Under This Bill, Your Boss Couldn't Stop You From Talking About Salary


Actually, Sargon, not true! If you're referring to the protections of the National Labor Relations Act, Heidi's right -- you have to be a covered private-sector employee working for a covered private-sector employer. That's some but not all folks.
How many people have been fired in Washington for sharing or inquiring about salary information, Heidi?

Is the legislation aimed at righting an existing and abusive wrong? Or just pretending there’s a wrong to right.
Yeah, I'd never heard of prohibitions against talking about pay either. I know a lot of people feel squeamish about it, but I've never heard of it being forbidden. My coworkers and I talk about our salaries and raises and promotions and stuff all the time (this is in Colorado).

I'd be fine with legislation stating that employers specifically can't prohibit that though. I suppose it might let employees know they are legally allowed to discuss it?... maybe some of them are under the impression that it is illegal and that's why they feel squeamish?

Oh, yeah, that's right. Thinking isn't a strength for you.
@3, I think you're a little confused -- let me try to clarify. This Q&A from the NLRB (which enforces the NLRA) gives a super basic version of the types of employers and employees who are and aren't covered by that law (it is a little more complex than that). https://www.nlrb.gov/resources/faq/nlrb#…

Next, you might be confusing that it is not specifically ILLEGAL for anyone to discuss wages with the idea that everyone can without repercussion. Just as there's no law saying you can't discuss wages, nor is there any current law effective in WA (beyond the NLRA, to the extent that it applies -- see above) that says it's unlawful for employers to prohibit it and fire you for talking about it. Those kinds of rules, formal and informal, are very prevalent in retail and food service jobs at the least. I take it this law would fix that.
To the Google!
"Courts have interpreted this provision broadly, allowing, for example, prohibitions on any discussion of wages during working time [...]
It does not protect supervisors, a group that is defined broadly [...]"

More broadly than those loopholes -- there is apparently no federal penalty for having an illegal policy in your employee handbook, so why not try it and see if it helps suppress wages? And there's no penalty for discouraging it with disapproval that can't be provably linked to retaliation, so why not?
Talking about pay. Yeah, that's a really good idea. People are going to be paid differently, always. You really do not want, for your own sanity, to know how much your co-employees make, either higher or lower than yours. Work on yourself and don't obsess over your co-worker.
Heidi and Syd--and Charles--keep me coming back. Thank you, Heidi.
@6. And having a backbone is apparently not your strong suit.

You need a law to keep someone from discouraging you from doing something. Does your mom still dress you too?
In Unionized labor groups, everyone pretty much knows how much everyone else makes. Unions tend to unite the workers, not drive them apart.
cut with the divide and conquer self pity and virtue signaling, the 77% number that gets waved around is arrived by just per capita dividing income by population, ignoring type of work and years of experience which are two huge variables needed to make the case for some rampant underpayment of women. I have read that the number currently (controlled for job and years experience) isnt all the way to golden parity but is much more in the mid 90s. you guys are saying that literally everywhere you look, women in the same job and with the same years of experience are being paid grievously less than men? what city and country are you folks living in? or what decade do you think we live in? all that was much more true 30-40 years ago and beyond. Instead of ever hearing about how we have drastically improved things, especially during a too-good economy with ridiculously low levels of unemployment and money floating around to the extent that its almost devaluing the dollar and jacking up housing and living costs, we are hearing people thinking they are living under an oppressive theocratic patriarchal regime? if feeling bad makes you feel good, then i guess who am i to stop you.
that said, income transparency is good up to a point, especially within disciplines. cross disciplines its still a bit apples to oranges to consider what someone in a totally different skill set or lack thereof makes as their living. like someone said above, its surreal to know or consider what someone making a killing or struggling is working with cash flow wise. wasn't trying to be a dick above, I am all for fair pay, it's just some of these issues have become annoyingly disingenuous shibboleths to the mainstream, NYT trustin', tv-watchin' left.
I've never worked anywhere where the employees could be prevented from talking about salaries. It's impossible to enforce.
Don't know why people are doubting this happens. It's been forbidden at places I've worked, as well as for people I know. If you've never had this issue, good for you, I guess.