HR Departments Tell Equifax Your Entire Salary History

chiguy writes with this snippet From NBC News: "The Equifax credit reporting agency, with the aid of thousands of human resource departments around the country, has assembled...[a database]...containing 190 million employment and salary records covering more than one-third of U.S. adults...[Equifax] says [it] is adding 12 million records annually.' This salary information is for sale: "Its database is so detailed that it contains week-by-week paystub information dating back years for many individuals, as well as ... health care provider, whether someone has dental insurance and if they've ever filed an unemployment claim.""

Comments

Privacy And Sin

[smittyoneeach]

Privacy and sin,
Like skin on the chin,
Covered by hair,
Nicked by tech #FTW
Burma Shave

This is an important story, beyond the troll.
A political party supporting liberty, where that is defined in part as the right to own all data pertaining to yourself, would see a great deal of support.
And we can expect any of our entrenched parties to support liberty in 3. . .2. . .

Re:Privacy And Sin

[dmacleod808]

You are obviously not familiar with Burma Shave, its a 1950s thing. There were signs on the road, each sign had a single line, ending with "Burma Shave". It was not supposed to be fine prose. I think they covered it in the pilot episode of Quantum Leap.

Re:Privacy And Sin

[Anonymous Coward]

What are you, new or something? This is Troll Tuesday, and the Burma Shave troll fears none, save the honey badger.

Re:Privacy And Sin

[Anonymous Coward]

>A political party supporting liberty

Considering the extreme liberal leaning bias of the (current!) slashdot readership, you're in the wrong place to say that. Expect to be called a Randian nutbag in 3... 2...

Re:Privacy And Sin

[NatasRevol]

Randian nutbag

Don't be redundant.

Re:Privacy And Sin

[DarkOx]

Don't
stick
your
hand
out
to
far
it
might
go
home
in
another
car
Burma Shave

Re:Privacy And Sin

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah, the statists moved in. Whatayagonnado?

Re:Privacy And Sin

[MickyTheIdiot]

The current version of the nutbag arm of the libertarian party seems to be much more interested in defending corporate "liberty" rather than individual liberty. It's stories like this that show the two are totally incompatible. If you have no restraints on big institutions (including corporations) there is no such thing as individual rights.

Re:Privacy And Sin

[RazorSharp]

Current? Here's the constitutional amendment Rand proposed: "Congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of production and trade. . ."

That means no safety regulations, no minimum wage, no antitrust legislation, no public roads, and no regulations on the financial markets. It means that if I sell you a product that is poisonous and it debilitates you for the rest of your life, you can sue me in civil court and that's the solution to keep things like lead paint off of products (and, of course, if you're too poor to sue me in civil court you're a worthless fuck who deserves lead poisoning; i.e., all low income housing would be painted with lead paint).

The current version of the libertarian party is the same version of 'libertarianism' that's existed since FDR was in office. It's a negative response to New Deal policies, which largely consisted of various subsidies and restraints on big institutions. While I agree with your post, there's nothing current about this view, and it's not a 'nutbag arm' of the libertarians -- the nutbag shit is what defines one as a libertarian. Libertarians are the opposite extreme as communists but they face the same problem: If only people would stop acting like human beings, their utopian paradises would be possible.

Re:Privacy And Sin

[Anonymous Coward]

and honey badger don't care

Re:Privacy And Sin

[jedidiah]

There's no need. Paleface speaks with forked tongue. What they say they stand for and what they actually stand for are miles apart. There are any number of things they support, push for, or exploit within the electorate that they should leave well enough alone.

Re:Privacy And Sin

[Impy the Impiuos Imp]

This is modded +5, but any defense would be molded -1 troll. Thus does your online tribal moral society shut down debate, giving you an even more false sense of security in your positions.

I could grant you every last thing you said, and we're still spending well over 2x what we need. Also, your laws mentioned, every one of which you claim has rational basis, could net produce enough slowdown in the economy that people are harmed over a faster-moving one.

This doesn't enter into your calculus. You can't give out fast, cheap wi fi for free until trillions have been invested in private tech development.

Re:Privacy And Sin

[DNS-and-BIND]

Communists are not nutbags. Plenty of them hold respected positions in economics and academia, and nobody says anything about their political views.

Re:Privacy And Sin

[Anonymous Coward]

I think it's a testament to how little you understand "liberal" that you would call slashdot extremely liberal. If anything, slashdot is largely moderate, likely centrist. But, so many right wingers have shifted the scale so far to the right that anything heading toward the center is now considered "extreme left."

-- green led

Re:Privacy And Sin

[westlake]

You are obviously not familiar with Burma Shave, its a 1950s thing.

It's easy to forget that almost all cross country traffic before the construction of the Interstates moved on two lane rural roads at an average speed of 45 mph or less. The first Burma Shave signs were placed in 1925. The verses began appearing in 1929.

Here are two examples from 1939:

Hardly a driver / Is now alive / Who passed / On hills / At 75 / Burma-Shave

Past / Schoolhouses / Take it slow / Let the little / Shavers grow / Burma-Shave

Burma-Shave

Re:Privacy And Sin

[GameboyRMH]

To be fair, objectivism and libertarianism aren't the same thing, although there is a major overlap...but yeah it's nothing new, they've always put corporate and personal freedom on exactly the same level, that is, in sane people talk, to allow corporations to walk all over people through economic power. However economic power is not a real thing to libertarians so no problem exists to them.

Re:Privacy And Sin

[Anonymous Coward]

That means no safety regulations, no minimum wage, no antitrust legislation, no public roads, and no regulations on the financial markets

No, it just means no Federal involvement in those things. And I have a hard time seeing where the Constitution allows such involvement today, with the possible exception of roads.

Re:Privacy And Sin

[Anonymous Coward]

Oh, nonsense. The government-funded Radiation Lab sparked the entire electronics industry; "private tech development" only bothers to look at things that are beyond a certain level of technological readiness that would allow them to become marketable products within (at most) the next couple of fiscal years, and the problem with that is that not all tech develops smoothly and evolutionarily from previous tech.

Re:Privacy And Sin

[Duhavid]

"This is modded +5, but any defense would be molded -1 troll. Thus does your online tribal moral society shut down debate, giving you an even more false sense of security in your positions"

Liberal, liberal, liberal. ( Reagan )

We all need to respectfully consider "other"viewpoints. There is too much home team rooting everywhere.

Re:Privacy And Sin

[Anonymous Coward]

We all need to respectfully consider "other"viewpoints.

I prefer George Carlin's take on it:

So the next time some asshole says to you âoeI have the right to my opinion.â You say, âoeoh yeah? Well I have the right to my opinion and my opinion is you have no right to your opinion!â then shoot the fuck and walk away

Re:Privacy And Sin

[ThatsNotPudding]

Somebody already ignored the advice and clipped off the second o in too.

Re:Privacy And Sin

[Zontar_Thing_From_Ve]

Current? Here's the constitutional amendment Rand proposed: "Congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of production and trade. . ."

That means no safety regulations, no minimum wage, no antitrust legislation, no public roads, and no regulations on the financial markets. It means that if I sell you a product that is poisonous and it debilitates you for the rest of your life, you can sue me in civil court and that's the solution to keep things like lead paint off of products (and, of course, if you're too poor to sue me in civil court you're a worthless fuck who deserves lead poisoning; i.e., all low income housing would be painted with lead paint).

So true. My first exposure to libertarianism was back in the mid-1990s when I had a friend at work who was a developer and a hard core libertarian. I used to ask him questions and this is basically what he believed.
1) The government would have a military that it would use only to defend the US from foreign attack. But just about everything else in the government would be gone. Whatever was left of government, it would likely be maybe 10% or even less of its current size.
2) Since the government will be weak and basically doing very little other than making sure the military stayed functional, everything had to be settled in the courts. If someone sells you ice cream and it's poison and you die, you file a lawsuit. To him, this seemed perfectly reasonable and a logical way to handle things because the "bad" people under libertarianism will go out of business due to the negative publicity of the lawsuits and stop killing people that way. So libertarians are not telling you that their system requires a massive expansion of courts and lawyers. Does that seem rational? To me it doesn't, but it sure did to him.
3) I quickly realized something that all libertarians seem to fail to get - all it takes is one guy to not play by the rules and game the system and everything comes crashing down like a house of cards. It's exactly like RazorSharp said - it's a utopian paradise and it fails when one guy breaks the rules. I've told people that communism makes a lot more sense than libertarianism does. That is because to 99% of "libertarian" Americans, libertarianism means essentially "I don't have to pay any more taxes and Uncle Sam can't tell me what to do". There's no deeper thought than that about the political philosophy they espouse and how it would work in reality.

Re:Privacy And Sin

[Anonymous Coward]

When I was young
And in my prime
I used to do it all the time
But now that I am old and gray
I only do it once a day
Burma Shave

Re:Privacy And Sin

[pootypeople]

"[The Congress shall have Power] To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian tribes"

It's right there in the Constitution. Pretty darn simple. You may disagree with the Supreme Court's opinion of what constitutes interstate commerce, but your opinion doesn't carry the weight of law. The Supreme Court's does.

Re:Privacy And Sin

[pootypeople]

Thinking about the problems of government policy in any depth makes it obvious simple solutions aren't possible. These folks are unwilling to accept that - they believe they are wiser and more able than any human that came before them. Since they're ubermen they believe that the muddling through humans have done for hundreds of thousands of years is no longer necessary -- if only people would follow their enlightened example all would be well. They don't seem to understand that their ideas have been tried and found wanting -- they're convinced they are the only people who really "get it."

I'll give libertarians credit for one thing -- they've made me far more conservative with their radicalism. Seeing how their simple solutions would fail terribly in the real world has made it easier to see how some of my own preferred policies probably wouldn't work as I intended were they adopted. They also have a pretty good understanding of the futility of the government attempting to regulate private consensual economic relations between individuals -- only an authoritarian state could do it effectively.

I just wish more libertarians could accept that they are just one of many ideological traditions that we NEED to make good policy. Not one of the many ideologies is absolutely right -- part of the genius of a properly-functioning democracy is that it forces the kind of collaboration between competing viewpoints that gives us the best possible policy.

Re:Privacy And Sin

[whitroth]

Um, sorry, not true. The current libertarianism is from the seventies, I believe. The earlier libertarians were *LEFT* wing, and friends of the IWW (and I have an old pamphlet my father picked up in the early fifties to prove it).

The current libertarians, of course, fall into my aphorism: there are two kinds of Republicans: millionaires, and suckers. I suggest that if you're a libertarian and posting here, you're the latter.

            mark

Re:Privacy And Sin

[Bigby]

Interstate Commerce regulation is constitutional. But how does minimum wage classify as Interstate Commerce? If I create a ponzi scheme in Pennsylvania and only have Pennsylvania customers and deal solely in Pennsylvania. Who do you think will intervene?

Re:Privacy And Sin

[cockpitcomp]

Good on you! You captured the Libertarian concept clearly and concisely. Can I quote this, with credits of course?

Re:Privacy And Sin

[buybuydandavis]

Much better to empower the government loot individuals to pay for corporate "investments". That'll show those evil corporations!

Re:Privacy And Sin

[GameboyRMH]

What they take from us through government is nothing compared to what they could with just a fair bit less government.

Re:Privacy And Sin

[Compaqt]

OK, then, so whatever the Supreme Court says is what the Constitution is, right? So, obviously it would make no sense to disagree with any Supreme Court decision, because you'd be arguing for something unconstitutional. Talk about realpolitik.

There's no argumentation, no reason, no thought. Just "The Supremes said so, ergo, it is."

And the next time the Roberts court rules that the police can do whatever it is they'd like to do, that's fine, too, right? Because the Constitution is whatever the Supreme Court says it is. No need for the 1st, 2nd, 4th, 5th, 9th, and 10th amendments.

Re:Privacy And Sin

[Compaqt]

By suckers, I believe you mean that Republicans aren't voting to help themselves to the money of those people who have more of it than they do.

Does this theory only work when you're going to be on the receiving end? I.e., socking it to the rich? Let's expand the pool of suckers to the entire world, including Africa. Now, you're part of the rich. Of course, you'll be sharing your money all around, right? Or do leftists lose their moral principles when they're in the oppressor class?

Re:Privacy And Sin

[buybuydandavis]

Honda will send troopers to your house and rob you of everything if you don't buy the latest Accord? I don't think so.

How would the banks have arranged to loot the public for trillions of dollars without the government shoveling them the money?

Of course, no private corporation can ever compare to the abuse it inflicts with what government corporations. Is Microsoft as damaging as Stalin and Mao were?

Re:Privacy And Sin

[GameboyRMH]

Again you don't get economic power, they don't have to physically remove money by force or even take value in the form of money, there are other ways.

They can pollute and make you suffer with it rather than paying for cleanup (where people can actually be killed in the long term) - and I just ran into this article on that very problem while writing this. Collude or form cartels to force prices up. Abuse their monopoly as Microsoft did. Assault your senses with ads that are loud, intrusive or dangerous - for example a restaurant near my office has a sign on the sidewalk that greatly reduces visibility for cars coming onto the main road. Some people's cars get wrecked, they get better advertising. A user car dealership near my house does the same thing, parking their cars on grass near the road's edge, greatly reducing visibility. There's also the issue of loud ads on TVs that were regulated away recently, they exchanged TV viewers' comfort in their homes for their own advertising power. Selling private information in the lack of privacy regulations - see how Facebook operates in the US vs. Germany.

Yes technically you aren't forced to use any of these things and you could avoid them, only practically that's not true unless you want to live like the Unabomber. And because people are technically free through the "Unabomber option," libertarians wash their hands of all these problems.

Re:Privacy And Sin

[buybuydandavis]

And because people are technically free through the "Unabomber option," libertarians wash their hands of all these problems.

The traffic and pollution examples are examples of abuse of a commons, which most libertarians recognize as a problem. I do. Tax and regulate pollution. Regulate interference with a commons.

The tv commercial example is pretty lame - don't watch that channel. A channel has every interest in keeping the volume down - they don't want to have their viewers go to one of the thousands of other channels available to them. And don't you have a remote? Really, we need a government so that you're not annoyed with how loud commercials are? By the way, apparently that's not quite working for you now anyway.

I post nothing to Facebook. I guess you consider that the Unabomber option. You want privacy, but you want to post to Facebook. Ok.

I'm not opposed to privacy regulations, but you should realize that "more privacy" isn't necessarily better. I actually want search results, ads, and information targeted to me.

By the way, the government is also busy compiling your data. Who do you think has more? Who can do more harm to you with it?

> Collude or form cartels to force prices up

Compare the price increases from that to the price increases from licensing laws, regulations, tariffs, import quotas, etc. I have an off patent medicine with a 800% markup compared to world prices. Costco could be selling it at that price, but for the US government making it illegal.

And why exactly do I have to spend time and $150 to beg for a permission slip from a doctor for a $5/month cholesterol medicine? Oh yeah, that's the government protection me from cartels price gouging me. Cartels like the American Medical Association? Thanks, government!

As soon as a politician is affected

[Anonymous Coward]

this will very quickly become illegal.

Re:As soon as a politician is affected

[GiantMolecularCloud]

I don't think Special Interest Groups would give out that information, and fortunes made through insider trading are equally difficult to quantify.

Re:As soon as a politician is affected

[Anonymous Coward]

Politician salaries are a matter of public record.

Re:As soon as a politician is affected

[Anonymous Coward]

the salaries of nearly all state and federal employees are also public record.

Re:As soon as a politician is affected

[crakbone]

Politician LEGAL salaries are a matter of public record. Here fixed that for you.

Re:As soon as a politician is affected

[JustOK]

Salaries yes, but not necessarily their income.

Great!

[HeckRuler]

How soon can I browse the salary history of CEO's, Congressmen, the chairmen of the FED, the leaders of Scientology, and the lobbyists on capitol hill?

Re:Great!

[Anonymous Coward]

As soon as some group breaches Equifax's system? I'd imagine that this will happen shortly as long as this story gets enough publicity.

Re:Great!

[greg1104]

The minute you can pull data from every offshore bank account.

Re:Great!

[afidel]

CEO (along with other senior executives) compensation (much more than just pay) has been public for some time, check out your companies 10Q filing (does not apply to private companies).

Re:Great!

[SJHillman]

You can already browse state employee salaries for many states. New York is http://seethroughny.net/

Re:Great!

[h4rr4r]

Holy crap, some SUNY Binghamton coach is making $240k.

Why is a state school wasting money like that?

Re:Great!

[Anonymous Coward]

How soon can I browse the salary history of CEO's, Congressmen, the chairmen of the FED, ...

As far as CEO salaries are concerned, the shareholder proxy statement will tell you their total compensation. Many times just Googling it will tell you: CEO Apple: Time Cook

But the sucky part for us is that, while CEOs can get away with hundreds of a percent in compensation increases because of market forces, we peons are stuck with what is deemed "reasonable" by the HR and hiring manager. Example, back in the 90s, my contract was ending and the body shop I dealt with (doesn't matter who - they all do it) wanted to know what I wanted for a rate. I looked online and saw that a rate of $55/hr for a W2 with my experience and skills - I was at $47/hr as a W2 with the previous contract. The recruiter said, "Gee! That's a big increase!" even though THEY would be billing out at market rates.

Companies have a problem paying market rates for their employees when they go up but have no problem cutting when things get bad. We peons only take the downside risk and get none of the upside - unlike that CEOs and Congressmen - they can go and become highly paid lobbyists if they lose their election.

Re:Great!

[Anonymous Coward]

Just answered your own question, he's a coach. Sports are so much more important than actual education at colleges.

Re:Great!

[MickyTheIdiot]

CEOs don't get big pay because of "market forces."

They get big pay because their buddies sit on their board. These CEOs also sit on THEIR buddies boards. They vote each other big packages. If YOU want a big pay package are you going to vote down a big pay package for one of your buddies?

Re:Great!

[Anonymous Coward]

$240K is nothing. Checkout University of Texas coaches salaries.

Mack Brown's $5,266,667
Richard D Barnes's $2,400,000
Gail Ann Goestenkors's $1,080,000 (She is no longer with University of Texas)

Texas government salaries are here: http://www.texastribune.org/library/data/government-employee-salaries/

Re:Great!

[RevDisk]

Supply and demand.

Apparently the school thinks having a good sports program is economically worthwhile. Considering that the price of college keeps WELL ahead of inflation, it's just more "free" money from the federally backed loans that students take out. Where did you think all the cash was going?

Re:Great!

[140Mandak262Jamuna]

Only the top five highest paid executives have their pay disclosed to SEC. All the rest are confidential.

Re:Great!

[IndustrialComplex]

Coaches have a public facing role, work very odd schedules, work weekends, and manage staff consisting of multiple disciplines (trainers, physicians, subcoaches, etc).

They are certainly well compensated, but when you get beyond 'lol it's just a sport' and look at the actual responsibilities placed on a college football coach, it's not as crazy as it first appears.

Re:Great!

[h4rr4r]

So do lots of folks who do not get paid that much money.

Re:Great!

[Anonymous Coward]

Great argument.

Re:Great!

[Anonymous Coward]

I want to know how to stop these thieving CEO mochadrinkers. Tell us how.

Pose a problem, propose a solution. **how to post to a message board

Re:Great!

[Dishevel]

Also if you have a decent Football system the cost of the system is actually less than zero.
As these types of programs normally bring in more money than they use.
So that extra money is spent on real education. Great sports programs benefit education.

Re:Great!

[Anonymous Coward]

duh, most of it is already public info. you really can't be this stupid
you can go to yahoo finance or one of the other ones and get CEO salary info
government employee salaries is public as well, has been forever.

Re:Great!

[h4rr4r]

This is not true.

Very few football programs make any money. Less than a dozen.

The NCAA's own report confirms this.

Re:Great!

[Anonymous Coward]

That's blatantly false. I've worked at a couple of public companies that were nowhere near the top 100 and barely in the top 500 (if at all) and executive compensation was always a matter of public record that was disclosed to the SEC.

Re:Great!

[h4rr4r]

http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/college-athletics-losing-money/

STOP SPREADING THESE LIES. Sports not only distract from the actual purpose of a University they also cost vasts sums of money and generate little comparable revenue.

Re:Great!

[leonardluen]

and for them it is mostly for bragging rights.

Re:Great!

[foobsr]

Probably a move to Scandinavia would help.

