5 ms·

> Looking at the current job listings on your company's career section will be the very first thing that everyone will do if those salaries were to be made publ

> Looking at the current job listings on your company's career section will be the very first thing that everyone will do if those salaries were to be made public. This right here I think is the real reason companies do not disclose compensation in their listings. Their current employees fall below the range and they do not want them to know. This is unfortunately a widespread problem in tech, where companies constantly offer more for new hires than what they pay their own employees for the same work. The new hires that have joined will then find themselves in the same position next year when their compensation falls below what someone will be hired at that year! And the cycle continues. It's absolute madness if you look at it from the big picture perspective and there are some fundamental problems with the way HR orgs are structured that need to change. From an employee perspective, the most optimal thing you can do for yourself is to move companies frequently and that is the reason for the crazy churn we see in this industry.

bencollier49 5y ago
I've seen this happen in a large company, and it caused terrible morale issues, as there were reasons good reasons why salary couldn't just be raised across the board to match new hire rates. For most companies, this will make them less resistant to boom and bust as they'll be forced to offer big annual payrises which they won't be able to roll back when the market contracts.
- tpxl 5y ago
  Pray tell, what are good reasons to underpay experienced staff compared to new staff?
  - lelanthran 5y ago
    > Pray tell, what are good reasons to underpay experienced staff compared to new staff? GP didn't say that there are good reasons to underpay experienced staff compared to new staff, he said that there are good reasons that salaries cannot be raised across the board.
    - tpxl 5y ago
      GP said they couldn't raise wages compared to new hires, so they couldn't raise wages of experienced staff relative to new staff, leading to experienced staff being underpaid.
      - lelanthran 5y ago
        > GP said they couldn't raise wages compared to new hires, No. This is exactly what GP said: > there were reasons good reasons why salary couldn't just be raised across the board to match new hire rates. There is not a single company I can think of (other than FAANG or unicorn startups flush with VC money) that can raise salaries across the board, they simply do not have the cash-flow to do it.
        frumper 5y ago
        It's downright silly to pay new employees more than experienced employees for similar jobs. If you can't afford to raise wages for the experienced staff you'll soon have a bunch of inexperienced staff that costs you more.
        lelanthran 5y ago
        > It's downright silly to pay new employees more than experienced employees for similar jobs. If you can't afford to raise wages for the experienced staff you'll soon have a bunch of inexperienced staff that costs you more. I agree, but the reality is that raising salaries across the board would kill the company immediately, while having ONLY inexperienced staff might happen, and even if it did, it only might kill the company. Another factor is that a lot of the staff just won't move, even if they know they are being paid less.
        biztos 5y ago
        OK, but then what is the long-term business justification for paying more-experienced staff less than less-experienced staff? I get that the short-term justification is "we can get away with paying the former less because enough of them will be afraid to leave." But is there another justification? In my experience, at large companies "cash flow" would not even vaguely register the difference of increasing salaries for experienced people you want to keep, and it would be a marvelous signal to the rest.
- dec0dedab0de 5y ago
  That doesn't sound like a good reason to me. You can use a bonus to cover fluctuations without hurting morale too much. Plus you don't have to give everyone an automatic raise If you post new jobs at a higher rate. Just give them a new title, and allow current employees to apply for them.
  - sokoloff 5y ago
    “This listing is for an SWE II-Spring-2022 Hire job.”
maaaaattttt 5y ago
This has been my exact experience as well. A bunch of people at my current place of work resigned (not all at once) to go work for another company, not because the company is bad, boring or toxic, but because their salary was becoming too low relatively to the market and inflation levels. My current employer isn't willing to raise the salaries of its current employees, not the market ones, but to the level of what they are offering to new hires. This, in my opinion, is wrong. This also inevitably leads to eventually paying everyone at market value (old employees leaving replaced by new ones with up-to-date salaries) except that you as a company lost a lot of business experience in the process. Even in the case that no company on earth would disclose salaries, workers will inevitably learn about what their current market value is and to some extent what new hires and colleagues roughly earn. Because they have friends and colleagues that are open about disclosing their salaries. Trying to hide salary information is just lying to yourself (as a company). Companies should budget for hire once their workforce is roughly on par with the market, salary wise. It's not the only factor but they would be able to retain much more talent and expertise inside the company and eventually be able to generate more value. This situation in my opinion is one of the big reasons (out of many others of course) why most companies eventually turn bad after some time.

