>>> keeping them secret only helps employers and hurts the negotiating power of employees
And saves from a lot of unnecessary drama. This is one of the things that seems great when assuming that everyone's acting rationally but that's not how the world works.
It's not rational but a lot of people are very sensitive to what they make in relation to others. For example, Joe thinks he's as good as Josh but Josh makes 25% more (be it that one's better at negotiating, false perception, not being aware of something and tons of other reasons). This scenario is extremely typical. As the result, it would provide enough distraction and hurt egos and all so that can have serious long term damage.
It can work if it's done from day 1 (e.g. at Buffer) but it might have disastrous consequences otherwise.
I'm not saying that sharing salary with a few colleagues is bad, it's pretty natural to share with some trusted ones and totally fine. But not doing it company wide once the company is in business for a few years.
It's true some people are very sensitive. This is the cultural/taboo part of the issue. From what I've been told, for some reason this taboo is especially strong in the US (correct me if I'm wrong).
In the end, regardless of the taboo, keeping salaries secret only helps employers. They are playing with a full deck of cards, while you -- the employee -- aren't. Not having access to this information is detrimental. For example, you do not know if you're being short-changed.
In your scenario, Joe's employer will have to explain why Josh deserves more money. The problem here is that employers prefer to avoid confrontation, and that sometimes there just isn't any reason beyond "because Josh asked for it and you didn't" or "because I like Josh more than you". This is why hidden information empowers employers but not you -- because you simply don't know when their decisions are justified or arbitrary. By making this information public, you make it more likely that your employers will be forced to provide non-bullshit justifications.
I think people get frustrated by salaries of others because people don't feel like they have power to contribute to the decision making process of how much any specific role should make.
DemocracyAtWork [1] is an organization that helps companies with the legal process of collectivizing and democratizing companies. A great way to fix the taboo of sharing salaries while simultaneously equalizing gender and other identity related pay/power disparities would be to democratize the workplace business decisions.
So just hire for "culture fit" where people aren't so damn sensitive about their own salary and understand and are content with others being paid more.
...and be prepared to explain in clear terms why some people are being paid more than others. If you have a good, fair explanation (e.g. "he/she has more responsibilities"), everything should be fine!
Could this perhaps be solved by anonymising the data? For negotiation purposes you only need to know whether you are at the top, middle or bottom in terms of income.
And saves from a lot of unnecessary drama. This is one of the things that seems great when assuming that everyone's acting rationally but that's not how the world works.
It's not rational but a lot of people are very sensitive to what they make in relation to others. For example, Joe thinks he's as good as Josh but Josh makes 25% more (be it that one's better at negotiating, false perception, not being aware of something and tons of other reasons). This scenario is extremely typical. As the result, it would provide enough distraction and hurt egos and all so that can have serious long term damage.
It can work if it's done from day 1 (e.g. at Buffer) but it might have disastrous consequences otherwise.
I'm not saying that sharing salary with a few colleagues is bad, it's pretty natural to share with some trusted ones and totally fine. But not doing it company wide once the company is in business for a few years.