Are you allowed to talk about your salary and employment conditions with your co-workers and other persons?

CharityCase on 20/03/2017 - 12:31

Hi guys, I just received an email from the admin and hr manager from my company stating some terms has been added to our company's policies and procedures manual - "your salary and other employment conditions are confidential and must not be dicussed with other employees within the company or other persons outside this company (with the exception of your legal and financial advisors)"

I'm just wondering if you guys have any similar rules in the company you work for?
Is this legal or reasonable for the employer to add such terms?

Education & Work

Comments

  • [Deactivated] on 20/03/2017 - 12:37
    -4

    standard clause in any contract (and common sense really)

    • mskeggs on 20/03/2017 - 13:25
      +41

      Common sense for the company to try and enforce? Of course they don't want the person being paid least in the team to know they are being remunerated less for the same work.
      I would be interested if such a clause has ever been enforced.

      • kywst on 20/03/2017 - 13:32

        Highly unlikely to be enforced but the deal is this:

        If you are being paid at or higher than the award rate, in the instance of those covered by an award, then the company is well within their rights to pay someone else who performs the same duties a higher rate than you. This would apply for Entry Level through to Mid Management.

        If you are not covered by an award then you get what you have negotiated and are free to leave under the exit terms of the contract you are bound by. This would apply for Senior Management.

        Scenario:

        X and Y perform the same duties at work in the same position. X performs twice the amount of the same work at the same quality of Y. X gets paid more than Y. Both X and Y are paid at or above the award rate.

        Do you believe that this is fair?

        • mskeggs on 20/03/2017 - 13:48
          +12

          Do you believe that this is fair?

          Who knows if it is fair, but the company seeking to stop the information being revealed presumably thinks the lower paid party will view it as unfair. If they had a concrete reason for the discrepancy they wouldn't be so concerned if the details became known.

        • kywst on 20/03/2017 - 13:54
          +1

          @mskeggs: Hertzberg's two-factor motivation theory identifies Salary as a hygiene factor. So yes you are correct but this would be inline with their reasoning.

        • railspider on 20/03/2017 - 16:42
          +25

          In my experience salaries tend to be tightly linked to the length of one's employment, not how much work they actually do.

          I'm a big proponent of salary information sharing - it benefits most employees, at the expense of the employer.

        • kywst on 20/03/2017 - 16:56
          -2

          @railspider: Sure there is typically a correlation. What I'm trying to get at though is that discussing your remuneration with your peers, especially if it differs, is going to leave someone feeling worse off. As a result, the policy attempts to curb the practice and undesired outcome (it's not as if the business is paying you less in spite of you). Remember that so long as the employer is paying at or above award rates, you have little recourse to go running to HR demanding a pay rise. While this may seem unfair or even unethical there are arguments to be made that this policy may also be protective to the employee and also serves to preserve employee motivation for the benefit of the company. I also am a proponent of salary sharing as my take is that if someone is performing twice the work of another than the person not keeping pace needs to improve else risk being dismissed. Equal pay for equal work - and I mean that in a literal sense. Furthermore, take into consideration the employers perspective … why should they pay you more than what they have to in the first place? If you were the employer the chances are that your opinion would be very different than if you were the employee.

          It's a good discussion to have nonetheless.

        • railspider on 20/03/2017 - 17:03
          +5

          @kywst: It's a fun discussion to have, because I agree with you - employers and employees have very different incentives.

          As an employee: I know from personal experience that seeing colleagues salaries can be de-moralizing, but it can also be a useful tool when negotiating for a pay rise.

          From an employer’s point of view: I want to pay people as little as possible, while still keeping them happy and motivated. Salary secrecy helps me achieve this.

          Now considering Australia is in the midst of record low wages growth, perhaps we are in need of a little more salary sharing!

