Would This Bother You? (privacy issue)

[shinyhappypeople]

Our hometown newspaper has published an online searchable database of government employee salaries (schools, county employees, city employees).

 

So, for instance, you know your neighbor works for animal control and you're nosy as heck and want to know how much she earns you click on the department ("animal control") and then select the city or agency and... voila! You can see each employee BY FIRST AND LAST NAME, their job title, monthly salary, overtime and "special pay."

 

I am totally, utterly aghast that the newspaper would be so freaking *insensitive* and clueless.

 

Two issues jump out at me. Anyone can easily find out someone's first/last name, employer and salary with just a few clicks of a mouse. In this age of identity theft that is just unacceptable.

 

Next issue: It could breed conflict within a department, as in: "Why is SHE making more than ME? I've been here the same amount of time! She didn't deserve bigger raises than I received!"

 

My husband is a county employee (different county, thank goodness) and he was *floored* that they would past NAMES with salaries. He said that part of his confidentiality agreement with the county he works for is that he cannot talk about his salary (I think just to other employees? I'm not sure.) Either way, it would be a gross invasion of privacy for his salary to be posted online for anyone and everyone to see.

 

This obviously bothers me a lot. Would it bother you? I wish there was something I could do. :(

[tex-mex]

Sounds like someone on the inside provided the info. Most likely they will be fired or were fired and have an ax to grind?

[shinyhappypeople]

I just realized you can also search by someone's last name. So, even if you're not sure which department they work for, you can still find their information. Nice.

[TXMomof4]

That is ridiculous.

 

Of course, dh is in the army and if you know someone's rank, you know how much they make. When we moved here, we were looking for a house and the management company asked dh's rank before they would tell us the rent. They apparently adjust the rent based on what you get for BAH. Needless to say, we didn't rent from them. :glare:

[Plucky]

My newspaper does this, too. I wonder if we live in the same town. It's public information. I don't have a problem with it.

[Julie Smith]

I wouldn't have a problem with it. I also wouldn't have a problem if dh had his salary published in a list somewhere.

[Plucky]

In fact, I've looked up people on it. What is truly scandalous is how much some administrators make at our local homeschool partnership. Scandalous with a six figure dollar sign.

Edited April 14, 2011 by True Blue

[MBM]

My husband is a federal employee. His salary and all of his investment information is available to the public. I'd prefer it not be.

[Plucky]

My dh's income is online somewhere. I googled him.

[regentrude]

The salary data for public emplyees are public information and have been available for a long time - so even if your paper did not publish anything, ANYBODY can easily find out how much each public employee, identified by name, earns. Nothing new. There is a law that makes these data available.

[blakereese]

The salary data for public emplyees are public information and have been available for a long time - so even if your paper did not publish anything, ANYBODY can easily find out how much each public employee, identified by name, earns. Nothing new. There is a law that makes these data available.

 

:iagree:

[LibraryLover]

In my area they pubish the salaries of public employess (including teachers, firefighters, police etc) every couple of years or so. It's perfectly legal.

[MaMa2005]

That has been going on years here. DH's salary is right out there and as a high school teacher, we feel it is very invasive. On top of that, the county gossip forum gets hold of these facts and figures and then starts slamming the teachers, administrators, etc. It definitely feels like we are living in a fishbowl.

[shinyhappypeople]

My newspaper does this, too. I wonder if we live in the same town. It's public information. I don't have a problem with it.

 

Not sure where you are.

 

My issue is posting individual names with salaries. It would be no big deal to reveal the salary range for specific job titles. But to identify people by name... that's beyond the pale. Hope they don't decide to take it to the next level and include the next-door county where my husband works in their database.

 

It's nobody's business what his specific salary is. If you ask him, he'll give you the range ("This job pays $xx to $xx/mo.). Heaven forbid his co-worker found out how much he makes. That would be such a fabulous thing for office relations. :tongue_smilie:

[unsinkable]

Never mind. even tho' I've already been quoted.

Edited April 14, 2011 by unsinkable

[shinyhappypeople]

In my area they pubish the salaries of public employess (including teachers, firefighters, police etc) every couple of years or so. It's perfectly legal.

 

But why do they need to publish NAMES?? I think that's what floors me the most. It's just such an invasion of privacy! How would a private sector employee feel if their company decided to publicly release names and salaries of every employee? It may be legal but it just isn't *right.*

[LibraryLover]

I don't think those salaries should be sceret.

