3 ms·

What does it have to do with the openness of the formula/salary data if another company pays more? > there's no subjectivity in this formula Yes, there isn't.

What does it have to do with the openness of the formula/salary data if another company pays more? > there's no subjectivity in this formula Yes, there isn't. Because subjectivity in favour of someone, is to the detriment of another employee (because the budget is limited). It just usually happens to be the case that the employers somehow "magically forget" to communicate this to the employees. So you are basically kept in the dark in two different respects: 1st regarding how your skills compare to others 2nd regarding how your salary compares to others Basically this is just a spineless, sneaky tactic that employers like to use. Because the less information you have, the lower the chances that you can make a well informed decision about your job change.

ryanwaggoner 9y ago
Because subjectivity in favour of someone, is to the detriment of another employee (because the budget is limited) This is not how salaries work. Companies don't have a pool of $x for y employees. They try to hire every employee at as low a cost as possible. If you accept a salary at $10,000 below what they were willing to pay for that role, it's not like you can rest easy knowing that the other employees will get that money. That $10k is now additional profit [1]. Anyway, you can think this system is unfair and that we should have another one, but this is the one we have now. So you can work at below market rates for companies like Buffer, or you can go get a higher salary at companies that don't do this. 1. This seems like an argument in favor of more worker-owned companies, which I think are fantastic. I think we should have a lot more of them, and I'd like to better understand why we don't.
- sidlls 9y ago
  > I'd like to better understand why we don't. My view: most workers just want a paycheck and at the end of the work day leave work at work. That isn't compatible with running a company. Besides, even in worker-owned companies an implicit hierarchy emerges and gains its own inertia until eventually "ownership" is technically true but doesn't mean much.
  - deleted 9y ago
    [deleted]
  - ryanwaggoner 9y ago
    I'm not talking about "holacracy" or some super-flat structure. You can still hire management to run the company, but the employees get the ultimate profit from the company. Member-owned cooperatives are interesting for some of the same reasons, and seem to work well in many cases. Just wondering why we don't have more of these structures.
    - sillysaurus3 9y ago
      Tradition is very hard to change. It would take a major, visible demonstration that those proposed structures give a big advantage over those that don't. It's worth trying, though.
- fogetti 9y ago
  Sorry but I beg to differ. That's exactly how it works. The financial officer/controller simply allocates $x for y employees. And they do this calculation in every quarter, adjusting it if necessary. I don't even understand how can you think it works differently???
  - ryanwaggoner 9y ago
    They may set the upper bound like that (although you greatly exaggerate how common and simple it is), but you’re insane if you think that they won’t hire anyone for less if they can, and that they’ll then redistribute those savings across all the other employees. Ha! Hiring is supply / demand like anything else, and companies are trying to minimize their labor expenses and maximize profit, not spend a certain fixes amount (and no less!) on labor.
    - fogetti 9y ago
      Noone said that they won't hire anyone for less if they can. Don't put words in my mouth, because that's sg that only YOU said. And, no, it's not exaggeration. It's common sense.

ryanwaggoner 9y ago

Because subjectivity in favour of someone, is to the detriment of another employee (because the budget is limited) This is not how salaries work. Companies don't have a pool of $x for y employees. They try to hire every employee at as low a cost as possible. If you accept a salary at $10,000 below what they were willing to pay for that role, it's not like you can rest easy knowing that the other employees will get that money. That $10k is now additional profit [1]. Anyway, you can think this system is unfair and that we should have another one, but this is the one we have now. So you can work at below market rates for companies like Buffer, or you can go get a higher salary at companies that don't do this. 1. This seems like an argument in favor of more worker-owned companies, which I think are fantastic. I think we should have a lot more of them, and I'd like to better understand why we don't.

sidlls 9y ago
> I'd like to better understand why we don't. My view: most workers just want a paycheck and at the end of the work day leave work at work. That isn't compatible with running a company. Besides, even in worker-owned companies an implicit hierarchy emerges and gains its own inertia until eventually "ownership" is technically true but doesn't mean much.
- deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]
- ryanwaggoner 9y ago
  I'm not talking about "holacracy" or some super-flat structure. You can still hire management to run the company, but the employees get the ultimate profit from the company. Member-owned cooperatives are interesting for some of the same reasons, and seem to work well in many cases. Just wondering why we don't have more of these structures.
  - sillysaurus3 9y ago
    Tradition is very hard to change. It would take a major, visible demonstration that those proposed structures give a big advantage over those that don't. It's worth trying, though.
fogetti 9y ago
Sorry but I beg to differ. That's exactly how it works. The financial officer/controller simply allocates $x for y employees. And they do this calculation in every quarter, adjusting it if necessary. I don't even understand how can you think it works differently???
- ryanwaggoner 9y ago
  They may set the upper bound like that (although you greatly exaggerate how common and simple it is), but you’re insane if you think that they won’t hire anyone for less if they can, and that they’ll then redistribute those savings across all the other employees. Ha! Hiring is supply / demand like anything else, and companies are trying to minimize their labor expenses and maximize profit, not spend a certain fixes amount (and no less!) on labor.
  - fogetti 9y ago
    Noone said that they won't hire anyone for less if they can. Don't put words in my mouth, because that's sg that only YOU said. And, no, it's not exaggeration. It's common sense.