Open Salaries: Outcomes • Hacker News Board

Re: Open Salaries: Outcomes

#41

Post by dkarapetyan » Thu, Oct 27, 2016, 4:53 PM UTC

sdenton4 wrote: post #8

coldcode wrote: post #3

This might work for a company of 25, but what a disaster it would be for a company of 100,000+

Why? Certainly one would expect the form of the discussions to be a bit different - eg, as part of a performance eval tool, instead of a company-wide discussion - but I don't see why it would be a disaster. In fact, given the number of people who said this would be a disaster for a company of 25 people two years ago, there's an even greater onus to provide real reasons transparent salaries couldn't work at other comp…

Big companies are not foolish. The information asymmetry exists because it is benefitial for them to keep it that way. Then again the asymmetry can work in your favor as well.

Re: Open Salaries: Outcomes

#42

Post by ransom1538 » Thu, Oct 27, 2016, 4:53 PM UTC

maxaf wrote: post #25

ransom1538 wrote: post #21

@author Can you please post the names and all current salaries on your website? Since you don't care about your employees privacy, I would like to use this along with LinkedIn to easily pick off your better employees. Thanks! Edit: Also! Any plans to open health care information?

You don't need to be an asshole.

First, I apologize for the reddit style. I deserve the down votes, which I will happily pay. Using a position of power to force employees to divulge personal information really pisses me off.

Re: Open Salaries: Outcomes

#43

Post by ryandrake » Thu, Oct 27, 2016, 4:57 PM UTC

brianwawok wrote: post #36

aantix wrote: post #32

If you're any good at your job, you should avoid these open companies like the plague. Don't piss away your leverage..

This got downvoted, and the tone is a bit harsh.. but it does speak a bit of truth. What happens to the guy in open salary co who is legit 50% better than everyone else? Do his peers vote to give him 50% more money? Or does it settle on sort of a union style pay scale, where everyone with the same # of years of work makes the same money (which is great for the worst performances, and terrible for the best performers)

I didn't down vote, but the comment would be better if it were expanded with some details about why he thinks people who are good at their jobs should avoid open salary workplaces. I would think nearly all employees benefit from open salaries. For most companies, the salary information asymmetry is an effective way to keep the salaries of high performers DOWN. If you don't know that the mediocre guy who sits next to you makes $40K more than you, you're less likely to complain or look elsewhere.

The people who have the most to lose from open salaries are the dopes who somehow are making top-of-market salaries.

Re: Open Salaries: Outcomes

#44

Post by mlinksva » Thu, Oct 27, 2016, 4:57 PM UTC

ThePawnBreak wrote: post #30

herge wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Really? A lot of governments are one of the few employers with more than 100k+ employees, and have a lot of open salaries for civil servants.

And how's that working out for them?

Pretty well? Seems to me there's a big problem in the public sector of extreme difficulty of terminating non- and even anti-performers, but that's orthogonal to relatively narrow and seniority-based compensation bands. But those are just my nth-hand impressions on both. Would love to read some good papers on either or both.

Re: Open Salaries: Outcomes

#45

Post by eyelidlessness » Thu, Oct 27, 2016, 4:59 PM UTC

brianwawok wrote: post #36

aantix wrote: post #32

If you're any good at your job, you should avoid these open companies like the plague. Don't piss away your leverage..

This got downvoted, and the tone is a bit harsh.. but it does speak a bit of truth. What happens to the guy in open salary co who is legit 50% better than everyone else? Do his peers vote to give him 50% more money? Or does it settle on sort of a union style pay scale, where everyone with the same # of years of work makes the same money (which is great for the worst performances, and terrible for the best performers)

While union workers often have less salary disparity, their salaries also tend to be higher overall. The only downside to this is if the "best performers" derive value from their "worse performer" peers being paid less than them.

Re: Open Salaries: Outcomes

#46

Post by dustinmoris » Thu, Oct 27, 2016, 4:59 PM UTC

If these 25 employees would be clever then you'd get 25 massive pay rises in a very short amount of time by everyone quickly realizing that if you all praise yourself endlessly in those discussions then it is difficult for 1 single boss to push back on 25 people's amazingly positive feedback. Not trying to plant an idea though. Just saying.

Re: Open Salaries: Outcomes

#47

Post by brianwawok » Thu, Oct 27, 2016, 5:02 PM UTC

ryandrake wrote: post #43

brianwawok wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This got downvoted, and the tone is a bit harsh.. but it does speak a bit of truth. What happens to the guy in open salary co who is legit 50% better than everyone else? Do his peers vote to give him 50% more money? Or does it settle on sort of a union style pay scale, where everyone with the same # of years of work makes the same money (which is great for the worst performances, and terrible for the best performers)

I didn't down vote, but the comment would be better if it were expanded with some details about why he thinks people who are good at their jobs should avoid open salary workplaces. I would think nearly all employees benefit from open salaries. For most companies, the salary information asymmetry is an effective way to keep the salaries of high performers DOWN. If you don't know that the mediocre guy who sits next to…

In theory if you are a top performer, you can go walk down the street for a raise. and keep going it until you can't get more raises.

Not that all top performers do this. Being good at a job has little relation to being good at getting paid a lot. But you can be both a top performer AND top paid, if you play the right cards.

Re: Open Salaries: Outcomes

#48

Post by eyelidlessness » Thu, Oct 27, 2016, 5:03 PM UTC

ransom1538 wrote: post #42

maxaf wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You don't need to be an asshole.

First, I apologize for the reddit style. I deserve the down votes, which I will happily pay. Using a position of power to force employees to divulge personal information really pisses me off.

Does it change your mind knowing that it was not imposed from a position of power?

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12806739

Re: Open Salaries: Outcomes

#49

Post by jermaustin1 » Thu, Oct 27, 2016, 5:09 PM UTC

monocasa wrote: post #19

jonasty wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Correct me if I'm wrong but aren't government positions paid the same across the board? Financial compensation is companies (particularly in tech) isn't standard across the board for a particular position, each employee can garner a different salary. There's a complex social dynamic related to that feature in companies.

No, there's flexibility in the general schedule system. It both goes from $18K to $133K, and includes cost of living adjustments. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_Schedule_(US_civil_ser...

Just looked at the Locality Adjustments, and as a person who has/does live(d) in NYC and Houston, TX, for them to have pretty much the exact same adjustment doesn't make ANY sense.

My rent in Houston was $1100/mo for a 2 bed, 2 bath 1200 sqft luxury apartment in a nice development with hiking and biking trails. My rent in NYC for a 1 bed, 1 bath, 600sqft luxury apartment in a nice building with a doorman every other day (idk why) is $2300. More than 4 times the price per sqft.

Every day staples are 20-100% higher in NYC than Houston. Car insurance is almost triple. Parking which used to be free and assigned is now in a garage and $200-400/mo depending on where you are (thankfully mine is in the rent).

I think the government needs to re-evaluate their adjustments.

Re: Open Salaries: Outcomes

#50

Post by ransom1538 » Thu, Oct 27, 2016, 5:11 PM UTC

eyelidlessness wrote: post #48

ransom1538 wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

First, I apologize for the reddit style. I deserve the down votes, which I will happily pay. Using a position of power to force employees to divulge personal information really pisses me off.

Does it change your mind knowing that it was not imposed from a position of power? https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12806739

Really? Or were some scared of being singled out? I have managed teams, asking 40 people a question will get you 40 different answers. But in this case they were all for it? Lies.