Quote:"Every year, Sweden publishes everyone's income tax returns. So do Finland and Norway. And nobody really cares." ( http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/news/world/2008-06-18-salaries_N.htm )

Not quite the same, but still.

CC.

Re:Great!

[mapsjanhere]

That's because rich people there have better things to do than to run for public office. And politicians are viewed with suspicion if they do not depend on their salary to live on. You need to show a reasonable income to show "I'm one of you". Unlike the US where "I made it rich" is seen as a sign of potential for POTUS, but you don't want to show that you made it rich by gaming the system.

Re:Great!

[HeckRuler]

Yes, it is as crazy as it first seems.
1) They manage people. They're managers. Fine. It's one of the better jobs out there. A quarter of a mill is still a lot of money, even for a manager. But hey, some managers are running things that are important and are doing their job well. Some managers really do deserve a quarter mill. BUT:
2) They're domain experts in a domain in a very sparse and narrow domain. It's a game. It's not that deep. It doesn't take much to be an expert. 3) People do their job for fun. Not all aspects of it, no, but the major decisions and actions that we pay coaches for, people like to do as a game. Fundamentally, that's all competition and should drive their value down. How many people do you know would be the college coach for free?
4) What they're managing isn't that important. "But football is big business"... No, it isn't. It's a money pit. They produce nothing of value short of some recreational TV time and some T-shirts. The "income" of college football comes from donations to the college. Donations go up when they win some games and now all donations are entirely thanks to football. Bullshit.
5) It's just supposed to be an activity to keep the kids fit while they study at college. Something on the side. It's not supposed to be the subsidized minor league of the NFL. Football is not the intended purpose of our educational system.
6) That last one has a ripple effect. A lot of kids have dreams of getting a sports scholarship so they can get some education and not bust rocks with their head the rest of their life. How many kids have foregone their actual studies in highschool because they're too busy playing football? How many parents push (and push HARD) their kids to do well, not at studying, but at tackling each other? How many of those scholarship hopeful actually get one? Of those with scholarships, how many actually get an education in the middle of their football career? Somewhere along the line, football stopped becoming a means to an end, and became the end itself.

So no. Fuck that coach and his $240K.
(wait, he coaches football right? It's totally legit if he coaches... say... fencing. Lot of skill there. Can't skimp on quality, nosiree)

Re:Great!

[mister_playboy]

The 5 highest paid execs in each company are listed, not the 5 highest paid execs in any company.

Re:Great!

[Anonymous Coward]

except when its not. there's a substantial number of companies that game this system and just don't enter the information the tax documents dictates. especially in the not for profit sector. It's also obtuse where one would report this. I worked at a regional hospital that gamed their tax documents like so for 5+ years before i left.

Re:Great!

[Anonymous Coward]

Looks like we've found a CEO with a guilt complex.

Re:Great!

[Anonymous Coward]

Holy crap, some SUNY Binghamton coach is making $240k.

Why is a state school wasting money like that?

Obligatory PhD Comics link: Acadmic salaries

Re:Great!

[HeckRuler]

This one. This right here. All of our income is from our salary, but what they report is not their income. The ones who run the game don't play by the same rules as us.

Re:Great!

[JDevers]

Incorrect, only 14 ATHLETIC departments made money...football makes money at MANY schools, but not enough to keep the entire athletic program afloat at all but 14.

Only a handful of women's programs even come close to breaking even and not too many men's basketball or baseball teams do much more than break even.

Re:Great!

[JDevers]

INTERNS at Facebook make a third as much...INTERNS. Stop bitching and get a better job! ;)

Re:Great!

[140Mandak262Jamuna]

See here: Apple: http://finance.yahoo.com/q/pr?s=AAPL+Profile Microsoft: http://finance.yahoo.com/q/pr?s=MSFT+Profile Some small company with just 600 m market cap: http://finance.yahoo.com/q/pr?s=RMBS+Profile In each company you get to see the pay of top five people. Some big company exec top five compensation could be larger than the market cap of some small and tiny companies. Actually it could even exceed the GDP of small countries! But all the remaining executive compensation are confidential. There would be more "insiders" who are barred from trading on inside info. All their trades on that company stock must be disclosed. In that process the stock option compensation and stock compensation will become public. But not their base pay, bonus, non-stock compensation, reimbursement to country club memberships, usage of corporate jets, usage of corporate get-aways, use ski resort lodges etc etc.

Again, for each company, no matter how big or how small, the top five executive compensation is public. All the remaining compensation are confidential.

Re:Great!

[dywolf]

Lets say:
I have a skill set. This company will pay me 1M for it, that one for 1.5M. I choose the 1.5M. I work there 6 consecutive years. In that time I increase revenue by 300%, stock price doubles, everyones happy, and I even got a boost to 1.9M 18 months ago. I've now established that I'm not only good at what I do, but I'm worth at least 1.8M. Now two other companies are tryinig to pull me away. current company offers an increase to 2.2M to keep me because Company A offerered me the same to come to them. Company B sneaks in an off for 2.4M. Current company can't give any more currently, but offers stock options and extra benefits.

These are the very definitions of market forces.

Re:Great!

[RazorSharp]

One thing sports does provide: thousands of scholarships every year to students who normally wouldn't be able to afford to go to college.

Re:Great!

[cptdondo]

Not. The schools hide the actual cost by shifting costs around.

For example, our "free paid for by by athletic money" athlete study facility is actually costing the university $2M / year - and this is "hidden" in the maintenance and janitorial budgets. Sure, the tutors are paid for and the facility was donated, but the maintenance, upkeep, and cleaning still falls to the university. And apparently our sports prima-donnas don't feel any need to keep their facility clean, as the janitorial budget for that building is substantially higher per square foot than other buildings.

Re:Great!

[GodfatherofSoul]

That's a VERY ideal situation. More likely, the stock moves at the same pace as the economy, or lets say you tank the company. What then? You don't get docked pay. So, the whole point of a CEO's salary is that possible profit and the risk of possible losses are supposed to be baked in. Unless something unusually good or bad happens. And, with golden parachutes even if the company is all but destroyed the CEO still walks away with bags of money.

I know nothing about how publicly run companies deal with exec salaries, but it doesn't appear to be at the advantage of the stock holders.

Re:Great!

[HeckRuler]

Stop giving them so much money. Pay them less.
Stop with the system of letting their buddies choose their salary. Choose people that are unassociated to be board members. Or let the stakeholder vote on it. Or actually set some rules for how much the CEO makes based off of performance.
Stop with the golden parachutes. Just don't put it in the contract. We don't reward pile-driving the company into the ground.
Stop the inefficiencies of gargantuan organizations. Split them up into smaller companies, each with their own CEO, who would earn what the branch managers are earning right now. God knows we've got enough people wanting to lead. Balance bureaucratic inefficiency with economy of scale.

Re:Great!

[Anonymous Coward]

Ok, I'm confused. The University of Tennessee posted a $3.98M deficit for 2012 while simultaneously making a profit of $35M.

Something reeks of Hollywood accounting.

Re:Great!

[squizzar]

Or let's see reality. You have 6 companies A-F, with corresponding CEOs A-F. Each company has a remuneration committee that votes on the compensation for the CEO.

The remuneration committee for company/CEO A consists of people who happen to be CEOs [B-F]
The remuneration committee for company/CEO B consists of people who happen to be CEOs [A,C-F]
The remuneration committee for company/CEO C consists of people who happen to be CEOs [A-B,D-F]
etc.
etc.

Market forces have nothing to do with it (otherwise why would companies that make losses still increase executive compensation? Why would executives who have failed still be getting higher and higher paid jobs?). It's all a big exercise in scratching each others' backs. Even if it's not by design, and even if your pay is decided by people a few steps removed, there's still a circular dependency where it's in no-one's interest to vote down remuneration.

Even without the direct link above, you still see examples of 'Other companies of size XXX pay YYY for this position so we are going to pay YYY+ZZZ to get the best person'. The people who make these decisions are also in the market for these jobs: It's not in their interest to push the pay down as it would indirectly push down or limit their own pay.

Re:Great!

[Anonymous Coward]

Hm .. well CEO pay has increased 127x faster than workers pay, I don't think productivity has followed.

(Also, funny how the workers themselves haven't seen similar renumeration for you know - doing the work that means the company can exist).

Re:Great!

[h4rr4r]

So they can take totally worthless classes. What a wonderful thing. We can take thousands of people who can barely read and get them halfway to a BA in communications.

Re:Great!

[h4rr4r]

Note the profit in quotes. Normally lots of hollywood accounting is used in these kinds of sports. They push all kinds of costs onto other departments, claim that their buildings are paid for by the campus all to make it look worthwhile.

Re:Great!

[Anonymous Coward]

If you cancel sports, then you have even more money to spend on more scholarships. Waste is waste. When you burn capital, it always costs you, somewhere.

We can play games with who feels the cost and how, but you can't make destruction not be destruction. Even if you make up crazy shit so that whenever destruction happens, someone comes out ahead (e.g. the glass-maker), you just pay for that somewhere else, too (e.g. everyone's insurance premiums).

Just as hurricanes and wars do not improve the economy (despite what some contractor may tell you) athletics does not improve education.

That doesn't mean athletics are bad, but it does cost extra money and the money comes from somewhere. If you value education highly, then that's incentive to get athletics the fuck away from education, so that education doesn't become the thing it siphons resources from.

College athletics are a basically dumb idea, unless your goal is to mitigate education and make sure it doesn't "get out of hand." ;-)

Re:Great!

[kaatochacha]

Does the inverse apply? if the company tanks and you decrease revenue by 150%, do they take your pay back? No. So what you're saying is it's all upside and no downside. I'd have no problem with large compensation packages if the downside applied as well.

Re:Great!

[vux984]

I have a skill set. This company will pay me 1M for it, that one for 1.5M. I choose the 1.5M. I work there 6 consecutive years.

So far so good.

In that time I increase revenue by 300%, stock price doubles, everyones happy, and I even got a boost to 1.9M 18 months ago.

Now lets take a diversion... lets say you are the CEO at say, JP Morgan, where under your skilled leadership the company is participating in massive fraud. When the fraud bubble bursts, revenues drop drastically, and the bank needs a federal bailout to stay solvent and operational, meahwhile the share price slides from $55 to $15, and nobody is happy.

You've now established that you are not good at what you do, you are reckless, criminal, and ought to be in jail.

You still keep your job though, and are not only paid an exorbitant salary, but bonuses too for your performance, and if you ever leave you will have plenty of open doors at other companies.

The very definition of market forces indeed.

Re:Great!

[Anonymous Coward]

When I was a TA in grad school, I taught a first-semester calculus class that included about a dozen athletes on scholarship. The athletic department followed their progress closely, getting periodic reports from me so as to be able to intervene if there was trouble. Not all of those students aced the class, but all of them learned calculus.

Re:Great!

[Anonymous Coward]

All prices ratchet like that. In fact, the only ones that really don't are gas prices and that is because people watch them like a hawk and are vigilant about complaining when they are too high.

Re:Great!

[pla]

I work there 6 consecutive years. In that time I increase revenue by 300%, stock price doubles, everyones happy, and I even got a boost to 1.9M 18 months ago. I've now established that I'm not only good at what I do

Now let's look at reality. The last CEO got caught tapping the mayor's wife (take that as you will) and the company had to write down a $20M golden parachute to get rid of him. The payoff almost zeroed out revenue for the year, and the scandal dropped the company's stock price by half.

You came on as a hired gun to make some nasty changes and take the heat off the "real" next CEO. You outsource the only employment within 100 miles of a small town in Nebraska, to Bangalore. Over the next five years, the stock price and revenue recover back to normal. In the sixth year, you announce plans to destroy another small town, and step down when the PR backlash gets too intense. The company officially denounces you, but you have your choice of three positions already lined up to do the exact same thing.

Sorry, but no CEO can boost revenue by 300% through anything even remotely creditable as "skill". A really good CEO might sustain 10% "real" growth on average, in a good economy. When you see BS numbers like that, it just screams "bookkeeping games".


/ Bernie Madoff reported near-legendary gains of a mere 11% per year for an equally amazing decade and a half. He should have just hired you for six months, eh?

Re:Great!

[ravenscar]

Exactly. At many schools football makes all of the other sports possible. Soccer, volleyball, softball, baseball, swimming, etc. are all financial burdens. The losses from these sports are often 'balanced' by the gains of the football program. If you think it's bad that a given major University might lose a few million a year overall on their athletic program imagine what they would lose without football.

Re:Great!

[TheSync]

CEOs don't get big pay because of "market forces."

There is evidence that CEO pay is linked to corporate market capitalization:

Gabaix and Landier write in a new Quarterly Journal of Economics article, the sixfold increase in American CEO pay from 1980 to 2003 is almost wholly explained by the roughly sixfold increase in market capitalization of big U.S. companies over the same period...The trend lines of market capitalization and executive payouts rose and dipped in near-perfect tandem.

Re:Great!

[Anonymous Coward]

That's a ridiculous and assholish generalization.

Most athletic scholarships are given to kids who aren't in the "big money" sports, and these kids use their scholarships to get the best education they can.

You are an asshole.

Re:Great!

[Jmc23]

ah, angry geek with no control of his body or understanding of how important control of the body is. Football is deep, the math behind it is extremely complex.

Re:Great!

[TheSync]

4) What they're managing isn't that important. "But football is big business"... No, it isn't. It's a money pit. They produce nothing of value short of some recreational TV time and some T-shirts. The "income" of college football comes from donations to the college.

College football playoff TV rights alone are worth $500 million. The regular season deals are harder to find about, but Notre Dame had a $9 million per year deal with NBC a long time ago. Big Ten network brings in $7 million to each school per year [all info in this post is public].

Re:Great!

[Dins]

So's the math behind sitting at a desk staring at a monitor.

Re:Great!

[Anonymous Coward]

He coaches basketball. SUNY Binghamton doesn't have a football team, hence the "Bearcats Football -- Undefeated since [insert year]" shirts at the school bookstore, etc. (I always preferred the gray "Binghamton is OVERCAST" shirts, myself. Damn, that was a depressing town.)

Luckily, most of the complaints you could make about college football apply equally to college basketball, although at least basketball generally involves fewer concussions.

Re:Great!

[tompaulco]

This one. This right here. All of our income is from our salary, but what they report is not their income. The ones who run the game don't play by the same rules as us.
"Ah, I see you are the CEO of a fortune 500 company. Let's see here. It says your salary is $1. Sorry sir, I'm afraid we can't grant you a loan. Or do you have some other sources of income you would like to report?"

Re:Great!

[Anonymous Coward]

it is common knowledge... everyone knows this

Re:Great!

[HeckRuler]

Nail on the head when it comes to the angry geek part. My body though? Dude, did you miss that joke at the end? I'm a USFA C-rated fencer and founded my own fencing club. If anything I'm a jealous jock. (oh god, that felt bad to type...)

As for "the complex math"? Naw dude. Naw. The players do not utilize math. The coaches probably don't utilize math short of "we need 14/7=2 touchdowns to win". They're managers after all.

If no one involved in the actual game is performing mathematics of any note, you can't really say the game is deep. Analysis of the game can be deep. But as Dins pointed out, ANYTHING can be analyzed deeply. Yay science!

Re:Great!

[Anonymous Coward]

When I was a TA in grad school, I taught a first-semester physics class that included about a dozen athletes on scholarship. The athletic department followed their progress closely, and regularly intervened with the professor on their behalf when there was trouble - missed a test due to sports practice? Makeup exam. Turned in no homework? Extra credit project. Extreme pressure from the athletic department on the professor, and the professor on me, to find SOME way to pass them. None of those students aced the class, and none of them learned physics. Hell, they barely showed up. But they passed. Go college athletics! WOOHOO!

Re:Great!

[Jmc23]

Fencing can be done one sided, football depends on the position. The best are always well rounded.

Have you ever read "Do dogs know calculus". Fencing is extremely simplified and limited to one plane of direction. Imagine keeping track of not just one opponent but two whole teams in a 3d space, examing wind speed, calculating potential openings, ballistics calculations etc... Just because the players aren't doing the math symbolically but expressing the calculations through their actions doesn't mean they are doing less complex math. Have you ever observed the complex patterns that take place in football? I think football would be way more interesting to geeks if they constantly showed a top down view instead of close ups of people hitting each other. Of course, if they did that, geeks would rule the top coach positions shortly thereafter.

Re:Great!

[Duhavid]

Think of it as affirmative action for jocks.

Re:Great!

[tompaulco]

Also if you have a decent Football system the cost of the system is actually less than zero. As these types of programs normally bring in more money than they use. So that extra money is spent on real education. Great sports programs benefit education.
If that were true, and it apparently isn't, then they could still make even MORE money if they paid the coach about the same as you would pay, well, a coach.

Re:Great!

[Anonymous Coward]

Exactly. At many schools football makes all of the other sports possible. Soccer, volleyball, softball, baseball, swimming, etc. are all financial burdens. The losses from these sports are often 'balanced' by the gains of the football program. If you think it's bad that a given major University might lose a few million a year overall on their athletic program imagine what they would lose without football.

Who gives a shit. Want to play a sport, join a sporting club and pay dues. Universities should be institutions of learning, not businesses often more interested in promoting their sports team than higher education (and in the case of my own Alma Mater, more interested in keeping start basketball players playing than supporting the judicial process in dealing how those two players raped several women).

Sports don't belong in universities. Period.

Re:Great!

[Anonymous Coward]

could you please rephrase this as a car analogy?

Re:Great!

[mbkennel]

Why else would any bank ever invent or accept "no-doc" or "low-doc" loans?

The original point of those was to service clients evading large income taxes. They show the loan officer visually documentation of all sorts of income and assets, but it didn't go in to the formal record. The propaganda was that it was for "independent contractors" who got paid intermittently, blah blah blah.

Re:Great!

[mbkennel]

In other words, CEO's are a property tax. They make what they can take, not what they earn.

Re:Great!

[Anonymous Coward]

So this is just further evidence of a failed and outdated educational system. If you can't teach class to a group that has a varied schedule, it seems like the problem is the schools.

If you graded fairly, and the got a C they passed. So what if the class was rescheduled at 7pm Thursday and not 8am Wed. to allow for their other commitments.

Why is missing class bad? Is attendance more important than comprehension of the material?

Re:Great!

[clodney]

If it is a publicly traded company, you can see the salary of the CEO and other highly compensated individual in the annual reports.

Salary of Congressmen is public knowledge (though not necessarily their outside income).

Chairman of the FED is a quasi public position, and I bet the salary is publicly disclosed.

Scientologists and lobbyists I can't help you with.

Re:Great!

[adamstew]

That's what stock options are supposed to do.

You give a CEO his base pay, but then you give bonuses in the form of stock options. A stock option is the ability to buy the company's stock at $X price at some point in the future, no matter what the actual price of the stock is at that time.

So, lets say I start work as a CEO for a company. The stock price at the time is $10.00. I am given stock options that are good in 5 years to be able to buy 1,000,000 shares of the company I work for at a guaranteed $10.00, no matter what the price of the stock is at the time.

So, if the stock goes up to $15.00 in 5 years, then I can buy 1,000,000 shares of the company stock for $10 and immediately sell them for $15, and make an instant $5 million dollars. As the price of the stock goes up, so does the value of the stock options.

If the price of the stock options only goes up to $10.30, then the stock options are only worth $300,000. If the stock goes negative, then the stock options are worthless.

Basically, it's to reward the CEO for making the price of the stock go up.

Now, the CEOs have discovered a lot of tricks that can artificially inflate the price of the stock in the short term, so they can cash in their options. But the things that they do for these short term price inflations end up being bad for the company in the long run...accounting gimmicks, and such.

Re:Great!

[HeckRuler]

Fencing is extremely simplified and limited to one plane of direction.

Simplified from what? Did you mean just "simple"?
You're an idiot.
Football is a team sport. So there is some communication and coordination efforts that you don't have in fencing. As far as which one is "deeper" *cough*physicalchess*cough*, who gives a shit? Neither are worth a $250K salary.

...ballistics calculations...

Come on dude, the quarterback and the kicker do not perform any ballistic calculations. There is no math involved. There are no numbers, no gravitational constants, no calculus. Throwing and kicking a ball is a skill. One you train up through practice, and not through mathematical calculations. There's a lot that goes into throwing a ball, don't get me wrong. That is, unless you define "Performing calculations" in such a way that the actual physical football is "performing" mathematical computations as it FALLS. You know, cause the world around the ball can be modeled with math in certain ways. And here's the kicker, if you take such a broad definition of "math", then you can apply that sentiment to ANYTHING.

