Would This Bother You? (privacy issue)

[tex-mex]

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.

Jumping in here and agreeing.

 

Didn't realize it was a public employee. I was a public employee (schoolteacher) and I knew what my co-workers got paid and they knew my salary. As taxpayers, I do want to know where it is going. Funny thing is, tho' your $$$ biz is out there for all to see... they cannot fire you thanks to the union you belong to. LOL That is another thread, tho'. ;)

[Trish]

No, I wouldn't like it at all. On the other hand, we know the amount the president makes. We taxpayers pay his salary.

[unsinkable]

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 pretty harsh.

[NoPlaceLikeHome]

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.

 

Yes but these are government positions paid for by the public. This information should be readily available and public IMHO to keep everyone honest so to speak. For example, there was a mayor I believe who was making about $800,000 which is more than the President:001_huh:

 

Don't get me wrong I am not against government employees at all since I have several hard working family members who are government employees including dh who serve at various levels of government:tongue_smilie:

[hana]

It doesn't bother me at all. I am a professor at a state-funded university, and my earnings are easily searchable by the public. Since I'm paid by public taxes, this seems reasonable to me. I knew my salary was public information when I took the position, and I wouldn't expect anything different.

[Gooblink]

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" ???

 

:) Personally, I don't see the difference, either, but if it would make anyone feel better...then it seems a small concession to make.

[NoPlaceLikeHome]

:) Personally, I don't see the difference, either, but if it would make anyone feel better...then it seems a small concession to make.

 

Yes but how would not giving identifying info such as names prevent abuses of the system?

 

Don't get me wrong, I believe that most government employees are hard working and honest:) In fact, I am appalled about how government employees are often disparaged in the public media by pundits:( OTOH, I think names and salary should absolutely be readily available as uncomfortable that might since they are still public jobs paid for by the public. This info helps to prevent abuses IMHO.

[nrg]

These salaries are public. That said, our local newspaper posts the information according to job title, not name. It does post overtime, etc. I think it would be reasonable to ask them to remove the names and keep the job titles.

[Parrothead]

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.

 

.

One of the problems with this information being published when the (federal) government employee gets a transfer to a tiny little town that is very cliquish. All of a sudden every single thing the employee or spouse look at buying from a house, to a dining room table to auto repairs costs much more just because the employee is earning X amount of money.:glare:

 

If you think that doesn't happen, I've got a bridge in Brooklyn to sell you.;)

[Gooblink]

Yes but how would not giving identifying info such as names prevent abuses of the system?

 

Don't get me wrong, I believe that most government employees are hard working and honest:) In fact, I am appalled about how government employees are often disparaged in the public media by pundits:( OTOH, I think names and salary should absolutely be readily available as uncomfortable that might since they are still public jobs paid for by the public. This info helps to prevent abuses IMHO.

 

I guess I don't know enough about how public employees can abuse the system to answer intelligently. I can understand how some with access to personnel data or financial data might be in position...but the average employee? I just don't know.

[mysticamethyst]

I am really sorry it bothers you but no I have no issues with it. The older I get, the more taxes we pay, the more I want to know where every penny is spent so I know who to send my complaints to or vote to get out of office. There are too many stories about govt. employees of all differnt levels stealing from the system or manipulating it to their advantage. Esspecially now more tax payers want to know what and where their money is going because many feel like it is being misspent.

[Julie in CA]

I feel like throwing up. Seriously.

 

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

Well...(You did ASK what we thought. Sometimes it happens that when you ask, you find that most people don't agree with an opinion you hold). :grouphug:

[DianeW88]

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.

 

:iagree: If your dh isn't comfortable with this, perhaps he should get a job in the private sector.

[NoPlaceLikeHome]

I guess I don't know enough about how public employees can abuse the system to answer intelligently. I can understand how some with access to personnel data or financial data might be in position...but the average employee? I just don't know.

 

I don't think it is the average employee per se who is abusing the system. I am referring to those instances in various towns and cities in our country where mayors were paid $800,000. Locally we just had a school administrator who earned about as much as the Vice President and who used the administrator credit card for questionable purposes. Plus he made sure to have a golden parachute when he retired of $600,000:glare:

 

In most, if not all, instances I think it is unjustified for public employees to paid more than the Vice President or the Joint Chiefs of Staff. I know locally our school district raises taxes the maximum amount allowed by law every single year:glare:

 

 

Don't get me wrong I want to pay my fair share and even think that federal taxes need to be raised to help our country. OTOH when the local school districts and other localities raise taxes every single year, then such high salaries don't sit well with me at all.

