Dave wrote:
> Making salaries readily available can be a bad idea, even if the
> information is officially "public." Often because of marketing forces
> (you pay what you have to in order to attract quality hires, as we
have
> done in response to ethnic diversity pressures), the result is pay
> inequity. I have repeatedly learned of situations in which recent
> faculty hires are making more money than those with more years of
> service and experience. When this information comes to light, the
> result is usually frustration at the appearant unfairness, a drop in
> morale, job dissatisfaction, etc. This is one area in which pay
secrecy
> is "a good thing." I would argue that grade secrecy is also a good
> thing, but then this is protected by our privacy policies and
> regulations.
Actually, this is an area where academia has lagged behind the
research being done in the business sector.
At one time, management thinking paralleled that used by Dave
above; the concept was that by keeping salary (and benefit) information
secret, there would be (1) less stress due to pay differentials; (2)
greater latitude in recruiting for positions requiring delicate salary
negotiations and; (3) less negative impact on workers as a result of
jealousies, etc.
As it happens, those firms (and there are quite a number) that
have experimented with complete openness concerning salaries and levels
within the firm have found the _opposite_ to be true; instead of causing
stress it provided incentive--those who weren't making as much tried to
make themselves more valuable so they could justify higher salaries.
In the case of academia, though, I believe there's an even more
important reason. Most of us here on TIPS teach for public institutions
(not all, of course). That means our salaries are funded by taxpayers.
In every other area of taxpayer funded employment (i.e., civil service,
the military, politics, the criminal justice system, etc.) salaries are
public information, which allows the taxpaying voter to make informed
decisions as to whether his or her government is spending tax money
wisely. Why should _our_ salaries be exempted from that kind of review
process? And if the salaries of faculty in public institutions are
known, is there any logical reason to conceal those of faculty at
private ones? Given that most schools pay on similar scales (a few of
the very "High profile" ones are excepted, but then again their hiring
criteria are often rather different from the norm as well--somewhat
analogous to the business comparison of, for example, a high priced
International law firm based in New York versus a more typical legal
partnership), why would it make any sense for them to conceal _their_
salary level either?
A secondary reason is to "equalize" our institutions. If you are
a looking for a teaching post (speaking of which, anyone know of an
adjunct opening to teach criminal justice psychology, business, or
social problems online? <grin>), having that kind of information
available can help in your decision as to which schools to apply to for
a position. And if the faculty members at a school are dissatisfied to
learn that the new hires are making more money than they are, assuming
those hires don't bring with them specialized benefits (i.e., long lists
of publications, research funding, etc.) that justify those salaries,
maybe it's time for the faculty union at that institution to find out
why the current faculty are being underpaid.
Just some thoughts,
Rick
---
Rick Adams
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Department of Social Sciences
Jackson Community College
---
You are currently subscribed to tips as: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To unsubscribe send a blank email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