And no, dogs don't know calculus. Have you ever read that to the last page?

Re:Great!

[Archangel Michael]

"Why would executives who have failed still be getting higher and higher paid jobs?"

Same reason we elected Obama and GWB ... twice?

Re:Great!

[mbkennel]

Have shareholders be required to vote publicly on specifics of executive compensation. THey do this in the U.K. to some degree.

In the USA they've been lobbying very hard against it and won.

Re:Great!

[HeckRuler]

BWWAAHAHAHAAaaahahahahaaaaa! He thinks fortune 500 CEOs need to get loans!

Oh, god no son. Where have you been? If they really want something big, like corporate big, they get their corporation to buy it. Or they make a corporation on paper, funnel some money to it in various ways, and have the corporation take out the loan based on those assets, not their own. Or they don't funnel money to the corporation, but set up a loan based on the assets they're about to buy with said loan. Or, much like the lowly working slobs, they ask their buddies for some scratch. Millions of dollars in scratch. Not that they actually had the money move hands, no, that'd be taxed. The buddies buy it direct or donate to a charity run by the CEO, which is of course tax free.

Rich people using their own money? HA!

Re:Great!

[im_thatoneguy]

If you think it's bad that a given major University might lose a few million a year overall on their athletic program imagine what they would lose without football.

Well if we cancelled football... and soccer, volleyball, softball, baseball, swimming etc. We wouldn't lose anything.

Re:Great!

[Defenestrar]

Set a portion (or all) of the corporate tax rate based on the ratio of CEO (or executive) salary to non-executive (or even non-management) average compensation.

Re:Great!

[Jmc23]

um, simplified from battle? You know, where people can attack you from all sides and not just poke at you from the front.

Once you are proficient, i.e., deep understanding not just able to use the tools, in both math and physical skills you can easily see the connection. Symbollism is just one form of mathematic expression.

Re:Great!

[HeckRuler]

There are 120 (USA) college football teams. That's $4.16 mill spread over every college. The AVERAGE salary of a head coach is $1.6 mill (Fucking hell!). Assistant coaches makes $200,000. There are usually... what? 5-9? You've still got a million dollars left over, but you haven't yet paid for anything to actually play the game, you've just paid $360,000,000 per year for people to tell you how to play the game. You've still got the tuition of all 2,520 players, travel expenses, all the little crap like uniforms, oh and stadiums that cost hundreds of millions to build and something like a quarter million to upkeep.

Let's hope those shirts are selling well.

I dare you, I double dog dare you, to try an argue that it helps bring in donations to the college.

Sigh. Ok. I'm sorry. I know I'm angry and bitter over this. I need to work on that. I understand that people can spend their money on whatever they want, even if it's not productive. That's culture. That's art. Even... ugh... sports. But at some point you have to tell the addict to get a fucking grip and put down the pipe. Even if the metaphorical drug is fine art or college football. There comes a point where you because sickened at how much a society simply pisses away to watch people ram their heads into each other. And it angers me that the educational system has been subverted to... this.

Re:Great!

[Bigby]

But those folks don't generate far more money than they make.

Re:Great!

[Bigby]

Actually, it is more like the Tennessee football program makes $35m in profit. And then it pays for all the other sports (20 more?), including scholarships, traveling expenses, coaches, trainers, tutors, etc... Then they usually make debt payments on facilities that attract more talent. Then they report the final figure of -$3.98m.

I could have it wrong. There are some schools that rake in $70m in football profit. Then profit $30 after expenses. Then to be "non-profit" the remainder goes toward capital within the athletic department. Most SEC/B1G/Pac12 schools have self sufficient athletic departments. And they actually contribute to the academics through national exposure (marketing) as well all kinds of scholarship money which must be paid for by the athletic program to the school by NCAA rule.

Re:Great!

[Bigby]

How many large schools don't have football programs? There is a reason why the answer is low. Athletics is a major marketing tool. MAJOR. You many not agree, but you can't argue why a vast majority of people in the eastern US know about Cal but not Berkeley. (yes, I know they are the same school). Who in California knows about Lehigh or Colgate and their excellent academic programs? That is why they have 2-5k students.

Re:Great!

[Anonymous Coward]

Salary history of CEOs of publically traded companies is already available for free.

If you want to browse the Equifax database, you must pay for it.

Re:Great!

[Ryanrule]

Its an overall loss though. End taxpayer funded athletics.

Re:Great!

[RazorSharp]

Most student athletes aren't blue-chips who are going on to a career of professional sports. Most have an active interest in gaining a degree that will benefit them on the job market.

Re:Great!

[Anonymous Coward]

Athletic department budget != football program budget.

That's the disconnect. The football program is ridiculously profitable and the basketball program is moderately profitable. The rest are fairly close to break even or heavily in the red. And thanks to Title 9, universities are forced to invest in lots of unprofitable sports (I don't disagree with Title 9, but there's no denying that women's sports make less money than men's.) That's how $35m turns into ($3.98)...it's the wrestling, swimming and crew teams, not the football team.

Re:Great!

[Anonymous Coward]

MOD THIS UP

I want this to happen ASAP

Re:Great!

[CodeBuster]

Have you seen the proxy statements of any of the major Fortune 500 US public companies? There's always a list of shareholder resolutions at the end of the business to be voted on during or before the annual meeting and executive compensation resolutions are yearly favorites. In practice it makes little difference because most shareholders don't actually vote their shares which means that management gets to vote those shares on their behalf in a manner that reflects their "best interests". I'm sure you can guess how the board votes those shares on resolutions concerning their pay.

Re:Great!

[TheSync]

In other words, CEO's are a property tax. They make what they can take, not what they earn.

There is an argument that it costs more to find CEO's who can handle a larger corporation. Not sure if I agree or not, but I will admit the CEO's I've met have been very special people.

Re:Great!

[TheSync]

There are 120 (USA) college football teams. That's $4.16 mill spread over every college. The AVERAGE salary of a head coach is $1.6 mill

I bet though that outside of SEC, Big 12, Pac 12, and Big 10 that the coach pay drops pretty fast (although a SEC coach like Nick Saban from Alabama does get $5.48 million).

It's their information if you gave it to them

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm sure the vast majority of those employees whose info was sent had signed something on their first day of employment that gave the company the right to do this. Until the courts strike that sort of thing down, you got no recourse.

Re:It's their information if you gave it to them

[CanHasDIY]

I'm sure the vast majority of those employees whose info was sent had signed something on their first day of employment that gave the company the right to do this.

Until the courts strike that sort of thing down, you got no recourse.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duress

Re:It's their information if you gave it to them

[SJHillman]

Not relevant. Signing it is a voluntary condition of employment, same as an NDA or similar. Unless the hiring manager holds a knife to you and tells you to take the job, it's not duress.

Re:It's their information if you gave it to them

[Talderas]

It wouldn't work. Signing an agreement as a condition of employment is not considered an unlawful pressure.

Re:It's their information if you gave it to them

[Anonymous Coward]

Good point. If any employee had a gun to his head when he signed his employment contract, he should be able to sue, claiming duress. Thanks for pointing that out!

Re:It's their information if you gave it to them

[Trepidity]

Legally, no. But as a matter of public policy, it sometimes is considered a form of duress, and that's one of the main arguments cited in favor of laws limiting what an employment contract can require. For example, California public policy refuses to recognize most noncompete clauses. And in the other political direction, "right to work states" like Texas, as a matter of their public policy, prohibit employee contracts from requiring employees to join a union. So nobody seems to really believe that anything is okay as long as it's negotiated in an employment contract.

Re:It's their information if you gave it to them

[h4rr4r]

It should be if a considerable number of jobs require it.

Having no food or shelter is not much different than a knife to the neck.

Re:It's their information if you gave it to them

[sexybomber]

Right. I think people are getting hung up on the GP's incorrect use of "duress". There are a bunch of reasons why a contractual clause might get thrown out: there's the public policy rationale, as you note, there's undue influence (though judging from Wikipedia, that might not work in the U.S., as both cited cases are Australian), and there's my personal favorite:

Unconscionability. It's a two-prong attack:

1. You have to prove that whatever your employer offered you in exchange for signing the contract (viz., a job, at a certain rate of pay, for certain hours) was so grossly inadequate compared to what you had to give up, that to enforce the contractual terms would be unfair.

2. You have to prove that your employer leveraged his greater bargaining power to get you to sign the contract.

Essentially, you have to prove that both the terms of the contract and the manner in which it was negotiated were both grossly unfair. #2 is a lot easier to prove than #1, given the state of the economy and the desperation of many job-seekers, but #2 alone isn't sufficient. In order to break a contract on unconscionability grounds, the terms have to be really, really onerous, on the order of "you agree to give up your firstborn for indentured servitude to this company" or "if you quit, you agree never to work within a fifty-mile radius of this company ever again".

Re:It's their information if you gave it to them

[PortHaven]

I am pretty sure I have NEVER signed any form authorizing the release or sale of my pay information.

That said, I think such practice is interesting, in that companies fight tooth and nail to have employees "not talk about their salaries". (Of course during mass lay offs, that usually comes out. Yes, the joy of finding out you are paid 10 grand less than those employees who were doing half the work you did.)

That said, perhaps it'd be fun to do a credit check on your co-workers. And then suddenly post several flyers showing what every employee is making. I bet companies would so re-think this policy.

Re:It's their information if you gave it to them

[PortHaven]

Especially after you've been unemployed for 2 years.

Re:It's their information if you gave it to them

[CanHasDIY]

Not relevant. Signing it is a voluntary condition of employment, same as an NDA or similar.

Right - "do this or we'll destroy/limit your livelihood." Totally voluntary, just like being able to afford food and shelter, right?

FYI, it is not a "voluntary condition of employment" if not signing means you lose your job - that's the definition of compulsory. Also, just signing the document does not make it legally binding - you cannot, in fact, force your employees to sign a document that states they must perform fellatio on you on the second Tuesday of every month. Well, OK, you could make them sign it, but that doesn't magically make it a legally binding contract, as the terms of said contract are not legal to begin with.

Re:It's their information if you gave it to them

[CanHasDIY]

Good point. If any employee had a gun to his head when he signed his employment contract, he should be able to sue, claiming duress. Thanks for pointing that out!

The threat of violence is not the only way to put a person under duress, simpleton. Had you actually taken the time to read the Wiki article I linked to, instead of posting this drek, you might have actually learned something.

Re:It's their information if you gave it to them

[rubycodez]

the real unemployment rate in the U.S. is currently 23% (pre-clinton way of counting before BoL changed methodology), that's almost Great Depression levels. the knife is threat of living the life of a bum, a hobo. Quit being a shill for our very evil system

Re:It's their information if you gave it to them

[SJHillman]

How can you lose a job you haven't been hired for yet? I was talking specifically about the hiring process, not existing employees - that's another case. And there are other jobs out there. I've yet to walk down the street in any commercial or industrial district without seeing a few Help Wanted or Now Hiring signs. So how is it any different than requiring an NDA or drug test to get a job?

Re:It's their information if you gave it to them

[h4rr4r]

I agree it is no different than a drug test, which should also not be allowed.

Re:It's their information if you gave it to them

[Anonymous Coward]

Ok, enlighten me. What's the relevant portion of thr wiki article? Also, can an employee claim duress about any portion of their employment contract? If this is up for grabs, what's keeping an employee from claiming duress to get out of the whole contract, including nda's etc.?

Re:It's their information if you gave it to them

[Talderas]

Right. I was talking about the signing of an agreement without specificity of the conditions contained within the agreement. Illegal or invalid conditions would obviously void the contract that was signed, and that would vary jurisdiction by jurisdiction, and illegal conditions may cause a problem but the whole thing behaves as a blacklist and there's very few conditions that are illegal throughout the US.

Re:It's their information if you gave it to them

[cayenne8]

Well, last couple jobs I took that were W2 ones...I read over the employment agreement, and crossed out and and added verbage as I wanted it..and signed it.

They accepted this and gave me the jobs, so I would guess that's binding?

I definitely altered any sections that would allow them to try to lay claim to anything I created OFF the clock while under their employ.

I also shortened sections saying I had to wait like a year to work for any perceived competitor, stuff like that.

Re:It's their information if you gave it to them

[Anonymous Coward]

Thus the wildly violent culture that saturates the US. A scared dog backed into a corner doesn't know why its there, only that it needs to bite something to get out.

Re:It's their information if you gave it to them

[CanHasDIY]

Well, last couple jobs I took that were W2 ones...I read over the employment agreement, and crossed out and and added verbage as I wanted it..and signed it.

They accepted this and gave me the jobs, so I would guess that's binding?

This is something I would love to know myself, as I have a habit of doing the exact same thing.

Is there an employment/contract lawyer in the house who can clarify this point?

Re:It's their information if you gave it to them

[cayenne8]

For example, California public policy refuses to recognize most noncompete clauses. And in the other political direction, "right to work states" like Texas, as a matter of their public policy, prohibit employee contracts from requiring employees to join a union.

Sounds like CA and TX both got something right!!

Now, if we could just get all the states to observer both of these laws, we'd be making some progress!!

Re:It's their information if you gave it to them

[Anonymous Coward]

It should be if a considerable number of jobs require it.

Having no food or shelter is not much different than a knife to the neck.

So in that situation I'm guessing that absolutely everything in the employment contract is non-binding then, right?

Re:It's their information if you gave it to them

[CanHasDIY]

How can you lose a job you haven't been hired for yet?

Who ever said they hadn't been hired? OP specifically stated, "...signed something on their first day of employment..." which directly implies that the person was already hired, and was given a packet of documents to sign (post-hiring).

Having worked for a corporation before, I can attest that this is pretty much how things go down - first you're told you've got the job, sometimes conditional on passing a drug test (at this point I would agree, though I object to drug testing on a moral basis, that no harm has been done, as you haven't technically gotten the job yet).

Presuming that you pass the drug test, you're told what your schedule is; in corporate Amerika, the first day of employment is largely spent in the HR office, filling out forms and signing documents.

This is the point at which the harm occurs, as the individual in question has already been hired based on one set of criteria, and is now being told they must meet a different set of criteria or their employment will be terminated.

Therein lies the difference.

Re:It's their information if you gave it to them

[cdrguru]

Why would you think the company has any obligation to keep information that they own in their records secret?

Understand it is the company's payroll records, not the employee's.

The facts about utilization of healthcare aren't owned by the employee, either. Now, what the reason for the utilization are likely covered by HIPPA. I would say this is especially true if the company is self-insured as most large companies are today.

Re:It's their information if you gave it to them

[GameboyRMH]

Not sure but I wouldn't settle for it, I'd discuss what I want altered and have them print up a new contract.

Re:It's their information if you gave it to them

[GameboyRMH]

If you've been unemployed for 2 years you'd be very lucky to get an interview, unless you took that time to get a new education for a new career.

Re:It's their information if you gave it to them

[GameboyRMH]

Good luck defining it as economic duress in court. The supposed existence of free choice where economic duress exists is what supports the illusion of meritocracy and freedom that keeps capitalist systems stable.

Re:It's their information if you gave it to them

[GameboyRMH]

One of my first thoughts was that it would be interesting for a company's employees to pool their resources and purchase a report on everyone at the company they work for, for themselves.

Re:It's their information if you gave it to them

[CanHasDIY]

Not sure but I wouldn't settle for it, I'd discuss what I want altered and have them print up a new contract.

In Amerika, that earns you the response of, "OK, we'll just get rid of you and hire some other peon who is desperate enough for work to agree to our fucked-up terms without question."

Of course, the more cynical among us understand that this is but one reason that corporations have zero incentive to voluntarily fix the abysmal employment situation.

Re:It's their information if you gave it to them

[CanHasDIY]

Good luck defining it as economic duress in court.

That depends, sadly, on how good your lawyer is.

Fortunately, mine is awesome

Re:It's their information if you gave it to them

[G00F]

the real unemployment rate in the U.S. is currently 23%

Source: http://www.shadowstats.com/alternate_data/unemployment-charts

Williams recreates a ShadowStats Alternative unemployment rate reflecting methodology that includes the “long-term discouraged workers” that the Bureau of Labor Statistics removed in 1994 under the Clinton administration.

The BLS publishes six levels of unemployment, but only the headline U3 unemployment rate gets the press. The headline number does not count “discouraged” unemployed workers who have not looked for work in the past four weeks because they believe no jobs are available.

Re:It's their information if you gave it to them

[rubycodez]

that definition of "have not looked for work in the past four weeks" is flawed and wrong. the government is ignorant of whether someone is desperately looking, they make a very stupid assumption

Data Protection Laws Needed

[Anonymous Coward]

How is this different than a hacker obtaining information without your consent and offering it for sale?

Re:Data Protection Laws Needed

[MickyTheIdiot]

The word "corporation" comes to mind.

Welcome to the corporate anarchy, citizen.

Re:Data Protection Laws Needed

[NatasRevol]

Salary records! Coming soon from Anonymous, LLC.

Re:Data Protection Laws Needed

[CanHasDIY]

How is this different than a hacker obtaining information without your consent and offering it for sale?

Hackers don't force you to sign your life away when you enter a professional relationship with them.

Re:Data Protection Laws Needed

[LeadSongDog]

Welcome to the corporate anarchy, citizen.

s/citizen/consumer/g

There, fixed that for you.

Re:Data Protection Laws Needed

[GameboyRMH]

It's legal and doesn't require any security systems to be breached. The company has your salary information, there are no laws in place to keep them from giving that information to anyone they choose, currently it's protected only out of self-interest. For example, currently many companies will give out your salary information (among other things such as HR reports) to other companies calling about ex-employees as part of a background check.

That's not to say it's meaningfully less wrong, though. Just that the gap between morality and legality is much greater in this case than the hacking scenario.

Inaccuracy is a big problem

[Atrox Canis]

After spending over a year on a mission to get my credit report "fixed", I have a number of anecdotal stories regarding the inherent inaccuracy of the reporting that goes into these databases. My credit reports were not that bad but after a review of the report from the top three agencies, I discovered dozens of factually inaccurate items ranging from wrong addresses to poorly formatted history items. My reports contained input from companies I had never done business with and companies that no longer existed. The problem with this is that if they can't be trusted to confirm the proper spelling of your name, how can they be the "authoritative" source for detailed information regarding your trustworthiness.

Re:Inaccuracy is a big problem

[godrik]

My wife is fixing her credit right now. And she has the same problem. She is even responsible for debt she did not make on the basis that she can not prove that she did not make that debt. Most of the entry are indeed wrongly labeled which is quite scary frankly. That credit report business is complete BS in here. They hold a list of things that you did secret. You can access it but with a ridiculously high fee. And you can not contest anything important.

Re:Inaccuracy is a big problem

[h4rr4r]

How is that possible?
Can't she sue them and force them to prove she created that debt?

Re:Inaccuracy is a big problem

[DarkOx]

What would be more interesting is you can prove the debts are not her own and pursue a successful libel case against them. A few of those with some considerable damage award is about the only thing that will drive these 'agencies' to fix their quality issues.

Re:Inaccuracy is a big problem

[godrik]

Apparently, passed some times, the burden of the proof is hers. And since now you can get full of debt just by waving some numbers on a computer, it became impossible to prove the debt does not come from you.

The debt are small but numerous (3 or 4 times $1000). I am sure a lawyer can fix that. But they cost just more than the debt. So it is actually easier to pay.

Re:Inaccuracy is a big problem

[noc007]

She should demand that they provide the original document she signed in order to incur that debt. No one keeps this documentation. If the collections agency violates anything under the FCRA, they can sue for $1k for each infraction in small claims court. I've read about some people that record their conversations with collections agencies, say certain things that get them to violate the FCRA if they haven't already, and then turn around and sue; many times what they win is higher than the alleged debt

Re:Inaccuracy is a big problem

[parkinglot777]

What would be more interesting is you can prove the debts are not her own and pursue a successful libel case against them.

Yes you can, but that is not an easy case. Usually those who have this kind of issue do not have enough fund and/or knowledge to deal with the matter. If they do, they wouldn't be in the situation in the first place. As a result, the agencies get away easily.

Re:Inaccuracy is a big problem

[rwyoder]

I once pulled my credit reports and found dumb mistakes on one, so I submitted corrections to the agency.
Their response: "We have reviewed our information and determined it to be accurate."
So the morons think they know more about me than I know about myself.

Re:Inaccuracy is a big problem

[biodata]

I wonder what happens to the credit ratings of people who sue credit rating agencies.

