# Should public employees' salaries be public? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [August 11, 2004, 6:54am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-public-employees-salaries-be-public/259329 "2004-08-11T06:54:23Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 11\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![Boy\_Scout11](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/f08c70/32.png) [@Boy\_Scout11](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Boy_Scout11)\ **Post date:** [August 12, 2004, 12:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-public-employees-salaries-be-public/259329/21 "2004-08-12T12:31:26Z")
> [@rjung](#): > > Exerpted from the Associated Press: > > Putting aside the issue of Sen. Torlakson’s planned bill, what are the ethical and moral priorities over releasing the salaries of public employees? > > On the one hand, you can argue (as the newspaper does) that these are _public_ employees, so the public has a right to know how much they’re getting paid. > > On the other hand, you can argue (as the police union and the city of Oakland do) that accountability doesn’t require disclosing the names of individual employees and their salaries, and that accountability can be served simply by looking at the numbers from a higher level. > So in the showdown between the “public right to know” and “employees’ right to privacy,” who wins? And why? Many abuses are quite evident by the media, which has repubs telling on demos and vice versa and there is alot more behind the scenes problems, such as, say a person in charge allows an underling outrageous overtime and he/she is the head of that department or agency and that overtime is completely bogus? Our government has shown us so many times it is willing to throw away our hard earned money, while these so called leaders enlarge the government ranks, as a sheild against their fraud and abuses. The more people any agency can hire, the more it can protect itself from others seeing, because many will cover for them, because it makes them brownie points. ---
**Author:** ![Boy\_Scout11](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/f08c70/32.png) [@Boy\_Scout11](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Boy_Scout11)\ **Post date:** [August 12, 2004, 12:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-public-employees-salaries-be-public/259329/22 "2004-08-12T12:37:42Z")
> [@manhattan](#): > > Because depending on the deal the unions have, that information might not be very probative at all. In the current instance, look at which union is kicking up a storm – the police union. You can reasonably expect the fire union to join them. The difference between those and other unions? Overtime. In particular, overtime to favored employees during the three years (usually) leading up to retirement. If you published “Fire Battalion Commander, Level IV” has a salary of (making it up) $60,000, that is not helpful information if the truth is that, (again, making it up) the average Battalion Commander makes $80,000 after overtime and that those who are in the final three years of their careers, when compensation is set for pension purposes, average $135,000 and oh-by-the-way the Battalion Commanders who happen to also be union leaders make $160,000 and a large portion of the overtime is for being on-call, not actually on duty. > > I suspect that the movement to publish specific compensation for specific people is either a) a failure of imagination on the part of politicians to find a less intrusive way to deal with this very real situation[sup]1[/sup] or b) an attempt to “punish” somehow some civil-service political enemies who benefit from the structure of the union contracts or c) some combination of those. An additional factor in many places is some of the highly-paid “civil service” posts that in reality are political patronage jobs. > [sup]1[/sup]: Whether such a state is desirable, or whether taxpayers would tolerate it with full knowledge is of course an entirely separate issue. But the disconnect between published “salaries” and actual cash compensation of many civil service workers who qualify for overtime is real. Oops, I read the first post and responded to it and got to yours and saw you had already covered overtime abuse. ---
**Author:** ![Eva\_Luna](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/e495f1/32.png) [@Eva\_Luna](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Eva_Luna)\ **Post date:** [August 12, 2004, 2:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-public-employees-salaries-be-public/259329/23 "2004-08-12T14:48:34Z")
> [@doreen](#): > > Theoretically, yes. But only in a situation where it can happen. In both of the government jobs I had, it can’t. To obtain a civil service position one must meet certain qualifications, pass a test and be placed on a list by the Department of Civil Service, which is then sent to hiring agencies. The hiring agency must then choose one of the top three names on the list. Promotions work the same way, and moving through salary scales is based on time. Should an agency try to favor someone- say