Want a job? Work for free and send your resume in a box

I agree with the half of what you are saying -- about people realizing that their interests are their own and they need to be responsible for their own well being.

I think most of the world gets that already -- and people do act in their self interest (but based on what THEY value -- which you may not understand, because you value different things. Where we go wrong is when others insist on trying to impose their values on everyone else's decisions).

However, I don't think our government should be involved in trying to regulate this sort of thing through coercion ( i.e. pay secrecy rules) the way it has sometimes tried in the past. How employers and employees interact should be between the employer and employee. Legislation that interferes with that dynamic is designed to unlevel the playing field -- and it is usually bought by one side at the expense of the other via political contributions in return for legislation that helps their interests.

The way I see it, as an employee of someone it is absolutely in your interest in to know what your peers earn. That is common sense. Information is never a bad thing, and it gives you possible negotiating leverage. As an employer, it is not in your interest for employees to discuss those things. It potentially hurts your negotiating position.

How that gets worked out should be between the employer and the employee, though -- not forced rules. For one thing, everyone's decision-making process regarding their own utility is different. Within the context of my life, I may be willing to do a job for less money than you will be willing to do it. Which is why it is entirely possible that two people can exist side by side doing the same work for different pay -- with everyone satisfied (employer and all employees).

Also, everyone assumes that we live in this world of automatons, where all workers are equal and that employers hold the "upper hand" in life.

But the asymetrical information at the heart of any negotiation (labor or otherwise) isn't as one sided as most workers assume. Put yourself in an employers' shoes for a second. A candidate for a job comes in for an interview -- that candidate has incentive to exaggerate his or her qualifications to try to get the job. You can not know with certainty what you will be getting if you hire the person, the same way you never know if you are going to get a lemon when you buy a car. These conversations always assume that you hire Joe, Joe will be a good worker. ... and Joe should get paid exactly what Frank who works beside him is getting paid (fairness!). But as an employer, you don't know if Joe = Frank. Even if Joe does work out in the job, he may not be as valuable as Frank is to your business. Before you know, it is absolutely in your interest to pay as little for Joe as you can -- just to find out. Once you do have more of an idea, Joe is going to be worth to you whatever value HE brings. It may not be the same value as Frank. ... Just as (on the other side of the equation) Joe might need or want the job more than Frank, due to what THEY each value. ... which is why they may have been willing to work for different wages (in the face of asymmetrical information or not).

Aside from that, this is still all about the leverage (or lack of it) you have, based on the value you bring with your skills and work ethic, etc. -- as well, as what YOU as an employee value for yourself (maybe you sacrifice pay for flexibility or a workplace environment you particularly like). Presumably, if an employer would fire you because they found out you were trying to find out how much your peers make, you weren't worth much to that employer. You didn't have the leverage you want. But that should be a matter between the two parties actually involved with each other.

 

I don't agree that tyranny of the majority is a good way to rule. Nor is it fair (since that is the newspeak word that gets thrown in to justify what is really corruption). Of course there are way more workers than employers. If we lived in a society that truly puts a primacy on individual liberty, we wouldn't be letting whoever has the greatest numbers be able to buy politicians with their majority vote, and get favored status. That is a really dangerous mindset. Whites outnumber blacks in this country. Just because they had "numerical superiority at the polls" didn't make Jim Crow OK.