Re:Inaccuracy is a big problem

[Anonymous Coward]

You can access it but with a ridiculously high fee.

Here in the UK credit reference agencies, Equifax included, are statutorily obliged to provide people with their credit file for a nominal fee, usually a couple of pounds.

Of course, they hide the link to apply for this away in very small text at the bottom of their webpages, much like an Apple court-ordered apology.

Re:Inaccuracy is a big problem

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm having a similar problem. Unfortunately, if you don't dispute it within a certain period of time, the debt becomes yours whether or not you ever agreed to be responsible for it. I responded in time, but because I'm dealing with the original creditor the federal rules haven't come into play. The Seattle Community College District has been sending fraudulent bills to me for a while, despite having waited until near the statute of limitations and lacking any evidence at all that the debt doesn't exist.

Unfortunately, I'll have to involve an attorney and ultimately file suit against the district because it's the only way that they'll unlock my records. Simply lacking any evidence that the debt exists is apparently not sufficient for them to acknowledge that the debt isn't real.

Re:Inaccuracy is a big problem

[AwesomeMcgee]

The biggest problem with the legal system is availability; It takes significant amount of time to utilize our legal system and the majority of working folks have no capability to get enough time away from work to accomplish this. This is possibly the largest reason the rich have such legal powers that they do, simply because they are capable of financing their own time and therefore able to use their time towards whichever endeavors they need to for completion of personal responsibility. It is each persons personal responsibility to take fraudulent actors trying to take advantage of them to the courts, but when one will lose their livelihood for the few days a month for a few months it takes to accomplish such, there's simply no choice but to be taken advantage of.

Re:Inaccuracy is a big problem

[GodfatherofSoul]

People in 2 other states from me (ever) with the same names (I'm assuming from what I found on the internet that they're 2 different people) had some of their information posted on my credit report. It's an annoyance to get it removed, but it's possible. Find a good credit cleanup book, get all 3 of your reports, and make sure there's nothing jacked up in it.

Re:Inaccuracy is a big problem

[bratloaf]

I was just thinking exactly that....

Re:Inaccuracy is a big problem

[jedidiah]

Any situation or problem that has a resolution that begins with "hire a lawyer" is inherently problematic for your average individual. Suing people costs a lot of money. Most people don't work for free. So unless you have a big pile of cash to spend on the matter, you just have to hope there's an ambulance chasing angle to get the lawyer's attention.

Welcome to the downside of tort reform.

You have no recourse because you have no money to pay for an attorney.

Re:Inaccuracy is a big problem

[Anonymous Coward]

she can not prove that she did not make that debt

Moron!!!

I didn't mean it, but at least I got your attention.

You, as a consumer, do not have to prove anything; they are required to prove that you made the debt.
This is like the second/third time I heard that from someone. It is blatantly wrong.

U.S. law aka as the Fair Credit and Reporting Act 1970 protects people from these type of things.

1. Get a police report (they're required by statute to fill out a report); run a free (as required by law) credit bureau on yourself.
2. Mail it along with a letter to each of the three credit bureaus stating that this/these debts is/are not yours (nice and simple --
    don't go overboard or be nasty, but firmly state that it's not your debt). It's important in this letter that you state facts:
    It is not your debt. Don't try to explain why you believe it's not your debt; the onus is on the creditor to prove it's your debt.
3. Do the same for each creditor listed on the credit report(s) that are not your debt; contact their fraud departments to get their postal
      address. Most are understanding, but some are nasty. Don't let them upset you.
4. Use registered/track-able mail for these items.
5. (I'm not exactly sure about the number of days, I think) they have 60 days to demonstrate that it is your debt; if they cannot or fail
      to respond, the law requires that it be removed from your credit report. There is no extension for them. The same applies if it went to
      collections, too.
6. The process takes time; it took me about 6 months to get a clean report with even bogus addresses removed over a decade ago.
7. Don't lie - if it is your debt, do think this is a clever way to avoid paying.
8. Collections agencies are required to stop calling/bothering you until they furnish proof that it is you debt. What is proof? For example,
    if a bogus store card was opened using your identity, proof in this case is a copy of a signed application. Copies of store receipts are
    not proof, even if fraudulently signed. Responsibility begins at the start of the application for store credit, which includes
    many other details (which would probably be wrong in the case of identity theft).

EVERYTHING IN WRITING!!!! Don't fall for the email non-sense with this. Email is not a legal instrument because it's too easy to spoof.

CAPTCHA = canons (No, you don't need to go this far, just follow above steps - do your research and know your rights)

Re:Inaccuracy is a big problem

[Anonymous Coward]

FDCPA not FCRA.

Re:Inaccuracy is a big problem

[Lord Apathy]

Time for Lord Apathy's assine solution to an assine problem.

A company that you do not do business with has no business keeping any records of you for any reason. If you have done business with this company they may retain records of you for 5 years, once the business relationship has ended. Under no conditions may any business sell its records to another party, or make said records avaiable for viewing. To make this clear, there is no such thing as implied consent, nor may a person give a business permission to circumvent these rules.

Govenment agencys make keep relivent records such as address, tax information, and crimnal records relvient to that department. Finacial records and status records, such as address are stricly off limits to public viewing. Criminal records are aviabile for public viewing only for a felony convictions, and only for a relevent peirod of 5 years. Under no circumstances may public or private individiuals or groups have access to ongoing criminal processes or investigations.

Re:Inaccuracy is a big problem

[Jmc23]

um, isn't the fee $10 in the US for the score and the report is free? What country do you live in?

Re:Inaccuracy is a big problem

[Anonymous Coward]

"Apparently, passed some times, the burden of the proof is hers. And since now you can get full of debt just by waving some numbers on a computer, it became impossible to prove the debt does not come from you."

Not true. I believe you are listening to a collection agency. They are not to be trusted. Do not listen to them. Tell them not to call. In particular do not give them information by phone. When you do give them information, do it by mail and keep a copy of the letter. Tell them to write instead, then hang up. Keep their and your letters in a file. That provides a documented record of their activity for free.

Also check whether the statute of limitations for debt has passed in the state where she resides. Often there is a flurry of collection agency activity as the statute of limitations date for an account approaches, since they perceive that is their last chance to "recover" anything. A warning: in some states if you respond positively at all it automatically _extends_ the statute of limitations. So do not pay a debt that is not yours. Do not promise to pay a debt that is not yours. Collection agencies will persist beyond the statute of limitations anyway. In sum, don't listen to collection agencies, but don't ignore credit bureaus' records - persist until your credit bureau records are correct and then maintain them that way.

She should do as I stated in my post above to clean up her credit report. She should not pay debts that are not hers. She does not need a lawyer unless someone files a lawsuit.

Re:Inaccuracy is a big problem

[Anonymous Coward]

The credit score is a revenue stream for the agencies, the credit report is the one that's important.
If you have a "clean" credit report, you score will reflect that, but it's the credit report that lenders look at first.

U.S. law - 1 free credit report from each of the three agencies each year if requested. If there's a fraud suspected,
they are required to provide a free copy as well.

I have never cared about my credit score; see above.

Re:Inaccuracy is a big problem

[DarkOx]

Well anyone *can* represent themselves in small claims. You'd better be prepared and have done your homework before you get there though. I know people who have done this. They certainly did have to invest lots of time in the matter before filing their case and after. With the Internet and the electronic resources at your library you really can become an expert on a very finite matter of law.

Also more people than you think have various forms of legal insurance and block time purchase agreements thur their employers that you can use even as a plaintiff. I had this with at least one former employer.

So I wont deny there are some serious hurdles for many to going to court; but "its not worth the trouble and sacrifice" and "I could not afford do so even if I really wanted to" are not the same thing. I suspect most of the people who care enough and know enough to look at a credit report in the first place largely do fit into the former. It certainly depends what your circumstances are too, if you are about to take a home loan or trying to finance a business your about to start it might be very worth it to do what you have to get something like this fixed and you really might be able to claim meaningful damages.

Re:Inaccuracy is a big problem

[noc007]

Thanks. Too many acronyms to keep track of.

Re:Inaccuracy is a big problem

[GameboyRMH]

It's too bad that pursuing a considerable damage reward can't be afforded in terms of time or money by the people who would suffer from having an inaccurately bad credit report.

Re:Inaccuracy is a big problem

[michaelmalak]

What would be more interesting is you can prove the debts are not her own and pursue a successful libel case against them.

Fair Credit Reporting Act limits damages to $1000. But IANAL.

Re:Inaccuracy is a big problem

[jxander]

Agree completely. It took me a year just to get my basic information correct with 3 credit agencies. Basic shit like the spelling of my name, or even what my name is. According to Equifax, I had a completely different last name for a couple years. (for the record, I'm a guy... my last name tends to stay put)

It took that year, plus another year to clear off most of the blatantly wrong financial data. I had a fine levied against me (according to 2 of the 3 reports) for a speeding ticket that I never paid ... on a car I never owned, in a state I neither lived in nor visited. The state apparently magic'ed the money into existence and slapped the bill on my credit report. That stuff, the errors that should be simple and obvious, took upwards of two years to rectify. I reported it as erroneous on the websites repeatedly, and sent dozens of letters both e-mail and snail-mail. I still haven't finished clearing some of the less-obvious blemishes... Heaven forbid someone who actually lives in my state, and has the same initials as me should skip out on their JCPenny credit card.

How many more anecdotes do we need before this becomes data?

Re:Inaccuracy is a big problem

[cdrguru]

What you are describing is a situation where "demographic" data doesn't get sold. The origin of this in large part insurance companies because they had an interest in collecting as much data as they could for actuarial purposes. If you can notice that people that own motorcycles tend not to live as long as people that own rickshaws you are going to charge more for life insurance if the person owns a motorcycle, right?

It got noticed that there was some marketing use for this data as well. Maybe if you can see that a more affluent zip code has a higher percentage of DLink wireless routers whereas a less affluent zip code has more Belkin wireless routers this information can be useful to all wireless router companies for targeting advertising both online and offline. So suddenly there is a value in collecting the MAC address, zip code and enough information to identify the manufacturer about wireless routers nationwide and making this information available.

Sorry, but I think you are maybe 100 years too late to stop the sale of important demographic data. And at least 50 years too late to get people to understand that their information has value and should not be available on the open market.

Re:Inaccuracy is a big problem

[Anonymous Coward]

Who cares, you just won a million dollars!

Re:Inaccuracy is a big problem

[flex941]

And who feeds one's children during the time one invests in preparing for self-representation in small claims court?

Re:Inaccuracy is a big problem

[flex941]

It goes south.

Re:Inaccuracy is a big problem

[tompaulco]

They are also required to do that in the U.S. Once per year. Don't get taken in by freecreditreport.com.

Re:Inaccuracy is a big problem

[Anonymous Coward]

The solution is easy. Repeal the Fair Credit Reporting Act. Get government protection out of this problem and things will get fixed very fast. The credit companies have not held up their end of the deal, so it's time to end it.

Re:Inaccuracy is a big problem

[Anonymous Coward]

I contested something once, from an unscrupulous used car dealer. I went to them first to correct it, they said they would. A few months later, they still didn't. I called them and asked about it, this time they said they know that it's not valid but it's their policy not to reverse what the computer says or some bs. Finally I said fine I'll just do it through the credit bureau, and he laughed at me and said "they'll just said a letter, with a checkbox at the bottom that says 'is this debt valid', I send it back, and the debt stays."... I got real mad and argued with him for a while and eventually got him to say "fine I can't fix it in the computer but if you dispute it I won't check the box when the letter comes."... that turned out to be a lie. The "debt" is still on my report, even though he admitted it was false. BTW I knew about it and it's affect on my score (80 point drop), because I pay for the credit monitoring. Unfortunately I didn't have any way of recording a phonecall back then, I tried though. That one blatent lie ALONE (there's about 7 other inaccuracies of similar scale), has cost me approximately $6000 in increased interest costs and crappier rates on cars, credit cards, all kinds of shit. I calculated it once.

To play devil's advocate...

[damn_registrars]

Salary information does pertain rather directly to ability to pay off debt.

Re:To play devil's advocate...

[Anonymous Coward]

Great but shouldn't it be MY decision on who gets to see what my salary is. It used to be you didn't talk about what people made. Now they freely give that out to a thrid party?

Re:To play devil's advocate...

[sycodon]

Unless you are paying Child Support or have other court ordered outlays that don't show on the credit report.

Re:To play devil's advocate...

[h4rr4r]

Which should be my decision to disclose or not.

If you want to extend me credit then ask for that information and the documentation to prove it.

Re:To play devil's advocate...

[SJHillman]

Having worked with my company's HR dept recently to fix a glitch with printing out payroll info, they are extremely paranoid about preventing other employees from seeing anyone's salary. However, the paranoia seems to be limited to preventing employees from seeing what each other makes rather than preventing any third party from accessing it.

Re:To play devil's advocate...

[Anonymous Coward]

Salary information does pertain rather directly to ability to pay off debt.

Which is why it's reasonable to be expected to disclose this information when applying for credit. It's also reasonable to expect that such disclosures remain confidential and that both fraudulent disclosures and breaches of confidentiality may be legally actionable.

Re:To play devil's advocate...

[asylumx]

Does it? What if I come from a family who has money? What if I have a second job which isn't reported in this database?

Re:To play devil's advocate...

[Anonymous Coward]

Of course. HR exists to stop employees from making trouble for management. having an employee know another employees salary is serious trouble for management.

Re:To play devil's advocate...

[Anonymous Coward]

That's kind of what it is where i work - it's not that they don't want you to see what other people make, it's that they don't want you to see what other people who do a similar job make. It's sort of like they're trying to do something to us. . .

Re:To play devil's advocate...

[Kingkaid]

Actually it isn't your decision. If you want to use credit, you need to have your data shared so they can proper assess how much risk you are to them. If you want to cut up all types of credit and other borrowing abilities, then please by all means gripe about the sharing of your salary. I bet you I could find your rough salary within 5 minutes using linkedin and glassdoor.

Re:To play devil's advocate...

[DogDude]

Salary information does pertain rather directly to ability to pay off debt.

So what? What does that have to do with employment? Since when is it any employer's business as to how much employees are in debt?

Re:To play devil's advocate...

[Anonymous Coward]

Of course. If another employee discovers that a coworker with less experience bargained himself a higher salary than you that's going to make you respond by demanding to receive the same or better compensation.

Re:To play devil's advocate...

[Anonymous Coward]

At least in Oregon, court-ordered child support shows up on your credit report...

Re:To play devil's advocate...

[rotenberry]

It is a violation of federal law in the USA to fire a worker for discussing their salary with a co-worker. This law dates back to the New Deal.

http://www.staffingtalk.com/allowed-discuss-salary-co-workers/

Re:To play devil's advocate...

[Jmc23]

but sadly, not a predicter of whether you WILL pay, which is exactly what the credit score is supposed to be about.

Re:To play devil's advocate...

[ILongForDarkness]

I was a bit surprised HR departments share the information. As far as I recall (and I actually read the whole contract/employee rules when I get them) I haven't seen anything saying this info would be reported to the credit bureaus. The flip side is though it is part of your credit report. You choose to share your credit report with your financial institution when you apply for a loan. If you chose not to that is your right and it is their right to then refuse to give you a loan.

Re:To play devil's advocate...

[Anonymous Coward]

Usually the ones who don't want you to talk about what you get paid are the ones raking you over the coals, and they don't want you comparing notes with others in your field.

Re:To play devil's advocate...

[admdrew]

What if I come from a family who has money?

Then you may be required to get a co-signer when attempting to take out a loan.

Re:To play devil's advocate...

[Anonymous Coward]

Of course - if employees knew what their coworkers were making, they might ask for raises. They don't give a shit about your privacy.

Re:To play devil's advocate...

[Anonymous Coward]

Most states have laws that make employment "at will", meaning they don't even need to tell you why they fired you. Good luck proving it.

Re:To play devil's advocate...

[Anonymous Coward]

Salary information does pertain rather directly to ability to pay off debt.

I found out that they don't care about your salary or net worth at all.

I have a somewhat high salary and net worth (over $1 million USD). I also have a credit score of 0 because I have never needed to borrow money. When my wife and I bought a house, my name had to be omitted from the title and loan because it would have made the loan significantly more expensive if I had been included.

We asked if there was a way for my salary and net worth to be used to override my credit score of 0. We were told there is no provision for that.

Ironically, my net worth was far higher than the purchase price of our house ($300K USD). We got a loan purely because I didn't want to pay the 10% penalty + tax for tapping into my IRAs, where the vast majority of my money is.

This is a great example of a law

[ravenswood1000]

that needs to be made but probably never will.

Re:This is a great example of a law

[MickyTheIdiot]

The rule of thumb is, how does the proposed law affect a corporate entity that has its hand in the lobbying game.

If it has no affect, it will be ignored and never brought up. It's a waste of time.
If it is detrimental, it will be openly struck down.
If it means money in the pockets of corporate partners, it will sail right through.

This works WAY more often than not. It gets more interesting when more than one special interest in involved. Then there is a fight. The big guy usually wins (look at the oil lobby).

dental insurance ?

[Anonymous Coward]

As someone in Europe who doesn't have such a thing can someone explain the need for dental insurance?

If I go to the dentist I pay with cash, debit card, or credit card. It's never been nearly expensive enough to justify buying insurance for.

Re:dental insurance ?

[leehwtsohg]

Insurance is for the type of thing that is mostly cheap, rarely expensive.

Re:dental insurance ?

[nedlohs]

It's stupidly expensive in the US.

Though dental insurance still isn't worthwhile, might be a good indicator of a person worth trying to sell useless shit to though (unless the insurance came with the job and they had no option).

Re:dental insurance ?

[h4rr4r]

Mine is stupidly cheap.

It costs about $10 a year more than the two cleanings a year would cost me. So far I am way ahead, since it paid for a large part of my wisdom teeth extractions just a few years ago. Just the discount for having insurance was enough to put me way ahead.

Re:dental insurance ?

[SJHillman]

What I pay for dental insurance comes out to a little over $200/yr and it covers almost everything including regular check-ups. Over the last few years, it has been pretty break-even between regular checkups and a two chipped teeth. Over decades, I'll probably spend more on insurance than if I paid in cash but it's nice to have a regular, predictable pre-tax expense and have one less emergency expense to worry about.

Re:dental insurance ?

[vlm]

Insurance makes it expensive. Your insurance is willing to pay up to $500/yr for xrays? Take a wild ass guess at the future price of xrays in a privatize the profits socialize the losses system...

Its the same thing with govt "assistance" for childcare, or "assistance" for tuition, or "assistance" for health care. Another good example is K12 education, where public takes $10K per student but private takes $2K per student to do about the same thing.

If no one had dental insurance, I could probably get a simple cavity filled for $99.95 cash looking at the materials, tools, and education level. But they know they can get $750, so they do. That means uninsured people cannot get any treatment at all unless they're incredibly rich, and insurance ends up being very expensive.

If we ever get "oil change insurance" I guarantee within a year the $20 quickie lube places would be charging at least $200 if not $499.

Re:dental insurance ?

[Farmer Pete]

You obviously have never seen a bill for braces. :-) Having said that, my premiums for dental insurance are around $80 a year for my entire family. It covers most routine things at 90-100%. The annoying part is that it costs my employer $1620 for their portion of the bill. Now, if you asked me if I'd like $1700 cash every year, or if I'd like dental insurance, I would decline the dental insurance. Unfortunately, my employer gives a whopping $100 refund if you choose to not get dental insurance. So the way I look at it is, do I pay $180 ($100 refund + $80 premium) for dental insurance, or do I pay for dental out of pocket? Two people getting two cleanings a year would probably cost over that. Add in an X-Ray, and you're way over. Forget about it if you need major work (fillings/crowns/etc). My last job charged $720 a year in premiums and had significantly worse coverage. I declined that coverage.

If the USA ever wants to fix the health care system, part of that will require companies giving people cash in leu of benefits. Between my company and I, my health coverage costs $13,300 a year. That is a ridiculously high amount to pay. I would gladly tweak my plan to make it more economical if it was an option. For instance, I'd take a high deductible plan or a catastrophic plan. My wife was in the hospital for almost two weeks last December. I need insurance for things like that. I don't need insurance to cover a runny nose. If I could tailor a plan to meet my needs, I could potentially save thousands a year. Heck, if I just put my wife on a full plan, and then put myself on a catastrophic plan, I could save tons. How much will my employer pay me if I decline health insurance? $50 a paycheck or $1300 a year. I pay $2000 of the $13,300, so if I dropped my coverage, I'd save $3300 a year. When I did looking, I was able to find pretty good coverage for a lot less than $13,300, but it cost significantly more than $3,300. If my employer would empower me to save money, I would. Especially if I got to pocket it.

