|
How is more information available in the labor market a bad thing, seriously I don't understand that. A market's efficiency relies on actors having as close to perfect information as possible right? Are we really supposed to believe that labor as a class, despite all of its' defeats in the last 35 years is manipulating this inefficiency to its' advantage? To me it seems far more likely that it's the other way around and that employers are using this lack of knowledge to their advantage, like the silicon valley collusion that was discovered recently.
|
#
¿
Apr 21, 2014 03:22
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 22, 2024 06:31 |
|
|
Well if I had my druthers everyone would be worker-owners of whatever place they worked at so this problem would not really come up, it's your system of private capital ownership that causes these problems.  But anyways, criminal records are already a matter of public record and that information is already required to be disclosed to employers. Health issues generally shouldn't be disclosed publicly because the privacy concerns outweigh the benefits. If you want to go down that path of argument you'd have to demonstrate why the privacy concerns when it comes to wages outweigh the benefits.e: Actually if the health information was properly anonymized and restricted to job related ailments, information like that would actually be pretty helpful to a prospective employee. Higher than average levels of work related injuries would indicate a place that is not run very well, dangerous conditions would result in higher wages, etc. rscott fucked around with this message at 03:44 on Apr 21, 2014 |
|
#
¿
Apr 21, 2014 03:39
|
|
|
Criminal records aren't fully available to the public except in certain cases like child support, driving related offenses and sex offenses but employers already require employees to submit to background checks and to disclose their criminal records, I guess I should retract my previous statement somewhat.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 21, 2014 03:56
|
|
|
ok I guess I was right before v v
|
|
#
¿
Apr 21, 2014 04:14
|
|
|
Seriously, the dumbass brother of the owner of the company I work for was in my inspection lab bitching about how they hired some guy and he told everyone how much money he was making and it was several dollars more an hour than his peers were making (about $17/hr instead of the $12-$14/hr others are making), just because this guy worked at the same company our senior VP worked at before he worked here. Hell, my company pays Cambodian and Vietnamese employees $1-2/hr less than white people doing the same job too. It's in our employee handbook that discussing wages with other employees is grounds for termination even after I pointed out multiple times that that clause is illegal under the taft hartley act of 1948. poo poo like that is absolutely endemic in small to medium sized businesses in the United States, and that's the kind of nepotism and discrimination that public pay data would help to eliminate.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 27, 2014 21:59
|
|