-talking-about-salary-with-your-coworkers-8122544/ https://metro.co.uk/2018/11/09/can-your-boss-stop-you-talkin...
      - nly 5y ago
        Well, it's not a lie that it's in my contract and that I signed it.
        trasz 5y ago
        It is true that this clause is there in your contract, sure. But the clause itself is a lie - it’s void, because it contradicts the law, yet it is there, to make an impression that it’s not void.
  - celticninja 5y ago
    There is no specific protection for it, but at the same time it also cannot be forbidden to be discussed. Employment protection in the UK is string enough that you cannot just fire someone for discussing it.
  - Symbiote 5y ago
    UK: you may discuss your pay to see if there's any discrimination (gender etc). (Maybe in other circumstances too, I'm not sure) https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2010/15/section/77 https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2010/15/section/77
- mdoms 5y ago
  There is no "the law", you'd need to be specific about which market you're talking about.
- smnrchrds 5y ago
  Not the OP. I believe that's the case in the US, but here in Canada, there generally aren't any laws against it. There was a bill in Ontario in 2018 that banned reprisals against workers who discussed their pay, but it died when the governing Liberal party lost the election and the Conservative party did not follow through. As far as I know, the practice is not banned in Alberta either.
- topkai22 5y ago
  In the US, it’s only on a voluntary individual basis. For example, an HR employee that knows all employees pay information can be prohibited from sharing that information but cannot be prohibited from discussing their own pay.
AQuantized 5y ago
That information is under pretty tight lock and key in the UK, perhaps for specifically this reason. I'd say the risk is pretty minimal.
- xwolfi 5y ago
  Yeah only ransom and kidnapping. In France a guy was kidnapped by mistake because he was jewish and his smart kidnapper thought all jews were rich. He died. Now at least with such a list the risk of mistake is minimal, only genuine high earners would be kidnapped, is that what you're saying?
bko 5y ago
> Obviously the point was to maintain paying as little as possible Is this the only reason one would want to withhold disclosing everyone's salary? Full disclosure would likely lead to one salary for every person in that role. But anyone that's spent any time in a company knows that not everyone is the same. I would hope top performers get paid better than mediocre or below average employees. And if everyone had all the info, that would open up huge legal liability due to the perception of bias. There would also be complaints and comparisons across roles as well. There's also the privacy component. I think the idea of pay transparency but in practice if you dump everyone's salaries it would case a disturbance and a huge cultural shift in an org that didn't disclose salaries before.
- AutumnCurtain 5y ago
  >Full disclosure would likely lead to one salary for every person in that role. Why? We have existing systems with full transparency (e.g. CA state employees) and this proposed trend has never come to pass
  - warner25 5y ago
    I'm in the US military, and although there isn't a public spreadsheet with a line for "warner25: $xxx,xxx" you could work out my income if you knew my rank, years of service, location, etc. along with how our pay is structured. Most people outside the system (i.e. my parents and extended family) wouldn't work this out easily, and probably think that my income is much lower than it really is. My co-workers, on the other hand, could probably figure out my income down to the last penny. I think this arrangement doesn't cause strife for two reasons that don't apply to most citizens in the private sector: 1. We knew the deal (how we would get paid, and that it's public knowledge) when we signed up. It's a not a leak. 2. Even if some higher paid co-worker seems like a clown or worse (toxic and counter-productive), we all know exactly what it takes to reach that same level of pay... i.e. a well-defined and generally attainable combination of years, education, certifications, and experiences to get promoted. So you don't need to pay everyone the same amount for the same role, but you do need this kind of deterministic structure. It seems like number 2, in particular, has no equivalent in the private sector where pay is based on fluid market competition and negotiation and the whims or biases of hiring managers.
xwolfi 5y ago
Now imagine you share it with criminals. Do you imagine a few creative ways to use such a list ? That's what Albania did.
- ddorian43 5y ago
  Most wealthy people are by having your own business and the end of year revenue/profit bilanc is already public.

trasz 5y ago

Doesn't law explicitly allow sharing this kind of data?