Sorry for the rant. The point I'm trying to make is that sometimes people make bad financial decisions because they aren't in control of all of the money being spent. If I have to choose between me spending $50 or my company spending $500, I will take the company spending $500 every time. My money is worth more to me than my companies money is. Having said that, if I could choose to save money for my employer, I would do that to. I had opportunities with my last employer to fly first class to South America. Ticket prices were around $8,000 more to fly first class than to sit in the back of the plane. My company wouldn't have cared. I wouldn't have been punished for doing so. Yet I still chose to sit in the back of the plane, because I wouldn't have been able to sleep knowing that my seat cost $8000 more than it needed to. Now, if my choice was to spend $50 of my own money to sit in the back, or $8,000 of the companies money to sit in the front...that would have been a tough decision.

Re:dental insurance ?

[Anonymous Coward]

Are you still here spouting your ignorance? VLM, privatization is not a magic bullet, and in many cases it's fucking awful. How, exactly, did it work out for Poland?

Re:dental insurance ?

[Rockoon]

Now you understand the fight against national health insurance in America. Crazy, right?

They wanted insurance to cover routine activities, as if forcing a middle man into the equation is ever a good idea in those cases.

I tried to explain how insane the idea was using a car analogy, where they bought secondary insurance on their car to cover oil changes. Instead of paying $20 per oil change several times a year, I suggested that they pay $8 per month on oil change insurance that covers them for up to 4 changes per year. Of course they wouldnt buy my oil change insurance, but somehow they felt that routine dental work (scheduled cleanings!) should be covered by their health insurance.

Americans have come to be extremely stupid.

Re:dental insurance ?

[DarkOx]

Dental is one of those know thy self issues. If all you usually need is two cleanings a year than it might make sense to pay out of pocket. If you have any history of dental related issues or are even just cavity prone, a plan probably pays for itself after a couple fillings ever few years. Mostly do the group rates; rather than the actual benefit.

What has always amazing me is Vision. I have been offered a vision plan almost everywhere I have ever worked and I can't work the numbers out in a way that I could possibly ever come out ahead even when being pretty imaginative; about the goods and services I might possibly need.

The only reason I can think anyone else chooses to be on them is to avoid a single large outlay on a new pair of glasses or set of hard contacts. If you consider the premiums over time, you lose; but I guess if you have no savings, limited cash flow, and littler or no credit that might be a reason to do it.

Re:dental insurance ?

[Rockoon]

What are you insuring against with the "mostly cheap" style coverage?

You insure your home against fire and water damage, but you don't insure it against a broken floor tile, chipped paint, a stained carpet, and other "mostly cheap" stuff.

See, insurance is supposed to be about insuring against rare eventualities that you are not prepared to handle should they happen to you. If the eventuality is not rare, or if the eventuality is common but inexpensive, then why have any middle man at all in the transaction?

Re:dental insurance ?

[h4rr4r]

You are extremely stupid, I think.

The reason dental cleanings are covered is because otherwise the insured person would not get them and would cost the insurer more. This is a case where relatively cheap preventative care can completely replace very expensive treatment. Not only that but during this cheap preventative care problems can be discovered while they are still minor and much cheaper to fix.

If you were offering insurance that covered all work on cars you would of course cover oil changes, rather than pay for blown motors from lack of them.

Re:dental insurance ?

[h4rr4r]

I agree on both accounts.

But you last point I disagree with. You can get an eye exam and glasses for sub $100 without trying. You can keep it below $50 with a little work on your part.
Cheap exam and get glasses online.

They will not be light glasses, but they will be serviceable. I would not recommend it for anyone with funds though.

I found a place that for $99 gives exams for 3 years. Basically you pay for 2 exams and get one free. You can of course use it as many times as you wanted so I use them when I need the drivers license form signed and such.

Re:dental insurance ?

[Anonymous Coward]

Well, I'd rather pay a few dollars a month and not be raped when it comes time to have my wisdom teeth removed. When I had four wisdom teeth extracted, it ran just over $3,200 (surgery, sedation, x-rays, pain pills, follow up, etc). I wound up paying just a few hundred out of pocket versus the full $3,200. I certainly wouldn't want to be stuck for $3,200 out of pocket.

And that's for a regular expense that most people will eventually have to go through (wisdom teeth extraction). Imagine if I had some sort of emergency like a root canal or a broken tooth or something?

Re:dental insurance ?

[Seumas]

If they want to fix it, they'll stop with someone else subsidizing or otherwise footing (even shared) the ultimate bill. Of course you have hospital rooms that cost $10,000 per day and where a Tylenol is $95, because as long as you're ultimately billing an insurance company or the state, who gives a shit? Same goes for car insurance. If everyone had to pay out of pocket directly for their insurance and various expenses, the price would have to drop because you couldn't play the "inflate the costs, because no actual individual ultimately gets the bill at the end of the day for everything" game.

Re:dental insurance ?

[Farmer Pete]

Have you ever tried to use your own pills when you are staying in the hospital? They about flipped out when I tried to do that with my wife. She was on some regular daily meds, and I figured it would be better to just take them then have the nurses have to get and charge us for said meds. You'd have thought I had declared war on the hospital by the reaction I got.

Re:dental insurance ?

[nedlohs]

My impression is likely old or wrong then. Or I only saw some particularly bad deals.

Re:dental insurance ?

[czth]

How, exactly, did it work out for Poland?

Re:dental insurance ?

[ahodgson]

You did. They need your inflated drug prices to pay for everyone walking into the emergency room who can't pay a dime but who they have to treat by law.

Re:dental insurance ?

[Anonymous Coward]

But your insurance wouldn't cover gas for the car.

Re:dental insurance ?

[Anonymous Coward]

The reason dental cleanings are covered is because otherwise the insured person would not get them and would cost the insurer more.

I simply suggested that its cheaper to pay on your own, cutting out the "middle man."

What insurance companies (the middle men) do doesnt negate the premise.

But yeah, according to you I'm "extremely stupid," and thats apparently because you dont know how to fucking read.

Re:dental insurance ?

[Anonymous Coward]

Also, the cost of dental cleanings or even oil changes would have be priced into the the monthly payments, just like a FREE mattress delivery. Of course since the health insurance isn't close to a free market or even a healthy market the payments are probably pretty arbitrary.

Re:dental insurance ?

[dev.null.matt]

Another good example is K12 education, where public takes $10K per student but private takes $2K per student to do about the same thing.

To be fair, they don't really do the same thing. The public school does a much, much worse job, at least in the US. YMMV.

Re:dental insurance ?

[DaveGod]

This got me thinking, why am I paying insurance when my house has never once burned down yet???

Re:dental insurance ?

[Anonymous Coward]

I get the best insurance and dental my company offers. My kid had a playground accident that fell between the cracks. It's not like you can say "no, let me check my insurance" when your kid is in the emergency room. This will wind up costing about $18K out of pocket over the years.

The really sad thing is a working-poor colleague had the exact thing happen to her kid.

This insurance thing sucks donkey dick. We need socialized medicine in the US, the Obama thing doesn't go nearly far enough. Free market insurance, what a bunch of bullshit.

Re:dental insurance ?

[Anonymous Coward]

You are extremely stupid, I think.

The reason dental cleanings are covered is because otherwise the insured person would not get them and would cost the insurer more. This is a case where relatively cheap preventative care can completely replace very expensive treatment. Not only that but during this cheap preventative care problems can be discovered while they are still minor and much cheaper to fix.

If you were offering insurance that covered all work on cars you would of course cover oil changes, rather than pay for blown motors from lack of them.

I'm currently discovering the bullshit inherent in this. They cover some treatment (flouride and sealant type things for kids), according to the contracts, but simply say "denied." Going through appeals process now, expect to get more "denied." This really sucks. At least if it sucked donkey dick, it would be entertaining.

Re:dental insurance ?

[h4rr4r]

No the stupid part is not understanding why the insurance company does that.

If you only ever need cleanings you are correct, but that is always the gamble with insurance. So far I am thousands to the good on my dental insurance.

Re:dental insurance ?

[mbkennel]

In the USA it's expensive, but still inexpensive compared to outrageously expensive medicine.

Re:dental insurance ?

[mk1004]

There can also be concerns about mixing meds. Bad drug combinations/wrong dosages can happen if someone else enters the picture. Which they, of course, will then be blamed for. At the very least they are going to want to take possession of the drugs and dispense them as prescribed.

Re:dental insurance ?

[Farmer Pete]

I had varying success. Some nurses would agree to it, but they would tell me when to administer it to my wife. They would also document it on the computer. Other nurses were not so inclined. I hate to see what a pill costs from the hospital. I'm sure I'll find out soon enough once the bills start rolling in. On a side note, when you change insurance companies, don't take some jerks word for it that they have the new information on file. Those dirty jerks billed the old insurance who quickly denied it. Sad thing is the old insurance is the new insurance, just new account numbers. Yet they can't pay the charges because that would be insurance fraud! So now I have to call every jerk doctor who wants to get paid and have them resubmit the bill.

Re:dental insurance ?

[tompaulco]

I have insurance provided by my company because they pay my portion for me and if I declined the insurance, I would receive nothing in return. Like you, I think that is asinine. I used to work for Sybase, and they gave you X in credits for insurance. If you chose a package that cost more than X, then they took some out of your paycheck. If you chose a package that cost less than X (which I did), then they put money INTO your paycheck. This is as it should be.
If I were to insure my family through my company, it would cost me an additional $900 per month. This is insane. Instead, I have a catastrophic insurance policy, which pays when things go horribly wrong, and on the day to day,I pay, but I get the insurance company rate. This costs me about $270 a month. That is also insanely expensive, but much cheaper than the "insurance" plan offered by the company. I worked it out and if I paid my entire deductible in a year (which I never have) plus the premiums, it would be cheaper than just the premiums on the company plan, and that is not including all the copays, deductibles, coinsurance and outright denials that I would have to pay on the company plan.
Everything claiming to be "insurance" that is not catastrophic insurance needs to be made illegal. Instead, it sounds like Obama plans to make insurance illegal, and make the expensive BS medical plans mandatory. Thanks, Obama.

Re:dental insurance ?

[mk1004]

Sounds like you and your wife are poster children for abuse from the health care system. The issues I've had in the past are nothing in comparison. Good luck.

Re:dental insurance ?

[Farmer Pete]

I don't anticipate it being that big of a problem, except that every #!(#!% health care biller has 9-4 hours. Some of us have what we like to call JOBS, and I can't take 30 minutes out of my work day to call and deal with this crap.

hipaa violation?

[Joe_Dragon]

I think that they should not be giving out health info like that.

Re:hipaa violation?

[MickyTheIdiot]

As I understand HIPPA (and I am not a doctor or a lawyer but someone that had to worry about this for a specific project at one time), it covers your health care professional and means nothing to your employer or other agency.

Again... it's corporate anarchy. They have this information and they are going to leverage it. They're WAY bigger than individuals or families, so screw you.

Re:hipaa violation?

[SJHillman]

I don't think healthcare provider is included in PHI, but HIPAA is so broad they could shoehorn it in if they wanted to. Same with whether you have insurance.

Re:hipaa violation?

[punker]

Not True. I worked a contract for a health department, and HIPAA violations cover employers, providers, and insurers/agents. However, the key thing is if it would be considered 'protected health information' (PHI). There is alot of data that is not PHI that can legally be shared. PHI really centers on personally identifiable health information. Insurance status generally falls outside of that.

Re:hipaa violation?

[niado]

As I understand HIPPA (and I am not a doctor or a lawyer but someone that had to worry about this for a specific project at one time), it covers your health care professional and means nothing to your employer or other agency.

Again... it's corporate anarchy. They have this information and they are going to leverage it. They're WAY bigger than individuals or families, so screw you.

This is somewhat correct. The HIPPA privacy rule applies only to "covered entities" which consists of health insurance clearinghouses, health care providers, and health plans (with some significant exceptions).

Re:hipaa violation?

[afidel]

No, HIPPA definitely covers your employer. In fact I as a manager can not discuss the reason that any of my reports are on medical leave with anyone but my direct supervisor and HR. Now, I don't think the fact that you have coverage is covered PHI, but the broader statement that HIPPA doesn't apply to employers is false.

Re:hipaa violation?

[AwesomeMcgee]

I'm going with the guy who actually knows it's HIPAA not HIPPA. (That and I worked on FDA regulated medical software for 3 years where the database stored PII)

Scaremongering ?

[Anonymous Coward]

Not convinced this is true. What possible benefit is it to an employer to provide this information to a credit reference agency. For free ? Why would HR (generally the most useless bunch of s in any company take the time to do it.

Re:Scaremongering ?

[bleh-of-the-huns]

Because those same HR groups use the services from Equifax and friends to perform background checks on employees, and new hires.

Re:Scaremongering ?

[SJHillman]

It follows the bit torrent model. Providing it may not help you directly, but if everyone does it then when you want to access information that someone else uploaded, it's available. Credit checks are nothing new for HR considering candidates for hire.

Re:Scaremongering ?

[hsmith]

Yeah, I am not buying it either. HR departments have no incentive to cough up the info. It takes time (aka money) to do - HR staff is already overworked, so who in the hell is going to do it for free?

Plus, why would they? It gives them nothing in return and opens them up to possible liability.

I don't buy it.

Re:Scaremongering ?

[chiguy]

In the article, it says HR departments in large companies outsource the handling of INBOUND employment verification checks because those checks take time and energy to perform.

So, they outsource it to Equifax and in some cases give Equifax direct access to [ex-] employees salary information.

So their benefit is it saves them time. Enough time for them to pay Equifax to mine their employees' data.

From the article:
"Companies sign up for The Work Number because it gives them an easy way to outsource employment verification of former workers. Firms hate taking these calls, which usually come when a former employee is applying for a new job, because they are a costly distraction for human resources departments and open the firm up to lawsuits if someone says something disparaging about the former employee. So they contract with The WorkNumber, which automates the process. In exchange, firms upload their human resources data to The Work Number, which was part of an independent St.Louis-based firm named TALX until it was acquired by Equifax in 2007 for $1.4 billion."

Re:Scaremongering ?

[vlm]

I have no inside knowledge but it took me 10 second to think up an engineering solution which is you don't technically buy the data, you upload the candidates claims and get the output of what CS/IT people would call a diff or patchfile vs the semi-official records. So candidate claimed $75K salary but our records show $70K a diff of $5K how interesting. On the other hand a diff against the employment dates matches so the diff file is blank there.

Re:Scaremongering ?

[noc007]

If you RTFA they are given an incentive to provide this information and they even pay Equifax for the privileged! They provide a service for employment history verification. When a potential employer or creditor wants to verify that an individual is actually employed at a company, that company would use this service to handle these verification requests. The HR dept is already overworked and they don't want the liability of a lawsuit in case they accidentally say something negative. To avoid all of this, they just outsource it to Equifax and provide them with all of their HR data; Equifax still retains that data and turns around and sells it.

The funny thing is they tell the HR departments that the information will only be disclosed to the people that you say it can be disclosed to, yet a collections agency could potentially ask for this information to see if it's worth trying to collect or use it as a tool to sue for garnishments.

If enough people raise cane about it, employers will stop using the service. I doubt we can get those jokers to move at all to stop this.

Re:Scaremongering ?

[qubezz]

What it means is that if you want to verify someone's work history, you call up that company, and they will give you a third-party service to call to verify employment at their company. Negotiate a huge phone tree, and you find out you have to sign up for that service in order to verify employment. Seems like a scummy way of preventing your employees from changing jobs, getting loans, etc. by outsourcing something you should be mandated into doing to a fee-charging company.

Privacy and Abuse

[under_score]

In our culture, we are afraid of abuses.... legitimately! Having this information for sale can easily be used for such obvious purposes as rejecting a job candidate because their past salary is "too high". Stronger privacy protection is generally considered the antidote to such potential abuses. However, more and more regulation leads to greater and greater bureaucracy and therefore the cost of government increases.

Another solution is a longer-term solution and that is to address the underlying cultural assumptions and shift the world to a more positive outlook based on the idea of the inherent nobility of humans. Our bureaucracy has grown as we have moved away from a perspective on the noble human to the animal human with greed motivating our every move. In fact, this is a cultural choice, not a foregone conclusion.

At some point, I hope that we (culturally) will start responding to these sorts of crisis with a long-term view to improving humanity rather than reacting to the down-side.

Re:Privacy and Abuse

[marcgvky]

I absolutely disagree, in this particular situation. Normally, I am a libertarian of the finest sort. But, aggregation of your personal information without your initial and conscious consent will always be used for negative purposes; let's face it, there are a lot of people out there with a poor moral compass. In this particular situation, you only have one company to hold accountable; Equifax. They could structure the regulation just like your Credit Report. Done.

Re:Privacy and Abuse

[interkin3tic]

Having this information for sale can easily be used for such obvious purposes as rejecting a job candidate because their past salary is "too high"

So it's not just that they have our information without asking us, it's also that they're using it for really stupid purposes. Rejecting people for earning too much, or not being employed, rather than past performance or qualifications sounds like going to great lengths to avoid actually doing the job. Sure, it may be a fast way to eliminate a lot of applicants, but why not just flip a coin on each resume? Seems like it will be very nearly as effective at hiring good workers, plus you don't have to buy a report on each candidate, you just have to get change!

Re:Privacy and Abuse

[Fnord666]

In this particular situation, you only have one company to hold accountable.

Good. I'm a big fan of the "one throat to choke" approach.

Re:Privacy and Abuse

[Roger Wilcox]

Don't hold your breath on that one...

I agree that a cultural shift toward thinking of individuals as having character and responsibility would be very good for our society. However, the media is in the business of selling fear, uncertainty and doubt--and the public eats it up. Such a grim picture of humanity will therefore not easily cease to infect the minds of the impressionable. Not for a long time coming.

Re:Privacy and Abuse

[under_score]

I agree that it is a long process... possibly centuries (although I hope just decades). I'm an optimist at heart! One quote that I have found particularly inspiring is:

"The betterment of the world can be accomplished through pure and goodly deeds, through commendable and seemly conduct."

To me, that means that all the people who are trying to improve the world (the environment, politics, community life, etc.), and even my own modest efforts, are having an effect.

Horribly Unfair

[realsilly]

Just this week, in the paper, I read that one senator is proposing a bill to allow employees to freely and openly discuss their pay. But here we read that this information is simply handed over to credit agencies. These credit agencies can then basically sell your information to Credit Card companies, Banks and more.

So it really begs the question, why am I not allowed to openly discuss my salary information but HR can hand it out to a Credit agency where from there it can be sold to half the corporations in America?

Our government really does not care about it's citizens any longer, only which corporations donate the most to their campaigns. /sigh

Re:Horribly Unfair

[Jason Levine]

Because corporations are people and all people are equal. It's just that some people (corporations) are more equal than other people (actual human beings).

Re:Horribly Unfair

[Rude Turnip]

Uhm, you can openly discuss your salary with anyone you want.

Re:Horribly Unfair

[LordNimon]

I read that one senator is proposing a bill to allow employees to freely and openly discuss their pay.

Am I missing something? Why would this be illegal in the first place? I don't tell people my salary because I think it's inappropriate to discuss such things, not because I think I'm not allowed to.

Re:Horribly Unfair

[Anonymous Coward]

You can of course share your salary, at least in Texas. My business law prof (a lawyer) verified this one. Just because your contract says otherwise doesn't really matter. Contracts can say whatever they want - it doesn't mean all clauses can be enforced in court.

Re:Horribly Unfair

[h4rr4r]

A lot of employers forbid it, or try to.

I believe the proposed law would make that illegal.

In some situations discussing salary is fine, if you are getting a friend a job for instance or if you want to compare what your employer is paying for a job vs a friends employer.

Discouraging the discussion of salaries is just another method of keeping wages down.

Re:Horribly Unfair

[Rougement]

It's not illegal. Still, a scumbag former manager threatened me with dismissal if I spoke to anyone about salary.

Re:Horribly Unfair

[Trepidity]

It's not illegal, but some companies prohibit disclosing it in their employment contracts, sort of a form of NDA. I believe the proposed law would nullify those clauses in employment contracts.