        • kywst on 20/03/2017 - 17:14
          +4

          @railspider: It is concerning when your yearly adjustment is that of yearly CPI. This appears to be becoming the norm for many and essentially relays "your ongoing service (experience) means nothing to us". I blame the 2008 GFC hype pushed by the media and warmly embraced by corporations as a "reason" to do just this. 9 years later and people have been conditioned to think we are in a perpetually terrible economic disaster hence they accept.

        • Member 0230 on 21/03/2017 - 07:46
          +1

          @kywst: Thanks for that reference to Herzberg, I find that so interesting - somewhat like Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs but with a twist.

        • MrTweek on 21/03/2017 - 15:42
          +1

          @railspider:

          In my experience salaries tend to be tightly linked to the length of one's employment, not how much work they actually do.

          In my experience, salaries often depend on negotiating skills. Someone who demands a lot and threatens to resign if they don't get it are likely to get more pay rises than someone who is shy and introvert and just says yes to whatever they get offered. Even if the latter one does a better job.

        • railspider on 21/03/2017 - 15:48
          +1

          @MrTweek: It's definitely a bit of both, and before I started working fulltime I thought my payrises would be 100% based on my negotiation abilities.

          But in reality I've had bosses tell me point blank: Employee A may have a lesser role/responsibility, but they've been here 3 times as long so they've earned a higher salary.

          Every boss & workplace is different, but time in chair certainly seems to be a big factor in pay rises.

        • MrFunSocks on 21/03/2017 - 17:48

          @railspider:

          In my experience salaries tend to be tightly linked to the length of one's employment

          I'm actually seeing that is true, but not how you'd expect - I've started doing more of the management/hiring at my job, been here for 5 years, and our new hires are getting more than the guys doing the same job who have been here for 12+ months. It costs more to get a new employee than to keep an existing one.

        • kywst on 21/03/2017 - 19:46

          @MrFunSocks: Especially when you take into consideration they are ineffective for at least a few months.

          It costs more to get a new employee than to keep an existing one.

          It's a good thing you know this.

        • BartholemewH on 22/03/2017 - 14:47

          @kywst:
          What's a yearly adjustment?

        • kywst on 22/03/2017 - 18:42
          +1

          @BartholemewH: Having not punished the porcelain in 365 days.

      • fLamous on 21/03/2017 - 11:05
        +2

        When I first started work I had 7 other employees all start on the same day as me with the same qualifications, we compared payslips and we'd all been paid different amounts…we took it to HR to figure out and got solidly reprimanded for discussing it with each other and warned that we shouldn't do it again! And the erroneous pay was their fault in the first place, no apologies given…

    • [Deactivated] on 21/03/2017 - 09:39
      +3

      That's some A class BS. It allows the company to pay workers doing the same job different amounts, without the workers having any clue that it's happening, and therefore organising against it.

    • Boshait on 21/03/2017 - 11:56
      +1

      That nonsense. It's not a contract it's a company policy. Not a very effective one anyway: you are free to ask anyone for legal or financial advice.

    • siresteelhell on 22/03/2017 - 05:47
      +1

      Typical anti union clause…they don`t want anyone finding out they could get more money if someone else is getting more…

  • Gunther on 20/03/2017 - 12:37
    +19

    Hahah that is their way of keeping the underpaid quiet.

    Personally I found Gen-Y is open to the discussion, most other people find it rude to bring up (I am also Gen-Y).

    • CharityCase on 20/03/2017 - 12:41

      I didn't really think about it in the first place until my company brought it up by adding those terms.
      The pay my company offers now is relatively low compared to others in the same industry though…

      • sane on 20/03/2017 - 14:00
        +2

        They are paying some people more and don't want to bring up to parity the salaries of the rest. In general that means those there a long time are getting screwed.

        Time to push for a pay rise, and/or find another job.

        • jaimex2 on 21/03/2017 - 09:33
          +7

          I've always shared with my co-workers what I earn, we only stand to gain from sharing

        • EVL on 28/03/2017 - 11:21

          @jaimex2: There's only so much in the pot, collaboration probably works better for under-performers.

