Why Do Bosses Want Their Employees’ Salaries to Be Secret?

This is all about breaking unions, breaking worker solidarity and consciousness. From The Nation.
Opening excerpt.

	Why Do Bosses Want Their Employees’ Salaries to Be Secret? Michelle Chen April 11, 2014 The Nation In a narrow vote this week, the Senate politely smothered the Paycheck Fairness Act, which would have protected workers’ rights to compare and discuss their wages at work. Aimed at dismantling workplace “pay secrecy” policies, the legislation built on the 2009 Lily Ledbetter Fair Pay Act, which strengthens safeguards for women and other protected groups against wage discrimination.
	, AP Photo/Paul Sancya,
	Asking someone at a party how much they make in a year might get you a weird look. Asking someone about their salary at work might get you fired. Seem unfair? Don’t bother complaining: Washington just once again reaffirmed the boss’s inalienable right to punish workers for talking about whether they’re being treated fairly. In a narrow vote this week, the Senate politely smothered the Paycheck Fairness Act, which would have protected workers’ rights to compare and discuss their wages at work. Aimed at dismantling workplace “pay secrecy” policies, the legislation built on the 2009 Lily Ledbetter Fair Pay Act, which strengthens safeguards for women and other protected groups against wage discrimination. Both measures aim to fill gaps in the enforcement of longstanding civil rights laws, which, half a century on, are still failing to combat the most insidious forms of discrimination—the subtle labor violations that grease the gears of economic inequality. Wage discrimination has persisted in large part because workers are routinely discouraged or outright banned from discussing compensation levels with coworkers. The Paycheck Fairness Act would have shielded workers from retaliation if they discuss their salaries with coworkers. Employers would have had to “prove that pay disparities exist for legitimate, job-related reasons,” according to the National Partnership for Women & Families. In addition, the bill would have closed disparities in the legal remedies available for violations of the Equal Pay Act, so workers could claim the same kinds of damages provided under other wage discrimination laws. And overall, workers would have had an easier time seeking compensation in federal court, rather than the bureaucracy of the National Labor Relations Board, which tends to yield weaker penalties. The bill would also have directed the Labor Department and Equal Employment Opportunity Commission to proactively gather data and investigate wage discrimination on a broader scale. To partially offset the Senate defeat, President Obama signed two executive orders that placed similar mandates on federal contractors, but while that would cover a substantial chunk of the workforce, many millions of workers may remain effectively gagged at work. Yet making pay fair is not just a matter of correcting payrolls. Despite all the handwringing on Capitol Hill around the oft-cited seventy-seven-cents-to-a-dollar figure, the restrictions of speech in the workplace attest to a more systemic power imbalance. According to a 2003 study, “Over one-third of private sector employers…recently surveyed admitted to having specific rules prohibiting employees from discussing their pay with coworkers. In contrast, only about 1 in 14 employers have actively adopted a ‘pay openness’ policy,” which explicitly protects workplace discussion of wages. A 2011 survey estimated that 50 percent of workers are subject to some kind of restriction on discussing their pay with coworkers—slightly more women than men, with the largest concentration among private sector workers (about 60 percent, compared to less than 20 percent of public workers). The gaps vary along demographic lines: women workers, single parents and married childless women tend to face higher rates of these secrecy controls than do married mothers. And although civil servants generally had far lower rates of pay secrecy, the practice was more prevalent among women in the public sector. Many of these workers will never even know that they’ve unfairly benefited from or suffered from unequal pay. Ultimately, the big winner in this game of secrecy is the boss, who profits directly from the ignorance and pliability of workers who don’t grasp their own economic situation. So there’s a gap between what’s fair and what’s legal. Discussing wages in a private workplace isn’t technically covered by any First Amendment guarantee against censorship, but the issue of pay secrecy raises crucial questions about workers’ freedom to learn and communicate about their labor conditions. In unionized workplaces, where there is additional protection for organizing-related activities, the National Labor Relations Board and the civil courts have consistently sided with workers, ruling that under the National Labor Relations Act, wage discussions should be considered “concerted activity for the purpose of collective bargaining or other mutual aid or protection.”  . . . .  Read the rest of the article at The Nation. Please support our journalism. Get a digital subscription to The Nation for just $9.50!

Panitch on Real News video: How the Defeat of Trade Unionism Gave Rise to Low-Wage Jobs

Jaisal Noor, The Real News, December 4, 2013

How the Defeat of Trade Unionism Gave Rise to Low-Wage Jobs

Leo Panitch: Giant corporations like Wal-Mart actively suppress unionization among workers -   December 4, 13

Transcript

JAISAL NOOR, TRNN PRODUCER: Welcome to The Real News Network. I'm Jaisal Noor in Baltimore.

Fast food workers are preparing to strike across the country Thursday, demanding an increase of pay to $15 an hour. Thursday's major day of action--organizers say 100 cities will take part--comes just six days after more than 100 people were arrested nationwide at Black Friday protests against major retail outlets.

It's also important to note that while it's commonly believed that the vast majority of low-wage workers are teenagers, their average age is actually 35. More than a quarter have children, and more than half work full-time, those numbers courtesy of the Economic Policy Institute.

