[a4a4a4a4]

> It should be obvious that freely knowing salaries will improve the employee's ability to negotiate the wage they deserve.

I would argue that for high performers, it could become an excuse not to pay more. "Sorry, we know you did XYZ, but we can't give you a further raise because you're already 4% ahead of your colleagues." And of course, everyone thinks they're a high-performer, so this policy would be unpopular with actual high-performers + the people that think they are (but aren't, and wouldn't be affected anyway).

[hiq]

> I would argue that for high performers, it could become an excuse not to pay more.

This is already used as an excuse, except that right now you can't easily check whether that's even true, so I think transparency would actually be better. If you're a high performer, switch to a company where you feel rewarded suitably, which is easier to do with transparency.

> everyone thinks they're a high-performer

That's again a problem with less information: nobody really knows so they just assume.

[clcaev]

Why presume that high performers are already paid well? Why wouldn't high performers be just as ignorant of salaries?

[wongarsu]

But then you can just look up a company that does pay their high performers more, and apply there. And if that happens often enough employers have to consider if paying top talent more money isn't a worthwhile strategy after all (maybe they decide it isn't, but employees will be free to react appropriately)