6 ms·

As a developer who, admittedly, has never had trouble finding a salary I'm satisfied with, and who is comfortable negotiating, I'm not a fan of transparency. It

by lukev 16y ago

As a developer who, admittedly, has never had trouble finding a salary I'm satisfied with, and who is comfortable negotiating, I'm not a fan of transparency. It seems like it would cause more problems than it solves. If salaries are private, then salary is purely a function of negotiation between employer and employee. Presumably both are happy, or at least happy enough not to terminate the relationship. If salaries are public, however, then a ton of other variables get thrown into the mix. For example, it's possible to end up in a situation where I'd be happy to stay for a certain salary, and my employer would be happy to give me that salary to keep me, but because they can't offer all my peers the same salary, it doesn't work out, and nobody is happy. And that doesn't even take into account all the extra interpersonal conflict and rivalry that transparent salaries could cause. The mitigation for both of these issues is, of course, is to base compensation on objective performance rankings. But that's a nontrivial problem. How do you compare a sales guy to a developer to a DBA? Even if you did come up with a mostly fair solution, it would still invite endless discussion and dissatisfaction from people who feel the system wasn't evaluating them properly.

michaelochurch 16y ago
I disagree. First of all, workplace social conflicts develop very fast and are often irrational in nature. If salaries are public knowledge, then people have time to accept that there's just that one incompetent guy making 20% more than he should and within a few hours they forget about it. It's mildly annoying, but as long as people are happy with what they're making and with their own job security, they aren't going to risk their jobs or reputations over it. It's when secrets are discovered that people become irrational, angry, and vindictive. Othello teaches this lesson. Dude discovers a scarf in the wrong place and loses all sense of reason, and kills his innocent wife in the process. People would get angry and leave in a public-salary system. My contention is that people discover a lot of this information anyway and get more angry in a private-salary system. Annual performance bonuses should probably be secret. The ranges or "buckets" for each year/class/job description should be public; who fell into what bucket should be private.
- lukev 16y ago
  >people have time to accept that there's just that one incompetent guy making 20% more than he should and within a few hours they forget about it. Really? I'm not sure about that. >My contention is that people discover a lot of this information anyway and get more angry in a private-salary system. I've never personally heard of a person getting upset upon discovering someone else's private salary. I know lots of people who are dissatisfied because they're obviously far more valuable than a peer at the same level, and lots of people who are resented because of their parasitism at a higher-level job. (This is in the government system, where salaries are pretty transparent.) All in all, transparent salaries don't really work that well for the government. What makes you think the corporate sector could do better?
  - michaelochurch 16y ago
    For me, what I can't stand is when an incompetent has more power and influence than I do. That will have be quitting on the spot. If he's making slightly more money than I am, but no one takes him seriously and his shitty ideas aren't being imposed on me or the rest of the team, then why do I care? He's not in an enviable position. As a highly-paid incompetent, he'll be the first one let go when there's a need to lay people off.
    - sreitshamer 16y ago
      My corporate-environment programming experience taught me that competence has no weight. Everybody just wants to get along and be friends. People who are buddies with the manager get more pay and advancement than others even if they are far less competent. They also tend to survive layoffs.
  - kelnos 16y ago
    I've never personally heard of a person getting upset upon discovering someone else's private salary. I have, on several occasions. I've been that upset person once, even. I know lots of people who are dissatisfied because they're obviously far more valuable than a peer at the same level, and lots of people who are resented because of their parasitism at a higher-level job. (This is in the government system, where salaries are pretty transparent.) And that's exactly how it should be. If you're far more valuable than a peer but are being paid the same or less, you should be dissatisfied. Ignorance may be bliss, but I'd rather know I'm getting shafted so I can either renegotiate or look for a better opportunity.
okaramian 16y ago
The problem is that when you're hiding salaries you can't really evaluate the market. Really by hiding that information you're giving the salary giver most of the power and those shopping around for a higher salary need to do a lot more work to evaluate how much they're worth on the market. I mean if Joe is doing half the work I'm doing, shouldn't he get paid significantly less? You're kind of attacking this from an "ignorance is bliss" standpoint, but that seems to support the market acting kind of erratically.
- lukev 16y ago
  Does the market really matter if I'm happy with what I'm being paid? That's ultimately the motivation for my argument - in which system are the greatest number of actors likely to be content?
  - okaramian 16y ago
    I'm personally happy if I don't feel like I'm getting screwed for my time/output. I can't really judge that very well other than gut feeling if I don't know how much other individuals around me are making. In order to find out if I'm getting boned I've had to go out and interview with other companies to pull offers to gauge the market, this is probably a net negative for all sides.
  - kelnos 16y ago
    I guess this is just a "to each his own" sort of thing. Personally I'm only truly happy when I have all the information (or as much as I can get in practical terms, anyway) and I'm still satisfied with the situation. I suppose others are fine without. Note that this isn't a competition thing. I wouldn't necessarily be dissatisfied just by the concept of an equal peer making more than me; I'd be disappointed that I could be making more but I'm not.
  - quanticle 16y ago
    To me, this raises the question, "How do I determine whether to be happy with what I'm getting paid?" This is where having open salaries would be beneficial - I could compare my salaries against others with the same skills and experience and determine whether I was being treated fairly or not.
bphogan 16y ago
I can't upvote this enough. Most people can (and shoul) say NO to salary history questions, and only provide salary requirements. I just finished working on a group to hire someone for a state job. One candidate came from another state job and so his salary history was visible. It immediately put him at a disadvantage. If I was to move to the private sector, I'd be at a disadvantage too - my salary history and benefits package is public info too. When someone else besides you and your current employer knows your salary information, you lose.

