Jealousy And Transparency About Compensation

Talking about pay amongst employees is a legally protected activity in America under the National Labor Relations Act of 1935 (also termed the Wagner Act), not that the legal statutes of human governments have anything to do with whether or not rights and obligations actually exist, the truth being independent of perception and preference in either direction.  No, legality is meaningless because only reason and morality, as well as things tied to them, could matter, yet businesspeople who pay lip service to obeying the legal permissions/prohibitions might disregard it all the same.  With coworkers discussing their wages, some employers might claim that they want to eliminate this practice to stop petty jealousy over one person being paid more or less than someone else, when they could instead be purposefully underpaying some or all workers and overpaying others out of illicit favoritism.

Verbally discouraging such openness might not always be intended as a smokescreen for keeping under-compensation secret, but it could still be the case that a manager or employer who truly (and fallaciously) thinks employee jealousy is a moral issue ends up paying "poverty wages" to their entire workforce, preserving the injustice anyway all because they discouraged talking about pay with a different motive.  Still, this measure can be enforced or strongly advised by upper management specifically with the goal of preventing employees from learning about compensation disparity, including that of new hires being paid more than longstanding workers in the same role, that of family members being paid more out of nepotism, or that of any actual gender pay gap.  As for the actual concept of this objection itself, independent of a person's motives, it is epistemologically invalid either way.

It does not matter if one person (or any number of such people) will feel upset or jealous or undervalued as an employee (not as a person, such as if they are not paid livable wages by default) on the basis of their income if they are not actually being mistreated.  If they receive lower compensation that really is a matter of lesser merit or seniority instead of workplace exploitation, then their feelings are irrelevant and it thus cannot matter if open talk about compensation would bother them.  This is not a violation of their (Biblical) human rights on the part of the employer or the other employees.  Especially if they are actively incompetent, they are not being taken advantage of by being paid less than a more committed or productive worker.

Pay transparency of course might offend some people, but it is not by necessity bound to hurt anyone's feelings, for that is an individualistic issue.  Regardless, emotion is just not what makes it true or false that direct, overt discussions between employees about their compensation should be permitted and even encouraged.  The specific people who would be bothered by this simply need to improve their standing as a worker if they truly are stupid or lazy or accept the logical fact that their emotional comfort has nothing to do with reality--just as an abusive employer's feelings or comfort do not have anything to do with whether underpayment is morally permissible.  Livable compensation is a human right if people have a right to life.  Additional payment would indeed need to be earned on a personal basis.

With money and business, as with logical axioms, the uncaused cause, sexuality, scientific laws, friendship, art, and anything else, people's feelings about the matter only mean that they feel a certain way.  These emotions or perceptions or desires do not make anything else true and they also do not reveal anything more than themselves.  For workers and employers alike, irritation is only legitimate as an active motivation in pushing back against something if the thing in question is illogical or immoral.  Keeping compensation undisclosed or suppressing jealousy, particularly if continuing exploitation unnoticed is the objective, is not something that is by logical necessity morally good--and even if it was, no one has anything to base belief in this idea on besides sheer emotion and preference.