Wait, you make 50k more than me?

August 25, 2006 5:14 AM

Can companies prevent you from talking about your salary/benefits? (And a few smaller questions inside)

At every company I've work for, the hiring recruiter making the offer says I can't tell anyone about salary/benefits because it's company confidential. When people are discussing something that might even get close to salary (like whether or not most employees make over $10k) or ask where they should invest their 401k, the HR staff jump in and say to close the thread and email them directly with questions. Also, coworkers are fearful of saying how much they make because they don't want to get fired.

I thought I read a law once that said companies can't prevent you from discussing salary/benefits. If there is no such law, then are you not even allowed to tell your spouse or family if the company forbids?

Side question:
If discussing salary is allowed, then can someone tell me what the newgrad salaries for google, yahoo, and amazon.com if you have gotten an offer from them recently? with a M.S.? PhD? I'm planning on getting a job as a newgrad and it would really help to see where the offers I'm getting stand. Emails can go to [e-mail]

posted by anonymous to work & money (39 comments total)

This sounds like a very efficient way of making sure employees don't get organized / form unions / fight for a better deal. I've never heard if this before, but then where I come from, union awards / enterprise agreements are more common.

I thought I read a law once that said companies can't prevent you from discussing salary/benefits.

Do you have a contract? Have you read it? What does it say, because I would assume a company can't prevent you from discussing anything unless it says so on something you've signed.

I assume you tell the tax people how much you earn. They have your name and address. You probably also tell your bank when you apply for a home loan or car loan, and the credit card company... Non-disclosure of earning has always been a politeness thing, not a legal thing. If companies you work for are doing their best to trick you into not talking about this, one can only assume they are ripping you and your co-workers off.
posted by Jimbob at 5:28 AM on August 25, 2006

Everywhere I've worked they've told us we can't talk about salaries. We always talked about them anyway, as long as there weren't any HR people or management around.

When people are discussing something that might even get close to salary... the HR staff jump in and say to close the thread

I'm confused. Where you work, people don't actually talk (you know, with their mouths), they communicate only by "threads" that HR people read? Makes no sense to me. You want to talk about salaries, you do it on the street or sotto voce in the office. Jeez.
posted by languagehat at 6:19 AM on August 25, 2006

Beats me for where you are, but my local paper once a year publishes the salaries of all public servants making over $100,000 yearly. I'm certain if this were something that could be private information, those public servants themselves would have made rules against discussing it.
posted by shepd at 6:24 AM on August 25, 2006

No answer, but I ran across a blog post via delicious about why keeping salaries secret is bad. Good reading for your spare time.
posted by poppo at 6:28 AM on August 25, 2006 [3 favorites]

I agree, unless you've signed some specific confidentially agreement there is no way that can inhibit your right to discuss salary with your co-workers. It sounds like 'the man' has got everyone cowed, there are only 2 reasons for this:-

1) 'They' are ashamed that they get paid too much are embarrassed because they know deep down they are unworthy of their renumeration.

2) 'They' are paying you and your colleagues embarrassingly little for your labour (a sign of disrespect!) and are frightened of the consequences of MASS discontent that you're undervalued if it becomes a topic of discussion.

Just bring it up casually next time you're socialising with your work-mates.
posted by Rufus T. Firefly at 6:39 AM on August 25, 2006

In California it is definitely illegal to prevent employees from discussing compensation with each other or with anyone else.
posted by infinitewindow at 6:40 AM on August 25, 2006

Well, I don't have an informed answer on this, but my understanding has always been that legally HR can discourage these kinds of discussions, but they can't ban them amongst employees. I think they could ban you from talking to competitors or non-family-non-colleagues about the pay. But preventing you from talking about your pay and benefits could be seen as creating obstacles to organizing a union, and there are some pretty specific laws banning employers from doing this.