 

 

Again I want to reiterate that I think most government employees are hard working and honest:)

Edited April 14, 2011 by priscilla

[katilac]

These salaries are public. That said, our local newspaper posts the information according to job title, not name. It does post overtime, etc. I think it would be reasonable to ask them to remove the names and keep the job titles.

 

I think part of the reason for including names is to make it easier to spot potential cases of abuse/nepotism. In other words, does everyone making overtime have the same last name as the mayor?

[kalanamak]

I've had mine up for all the world to see for years. It is part of working for the government. "Open government". We are the public's employees. The boss gets to know how much we make.

[In2why]

I thought most Counties did this at part for freedom of information act? I know they post all of the public employees names and salaries here every year.

 

It wouldn't bother me.

[dirty ethel rackham]

: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.

At least it was just an irate email. We have come out of grocery stores only to find that our car was keyed all because it carried a sticker for the "disgraced state agency of the month" - a sticker that was required in order to park at work. Dh's coworkers found their tires slashed and windows broken. These were not employees who had money to replace this stuff because government work only pays well if you are politically connected.

[Mrs Mungo]

There are too many stories about govt. employees of all differnt levels stealing from the system or manipulating it to their advantage. Esspecially now more tax payers want to know what and where their money is going because many feel like it is being misspent.

 

I'm confused as to what this would have to do with salaries? Every penny of what every government office spends is most definitely not public information. So, why specific salaries of people in a searchable database?

 

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.

 

I don't know.

 

I have to agree that there is already a lot of information out there. Tax records and home sales were good examples. I once knew someone who searched every person's house in our unit, where they lived, what they paid for their homes, and gossiped about it with other people. I didn't think it was very cool, but it's not illegal.

 

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

 

Anyone who knows my dh's rank can come pretty close to figuring out his salary because pay tables are public information.

 

I think it would be better to post job titles or departments instead of names, but I am not really sure why you are so aghast?

[mom4him]

I don't know about on line but our local paper published all the city employs and what they make. They have done this since I can remember.

[Audrey]

That would definitely bother me. The privacy law here does not allow you to publish a person's name like that. However, you can search a job title in a given department and it will tell you the salaries of people with that title, but not their names or other identifying information. So, if you know Joe is a Administrative Secretary to Justices in the provincial capital, you can find out how much each AS-J makes, but not who makes what.

[Brilliant]

I have to agree that there is already a lot of information out there. Tax records and home sales were good examples.

 

Yes...I hate this, but I guess there's no way around it. I was talking to a relative on the phone a while back (someone I don't speak to very often) who asked me my home address. I happily gave it to him, as I thought he wanted it to keep in touch. After I did, he said, "Great, I can look up your house online now to see how you're living." Nice.

[In2why]

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.

 

 

I can see that it really bothers you, and I am confused as to why. Why exactly does it bother you?

[Tap]

As others have said...public employees, public knowledge.

 

 

I don't have a problem with specific salaries either. For those who say a range is good enough.....the problem with that...people can be secretly paid outside of the range. By putting an actual number, these are brought to light. Adding bonuses and perks are one way, out and out lying about someones position is another.

 

 

I used to work for a company in one position. They coded my position something different so I could be paid more that the range for actual position I held. I was transfered into the position from a higher paid position, and wouldn't take the position at the current, lower wage. They told me they 'fixed' the problem and to not worry about the wage issue. It wasn't until years later that I found out what they had done to 'fix' the issue was coding me like I worked in an entirely different department, and each week someone in bookkeeping would manually move my hours around to make it all legit. :001_huh:

[Abigail4476]

When you work for the government, federal, state or local, and your salary is paid with taxpayer funds, (e.g., other people's money), they (we) have a right to know where that money is going and how it is being used. Anyone who holds public office has to sacrifice privacy for the sake of transparent integrity.