by promoting number 42 on the list because he’s someone’s nephew= numbers 1-42 will go screaming to the Department of Civil Service. The flip side of that, however, is that no matter how smashingly one is doing one’s job, it can be almost impossible to get promoted to the next grade level based purely on merit. I know it frustrated the crap out of to be a GS-5 court interpreter, and to be doing the same work (and getting better performance evaluations, I might add) as people at the GS-11 level, who were making twice as much as I was merely because they had put in more time. And on top of that, to be told that it would be several years before I’d be in that position, no matter how highly everyone else thought of my performance. They were paying $16k back then at the entry level for that position; I could have made almost twice as much in a relatively mindless private-sector administrative job, without a college degree or any related experience. ---
**Author:** ![ruadh](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/d2c977/32.png) [@ruadh](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ruadh)\ **Post date:** [August 12, 2004, 5:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-public-employees-salaries-be-public/259329/24 "2004-08-12T17:23:05Z")
At my grade we’re scandalously underpaid. I think the public _should_ be told. ---
**Author:** ![Kent\_Clark](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/kent_clark/32/105_2.png) [@Kent\_Clark](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kent_Clark)\ **Post date:** [August 12, 2004, 7:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-public-employees-salaries-be-public/259329/25 "2004-08-12T19:06:08Z")
Since my wife is a public school teacher, her salary (or at least her pay grade) is a matter of public record. And indeed, there’s always someone to protest that those damn teachers make X thousand dollars and only work 9 months a year. Her attitude: it came with the job. I’m looking at the Official Manual for the State of Missouri (2000 Edition). Simply by opening to the back section, I can find out that SA is a corrections officer 1 and makes $22,692 and CA, an area coordinator for the state Emergency Management Agency, makes $33,624. Now that’s certainly an invasion of privacy. But if I see CA out playing golf three times a week, I can at least know how mad I should be. ---
**Author:** ![Northern\_Piper](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/northern_piper/32/5304_2.png) [@Northern\_Piper](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Northern_Piper)\ **Post date:** [August 12, 2004, 7:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-public-employees-salaries-be-public/259329/26 "2004-08-12T19:14:24Z")
> [@doreen](#): > > Theoretically, yes. But only in a situation where it can happen. \ You’ve summarised one model of civil service. But public scrutiny is still one of the checks to ensure that the civil service is in fact run as it is set up to run. Plus, there can be variations from the model you mention, not tied to patronage or nepotism, but simply as a result of different employment and org models. For example, in Canada, in at least some jurisdictions there can be “at pleasure” appointments to the regular civil service which are not in any way patronage/who you know/political appointments; they are “at pleasure” for other institutional reasons. Openness about salaries is one way to ensure these positions are not abused. And, you can also imagine civil services that are organised with management having the power to make discretionary hires, outside of the unionised work force, so there isn’t a rigid seniority system for every job position. That discretion gives the management more flexibilty, but may leave open the possibility of abuse. Openness about salaries and the individual employees gives the Opposition, th public and the media ways to monitor for abuse of the discretionary hiring policy. ---
**Author:** ![doreen](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/858c86/32.png) [@doreen](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/doreen)\ **Post date:** [August 13, 2004, 3:54am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-public-employees-salaries-be-public/259329/27 "2004-08-13T03:54:29Z")
> [@Northern Piper](#): > > Plus, there can be variations from the model you mention, not tied to patronage or nepotism, but simply as a result of different employment and org models. > > For example, in Canada, in at least some jurisdictions there can be “at pleasure” appointments to the regular civil service which are not in any way patronage/who you know/political appointments; they are “at pleasure” for other institutional reasons. Openness about salaries is one way to ensure these positions are not abused. I didn’t mean to say that in the systems I’ve worked in all of the “at pleasure” appointments were based purely on patronage or nepotism. But they are based on a connection of some sort. I might be the best person in the agency for the job , but if the appointing authority doesn’t know me and does know someone who will be competent, he or she will get the job instead of me. And if the governor’s best friend needs a job, he’ll be given one of those jobs, not a job in the mailroom or as a typist. So while I can see a public benefit in publishing the salaries of the relatively small number of political appointees (that’s exactly what they are commonly called- and they are not considered civil service positions and have no civil service protections), I don’t see the benefit in publishing the salary of every mailroom clerk or typist. Of course, in a system where every job is a “serves at the pleasure of” discretionary appointment the public would have an interest in knowing how much each public employee makes. But do systems like that still exist, except maybe in the smallest of towns? ---
