21–30 of 242 posts
I was at a company once where they talked about it casually. The career path was clear, etc. You had your salary, and your bonus. The bonus is easy to compute: It was a percentage of how much the company charged the other company for the work you did. Like if the job you did that day cost $200k, you get 2k. But to get back on topic, I think everyone should take a look at a book called "Winning Through Intimidation" b…
I understand that this is against the "wisdom", but I always wanted to build a compensation-transparent-company. In which it is open (at least internally) how much everybody makes (including equity). And people have ways to change their compensation over longish periods of time and the ratio of cash / equity.
Complete salary transparency is what should be pursued, if at all possible.
I have a hard time buying this argument. If you are an employer despicable enough to systematically be paying women less just for being women, I don't think another redundant law is going to change your behavior.
This seems like a feel good exercise. People still buy drugs? Pass another law that says trafficking drugs is super duper illegal. Another heinous murder? Make it extra illegal to murder someone. In fact, make it extra illegal to murder someone with a specific type of weapon.
This stuff doesn't seem to matter. Drug dealers know they face stiff penalties if caught. People who have decided to murder another human really don't care if the penalties are higher if they use a gun versus a tire iron. And, misogynist employers aren't going to be swayed by yet another law that says treat all people the same regardless of sex, for reals this time.
When I started several years ago it came to my attention that the existing developers and IT staff were drastically underpaid (there was one other internal developer, an internal IT guy, myself, and a few outside contractors). I brought it to the attention of my bosses (managing partners) and have made it my goal to bring other developers salaries up to par. When I was hired I was making almost double what the other two were. I realized one of the biggest risks to the company was if either one of them decided to look across the street and find they could probably get a 40% raise on the spot. If they left a lot of knowledge and investment would walk out the door.
Over that past few years we've weened ourselves off the contractors/consultants and have hired internally. We are now at ~8 developers. In order to hire the more recent developers we've had to offer market rate salaries. During reviews and hiring I've always told employees not to discuss their salary, mostly for psychological reasons. No matter what someone will feel bad. "What if you make more than them? They might not think you're worth more than them. Causing tension and friction. What if they make more that you? Same thing."
I know that some have discussed it salary with others. At times it ticks me off.. makes me want to ensure they aren't lying by reducing their or withholding their next raise. (Please note that's a immediate gut reaction and I throw it out the window) quickly.
I'm happy to report, after much effort, I've been able to show the managing partners again this year that some developers still need larger than COLA raises (some should get 20%, 15%, 10% and most 5%). They are weary but I think they finally understand the importance of this. We do reviews and raises in a few months, and when I sit down with them I will still insist on not talking about salary or raise (amount/percent) and use the same explanation as before.
Yes, no one wants to be taken advantage of and the easiest way we think about doing that is salary transparency. That would work great in a world were psychology and subjectiveness didn't exist. I tend to be a very logical, analytical, rational personal. And as much as I hate office politics, emotions getting in the way, and having to hack psychology, they exist and as the logical, analytical, and rational person I think I am those things must be factored into going about things.
On a recent contract I took, the end client told me what they were paying for my services -- about 6x what I was getting paid. They were pretty annoyed, and I was threatened with legal action for discussing financial matters with an end client. I haven't heard from either side since December, so I'm guessing that contract is pretty much dead.
I understand that this is against the "wisdom", but I always wanted to build a compensation-transparent-company. In which it is open (at least internally) how much everybody makes (including equity). And people have ways to change their compensation over longish periods of time and the ratio of cash / equity.
This article seems to basically say its already illegal to prohibit employees from discussing pay (NLRA 1935) and it is certainly illegal to pay someone less based on race or sex (Equal Pay Act, and others) but the solution to wage discrimination is pass more laws that make it illegal-er. I have a hard time buying this argument. If you are an employer despicable enough to systematically be paying women less just for…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I have always wanted to own a company where we put the salaries on the wall of a employee-only conference room and paid profit sharing. I doubt it would work, but I would love to try it.
The state of California puts all its workers' compensation on the web: http://www.sacbee.com/site-services/databases/state-pay/#req...
This article seems to basically say its already illegal to prohibit employees from discussing pay (NLRA 1935) and it is certainly illegal to pay someone less based on race or sex (Equal Pay Act, and others) but the solution to wage discrimination is pass more laws that make it illegal-er. I have a hard time buying this argument. If you are an employer despicable enough to systematically be paying women less just for…
I believe this sometimes happens because women are less likely to counter-offer and negotiate during the hiring process. It sucks.