Live data from Hacker News

Leaked Microsoft pay guidelines – salary, hiring bonus, stock awards by level

businessinsider.com

181–190 of 224 posts

Re: Leaked Microsoft pay guidelines – salary, hiring bonus, stock awards by level

#181
post #174
post #152

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Most users are workers who haven't figured out they aren't capitalists yet.

Temporarily Embarrassed Millionaires. Most haven't also realized that just because they work in software, it doesn't mean the world hasn't changed. The times of Microsoft's IPO creating tens of thousands of millionaires and multiple billionaires are gone. Until the next big platform pops up, things are not frozen, but stuck in mud. The biggest Windows apps have probably been the same since 20 years ago. The biggest M…

I'm in the late afternoon/early evening of my career in tech.

I think this game's got a lot more time left in it.

Re: Leaked Microsoft pay guidelines – salary, hiring bonus, stock awards by level

#182
post #94
post #79

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Go ahead and prove causation on that, please. You're not going to be able to, because it's impossible.

Sure, impossible to prove, but a terrible example to bring up for the other position as well.

Your counterargument is worse, though.

Re: Leaked Microsoft pay guidelines – salary, hiring bonus, stock awards by level

#183

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Smaller companies can just report whatever they're paying each employee that year, then?

Grandparent poster asked what the disadvantages were. Some employees might not want their personal salary information revealed.

Even the lowest paid employees at the state and federal level already have their pay revealed, and it hasn't caused a problem yet. As far as I know, only orgs like the CIA (and similar) where their employees aren't public are hidden from public view.

Re: Leaked Microsoft pay guidelines – salary, hiring bonus, stock awards by level

#184

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The problem with your example is that you are making the assumption that someone with 10 years of experience is less likely to make mistakes in practice than the person with 0 years of experience. I've seen several examples over my career where the technically "more experienced" individual is not truly the better suited for the job. You won't know that until you hire them and, in my opinion, is a good reason for why…

> I've seen several examples over my career where the technically "more experienced" individual is not truly the better suited for the job. You won't know that until you hire them and, in my opinion, is a good reason for why you should pay someone based on the job (so long as they qualify for it). We go through life making a lot of guesses and utilizing a lot of prior probabilities. Work history is, in my experience,…

> No, your example is bad management incentivizing bad employees and turning away good employees.

Well I definitely agree it was bad management. And I did leave when I realized that despite my performance, they weren't going to compensate me appropriately. To excuse it away as "oh, that's bad management" is being willfully ignorant to the truth that this kind of stuff does happen, in general, more to women. I was in a position where I was fortunate that I could leave and find a better opportunity. But not all women have this luxury. Many need their incomes and don't have the time to look for other opportunities that will value them appropriately.

> Women being paid less due to being women is illegal discrimination.

It's great there are laws to protect women from illegal discrimination. But it's not like that just "magically" corrects itself. You have to bring a suit. Or you just have to leave if you don't want to deal with it. It's like saying "well that's wrong." Sure, it is, but the effort is disproportionately on the "wronged" person to fix it.

> You should have made whatever the maximum you could negotiate. If this employer did not want to pay you more, you should switch employers. A good employer would have paid you much more than the others.

Well yes, and I thought I had. But as I said, it wasn't until I had been at the company, better understood what my "peers" were doing and then finding out that they were paid SO much more than me that I realized I needed to go somewhere else. But I believe the point that many others are making is that if there are been better salary transparency, I could have saved myself some time by realizing they weren't going to value me and what I brought, so I could have passed on the opportunity altogether.

Re: Leaked Microsoft pay guidelines – salary, hiring bonus, stock awards by level

#185
post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Management is the only one who benefits when labor doesn’t openly share salary information. Let the information flow. Knowledge is power.

And job seekers. They don’t want potential employers knowing how much they made.

Too late. Experian already buys and sells your salary information, and potential employers pay them to see it. I believe the product is "Employment Insight" but it could be one of their others.

I've literally seen the salaries flow from payroll straight onto their servers.

Re: Leaked Microsoft pay guidelines – salary, hiring bonus, stock awards by level

#186

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Grandparent poster asked what the disadvantages were. Some employees might not want their personal salary information revealed.

Even the lowest paid employees at the state and federal level already have their pay revealed, and it hasn't caused a problem yet. As far as I know, only orgs like the CIA (and similar) where their employees aren't public are hidden from public view.