Edited April 14, 2011 by LibraryLover

[LibraryLover]

But why do they need to publish NAMES?? I think that's what floors me the most. It's just such an invasion of privacy! How would a private sector employee feel if their company decided to publicly release names and salaries of every employee? It may be legal but it just isn't *right.*

 

 

Why isn't it right?

[shinyhappypeople]

Why shouldn't taxpayers know where their money is going?

 

:confused:

 

Names of positions and salary range = A-OK.

 

Hm... my husband just got a raise (still within the posted salary range). No, neither the tax payers nor his co-workers have an inherent right to know.

[unsinkable]

Names of positions and salary range = A-OK.

 

Hm... my husband just got a raise (still within the posted salary range). No, neither the tax payers nor his co-workers have an inherent right to know.

 

Never mind.

[regentrude]

My issue is posting individual names with salaries. It would be no big deal to reveal the salary range for specific job titles. But to identify people by name... that's beyond the pale. Hope they don't decide to take it to the next level and include the next-door county where my husband works in their database.

 

It's nobody's business what his specific salary is.

 

It is every tax payer's business what each public employee earns. The databases are already there and every name is posted with the individual salary. This can prevent nepotism and discrimination. I am surprised you have not been aware that his salary information is public.

[shinyhappypeople]

Why isn't it right?

 

Because it's an invasion of privacy.

[Plucky]

Because it's an invasion of privacy.

 

When one works for the government and a lot of other companies one gives up some privacy for transparency. I lost a lot of rights when I joined the Air Force. I didn't care for the feeling so I didn't re-up.

[edithcrawley]

Because it's an invasion of privacy.

 

 

I know many people that work for some form of gov (or gov entity like state colleges, school districts, etc). When they were hired, they were told that their salary, as well as some other information would be public record. If they weren't comfortable with that, then they didn't accept the job. The taxpayers have a right to know how the money was spent and who is being paid to do what.

[Gooblink]

If it bothered me, I'd probably get a private sector job.

 

I think the public has a right to know what public employees get paid.

[regentrude]

Because it's an invasion of privacy.

But the people who foot the bill have a right to know whether the mayor's sons and nephews earn twice as much as other people of their job description,. whether black employees earn less than their white counterparts, whether women earn less.

There are good reasons to make government spending transparent.

And it is not as if you SUDDENLY have to disclose this - it has been standard policy for years and nobody has to become a public employee who does not like this law.

[elegantlion]

It's public information. Right or wrong they have a right to publish that information. Cities may have to make the information public at some point for accountability purposes. (I have no clue on that)

 

Like it or not public information gets published in papers a LOT. Crime statistics, you can find out when your neighbor gets a DUI. You can find out why your neighbors were yelling if one of them gets arrested. Or that 16 year old Susie got a speeding ticket.

 

Foreclosures and bankruptcies are also public information that gets published in papers.

 

Much of lives are public, the good and the bad. Unless there are confidentiality clauses, I'm not sure what you could do.

[bettyandbob]

my local paper has been doing this for years. it's in the public record.

[Plucky]

I don't have any problem with names being published. It rather discourages the double dippers.

 

 

You do realize property tax data is also online, at least in my state. Each county publishes it. Easy to find out where someone lives.

 

Also be aware that your school teacher's union has access to the income data in the district. They know exactly how much squeeze to put on the taxpayer.

 

Very easy with this data to see who is crying poverty and to decide how one is going to cast one's school tax vote.

 

We've had such problems in my state with people double dipping. Ugh.

[Melinda in VT]

I don't think they publish names, but our town is so small that they might as well.

 

They also publish the list of people who are delinquent on the property tax bills.

[shinyhappypeople]

I feel like throwing up. Seriously.

 

Job title & salary range give taxpayers (including me and DH) all the information that we need. I don't need to know someone's specific salary. It's just not any of my business.

 

I'm so genuinely creeped out by the attitude displayed here. Seriously, ladies. This is just beyond the pale.

[FaithManor]

This is just plain wrong. Yes, one should be able to look up a "position code" such as G-9 and see the salary range and maybe even a graph that shows the possible pay increases that woudl go with experience. As taxpayers we do have every right to see these salary ranges. But, being able to look up an individual's exact salary is a violation of privacy.

