[JGBigGreen]

Absolutely, and apologies to Henry for my lack of manners and civility.

[Wilton2ParkAve]

Originally Posted by JGBigGreen

Do you truly think so Wilton? His post is a rambling mess that shows no semblance of either intelligence or "ownage." Discrimination in pay based on gender or skin color is already illegal. To try to make a comparison to disclosing the amount of sex someone has is a red herring at best.

Both private enterprise salaries and my sexual preferences/orientation etc are private matters and have no place or legal standing n being "aired".

This is merely an inquest by the left to force socialism under the guise of social "justice".

[Henry10]

Originally Posted by JGBigGreen

Absolutely, and apologies to Henry for my lack of manners and civility.

It's very boring, un-interesting when all agree. It's a waste of time.

On the topic, I am raising a very important question, much more important than me knowing your pay -- how much do we want Malloy and Govt to interfere in private transactions.

This is also in light of many other active discussions in this Forum, about businesses leaving the State, high Cost of Living and doing business, lack of jobs, a Govt which has done a terible job on fiscal matters, same Govt which now we want to fix "pay inequality."

My sarcastic sex analogy is an attempt to describe the irrationality in supporting this legislation.

[bobtn]

Wilton2ParkAve"Both private enterprise salaries and my sexual preferences/orientation etc are private matters and have no place or legal standing n being "aired"."

As long as they do NO business with gov, I agree, but if they do such business, salaries should be published.

Be truly private before proclaiming the rights private corps should enjoy.

[Wilton2ParkAve]

How would you define doing business with the government and at what level? City, state or federal? If you work for the state or a municipality of you are public taxpayer support. Everything else is private enterprise. Or perhaps we ought to dimension as "do you collect taxpayer supported healthcare or pension?"

[Henry10]

Originally Posted by bobtn

As long as they do NO business with gov, I agree, but if they do such business, salaries should be published.

Be truly private before proclaiming the rights private corps should enjoy.

I would agree with that, with one more clause:

State's politicians should publish ALL sources and amounts of their pay, not just their salary.

[bobtn]

I'd define it as any level of business with state government, which is why I'd not implement it for one year. Stay Ct as customer free for one year, keep it that way, you are private.

[Stratford, Ct. Resident]

OK.

Since this thread has made a hard left turn into bizarro land, i'll briefly summarize the proposal. The proposal is intended to prevent employers from terminating employees who VOLUNTARILY DISCLOSE their wage/salary with others. The proposal does not mandate disclosure of anyone's salary. Nor does it have anything to do with sexual preferences.

With that said, i think we can close this thread now.

[AnonChick]

If you actually read the article you'd see:

Malloy’s proposal, which is expected to be introduced by legislative leaders on his behalf, does not require employers or employees to disclose wages. But it stipulates workers are free to discuss them and also prohibits businesses from punishing staffers who inquire about another’s wages.

So it looks like some of you are throwing out a strawman in attempt to blast Malloy. His proposal does -not- mean publicizing salaries. It allows employees to mention them or not - it should be their decision, not their employer's decision. Currently, it is the employer's decision to forbid employees (or not) from discussing their salary/wages with fellow employees.

We're not supposed to discuss it at my job, and I can actually understand and appreciate why. It's retail. It's *supposed* to be a minimum wage job. That's pretty close to what it is, but it isn't really a minimum wage job, unless you don't negotiate for better from the start, and earn better as you continue. If some of the new-hires at my store knew that I started out 60 cents/hour higher than minimum wage, they'd be pretty annoyed. And that would start a "discussion" that I don't feel is necessary. Yes, it's a lousy retail cashier job. But I happen to enjoy retail cashier jobs, and I happen to be damned good at it, and I happen to have been doing it on and off for over 30 years. I get paid more than they do, because they're still in high school and have no prior experience working. Or, they're however old they are, and can't count change without the computer telling them the answer. Or, they give grunts and one-word responses to customers when they're not reciting the "scripts" (that's what I call them) - in other words, they have no customer service personality and do the minimum required to keep their jobs.

My pay isn't impressive, compared to people who work in offices or own their own successful business or are upper level managers or independently wealthy. But compared to new hires just coming in, it could be a bone of contention to find out what I got paid when I was first hired.

And so - it's none of their business. Thankfully, Malloy's proposal isn't going to force any company to publicize their employees' pay. But! According to Malloy's plan, if the employee wants to divulge that information, they can without being punished by their employer.

[Henry10]

DAS (Department of Administrative Services) has already these rules in place. There are certain reports businesses contracted with the State have to provide, depending on the nature of the engagement or project.

Adding another requirement of course it will be burdensome to the business, and adds to the unattractiveness of doing business with CT. But that's not necessarily a bad thing.