Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Open Salaries: Outcomes

blog.lunarlogic.io

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

211–220 of 225 posts

Re: Open Salaries: Outcomes

#211

Post by PeterisP »

sgift wrote: post #202
exclusiv wrote: post #196

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So true. Most people can't handle it. It's all relative to them and it's not usually logical. I worked for a small startup some time ago where the owner was paying me more than she paid herself but eventually we only had 2 employees left and everything became transparent. My friend (in sales) became all upset about his salary in relation to mine and they gave him a bump. I was eventually the last one left though. Tha…

> People are perfectly fine working for YEARS with their own valuation and then all of a sudden they think they're worth more because someone else is making more. Is that an argument? If yes, I don't see it. If people believe that they couldn't earn more they are probably "perfectly fine" due to this missing information. Then they learn what their peers make and think - rightfully* - "just a moment, I do the same job…

Every time someone I know professionally has uttered something like "I do the same job to the same quality", it simply wasn't true.

I'd rather say that the main discomfort coming from salary discussions is not caused by money, but about having some people acknowledge that they're not as "good" or valuable (in that setting) as they'd like to think. Social status and "saving face" is very important, and open salaries essentially force some people to be publicly downranked - either by having salaries reflecting their worth (showing some people as not equal to others) or by having mostly salaries (downplaying people who do deserve more).

Often, ignorance actually is bliss; as the lower paid people can keep believing that they're equally valued - opening the salaries can't make them equally valued, they're still be low-paid, but now they'll be angry about it.

Re: Open Salaries: Outcomes

#212

Post by PeterisP »

drinchev wrote: post #5
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+

Don't companies with that size have budget-salaries which are equal for all employees on the same rank / position / experience level? I doubt that BMW has an engineer that earns more than his / her colleague at the same position.

Perhaps that's the appropriate way to discriminate pay? If for whatever reason one engineer should earn more than the other, then make it explicit in the labeling.

Bob is Engineer, and Joe is Engineer+; it's clear to everyone that Joe is earning more, and if Bob feels underpaid then the explanation for the salary difference is explicit in that he's not (for whatever practical reasons) doing the work/quality/quantity/whatever of an Engineer+.

Re: Open Salaries: Outcomes

#213

Post by PeterisP »

RodericDay wrote: post #17
sytse wrote: post #9

After you define salary ranges for positions the only variables left are promotions and experience within the role. I don't think it makes sense to have people that are not working with a person decide that. I think the direct boss of the person should decide after getting input from others and subject to approval by the boss' boss.

If there's a need for approval from the boss' boss, why not also an approval from the employee's peers (and employees)? Doesn't it make sense that disgruntled employees should be able to bar a manager giving themselves raises, purely as a matter of symmetry?

A manager may easily be given a goal which will result in profit for the company but in worse conditions/more work/downsizing/whatever for that team; and delaying or avoiding that goal would likely be easier for the team but worse for the rest of the company.

It would be appropriate to have the manager's pay depend on how they're executing according to the goals of the company and not the goals of the employees - thus, the boss' boss should get a say in that and the employees should not get a vote as their interests may easily be completely opposite e.g. in achieving cost savings for labor-dominated tasks.

Re: Open Salaries: Outcomes

#214

Post by sgift »

PeterisP wrote: post #211
sgift wrote: post #202

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> People are perfectly fine working for YEARS with their own valuation and then all of a sudden they think they're worth more because someone else is making more. Is that an argument? If yes, I don't see it. If people believe that they couldn't earn more they are probably "perfectly fine" due to this missing information. Then they learn what their peers make and think - rightfully* - "just a moment, I do the same job…

Every time someone I know professionally has uttered something like "I do the same job to the same quality", it simply wasn't true. I'd rather say that the main discomfort coming from salary discussions is not caused by money, but about having some people acknowledge that they're not as "good" or valuable (in that setting) as they'd like to think. Social status and "saving face" is very important, and open salaries e…

> Every time someone I know professionally has uttered something like "I do the same job to the same quality", it simply wasn't true.

Then our experiences differ (which is sad but okay) - I have seen, multiple times, the situation that not only the person who uttered it thought it was true but the better paid peers agreed (and yes, they agreed in private, not only in public where they had to fear to be judged if they said "well no, he is not as good as he thinks").

Re: Open Salaries: Outcomes

#215

Post by mason55 »

ellisv wrote: post #91
mason55 wrote: post #89

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Doesn't the Peter Principle come into play here? What if we do the same job but I do it twice as fast? That doesn't mean I'd be a good fit for the next level up, it might just mean I'm really good at doing this specific job very quickly.

In my mind this is one of the cases where "Jr" and "Sr" titles can be useful.

I suppose it's ambiguous but generally I feel like "senior" means "responsible for more pieces or higher level pieces" not just "faster at the simple stuff".

Re: Open Salaries: Outcomes

#216

Post by khaannn »

jjordan wrote: post #29

I'd like to get the perspective and opinion of an employee in the open salary system, rather than just a recount from the top.

I work for a state government with open salaries to the public. It causes lots of friction due to a couple of factors: 1) De-facto lifetime employment 2) No raises without a new position 3) Vastly differing levels of compensation

I make something like 50% more than the guy sitting next to me, but I manage an interdepartmental project and have a different employment category. It's hard for people to honestly evaluate themselves so it becomes a pride issue.

