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

111–120 of 225 posts

Re: Open Salaries: Outcomes

#111

Post by plicense »

marme wrote: post #86
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…

no two employees with the exact same job title should have more than 10% difference in pay. If someone is making 40% more than others with same title then they should be promoted to higher title and if they dont deserve that title then why is the company paying them so much. It is one thing to want to minimize salary costs but another to disrespect employees with absurdly low salary.

LOL, genuinely laughed. A developer with a title a level below mine makes more than me - I was recently promoted but the raise I got with the promotion didn't match his salary without the promotion!

Re: Open Salaries: Outcomes

#112

Post by parennoob »

dustinmoris wrote: post #46

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.

This requires a large amount of co-ordination, teamwork, and communication – exactly the qualities that 25 employees together are often most required to have in order to work efficiently.

I'd think the raise would be warranted :)

Re: Open Salaries: Outcomes

#113

Post by RHSeeger »

sharemywin wrote: post #100
brianwawok wrote: post #77

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Why would having more transparency reduce your leverage? Because of jealousy. There have to be a good 10-20 software companies with this Open Salary thing. From them, find one where for two people with the same # of years of experience, person A makes 2x what person B makes. From what I see, they all more or less settle on a (base pay) + (# of years * multiplier) + (maybe a location bonus) = Salary. I don't see var…

I would think that if your writing code I can't maintain, but if you leave I have to maintain it or get fired, I have a strong incentive to pay you well. Remember all of these have a feedback component too. What I think it will help with is Bullshit. If person A takes a lot of credit has better access to higher ups and they're in the spotlight a lot, maybe that kind of opportunity should be spread around.

> I would think that if your writing code I can't maintain, but if you leave I have to maintain it or get fired, I have a strong incentive to pay you well.

If you're writing code I can't maintain, my preference is to pay you less. Writing code that is easier to maintain is one sign of a good developer.

I don't want to pay you more because its too painful to lose you. I want to pay you more because its wonderful to have you.

Re: Open Salaries: Outcomes

#114

Post by baddox »

marme wrote: post #86
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…

no two employees with the exact same job title should have more than 10% difference in pay. If someone is making 40% more than others with same title then they should be promoted to higher title and if they dont deserve that title then why is the company paying them so much. It is one thing to want to minimize salary costs but another to disrespect employees with absurdly low salary.

But titles are just arbitrary anyway. If you're saying that two people with the same role shouldn't have more than 10% difference in pay, that makes a bit more sense, although it's still quite difficult to define "role."

Re: Open Salaries: Outcomes

#115

Post by baddox »

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..

I don't see why avoiding open companies would be the smartest move. I'd say just avoid all companies except the one that gives you the best deal (balancing salary, benefits, quality of life, enjoyment of the work, etc.). If that company has open salaries, fine, and if not, fine.

Re: Open Salaries: Outcomes

#116

Post by sheepmullet »

ryandrake wrote: post #92
jsprogrammer wrote: post #81

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>This changed the team dynamics in a fundamental, toxic way. It engendered bitterness from them not only toward the company but to me as well, which ultimately led to all of us leaving the company for greener pastures but with lots of bad feelings all around. The dynamics weren't changed, you were all just able to finally see the reality of your situation: you were being taken advantage of and no one told you.

Another way to look at it is: Before salaries were revealed, the company managed to get their "good team dynamic" without paying for it.

But they didn't. One of their employees was already concerned about their low salary.

If anything this changed the situation from a developer leaving without notice for a higher paying role at a different company into a situation where the company could have retained them.

Re: Open Salaries: Outcomes

#117

Post by DannyBee »

marme wrote: post #86
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…

no two employees with the exact same job title should have more than 10% difference in pay. If someone is making 40% more than others with same title then they should be promoted to higher title and if they dont deserve that title then why is the company paying them so much. It is one thing to want to minimize salary costs but another to disrespect employees with absurdly low salary.

"no two employees with the exact same job title should have more than 10% difference in pay"

Meh, job titles are just buckets. Comp is also a bunch of buckets.

Why should these buckets be necessarily tied in size?

Lots of flatter organizations have a smaller number of titles but larger comp buckets.

There is nothing necessarily wrong with this.

Re: Open Salaries: Outcomes

#118

Post by sheepmullet »

brianwawok wrote: post #77
hx87 wrote: post #76

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Can usually get close to ranges if you ask a few coworker friends and/or interview around. Isn't that transparency, although in a very biased and limited form? Why would having more transparency reduce your leverage? It's easier to play the right cards when you know what cards are in play.

> Why would having more transparency reduce your leverage? Because of jealousy. There have to be a good 10-20 software companies with this Open Salary thing. From them, find one where for two people with the same # of years of experience, person A makes 2x what person B makes. From what I see, they all more or less settle on a (base pay) + (# of years * multiplier) + (maybe a location bonus) = Salary. I don't see var…

> For a counter example, I can point you to wallstreet or finance in Chicago, and show you 100s of people where people at the same level make as much as a 2x pay difference.

If you think people in finance don't know what their peers are getting paid you are fooling yourself.

They are overall much more mature and transparent about pay than we are.

Re: Open Salaries: Outcomes

#119

Post by 8ytecoder »

DannyBee wrote: post #117
marme wrote: post #86

Earlier quoted context omitted.

no two employees with the exact same job title should have more than 10% difference in pay. If someone is making 40% more than others with same title then they should be promoted to higher title and if they dont deserve that title then why is the company paying them so much. It is one thing to want to minimize salary costs but another to disrespect employees with absurdly low salary.

"no two employees with the exact same job title should have more than 10% difference in pay" Meh, job titles are just buckets. Comp is also a bunch of buckets. Why should these buckets be necessarily tied in size? Lots of flatter organizations have a smaller number of titles but larger comp buckets. There is nothing necessarily wrong with this.

This is true even for bigger companies. As an example, let's say we classify engineers as SDE I,II and III and then have at least three sublevels within these which are not reflected in the titles. Engineers can negotiate on what level they think they should be based on their performance - as opposed to how much you should be making. Everybody at a sublevel makes the exact dollar amount +/- a performance bonus. I worked at a company that did that and I found it much less awkward to negotiate during performance reviews (aka pay-hike talks).

Re: Open Salaries: Outcomes

#120

Post by matwood »

co_dh wrote: post #18
lucaspiller wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm currently working for a UN-agency (as a contractor) and the salaries for staff are fixed based upon your job level and number of years of service, so basically everyone knows what everyone else gets: http://icsc.un.org/resources/sad/ss/sal201201.pdf A senior developer is usually P-3 or P-4. It may seem on the low side compared to market rates if you in New York or Geneva - but bear in mind they don't need to pay…

First, are you sure that everybody is paid according to that table? Or it's just a guide line? Secondly, if it's true, then the salary is not related to performance, and I would image people just stay there, the longer the higher salary.

Most (all?) government jobs are like this. My wife is a GS something step something else (I would say, but I can never remember). You can find the public matrix and COLA adjustment based on location and know her exact salary. This is true for all federal employees that I know of.

Performance is how you move up GS and step levels.

Post reply on HN