dslreports logo
site
 
    All Forums Hot Topics Gallery
spc

spacer




how-to block ads


Search Topic:
share rss forum feed


ashrc4
Premium
join:2009-02-06
australia

1 edit
reply to antdude

Re: Salary details of ONE THIRD of Americans shared with Equifax

The only way forward for "Equifax" would be to constantly update it's data. Providing false/outdated info to employers, Debt Collectors and prospective renters may start legal actions for potential employee's or Debtor's that get unfair decisions made against them based on false data that Equifax provides.

The scope of Equifax's profiling is already too large for the type of info it offers on people.
"Equi" in Equifax must be short for "Equity" or it's an oxymoron.
To offer this type of information on only some people and with varying scope is far from
"Equitable".
One must ask why some organizations paid "Equifax" to have their data and to whom these "Private" Citizens" consist of.

quote:
Many of them let Equifax tap directly into their data so the credit bureau can always have the latest employment information. In fact, these organizations actually pay Equifax for the privilege of giving away their employees' personal information.

EDIT;added "and with varying scope"


Steve
I know your IP address
Consultant
join:2001-03-10
Yorba Linda, CA
kudos:5

said by ashrc4:

One must ask why some organizations paid "Equifax" to have their data and to whom these "Private" Citizens" consist of.

Employers are outsourcing the servicing of reference checks: if I apply to BigCo for a job and claim that I previously worked for MediumCo, they can check my references because MediumCo exported my payroll data to Equifax - they know when I worked there and how much I made.

This is superficially a useful business service.


ashrc4
Premium
join:2009-02-06
australia

2 edits

said by Steve:

said by ashrc4:

One must ask why some organizations paid "Equifax" to have their data and to whom these "Private" Citizens" consist of.

Employers are outsourcing the servicing of reference checks: if I apply to BigCo for a job and claim that I previously worked for MediumCo, they can check my references because MediumCo exported my payroll data to Equifax - they know when I worked there and how much I made.

This is superficially a useful business service.

I really want the breakdown on "who" does it include, executive salary's, small/medium/large Co's. etc.
Looking for bias.
Do Co's. provide different levels of info per position held, does "Equifax" value info on certain individuals pay/circumstance.
EDIT: below added.
Employers, rental agencies and debt collectors will unintentionally bias one person over another if VARYING AMOUNTS of information are available on individuals. If the collection of information is weighted on peoples economic or default status etc then certain individuals it will impact more/less and dependent further on who's choosing to report it to them.
A person who chooses to run bad credit with a local porn broker (who doesn't report), regardless of salary will appear more favorable than someone with lower income who only has a minor default.
Etc, etc.


Steve
I know your IP address
Consultant
join:2001-03-10
Yorba Linda, CA
kudos:5

1 recommendation

said by ashrc4:

I really want the breakdown (etc)

(Snark mode on)
You're not the customer, so you don't count.
(/snark)


ashrc4
Premium
join:2009-02-06
australia

2 recommendations

said by Steve:

said by ashrc4:

I really want the breakdown (etc)

(Snark mode on)
You're not the customer, so you don't count.
(/snark)

Some with authority are already eying this one.
quote:
That’s right: debt collectors—the very companies that a new Federal Trade Commission study just found don’t bother to verify alleged debts in half of the cases studied—and yes, the same companies widely denounced for their harassing and abusive practices in pursuit of debts consumers may have paid off long ago or may never have owed—may now have access every detail of your employment history.

Yet even as Equifax and its debt collector customers cash in on data about the pay rates of millions of Americans, employees themselves can’t share information about their own paychecks so freely. According to the Institute for Women’s Policy Research, nearly half of U.S. employees are either contractually forbidden or strongly discouraged from discussing their own pay with their colleagues. Pay non-disclosure rules aimed at employees are a significant barrier to preventing gender and racial discrimination at work—as the ACLU points out “workers often remain in the dark about pay discrimination because employers have rules that punish employees for voluntarily sharing wage information with their colleagues.” For just that reason, Senator Barbara Mikulski has called on President Obama to issue an executive order prohibiting federal contractors from retaliating against employees who discuss salaries amongst themselves. Similarly, the National Labor Relations Board recently struck down provisions in Costco’s employee handbook that barred employees from sharing personal salary information with coworkers. Unfortunately, this ruling was thrown into limbo when a court struck down President Obama’s recess appointments to the NLRB.

»prospect.org/article/equifax-kno···bout-you

OZO
Premium
join:2003-01-17
kudos:2

nearly half of U.S. employees are either contractually forbidden or strongly discouraged from discussing their own pay with their colleagues.

Hmmm, interesting... Why is that?

Why employees are either contractually forbidden or strongly discouraged from discussing their own pay with their colleagues, while the employers are free to share that info with third party companies?

ashrc4 See Profile, thank you for this interesting excerpt.
--
Keep it simple, it'll become complex by itself...


Blackbird
Built for Speed
Premium
join:2005-01-14
Fort Wayne, IN
kudos:3
Reviews:
·Frontier Communi..

1 recommendation

said by OZO:

nearly half of U.S. employees are either contractually forbidden or strongly discouraged from discussing their own pay with their colleagues.

Hmmm, interesting... Why is that? Why employees are either contractually forbidden or strongly discouraged from discussing their own pay with their colleagues, while the employers are free to share that info with third party companies? ...

The rationale I was given when I worked under such a rule was that disclosing one's pay to other workers breeds envy and jealousy among co-workers doing what superficially appears to be similar work, but who aren't being paid the same for various legitimate (to the company) reasons. In many scenarios, teamwork is highly important, if not critical. If one worker has to step in for, or work in parallel with, another worker on certain joint or identical tasks but is being paid a lower scale, it can stir resentment between them that interferes with the work being done. Likewise, a worker may not grasp why another worker in a different position is legitimately paid as highly as he might be for the kind of work and effort he appears (to the observing worker) to put forth. The ethic behind the rule is that a given worker agrees to do a job with an employer for a certain pay, and that's the end of the arrangement... what other workers are paid is an agreement between each of them and the employer, not some third-party worker, so it's nobody else's business - particularly if it leads to dissension and inefficiency in the workplace. The principle is that perception of a worker's value to a company is reflected in the worker's overall pay, and a company can value one employee over another similar one for a multitude of reasons besides the immediate nature of a task being done.

Having been under such a rule, I've seen it cut both ways: to minimize workplace envy/jealousy, and to mask employer (or manager) discrimination of one form or another. In several instances, employees ignored the rule at some point and revealed to others what their pay was, and the resulting envy and bickering rapidly impacted job performance and quality for the entire team - even those not making the disclosure. In other instances, certain managers suppressed the pay of some workers and increased it for certain others for "personal" reasons unrelated to the employee skill or their quality of work... it was suspected but never reported at the time, since the employees were obeying the non-disclosure rules.

I'm not defending such rules, just offering some explanation for them. No rules are created in a vacuum, so even if they're flawed, there will be a certain logic behind them. The question, as always, is whether or not they're good rules for all involved, overall.
--
“The American Republic will endure until the day Congress discovers that it can bribe the public with the public's money.” A. de Tocqueville