Re: Open Salaries: Outcomes

#217

Post by hardwaresofton »

pawelbrodzinski wrote: post #204
hardwaresofton wrote: post #195

While this sounds awesome in theory, I don't think I'd find it fun to have everyone deciding on what everyone in the company should be paid. It seems like weird office politics, jealousy, and unrelated things would get involved. This is all just my opinion, but I feel like even though this idea is good in theory, it will be ruined by people, just like valve's org structure model. The truth is, no one knows what anyon…

Similar systems built around transparent salaries work for companies bigger than 500. Look for stories from Morning Star or Semco for example. Obviously, with a few thousand people you need at least a bit more structure, but in principle the model is the same: people collectively set their own salaries with respect to economical constraints of an organization.

I was wrong to generalize so much and say it wouldn't work for companies bigger than 500, but my problem with it is this -- I don't care about the economical constraints of any individual organization. I care about which organization is able to pay me the most, for my labor. I also have near-zero faith in my peers to determine what I am worth, to any given company.

People have to somehow pick "reasonable" salaries for themselves, and it seems like a thin layer of bullshit. If I could set my own salary, I'd set it way higher than any company is willing to pay me, because I'd rather make tons of money then NOT work anymore. Obviously, that's not a thing that is sustainable, and it's up to me to find a business that pays me as close to that impossible number as possible.

This whole like "let's work together and make reasonable salaries for everyone" smells like bullshit to me because no one knows what a reasonable salary is. In the extreme (not so extreme in bubbles) case, if the market moves and all of a sudden your position is worth 30% more than it was a year or two before, will everyone in the company be fine with you getting a 30% raise? Maybe not. I don't ever want to deal with the situation that someone who either doesn't value or understand (completely) tries to value my work. What do developers know about how much project managers should be paid? or vice versa? A good project manager will make or break an entire initiative at times, but I bet most developers can't properly understand their value (and vice versa).

Openness in salaries is one thing. I'm all for knowing what people are worth to a give company, and knowing what the market rate for your position is. This lets-all-decide-everyones-salaries-together system is definitely an idea that grows in parallel, and is very closely related, but I think they're separate things.

Or maybe the reasonable solution to such a mismatch in perceived value is that good employees who can make more money elsewhere just leave (at the risk of maybe entering a less open and enjoyable atmosphere)?

Re: Open Salaries: Outcomes

#218

Post by mathattack »

PeterisP wrote: post #211
sgift wrote: post #202

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> People are perfectly fine working for YEARS with their own valuation and then all of a sudden they think they're worth more because someone else is making more. Is that an argument? If yes, I don't see it. If people believe that they couldn't earn more they are probably "perfectly fine" due to this missing information. Then they learn what their peers make and think - rightfully* - "just a moment, I do the same job…

Every time someone I know professionally has uttered something like "I do the same job to the same quality", it simply wasn't true. I'd rather say that the main discomfort coming from salary discussions is not caused by money, but about having some people acknowledge that they're not as "good" or valuable (in that setting) as they'd like to think. Social status and "saving face" is very important, and open salaries e…

Performance is also very hard to measure quantitatively, so everyone allows bias to creep in. There are fields where this is less true (Sales) but even then a lot is based on the hand you're dealt.

Re: Open Salaries: Outcomes

#219

Post by exclusiv »

PeterisP wrote: post #211
sgift wrote: post #202

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> People are perfectly fine working for YEARS with their own valuation and then all of a sudden they think they're worth more because someone else is making more. Is that an argument? If yes, I don't see it. If people believe that they couldn't earn more they are probably "perfectly fine" due to this missing information. Then they learn what their peers make and think - rightfully* - "just a moment, I do the same job…

Every time someone I know professionally has uttered something like "I do the same job to the same quality", it simply wasn't true. I'd rather say that the main discomfort coming from salary discussions is not caused by money, but about having some people acknowledge that they're not as "good" or valuable (in that setting) as they'd like to think. Social status and "saving face" is very important, and open salaries e…

> I'd rather say that the main discomfort coming from salary discussions is not caused by money, but about having some people acknowledge that they're not as "good" or valuable (in that setting) as they'd like to think.

So true. I actually had to have a very candid conversation with my business partner and explain to him that my time is more valuable than his based on how and where I contribute and market value, I can't put in time in direct proportion to the time he puts in.

It was a tough thing to discuss but he understood and it was a very good conversation to have so we could move forward with a better understanding. This wasn't a salary conversation but a value conversation which forced him to really think of both of us and the company.

There are also intangibles that people overlook. If someone is more pleasant to collaborate with and adds more value culturally, that could be why they are paid more. Most companies aren't running an assembly line where doing the same job may be more likely.

When salary "discrepancies" are found out, employees won't learn a lesson and take ownership for their situation. They'll spend time investing in their skill-set but they won't spend a little time here and there to do market research or go interview a few times each year or every other year. There's also specialists who can tell you what market rate is for your position if you need help. If you don't accept this as part of the workforce, be prepared to be earn less. That's on you.

Re: Open Salaries: Outcomes

#220

Post by r_smart »

scarmig wrote: post #75

Hmm. My experience tells me that a lot of this depends on the details of the team, and that there isn't a right-for-everyone policy. My story: I worked for a company that paid a bit below market salaries, for the SF Bay Area. I was on a team with two more junior engineers. At one point one disclosed to me that they felt underpaid. That led to a salary discussion where I explained that the company habitually underpaid…

The worst bit about this is how they held it against you as well. I've had a similar experience (over much smaller amounts of money) and it caused nothing but trouble for me. Revealing your salary to your co-workers is just a good way to get them pissed off at you, or, possibly, you pissed off at them.
Post reply on HN