I mean, I don't know if I'd want anyone to shut it down. Just somebody leak it and the playing field is evened out again (and from the sounds of it, we all get big raises after switching jobs).
Don't shut it down, make it open so we can all benefit. But I imagine no one would update it.
From a data standpoint, using such a resource to determine salaries would like cause salaries to become predictable, based solely on what other people paid for the combination of experiences used to classify the salaries (Ruby programmers with 5 years of experience in startups of size Z get X). So salaries would tend to not diversify much from the median (perhaps tend down a little).
That also neglects the quality of those 5 years of experience as it relates to the actual position. 5 years of designing financial services systems is more valuable to a financial services company than 5 years of building web applications for a dating company.
That is the problem I have with collective bargaining in higher skilled fields — it assumes people are interchangeable based on worthless “years of experience” metrics. Some sysadmin with 20 year experience might not know the first thing about DevOps, while a fresh college graduate might be an expert. Yet the 20 year guy would get paid more despite knowing less.
The problem of outliers not being able to fully maximize their earnings under collective bargaining is a substantially smaller issue than everyone being underpaid without collective bargaining.
It’s a salary database and it’s anonymized. How is this harming the public? A worker is still free to accept or reject any offer they want. Companies aren’t colluding, they are reporting. Nothing stopping companies from paying more or less than what other people are paying.
Because when one side of the table has access to information (especially such detailed and important data such as this) it shifts the negotiating advantage strongly in favor of the companies.
Ideally, regulators would, but we live in a hyper-capitalistic age, so they probably won't.