CRI’s Impact on Real People
I’m not going to assign blame to a particular individual for the posting of payroll information. I don’t know if that decision was made by the Director of CRI, board members or the anonymous money men behind the whole thing. But Dave Burris got all bent out of shape for Kavips’ dissection of one of their employees resumes. Dave’s main complaint seemed to be the poisoning of the well for said director in his next job interview.
One could make the case that the director of a non-profit is a “public figure” which carries special significance in law. If someone on the right attacks the Delaware director of ACORN, I doubt that Dave would mount such a defense.
What I am going to look at is the potential impact of the payroll data that CRI has posted.
In the next few years, it seems likely that Governor Markell will be cutting positions and putting a number of State workers on the job market. How does their life get impacted by CRI?
If a state employee resume comes across a potential employers desk, CRI’s database of payroll data is likely to assist the employer in negotiating salary. I won’t speak to individuals, but I know a number of people in DTI. I have taken a spin around the CRI database to see what kind of salaries they are drawing. Many of them are way below the comparable rates for private sector. That is a great starting point for a new employer, but not so good for a potential employee.
I wonder how much personal income this will end up costing state employees? Let’s take an employee aged 50 and say that they make 80K per year. I have worked with this person, and know that with their breadth of knowledge they could garner a private sector position in the 130K range. If that person is artificially devalued to 100K, you could be looking at a potential loss of 30K/year over the course of 15 years or a total of $450K by the age of 65.
I wonder if this sort of outcome was anticipated by the CRI gang. To his credit, Dave Burris has stated that he thought personally identifiable information should be excluded from the database. Apparently, Dave left sometime after his suggestion was overruled.
I don’t know who at CRI was responsible for the decision, but certainly there is a difference between the analysis of a public figure’s resume and the impact on innocent state employees that may lose 10’s or 100’s of thousands of earning potential. The overall difference is a matter of exponential proportions.
Tags: Caesar Rodney Institute, Delaware
Excellent, excellent, excellent, LG!!
Bravo, LG!
First, Thank you.
Secondly, I’m glad you bring up this point and illustrate these consequences on a personal level. But there is also a the possibility of a major brain drain event, that could be equally damaging to the maintenance of our state’s welfare.
CRI’s data is perfect for stealing employees away from government jobs. It is a heaven-sent recruiting tool for any business that must deal with this state’s government.
Were I an employee offered exceptionally more, think I would stay to serve the people of this state? No, (my spouse wouldn’t let me, lol). Neither shall they… Therefore if this tool is utilised to its full potential, our state positions could soon be filled by 1) those who are so new their skill level is not yet up to par, and 2) those who are so poor at their jobs that no one else will want them.
Consequentially, if these two scenarios exist, the services of which this state provides, may decrease their quality.
Some of those consequences can be hazardous to our health.
How long is it going to take you guys to Google the definition of ‘Libel’? It’s not that hard, Wikipedia would do just fine.
Didn’t the News Journal post payroll information about state employees along with their names? And the Cape Gazette did exactly that same thing with Administrators in the Cape Henlopen School District.
except, most employers ask you how much you made at your last job.
many will pull a credit report and actually talk to your references.
“except, most employers ask you how much you made at your last job.
many will pull a credit report and actually talk to your references.”
Only people who have had a job would know that.
Kavips, do you honestly think that private employers and professional Head Hunters don’t already know that people working in the public sector make considerably less money?
I got to know an employee of the state’s DOT who talked at some length about the disparate pay scale public to private. It was no news to him, his colleagues or private employers. Yet he stayed working for the state. Why? Because he liked his job. There are plethora reasons why people work public instead of private besides money.
Has there been any evidence of state employees leaving their jobs because of this payroll posting? Or are you just speculating wildly?
@liberalgeek Everything you speculate is addressed here, too, and above where ‘Anoni’ referenced potential employers already knowing how much you made previously thru credit checks, references, etc.
State employees traditionally accept lower salaries in exchange for better benefits, work schedules, and job security. Nothing new there.
“How long is it going to take you guys to Google the definition of ‘Libel’? It’s not that hard, Wikipedia would do just fine.”
Good luck with that. If you knew more about it than you read on Wikipedia, you’d realize nobody has been libeled here.
Maria is right. The News Journal data base is actually easier to access individual income information than CRI. You can just bring up positions and the names and income pops up. CRI is set up so the data base isn’t easily used for marketing purposes. Your ire is misdirected.
Credit checks don’t tell the exact amount you make. I have never been asked that in a reference check, and would never tell. I also don’t even tell my mother my income let alone my friends. I am old school, you don’t talk about it. I also would avoid it on an app. Just because someone asks doesn’t mean you answer it.
The people do have a right to know what positions pay without having to jump through hoops. It is the only way that we can understand the public policy implications of certain decisions such as the pay cut proposal.
