Mike's Minute: Why are we looking to discuss employee pay?

It’s the sort of theoretical nonsense you would expect from a bunch of wonks like the Labour Party, but blow me down if National hasn't clambered on board as well. 

Camilla Belich has a Member’s bill. Member's bills don’t normally get to where hers has, given if they did, the party would have already run with the idea. 

But her Employee Remuneration Disclosure Amendment Bill has passed its second reading and given National have turned up, it seems it will become law. 

"The underlying reason for the bill is to ensure that people who are discriminated against, have the ability relative to other employees doing the same work and allows them to discuss that." 

Discuss it? Are you serious? “Jenny told me she earns $76,000 a year and we all know she is useless, so how come I'm on $69,000?” 

Obviously the room for interpretation here, or misinterpretation, is immense. 

What you think of yourself versus what the person handing out the money thinks might be very different things. 

Jenny might have been there longer, might have been hired away from another employer (hence they needed a sweetener to get her across the line), or she might have been employed by a different person in the same company. 

None of this leads anywhere productive. 

This is a “sticky beak” law that will lead to resentment, anger, and/or fury, about who does what, gets what and what they're really worth. 

It will be office gossip. It will lead to people ganging up on others, to rumour, to spread innuendo. It will lead to backstabbing and a general sense of unease. 

Not to mention the fact that if you have an arrangement with your boss, that’s between you and your boss. There is a privacy issue. 

Obviously unionised jobs of mass pay are different. But a lot of the world is on a contract and that contract is a legally binding understanding between you and the other party. 

I'm not sure Camilla or her party, or now National, quite get the fallout that’s coming. 

If I told you my income it would be a headline in Stuff this morning and a national debate would ensure, and 10,000 keyboard warriors would have a field day. 

Under this new law there is nothing stopping me. 

So watch this space. 

See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Episode Transcript

Speaker 1 (00:00):
It's the sort of theoretical nonsense you would expect from
a bunch of wonks like the Labor Party. But blow
me down if the NATS haven't clambered on board as well.
Camilla Bellich has a member's bill. Members bill don't normally
get to where's hers has given. If they did, the
party would have gone it's not a bad idea and
run with it anyway. But her Employee Remuneration Disclosure Amendments

(00:20):
Bill has passed its second reading, and given the NATS
has now turned up, it seems it'll become law now.
The underlying I'm quoting here, the underlying reason for the
bill is to ensure that people who are discriminated against
have the ability relative to other employees doing the same work,
and allows them to discuss that, in other words, discuss
your pay. You serious? So this is how this is

(00:43):
going to go, isn't it? Jenny told me. Jenny told
me she earned seventy six thousand dollars a year, and
we all know she's useless. So how come I'm on
sixty nine thousand? Ah. Obviously the room for interpretation here
or misinterpretation is immense. What you think of yourself and
what the person handing out the money thinks might well
be very different things. Jenny might have been there longer,

(01:03):
might have been hired away from another employer, hence they
needed a sweetened to get her across the line. Might
have been employed by a different person in the same company.
None of this leads anywhere productive. As far as I
can work out, this is basically sticky beat law that
will lead to resentment, anger, if not fury about who
does what, gets what what they're really worth. It'll be
off as gossip. It'll lead to people ganging up on

(01:24):
people to rumor to when you end her backstabbing in
a general sense of our needs not to mention the
fact that if you have an arrangement with your boss,
that's between you and your boss. There's a privacy issue. Obviously,
unionize jobs of mass pay are different. But a lot
of the world's on a contract, and that contract is
legally binding, and it's a legally binding understanding between you
and the other party. I'm not sure Camilla or her party,

(01:47):
or now the NATS quite get the fallout that's coming. Look,
if I told you my income, it'd be a headline
and stuff in about half an hour's time in a
national debate would ensue, and ten thousand keyboard warriors would
have a field day under the new law, There's nothing
stopping me. For more from the Mic Asking Breakfast listen
live to News Talks at B from six am weekdays,

(02:08):
or follow the podcast on iHeartRadio