Assuming you're in the US, the NLRB (National Labor Relations Board) might be a good jumping off point for learning more about what employers can/can't do. It's the federal board that oversees compliance with these sorts of laws.
posted by croutonsupafreak at 6:42 AM on August 25, 2006

When people are discussing something that might even get close to salary... the HR staff jump in and say to close the thread

That's most likely because HR doesn't want to catch flak if some moron posts bad advice (I assume this is some sort of intranet). It's probably a good thing to do, although HR should go a bit further to make their advice available to everyone.

Again, as long as you don't have a contract that includes a confidentiality clause on the topic of compensation, you are free to discuss it. However, companies have their own "unwritten rules" that you should abide by if you don't want trouble.

Keeping compensation private makes it much easier to keep people happy. If a veteran of the company is making $Y, and some new kid gets hired for $Y+1k, that vet is going to be gunning for a raise (or quitting). Also, when annual raises are handed out, oftentimes there will be a "standard" raise of 2 or 3%, and certain people will get an "extra" raise, but sometimes that's just a way of giving out decent raises to "everyone except Bob". It also makes employees feel special. If you all discuss it and find out that everyone got the same raise, except Bob got less, you all feel less special and Bob feels like a chump.
posted by MrZero at 6:44 AM on August 25, 2006

I think they could ban you from talking to competitors or non-family-non-colleagues about the pay.

How does this work for car loans, etc? Can I refuse to disclose salary information to loan officers?
posted by muddgirl at 6:57 AM on August 25, 2006

I have worked for two small companies in NJ where employees weren't supposed to talk about compensation. One had a contract stating they would fire anyone who talked about salaries. I signed it, and my dad (who's a lawyer) said that was BS (I hesitate to say he said it was illegal because I don't remember, but I do know that clause in particular pissed him off). Well, eventually some of us talked about our salaries anyway, and I found out they paid they men significantly more than the women. Granted, one of the men was an ABD, but no one else had advanced degrees or experience to warrant the discrepancy. At the other company, I think it was just a morale thing and a way to keep everyone happy. People were still afraid to talk about it there for fear of being fired, though.
posted by katie at 6:58 AM on August 25, 2006

Even if there's no law forbidding it, it's certainly a good idea for HR and the company as a whole to foster an environment where compensation is not discussed. Few people understand budgets, how money is allocated, and even the most basic principles of economics, and having employees whining about earning $2k less than their co-worker is time wasting as they're unlikely to be content with any answer HR could give.
posted by wackybrit at 7:00 AM on August 25, 2006

s/forbidding/preventing
posted by wackybrit at 7:02 AM on August 25, 2006

it's certainly a good idea for HR and the company as a whole to foster an environment where compensation is not discussed.

I work in an environment where everyone can see what the wages are for every experience level of every job in the organisation, as well as bonuses and how they are allocated. It's all in the enterprise agreement, in a PDF, on the website, for anyone to see. I would argue that this is an equally good way to keep everyone content. Everyone can see what everyone else earns, they can see what they can do to earn more, they can see that these bonuses are decided according to specific criteria rather than being arbitrary. The only reason to try to keep this stuff a secret is to make it easier to underpay employees. In the case of "anonymous", I'd recomend everyone organise to post their wage to whatever sort of list or forum they use simultaneously. That will probably solve the problem instantly, unless management feel like firing a significant proportion of their workforce.
posted by Jimbob at 7:22 AM on August 25, 2006

Beats me for where you are, but my local paper once a year publishes the salaries of all public servants making over $100,000 yearly. I'm certain if this were something that could be private information, those public servants themselves would have made rules against discussing it.

FOIA may apply in that case, as opposed to private business. I remember The Diamondback publishing the salaries of every campus employee while I was in school (we'd use it to compare our piddling pay to the professors' piddling pays)

Every year, some members of the university community question publication of individuals’ salaries, but it is public information guaranteed through the state’s Freedom of Information Act, and, as readers, you have the right to know.

For more information, Student Press Law Center: Access to Records, Meetings & Places (found by googling Diamondback FOIA and Salary.)

