U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Work and Employment
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 04-08-2014, 12:31 PM
 
7,281 posts, read 8,891,529 times
Reputation: 11420

Advertisements

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/04/09/us...-pay.html?_r=0

I am specifically referring to the prohibition that contractors who have contracts with the Federal government can't take action against employees who discuss their salaries.

At first glance that would seem to be a good thing. Now think about this:

What is a major factor in the cost of doing business? Labor. If salaries are discussed, a larger more wealthy company can determine the labor costs of smaller or less wealthy companies and under bid for contracts.

The individual salaries are a very important source of information in an anti-competitive contracting environment. It is very easy for the wealthier company to cut costs to win contracts if they know the salaries the competition must pay for the same work.

This isn't about one family member telling another who much they are paid, it is about fairness in contracting.

This Executive order is nothing more than a veiled offering to those who can obtain the salary information of competitors simply by asking whereas before, the information could only be given out by violating company policies.

What good is there in this?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 04-08-2014, 12:37 PM
 
Location: Annandale, VA
5,098 posts, read 4,320,139 times
Reputation: 4209
Typical Obama wanting to stir up trouble with people. He is the most divisive in history.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-08-2014, 12:53 PM
 
Location: Pittsburgh
5,923 posts, read 7,041,818 times
Reputation: 8689
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mack Knife View Post
I am specifically referring to the prohibition that contractors who have contracts with the Federal government can't take action against employees who discuss their salaries.
So free speech is only for people with millions and millions of dollars?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-08-2014, 12:57 PM
 
Location: Portland, Oregon
10,022 posts, read 16,700,236 times
Reputation: 6427
I once audited an employer who posted all employee's pay. I was shocked! His response is that he pays for performance and before posting pay he tells everyone that if they think they are underpaid that he wants them to talk to him. Granted it was a fairly small employer, around 20 if I recall correctly, but it was his belief that pay for performance has no credibility unless employees can see that.

Yes, the payroll is a significant cost of doing business but Federal contractors are prohibited from discriminating. How is any employee to know if there is an issue that they can bring to their supervisor/manager if no one can know what anyone else is paid?

This only applies to Federal contractors. If a business has an issue with this it is easy to avoid it... don't work on Federal contracts.

What concerns me more is the aggregate data requirement. That puts an employer in the position of explaining differences in the aggregate, a form of 'When did you stop beating your wife?" Note the explanations the White House gave for their differences. Do you think the OFCCP would say that is OK? I don't.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-08-2014, 01:00 PM
 
9,266 posts, read 11,885,448 times
Reputation: 14546
This is based on a NLRB ruling under BUSH that says employees in federal contractor positions can not be terminated just because they discuss their salary.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-08-2014, 01:10 PM
 
1,158 posts, read 1,052,059 times
Reputation: 846
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mack Knife View Post
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/04/09/us...-pay.html?_r=0

I am specifically referring to the prohibition that contractors who have contracts with the Federal government can't take action against employees who discuss their salaries.

At first glance that would seem to be a good thing. Now think about this:

What is a major factor in the cost of doing business? Labor. If salaries are discussed, a larger more wealthy company can determine the labor costs of smaller or less wealthy companies and under bid for contracts.

The individual salaries are a very important source of information in an anti-competitive contracting environment. It is very easy for the wealthier company to cut costs to win contracts if they know the salaries the competition must pay for the same work.

This isn't about one family member telling another who much they are paid, it is about fairness in contracting.

This Executive order is nothing more than a veiled offering to those who can obtain the salary information of competitors simply by asking whereas before, the information could only be given out by violating company policies.

What good is there in this?
Who cares?

It cuts both ways, and salaries should equalize regardless.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-08-2014, 03:14 PM
 
3,154 posts, read 3,069,662 times
Reputation: 8686
Sorry, but this is explicitly about eliminating unfair gender pay disparity. Since I actually worked for a contractor and had that very prohibition, only to discover after a couple of years that ALL women were making less than ALL men, at every level, (i.e. in my department there were two men and two women - the men had bachelor's degrees and no significant prior experience and the women had master's and a couple of years of relevant experience, and after quitting I found out that both men were making 7-10K more than both of us). I later found out from a former manager that paying men more was the actual, unwritten (but not unstated) policy. That prohibition was nothing but a way for a bunch of fat old boys to revel in their discrimination while knowing they could not be held accountable.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-08-2014, 04:29 PM
 
Location: USA
7,478 posts, read 5,800,864 times
Reputation: 12323
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rabrrita View Post
This is based on a NLRB ruling under BUSH that says employees in federal contractor positions can not be terminated just because they discuss their salary.
Bingo. I also find it hilarious and sad that people could ever be terminated for discussing their salary... geez... what an idiotic reason to fire somebody!
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-08-2014, 05:32 PM
 
4,069 posts, read 5,480,368 times
Reputation: 4920
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rabrrita View Post
This is based on a NLRB ruling under BUSH that says employees in federal contractor positions can not be terminated just because they discuss their salary.
Everything is about politics with some people. They will blame every problem with Obama, even though all the rules and laws were set in place under Bush. I can't stand the political crazies on either side.

There is a snow storm. It's Obama's fault. I have other things to worry than some GOP or Liberal boogie man.

Last edited by move4ward; 04-08-2014 at 05:50 PM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-08-2014, 05:34 PM
 
4,137 posts, read 4,153,090 times
Reputation: 2317
Contracting is more than just pay. There's performance for starters. UMass Boston just fired Crystal Transit.

UMass Boston hires bus vendors to replace Crystal Transport after carrier failed federal safety probe - Business news - Boston.com

This isn't even a hard bus route. It's a circle...just one circle. But they didn't keep up the paper work, didn't keep up with management. Doesn't matter if they seemed like they were doing a good job.

"I also find it hilarious and sad that people could ever be terminated for discussing their salary... geez... what an idiotic reason to fire somebody!"

I used to work in the private sector at a retailer that would call it a violation of course it wasn't written down.

"It is very easy for the wealthier company to cut costs to win contracts if they know the salaries the competition must pay for the same work."

It really is much much more than just a salary. If they don't have legit protocols for various what if situations then they can lose quite a bit. Case in point Three Mile Island. Sure no one died but the lack of coordination led to practically 48 hours where no one knew specifically what to do. Issues evacuation orders differed between the state and the feds, emergency plans differed from the county and local government etc. It is the same reason why jobs still require applications. Resumes are fine but unless there is a application there's no real legal tie to if someone signed off on a given skill or ability.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Work and Employment
Similar Threads
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2019, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top