Re:Horribly Unfair

[Quince alPillan]

Not exactly. Some workplaces mandate that you're not allowed to discuss your salary on penalty of being fired. Typically because some people at the same level are being paid vastly different sums and if they were told what they were being paid, they'd reasonably be upset.

Re:Horribly Unfair

[Anonymous Coward]

"...senator is proposing a bill to allow employees to freely and openly discuss their pay"

If any one is interested in reading about the bill that allows you to freely and openly discuss your pay you can find it here: http://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/first_amendment

Re:Horribly Unfair

[140Mandak262Jamuna]

Because corporations are people and all people are equal. It's just that some people (corporations) are more equal than other people (actual human beings).

Exactly. Corporations are people. People have first amendment right to free speech. Spending money is speech. So they have the right to spend unlimited amount of money in elections and campaigns. That is what SCOTUS ruled in the People's United decision.

But the employess are also people. They also have the first amendment right to free speech. But speaking about their salary is prohibited by their employment contract. So they can not speak under their free speech rights.

Welcome to the Union of Soviet States of America.

Re:Horribly Unfair

[h4rr4r]

While I can see that being a rule while at work, it should not be allowed when you are not on the clock or have exceeded your expected hours for the week.

This is not to prevent people from being upset, this is to keep wages down. This way you can only give one guy a raise and keep the rest of the departement from also wanting a fair deal.

Re:Horribly Unfair

[Anonymous Coward]

Contracts that are in violation of US law usually aren't upheld when they are breached. An employer that states you can't talk about your pet's favorite toy or else you get fired will generally lose the wrongful termination lawsuit that is filed shortly after.

Re:Horribly Unfair

[KingMotley]

So it really begs the question, why am I not allowed to openly discuss my salary information

Because if everyone discusses their salary information, then there is 1 person who is happy, and N-1 people are that are unhappy, and demand they make the same as the 1. Eventually this leads a company to institute a policy that everyone makes (nearly) the same amount, and that limits their ability to hire and retain exceptional employees who can find better pay elsewhere as everyone's salary gravitates towards the average. Eventually all that will remain at the company are employees that are below average that make average salary, or everyone is making salary above their worth and the company is no longer able to compete price wise.

Re:Horribly Unfair

[NathanM412]

Unfortunately, most states are subject to at-will employment. There doesn't need to be any basis for them firing you.

Re:Horribly Unfair

[godrik]

"Just this week, in the paper, I read that one senator is proposing a bill to allow employees to freely and openly discuss their pay."

WTF! do you mean I am not at liberty of disclosing my salary right now?

Re:Horribly Unfair

[afidel]

Except of course that your employer can fire you for any reason, or no reason at all in Texas so failing to follow company policy can get you fired whether your action is legal or not.

Re:Horribly Unfair

[Anonymous Coward]

The NLRA makes it a right to discuss salary.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Labor_Relations_Act

Re:Horribly Unfair

[czth]

Why is that unfortunate? Should people be forced to continue paying someone to do work that they no longer want them to do?

Re:Horribly Unfair

[chiguy]

While I can see that being a rule while at work, it should not be allowed when you are not on the clock or have exceeded your expected hours for the week.

It is similar to or part of an NDA. NDAs are applicable beyond the workplace. Companies often consider employee compensation classified information or a trade secret.

Re:Horribly Unfair

[ILongForDarkness]

and if I'm not mistaken individuals also have limits on political donations.

Re:Horribly Unfair

[ILongForDarkness]

It's not necessarily unfair just because it is unequal. Perhaps Bob got a raise because he's a better worker than you. Perhaps he made more money to start because he is seen as having more potential (eg. more experience, more education etc). Everyone isn't the same and ultimately it is up to the employer what they pay, they have to way employee happiness/retention with the value they expect to get from each individual employee.

Re:Horribly Unfair

[ILongForDarkness]

Well to be fair, though it would be hard to prove it, if they only problem you have with the employee is that they told Joe they make $5/hr more than them your problem isn't with not being happy with their work. Your problem is now Joe wants $5 more.

Re:Horribly Unfair

[Anonymous Coward]

It's unfortunate because it makes any employment laws forbidding an employer for firing an employee for whatever reason (e.g. "you are not allowed to fire employees for discussing salary information") unenforceable in practice.

Not sure why you couldn't pick that up from the context.

Re:Horribly Unfair

[czth]

Perhaps I should have written more specifically not happy with their work at a given rate, X+$5 per hour in this case, then. :-) That is, with making an exchange of X+$5 for an hour of said work. A job is, after all, a (repeated/continued) transaction between a buyer and seller. I may be happy to buy a 6-pack of beer for $8, but balk at buying the same 6-pack for $13; but someone may buy it, or pay the worker $5 more. Value is subjective.

Re:Horribly Unfair

[czth]

Why should a person be forced to continue to pay someone they no longer wish to pay to do work, for any reason?

That's not "unfortunate" at all; that's basic freedom of association and trade.

A job is a transaction between a buyer and a seller.. That transaction should not be forced to continue if either party does not wish it.

Re:Horribly Unfair

[Anonymous Coward]

From what I could find, clauses prohibiting employees from discussing pay outside work are probably not likely to be upheld and also violate NLRB rules. IMO it would be extremely unfair for any employment contract to disparage freedom of speech outside the workplace in some way.

http://nakedlaw.avvo.com/freedom/can-you-be-fired-for-discussing-your-salary.html

Re:Horribly Unfair

[Anonymous Coward]

Isn't this already guaranteed by the National Labor Relations Act?

Re:Horribly Unfair

[h4rr4r]

If Bob was a better worker or had more potential it would not upset people to find out. The only point it to keep wages down.

Re:Horribly Unfair

[Bigby]

Actually, you might get rid of all the idiots at work. They would see that they are making less than me and demand to make as much. Then the company can refuse (and he quits) or accept it. Then I will demand more, because I provide 50x more value to the company. So they will have to give me more money or I will leave. And to keep me from leaving, they will fire the worthless guy. Either way, the guy not making as much loses his/her job.

Re:Horribly Unfair

[AwesomeMcgee]

Aren't states rights fun!

Re:Horribly Unfair

[ILongForDarkness]

Really? Unions effectively exist to ensure everyone is treated fair (ie the same). They kick up a stink if anyone mucks with the seniority table that was handed down by God. A lot of non-union workers are the same way: but we do the same work, why does he make more? Heck managers are bad for it too, while in university I worked on a packaging line. We had a lady working with us that was nice but slloooooww. She literally did half of what was supposed to be her job and the guys on either side of her had to do the other 50% to keep the line running. When it came time for employee evaluations I got something like a 92% out of 100% she got 87%. They did at least show the right direction in the comparison but I'd more realistically say it should have been a good 10 points lower for her at least. Another case of people being afraid to being seen as unfair.

Re:Horribly Unfair

[zenyu]

Since 1933 you are always permitted to discuss your own salary with fellow employees in the USA, even on national television or in the boardroom of your employer's fiercest competitor. But employers may have employee contract terms prohibiting their employees from discussing their salary. These terms are already null-and-void in 99.9999% of cases, but employees mostly don't know this and assume all the crazy terms in their employee contract are binding. My guess is the law being discussed is most likely meaningless, but possibly it provides some type of fine or penalty for employers that try to intimidate their employees with these types of contract provisions.

Re:Horribly Unfair

[Anonymous Coward]

So it really begs the question,

No, it doesn't.

Re:Horribly Unfair

[RockDoctor]

Some workplaces mandate that you're not allowed to discuss your salary on penalty of being fired.

That sounds like an absolutely excellent company to be leaving as fast as possible. Or even better, not joining.

In the (fairly unlikely) event that I had to go job-hunting again, seeing that sort of thing in a contract proposal would have me rolling on the floor, helpless with mirth, followed by walking out of the meeting. Not a lot of point with continuing with the employment discussion if the company has arseholes like that working there.

Ponder that, though

[smittyoneeach]

As our political class increasingly becomes an aristocracy, this sort of thing becomes a weapon to keep the peasants out.
Once you're a made member of the club, scrubbing your data and enjoying some privacy is a perq.

Re:Ponder that, though

[sexybomber]

Once you're a made member of the club, scrubbing your data and enjoying some privacy is a [perk].

Along with being able to turn off the telescreen?

Re:Ponder that, though

[smittyoneeach]

Yeah, unless you really enjoy the two minutes of hate along with your Inner Party perquisites.

Privacy in the USA, yeah!

[bradley13]

Just like the credit reporting agencies, gathering all sorts of financial information without your permission.

One More Tool to Fight the Rise in Workers' Pay

[Durrik]

I'm not being conspiracy nut in this. This is just one more tool that HR departments can use to keep pay low for people applying for work at a company. They always ask for what your current salary is. Before an applicant could lie and tell the HR department a higher number and get offered that higher number. Now they can just check this database and see what the number actually is.

When I job switched in the past I've never been offered a number higher than what I currently made when I was truthful about my salary, and I screwed myself over. There was a time when I worked for a start-up and my salary was frozen for four years. When that job died I told my new employer what I was making and got offered a bit less since it was a rough job market. The raises I got at that job were less than inflation. The last time I switched I took my salary at the start of the previous job, ran it through the inflation calculator, added 10% and told that number to the new company. That was the number that I was offered, and they gave me some song and dance about it was a privilege about working in the industry when I tried to see if I could get it higher. So I got a 17% raise over my previous company.

Now with this database that tactic is no longer viable. And if you don't tell them the current number you're making and then check it out, they can mark you as dishonest. Kind of hypocritical if you ask me.

Re:One More Tool to Fight the Rise in Workers' Pay

[MickyTheIdiot]

A fine solution if you don't have to eat.

Re:One More Tool to Fight the Rise in Workers' Pay

[h4rr4r]

Don't answer that question. Most companies are not going to pay to look up your old salary.

Don't switch jobs for less than X% increase. You decide X. I had an employer once tell me 10% was too much even though they wanted me to shoulder considerable moving expenses. I let them know that I was then not interested in working in such a place.

If you need the work bad you can take it, but when job switching you can be considerably more picky.

Re:One More Tool to Fight the Rise in Workers' Pay

[Culture20]

I think the point of this article is that employers are "paying" for previous salary data by reciprocally sending equifax their current salary data. Even if that's not the case, I'm pretty sure companies would happily pay $100 per interviewed candidate to save them $4000 per year salary on the person they do hire.

Re:One More Tool to Fight the Rise in Workers' Pay

[avm]

Most corporate HR departments have open accounts with at least one of the credit reporting agencies, to say nothing of Lexis Nexis et al. Whether or not they use them is often solely dependent on how motivated a particular HR staffer is.

Re:One More Tool to Fight the Rise in Workers' Pay

[vlm]

That seems overly complicated. I'm not a contractor but my current job salary negotiation was very contractor like, I told them I'll do the job for $XYZ. If you let them control the discussion into some self worth battle or long form debate about your pay rate 25 years ago in another state, they will, but you certainly don't have to. "You want someone to do A B and C living in city Q, my research shows the market rate for that is $XYZ, what does your research show for a market rate?" (Turn it into a debate about non-personal research rather than blind opinion or self worth or budgets) "Oh, we roughly agree, well good then we'll split the small difference and call it settled. See you next Monday. K thx bye"

On the other hand, if you're literally the only guy in the world who can do it such that there are no comparisons, that's not a weakness, that's a strength. Stereotypically they're in a hurry. Use that against them, unless you're in a hurry (unemployment, currently poor working conditions)

Re:One More Tool to Fight the Rise in Workers' Pay

[DogDude]

If a potential employer or anybody else asked what I made in a previous position, my response would be, "None of your fucking business".

Re:One More Tool to Fight the Rise in Workers' Pay

[ub3r n3u7r4l1st]

People blame the trend on capitalism and over-taxation. I blame it on poorly educated MBA running a business.

Re:One More Tool to Fight the Rise in Workers' Pay

[Anonymous Coward]

Somebody says they aren't going to give a 10% increase, I say no.

And I have flat out walked out on companies who said they weren't going to give me an X% raise.

Re:One More Tool to Fight the Rise in Workers' Pay

[WOOFYGOOFY]

I was denied employment b/c I wouldn't t tell them how much I made in my previous job. I didn't want them to think I wouldn't work for them since their offer was much lower. I didn't care, I just wanted a stable long term job. Turns out they took that as an act of insubordination or something. If I wanted my IRS returns to be public, they'd be on FB. I am not telling you because I want that information private. I am applying for this job because I have determined the salary offered meets my salary demands.

GTFU. Just because you have a job to offer doesn't mean every application filer has to dump their panty drawer at your feet so you can get yourself off by sniffing its contents. Be glad a high quality candidate took an interest in your job.

Re:One More Tool to Fight the Rise in Workers' Pay

[Anonymous Coward]

But um...isnt that what you are by your own admission....DISHONEST

Re:One More Tool to Fight the Rise in Workers' Pay

[CAIMLAS]

How about, "I don't see how that is relevant, I wasn't doing the same thing for them that you want me to do for you, not exactly. And they weren't the same company you are, thus why I am not working for them anymore. If you really need an answer to that question, I don't need to work for you."

And honestly, an employer that asks you what you're currently making is not an employer you'd want to work for. They're already looking to fuck you over before you're even hired; what are your chances of getting a "fair shake" - aside from what they're legally required to do for you? As someone who's been "let go" at Christmas twice and has had his good name fraudulently smeared up and down the halls of different institutions with no legal recourse due to the law not protecting me, I think it's important that we - as citizens - need to not have faith in the humanity of our employers. They're there for their own selfish interests and sadly, this culture has become dog eat dog.

I've gotten at least a 10% increase with each position change (more, if you consider relative cost of living). Granted, I've never gotten a raise (and thus why I've even bothered moving positions - if the employer won't treat you right, you've got no obligation to them). But a big part of this was because I was insistent upon my worth, after starting off at a very, very low salary for the work I was doing.

This database is going to be a problem. It's going to cause salary stagnation, and possibly even salary decline. Employers will love it, because they'll receive an 'edge' over their competitors (or so they think) in the ever-declining market. The market decline will give employers incentive to offer less than employees are currently making, leading to people not hopping jobs, leading to a stagnation of talent.

Really, what we're looking at with something like this is a collapse of what remains of the middle class, followed shortly after by a collapse of pay on the incomes padding that demographic...

Re:One More Tool to Fight the Rise in Workers' Pay

[Anonymous Coward]

> Don't answer that question. Most companies are not going to pay to look up your old salary.

Say what? HR folk consider it their jobs to find out as much about you as they can. They have to justify their own jobs that way.

Re:One More Tool to Fight the Rise in Workers' Pay

[Anonymous Coward]

No, 'theworknumber' will not reveal your salary information to a prospective employer unless you specifically provide a 'salary key' after requesting it. By default that info is not available; only your dates of employment and your last job title with the company. This article just says that debt collectors MIGHT have a loophole to get your salary info without your giving permission but it does not prove that is what is happening.

Re:One More Tool to Fight the Rise in Workers' Pay

[Bigby]

Don't supply them enough information to identify you prior to negotiation. State that the negotiated numbers may hinge on your credit report, drug tests, etc...

Re:One More Tool to Fight the Rise in Workers' Pay

[AwesomeMcgee]

I've flatly said on many occasions to this question "Don't worry about it, X is what I'm looking for." the few who didn't get the hint and pressed were told their offer was suddenly irrelevant and I hung up on them. I plan to get paid for my skills by looking at the market and coming up with what I believe to be reasonable and then demanding that of businesses. Yes I have been flatly denied by businesses, but those places are jerkbags anyway and would be miserable to work for.

Re:One More Tool to Fight the Rise in Workers' Pay

[CodeBuster]

They always ask for what your current salary is.

So cross that out and instead write in that you will negotiate when they make an offer. Don't take shit from HR department flunkies. Grow a pair and stand up for yourself. The people in management respect those who respect themselves and if they don't do you really want to work there anyway?

Maybe????

[kurt555gs]

Ted Kasinsky was right.

Re:Maybe????

[L4t3r4lu5]

Ted Kasinsky was right.

"Plumbers" van with blacked out windows outside your home in 3... 2... 1...

Re:Maybe????

[Anonymous Coward]

You're using a computer.

What's your mailing address?

Re:Maybe????

[Alomex]

Perhaps if he had devoted his energy to finding a medium in which he could share his concerns he would be today a second Paul Krugman. Instead he chose to bomb rather innocent victims and became a second Timothy McVeigh,

Re:Maybe????

[tapspace]

Maybe? Definitely. It was his actions that were wrong.

Give hem a phone call

[hcs_$reboot]

They may be able to fill your income tax return on your behalf.

Re:Give hem a phone call

[Anonymous Coward]

I tried that this year. Equifax's system for exporting W2 information is broken. The tax return web app accepts the credentials generated by the equifax system, and then it throws a mysterious error and redirects to Equifax's useless help documents. Exporting W2 information was supposed to be the products. But if that's broken, then the product must be my personal information. You don't say!

So what?

[bradley13]

If you are a bank considering loaning me money, then I can choose to share my salary information with you. There is no reason at all for this information to be made available without the individual's permission!

Re:So what?

[Necroman]

Banks must have your permission to run your credit report. If a bank or any organization runs your credit without your permission they can get in pretty big trouble.

Re:So what?

[noc007]

To add to this, most loan applications, especially ones that are in the four digits or more, require proof through pay stubs and/or bank statements that you make what you say you make.

If I want to get a loan or a revolving line of credit and their underwriter needs my salary information, it should be up to me on whether it is disclosed.

Re:So what?

[Anonymous Coward]

Big trouble?, they can ruin the economy and not get in BIG trouble

Re:So what?

[GodfatherofSoul]

Unless something has changed, the credit bureaus give potential creditors access to credit summaries about you. I don't know what they include, but that's how you get unsolicited credit card offers.

Re:So what?

[Anonymous Coward]

I think you're referring to US law and how it pertains to residents of the USA.

Obviously, Nigerian banks are under no such restrictions or illusions!

Re:So what?

[tompaulco]

If a bank or any organization runs your credit without your permission they can get in pretty big trouble.
They can't run a detailed report without your permission, but there is some limited information they are able to get without your permission. These queries don't show up on the free reports you can get, but I believe you can pay to find out who ran the non-detailed reports on you.

Another piece of the New World Order

[Anonymous Coward]

Here we are again, big business, banks, selling out citizens for profit.

Lemmings

[DogDude]

As an employer, I have to say that anybody stupid enough to work for a company that asks for credit information deserves what they get. The same goes for drug testing. If you're willing to sell your credit history and your personal health information for a job, then you're part of the problem.

Re:Lemmings

[CanHasDIY]

As an employer, I have to say that anybody stupid enough to work for a company that asks for credit information deserves what they get. The same goes for drug testing. If you're willing to sell your credit history and your personal health information for a job, then you're part of the problem.

OK, so when every job that isn't at McDonald's requires one, the other, or both, please explain how we're supposed to financially support ourselves and not be "part of the problem," as you put it.

Moral superiority is easy to feign when you're not the one getting screwed.

Re:Lemmings

[dr_dank]

A principled stand isn't acceptable legal tender at any bank, grocery store, or landlord I've ever heard of.

Re:Lemmings

[admdrew]

You're fighting feigned moral superiority with hyperbole. There are plenty of jobs that don't require either of those things.

Re:Lemmings

[CanHasDIY]

There are plenty of jobs that don't require either of those things.

Such as? Name 10, excluding minimum wage and under-the-table type jobs like fast food and landscaping.

Re:Lemmings

[admdrew]

You're the one who said "every job that isn't at McDonald's requires one, the other, or both," so I'm not going to do your leg work for you, but feel free to call and ask your local small businesses (and gas stations, and grocery stores, and retail stores, and restaurants, etc etc).

Re:Lemmings

[CanHasDIY]

You're the one who said "every job that isn't at McDonald's requires one, the other, or both," so I'm not going to do your leg work for you, but feel free to call and ask your local small businesses (and gas stations, and grocery stores, and retail stores, and restaurants, etc etc).

I specifically said, "excluding minimum wage and under-the-table type jobs." The occupations you mentioned are almost exclusively minimum wage.

Of course, your response serves to support my point, so I guess I shouldn't bitch.

PS if you're going to accuse other people of being hyperbolic, you may want to avoid the behavior yourself - nobody likes a hypocrite.