But keep in mind that salaries in academia are different beasts than salaries in industry.
posted by bleary at 7:45 AM on August 25, 2006

Even if there's no law forbidding it, it's certainly a good idea for HR and the company as a whole to foster an environment where compensation is not discussed. Few people understand budgets, how money is allocated, and even the most basic principles of economics, and having employees whining about earning $2k less than their co-worker is time wasting as they're unlikely to be content with any answer HR could give.

Ah yes, dumb employees don't know what's good for them, so keep them in the dark. You might want to read the comment immediately above yours for an enlightening example of how this "good idea" gets used.
posted by languagehat at 7:49 AM on August 25, 2006

Bear in mind that talking about what you get paid is rather crass.
posted by biffa at 8:11 AM on August 25, 2006

But wanting this information is not immediately crass, and empathizing with that desire can motivate people to disclose the information.

People use the information to decide what to study, which jobs to take, where to move. It's also legally important -- how else would policy makers know that women get paid less per dollar men do? or any other group, be it based on sex, race.

Do you think nurses should be paid more? How would you even know enough to have this opinion without access to their salaries?
posted by bleary at 8:20 AM on August 25, 2006

Did my aldermen make the right decision when passing city ordinances requiring living wages for "big box" stores? etc. what data are they going to use to make decisions like that? what data do I use to evaluate their choices?
posted by bleary at 8:22 AM on August 25, 2006

(IANAL)

The National Labor Relations Act states "Employees shall have the right to self-organization, to form, join, or assist labor organizations, to bargain collectively through representatives of their own choosing, and to engage in other concerted activities for the purpose of collective bargaining or other mutual aid or protection..." (Section 7) and "It shall be an unfair labor practice for an employer (1) to interfere with, restrain, or coerce employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed in section 7 [section 157 of this title]" (Section 8).

In several cases, the National Labor Relations Board interpreted those sections as barring employers from enacting rules that prohibit employees from discussing the terms and conditions of their employment, including compensation. The NLRB says that such prohibitions unduly inhibit the ability of employees to organize and demand better wages, and so they've ruled it unlawful to fire employees for discussing wages. That doesn't mean that it doesn't happen, only that you might have a legal case if you were fired for it.
posted by Amy Phillips at 8:25 AM on August 25, 2006 [2 favorites]

Bear in mind that talking about what you get paid is rather crass.

That's a load of hooey, biffa. It's just what "the Man" wants you to think, so that you and your coworkers don't start comparing notes and realize that some (well, probably all) of you are getting screwed.

and I say that as a card-carrying member of "the Man."
posted by dersins at 8:40 AM on August 25, 2006

Ah yes, dumb employees don't know what's good for them, so keep them in the dark. You might want to read the comment immediately above yours for an enlightening example of how this "good idea" gets used.

It's not entirely about what's good for 'them' but also what works for the company. There are many legitimate reasons why women (or any individual person or other group of people) might be paid less or more than some other group (There are many illegal reasons too, but is that possibility a good reason for salary disclosure?)

One situation that could arise is that a particularly good employee (but with the same title as numerous co-workers) might get a job offer from another company, so they get offered a $5K raise, putting them above their co-workers. If the co-workers were aware of this, they might all try to get other job offers, become jealous, or become demotivated. People must be paid different amounts and management can not be held accountable for explaining why.. therefore, salary disclosure is, IMHO, a bad idea.
posted by wackybrit at 8:47 AM on August 25, 2006

Salary non-disclosure works in some environments, and not others. I once had a government job, where everyone's pay scale was posted, but not individual salaries. You could make an educated guess based on how long the individual was in that role to guess his/her pay, but the actual pay was not disclosed. I don't think banning/forbidding pay discussions is the right tool to use. Everywhere i've been that has a policy where people were verbally told or directed in print not to disclose their pay has had problems with a)people talking about it anyway and creating discontent, and b)unfair wages for certain groups (minorities, women, college grads, etc)

Inquiring about it may be crass, but sometimes it is necessary to make an informed decision about your employment.
posted by richter_x at 8:55 AM on August 25, 2006

it's certainly a good idea for HR and the company as a whole to foster an environment where compensation is not discussed. [emphasis added]

For the employees, not so good. When I work with others who do the same job as I do, I make no secret about what I am paid. If others choose to, that's up to them, but it is better for everyone to know where they stand.

