Prohibiting Salary Disclosure

Betzi

If you are entertaining a $.10 per hour wage increase based on years of service, part of a "Phase II" we are doing (Phase I was re-adjusting Personal Days off), can you have the employees' sign some sort of a statement (suggestions would be welcome!) indicating they will not reveal their salary to other emloyees and doing so could lead to discipline if discovered, up to and possibly including termination? Small company but we have a problem with people discussing this.......


Thank You!

Hatchetman

Under the federal National Labor Relations Act, the NLRB and the courts have held, for several years, that an employee discussing salary with co-workers is a protected right, and an employer may NOT prohibit it.

TheCol

Hatchetman is right on again. I believe you may put into writing the non-disclosure language you want, I have it in our employee manual as a discouragement, but don't try to enforce it literally. First Amendmane, you know!

moneyman

Although it can not be mandatory, we have "encouraged" employees to view salaries as private and confidential and not discuss amongst themselves. We explain that in determining salaries, there are many factors that go into setting the rate and no 2 employees can really be compared.

Some employees view that if they are been working the same amount of years, they should be getting the same pay, however, they usually do not take into account the experience levels upon hire, and work performance throughout the years. We know that they will always talk, but by explaining that everyone is judged individually on their circumstances and merit, we hope that trying to compare salaries becomes less important.

Crout

I would not publish any policy that I know is unenforceable, as this surely is. To do so would undermine the credibility of your management. While employees in the private sector do NOT have blanket First Amendment rights, they DO have the right to discuss salaries, as stated above. My advice would be to just suck it up and shake it off. There's nothing else you can do.

mwild31

Everyone's right - some NLRB protections include private sector as well. I would research some archived issues on this topic in the Washington State Law Letter section of this site. At my company, we strongly discourage anyone from discussing wages - but people just want to talk about it. As a suggestion, you're probably better off creating a strong salary matrix (compensation program) which defines rates for market consideration/skills. This has proven very helpful for us as discussions between employee/management quickly turn into a positive (i.e. - what skills they have to develop in order to get ahead). I'll be honest though, there are times when it's not so positive - but pulling out the matrix usually stops the conversation very quickly.

Good Luck!

Don D

I may have this totally wrong, and if I do, my profound apologies to 'the colonel'. If memory serves, which again, it might not, there was a 'Colonel' on here awhile back who had worked for many years with the EEOC. If this is the same gentleman, I cannot imagine that he would give the advice given above. Agreeing with Crout, it is utter nonsense to publish or state a policy or practice which one knows to be either illegal or unenforceable. Think of the ramifications!

mwild31

I'm unclear as to what disturbs you about my post Don D.

hrbanker

Mwild31, I think Don was reacting to post #2. It just happened to follow yours.

We have a statement that says "we consider salaries as a confidential matter between the ee and hr. We also state that gaining UNAUTHORIZED access to other ee's salaries or private financial data is subject to disciplinary action. This protects any ee's that also feel their salaries are confidential. However, if they want to tell everyone what they make, it's their call.

mwild31

Ah! Thanks for clearing it up. We strongly discourage - but we know we can't take action if employees want to discuss their salaries amongst themselves. I like what you folks do as far as policy involving the confidential nature of salaries and access - I'll have to look into adapting it into our policies.

Thanks!

Don D

MWild: I have no intention of engaging you in personal debate or in being engaged in personal debate BY you; but, it has for some time been evident that you will latch onto my britches at the drop of a hat over little or nothing. Frankly, I'm tiring of it, but will say no more about it. My reply above was directed specifically at someone called the colonel and the reply given by him, which appeared above somewhere. It also contained an apology to him should I have him pegged wrong. That's why my reply contained the word 'colonel' twice. Had my reply been in response to yours, it would have likely appeared as an indentation following yours. Kindly lighten up before you snap at me if you don't mind. In the future, if you have a personal beef with me or my posting, leave the gentle folks on the Forum out of it and click on the private email button, as I believe you have already indicated elsewhere that you would do. I like everybody on the Forum and enjoy the comraderie with one and all, but none of us likes constant barbs. This makes about the fourth time you have laid down the gauntlet. I've tried to not engage you or be engaged.

mwild31

Holy smokes - my response was in no way meant to be offensive to you Don D! I was just asking a question because I didn't understand if your post was in response to mine or not - and I wanted to clarify my statements if it was necessary.