21 Comments

For a long time I've been pushing for making all tax returns public.

People shouldn't just be able to know how much their co-workers make. They should know how much their neighbors, distant cousins, former classmates, and anyone else in the USA makes. A transparent society!

Expand full comment

People might also imagine they're on the high end of the curve, and wouldn't be if the information were public.

Expand full comment

Mungowitz tried to argue with Robert Frank on underpaid productivity stars within workplaces here.

We don't really know the extent to which employers would prohibit discussion, because as mentioned they are legally restricted in that regard.

Expand full comment

"Yet most who work at firms with no-salary-talk rules are probably ok with it."

Perhaps it's really they're unsure they can find work at a firm without these rules? Or, to be honest, with the systematic, objective disclosure necessary to make this worthwile? Just because I'm free to discuss my salary doesn't make it a good idea if I can't corroborate my conversations with others.

Expand full comment

Oh, and some anecodotal evidence: When I quit my last job, I was offered a 15% pay rise to stay. That doesn't make sense with the "paying for loyalty" explanation, but does with the "paying as little as they can get away with" explanation.

Expand full comment

I think the loyalty explanation is overcomplicated. More likely they just don't want you to be able to look at the salary of a similarly-skilled coworker and know how much of a pay rise you can demand.

Expand full comment

I think what is a more interesting question is why do companies prohibit or try to prohibit employees from talking about compensation? Presumably it is to weaken the information the employees have regarding the compensation policies of the company. It is to create a asymmetry of information as to wages.

In general the employees know which employees are most productive. If they knew which employees were paid the most, they would know what it is that companies actually pay the most for, and it likely wouldn't be productivity. I suspect that in the companies that try to keep such information secret the most, the managers who are determining compensation levels are compensating personal loyalty to them, rather than loyalty and productivity to the company.

A whistle blower who discloses theft by the managers usually is not rewarded by the shareholders and they often have difficulty finding other work. Managers don't want honest employees, they want employees that are personally loyal to them and them only.

Expand full comment

In this interview Brian Eno puts himself in the forager camp "Describing his philosophy of studio work, Mr. Eno tries out another big metaphor: cowboys versus farmers. Most of what happens in a recording studio is repetitive monotony, tilling the same soil over and over to make slight improvements — insufferably boring, in his view. Mr. Eno prefers to see himself as a cowboy — or, even better, a prospector — constantly seeking out new territory, never staying in the same place for long."http://www.nytimes.com/2011...

Expand full comment

Isn't daring do imagine governments competing for citizens "scientifically" called sociopathy in your every current society to discourage deviations?

Expand full comment

It is completely unthinkable that this phenomenon be explained by the fact that the US constitution unequivocally forbids the government from prohibiting people from discussing their income. Nope, couldn't be a simple practical explanation when a complex, non-falsifiable one will do just fine.

It also couldn't have something to do with the differences between wanting to prevent status competitions amongst coworkers versus allowing status competitions amongst the general population.

Expand full comment

While I would not quit a job over pay disclosure in isolation, but I would quit a job over pay disclosure as part of a package of similarly oriented infantilizing, paternalistic, and anti-autonomy measures particularly if paired with a support culture of strong autonomy-limiting norms.

Since I believe that lack of pay disclosure restrictions is a strong signal of other desirable workplace policies and cultural norms, I would be willing to accept lower pay for a job with transparent pay (assuming these are the only two pieces of information I have to go on).

And to put my money where my mouth is, this is in fact a goal I am actively working towards and hope to accomplish in the next 6 months.

Expand full comment

I'd say it isn't a norms vs. rules issue, but instead one of degree of personal autonomy.

In the workplace all of those implicit norms used outside the workplace still apply...in my experience those norms are stronger in the workplace even without explicit support.

As an example, there is much less freedom of association within an office...you need to be able to work with almost anyone. As a result eccentric interests or social quirks that might survive in an environment where like-minded people can sort themselves must be suppressed for the smooth functioning of inter-employee relations. There is no official policy regarding this except that you are vaguely judged by your ability to "be a team player."

The contrast is between vague and poorly enforced norms outside the workplace and vague but strictly enforced norms as well as explicit rules within the workplace.

Expand full comment

right.

http://www.hreonline.com/HR...

The National Labor Relations Board has held that conversations about terms and conditions of employment, specifically wages and other forms of compensation, are for the purpose of employees' mutual aid and protection. See Wilson Trophy Co., 307 N.L.R.B. 509 (1992), enfd., 989 F.2d 1502 (8th Cir. 1993) (finding that a nonunion employee's conversations concerning wages to be concerted activity for mutual aid and protection); Jeannette Corp., 217 N.L.R.B. 653, (1975), enfd., 532 F.2d 916 (3d Cir. 1976). Section 8(a)(1) of the NLRA prohibits employees from interfering with, restraining or coercing employees with regard to the exercise of their Section 7 rights. 29 U.S.C. § 158(a)(1).

Expand full comment

Right. So really the smart question isn't "why do we accept rules from our employer within the workplace that we wouldn't accept from the government outside the workplace", it's "why do we (often) allow explicit rules in the workplace while preferring the same behavior to be regulated by vague social norms outside the workplace?". Near/far distinctions may be at play, but it could also simply be what turns out to be the most efficient, or simply a historical accident.

How about this reverse situation: when we owe money to corporations they can only weak legal tools to get their money, but the government can put us in jail for tax evasion. This distinction between government and corporate interactions seems similar in magnitude (and reversed) from the salary gag orders, but doesn't suggest a near/far explanation.

Expand full comment

Perhaps it is simply status quo bias?

Expand full comment

Norway has a different approach to this: assets, income, and paid taxes of virtually everyone who is earning money in the country is published for everybody to view (since 2001 online). Here, for example, is the data for Norway's current prime minister: Does that mean that people working in Norway - assuming that most of them check their co-workers' data every once in a while - are generally more dissatisfied with their jobs? Then again, the Norwegian culture of "same for everyone" (with all its benefits and drawbacks), might be the differentiating factor here.

Expand full comment