Management usually likes to cast their encouraged ignorance as protecting one employee from the resentment of another. In the real world, among adults, the resentment for inequity usually is directed at the ones who create it. Management loves to treat employees like children, because it lets them get away with so much.
posted by Kirth Gerson at 8:58 AM on August 25, 2006

On the other side of the coin, CEO pay disclosure has lead to the situation of rapidly rising CEO compensation rates. CEOs have formed organizations where they could disclose their compensation to each other and then used that information to force their board of directors to increase their compensation packages.

I can't find the original article I read several years ago about this, but this article might illustrate what I'm trying to say
posted by kookywon at 9:12 AM on August 25, 2006

It's not entirely about what's good for 'them' but also what works for the company.

You mean not at all about what's good for them and completely about what works for the company. Nice to know which side you're on, though.

(There are many illegal reasons too, but is that possibility a good reason for salary disclosure?)

Yes.
posted by languagehat at 9:16 AM on August 25, 2006 [1 favorite]

kooky, that concept was explained by one of my professors thusly: every corporation wants to appear that it has an "above-average" CEO, so it pays above-average CEO compensation, and the publicity of the amounts continually raises the average.
posted by MrZero at 9:42 AM on August 25, 2006

It probably depends on the state you live in. Where I live, there are not too many laws on the side of the employee (or renter, or just about anybody else), and almost every job I've had (except for retail work) has told me the same thing. I've always seen it as a 'divide and conquer' tactic that companies can use to get away with paying some people less money while they do equal (if not more) work.
posted by triolus at 9:51 AM on August 25, 2006

(There are many illegal reasons too, but is that possibility a good reason for salary disclosure?)

Yes.

Ditto. Years ago I worked for a company and earned $24,000 annually. At a regional meeting, I met with everyone else in the company who had my title. We all earned $24,000, and we were all women. Except one guy, and we found out he made $38,000. Every last one of us was a recent college grad, unmarried, no kids, working full time. Total fucking bullshit, and exactly why companies have these rules in place.
posted by peep at 10:45 AM on August 25, 2006

It is no-ones business but my own what my salary is.
I do not discuss it with my co-workers and expect my boss to treat it similarly.
Speculating about someone's salary, be it good or bad, is tacky.

That said, it is unlikely (unless you have a contract with an NDA clause) that your company can restrict you from conversing about your renumeration.
However, they are probably perfectly within their rights to restrict you from talking about it on an employer-provided forum.
My advice is to do what generations of people have done and bitch about it on your lunch break.
posted by madajb at 10:47 AM on August 25, 2006

I think they could ban you from talking to competitors or non-family-non-colleagues about the pay.

How does this work for car loans, etc? Can I refuse to disclose salary information to loan officers?

Sure. And they can refuse to lend to you.

As always in cases where employment questions come up on AskMe it's worth pointing out that on a whole, people have a lot less legal protections against getting fired than they tend to think. There's certainly no federal protection against an employer making keeping your compensation to yourself a condition of employment, just as there's no protection preventing an employer from making not wearing red shirts a condition of employment. There are some protected classes and certain conditions but beyond that "because I felt like it" is an acceptable reason to can someone in any right-to-work state, which most are.

Anyone thinking that there's much in the way of free speech protections for continue employment can google "dooced" and see the endless list of people shitcanned for their personal communications. Talking about your salary is no different than talking about Rachael Ray.

As far as the application of union organization protection I personally wouldn't bet my livelihood on the courts taking the side of labor organization anytime in the last twenty years or in the foreseeable future.
posted by phearlez at 10:53 AM on August 25, 2006

I think talking about salaries with colleagues is a good thing -- in the appropriate context. That context: you're not at work, and you're on friendly terms with whichever colleagues you're talking to.