onion2k 5y ago
I don't know. I've never needed to talk to a lawyer about it thankfully. If it is something that's explicitly protected then plenty of companies are getting it wrong.
benmanns 5y ago
US law does. That may or may not be the case in the UK.
- nly 5y ago
  My contract (in the UK) explicitly states that sharing compensation or bonus details is considered gross misconduct, which is a dismissable offense.
  - trasz 5y ago
    This looks like a typical lie that employers like to put into contracts, and it seems it is: https://metro.co.uk/2018/11/09/can-your-boss-stop-you-talking-about-salary-with-your-coworkers-8122544/ https://metro.co.uk/2018/11/09/can-your-boss-stop-you-talkin...
    - nly 5y ago
      Well, it's not a lie that it's in my contract and that I signed it.
      - trasz 5y ago
        It is true that this clause is there in your contract, sure. But the clause itself is a lie - it’s void, because it contradicts the law, yet it is there, to make an impression that it’s not void.
- celticninja 5y ago
  There is no specific protection for it, but at the same time it also cannot be forbidden to be discussed. Employment protection in the UK is string enough that you cannot just fire someone for discussing it.
- Symbiote 5y ago
  UK: you may discuss your pay to see if there's any discrimination (gender etc). (Maybe in other circumstances too, I'm not sure) https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2010/15/section/77 https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2010/15/section/77
mdoms 5y ago
There is no "the law", you'd need to be specific about which market you're talking about.
smnrchrds 5y ago
Not the OP. I believe that's the case in the US, but here in Canada, there generally aren't any laws against it. There was a bill in Ontario in 2018 that banned reprisals against workers who discussed their pay, but it died when the governing Liberal party lost the election and the Conservative party did not follow through. As far as I know, the practice is not banned in Alberta either.
topkai22 5y ago
In the US, it’s only on a voluntary individual basis. For example, an HR employee that knows all employees pay information can be prohibited from sharing that information but cannot be prohibited from discussing their own pay.

AQuantized 5y ago

That information is under pretty tight lock and key in the UK, perhaps for specifically this reason. I'd say the risk is pretty minimal.

xwolfi 5y ago
Yeah only ransom and kidnapping. In France a guy was kidnapped by mistake because he was jewish and his smart kidnapper thought all jews were rich. He died. Now at least with such a list the risk of mistake is minimal, only genuine high earners would be kidnapped, is that what you're saying?

bko 5y ago

> Obviously the point was to maintain paying as little as possible Is this the only reason one would want to withhold disclosing everyone's salary? Full disclosure would likely lead to one salary for every person in that role. But anyone that's spent any time in a company knows that not everyone is the same. I would hope top performers get paid better than mediocre or below average employees. And if everyone had all the info, that would open up huge legal liability due to the perception of bias. There would also be complaints and comparisons across roles as well. There's also the privacy component. I think the idea of pay transparency but in practice if you dump everyone's salaries it would case a disturbance and a huge cultural shift in an org that didn't disclose salaries before.

AutumnCurtain 5y ago
>Full disclosure would likely lead to one salary for every person in that role. Why? We have existing systems with full transparency (e.g. CA state employees) and this proposed trend has never come to pass
- warner25 5y ago
  I'm in the US military, and although there isn't a public spreadsheet with a line for "warner25: $xxx,xxx" you could work out my income if you knew my rank, years of service, location, etc. along with how our pay is structured. Most people outside the system (i.e. my parents and extended family) wouldn't work this out easily, and probably think that my income is much lower than it really is. My co-workers, on the other hand, could probably figure out my income down to the last penny. I think this arrangement doesn't cause strife for two reasons that don't apply to most citizens in the private sector: 1. We knew the deal (how we would get paid, and that it's public knowledge) when we signed up. It's a not a leak. 2. Even if some higher paid co-worker seems like a clown or worse (toxic and counter-productive), we all know exactly what it takes to reach that same level of pay... i.e. a well-defined and generally attainable combination of years, education, certifications, and experiences to get promoted. So you don't need to pay everyone the same amount for the same role, but you do need this kind of deterministic structure. It seems like number 2, in particular, has no equivalent in the private sector where pay is based on fluid market competition and negotiation and the whims or biases of hiring managers.

xwolfi 5y ago

Now imagine you share it with criminals. Do you imagine a few creative ways to use such a list ? That's what Albania did.

ddorian43 5y ago
Most wealthy people are by having your own business and the end of year revenue/profit bilanc is already public.