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

Introducing Open Salaries at Buffer

open.bufferapp.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

331–340 of 352 posts

Re: Introducing Open Salaries at Buffer

#331

Post by walshemj »

gaadd33 wrote: post #286
walshemj wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And what equity do you get for giving up 10k - Whats the cap table look like I know that one FTSE 100 co's basic share option scheme is going to turn out >£60k tax free next year (its a 5 year scheme so say 10k pa) so it had better beat that.

Aren't share save scheme's more like employee stock option programs? Most large companies offer them and they are usually pure profit for the employee since you buy the stock at a discount. If its like equity/option grants in tech companies, I assume it can vary significantly on how much you are given and is pretty customized to your compensation package? i.e. junior dev only gets $10K in shares (over 4 years) vs a s…

You get options at a 20% discount - its fixed anyone can participate at the same level AC to PCGS its the same deal

But yes it is a one way bet the BT 5 year one due next year is on course to pay out £60k tax free - the UK has also just doubled the max amount you can put in to an approved scheme to £500/month.

Re: Introducing Open Salaries at Buffer

#332

Post by icambron »

joelgascoigne wrote: post #274
icambron wrote: post #93

I actually love the radical transparency here, even after reading all the warnings in the HN comments. What I like less is the salary formula. What's going to happen is that all of the negotiation is going to get packed into the experience and seniority multipliers. It creates the illusion of rigor and possibly does more harm than good.

This is a really great point. We don't see as much negotiation as might be expected, however what you say is definitely true to an extent. How do you think we could improve that aspect?

I'd just drop the formula altogether, I think. If at the end of the day, the numbers are just worked out so that you and the employee agrees the salary is about right ("I want $x, so I guess I'd better get a 1.3x experience multiplier"), then just make "work out the salary such that you and the employee agree it's about right" the policy. The transparency keeps these negotiations simple and fair; for example, pushier people won't get more raises than their shyer colleagues because everyone will notice and act accordingly (including you, who will find it easier not to give pushy people those raises when they're posted on the company website).

Re: Introducing Open Salaries at Buffer

#333

Post by the_watcher »

The CEO of Buffer was asked by someone if he worried about this making it easier for his employees to be poached. His response: "if they do, they would be saving me time. Good to speed up that process. I don’t believe salary is the reason people would leave."[1]

[1] https://twitter.com/joelgascoigne/status/413713018455740416

Re: Introducing Open Salaries at Buffer

#334

Post by benaston »

agilebyte wrote: post #191
dangero wrote: post #58

Wow, an Android engineer making less than 100K that's crazy to me, but I'm not that familiar with UK salaries I guess.

London is special , from http://www.itjobswatch.co.uk/ : 45k for Android UK average 55k for Android London average 10k GBP is 16k USD

Suspect the weak mean salaries in London are due to the fact that many (most?) senior developers move out of the permanent jobs market into consulting/contracting (which, I hear is not par for the course in other nations).

Re: Introducing Open Salaries at Buffer

#335

Post by digz »

stephencanon wrote: post #139
jmduke wrote: post #71

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Buffer is posting $2M annual revenue this year, if I recall correctly. Their paychecks aren't being signed by investors -- they're being signed by customers.

Given that the listed salaries total 1.7M, which ignores payroll taxes and benefits, and they presumably have at least some expenses beyond payroll, at least part of their paychecks are likely coming from investment.

Never mind the two international off-site trips they take everyone on each year.

Look, not saying they can't do it.. just saying as an investor, I'd wouldn't support it. Money is after-all fungible. It doesn't matter if sales are paying for 100% of the salaries or not... if there's money being left on the table that can be reinvested into the company by either bringing in new/better talent or retaining your top talent, I would be angry. The founders already have high incentive to stay as long as they can satisfy basic needs on their salary. Employees with little equity do not unless they are paid competitively.