  • [Deactivated] on 20/03/2017 - 12:47
    +1

    More like encouraged not to.
    If you cross the red light but no cameras and no police, you are not guilty. :)

    So how much do you earn?

  • [Deactivated] on 20/03/2017 - 12:49
    +2

    All people that commented here should be guilty of the policy then?
    https://www.ozbargain.com.au/node/198961

    • humdingaling on 20/03/2017 - 14:43

      how many of that thread are coworkers?

      • [Deactivated] on 20/03/2017 - 15:02
        +1

        must not be dicussed with other employees within the company or other persons outside this company

        Irrelevant right?

        • humdingaling on 20/03/2017 - 15:10
          +1

          in that case

          one can simply just argue that everyone on OZbargain is my financial advisers (even legal advisers in some cases)

        • Gaz1 on 21/03/2017 - 16:30

          @humdingaling:
          Maybe they need to say "professional financial or legal advisers"?
          Aaah yes, on Ozbargain we ARE professionals (just ask Gerry, but don't tell him your salary)….

  • [Deactivated] on 20/03/2017 - 12:52
    +17

    youre probably underpaid.

    • CharityCase on 20/03/2017 - 14:46
      +1

      This email has been sent to everyone in the company but my company has a history of being not very transparent about remuneration and employees rights though.

  • wukachuka on 20/03/2017 - 13:00
    +1

    They can't just add shit in like that, if it wasn't on something you signed already.
    It's either unenforceable or was already part of your contract.

    • kywst on 20/03/2017 - 13:10
      +2

      Your contract will contain a clause that makes you agree to company policies and procedures. These policies and procedures are subject to change. It would appear that this isn't an addendum to the contract.

      • Kangal on 20/03/2017 - 19:15
        +2

        Technically true, but the point is still open to discussion.

        Besides that, I don't see how something like this could be enforceable.
        You could get called in to the manager's office, door closed, and told to shut your trap.
        And worse case, they can make a BS excuse to fire you.

        Either way, this clause does nothing for the workers and is only there to benefit the company.
        It's very hypocritical when the same company praises communication, and uses "lack of communication" as excuses to fire people.
        Companies just want to have their cake and eat it too… someone who's intelligent and brave wouldn't be stumped by this practice though.

        • kywst on 20/03/2017 - 19:38
          -2

          If you're contract says you must not breach company policy and you breach company policy then I fail to see the need for a BS excuse as you are, in effect, in breach of contract. It is highly unlikely that this would be enforced as pointed out above but the employer would have a strong standing in the courts if that's where it ended up.

          I've explained above how it can be argued that this does actually benefit the employee; regardless if you personally feel "the man" is on your back. Being intelligent and brave has absolutely nothing to do with it … actually if someone were intelligent they probably wouldn't be in a position where they were being underpaid/care for discussing their remuneration anyway as surely they would be skilled and competitive enough to negotiate well.

        • Kangal on 20/03/2017 - 22:24
          +4

          @kywst:

          You're right they wouldn't need a BS excuse (in theory)
          Sure, and that's where they could cite to fire you.
          You would take them to court.
          And ANY judge would side with you, the worker, on the matter and throw the book at the company.
          Companies know this… they wouldn't want to take it that far.

          Intelligence is not a one-dimensional category.
          You may be intelligent in knowing your rights, your wits, etc etc but not be intelligent to market yourself.
          So an intelligent person, and someone brave, can/would object this.
          I agree with you that such a person would even put themselves in such a position, but WHEN it happens, I know this clause would NOT be enforceable by the workplace. What you sign on the contract isn't always cut-dry, things can be altered and disputed even after signing. Hell, we do that everyday with the LAW and that's practically a contract people abide by to live in this land.

        • kywst on 20/03/2017 - 22:39
          +4

          @Kangal: I suggest you seek legal advice before engaging in this practice. I'd hate to see you out of a job because you thought you were taking the moral high ground while truly believing a judge would interpret the law in your favour. You don't know that it wouldn't be enforced and you also don't know that a judge would side with you.