It's probably the highest paid ones who don't want others to know... goes against equal pay for equal work and all that.

For every rockstar 10x developer who actually is worth much more because they are truly exceptional, there's probably a bunch of others that just happened to have good. career trajectory, or entered during a bubble peak, or have a better diploma, or the right connections, or are skilled negotiators or whatnot.

The hope is that salary transparency will bump their colleagues doing similar work at similar quality up to similar pay. The fear is that it can create workplace resentment, or lower everyone's wages, or invite retaliation, etc.

IMO those are short term growing pains that wouldn't last once transparency is normalized, like in government pay.

Re: Leaked Microsoft pay guidelines – salary, hiring bonus, stock awards by level

#187
post #6

At this point is there any disadvantage to legislating that all companies should share a transparency report where they list their levels + avg, min, max, median salaries for each level?

I’m opposed to disclosure laws that would be prone to expose the income of individual people. If Alice is the only SWEPR5 at a company, that proposal publishes her salary. If Bob is clearly the best SWEPR4, Cathy the middle, and Dave just barely got promoted to that level, their salaries are also individually published. I don’t object to good faith ranges being required in job listings, but I oppose anything that wou…

> If Bob is clearly the best SWEPR4, Cathy the middle, and Dave just barely got promoted to that level ...

I think you're making a big presumption that the "clearly the best" gets the most income!

(Although the more usual argument against transparency proposals is that everyone thinks they're "clealry the best" so all except the highest paid would be annoyed.)

Re: Leaked Microsoft pay guidelines – salary, hiring bonus, stock awards by level

#188

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"Willingness to work for a given range" gets exploited by employers at the expense of employees. It helps prop up structural (gender/race) pay gaps and breeds distrust among employees as some salaries inevitably leak out.

The structural pay gaps exist because salaries are not public in the first place. Paying less due to gender and race is already illegal. The only reason it prevailed is because proving it is difficult if you do not have access to the data.

Of course, that's my point :-) It is illegal but still exists empirically today, which is one very good reason why salary bands should be public.

Re: Leaked Microsoft pay guidelines – salary, hiring bonus, stock awards by level

#189
post #174

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Temporarily Embarrassed Millionaires. Most haven't also realized that just because they work in software, it doesn't mean the world hasn't changed. The times of Microsoft's IPO creating tens of thousands of millionaires and multiple billionaires are gone. Until the next big platform pops up, things are not frozen, but stuck in mud. The biggest Windows apps have probably been the same since 20 years ago. The biggest M…

I'm in the late afternoon/early evening of my career in tech. I think this game's got a lot more time left in it.

Yes, but I'd say that until a new platform pops up, at least 80% of what's on existing has been staked out by at least medium sized companies, if not mega-corps.

Those remaining 20% can still make for decent living, I won't deny that.

Re: Leaked Microsoft pay guidelines – salary, hiring bonus, stock awards by level

#190

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The problem with your example is that you are making the assumption that someone with 10 years of experience is less likely to make mistakes in practice than the person with 0 years of experience. I've seen several examples over my career where the technically "more experienced" individual is not truly the better suited for the job. You won't know that until you hire them and, in my opinion, is a good reason for why…

No, you clearly should have been making more , which is the other side of the "compensation for jobs that differ should not be mandated to be the same" argument. Are you saying that "despite performing the exact same job and actually performing it objectively 'better' that they should have made the same money"? I have software engineers on my team who are literally creating twice as much business [edit to add: value]…

> I have software engineers on my team who are literally creating twice as much business per year despite being at the same level. (The actual peak to trough ratio is probably higher than that, but it's at least 2x.) Why should they be paid exactly the same or even within 5% of each other?

I'm not exactly sure I would say they are performing the same duties then. Are they all responsible for generating business? I would argue they aren't actually doing the same job. This could be the difference between their salaries being the same versus their compensation being the same. Generating business can be a highly variable achievement from year-to-year, so providing total compensation that is higher for those generating more business than others. If their primary job is to do software engineering, then I would imagine their salary would reflect that job. Additional compensation could be given for doing essentially additional responsibilities over and above their job. You could give the feedback to your other software developers to explain the difference in their total compensation vs. salary. Maybe I'm misunderstanding what you mean when you say "creating business" though.

Post reply on HN