The issue is that you're not recognizing the vast imbalance of power involved. The employer ALMOST ALWAYS has the extreme upper hand in negotiations, meaning that any clause is not completely voluntary, like you claim. If they went up to someone who was desperate for a job, and said they had to come to work in clown shoes and suspenders, there is no fucking way you could say that was reached with mutual and voluntary consent, especially when the alternative is being homeless and starving because you don't have a job.
Do you think you would know what happened more than I?
Concerning this? Yes, I do. If you had refused to have that clause, they would have declined to do business with you, thus using their economic force to coerce you into agreeing. And while you might have the ability to turn them down, I guarantee that not everyone they work with does.
No. That clause should have absolutely NO PLACE in a contract. Putting that in the contract is not a choice. Further, they are revoking your ability to change your mind later.
If you do not wish to disclose your salary to others, that is your choice, and you are welcome to it. However, the employer should have absolutely fuck all to do with that decision. They should have absolutely no ability to put it in a contract, and absolutely no ability to retaliate should someone choose to disclose.
I wouldn't dare ask someone how much they earned unless I was very friendly with them - it's none of my business
So don't. No one is trying to force you to disclose compensation. What we're arguing about is when employers decide they have the right to remove that choice from you.
And the only reason that taboo exists is because employers have been training workers for years on that mentality, simply to make negotiations for themselves easier.
A negotiation of pay for services involves only the final drop-dead figure for what you are willing to work for, and the final drop-dead figure for what the client is willing to pay.
And how do you know what the other side is willing to pay? You talk to other people who are doing similar work. Without doing that, you have no idea what they're willing to pay. You only know the lowball figure they're offering to you.
WRONG. You also need to know what the company is willing to pay. Further, if you're happy with what you've got, what's the harm in having it disclosed?
Or you were wanting to pay someone above their value.
If you wanted to do that, then you should be able to justify why you'd want to do it should someone find out, and you wouldn't have to try and keep everything secret.
Just because one person is paid more than another doesn't mean anyone is being paid below their value.
Is it possible? Sure. However Occam's Razor would suggest otherwise.
In the interests of harmony it's sometimes best for those being paid less not to find out what those being paid more are paid.
That's a pretty fucking piss poor justification. It's also much better in the interests of harmony for companies to be completely up front with their employees about pay grades and skill levels. However, that option causes the company to be less capable of underpaying people, so they don't like it.
It's not always the employer or client that has all of the bargaining power
In today's labor climate, it is far, far, far more often the case than not.
No I'm not. "Hey, we'll give you a $30 an hour pay rise but we'd rather you didn't tell anyone. Do you agree?". And you're saying the correct answer is "no"? Really?
Yes, you are. The correct answer is that they have no fucking right whatsoever to even ask that you not tell anyone.
There's nothing unethical about that at all. A contract is a two way agreement. They have to agree and so do I. So long as both parties agree, what's the issue?
It's completely fucking unethical. Don't go around spreading the bullshit that just because something is in a contract, that magically makes it ok. News flash: the two parties to a contract, especially employment contracts, often do NOT have equal bargaining positions. Someone who has been unemployed for a while is in a lot weaker position than the company they're negotiating with. Does that magically mean that whatever the company asks for is ethical? Fuck no.
They are not my employer, they are my client. And they didn't demand, they negotiated.
No, they forced something in there that they should have no fucking right to even bring up in the first place.
You laugh, but in the US, that's actually a big deal. We have a lot of shitbag employers, and they feel entitled to control every aspect of their employees lives.
You know, you could have just been up front about that shit from the start. Then Person X would know WHY Person Y was getting more, and they would know at what level they would have to perform in order to get paid what Person Y is. The ruining of the team dynamic stems completely from you trying to keep employees in the dark about what they're paid.
If that's your choice, then by all means, do it. However, in that situation, it's YOU choosing not to take part in the disclosure. In the situation in the article, it was the EMPLOYER forcing their will on you, and robbing you of that choice. Completely different situation.
I can't wrap my mind around someone with $250,000,000 having any reason to be president, unless it's to fight some great injustice.
Simply because they can? Many of these people have already conquered business, and so politics is simply one more thing to try and do. Once you've crossed that line into having metric butt-tons of money, there really are few actual challenges left.
I mean...just...what? Why do they bother to do anything that could even vaguely count as 'work' at that point?
Same motivation behind serial entrepreneurs. Many of them make enough to rest on their laurels from their first or second company, but they keep at it, because they constantly want to be doing something. They enjoy starting the business.
It actually seems pretty reasonable that companies might want to restrict employees from releasing confidential company information.
It does, until what's deemed as "confidential company information" becomes so broad as to include salary, working conditions, and other things that really have no legitimate reason to be kept secret.
Slashdot Mirror
Except you can't back that claim up.
It's only a "nanny state" if you think it's a bad idea for people to be informed of what they're purchasing.
So, you think it's a bad thing that people are being informed of what they're consuming?
No, not really. And even so, your comment has no place in this discussion, then.
That's their problem. And quite frankly, that's a shitty fucking excuse for companies to bar the voluntary disclosure of salary.