          Feel free to check out the Fair Work Act 2009 - General Protections.

          I admire your resolve but fear you may get yourself into strife should you decide to test the waters.

        • terrys on 21/03/2017 - 09:12
          +2

          @kywst: Some companies appear to imagine their policies can replace or over-ride legislation and regulations. They don't. They are a wish list that can and will be assessed by the courts or tribunals if and when they are challenged.
          Try running it as the argument that you enter a contract when purchasing a product, so if you don't like the warranty, you are free not to purchase that product - and that it the sum total of your rights.
          A similar case arises with the " may not work in a similar industry for [X] years after leaving employment." clause that some companies have. they rarely stand up for more than 3 seconds if challenged when the employee leaves, apparently even when they are part of a governing party's code of conduct for ex-ministers…

        • MrTweek on 21/03/2017 - 10:41
          +2

          @kywst:

          If you're contract says you must not breach company policy and you breach company policy then I fail to see the need for a BS excuse as you are, in effect, in breach of contract. It is highly unlikely that this would be enforced as pointed out above but the employer would have a strong standing in the courts if that's where it ended up.

          It's not that easy. You can't put anything in a company policy that you wish, they need to be legal and reasonable and not drastically change anything you signed in your contract.

          Some examples that make it absurdly obvious what you can't put in a policy:

          • Every employee is expected to work at least 3 hours overtime per day.
          • Management reserves the right to cut salaries by up to 30% without specifying a reason
          • Management is entitled to punch every employee in the face once a week

          So yeah, while talking about salary might not seem that unreasonable, it probably still is.
          I need to disclose my salary whenever I rent an apartment, get a home loan, apply for a credit card, make a tax return, and much more. I can't imagine a policy that technically prevents me from doing anything of this can ever be enforceable.

        • kywst on 21/03/2017 - 11:10
          +1

          @terrys: non competes are a different can of worms. I agree completely (from the outset) that discussing salary with employees will most likely not be actioned against but if it did then it'd probably work to the employers advantage.

        • kywst on 21/03/2017 - 11:15

          @MrTweek: employment law is very grey but I can't see this as being unreasonable. You are correct even though you resort to hyperbole to support your point. It's also specifically discussing with other employees. Sure the buck has to stop some where.

      • jaimex2 on 21/03/2017 - 09:34
        +1

        In the end they can say whatever they like, it wont be enforceable.

  • redfox1200 on 20/03/2017 - 13:02
    +15

    i hear if you talk about your salary to co workers you will instantly burst into flames

  • kywst on 20/03/2017 - 13:05

    I've asked an HR professional of 30+ years and they said "This isn't illegal. The amount of times I've had someone come into my office stating they know that X is being paid more than me …". To which the response is "You're not telling me that you've been discussing this with your colleagues as company policy directs you not to, are you?". They then reasoned that this is a far nicer way of saying that "Not everyone everyone gets paid the same and again this isn't illegal. Perhaps X is a higher performer or in the talent pipeline and you are not."

    • MrTweek on 21/03/2017 - 10:46
      +2

      You're not telling me that you've been discussing this with your colleagues as company policy directs you not to, are you?

      Do people fall for this? If someone else tells me their salary, they might breach the policy, but I probably didn't.

      But technically it could also have been a third party that told me how much "that guy" makes, internal or external. So while there is a chance that someone breached company policy, it was most likely not me and it's impossible to find out who it was.

    • barleyshake on 21/03/2017 - 15:47

      I always love the double negative. Its the

      'I wouldn't go so far as to say it is legal (as far as I know) but then again it also isn't illegal (as far as I know)!'