Re:Lemmings

[DogDude]

10 jobs? You dolt, it's company specific, not job specific. Nobody should work for a COMPANY that requires this kind of garbage. There are plenty of companies that don't treat their employees like cattle. If you're not intelligent enough to find one, then that's really your problem, not mine.

Re:Lemmings

[CanHasDIY]

10 jobs? You dolt, it's company specific, not job specific.

For the record, stepping right out of the gate with an ad hominem is not a good way to endear others to your cause; much to the contrary, it only serves to make you look like an unreasonable asshole.

Nobody should work for a COMPANY that requires this kind of garbage.

Don't disagree, in spirit. What I disagree with is the concept that getting a job worth having somewhere that doesn't require employees to essentially sign their rights away is just as easy as you seem to think it is.

There are plenty of companies that don't treat their employees like cattle.

Okay, then name one. I mean, you say they exist, so naming just one shouldn't be that taxing, should it?

If you're not intelligent enough to find one, then that's really your problem, not mine.

Full circle back to the personal attacks, I see. You really don't want to be taken seriously, do you?

Re:Lemmings

[admdrew]

I specifically said, "excluding minimum wage and under-the-table type jobs." The occupations you mentioned are almost exclusively minimum wage.

I'm not really sure why your qualification excludes minimum wage jobs (unless it's just an attempt to back up your original comment, which is odd, considering you said "McDonald's", not "fast food" or "minimum wage"); are minimum wage jobs not valid? Also, the very broad set I alluded to *do* include jobs paying above minimum wage, especially when you consider advancement within an organization.

Semantically, your phrase of "every job" is hyperbole, while mine of "plenty of jobs" is not.

Re:Lemmings

[CanHasDIY]

I specifically said, "excluding minimum wage and under-the-table type jobs." The occupations you mentioned are almost exclusively minimum wage.

I'm not really sure why your qualification excludes minimum wage jobs (unless it's just an attempt to back up your original comment, which is odd, considering you said "McDonald's", not "fast food" or "minimum wage"); are minimum wage jobs not valid?

Minimum wage jobs are not valid career choices.

Also, the very broad set I alluded to *do* include jobs paying above minimum wage, especially when you consider advancement within an organization.

Semantically, your phrase of "every job" is hyperbole, while mine of "plenty of jobs" is not.

I suppose I can concede those points, although I will point out that, in many of the occupations you listed, advancing beyond entry-level typically does require drug testing at a minimum, and often entail other, more intrusive background checks.

However, none of that changes the fact that OP is being an unreasonable dick about the whole thing, which is what I intended to point out.

Re:Lemmings

[DogDude]

I have no interest in doing research to convince anybody that they should have some self respect. I run such a company, so I'm 100% positive they exist. If you choose to prostitute yourself out to an unscrupulous company for something as banal as a job, that's your problem. Either you get it, or you don't, and you clearly don't.

Re:Lemmings

[CanHasDIY]

I have no interest in doing research to convince anybody that they should have some self respect. I run such a company, so I'm 100% positive they exist.

Good for you. I'm 100% positive anecdotes do not equate to evidence. So, unless you want to name the company you claim to run, and post the documentation that proves what you say about it is true, I'm inclined to not believe you.

If you choose to prostitute yourself out to an unscrupulous company for something as banal as a job, that's your problem.

Being able to provide food and shelter to my family is what you consider 'banal?' What'r you, some kind of trust-fund baby that's never been forced to make that decision of, 'do I stand up for my morals, or do I feed my family?' If so, good for you, but that's no reason to be a prick to those of us who weren't blessed with a silver spoon in our mouths.

Either you get it, or you don't, and you clearly don't.

And we come back to the ad hominem attacks. I've always been a firm believer that if a person can't posit their argument without resorting to marginalizing opposition, be it through childish insults or other means, that said person doesn't have a valid argument to begin with. You have succeeded in supporting my contention, so I suppose congratulations are in order.

P.S. if you really do run a company, and you're as combative with your employees who disagree with you as you have been with me, I would imagine your turnover rate is astronomical.

Meh

[Anonymous Coward]

My salary is public record anyway.

Priceless data

[Prokur]

and it costs less than 1 USD per record.

Write your Congressman and Senator NOW!!

[marcgvky]

I just wrote my congressman and senator.... feel free to copy and paste. This is so sick. Wait until the health information exchanges get installed, people will know your health history, social history..... I love the tech age, but this is one aspect of it that I can do without. -M Dear Mr./Mrs. Congressman/Senator: I am writing to request urgent regulation of the following unregulated data collection and resale activity; at minimum grant US citizens the ability to opt-out.... A subsidiary of Equifax named "The Work Number" is gathering and reselling personal salary data.... right down to the paystub. This data can be purchased by just about anyone including debt collectors. This data also includes Uneployment Insurance information, which might dissuade an employer from offering employment to an otherwise qualified individual. Please see this link for information: http://redtape.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/01/30/16762661-exclusive-your-employer-may-share-your-salary-and-equifax-might-sell-that-data Please act on this soon. I don't feel that my salary information and paystub data should be resold, without my consent. This should be an opt-in program, but they have crept under the regulatory radar. All the best, [YOUR NAME HERE]

Re:Write your Congressman and Senator NOW!!

[MickyTheIdiot]

Writing congresscritters does nothing. I do it about something every once in a while. The result is always a letter back that says, to an extent, "I'm right and you're wrong."

My congressman is essentially a representative of corporate and GOP interests. When I send him a comment I get the equivalent of being flipped the bird in email form. It doesn't hurt him... there is no way in hell I would ever vote for him.

Re:Write your Congressman and Senator NOW!!

[marcgvky]

Sometimes yes, sometimes no. I recommend hitting their hot-buttons to include the potential revelation of his/her salary or his/her spouses and childrens info. That may hit closer to home, no?

Re:Write your Congressman and Senator NOW!!

[DogDude]

No law is needed. Apply for a job that doesn't ask for/share all of this information. Very simple.

Re:Write your Congressman and Senator NOW!!

[Culture20]

Writing congresscritters does nothing. I do it about something every once in a while. The result is always a letter back that says, to an extent, "I'm right and you're wrong." My congressman is essentially a representative of corporate and GOP interests.

Then speak to his (presumed) conservative leanings. Couch your concerns in terminology he understands and cares about. The "I'm right and you're wrong." response means that someone at his office is reading your letters, otherwise you'd be getting the "We have received your letter and agree that this is something to which much thought needs to be directed. Please enjoy the enclosed lolli." letter.

Re:Write your Congressman and Senator NOW!!

[h4rr4r]

I normally get something worse.

I write a letter saying why Bill A sucks and should be let to die and why Bill B should be passed. The response is always "Thanks for wasting your time as you know I will be pushing for Bill A and against Bill B, I am so glad we agree".

Preemptive Strike

[Anonymous Coward]

If employers are going to give away our salary information to be used against us, perhaps we should publish our salary info preemptively. I wonder how employers would feel about having their workforce know what everyone else is making.

Re:Preemptive Strike

[Lumpy]

I say publish all their other private data. I'm thinking selling the customer list is a good response to them selling my salary history.

Funny

[ledow]

Because under EU Data Protection Law, such information passing would actually be illegal from the start anyway without obtaining my explicit consent.

Sometimes the Data Protection Act really screws up my job. But it does it because it makes me comply with things that *stop* others lives being screwed up.

Equifax have no need for that information, anonymised or not. Thus they should have no access to it.

Freeze Your Credit File

[Jason Levine]

When my identity was stolen (credit card opened in my name by someone with my name/address/SSN/DOB), I froze my credit and my wife's credit. This means that nobody can read our credit files or add to it without our permission. If we want to get a car loan, refinance my mortgage, or open a new credit card, we need to thaw out our credit files. (This costs us $5 per person per agency - of which there are 3 - but this fee varies by state.) If a potential employer wants to run a credit check on me, they'll need to ask for my permission before they can see my credit file.

Re:Freeze Your Credit File

[Overzeetop]

Hmmmm...that's an interesting idea. I generally do use/need credit, except for my current associations, and I don't make changes.

Re:Freeze Your Credit File

[interkin3tic]

If a potential employer wants to run a credit check on me, they'll need to ask for my permission before they can see my credit file.

Wouldn't they just not hire you? Checking your salary seems like such a scummy move, I can't imagine they'd say "Well played, sir, welcome aboard."

Re:Freeze Your Credit File

[Anonymous Coward]

Sounds like blackmail to me. "We'll sell your information to anyone who wants it unless you pay us $5"

Re:Freeze Your Credit File

[L4t3r4lu5]

Sounds like blackmail to me. "We'll sell your information to anyone who wants it unless you pay us $5"

Racketeering

Re:Freeze Your Credit File

[Quanticfx]

Companies always need your permission, and a legitimate reason, to run your credit report. They generally ask you to sign a form where they explain that they are running it and what they do with the information. Many times they are also required to give you a copy.

Re:Freeze Your Credit File

[Anonymous Coward]

Unfortunately I'm not sure this would stop a current employer from reporting information. Entities you have a relationship with are not stopped by the freeze. I also wonder if this information is even covered by a freeze since it is not part of traditional credit reporting information.

I have my credit files frozen, but it doesn't stop companies like brokerages I have accounts with from checking my credit, even though they have not extended me any credit (not even a margin account). I believe they do the checks mostly to gather information for marketing purposes. Credit freezes are worth the cost, but their limitations are frustrating.

Re:Freeze Your Credit File

[afidel]

Unfortunately they won't let you freeze your file without a police report these days.

Re:Freeze Your Credit File

[Anonymous Coward]

Great, so they will ask permission as a condition of considering you for the job. Whereupon they'll see your salary info.

Re:Freeze Your Credit File

[Anonymous Coward]

i think in canada one needs to sign that he/she gives a 3rd party permission to run a credit check on the individual

Re:Freeze Your Credit File

[Jason Levine]

Anyone can freeze their credit file. It's the law in most states and the District of Columbia. (Only Alabama and Michigan have no law and a few states limit it to ID theft victims.) The credit agencies have "voluntarily" offered to freeze credit for anyone who wants it frozen. (Translation: They were forced to by law in most states so they might as well offer it in the remaining ones.) The only difference that a police report makes is that (depending on state law), it might make your freeze free instead of charged for.

http://www.consumersunion.org/campaigns/learn_more/003484indiv.html

Here's how to place a freeze on your credit file from the 3 major credit bureaus:

https://help.equifax.com/app/answers/detail/a_id/159/noIntercept/1
http://www.transunion.com/personal-credit/credit-disputes/credit-freezes.page
http://www.experian.com/consumer/security_freeze.html

Speaking from experience, it can be a pain to deal with from time to time, but it is much less of a pain then discovering that someone went on a spending spree on your credit line and you need to repair the damage.

Re:Freeze Your Credit File

[Jason Levine]

Actually, without a freeze, the credit agencies will pretty much let any company run a credit check on you. (That's how you get tons of "sign up for our credit card" mailings.) These check requests get put on the credit report, but by that point the company already has accessed your credit file. Of course, freezing your credit locks them out and you don't get these mailings anymore. (I consider it a big side benefit to freezing my credit.)

Re:Freeze Your Credit File

[Jason Levine]

They could decide not to hire me or, if I choose to allow them to run a credit report, I can thaw it out for a set time to allow them to run a check. After the thaw time ends, the file re-freezes automatically.

Re:Freeze Your Credit File

[Quanticfx]

Yep, you're right I should've done my research.

Apparently all someone needs is a "legitimate" business need to access it, the exception is Vermont which requires written or oral consent for any reason

Why have they not been sued?

[Lumpy]

Equifax also typically has the worst credit database. Most people have a lot of errors on their file. It blows my mind that anyone trusts a credit report from the amount of wrong or misfiled reports are on them.

Some countries make all tax returns public...

[acidfast7]

... why demand the secrecy? Why not adopt a Nordic-style openness that shows who pays what taxes and where the taxes actually go. I also appreciated my annual credit history/report that was automatically mailed to my address when I lived in Stockholm. Why do you guys have to make everything so complicated? There's no security through obscurity.

Re:Some countries make all tax returns public...

[acidfast7]

Silly rabbit, Trix are for Kids!

Re:Some countries make all tax returns public...

[GodfatherofSoul]

Another vote for the harassing marketing. When I bought my house, the first day I checked the mail box it was STUFFED with flyers, brochures, credit applications, etc. targeting a new home owner. I'm sure it was one or more of the 10-20 organizations you work with during the process, but it's an example of what happens when private personal data makes it to advertisers.

Re:Some countries make all tax returns public...

[PPH]

Here are a few things to consider:

1. What if I am applying for a job that pays much less than my last one? Many employers would reject me for being 'overqualified'. I just want the job, I don't care about the pay.

2. Not all of my income is from wages, tips and salaries. Compare my wages with those of the job offer. Who cares if I've got substantial assets parked someplace?

2a. Some employers do care. If they can't use a salary as a stick or carrot, they get concerned. And some bosses don't like parking next to their subordinate's Bentley.

3. You might not have the security clearance to know whom I've worked for in the past.

Re:Some countries make all tax returns public...

[acidfast7]

technically you probably didn't BUY the house, you probably took a mortgage, which does entitle the bank to sell your info to marketers (if you read the fine print.)

Re:Some countries make all tax returns public...

[Anonymous Coward]

It would be interesting to see all of the people that pay almost nothing in taxes yet get huge tax refunds.

Re:Some countries make all tax returns public...

[chihowa]

Technically, you did buy the house. You just bought it with borrowed money and the used the house as collateral. Unless you stop paying back the loan, the bank has no claim on the collateral. You signed a contract saying that you'll pay for insurance and not damage the value of the collateral. None of that means that you don't own the house. (The selling-your-info-to-marketers stuff was in that contract, too, unless you were observant enough to strike it out. That is not a sticking point for them, just a little bonus.)

Re:Some countries make all tax returns public...

[Bigby]

It would be interesting. Then everyone would KNOW that Romney and Buffet pay WAY MORE taxes than their secretaries.

his adventures would be hilarious

[Thud457]

"Randian Nutbag" would be an awesome superhero name.

Too bad he won't help anybody.

Re:his adventures would be hilarious

[deadweight]

I so wish I could mod that up!

Re:his adventures would be hilarious

[GameboyRMH]

He would swoon over any murderers he saw in action though.

Re:his adventures would be hilarious

[Anonymous Coward]

Wouldn't be a bad porn name either (perhaps Randy Nutbag)

Re:his adventures would be hilarious

[Bigby]

Well...he would help everybody by not helping anybody.

Everyone seems to be forgetting...

[Anonymous Coward]

No one can just "run a credit check" against anyone; this is priviledged information. When you go to apply for a loan or lease or what have you, you have to sign an agreement allowing the issuing agency to request a credit report on your behalf, and by law they have to provide you with said report.

To be clear, your employer giving your salary information to the three major credit bureaus is a good thing as it will make your credit score more accurate, and no one can just walk in and say "I'd like to have Jason Levine's credit report, please."

Re:Everyone seems to be forgetting...

[rubycodez]

that is false, trivial to "investigate" someone by running background and credit checks. hint, private detectives do it all the time.

credit score is NOT more accurate, it is ONLY based on debt and payment timeliness. of course, that whole industry should have its legs broken, be demolished as horrible invasion of privacy and enslaving people. the banking / finance cartel needs to be put to the flames, most of the recession, war, starving people of resources is a direct result of their machinations

Re:Everyone seems to be forgetting...

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes, you can run a credit check against anyone. In the US, all you need is the subject's first and last name, city and state. You really don't get out much do you? There are TV commercials and Internet advertisements for doing a background check and credit check on "anyone" for $19.95 (or less, or more). Idjit.

We don't talk about Project Mayhem

[Anonymous Coward]

Time for Project Mayhem ( Fight Clubs version, not Anonymous)???

Equifax gave out my email address

[frovingslosh]

Wanted to mention something very relevant about Equifax. I took advantage of a "get your credit score" free offer several years ago that was posted on Slick Deals. It involved giving Equifax a little data on myself, including an email address that they sent the final credit score report to. I've long used the Spamgourmet forwarding service, so I created and used a unique email address for this purpose. Never gave it to anyone else. It even includes Equifax as part of the name, as well as a "watch word" that was only active for a month when the Equifax account was created. Later I started getting LOTS of spam from Chinese sources to that email address. I don't think it was intercepted, as Equifax hadn't sent me any more mail for quite a while. No one got into my system and none of my other accounts started getting spammed, only the Equifax account.

So, as I see it that leaves three possible causes: Equifax sold my email address to spammers, an employee at Equifax stole data and sold it, or Equifax is so insecure with this very important personal data that they were hacked by the spammers. None of these possibilities speaks well for Equifax.

As of today, 264 pieces of mail have been sent to that account, including the one or two legitimate ones. That particular account was quickly shut down without compromising my read email address, but I've always wondered what information the hackers got on me.

Re:Equifax gave out my email address

[Anonymous Coward]

You appear to not understand how computers or the Internet work. There are mass spammers who send email to every possible email address @ provider via various means, including compromised "zombie" computers.

I subscribed to the Equifax credit monitoring service. It's only $8 a month, and they alert me when stuff changes on my credit report. Maybe many of you think that's a waste of money, but I like the alerts I get when something changes. I've never gotten any spam on that email address other than what I normally would have expected.

I get the random "your Runescape account has been hacked" type of emails when I've never even played that game. These random phishing emails don't even bother to check if the address they are sending to is valid.

I wouldn't expect Equifax is to blame for the spam you're getting.

Re:Equifax gave out my email address

[Anonymous Coward]

I took advantage of a "get your credit score" free offer several years ago that was posted on Slick Deals.

That was the source of your issue. Whoever paid Equifax for your "free" credit score got your email as part of that "Slick Deal."

Re:Equifax gave out my email address

[Zeromous]

This is why he mentioned, (and I also use) a keyword.

For instance, the difference between a mailspammer and a direct marketer is this.

In emails sent to zeromous@slashdot.org (an unlikely email address but spammed all the same as you describe)

mailspammer will say, "hello zeromous, Here is a special deal"

direct marketer will have gotten my address from equifax, where I was sure to sign up as Dr. Unicorn McBojangles

direct marketer will say, "hello Dr. Unicorn McBojangles, we have a special and unique opportunity for people with good credit!"

Re:Equifax gave out my email address

[frovingslosh]

And you don't know what you're talking about. Spamgourmet allows you to create very long and unique email addresses. The address that was used contained all of the following: The Equifax name (actually equifx, which is even more unique, equifax would not have worked since it wasn't created when the watchword was valid) and a long "watchword" that I appended to the end of it. The watchword is one that I had only used a couple of time in one month two years before the spam started. Then a period and a number. While Spamgourmet allows any number between 1 and 20, the number used by the Chinese spammers matched the number that I had given Equifax. Then another period and a name. That name is one I have registered with Spamgourmet but is not the proper spelling of my name. Then an @ sign and a domain. Spamgourmet has an awful lot of domains that all go back to them, but the spammers used the same domain that I had given Equifax.

Randomly generated emails didn't just happen to match all of these things and coincide with an address that I had already created. This address somehow left Equifax and was given to spammers.

Perhaps you should consider that limitations of your "knowledge" before putting others in their place. That's only a suggestion, and I don't really expect that you'll have learned anything from this. No wonder you post as an A.C.

Re:Equifax gave out my email address

[smackmywhammy]

I'm pretty much in the same boat, but I signed up directly with the MyFICO service, which was eventually sold to Equifax. I run a wildcard email forward on a throwaway domain for all my vendor contact stuff, and I'm not getting hits like this for other domain stuff as other comments suggest. I receive obvious finance related phishing crap, related to this financial information transaction, at this specific email address. In my case, the email address was dormant for 4+ years with zero traffic before it got hit.

As close as I can tell, the source of the leak is: http://www.computerworld.com/s/article/9215527/FAQ_Epsilon_email_breach

Of course, I could be wrong, but it's unsettling to say the least. Trying to explain it to an elected official to get some sort of action (specifically, official letter requesting more information) is less entertaining than rope pushing. Direct calls to Equifax have been completely unproductive.

Re:Equifax gave out my email address

[Megane]

So are you saying you went to freecreditreport.com (the one with strings attached that was plastered all over the place in advertisements with a catchy jingle a few years back, though I haven't seen that lately) instead of annualcreditreport.com (the one that the Big 3 are required to maintain with no strings attached so they stay hush-hush about it)?

Re:Equifax gave out my email address

[rabtech]

Same exact thing happened to me, only I was a paying customer previously. Once I stopped paying for their credit monitoring service, I started getting spam to that email address.