I managed to get a fairly decent percent pay raise in the middle of a hiring and raise freeze a few years ago, when I gradually realized that I was getting paid less than everyone else.

It was really scary, but I went to my boss and essentially told him: "I know that I'm making less money than everyone else with my job description. I'm working harder than many people who make more than me. I have more experience than some people who make more than me. And I would like to request a salary change to better reflect my contributions."

At first, he gave me some rigamarole about the salary freeze. Then I repeated myself. Then he looked up my file. "Oh, you are making less." It took about six weeks of regular reminders, but it paid off.

One of the main reasons women often get less money than men: We don't ask for it when we're hired, we don't ask for it after we're hired.

I'm really frigging glad I did ask for it, and I've made a point of asking for more than I'm offered and requesting pay increases ever since -- and also of talking to colleagues about their salaries to make sure my requests are in line and that we're all being fairly compensated.
posted by croutonsupafreak at 11:33 AM on August 25, 2006

croutonsoupafreak's story is an example of why we (the Man) like to perpetuate the myth that talking about salaries is somehow tacky or declasse.

fyi.
posted by dersins at 2:04 PM on August 25, 2006

The MS starting base salary for Google was around 85K last time I heard. I would guess Amazon is similar, Yahoo might be a little higher. Add 10-15K for a PhD. I don't think Google will negotiate base salary, but the others should.
posted by ch1x0r at 5:01 PM on August 25, 2006

I worked somewhere and was curious as to why I was forbidden to talk about my wages there. Here's my thinking... Obviously a private conversation won't get me into trouble. But let's say I talk to Joe and find out he makes twice what I do for the same position. Now, I can go to my boss and demand a raise, saying that I won't tell him who I got the information from. This would protect Joe, but I could still get in trouble for talking to people about salaries.
posted by IndigoRain at 5:24 PM on August 25, 2006

You should always try to discover what your coworkers make. Otherwise, how will you tell if you're being screwed? I've seen two people working side-by-side doing the same thing in Silicon Valley but having a difference in their salaries of over $40,000. I also worked for a company once where a spreadsheet containing everyone's salaries was "accidentally" passed around, and we discovered that the Indian hiring manager was paying his Indian hires $20,000 to $50,000 more than everyone else. Eight of us walked that day and the company collapsed a few months later.
posted by nlindstrom at 6:45 PM on August 25, 2006 [1 favorite]

This is something that has no bearing on military members -- our salaries are public knowledge, and everyone knows (roughly) what kind of salary everyone else makes. It always surprises me when salaries are discussed as they are in this thread.
posted by davidmsc at 8:20 AM on August 26, 2006

my local paper once a year publishes the salaries of all public servants making over $100,000 yearly. I'm certain if this were something that could be private information, those public servants themselves would have made rules against discussing it. - shepd

Here, there is a publicly available list of what every municipal employee earned last year, sorted alphabetically by last name.

Where I work currently is unionized, and the collective agreements of all the unions here (there are several) are available to everyone internally. The agreements list the salary range of each position governed by that agreement. So none of it's a secret - except what management makes.

One of the main reasons women often get less money than men: We don't ask for it when we're hired, we don't ask for it after we're hired. - croutonsupafreak

Yes, and IIRC, there's research that confirms this.
posted by raedyn at 11:37 AM on August 26, 2006

Some years ago all of us at our work who were "non-management" pooled the information about our salaries, and used it to secure a more fair and objective salary scale. It ended up being really positive.
posted by ClaudiaCenter at 12:36 AM on August 28, 2006

People must be paid different amounts and management can not be held accountable for explaining why..

Dude, you have a really messed up concept of employee-employer relations. Expecting your employer to explain why someone doing the same job as you is making thousands of dollars more a year is not unreasonable.
posted by Espy Gillespie at 3:02 PM on August 29, 2006 [1 favorite]