by lukev 16y ago

michaelochurch 16y ago

I disagree. First of all, workplace social conflicts develop very fast and are often irrational in nature. If salaries are public knowledge, then people have time to accept that there's just that one incompetent guy making 20% more than he should and within a few hours they forget about it. It's mildly annoying, but as long as people are happy with what they're making and with their own job security, they aren't going to risk their jobs or reputations over it. It's when secrets are discovered that people become irrational, angry, and vindictive. Othello teaches this lesson. Dude discovers a scarf in the wrong place and loses all sense of reason, and kills his innocent wife in the process. People would get angry and leave in a public-salary system. My contention is that people discover a lot of this information anyway and get more angry in a private-salary system. Annual performance bonuses should probably be secret. The ranges or "buckets" for each year/class/job description should be public; who fell into what bucket should be private.

lukev 16y ago
>people have time to accept that there's just that one incompetent guy making 20% more than he should and within a few hours they forget about it. Really? I'm not sure about that. >My contention is that people discover a lot of this information anyway and get more angry in a private-salary system. I've never personally heard of a person getting upset upon discovering someone else's private salary. I know lots of people who are dissatisfied because they're obviously far more valuable than a peer at the same level, and lots of people who are resented because of their parasitism at a higher-level job. (This is in the government system, where salaries are pretty transparent.) All in all, transparent salaries don't really work that well for the government. What makes you think the corporate sector could do better?
- michaelochurch 16y ago
  For me, what I can't stand is when an incompetent has more power and influence than I do. That will have be quitting on the spot. If he's making slightly more money than I am, but no one takes him seriously and his shitty ideas aren't being imposed on me or the rest of the team, then why do I care? He's not in an enviable position. As a highly-paid incompetent, he'll be the first one let go when there's a need to lay people off.
  - sreitshamer 16y ago
    My corporate-environment programming experience taught me that competence has no weight. Everybody just wants to get along and be friends. People who are buddies with the manager get more pay and advancement than others even if they are far less competent. They also tend to survive layoffs.
- kelnos 16y ago
  I've never personally heard of a person getting upset upon discovering someone else's private salary. I have, on several occasions. I've been that upset person once, even. I know lots of people who are dissatisfied because they're obviously far more valuable than a peer at the same level, and lots of people who are resented because of their parasitism at a higher-level job. (This is in the government system, where salaries are pretty transparent.) And that's exactly how it should be. If you're far more valuable than a peer but are being paid the same or less, you should be dissatisfied. Ignorance may be bliss, but I'd rather know I'm getting shafted so I can either renegotiate or look for a better opportunity.

okaramian 16y ago

The problem is that when you're hiding salaries you can't really evaluate the market. Really by hiding that information you're giving the salary giver most of the power and those shopping around for a higher salary need to do a lot more work to evaluate how much they're worth on the market. I mean if Joe is doing half the work I'm doing, shouldn't he get paid significantly less? You're kind of attacking this from an "ignorance is bliss" standpoint, but that seems to support the market acting kind of erratically.

lukev 16y ago
Does the market really matter if I'm happy with what I'm being paid? That's ultimately the motivation for my argument - in which system are the greatest number of actors likely to be content?
- okaramian 16y ago
  I'm personally happy if I don't feel like I'm getting screwed for my time/output. I can't really judge that very well other than gut feeling if I don't know how much other individuals around me are making. In order to find out if I'm getting boned I've had to go out and interview with other companies to pull offers to gauge the market, this is probably a net negative for all sides.
- kelnos 16y ago
  I guess this is just a "to each his own" sort of thing. Personally I'm only truly happy when I have all the information (or as much as I can get in practical terms, anyway) and I'm still satisfied with the situation. I suppose others are fine without. Note that this isn't a competition thing. I wouldn't necessarily be dissatisfied just by the concept of an equal peer making more than me; I'd be disappointed that I could be making more but I'm not.
- quanticle 16y ago
  To me, this raises the question, "How do I determine whether to be happy with what I'm getting paid?" This is where having open salaries would be beneficial - I could compare my salaries against others with the same skills and experience and determine whether I was being treated fairly or not.

bphogan 16y ago

I can't upvote this enough. Most people can (and shoul) say NO to salary history questions, and only provide salary requirements. I just finished working on a group to hire someone for a state job. One candidate came from another state job and so his salary history was visible. It immediately put him at a disadvantage. If I was to move to the private sector, I'd be at a disadvantage too - my salary history and benefits package is public info too. When someone else besides you and your current employer knows your salary information, you lose.