  In many settings, multiple uninformed agents bargain simultaneously with a
single informed agent in each of multiple periods. For example, workers and
firms negotiate each year over salaries, and the firm has private information
about the value of workers' output. I study the effects of transparency in
these settings; uninformed agents may observe others' past bargaining outcomes,
e.g. wages. I show that in equilibrium, each uninformed agent will choose in
each period whether to try to separate the informed agent's types (screen) or
receive the same outcome regardless of type (pool). In other words, the agents
engage in a form of experimentation via their bargaining strategies. There are
two main theoretical insights. First, there is a complementary screening
effect: the more agents screen in equilibrium, the lower the information rents
that each will have to pay. Second, the payoff of the informed agent will have
a certain supermodularity property, which implies that equilibria with
screening are "fragile" to deviations by uninformed agents. I apply the results
to study pay-secrecy regulations and anti-discrimination policy. I show that,
surprisingly, penalties for pay discrimination have no impact on bargaining
outcomes. I discuss how this result depends on the legal framework for
discrimination cases, and suggest changes to enhance the efficacy of
anti-discrimination regulations. In particular, anti-discrimination law should
preclude the so-called "salary negotiation defense".
