> 2. Internal employees - Stack Overflow said this has been available internally for a bit, but when employees find out what others are making they are inclined to compare their own efforts/abilities vs others. It can lead to people either asking for raises to match their co-workers, or perhaps feeling slighted and seeking other employers.
Why is this wrong? The labor market should strive to be efficient, no?
I didn't say it was "wrong" - it could be a good thing for the labor market, as you say. I said it may cause some issues for the employer.
Some of those issues will be related to things like confidence, willingness to speak out, and the ability to honestly recognize your ability.
When asked in this context (as it relates to pay), most people may think they are at least above average. Obviously that can't be true. It's not easy to determine contributions in most cases, so value (and relative worth) can be ambiguous.
Lack of confidence and willingness to speak out are usually used by the employer to get more out of their employees, even if it's slightly worse for the employer it seems like straightforwardly positive for society.
As for people being unable to judge and compare the price value of their contribution, because of the lack of public salary data, they've had no practice at the exercise. After a short adjustment period I'm sure people would develop the tools and attitudes to navigate a marketplace where they have way more information available.
I agree there are lots of positives. But with increased transparency, what we won't likely see is someone saying "Joe is a better employee than me and I unfairly make more than him. Please reduce my salary." The adjustment requests are only going to go in one direction, and be requested by those who feel (wrongly or not) that they are contributing more than others.
I wasn't referring to the inability to compare price value of contribution as related to public salary data, but rather for internal comparisons. Not market rate across the entire market, but value compared directly with a co-worker. These should be related, but transparency within one organization is easier to assess.
If we have two programmers working on the same code base building the same product, how easy or difficult is it to determine who is contributing more and therefore worth more to the company? There are several factors at play, not to mention intangibles (catalysts, morale, leadership), and it's incredibly complex to say EMPLOYEE1 is 'more valuable' than EMPLOYEE2.
This is all a red-herring. The real value people need to be able to compare is not co-worker vs. co-worker, but worker vs. manager.
And then, requests for reducing salary will be weighed against the sacrifices the superiors are making, not about whether the kid brought in to fix the issue is getting paid more or less.
Why is this wrong? The labor market should strive to be efficient, no?