Utah State employees' salaries online

[RockyBalboa]

Originally Posted by Detroitdad

The government governs by the will of the people. They are, therefore accountable to the public for how they spend the monies that they collect through the will of the people(presumably through their voting rights). The public has no right to personal information about other individuals since they have no social contract one to another.

And this is coming from someone who is just as much of a liberal as you are Ma'ake...you'd do well to listen more wisely to your fellow constituents.

[RockyBalboa]

Ma'ake a moderate liberal.....lol....that's one of the funniest things I've read in a long time.

He's so far left wing....extreme left wing that you'd be very hard pressed to find anyone this side of Mr. Crimson more liberal than Ma'ake is.

[hyrum]

Originally Posted by Archaea

The public owns the government, but the government shouldn't own the public.

In a corporation, publicly traded, key employee information is on display, but shareholder information is not. Nor should it ever be.

Really?
If you are an officer or director of a publicly-traded company your level of ownership is indicated in various public filings.
If you own more than 5% of a public company you must file a statement with the SEC.

[Archaea]

Originally Posted by hyrum

Really?
If you are an officer or director of a publicly-traded company your level of ownership is indicated in various public filings.
If you own more than 5% of a public company you must file a statement with the SEC.

You're speaking of Williams Act provisions. I'm aware of them but have never participated in the appropriate filing. So I'm not certain what is actually supplied and what part remains public info. I suppose some of it is privately retained and some publicly disseminated.

I'd make the analogy to IRS tax filings. Of course, we have filings and the government is aware of what people earn but it retains that info only for select purposes, i.e., the collection of revenue, not for public dissemination.

The select purpose of significant shareholder filings appear to be monitoring of "market maker" issues, not dissemination of private information. Although imperfect, the analogy holds.

[Ma'ake]

Hey Rocky B

I'm being facitious in this post, I really don't advocate disclosing tax payer information.

I'm merely positing if it's legal & acceptable to disclose individual employee salaries on the internet, why wouldn't it be OK to disclose similar information on tax *payers*?

It's as though government employees are fair game for exposure, for everyone else privacy is a right (even though there is no such guarantee in the Constitution).

Beyond the issue of basic fairness, this has the effect of dissuading talented individuals from accepting government positions - who wants their salary information to be made public, and easily accessible? - as well as discourage hardworking, committed government employees, such as welfare case workers, who are (essentially) humiliated by having everyone know how pitiful their salaries are.

[Archaea]

Originally Posted by Ma'ake

It's as though government employees are fair game for exposure, for everyone else privacy is a right (even though there is no such guarantee in the Constitution).

Beyond the issue of basic fairness, this has the effect of dissuading talented individuals from accepting government positions - who wants their salary information to be made public, and easily accessible? - as well as discourage hardworking, committed government employees, such as welfare case workers, who are (essentially) humiliated by having everyone know how pitiful their salaries are.

However, you ignore the analogy between shareholders and a corporation. And in many cultures, such as in Chinese cultures, people do know what other governmental employees earn.

Does this discourage talented individuals? I don't think so, as those who are otherwise talented are not attracted to government employment by the compensation, perhaps by the retirement benefits, but not the direct compensation.

If you're on the government dole, it should be public. Otherwise privacy is a good thing.

[Detroitdad]

Originally Posted by RockyBalboa

And this is coming from someone who is just as much of a liberal as you are Ma'ake...you'd do well to listen more wisely to your fellow constituents.

That is an authoritarian position that he is taking there Rock although i have no idea who he is, it does not matter. If you advocate an authoritarian position I will disagree with you, even if it is tongue in cheek.

[Detroitdad]

Originally Posted by Archaea

However, you ignore the analogy between shareholders and a corporation. And in many cultures, such as in Chinese cultures, people do know what other governmental employees earn.

Does this discourage talented individuals? I don't think so, as those who are otherwise talented are not attracted to government employment by the compensation, perhaps by the retirement benefits, but not the direct compensation.

If you're on the government dole, it should be public. Otherwise privacy is a good thing.

You really don't know that it is difficult to get some talented people to work for lower wages in government?

[Archaea]

Originally Posted by Detroitdad

You really don't know that it is difficult to get some talented people to work for lower wages in government?

I don't want government to be a major employer, I don't want talented people there.

We need talented people in the judiciary, in the military, in air traffic control, in road system development, in national security, in education and in scientific research. Beyond that, I hope we have as few and untalented people as possible. The pensions given to government employees are outstanding, far better than small business. Government employees are often major whiners about why they don't get more.

So, I dispute the contention government employees are not well-paid for the jobs they do, and that I should desire large numbers of government employees in the first instance and that they should be talented.