      You know what - it's reasonably legal :)

      • kywst on 21/03/2017 - 16:50

        People let emotion drive their response. Thanks for voicing some reason. I sincerely hope someone doesn't link your "love" of double negative to emotion now. =/

  • [Deactivated] on 20/03/2017 - 13:36

    Don't worry. Quoting parts of your contract online is probably just as big a breach if it says confidential anywhere on the contract. :p Demonstrating a financial loss would be impossible so it just means if they were looking to sack people anyway, they could choose you for breaching contract.

    • skywards on 20/03/2017 - 22:28

      That's a standard generic clause in any employment contract , HR people tend to google this stuff (the HR people I've worked with anyways)

  • Skramit on 20/03/2017 - 14:16
    +11

    I talk to my colleagues about the $180k I earn and they feel open enough to tell me they are on $180k as well.

    • tomsco on 20/03/2017 - 14:26
      +1

      How is My Sharona faring?

      • Skramit on 20/03/2017 - 14:29

        MmmmmmmmmmmMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMM M M M M MYYEYEYEYEYEYEYE SHARONA!

    • try2bhelpful on 20/03/2017 - 15:11

      is that what the Government thinks people should be earning before they can afford a house, or afford to have children?

    • OzzyOzbourne on 20/03/2017 - 23:02

      Well I've worked with yourself for years and you didn't bother to ask me. Is it because you know I get more?

  • driew on 20/03/2017 - 15:17
    +1

    Only to those who are my close friends as it can be a bit controversial. Either way, someone's not going to be happy about their situation.

    Everybody thinks they are above average. See this link on driving and this on Illusory Superiority. For skilled professions mostly, no two people are going to be the same. Someone's bound to be more talented, hard working, disciplined, or just a better fit. Some people spend more time managing their careers or are more politically savvy. Some people are more lucky.

  • try2bhelpful on 20/03/2017 - 15:41
    +1

    The problem is that this sort of thing is how bias and cronyism continue to flourish; the person who is the highest paid isn't, necessarily, the best person for the job. There are many ways a manager can "play" the system to make sure his/her pets are the ones earning the bucks.

    • OzzyOzbourne on 20/03/2017 - 23:04
      +1

      Yes quite often the highest paid is the least suitable for the job. No threat to the manager and makes him look good

      In fact most managers aren't suited to the job and are the cause of most failed businesses

  • Baysew on 20/03/2017 - 15:46
    +2

    Probably just adopted Fight Club rules.

    Sounds like 7/11.

  • Gronk on 20/03/2017 - 15:54
    +1

    It's standard, but almost impossible to enforce unless someone's silly enough to tell HR / Management that employee X told them they're earning Y amount.

  • yycan on 20/03/2017 - 17:18
    +2

    I work in public service and everyone knows how much everyone else gets paid, practically.

  • chumlee on 20/03/2017 - 17:30
    +4

    So are they saying you can't tell your partner what you get paid. How about if you go for a loan, can you tell them??

    Sounds like a crock to me

    • bobbified on 20/03/2017 - 18:33
      +11

      From OP's post: "…with the exception of your legal and financial advisors)"

      I'd say most wives will fall under the category of "financial advisors". haha

  • altomic on 20/03/2017 - 18:49
    +3

    I work for a quasi-gov department and every one is graded by their position so I know exactly how much every body makes. They even publish payment rates on the internet.

    • aragornelessar on 20/03/2017 - 19:27
      +3

      We've been told by upper management, after a satisfaction survey, that private companies generally wouldn't do that as it would give other companies ammo to poach staff. It makes sense, but is it just a case of the man trying to keep the peasants in check?

      • altomic on 20/03/2017 - 19:46
        +12

        definitely a means for the bourgeoisie to oppress the proletariat.

        • kywst on 20/03/2017 - 20:01

          Das Kapital was a dry read, comrade.

      • try2bhelpful on 21/03/2017 - 08:16
        +2

        One of the things that came out of the black death was an improvement in the conditions of the peasants. Suddenly there was a shortage of people to work the land so there was more value placed on the peasants work. It was one of the catalysts for the downfall of the Feudal system. (Not that I'm advocating a worker cull.)