 

Faith

[Plucky]

I don't think they publish names, but our town is so small that they might as well.

 

They also publish the list of people who are delinquent on the property tax bills.

 

Yep, online you can see a map of my house, how much I paid for it, who I bought it from, how much I pay in taxes, how much it is now worth after the bubble hit, how much property I have, square footage, etc.

[Julie in CA]

No, neither the tax payers nor his co-workers have an inherent right to know.

I guess the difference of opinion stems from the fact that you and I probably have a different idea of who's actually your husband's employer. The head of any company or organization has knowledge of who each employee is, and what they earn. In the case of the government *the taxpayer is certainly and absolutely* the employer. In fact, I'd go so far as to say that many government employees have forgotten that, and the employer is growing less and less satisfied with what their dollars are buying.

 

ETA: So, I guess, my answer is no, it would not bother me. I'd be proud to be serving the public, glad to have a job with excellent benefits, and completely ok with the taxpayer having a basis for deciding whether I'm earning an appropriate amount of money for the position I'm serving in and the perceived quality of my work.

Edited April 14, 2011 by Julie in CA

[RahRah]

But why do they need to publish NAMES?? I think that's what floors me the most. It's just such an invasion of privacy! How would a private sector employee feel if their company decided to publicly release names and salaries of every employee? It may be legal but it just isn't *right.*

 

Those salaries are paid with taxpayer dollars, they're public-sector employees, that's why they're public information.

[regentrude]

I guess the difference of opinion stems from the fact that you and I probably have a different idea of who's actually your husband's employer. The head of any company or organization has knowledge of who each employee is, and what they earn. In the case of the government *the taxpayer is certainly and absolutely* the employer. In fact, I'd go so far as to say that many government employees have forgotten that, and the employer is growing less and less satisfied with what their dollars are buying.

:iagree:Well put.

 

(Btw, DH and I are public employees. And yes, we are aware that anybody can see our salary. And see, for instance, that we earn a fraction of what we would in a private company ;-)

[LibraryLover]

We've had such problems in my state with people double dipping. Ugh.

 

 

Same here. Why does one police officer (for instance) with the same experience, years on the force, etc make so much more than another? It's important to know who is 'playing fair' and who is not. Should just a few folks get all of the overtime? Is some collecting disability but also a salary? Those are just examples.

 

But I am all for transparancy in salary, anyway. There should not be huge ranges in the same company in the same position when certain types of bonuses and merit pay are not associated with the work. "I pay women less because they are not the main breadwinners." etc.

Edited April 14, 2011 by LibraryLover

[Plucky]

I guess the difference of opinion stems from the fact that you and I probably have a different idea of who's actually your husband's employer. The head of any company or organization has knowledge of who each employee is, and what they earn. In the case of the government *the taxpayer is certainly and absolutely* the employer. In fact, I'd go so far as to say that many government employees have forgotten that, and the employer is growing less and less satisfied with what their dollars are buying.

 

:iagree:

[blakereese]

I guess the difference of opinion stems from the fact that you and I probably have a different idea of who's actually your husband's employer. The head of any company or organization has knowledge of who each employee is, and what they earn. In the case of the government *the taxpayer is certainly and absolutely* the employer. In fact, I'd go so far as to say that many government employees have forgotten that, and the employer is growing less and less satisfied with what their dollars are buying.

 

I agree with this.

 

I guess I don't see why you are so upset. This is how it has always been and how it should be. Anyone who works for the government knows this, and if there is any discomfort, they should not have a govt. job.

 

As taxpayers, we all should be able to see where our money is going. It's part of the budget, and is relevant. Why should it be kept secret?

[katilac]

It's public information, and shouldn't come as a big surprise to any government employee. It's the same for people who work for non-profit organizations (or it was ten years ago when I worked for one; I assume it's still the same). When people talk about jobs being in the "private" sector or not, there's a reason for that wording!

 

As far as just publishing a salary range goes, the problem with that would be that the range is either narrow (in which case it makes little difference if they post the range or the salary) or broad (in which case it is of little help).

 

I can see where it might seem odd at first, but this is something that people know going in - - government jobs operate under different rules. And it's very important to keep a light shining on government money.

[LibraryLover]

I agree with this.