Geezer, I love, almost admire, how you never back up what you say. It’s almost as if it makes you right! Well with people who are too dumb to actually look up and call you out on things. Wikipedia offers more information that you do. (and I was just suggesting Wikipedia as a refresher, I’m sure that everyone at DL knows what libel is. Even if they won’t admit it.)
And by here, I’m supposing you’re referring to Kavips’ blog post. Just as I was, because calling it a dissection in this post (like it was some sort of scholarly proof) is laughable.
except, most employers ask you how much you made at your last job.
many will pull a credit report and actually talk to your references.
I am not sure that I have ever been asked about my pay at a previous job. I have spoken in generalities and talked about what I was looking to earn to change companies.
I’m not exactly what is being implied with the libel comments either. Are you trying to say that Mr. Wozniak is a private citizen and not subject to commentary? There can certainly be an argument in that vein, but I suspect that on the spectrum of public/private citizen, he is somewhat toward the public citizen side of things. That said, I have kept him out of my post because I don’t want to accuse him of anything if others are pulling the strings.
Most people botch the salary negotiations. Here’s how you start:
Them: What is your salary on your current/past job?
You: I am under a legal agreement to keep that confidential.
Them: What are your salary expectations for this job?
You: I expect to be paid at the top of your range for this job. What does this job pay?
Them: We need your Social Security number so we can pull your credit report.
You: I only give my Social Security number to my employer.
Them: I’m sorry, we need your previous salary and Social Security number to consider you for this job.
You: Bye.
I believe that banks require a credit check for some (maybe most) employees. I have never worked for a bank, so I wouldn’t know. I also don’t think that I have ever given authorization to an employer for a background check or credit check until we had agreed to a number.
Liberal Geek: Agree to disagree on what constitutes “commentary”. (I personally don’t include false statements or opinions portrayed as facts, both of which you will find in that particular post.)
Also, even if you consider Mr. Wozniak a public figure (though comparing him to the Director of an organization as large, old, and corrupt as ACORN is a little much. See suits in Louisiana + Florida), that doesn’t exclude him from libel protection. And basing the case on proving Mr. Wozniak is a public citizen is a very expensive way to lose.
I believe that banks require a credit check for some (maybe most) employees.
Yop… hold back that SSN until you get an offer letter in hand. Banks may not be happy with this, but you can always compromise your principles if you are desperate enough for the job.
I believe that banks require a credit check for some (maybe most) employees.
The key word being “employees.”
LOL . . . not disposable contractors or consultants.
I personally don’t include false statements or opinions portrayed as facts, both of which you will find in that particular post.
Opinions are indeed protected. We can debate what constitutes an opinion and what is a false statement. Calling someone a failure at their job on a political campaign certainly could be construed as an opinion.
No one seems to have a problem calling DelDOT a huge failure for a bridge that was never built.
If this comment double posts, apologies.
Opinions are protected, opinions portrayed as facts are not. How are we disagreeing here?
Anything could be construed as opinion, if you phrase and write it as such. It’s like the omitting of ‘I think’ from “I think John Doe is a failure at his job.” One statement is protected and the other is not. (very very very simplified example)
By the way, your example is apples to oranges. But I think it’s safe to say no one is a big fan of any DoT.
lg, me thinks libel anon is just a troll to divert attention from CRI.
Oh, side-topic, welcome back, ‘Geek. See what happens when you go away?
Gracias. I’ll have some vacations-based posts up soon.
RSmitty, I disagree with your meme that DL’s series on CRI was a bad idea.
I’ve always thought this notion of on-line first-dollar reporting was a Trojan horse by the drown-the-government crowd. Salary information has always been public, but the logistics – asking a real person, waiting a day or three for an answer – kept the inquiries to serious ones [newspapers, litigants, etc.]
Yes, JM, essentially the data has been weaponized.
Bad idea? No. By my own admission, I’d like to see detailed responses. Bad approach by passing out virtual pitchforks and torches? Yeah, possibly.
: shakes head in confusion :
Explain it to me like I’m a third grader. 😉
DL exposes CRI to be a Republican front organization funded by the Greenville-Centreville axis and that’s considered passing out “pitchforks and torches”?
“Explain it to me like I’m a third grader”
Sorry Nemski, but I think that’s above your grade level.
essentially the data has been weaponized
And the juvenile bullying that we see directed at kavips gets to be directed at more people. Not as though what you make ought to be rational person’s weapon, but when some folks get information they think is damaging they don’t mind beating you up with it. So your next door neighbor who doesn’t like the color you painted your house or is pissed about the massive shed you just built in your yard adds to his jihad against you the fact that you make 40K a year. Not to mention giving away this data for the data miners to do whatever they do with it. I don’t have a problem with appointeds and electeds having their compensation packages made public, maybe even some very senior admins or execs. But everybody?