  • SpaceNinja on 20/03/2017 - 21:33
    +13

    This is your boss. You are technically in breach of your contract for discussing your employment condition (of confidentiality) on ozbargain. Come and see me in the office tomorrow.

    • CharityCase on 21/03/2017 - 09:56
      +10

      They are my financial advisors, they have ever suggested me investing in eneloops and 80k car and I think that's some nice investments. I will wait my investments go up and I will be your boss one day!

      • TimApple on 21/03/2017 - 12:12

        2meta4me

  • [Deactivated] on 20/03/2017 - 21:51
    +8

    I would like to draw your attention to this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7xH7eGFuSYI

    • jaimex2 on 21/03/2017 - 09:35
      +1

      I knew it would be Adam ruins everything :)

    • mp3police on 21/03/2017 - 11:23
      +2

      Great Video

  • Shame on 20/03/2017 - 21:57
    +3

    I doubt it's legal but if it is then they aren't going to fire you over it if you're a good employee.

    I once found a spreadsheet on a share drive with everyones' wage on it in my area (area 45 people). It was very useful for pay rise negotiations next year as I could estimate what they would pay me.

  • adn on 21/03/2017 - 00:44
    +2

    keeping salary a secret only works in the company's favour.

    however some people get jealous so only share if you and the other person will gain from it.

    • try2bhelpful on 21/03/2017 - 08:18
      +1

      However, it is a neat "out" when the next "potential" employer asks what you are being paid in your current job. "Sorry, I signed a confidentially agreement on that".

      • adn on 21/03/2017 - 09:50

        thats a good one. will try that next time.

  • [Deactivated] on 21/03/2017 - 07:15

    You don't have to sign it

    But if you like your job then there are conditions

    It is a legal contract though and whilst you may be able to do it is it ethically right to do so

    • McFly on 21/03/2017 - 09:55

      If you are going to ask that you should first ask is it ethical for the employer to impose such a measure on (existing) employees.

  • [Deactivated] on 21/03/2017 - 08:23

    Sign it and break the rules because you don't have to follow any unfair rules towards employees as it will be against your own interest. If you are caught, apologise about it. If you are sacked for that then you will be in the same position of not have signed the contract. Go ahead ! Maybe you can take him in for unfair dismissal even.

  • scrimshaw on 21/03/2017 - 08:33
    +6

    But they don't say anything about publishing your salary anonymously on Glassdoor.com…

    https://www.glassdoor.com.au/Salaries/index.htm

  • [Deactivated] on 21/03/2017 - 13:30

    Your remuneration forms part of your employment contract. Your employment contract is confidential.

    Assuming you're working for a private company - the company has a legal obligation to fulfil employee rights but they are not under any obligation to standardize pay. It is not an employee's right to receive the same remuneration as their (perceived) peers.

    • MrTweek on 21/03/2017 - 15:39

      Your employment contract is confidential.
      But only if explicitly stated on the contract? Mine doesn't contain such a clause.

      they are not under any obligation to standardize pay.
      Being allowed to talk about salaries and expecting to have standardized pay aren't the same thing.

      It simply puts employees in a better position for salary negotiations, which is something most companies don't like.
      So many times I've heard "sorry, I can only give you x% more because you already make more than most of your colleagues." Many times I found out later on that this was a lie.

      • [Deactivated] on 21/03/2017 - 15:48

        How does putting employee's in a better position for salary negotiations help the employer or the company?

        Negotiations works both ways. The employer is not obliged to serve the employee leverage on a silver platter.

        The best way for an employee to get a better deal is to be difficult to replace (if your work ethics allow) or show you are a stronger contributor, or to prove that further incentives will improve your motivation and performance.

        The best way to be put in cold storage/made redundant is to demand a higher pay because, "me mates are getting more."