Re: Introducing Open Salaries at Buffer

#336

Post by CodeMage »

Jemaclus wrote: post #277
CodeMage wrote: post #129

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> First, most recruiters/hiring managers ask for current comp (or at least a salary range) early in the discussion, so it should be easy for them to offer well over someone's current pay. This simply removes one bargaining tools (lying about current comp) for an employee considering a move elsewhere. "Lying about current comp" is not the only tool for an employee considering a move elsewhere. Nor is it, in my opinion…

Serious question: I've never quite understood the "what if you have a kid" argument. Is it the company's fault you had a kid? Why are they obligated to pay you more because you had a kid? If you were worth $100K and you negotiated for that, then that's what you make -- a kid has nothing to do with it. Put another way, let's say we both make 100K in salary, and then, all other things being equal, you have a kid. Do yo…

No, you don't get a raise, because you didn't ask for it. The difference you should be focusing on, in your scenario, is not that I had a kid. It's that, for whatever reason, I renegotiated my salary. If you can do the same, then you get the same results.

See, whereas you never quite understood the "what if you have a kid" argument, I never quite understood the "don't I deserve the same as that other guy" argument. The way I see it, the magical answer is always the same: maybe you do. Do something about it and you might be surprised.

Re: Introducing Open Salaries at Buffer

#337

Post by Jemaclus »

CodeMage wrote: post #336
Jemaclus wrote: post #277

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Serious question: I've never quite understood the "what if you have a kid" argument. Is it the company's fault you had a kid? Why are they obligated to pay you more because you had a kid? If you were worth $100K and you negotiated for that, then that's what you make -- a kid has nothing to do with it. Put another way, let's say we both make 100K in salary, and then, all other things being equal, you have a kid. Do yo…

No, you don't get a raise, because you didn't ask for it. The difference you should be focusing on, in your scenario, is not that I had a kid. It's that, for whatever reason, I renegotiated my salary. If you can do the same, then you get the same results. See, whereas you never quite understood the "what if you have a kid" argument, I never quite understood the "don't I deserve the same as that other guy" argument. T…

Fair enough. :)

Re: Introducing Open Salaries at Buffer

#338

Post by Jemaclus »

nickonline wrote: post #290
Jemaclus wrote: post #277

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Serious question: I've never quite understood the "what if you have a kid" argument. Is it the company's fault you had a kid? Why are they obligated to pay you more because you had a kid? If you were worth $100K and you negotiated for that, then that's what you make -- a kid has nothing to do with it. Put another way, let's say we both make 100K in salary, and then, all other things being equal, you have a kid. Do yo…

I think you're looking at this wrong. The kid is an example for why the budget gets tight, it could be anything (buying a house, deciding to pay off your credit card), you're correct the company has no obligation. Hence why you're asking, not informing that they'll pay you $20k more. "If you were worth $100K and you negotiated for that, then that's what you make" was true at the time of the initial negotiation. This…

Fair enough. :)

Re: Introducing Open Salaries at Buffer

#339

Post by jacobquick »

zhuzhuor wrote: post #82

I found one thing interesting is that only 4 out of 17 people choose equity over $10k salary. Even CTO chooses salary. I am curious if this is common in startup companies, since I have never worked in startups.

Paying those salaries in San Francisco, there better be a giant pile of equity either way.

Re: Introducing Open Salaries at Buffer

#340

Post by peterbraden »

aestra wrote: post #316
syllogism wrote: post #269

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you've never understood the idea of "privilege" before, your attitude of "oh what, this doesn't work for everyone else? It works for me!" is something that gets discussed a lot. Some examples of the many, many situations people can find themselves in where public salary disclosure would be a major problem: - You have family members who have substance abuse issues. It's common for addicts to steal from family membe…

I understand your concerns, however there are so many people who already have their salary info public. For example government employees including military. There is already some idea if you know what someone does. If I work fast food, everyone knows I am going to earn around minium wage. Most people know a ballpark figure for most jobs, I have a doctor friend an administrative assistant friend, nurse friend, police…

does that make it right?
Post reply on HN