> And it's time we did discuss pay openly It's worth noting that unions historically had a fair degree of pay transparency for precisely this reason. One of m

> And it's time we did discuss pay openly It's worth noting that unions historically had a fair degree of pay transparency for precisely this reason. One of my first jobs was in a company that whose owner was keen to aggressively de-unionise. Contracts for new, individually contracted employees (like naive young me) were pitched as better than the old union contracts[1]. They had secrecy clauses in them specifically as part of the divide-and-conqueor part of the operation, as well as making sure none of the individuals knew how much they were losing out on their superfically better contracts (see [1] again). Ironically enough a number of senior managers weren't that keen on de-unionising[2], but the owner[3] insisted. [1] A higher base salary, but with no penal/overtime provisions. Since I was young and foolish I didn't realise that while my colleagues nominally earned $10-15,000 p.a. less than me, in practise they took home twice as much because they got 1.5-3 time multipliers for all those 2 am finished and Saturday evenings spent babying 30 year old publishing systems. [2] Negotiating and ongoing management of 600 individual contracts, or negotiations with three or four union negotiating teams? The assistant GM vastly preferred the latter. [3] Murdoch.