Now joining us to give some context to these latest strikes is Leo Panitch. He's the Canada Research Chair in Comparative Political Economy and a distinguished research professor of political science at York University in Toronto, author of many books, including The Making of Global Capitalism: The Political Economy of American Empire.

Thank you so much for joining us.

LEO PANITCH, PROF. POLITICAL SCIENCE, YORK UNIVERSITY: Glad to be here.

NOOR: So we wanted to give you a chance to kind of give some context to the increasing use of low-wage workers across America and other countries and the protest against that trend. And a big, a major driving force for these protests--and it's been--this has been used to kind of criticize them as well--are major unions like SEIU. But major unions weren't always interested in organizing these low-wage workers. What's brought about this change?

PANITCH: Well, you know, I think people are missing, in all the attention that's being paid to the vastly growing inequality in the United States and other Western capitalist countries, that the fundamental reason for it is not some shift in taxes, but the fundamental reason for it has been the defeat of trade unionism in the United States and elsewhere, at least since the early 1980s. Insofar as there was a tendency to the equalization of incomes--and it by no means went all that far in the postwar period--it was because for a few decades after 1945, trade unions were strong vis-à-vis their employers. And that had to do with some legal rights they'd won. It also had to do with the wage militancy of those unions and their ability to coerce corporations to pay workers higher wages, better benefits, give them more secure employment. And the reason that CEOs didn't pay themselves the astronomical amounts they pay themselves today was precisely because of the bad example it set in terms of the next collective bargaining round.

Now, what has happened everywhere, although especially in the United States, is that unions have been defeated. That was a concerted effort on the part of employers through the 1970s and 1980s. It was aided by the Federal Reserve's very high interest rate policy, which purposely drove up unemployment. And in driving up unemployment, it gave the unions a loss of nerve.

And it was added to by such actions by the Reagan administration as the ending of the PATCO strike, the strike of the air traffic controllers, and the imprisonment of their members. And this was a union that had voted Republican in 1980. It voted for Reagan in 1980. And it had to do with a shift of a good deal of industry to the American South, to those states where there were so-called right-to-work provisions, i.e., right to not belong to a union--right of employers to prevent you joining a union is what it really means. And then it had to do with the fact that so much of the enormous growth in retail services in the United States--and elsewhere, but especially the United States--has taken place in jurisdictions where it is difficult to unionize, especially, again, in the American South. And that then has spread like wildfire around the country and capitalism more broadly. That's the fundamental reason for the growth in inequality.

The tax system only tinkers with the incomes we get in the labor market. It can adjust those. It can make some slight--have some effect on them, whether taxation is more or less progressive. But the main fundamental reason has to do with the incomes that people get in the labor market.

And what has happened increasingly is that even in those industries where there used to be well-paid workers, increasingly unions have been forced to engage in concession bargaining, and such new employees as are taken in are taken in at half or two-thirds of the wages of those who'd been employed there for a long time, with much worse benefits.

NOOR: Now, Leo, I wanted to just interrupt briefly and talk about the issue of these millions of low-wage workers that obviously are contributing to inequality in this country.

PANITCH: [inaud.] McDonald's workers. People who used to earn good wages as steel or autoworkers are now McDonald's workers or Walmart workers; or at least steelworkers and autoworkers who used to be able to get their sons or daughters or nephews or nieces into steel or auto plants are now Walmart workers, etc.

So, you know, this isn't some other category. This isn't some group from Mars that suddenly has arrived with the label "low-paid workers" on their foreheads. This is the same working class. And that applies whether they're black Americans or Latinos or whatever. In fact, black Americans in the auto industry were precisely the ones who benefited most from unionization, and they're the ones and their children are the ones who have suffered most from the defeat of unionization. So, yes, there's been this growth of low-wage workers, but it is a growth that comes out of a working-class which previously had a chance of becoming a high-wage working-class.

NOOR: So, traditionally unions didn't try to unionize these sectors.

PANITCH: That's kind of the myth. Of course, these are very difficult industries to organize. Do you know that Walmart employs an army of 200 lawyers and public relations officials whose only job it is when there's any attempt at unionization is to send in firefighters into any store to prevent it happening? Do you know the number of times since Walmart's existence that they have conducted what in any jurisdiction would be considered unfair bargaining to prevent unionization? These are very, very committed antiunion employers.

NOOR: I'm not doubting that at all. But can you talk about this recent push to unionize, or even for these workers to come together and protest and demand a higher wage and demand better working conditions?

PANITCH: [inaud.] a push than it is. There's no question that the fight for 15, which is led by the SEIU, is impressive--or at least SEIU is behind it. There's no question that our Walmart or the Walmart warehouse workers campaigns are supported by some unions, such as the United Electrical Workers union. But the amount that's been put into this is miniscule, and the number of organizers who are spending most of their time on this is miniscule compared to the people who in the 1930s organized the CIO unions, the Canadian Auto Workers, the American autoworkers, or the Steelworkers, or what have you.

Read the rest of the interview at http://therealnews.com/t2/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=31&Itemid=74&jumival=11136