 

I guess I don't see why you are so upset. This is how it has always been and how it should be. Anyone who works for the government knows this, and if there is any discomfort, they should not have a govt. job.

 

As taxpayers, we all should be able to see where our money is going. It's part of the budget, and is relevant. Why should it be kept secret?

 

 

Yes. Government budgets are, as they should be, public.

[jplain]

In order for citizens to trust the government, there must be transparency regarding where money goes. You may feel it is intrusive, but this is a part of being a government employee. Your employers are taxpayers, and they do have a right to know how their tax dollars are being spent, including specific salaries and benefits. Anyone who doesn't like it is free to seek employment in the private sector.

[Night Elf]

I thought that information was always accessible to the public. The newspaper is just making it more easily accessible for citizens to know how that money is being allocated with regards to salaried individuals.

[dcjlkplus3]

I have no problem with the public being able to find out easily the money that they (the public) are paying government employees.

[mommaduck]

This is just plain wrong. Yes, one should be able to look up a "position code" such as G-9 and see the salary range and maybe even a graph that shows the possible pay increases that woudl go with experience. As taxpayers we do have every right to see these salary ranges. But, being able to look up an individual's exact salary is a violation of privacy.

 

Faith

 

That works with military where the pay is based on grade. Doesn't work that way in other areas of the public sector.

[dirty ethel rackham]

It would bother me. It does bother me. Unfortunately, when you are dealing with government employees, all that information is FOIable (Freedom of Information act, thank you very much.) Dh's salary was published in the paper WITH HIS NAME as part of an "make a name for the idiot reporter" piece on "people who make too much money" all because his salary increased quite a bit over a 2 year period. Never mind that he was promoted a couple times and took over the position of a person who made quite a bit more and he absorbed the work of 3 people who were let go. I was fuming mad ... we received several calls and emails. The funny thing, if dh wasn't in government work, he'd be making 30% more.

[aggieamy]

It is every tax payer's business what each public employee earns. The databases are already there and every name is posted with the individual salary. This can prevent nepotism and discrimination. I am surprised you have not been aware that his salary information is public.

 

I know many people that work for some form of gov (or gov entity like state colleges, school districts, etc). When they were hired, they were told that their salary, as well as some other information would be public record. If they weren't comfortable with that, then they didn't accept the job. The taxpayers have a right to know how the money was spent and who is being paid to do what.

 

In order for citizens to trust the government, there must be transparency regarding where money goes. You may feel it is intrusive, but this is a part of being a government employee. Your employers are taxpayers, and they do have a right to know how their tax dollars are being spent, including specific salaries and benefits. Anyone who doesn't like it is free to seek employment in the private sector.

 

:iagree:. I am a taxpayer and I like knowing what the people working for me are making.

[Chris in VA]

:iagree:QUOTE=regentrude;2627169]But the people who foot the bill have a right to know whether the mayor's sons and nephews earn twice as much as other people of their job description,. whether black employees earn less than their white counterparts, whether women earn less.

There are good reasons to make government spending transparent.

And it is not as if you SUDDENLY have to disclose this - it has been standard policy for years and nobody has to become a public employee who does not like this law.

 

Of course, dh has a job where his salary is out there, too--I remember one person in the congregation sending an irate email, saying he was paid way too much. It's uncomfortable.

[Gooblink]

I feel like throwing up. Seriously.

 

Job title & salary range give taxpayers (including me and DH) all the information that we need. I don't need to know someone's specific salary. It's just not any of my business.

 

I'm so genuinely creeped out by the attitude displayed here. Seriously, ladies. This is just beyond the pale.

 

This is just plain wrong. Yes, one should be able to look up a "position code" such as G-9 and see the salary range and maybe even a graph that shows the possible pay increases that woudl go with experience. As taxpayers we do have every right to see these salary ranges. But, being able to look up an individual's exact salary is a violation of privacy.

 

Faith

 

Yes, I'll concede, after giving it a little thought, that salary ranges should be sufficient without personal identification.

 

At least, I'd be OK with that. Please don't vomit. :tongue_smilie:

[regentrude]

Yes, I'll concede, after giving it a little thought, that salary ranges should be sufficient without personal identification.

 

I am not quite sure why it would make any difference for the feeling of privacy whether it says "earns between 40 and 45k " as opposed to "earns 43,587" ???