        • MrTweek on 21/03/2017 - 15:54
          +1

          Negotiations works both ways. The employer is not obliged to serve the employee leverage on a silver platter.

          That's an interesting point of view. I wouldn't compare allowing people to talk about their salaries with "serving leverage on a silver platter".
          Publishing everyone's salary could be, but this is more a matter of suppressing information that shouldn't really be suppressed.

          I'd say, since this is MY salary I should be the one to decide whether I talk about it or not.

          The best way for an employee to get a better deal is to be difficult to replace (if your work ethics allow) or show you are a stronger contributor, or to prove that further incentives will improve your motivation and performance.

          Ideally that should be the case, but I'm sure there are plenty of companies who are happy to underpay top performers that simply don't know what their work is worth. Not letting them talk about it is a great way to keep this status quo.

        • [Deactivated] on 21/03/2017 - 16:48
          +1

          @MrTweek:
          Sadly, I agree that there are lots of companies that underpay. These places are never worth staying in as a good company keeps great employees.

          Great employees are proactive and autonomous, and these employees won't stick around waiting for negotiations to go nowhere.

          Finally, I'd say that this is MY company and I drafted the contract of employment so I should be the one to decide if it is confidential or not.

  • Ordinance on 21/03/2017 - 15:44
    +1

    I can't believe the 'U-Word' hasn't been mentioned in this thread yet.

    If this sort of practice bothers you at all, there's no reason you shouldn't be a member.

    • [Deactivated] on 21/03/2017 - 18:13

      Search for it and couldn't find it.

      • MercSal on 21/03/2017 - 18:19
        +1

        It's almost comical how often these discussions come up and everyone just rolls over and accepts this stuff.

  • AddNinja on 21/03/2017 - 15:57
    +3

    A policy like this is solely to the employer's benefit - plain and simple. As an employee - knowing whether you are paid more, the same, or less than others in your company doing the same work is empowering and makes your future choices clearer. Whether that is leaving, negotiating a payrise, working harder to earn your keep, or working less hard to reflect your lower pay. I have no idea whether it is enforcable, but unless you were stupid, they'd never be able to prove you broke that policy.

  • PommieLee on 21/03/2017 - 17:51

    This appears an unethical clause,
    however I guess you could talk to anyone and deem them an 'adviser' (legal or financial).

  • MercSal on 21/03/2017 - 18:22
    +5

    Nothing the company does is ever in the interest of the employee, except for where their aims intersect for a time. (Ie employees dont like being sexually harassed, companies dont like being sued, hence sexual harrasment policies)
    If you dont like something that a company does, or you want independant advice, you should talk to your colleagues about working together with your collective power. It's called a union.

  • lostn on 21/03/2017 - 19:11
    -4

    No, it's written into Federal law that you can't talk about these things. The feds will be all over you the moment you bring it up.

  • wtfnodeal on 21/03/2017 - 23:14

    Don't talk? then text to your co workers then

  • oyster on 22/03/2017 - 02:48
    +4

    I heard somewhere that this sort of thing contributes to the salary gap between men and women. That women tend to obey these policies more than men, and the sharing of salary information between men gives them a better baseline and data from which to negotiate their own salaries.

  • pulpfiction on 22/03/2017 - 09:25

    It's a power and control thing, not surprised they have salaries on the lower side of the industry. With this cultural insight I'm sure they're not the most efficient and effective organisation either.

    The reality is the differentiation in salaries are a reflection of an individual's negotiation skills, not their performance.

    The really forward thinking orgs are moving to open salaries: https://open.buffer.com/introducing-open-salaries-at-buffer-…

    Anyhow, tell them to bugger off.

  • BertieBrown on 22/03/2017 - 09:26

    Would the company not have to prove that you told someone?

    For instance, let's say someone is trying to make life difficult for you and is able to get a hold of some basic deets about your pay, then approached the big kahuna of your company claiming that you told them your pay, how would you prove otherwise?

Login or Join to leave a comment
Login Join