**Author:** ![Typo\_Negative](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/typo_negative/32/484_2.png) [@Typo\_Negative](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Typo_Negative)\ **Post date:** [August 13, 2004, 8:26am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-public-employees-salaries-be-public/259329/28 "2004-08-13T08:26:33Z")
Of course we should know how much they make. We’re the ones paying it, we should know about it. I think a lot of my fellow Los Angelinos would very surprised at the salaries at the LA Unified School District (administrators, not teachers) and consultants for LADWP are pulling down. It’s not secret information. It can be found if you look hard enough. But it should be right out in the open. ---
**Author:** ![rjung](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/45deac/32.png) [@rjung](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/rjung)\ **Post date:** [August 13, 2004, 7:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-public-employees-salaries-be-public/259329/29 "2004-08-13T19:23:17Z")
Sure, but does it need to have names attached to them? “Elementary School Principal, level 4 - $65,000-$90,000/year” is a bit different from “Peter Jackson - $86,570/year,” IMO. ---
**Author:** ![Northern\_Piper](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/northern_piper/32/5304_2.png) [@Northern\_Piper](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Northern_Piper)\ **Post date:** [August 13, 2004, 7:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-public-employees-salaries-be-public/259329/30 "2004-08-13T19:42:19Z")
> [@doreen](#): > > I didn’t mean to say that in the systems I’ve worked in all of the “at pleasure” appointments were based purely on patronage or nepotism. But they are based on a connection of some sort. We’re obviously working from different models, since the ones I’m familiar with do have at pleasure - merit-based appointments. However, it sounds to me that we’re taking a similar approach to those types of public employment where there is discretion in hiring, whether that discretion is based on political or merit considerations, aren’t we? Since discretion can be abused more easily than a strict seniority system, publicity is a good check, even if it’s not needed for other types of hires. ---
**Author:** ![doreen](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/858c86/32.png) [@doreen](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/doreen)\ **Post date:** [August 13, 2004, 10:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-public-employees-salaries-be-public/259329/31 "2004-08-13T22:24:57Z")
> [@Northern Piper](#): > > However, it sounds to me that we’re taking a similar approach to those types of public employment where there is discretion in hiring, whether that discretion is based on political or merit considerations, aren’t we? Since discretion can be abused more easily than a strict seniority system, publicity is a good check, even if it’s not needed for other types of hires. I guess we are, although I do want to point out that the system I work under is test- based rather than seniority-based when it comes to promotion and hiring. This > [@](#): > > I know it frustrated the crap out of to be a GS-5 court interpreter, and to be doing the same work (and getting better performance evaluations, I might add) as people at the GS-11 level, who were making twice as much as I was merely because they had put in more time. couldn’t happen to me. The only people who do my job are in the same grade as I am. Some might be paid more than I am, but nowhere near twice as much (maybe $5000 a year more). And if I score higher on a promotion test for a grade 26 job, I will get promoted before my coworkers who have been doing my current job three times longer than I have , but who scored lower on the exam. Although I do wonder, how can you know if the discretionary hires under your system are based on merit rather than something else? I mean , sure they want someone competent. But how do you know that _this_ person was picked out of the the pool of the competent because he or she was _more_ competent than the others , rather than due to some other reason- some sort of connection, attractiveness, because he or she plays golf, anything? [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-public-employees-salaries-be-public/259329.md?page=1)