Sacramento Bee, defining sanctimonious
The Sacramento Bee has discovered gold at the public trough and they're not giving up. The Bee has tapped a state employe salary database and you can now look up the exact wage of your state-employee friends and neighbors! I noticed the headline, but hadn't read the story. The details came to my attention when a friend marvled at one of his friend's salary!
On one hand it's entirely approporiate to discuss wage ranges. A manager in the state can make $XX-$YY dollars. And it is always educational to see how the state tries to compete for talent in the medical and financial worlds.
But to say Joe Blow is making $54,753 a year, when Joe has done nothing newsworthy outside of showing up for work is wrong. The Bee wouldn't presume to ask to see Joe's personnel file. (Again, barring some misbehavior on Joe's part.)
The employees are outraged and I think they have every right to be upset. There's no public benefit for this level of detail living in the public domain. We, the public, don't manage any specific state employee. We don't have a say in their advancement or lack thereof. We don't have the background on why a person has their job.
Of course, the Bee gets ad revenue for every hit to this database. The new editor and now theombudsman Public Editor has stepped up to defend their right to violate the rights of others.
And here's the tag line from the Public Editor:
(Disclaimer: mom's living on my deceased father's state pension, but I otherwise have no one in the family on the state payroll. Maybe the Bee will post a list of widow's pensions next? And, I have had state contracts in the past. Fortunately I didn't have to undress or provide my salary information to get those contracts.)
On one hand it's entirely approporiate to discuss wage ranges. A manager in the state can make $XX-$YY dollars. And it is always educational to see how the state tries to compete for talent in the medical and financial worlds.
But to say Joe Blow is making $54,753 a year, when Joe has done nothing newsworthy outside of showing up for work is wrong. The Bee wouldn't presume to ask to see Joe's personnel file. (Again, barring some misbehavior on Joe's part.)
The employees are outraged and I think they have every right to be upset. There's no public benefit for this level of detail living in the public domain. We, the public, don't manage any specific state employee. We don't have a say in their advancement or lack thereof. We don't have the background on why a person has their job.
Of course, the Bee gets ad revenue for every hit to this database. The new editor and now the
And here's the tag line from the Public Editor:
It's up to the public to decide whether it is interested in the information and, at least initially, there's no question a lot of the public is.That's the same logic that keeps the National Enquirer going. Now that's a target to shoot for.
(Disclaimer: mom's living on my deceased father's state pension, but I otherwise have no one in the family on the state payroll. Maybe the Bee will post a list of widow's pensions next? And, I have had state contracts in the past. Fortunately I didn't have to undress or provide my salary information to get those contracts.)
posted by Lee at 1:01 PM
4 Comments:
I yield to no one in my ability to feign piety, but what I want to know is--does the BEE publish its employees' salaries?
No, of course not.
Quoting the "Public Editor" - "Quite a few workers have said The Bee should publish the salaries of its employees. Well, the paper and its corporate parent are private entities, so there's no requirement to do so except at the highest echelons. Simple as that."
The need to be transparent doesn't extend to the region's paper of record.
I hesitate to support the Bee but I must. The difference between the Bee's employees and state employee salaries is who pays them.
Notice by the way that for the past couple of decades you could see what I make because I work for a §501 (c)(3) that is forced to file a public return.
What is the big deal here? Indeed, the Bee is probably making pennies through their click throughs but what is the harm here.
As to the non-disclosure of pension income - presumably that was earned as a condition of employment and is the result of investments by PERS. That is fundamentally different.
If you assume that mere receipt of public funds opens your purse to public perusal, why isn't that extended to government contractors, for instance?
Maybe there's a threshold. At the point your company's revenue is XX% derived from tax money, your payroll records ought to be public.
I think the default position ought to favor privacy. This is why I'll not join the chorus of folks whining for Cindy McCain's tax return.
Post a Comment
Links to this post:
Create a Link
<< Home