I hesitate to add yet another thought to the salary disclosure discussion, but
it seems to be worth noting that, however it may help or hurt individuals or
institutions strategically in the push-me-pull-you of establishing the
consensus value of professional museums work, there is a basic reason of
equity, ethics,  and political progress for nudging our field into posting
salary ranges with the initial job announcement:
When the salary range is public and completely intertwined with the
application process, it will tend to reduce the temptation to "play games"
with salary behind closed doors, once the selection of specific candidates is
under way; for example, it discourages discrimation, whether unconscious or
intentional, for reasons of sex, ethnicity, family circumstance, etc.
Knowledge about the range also gives potential hires a basis for asking how
specifically their offer was set wintin the range--a protection against the
same potential for abuse.
Up-front information should help discourage the thought of retrenching on an
intended salary level whenever the hiring instituion smells the possbility of
getting someone "cheap," through the candidate's naivete in negotiating, their
lack of knowledge about ambient regional costs of living etc.  One might say,
"tough, in a market economy, if someone undersells him/herself, that's his/her
own fault..."  However, in the long run, the individual, the institution, and
the field will be better off, if such factors don't lead new hires shortly
into discontent, unfeasible economic circumstances, or a feeling of having
been out-down by their new employer, and if the salary process in the museum
field (whatever the financial amounts might be in each case) were less subject
to veiled mystery.

Annie Storr, Visiting Professor, Univ. of Virginia
[log in to unmask] (preferred) or [log in to unmask]
(no, not a career academic, a sojourning museum person temporarily on campus)