Bwah ha ha ha ha, you’re an idiot.
Well I would certainly be at home here if that were the case huh Nemski?
I think DL is already well past it’s allotment of idiots with you, DV, Jason, Cass & Pandora around. What happened to LiberalGeek? At least he could usually have a discussion with some rational, adult thought involved.
The way the posts were constructed was not the most constructive methods to get dialogue. They asked pertinant questions to which I agree should be answered. The anectdotal ‘wow-I-am-sooooooooo-shocked’ coloring of the posts added to the incitement of commenters and fellow contributors that took it beyond inquiry to a vendetta-type of demand of response or acquiescence. Seriously, and stop lumping me into partisan sniping when I say this, in reading those posts, the impression I got was that it was completely impossible to ever respond honestly unless it matched the predetermined answers already mapped out. In other words, it was an impossible solution. Whether or not there was an expectation of getting answers, that certainly wasn’t the best way to go about it. Part of my rub is the willingness of many to toss me in the partisan heap when I brought this up, back when those posts were going up. I never have yet defended CRI, but you’d think I did with some responses.
Next step, reach out directly to someone like Ginger Gibson (she’ll listen, really) and get her opinion on it.
Public information belongs to the public.
DE Republican – I think that at times just because something is “public information” doesn’t mean it should be irresponsibly thrust into the spotlight for all to see.
Take CCW licensee info for example. It is legally public info in some states, but that doesn’t mean anti-gun journalists should publish that information in articles and online searchable databases. Of course many states have changed their laws and taken such information out of public records, specifically because of such incidents.
And just because the government expends money for something, should we all be entitled to see it? For example, should I be able to see what medical procedures my neighbor has had recently, just because she has Medicare? The taxpayers paid for it, should we be able to see who among us has had a hip replacement on the state dime?
We are talking about the fine line between public and private information. I think open government is fine, but there come a point where it doesn’t need to be personally identifiable. In my opinion, that line has been crossed.
oh and Mike W, don’t mind him, that’s just what Protack’s magic 8-ball of canned responses said for him to type.
Hmm…this is an interesting conundrum. Take Meconi. Although he has been a product of a horribly-run system, he certainly is the picture of an abuser of that system. Who will argue that his situation should be blind to the constituency? Then, as is being argued here, my wife is a teacher. I do not like the fact that her information is available for all to see. I am fine with the salary part, because that is accepted as being a public employee. Personally identifiable info? Not so much. So, where does the line get drawn? Name + money expended (salary, in this case) and that’s it?
LG – That’s the thing, a 1 line canned response like that is useless when we’re discussing something that has obvious implicit privacy issues. Open government is certainly a good thing, but individual privacy needs to be of paramount concern.
Well, you also have to look at what they are missing by using names instead of positions. Because the nature of certain jobs, some payroll information will not be posted out of safety concerns. So you may find exemptions for certain departments or positions.
If they would have only used positions, then they could have ALL of the payroll information out there.
I’d like to return to yesterday’s libel discussion. Anon wants more details. OK.
I gave one yesterday: To win anything but a symbolic victory, Mr. Wozniak would have to argue that kavips post was untrue, malicious, defamatory and caused actual damages. That’s even if Mr. Wozniak is not a public figure.
You have identified exactly nothing specific in kavips’ post that you consider libelous — and you would have to cite specific items, not simply the fact that it was an attack piece. Cite away, please.
Meanwhile, you wanted specifics, and even attacked me (speciously, I might note) for not “backing up what I say.” Yeah, right. This from someone too lazy to even make up a screen name. So chew on this:
Malicious? Certainly. Untrue? Good luck there. I saw nothing presented as fact that was fabricated, and since it’s Mr. Wozniak’s resume we’re talking about, he’s going to have a hard time proving that even any inadvertent errors were made maliciously. Certainly we can’t expect Mr. Wozniak to complain that printing these facts make him unemployable — it’s his CV, for crying out loud.
What follows each citation in kavips’ post are his opinions about whether Mr. Wozniak succeeded or failed in each job. Whether the phrase “I think” appears or not, they are not only pretty clearly represented as opinions, they are buttressed with supporting facts.
More on the “libel” case that Garrett Wozniak might or might not have against kavips:
Remember that truth is an absolute defense in libel cases. So your first hurdle, M. Anon, is proving that something kavips wrote is untrue — and keep in mind that whether or not he “failed” in a job is, by its very nature, a judgment call and therefore opinion. What in that post was presented as fact but is untrue? Anything? Bueller?
Amen Geezer. I have not said that I thought that what Kavips wrote is fair. But I see nothing in it that could possibly be litigated unless the party of tort reform wants to start up some nuisance lawsuit. Fairness isn’t something that is common on blogs, as we are largely opinion-oriented.
Add to that the fact that I have seen resumes ripped to shreds in a much less intellectual fashion in real hiring situations.