Open Salaries: Outcomes • Hacker News Board

Re: Open Salaries: Outcomes

#91

Post by ellisv » Thu, Oct 27, 2016, 7:03 PM UTC

mason55 wrote: post #89

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.

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.

Re: Open Salaries: Outcomes

#92

Post by ryandrake » Thu, Oct 27, 2016, 7:03 PM UTC

jsprogrammer wrote: post #81

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…

>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.

Re: Open Salaries: Outcomes

#93

Post by Salgat » Thu, Oct 27, 2016, 7:05 PM UTC

Joof wrote: post #88

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.

What if they do different jobs? Is the title so important?

Agreed. Title doesn't really mean much, unless you force a ton of different titles.

Re: Open Salaries: Outcomes

#94

Post by moduspwnens14 » Thu, Oct 27, 2016, 7:13 PM UTC

ryandrake wrote: post #43

brianwawok wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This got downvoted, and the tone is a bit harsh.. but it does speak a bit of truth. What happens to the guy in open salary co who is legit 50% better than everyone else? Do his peers vote to give him 50% more money? Or does it settle on sort of a union style pay scale, where everyone with the same # of years of work makes the same money (which is great for the worst performances, and terrible for the best performers)

I didn't down vote, but the comment would be better if it were expanded with some details about why he thinks people who are good at their jobs should avoid open salary workplaces. I would think nearly all employees benefit from open salaries. For most companies, the salary information asymmetry is an effective way to keep the salaries of high performers DOWN. If you don't know that the mediocre guy who sits next to…

> I didn't down vote, but the comment would be better if it were expanded with some details about why he thinks people who are good at their jobs should avoid open salary workplaces.

I've tried a handful of different ways to explain this (before backspacing out this comment box and trying again), but here's the best I can come up with:

You always have the ability to negotiate for higher pay. If you've spent much of your life in different workplaces, you'll probably know that people (generally) think they deserve raises for reasons other than those that make sense. Those can include:

* Poor personal money management

* Poor life decisions leading to more money needed

* Number of years spent with the company

* Number of hours worked each week

* How busy they appear to be

* How much they think they get done

* How much more work they think they do than they did last year

* How much more work they think they do than their peers

* and more

None of those things really matter, though. Factors that actually matter include:

* How much other employers will pay for your skillset

* How likely you are to leave

* How much it would cost to replace you

This is important because the people actually running the business have to understand this, but the rest of the employees don't. As a high performer, you'll be negotiating a raise based on those factors that actually matter and your boss (hopefully) understands that. You don't want to put him in a situation where he can (or has to) fall back on how the rest of the company will feel about your pay, because they don't necessarily weigh the correct factors in deciding whether or not you "deserve" it.

Re: Open Salaries: Outcomes

#95

Post by rayvd » Thu, Oct 27, 2016, 7:15 PM UTC

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. An employee should make the salary he or she is willing to accept and an employer is willing to pay.

Re: Open Salaries: Outcomes

#96

Post by ryandrake » Thu, Oct 27, 2016, 7:15 PM UTC

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…

I'd argue that in companies where salaries are not transparent, there is also not a (he is awesome) variable. Salaries among the same title/level are dependent more on how good of a negotiator you are or how good your relationship is with your manager, than whether or not you are awesome.

EDIT: In theory they should be based on what the employee could get elsewhere in the market, but if that were always true there would be no job hopping.

Re: Open Salaries: Outcomes

#97

Post by Casseres » Thu, Oct 27, 2016, 7:18 PM UTC

jermaustin1 wrote: post #49

monocasa wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, there's flexibility in the general schedule system. It both goes from $18K to $133K, and includes cost of living adjustments. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_Schedule_(US_civil_ser...

Just looked at the Locality Adjustments, and as a person who has/does live(d) in NYC and Houston, TX, for them to have pretty much the exact same adjustment doesn't make ANY sense. My rent in Houston was $1100/mo for a 2 bed, 2 bath 1200 sqft luxury apartment in a nice development with hiking and biking trails. My rent in NYC for a 1 bed, 1 bath, 600sqft luxury apartment in a nice building with a doorman every other…

Locality ≠ COLA (Cost of Living Adjustment)

Locality is to make a job's salary competitive with other job salaries in the local market, whereas COLA is exactly what it sounds like.

Houston has a high locality rate because of all the high-paying jobs there that one could potentially get instead of the govt job.

I work for the govt and receive both locality and COLA, albeit the COLA is way too low in my opinion (Honolulu).

Re: Open Salaries: Outcomes

#98

Post by moduspwnens14 » Thu, Oct 27, 2016, 7:20 PM UTC

eyelidlessness wrote: post #45

brianwawok wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This got downvoted, and the tone is a bit harsh.. but it does speak a bit of truth. What happens to the guy in open salary co who is legit 50% better than everyone else? Do his peers vote to give him 50% more money? Or does it settle on sort of a union style pay scale, where everyone with the same # of years of work makes the same money (which is great for the worst performances, and terrible for the best performers)

While union workers often have less salary disparity, their salaries also tend to be higher overall. The only downside to this is if the "best performers" derive value from their "worse performer" peers being paid less than them.

> While union workers often have less salary disparity, their salaries also tend to be higher overall. The only downside to this is if the "best performers" derive value from their "worse performer" peers being paid less than them.

Or if you're in your twenties or thirties and pretty good at something and want to be paid based on how valuable you are in the market instead of based on your number of years clocking in.

Re: Open Salaries: Outcomes

#99

Post by andrewla » Thu, Oct 27, 2016, 7:30 PM UTC

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…

What you are saying generally rings true for an opaque-salary workplace (which is all I've ever worked at).

In the end, though, the dissatisfaction is an edge-triggered phenomenon, not a level-triggered phenomenon. The introduction of an open-salary model to an opaque-salary environment seems tough for everyone, especially if there is a large disconnect between people's perception of their peer's performance vs. their actual salary. But in an open-salary environment, especially one with a feedback loop, it seems like it would be difficult to get into that state in the first place.

Re: Open Salaries: Outcomes

#100

Post by sharemywin » Thu, Oct 27, 2016, 7:38 PM UTC

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…

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.