 

It's no different than a church or other non-profit organization having to make their financial details public. Since church members donate the funds that pay salaries, then they have the right to full disclosure as to how those funds are used. Our church has a business meeting each year, and all salaries paid are listed, as well as how every other dollar was spent. Same system; smaller scale.

 

I can understand it being annoying, but it's a necessary evil.

Edited April 15, 2011 by Abigail4476

[Abigail4476]

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.

 

Creeped out? :confused: I don't understand why it would creep you out for the public to want to know how their taxpayer dollars are spent. In our small town, it is our business to know how much our mayor and other officials make, how public funds are dispersed to various departments. It allows the public to hold the city accountable for its expenditures. It's a safety net to prevent a number of ills, such as embezzlement, excessive spending, bribes, etc.

 

I don't see the point of a "salary range." A salary range for a certain position wouldn't vary all that much, anyway, so what does that help?

[MBM]

If someone is employed under the Executive Branch and a certain level (SES) or political appointee, all members of the employee's household must fill out a financial disclosure for personal investments. So, not only is the salary disclosed (which doesn't bother me too much) but the investments of all who live in the household are out there for the public to see as well (which does bother me a bit). I understand the reasoning why, but I think the Legislative Branch especially should have to disclose the same information.

[kalanamak]

I can see that it really bothers you, and I am confused as to why. Why exactly does it bother you?

 

Some people are raised with the idea that to talk about money is worse than talking about sex.

[8circles]

As others have said...public employees, public knowledge.

 

 

:iagree:& I was a government employee, in my prior life. It doesn't bother me at all. I find it quite useful when certain employees start complaining about low salaries.

[RanchGirl]

I am really sorry it bothers you but no I have no issues with it. The older I get, the more taxes we pay, the more I want to know where every penny is spent so I know who to send my complaints to or vote to get out of office. There are too many stories about govt. employees of all differnt levels stealing from the system or manipulating it to their advantage. Esspecially now more tax payers want to know what and where their money is going because many feel like it is being misspent.

 

 

:iagree: sorry OP, but I think it's appropriate for that information to be public.

 

I really think nothing that the government knows is truly private. In our county you can call and find out how much people paid for their houses and the amount of their home loan. I know because of a mixup where our neighbor's home equity loan was applied to our property due to a clerical mistake by the county. When we were refinancing, our title wasn't clear until we fixed that. When I called the neighbor in question, he was OUTRAGED that I knew the amount of his second loan. (Though weirdly, he was not terribly concerned that said loan was causing us a title problem.) He promptly called the county to find out the amount of *our* loan, then called me back to say he knew it and was going to use it as leverage to keep us from telling anyone else in the neighborhood about his loan. As if anyone cared! That unnerved me a bit, though not as much as the actual title problem that caused the whole mess to begin with.

[jewellsmommy]

My dh is a city employee. I don't care if people know that an Electronic Tech II earns $x amt. of money and worked X amt of overtime. BUT, I would not appreciate my dh's name posted with it all in the same place.

 

I don't really see that you are going to catch any misuse of money or squandering this way. I can tell you where the squandering comes in if you really want to know...:glare:. We have heard many stories, but it has nothing to do with the salaries. I have seen the polls and we make less then most people on here and have not seen a cost of living increase or merit raise in 3 yrs. But In that 3 yrs the same stretch of road has been repaved for no other reason then that dept. had to spend the money somewhere. Meanwhile In another dept. there is a bridge rail left inadequately repaired (after a man fell asleep and drove through it to his death) because there was not enough money. My dh made such a fuss about that rail that I thought he was going to get himself fired.

[Margo out of lurking]

I was a county govt employee in my previous life, and I am one now. In general, I don't have any problem with the public knowing my name or what I make.

 

But a searchable database is dangerous. It's one thing to run a list in a local newspaper once a year, but I would be uncomfortable knowing that any creep who comes into our library (and yes there are plenty) could go the public computer 20 feet away from me, and search for my name. From there, he could easily access county tax records, search for my name there, and know where I live.

 

What about sheriff's deputies? Deputy district attorneys? Court staff? Many, many counties have real estate tax records searchable by name, showing not only the address but any co-owner's name (spouse). You can then google the address and see a picture not only of that specific address, but also a satellite view of their property (hmm, do they have a trampoline, or other indications of children?). It is not unusual to see what kind of vehicle they might drive. All of this can be accessed within a few clicks.