bencollier49 5y ago

I've seen this happen in a large company, and it caused terrible morale issues, as there were reasons good reasons why salary couldn't just be raised across the board to match new hire rates. For most companies, this will make them less resistant to boom and bust as they'll be forced to offer big annual payrises which they won't be able to roll back when the market contracts.

tpxl 5y ago
Pray tell, what are good reasons to underpay experienced staff compared to new staff?
- lelanthran 5y ago
  > Pray tell, what are good reasons to underpay experienced staff compared to new staff? GP didn't say that there are good reasons to underpay experienced staff compared to new staff, he said that there are good reasons that salaries cannot be raised across the board.
  - tpxl 5y ago
    GP said they couldn't raise wages compared to new hires, so they couldn't raise wages of experienced staff relative to new staff, leading to experienced staff being underpaid.
    - lelanthran 5y ago
      > GP said they couldn't raise wages compared to new hires, No. This is exactly what GP said: > there were reasons good reasons why salary couldn't just be raised across the board to match new hire rates. There is not a single company I can think of (other than FAANG or unicorn startups flush with VC money) that can raise salaries across the board, they simply do not have the cash-flow to do it.
      - frumper 5y ago
        It's downright silly to pay new employees more than experienced employees for similar jobs. If you can't afford to raise wages for the experienced staff you'll soon have a bunch of inexperienced staff that costs you more.
        lelanthran 5y ago
        > It's downright silly to pay new employees more than experienced employees for similar jobs. If you can't afford to raise wages for the experienced staff you'll soon have a bunch of inexperienced staff that costs you more. I agree, but the reality is that raising salaries across the board would kill the company immediately, while having ONLY inexperienced staff might happen, and even if it did, it only might kill the company. Another factor is that a lot of the staff just won't move, even if they know they are being paid less.
      - biztos 5y ago
        OK, but then what is the long-term business justification for paying more-experienced staff less than less-experienced staff? I get that the short-term justification is "we can get away with paying the former less because enough of them will be afraid to leave." But is there another justification? In my experience, at large companies "cash flow" would not even vaguely register the difference of increasing salaries for experienced people you want to keep, and it would be a marvelous signal to the rest.
dec0dedab0de 5y ago
That doesn't sound like a good reason to me. You can use a bonus to cover fluctuations without hurting morale too much. Plus you don't have to give everyone an automatic raise If you post new jobs at a higher rate. Just give them a new title, and allow current employees to apply for them.
- sokoloff 5y ago
  “This listing is for an SWE II-Spring-2022 Hire job.”

maaaaattttt 5y ago

This has been my exact experience as well. A bunch of people at my current place of work resigned (not all at once) to go work for another company, not because the company is bad, boring or toxic, but because their salary was becoming too low relatively to the market and inflation levels. My current employer isn't willing to raise the salaries of its current employees, not the market ones, but to the level of what they are offering to new hires. This, in my opinion, is wrong. This also inevitably leads to eventually paying everyone at market value (old employees leaving replaced by new ones with up-to-date salaries) except that you as a company lost a lot of business experience in the process. Even in the case that no company on earth would disclose salaries, workers will inevitably learn about what their current market value is and to some extent what new hires and colleagues roughly earn. Because they have friends and colleagues that are open about disclosing their salaries. Trying to hide salary information is just lying to yourself (as a company). Companies should budget for hire once their workforce is roughly on par with the market, salary wise. It's not the only factor but they would be able to retain much more talent and expertise inside the company and eventually be able to generate more value. This situation in my opinion is one of the big reasons (out of many others of course) why most companies eventually turn bad after some time.