Keeping employees from discussing their salaries is illegal
m.theatlantic.com
m.theatlantic.com
Publish your own salary unilaterally, on your blog or FB page. Don't worry about others.
If anyone complains, there are several arguments you can make:
- It's your money, you can spend them publicly, you can count them publicly.
- If the company pays you competitively, they should be proud. If they aren't proud, that's obvious sign they don't pay you competitively.
- Any threat will reflect on your salary, which is made public. Is it a good way to treat an employee?
- If you want to compromise, you can say you give certain percentage of your salary to charity and publish the amount. Then technically, you didn't publish your salary. And again, any reaction from the employer will reflect negatively on them (because it will reduce the amount you put to charity).
I believe, if someone does that, there will be good people in the same company that will be willing to privately tell him how is he standing. And if enough people do this, they can change the social norm eventually.
Open salaries is very good because they protect against genuine abuse, but I've seen a lot of people completely misread what equity in pay really means (most recent was several "document technicians" with 10 years seniority (in this case people who worked at a counter to help people file forms) complaining that they were paid less than a database administrator who had been working at the organization for 6 months.)
One of my former employers once placed a noisy server in the main working area where employees had their desks. It was a serious distraction for some, and people began to complain to eachother. Management tried to shut down this conversation.
This was technically illegal -- employees have a right to discuss their working conditions with eachother, even if they're not actively forming a union. Even if it's a cushy startup job in a nice office and the working conditions are the free food benefit not being as tasty as usual. Similarly, employees can discuss pay.
And it's time we did discuss pay openly - a lot of us aren't sure whether we should expect 75k or 150k at our next job, or anywhere in between. Salaries are all over the map in this market, and job roles are similarly not well defined.
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.
Either withdrawing labour no longer works, or withdrawing labour needs to be long enough that It hurts the employee more than the employer or, as I suspect, the industries that could have an effect by withdrawing are not unionised (retail being the obvious one)
I am just wondering how the coming "robotisation" and the supposed need for wage-for-breathing will happen in a world where unions have no more power.
I am proud of the UKs labour movement - but it seems to have forgotten.
In both cases, I'm forced to ask why the giver is actively trying to block others from finding out about the giving, or the amount of giving.
I believe, in both cases, they're trying to conceal something from someone.
http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/news/world/2008-06-18-salarie...
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/02/14/business/yourtaxes/14discl...
Take your colleagues out to lunch and explain that in order to determine if there is any on-going wage discrimination that you think that the group should share their salaries with each other, and that you're willing to go first if they agree to share their salaries as well. Follow up by posting your salary to GlassDoor.
My understanding of the law in my country is that discussing salaries for the purpose of preventing wage discrimination is explicitly legal, but this is not legal advise and I likely do not live in your country.
Edit: The group you take our to lunch should not include your supervisor/boss. For some reason my experience tells me that they view this as undermining behaviour no matter how you broach the subject.
Edit: Typo