I know it was them because I own my own domain and use unique addresses for everything; all the spam was clearly addressed to XXXXX_equifax@XXXXXXX.com

Re:Equifax gave out my email address

[Anonymous Coward]

I did the same thing and can verify that I've been getting spam to my unique Equifax account as well.

Re:Equifax gave out my email address

[Anonymous Coward]

I subscribed to the Equifax credit monitoring service. It's only $8 a month, and they alert me when stuff changes on my credit report.

Mhmm, 8 bucks a month just for making sure they have clean data on me? Sounds like easy money!
Oh wait - you say, you pay them?

Re:Equifax gave out my email address

[Anonymous Coward]

Email is inherently insecure. Anyone in the routing path between you, your email server, and the recipient can clearly see your emails' headers. It could very easily have just been snatched that way.

Try to learn more about how the Internet works.

Re:Equifax gave out my email address

[Anonymous Coward]

Same here. My Equifax@mydomain email address gets spammed regularly for the past few years.

Beautiful!

[drainbramage]

Of course I'm out of points so I can only thank you.
Perhaps NatasRevol will recognize the wit in you reply and endevor to up his game.
Awesome.

Re:Beautiful!

[NatasRevol]

Hey, I appreciate the wit.

But I'm pretty sure that adventure is played out daily on Wall Street.

Rottweiler marketing

[bradley13]

The problem in the USA is the absolutely insane marketing. If public information shows that you make a good income and keep your debts under control, you will be bombarded with "pre-approved credit cards", "refinance your home with us", "buy a new car here", "lose all your money in our casino", and other lovely stuff.

If you live in Europe, you have no idea. When I went back to visit the US for several weeks a couple of years ago, I found the incessant marketing just incredible. The bank tellers trying to sign you up for credit cards. Every phone call to a company begins with a recorded sales pitch. Television shows contain more commercials than content, especially the children's shows. It's just incredible. I suppose you must eventually get numb to it...

Re:Rottweiler marketing

[acidfast7]

i had a sticker on my mail slot in my door (most mail still comes through the door in Stockholm) that said no advertisements. the post delivers respected it and i didn't get advertisements. it's great when common sense is employed, not even stuff that not mass marketed. in exchange, i left sweets for the post(wo)man.

Re:Rottweiler marketing

[Anonymous Coward]

Oh, it's far worse than this.

My wife has ok credit but we do not make a good income and we still get bombarded with marketing to sign up for credit cards.

The fun thing about it is when we try to actually sign up they reject us and then send us more offers for the same credit card they just rejected us for.

Re:Rottweiler marketing

[Anonymous Coward]

simple: i dont watch TV (dont even have cable and the OTA has been unplugged for months now), i listen to the radio just 5 min in the morning to see how the traffic is like, mp3 ftw after that, adblock on my pc and i dont answer to anybody thats not in my phonebook. i always pay all my bills in time and by bank agent always emails me.

Re:Rottweiler marketing

[Anonymous Coward]

The problem in the USA is also our poor labor protections. The more information is publicly available to employers and potential employers, the more reason they can find to low-ball your pay, deny you promotions, refuse to hire you, and "eliminate your job"

Employers hire very conservatively, and actively look for excuses to not hire candidates when a surplus of candidates exists for a position.

Employers like to hire low-risk individuals they believe will fit into their corporate culture and are inclined to bypass candidates with interests and lifestyles of which they do not approve.

Bad enough it is available for a fee from credit services, making it public would allow even the cheapest most miserly employer to satiate their prejudices.

Re:Rottweiler marketing

[AwesomeMcgee]

The real problem is the number of scammers who would immediately begin taking advantage of everyone who makes a cent over minimum wage (note, scammer: corporation, not person, people don't have the rights to get away with that stuff)

Re:Rottweiler marketing

[Common Joe]

The problem in the USA is the absolutely insane marketing. If public information shows that you make a good income and keep your debts under control, you will be bombarded with "pre-approved credit cards", "refinance your home with us", "buy a new car here", "lose all your money in our casino", and other lovely stuff.

If you live in Europe, you have no idea. When I went back to visit the US for several weeks a couple of years ago, I found the incessant marketing just incredible. The bank tellers trying to sign you up for credit cards. Every phone call to a company begins with a recorded sales pitch. Television shows contain more commercials than content, especially the children's shows. It's just incredible. I suppose you must eventually get numb to it...

Even with the insane marketing, I say we either keep it completely closed or go completely open. Anything else does not work in our favor. Since it is being partly opened (has been for a while), I think we should open it all the way.

Oh... You also said we get numb to it. A few of us (like me) do: I turn off the television and ignore those kinds of requests. For the majority of people, though, they can't control their impulses and they are taken advantage of. It's really quite sad to see... especially when it happens to those you care deeply about.

Why the secrecy, comrade?

[Anonymous Coward]

... why demand the secrecy? Why not adopt a Nordic-style openness that shows who pays what taxes and where the taxes actually go. I also appreciated my annual credit history/report that was automatically mailed to my address when I lived in Stockholm. Why do you guys have to make everything so complicated? There's no security through obscurity.

Yes, if you're not doing anything wrong, you have nothing to hide.

Right?

Re:Why the secrecy, comrade?

[acidfast7]

actually, no one has anything to hide, because you can't hide anything. i have to say that it allows one to focus on what's important (i.e. life) and not stupid crap like checking credit reports ... lol

Not a creative work

[Anonymous Coward]

So how do they continue to control the data?

Time for a public jobs program

[ub3r n3u7r4l1st]

Everybody who WANTS to work should be guaranteed a job that is accessible! It is a human right to work!

I would rather want healthy inflation than unemployment!

Where is the quadrillion dollar platinum coin when we need it?

Re:Time for a public jobs program

[ahodgson]

http://www.goarmy.com/

Re:Time for a public jobs program

[Anonymous Coward]

Let me just toss it out, here, that everyone who wants to work can - for themselves. If you're any good at what you do, you should be able to find customers. It's not a human right that someone else should go to the trouble of starting a business so they can hire you.

-- green led

Re:Time for a public jobs program

[Bigby]

Having no minimum wage or unemployment benefits solves unemployment. It just creates other problems. People don't want jobs. They want money to live. The definition of "money to live" is just crazy loose today.

This would be awesome...

[TheSpoom]

...for an employer interviewing a candidate. Not so much for the candidate.

Why Are Large Salary Jumps A Bad Thing?

[noc007]

This is a little OT, but it's been bugging me for a while. There are a lot of companies out there that don't want to increase a potential worker's pay by a large amount and won't hire a qualified and competent candidate because of this large increase. I've even heard that they would consider this massive increase potentially detrimental to the candidate if they hired them at this larger rate. To me it's ludicrous and can't think of anything reasonable on how their statements could be true.

I don't understand the logic of not hiring someone that's unemployed either. A good portion of a job interview is to vet whether they have the necessary skills or not. If they're capable, then what does it matter? If they're hired and they suck, it's time to review how candidates are interviewed and get better at it.

CSB:
At my last job I got a few promotions in title, responsibility, and work load without any salary increases beyond the yearly 3% if I was lucky. My boss knew I was underpaid and I even put together a well worded case with referenced to DOL statistics in the area to show how far behind my salary was to his boss, the CTO, could try and increase his payroll budget. Obviously that never went through. I saw the signs that they were on the path to bankruptcy so I started looking for better opportunities.

About half of the headhunters wanted my current salary info from me, but I would only let them guess and when they got close to within $15k of my goal salary, I'd say "around that area" or "that's pretty close" and they'd just run with it. They never got close to my actual pay since I was in a senior position getting junior pay. The pay increase didn't ruin me at all. Instead it let me live more comfortably, not have to worry whether I could afford to eat a more nutritious meal, and be able to put money away into savings.

If you're with ADP I think you're compromised

[erroneus]

I found this when googling "The Work Number" and ADP.

http://investor.talx.com/phoenix.zhtml?c=74399&p=irol-newsArticle_Print&ID=898835&highlight=

Re:If you're with ADP I think you're compromised

[chiguy]

Ah, that makes sense. Good find.

ADP knows a lot about people's pay. There should be a law restricting their sharing of data.

Re:If you're with ADP I think you're compromised

[Anonymous Coward]

And what's really scary is the date of the press release...

not likely

[frovingslosh]

It was a TV station that had done a story about credit scores and promoted this offer. I never got anything from the station, and would have noticed it if I did since it would have come in on the same address. I doubt very much if they paid to harvest email that they could sell for pennies to Chinese spammers, that likely just got a free offer from Equifax as part of doing the credit score story. And other reports of other people also having similar problems with Equifax when their relationship with them originated differently further discounts your speculation.

And cash is still king...

[ducomputergeek]

I had bad experiences with credit in my early 20's. Not ashamed to admit it. The more I got to learning about how the credit system works the more I was boggled at how bad it really was and was bound and determined to get out of it by my 30's. So I spent a lot of time in my mid and late 20's with a start up that I eventually sold for a fair amount of money. It wasn't millions, but enough to pay off my debts, buy a condo that I rehabbed and then got luck to flip for a good profit, and then I bought the farm next to my Dad's.

Now I pay cash for everything. If I need a car, I try to find a good used one (although thanks to cash for clunkers there aren't a lot out there. My 2004 Chevy Impala with 130k miles could fetch way more than it's worth at the moment).

After buying the farm, I didn't have enough to buy another place so I decided to rent a loft. Walked in and they all their "credit" requirements. I asked them to figure out the amount of the lease and I'd go right to the bank and get a cashiers check for the full amount up front. Amazing how they no longer needed to run my credit.

Last year I created an LLC for my part time business of going to estate sales and then dealing in antique and vintage furniture. Went to see about credit card processing from the bank and a couple days later got a call back stating that they had a problem: there wasn't any credit records for me. I smiled, said don't worry about it and opened a square account.

Re:And cash is still king...

[P-niiice]

I pay cash for (almost) everything too...I'm down to my mortgage, car and student loans. Zero credit card debt. If I can't pay case or borrow from my 401k, it can't happen.

Re:And cash is still king...

[Common Joe]

...then I bought the farm...

Dude, and you're still writing letters? Awesome! You gotta tell me how pulled a Yoda. :P

I asked them to figure out the amount of the lease and I'd go right to the bank and get a cashiers check for the full amount up front. Amazing how they no longer needed to run my credit.

You lucked out. They were telling me to stuff it. I've actually had several businesses do that... and they're still in business. I'm trying to figure that one out.

Before you panic...

[Peter Simpson]

I followed the link in the article: http://www.theworknumber.com/Employees/DataReport/ It lets you search for your employer. My current employer does not report. My previous employer did, but the one previous to that did not. So that's 1/3 for me. YMMV, but it's probably worth checking. Then you can go (or not) to your HR dept and ask them why or thank them for not divulging your info.

A good thing

[mu51c10rd]

Well, grand. Now the world will know I am underpaid. Perhaps you all could start a grassroots effort to get me a raise?

Episode 1, The Adventures of Randian Nutbag

[Dystopian Rebel]

Citizen: Help! Randian Nutbag! My house is on fire!

RN: Contemptible Weakling, if you were strong, I would help you. Or perhaps I would murder you and take everything that makes you strong. That certainly would be an option for a Heroic Spirit. But you are weak and destined for failure.

Citizen: My family is in the house! Oh, save them!

RN: Pusillanimous Conformist Vermin, you have bred hapless, dependent whelps as pathetic as yourself. You are weak and destined for failure. I am indifferent to your suffering. { begins to fly away }

Citizen: W-wh-where are you going?

RN: To collect my welfare cheque. I am *not* indifferent to my own suffering.

Godrik's Post is Not Correct

[Anonymous Coward]

"She is even responsible for debt she did not make on the basis that she can not prove that she did not make that debt."

This is simply not true. Don't believe what collection agencies tell you.

"They hold a list of things that you did secret...You can access it but with a ridiculously high fee. "

I have no idea what this means, but credit bureaus are certainly not omniscient. They are big, cumbersome, slow-moving and careful corporations. They will give you credit reports for free! You don't have to pay!

I too have had creditors incorrectly appear on a credit bureau account and have suffered credit fraud. It is quite easy to correct but takes time (that is, the process is one that proceeds on a weekly schedule instead of second-by-second or minute-by-minute basis - the total time spent is minimal), so you must be patient. It may require such "archaic" methods as visiting a police station or sending a letter via the US Postal Service. Here's how to clean up your credit report:

1) Get a free copy each year of your credit reports from the three credit agencies Equifax, Trans-Union and Experian. Examine them for errors and inconsistencies.

2) Notify each credit bureau of any problems using the instructions provided on their credit report.

3) For each incorrect account: contact the account-holder (NOT Equifax, Trans-Union and Experian), give them your identifying information, describe the problem and ask that it be corrected. In most cases they quickly correct the information. But in case of fraud the account-holder will ask you to

4 - optional, see 3) File a police report or sign a sworn statement and send them a copy along with a letter that indicates you didn't have anything to do with the problem.

Once you complete (3) (and (4) as required), the account-holder will update Equifax, Trans-Union or Experian's (or all) to correct the errors.

5) Each year, rinse and repeat.

Everyone I've ever spoken to who bitches about this process is trying to skip steps (3) and (4), but those are necessary. Also those steps are relatively slow since they must occur at human speed (filing a police report) or snail-mail speed (writing a letter to the account-holder).

One last tip: if you are the victim of credit fraud you can ask all three credit bureaus to put a 7-year freeze on your credit bureau accounts for free (they otherwise charge for this) which is terrific, since it almost guarantees that no one will fiddle with your credit for 7 years. I said "almost" because it isn't foolproof. Someone once opened an account in my name during the time in which I had a 7-year credit freeze. I pointed out to the credit bureau who had the improper entry that the account was opened during the time I had a credit freeze and also was a non-existent address. They investigated and deleted the entry.

How to effect change

[chiguy]

this will very quickly become illegal.

In this case, public officials' salaries are already available BUT you can certainly try to find their past earnings.

If you're serious about making it a public issue, you have to at least contact your politicians.

https://petitions.whitehouse.gov/ I think would be the best place to go.

moderation undo post

[mea_culpa]

undoing incorrect moderation.
If there is a better way to do this let me know.

Re:moderation undo post

[Khyber]

You have such a low UID and you still don't know that posting is the ONLY way to undo moderation?

A chuckle

[ThatsNotPudding]

If my salary info is in there, it's merely for comic relief.

Wrong target

[ThatsNotPudding]

Sue all the fucking HR departments that had no right to expose their financial information without explicit permission.

When did that happen?

[ReallyEvilCanine]

I cleaned up our credit after my (ex-)wife's card was stolen by a waiter. It took two years (because shit was being transferred between the credit bureaux or restored from back-ups faster than we whack the moles, but I finally succeeded. In EVERY case it was, "Not mine, not me, not then, Prove it or delete." It was only icing on the cake when I was able to show documentation which showed such a charge or action was impossible.

Line by line through each entire report. The creditor has (had?) to respond within 30 days or the entry must be (had to have been) removed. A new report may be requested to confirm. Lather, rinse, repeat.

Sunset

[ThatsNotPudding]

This practice should be straight up illegal with real PMITA prison time for violations. Barring that, at the very least, all salary info older than five years is irrelevant and should be null, void, and undistributable.

At the root

[Anonymous Coward]

At the root of it all, this is a government problem. The government created a defacto national identification number via social security, and after telling everyone that it would only be used to track an individuals earnings, they promptly let banks and a whole bunch of unrelated programs use the number as an identifier.

Thing is, the social security number was never designed to be an identifier so it isn't secure. Heck, on the older cards (not the new ones, so I guess it apparently changed) it said "Not for identification."

So, we have these agencies that use an improper and insecure identification scheme to track everything about you (Because we totally have to identify everyone some way, right? I mean, it's totally always been that way) and we wonder why it goes wrong? Not advocating for REAL ID or anything, just that if the government actually cared they'd instantly put a stop to the practice of anyone but the SSA using social security numbers as individual identifiers.

I wish we did this in the U.S.

[Anonymous Coward]

I don't really care if people know how much I make or what other people are making.

I do think it would keep employers more honest and make it easier to see how much women are being discriminated against.

This sickins me perhaps timothy mcveiging that

[Anonymous Coward]

place is a real necessity to American privacy I gave no one permission to do that and would cut the throat of anyone I knew for a fact did give my info.

information is power

[Khashishi]

Maybe it's too obvious to need to be stated, but, essentially, this is a trust between companies to grant them a superior bargaining position and keep wages low. Meanwhile, companies keep salary information hidden from employees and forbid any salary discussion to maintain the asymmetry.

The whole credit rating system exists to give banks a superior position, granting easy access to information for the wealthy and restricting access to the poor. This is no different. I don't trust government to improve the situation at all, so that leaves Anonymous.

Right to information never revoked

[Anonymous Coward]

When I joined a large Silicon Valley company, I had to sign a contract that permitted The Work Number (TWN) to go digging and receive information about me.

That contract did not specify how long they would do that for, meaning that my agreement with TWN would survive me leaving that employer.

If you have ever worked for a company that has authorised TWN to collect information about you for the purposes of credit checking then you need to explicitly tell TWN when you leave to stop or they can still continue collecting information about you after you leave.

Equifax does this through the Work Number

[Anonymous Coward]

Check out The Work Number. That is where all of Equifax's salary information is held open though a public web portal.

Interesting

[whitroth]

Is there something that I signed when I was hired that allows this? If not, why's it not an invasion of privacy without my consent?

              mark

yeah big guy with a big mouth

[Dainsanefh]

tell me where to get credit or grants for the money to even get a business started. People only fund/loan ESTABLISHED business.

And look, you said "If you're any good at what you do", there are people with disabilities that are no good at whatever they do, they should also be entitle to a job if they want to work.

Re:yeah big guy with a big mouth

[Anonymous Coward]

Do you absolutely need credit or a grant to start a business? I suppose it depends, but many large corporations started out as small operations and grew based on their business success.

My sister-in-law has Down's Syndrome, and she "works" at a company that packs cups into boxes. It's busy work, but it keeps them occupied. If that's your situation, then I'm sure your state's disabilities board has options for you.

-- green led

Salaries and the law

[Anonymous Coward]

The National Labor Relations Act covers this fairly explicitly in the US; it was designed to allow unions to share salary information. IANAL, IAAAC (I am an anonymous coward).

Reality

[Anonymous Coward]

CEOs of public companies do not have the corporation buy their proerty because they will lose it when they depart. Most of the CEOs buy their homes, boats, etc. Cars are issued by the company every couple of years. The reality is that, even though the big CEOs do not need loans, they still take out lots of loans.

Case in point, Mark Zuckerburg got a mortgage for his house with his new wife. He didn't get the loan because he needed the money or was short on cash, he got the loan because he makes far more money from investing his funds than he has to pay in interest on the mortgage. Because of his wealth and stature, Zuckerburg got an incredibly loan interest rate on his Jumbo loan. 1% on an almost $6 million 30 year mortgage. http://www.sfgate.com/business/article/Mark-Zuckerberg-s-mortgage-rate-1-05-3711118.php

Warren Buffet has repeatedly stated that: 'money is cheap! I can borrow all I want for very nearly nothing.' Big CEOs are always taking out BIG loans with very little interest. How exactly they apply or qualify for these loans is not known to me, but I doubt it's a secret. It's just beyond our means.

NDA'S...

[Anonymous Coward]

I guess these don't mean a hill of beans any more...

Values vs. utilitarianism

[Compaqt]

Where you go wrong is thinking that libertarians are proposing solutions. They're not. They are proposing moral principles.

Those principles have a place regardless of whether they create "solutions" or not.

For example, let's take a civil libertarian who favors free speech. Now let's take a "moderate". The moderate will say that the libertarian's policies result in chaos: people speaking/writing all sorts of stuff, some inane, some possibly resulting in great harm (copycat killings). The moderate will cry out for "solutions". But the libertarian never proposed a policy to achieve a specific desired result.

That's not the point. The point is that free speech is a moral principle (according to the libertarian). As such, it doesn't matter what the results of free speech are. And you don't change the principle based on what people (individuals) are doing with their freedom.

Similarly, the libertarian would say you don't change the principle of the freedom to work and trade because you might disagree with the actions of some individuals in the marketplace.

As a government employee...

[Door-opening Fascist]

As a government employee (work for a state university) my salary has always been a matter of public record. This doesn't change anything for me, although I guess it centralizes searches of salary history.