The issue is that you're not recognizing the vast imbalance of power involved. The employer ALMOST ALWAYS has the extreme upper hand in negotiations, meaning that any clause is not completely voluntary, like you claim. If they went up to someone who was desperate for a job, and said they had to come to work in clown shoes and suspenders, there is no fucking way you could say that was reached with mutual and voluntary consent, especially when the alternative is being homeless and starving because you don't have a job.
No force was involved.
Yes, there was.
Do you think you would know what happened more than I?
Concerning this? Yes, I do. If you had refused to have that clause, they would have declined to do business with you, thus using their economic force to coerce you into agreeing. And while you might have the ability to turn them down, I guarantee that not everyone they work with does.
No. That clause should have absolutely NO PLACE in a contract. Putting that in the contract is not a choice. Further, they are revoking your ability to change your mind later.
If you do not wish to disclose your salary to others, that is your choice, and you are welcome to it. However, the employer should have absolutely fuck all to do with that decision. They should have absolutely no ability to put it in a contract, and absolutely no ability to retaliate should someone choose to disclose.
As well it should be.
I wouldn't dare ask someone how much they earned unless I was very friendly with them - it's none of my business
So don't. No one is trying to force you to disclose compensation. What we're arguing about is when employers decide they have the right to remove that choice from you.
So because it might get "unpleasant", that justifies the requirement that everyone be kept in the dark?
Having salaries open from the very start means that the justifications have to be out on front street, and thus the bad blood doesn't happen.
And the only reason that taboo exists is because employers have been training workers for years on that mentality, simply to make negotiations for themselves easier.
If you have to know how much the competition is bidding to make your bid then you're not qualified to submit a bid in the first place.
That's the entire basis of capitalism, dumbass.
A negotiation of pay for services involves only the final drop-dead figure for what you are willing to work for, and the final drop-dead figure for what the client is willing to pay.
And how do you know what the other side is willing to pay? You talk to other people who are doing similar work. Without doing that, you have no idea what they're willing to pay. You only know the lowball figure they're offering to you.
It would be completely wrong for that string to come anywhere near the offer.
WRONG. You also need to know what the company is willing to pay. Further, if you're happy with what you've got, what's the harm in having it disclosed?
Or you were wanting to pay someone above their value.
If you wanted to do that, then you should be able to justify why you'd want to do it should someone find out, and you wouldn't have to try and keep everything secret.
Just because one person is paid more than another doesn't mean anyone is being paid below their value.
Is it possible? Sure. However Occam's Razor would suggest otherwise.
In the interests of harmony it's sometimes best for those being paid less not to find out what those being paid more are paid.
That's a pretty fucking piss poor justification. It's also much better in the interests of harmony for companies to be completely up front with their employees about pay grades and skill levels. However, that option causes the company to be less capable of underpaying people, so they don't like it.
It's not always the employer or client that has all of the bargaining power
In today's labor climate, it is far, far, far more often the case than not.
No I'm not. "Hey, we'll give you a $30 an hour pay rise but we'd rather you didn't tell anyone. Do you agree?". And you're saying the correct answer is "no"? Really?
Yes, you are. The correct answer is that they have no fucking right whatsoever to even ask that you not tell anyone.
There's nothing unethical about that at all. A contract is a two way agreement. They have to agree and so do I. So long as both parties agree, what's the issue?
It's completely fucking unethical. Don't go around spreading the bullshit that just because something is in a contract, that magically makes it ok. News flash: the two parties to a contract, especially employment contracts, often do NOT have equal bargaining positions. Someone who has been unemployed for a while is in a lot weaker position than the company they're negotiating with. Does that magically mean that whatever the company asks for is ethical? Fuck no.
They are not my employer, they are my client. And they didn't demand, they negotiated.
No, they forced something in there that they should have no fucking right to even bring up in the first place.
Yes, but the decision whether to disclose that information should be yours and yours alone. The company should have absolutely no say in it.
You laugh, but in the US, that's actually a big deal. We have a lot of shitbag employers, and they feel entitled to control every aspect of their employees lives.
You know, you could have just been up front about that shit from the start. Then Person X would know WHY Person Y was getting more, and they would know at what level they would have to perform in order to get paid what Person Y is. The ruining of the team dynamic stems completely from you trying to keep employees in the dark about what they're paid.
If that's your choice, then by all means, do it. However, in that situation, it's YOU choosing not to take part in the disclosure. In the situation in the article, it was the EMPLOYER forcing their will on you, and robbing you of that choice. Completely different situation.
I can't wrap my mind around someone with $250,000,000 having any reason to be president, unless it's to fight some great injustice.
Simply because they can? Many of these people have already conquered business, and so politics is simply one more thing to try and do. Once you've crossed that line into having metric butt-tons of money, there really are few actual challenges left.
I mean...just...what? Why do they bother to do anything that could even vaguely count as 'work' at that point?
Same motivation behind serial entrepreneurs. Many of them make enough to rest on their laurels from their first or second company, but they keep at it, because they constantly want to be doing something. They enjoy starting the business.
Reagan was willing to raise taxes
Funny how almost no Republicans actually remember this.
It actually seems pretty reasonable that companies might want to restrict employees from releasing confidential company information.
It does, until what's deemed as "confidential company information" becomes so broad as to include salary, working conditions, and other things that really have no legitimate reason to be kept secret.