Federal mandates are non-starters politically in America, for better or for worse, especially in regards to speech and privacy. There is a massive cohort of Americans who vehemently oppose the government mandating what they must publicly share about themselves. This doesn't seem feasible.
this is why we are a Republic of States, and we're supposed to care more about state and local elections than the Federal ones, but it seems like nobody learns this from high school civics class anymore (myself included).
exactly! this is why our Republican (not the party) system of government is so great, different states can try different things and other states can learn from each other, both in what to do, what not to do, and even "well, that worked for that state, but I don't think it'll work well for us." it's a neat system, and one that I feel is increasingly underappreciated, as everyone wants all legislation to be done at the federal level.
It depends on the size and diversity of the company. If your company size is small and they list 10 tech leads and only one has 20 years experience, or a masters, or is female, then it's pretty easy to work that back to them. They've shown similar things for anonymous medical records not being so anonymous.
So larger populations and smaller number of attributes would probably make it better, but not foolproof.
No matter what the company will know everyone's salaries. The question is mainly whether you want to be ignorant, or not. Usually these things (at least with the government) don't list experience, or educational attainment.
"Usually these things (at least with the government) don't list experience, or educational attainment."
Seems pretty useless without that. Those are huge factors.
"The question is mainly whether you want to be ignorant, or not."
That's not the only question. The other question mostly being discussed here is if you want anyone to be able to know your salary by working backwards from the published list, specifically in small companies.
> Seems pretty useless without that. Those are huge factors.
The point is to allow for more transparency, not perfect transparency.
> That's not the only question. The other question mostly being discussed here is if you want anyone to be able to know your salary by working backwards from the published list, specifically in small companies.
In practice this doesn't matter, but even if this were an issue you could exempt employers with fewer than 100 employees.
The point is to create a range in which both current and prospective employees can refer to. Obviously it's not perfect as that would require all information which would be a privacy concern.
Are you arguing knowing nothing is better than knowing something?
"Are you arguing knowing nothing is better than knowing something?"
No one is saying that. That is a gross misinterpretation of my statements.
"The point is to create a range in which both current and prospective employees can refer to."
A range based on what? The point being discussed here is equal pay. Ranges dont help if you have all the women at the low end and the men at the high end, hypothetically. If you just want to post salary ranges by position you can do that without publishing individual salaries.
Even with that said, I work at a small enough company where anonymous salaries could still easily be associated with an individual, and I would still not like that, for privacy reasons.
