5 ms·

Hi, I can give it to you since I work for Lunar Logic. How it looked: everyone felt a bit anxious and not 100% sure if it will be the good decision, but we deci

Hi, I can give it to you since I work for Lunar Logic. How it looked: everyone felt a bit anxious and not 100% sure if it will be the good decision, but we decided to go for open salaries anyway (it was a collective decision after a series of long discussions of a whole company, not a decision at the top). When the salaries list was released, everyone took a look and there was no disaster. Most of the salaries felt just fine and we fixed ones that were bit too low soon after the list was released. We all treat it as a normal part of our job now and I think no one regrets that we went for it. Being transparent about it makes everything easier to be honest and we treat it as one of the coolest things we did last year.

dominotw 10y ago
>but we decided to go for open salaries anyway What happened to the people who didn't want to reveal their compensation. Was is it revealed anyways?
- noddingham 10y ago
  There are three companion articles to this one which answer questions like this. The answer to your question from the "how" article: "Not joining would mean that others won’t know about that person’s salary and that person wouldn’t have access to the salary list."
- szynszyliszys 10y ago
  There was a choice and these people would just not see the salaries list and participate in salary raise process. But we went all in, everyone was ok with revealing their salaries.
  - swissoak 10y ago
    So there was the implicit threat that if you didn't join, you wouldn't be eligible for raises? Also, how could you enforce them not seeing the list? It's illegal for an employer to deter the discussion of compensation amongst employees.
    - szynszyliszys 10y ago
      They would get raises in an old way, from CEO. We are based in Poland, and as far as I know there is nothing illigal about it. Someone mentioned shoulder surfing - I believe people who would not join, would be decent enough to play by the rules and not do this.
  - reledi 10y ago
    These people may not have access to the document, but surely in a small company they would figure out some of the salaries either through the grapevine or shoulder surfing?
  - smsm42 10y ago
    That suggests either a very like-minded company (with 25 people very likely, with larger sizes less so) or tremendous amount of peer pressure. After all, if out of 25 people 24 decide to share, and 25th wants to work in this company, they don't really have a choice, do they? That person has to work with all these people after it.
  - smsm42 10y ago
    That suggests either a very like-minded company (with 25 people very likely, with larger sizes less so) or tremendous amount of peer pressure. After all, if out of 25 people 24 decide to share, and 25th wants to work in this company, they don't really have a choice, do they? That person has to work with all these people after it.
0xmohit 10y ago
By being transparent, you force yourself to be less irrational. Irrationality is the square root of all evil.
- givinguflac 10y ago
  I see what you did there

dominotw 10y ago

>but we decided to go for open salaries anyway What happened to the people who didn't want to reveal their compensation. Was is it revealed anyways?

noddingham 10y ago
There are three companion articles to this one which answer questions like this. The answer to your question from the "how" article: "Not joining would mean that others won’t know about that person’s salary and that person wouldn’t have access to the salary list."
szynszyliszys 10y ago
There was a choice and these people would just not see the salaries list and participate in salary raise process. But we went all in, everyone was ok with revealing their salaries.
- swissoak 10y ago
  So there was the implicit threat that if you didn't join, you wouldn't be eligible for raises? Also, how could you enforce them not seeing the list? It's illegal for an employer to deter the discussion of compensation amongst employees.
  - szynszyliszys 10y ago
    They would get raises in an old way, from CEO. We are based in Poland, and as far as I know there is nothing illigal about it. Someone mentioned shoulder surfing - I believe people who would not join, would be decent enough to play by the rules and not do this.
- reledi 10y ago
  These people may not have access to the document, but surely in a small company they would figure out some of the salaries either through the grapevine or shoulder surfing?
- smsm42 10y ago
  That suggests either a very like-minded company (with 25 people very likely, with larger sizes less so) or tremendous amount of peer pressure. After all, if out of 25 people 24 decide to share, and 25th wants to work in this company, they don't really have a choice, do they? That person has to work with all these people after it.
- smsm42 10y ago
  That suggests either a very like-minded company (with 25 people very likely, with larger sizes less so) or tremendous amount of peer pressure. After all, if out of 25 people 24 decide to share, and 25th wants to work in this company, they don't really have a choice, do they? That person has to work with all these people after it.

0xmohit 10y ago

By being transparent, you force yourself to be less irrational. Irrationality is the square root of all evil.

givinguflac 10y ago
I see what you did there