 

So the information has always been made public, but one had to make an effort to get it, get out of their chair, go to the county building. A searchable database, on top of everything else, is too easy. Too dangerous.

[MBM]

In cases like this, I ask myself: What would Charles Fried think?

 

I think the OP's concern is that this information could be used to open accounts, etc. Although crooks can get ahold of this information anyway, it is a valid concern that it is too easily accessible.

 

We've pretty much accepted that my husband's salary is public, but I really dislike that our investments are out there for the general public to scrutinize. The Insepctor General could review it without it being made public. And if my husband really wanted to, he could pass along the inside information to friends and distant relatives. It really isn't all that difficult to do, but it is unethical.

 

Regarding the possibility of misspending and corruption, IMO, it would be better to go after some of the biggest insider traders out there by making their personal financial investments more transparent.

 

ETA: Since dh is working at home today, I thought I'd ask him what he's concerned about. He said that anyone who knows what we're worth could target us or our kids. A good chunk of the money is mine, and none of it has anything to do with dh's job. He also said that an ethics panel scrutinizes our disclosures, and they always have questions. That, IMO, is as far as the disclosure should go.

Edited April 15, 2011 by MBM
added more info

[southcarolinamom]

Our county's website lists people's properties (how much they bought and sold their homes for, how much they paid in property tax every year) as well as listing court cases, (civil and criminal,) and the results of the court cases.

 

It gives me the willies.... If I knew someone's last name, I could find out their criminal history, if they had been sued, how much they bought or sold their properties for, etc. Or if I had a street address and wanted to find out a history about a certain home, I could just check the street address and house #, and would have all of that property info.

[DawnM]

It would bother me.

 

I worked in public education for 17 years. My salary was technically public as anyone can go to the website and see teacher salaries. However, I wouldn't want it public how much I personally with my name and all the overtime I worked. Our district had so many options to work overtime (tutoring programs, teaching during your prep period, working during your off-track time, Saturday education for low performing students, etc...) I often took advantage of the extra pay.

 

Dawn

[Jennifer3141]

As others have said...public employees, public knowledge.

 

 

:iagree:

 

I thought people who went into public sector jobs knew this. I can see the argument though for title listings, not names. I do think this is going to happen to more and more people as time goes on. We're simply a less private people now.

[Rhonda in TX]

Government salaries are a matter of public record. I have a friend who's a school principal. He's always told us that we could easily find out exactly how much money he makes. However, I do agree that it stinks that it's so easy to find out the information. Many people who wouldn't normally take the time to look it up will check out this website.

[sparrow]

My husband and I both worked at a large state university. We took over a family business and left the university positions 4 years ago. Our salary information is still available online in a searchable database that goes back to 2002-2003. It lists the salary and the amount of that salary that comes from General Fund dollars.

 

I never liked that it was available, but accepted it as a public employee.

[lionfamily1999]

It would bother me.

 

I worked in public education for 17 years. My salary was technically public as anyone can go to the website and see teacher salaries. However, I wouldn't want it public how much I personally with my name and all the overtime I worked. Our district had so many options to work overtime (tutoring programs, teaching during your prep period, working during your off-track time, Saturday education for low performing students, etc...) I often took advantage of the extra pay.

 

Dawn

Here, that's how many of the town council people stole from the town. They worked "overtime" and it took awhile for anyone to catch on that they were working more hours in overtime than there were hours to work. I understand, and believe, that you didn't (couldn't) have done that, but that's one reason why reporting who worked how many hours is accessible. Those extras are where a lot of the embezzling/bribes get covered up.

[Mom0012]

Yes, it would bother me.

 

Lisa

[unsinkable]

Here, that's how many of the town council people stole from the town. They worked "overtime" and it took awhile for anyone to catch on that they were working more hours in overtime than there were hours to work. I understand, and believe, that you didn't (couldn't) have done that, but that's one reason why reporting who worked how many hours is accessible. Those extras are where a lot of the embezzling/bribes get covered up.

 

I am just addressing the OT issue, not Dawn in particular.

 

In many public sectors here, when people get near retirement they start working as much OT as they possibly can b/c the last 3 years of your salary is used to calculate your retirement.

 

It's costly to taxpayers and I think that taxpayers need to know where that money is going.