6 ms·

What about employees who think they deserve to be rated higher on the (somewhat subjective) scope and skills metrics?

RobGR 18y ago
Yeah, I agree - the negotiation comes in when someone says they are rated too low, asks to talk to the review comittee about it, and leaves when they don't get it. That said, I think this system is probably superior to most.
coglethorpe 18y ago
They "negotiate" by leaving.
- electromagnetic 18y ago
  I agree, I work in construction where there are clear, visible differences between two employees. If this kind of thing happened at one of the companies I've worked for or with then everyone would quit. The only people this benefits are the poor employees. I have some natural advantages over the next guy, namely that I can carry about 140 lbs of equipment, while a lot of the guys I've worked with can only carry probably 70-80 lbs. Basically I spend half the time with the petty crap and end up finishing the job sooner. I don't believe I should be getting paid the same as the next guy, I also don't think I should be paid as much as a guy who can carry 200 lbs and can get things done faster than me. If someone does 20% more than me, they should be paid 20% more. I don't believe in pay brackets and crap like what Unions use, because I've seen what unions do to people. I knew a guy who'd been in a dry waller's union for 20 years, he hadn't had a single pay rise since he got put into a foreman role, and he'd seen a lot of guys his age be canned because their wage was ridiculously high and they were too old to do the heavy lifting.
  - LSalin 18y ago
    Based on Joel's ladder system, you would be paid more because your skills are higher (carrying 140 pounds versus 7-80 pounds for others).
  - ShabbyDoo 18y ago
    I suspect (from nothing more than your writing skills) that you are quite a skilled tradesman.* Why don't construction companies hire strong but unskilled guys to haul stuff and let you be the guy who does the more technical stuff? * People who write well generally think well. Construction, beyond brute strength, requires mechanical thought. Therefore,...
    - radu_floricica 18y ago
      I have a client company who's receptionist has seen me as a courier, pc-repair main, client and programmer. Freelancing is fun :)
    - electromagnetic 18y ago
      It all depends on the construction site. The companies that do building houses and small business offices generally do have a few really strong guys doing the heavy hauling, back in the UK where I worked you'd get a guy carrying like 200 lbs of brick up a ladder. However, I specialized in the Handy-Man kind of work so there's too many different job sites or the companies too small to actually have a specific guy hauling stuff. So in the jobs I worked you had to be both smart and strong. Electrical, plumbing and gas can be extremely complicated to put in, especially when you're modifying a house that's over 50 years old. (At 17 I started working as a reviewer and the editor considered me the best they had. So I believe I have a high aptitude for writing. I've had a couple short stories published, and right now I'm working on a novel.)
  - aboodman 18y ago
    Wait, you work in construction and read hacker news?
- muon 18y ago
  In have seen people, who leave at the critical time of project execution, then they back off with better deal. This has made sick of those kind people, and the management. In the end others look foolish for being honest.
run4yourlives 18y ago
Immediately, you've now moved beyond salary and are discussing job performance. That's what you want to be discussing after all.
- TomOfTTB 18y ago
  You're just using word play to try to validate your point. Any salary discussion is going to go straight to the employee's performance. The problem with this system is it takes the focus off that individual employees performance and puts it on the rest of the office's performance. Suddenly you aren't talking about how good that employee is you're talking about why Joe in the next cubicle over rates higher than him. That's exactly where you don't want salary negotiations to go.
  - run4yourlives 18y ago
    It not word play; there's a difference between "You aren't paying me enough for the work I'm doing" and "I don't belong at the level you say I do." The former is open to much more interpretation than the latter, being that the latter has a documented set of predefined expectations, such as years of experience and daily duties. It's hard to be obscure about whether or not you lead a project, or whether or not you have 5 years experience. Joe in the next cubicle rates higher because he is either your - or your colleagues' - senior. This is self evident. What you are left doing is saying "I lead my project better than Joe leads his project." This isn't a salary conversation, it's an annual bonus conversation. Annual bonuses are designed to measure performance in most cases.
    - TomOfTTB 18y ago
      I still don’t agree in that I simply don’t think the real world works that way. On the Joel point: Joel runs a small-ish company and it’s become obvious in several HN threads that his employees are people who essentially worship the ground he walks on. That’s great for them, for him, and for that company and I’m happy for them all. But what that distinction means is that sometimes Joel’s advice doesn’t apply to the rest of the world outside his little utopia. In my experience living in the rest of the world people don’t respond well to "your salary has nothing to do with your performance but you MIGHT get more 9 months from now." A bonus is great but it’s just that: a bonus. Salary is where employees are paid for their services and that’s where they expect to be rewarded for their performance. Again, hopefully your employees are well off enough that they couldn’t care less about waiting 9 months. But in my experience the "wait for your annual bonus line" usually leads people to look for companies that pay their employees based on their performance. P.S. You still didn't address my central point which is the fact that this method puts the focus on other people's performance in relation to the employee rather than the employee's performance alone
rgoddard 18y ago
If they think they should be rated higher, then they should give the reasons why. If those reasons are valid, then the employer can change the rating. If the employer is unwilling to change it for irrational reasons, that means that the rating system is not objective and the system is undermined and has lost its meaning. This becomes a separate problem entirely. If the reasons for valuing themselves more are not valid or applicable to the company, then the employee is over valuing themselves in this context. If the employee is not willing to accept this, then they have the option of declining the offer and moving on.

RobGR 18y ago

Yeah, I agree - the negotiation comes in when someone says they are rated too low, asks to talk to the review comittee about it, and leaves when they don't get it. That said, I think this system is probably superior to most.

coglethorpe 18y ago

They "negotiate" by leaving.

electromagnetic 18y ago
I agree, I work in construction where there are clear, visible differences between two employees. If this kind of thing happened at one of the companies I've worked for or with then everyone would quit. The only people this benefits are the poor employees. I have some natural advantages over the next guy, namely that I can carry about 140 lbs of equipment, while a lot of the guys I've worked with can only carry probably 70-80 lbs. Basically I spend half the time with the petty crap and end up finishing the job sooner. I don't believe I should be getting paid the same as the next guy, I also don't think I should be paid as much as a guy who can carry 200 lbs and can get things done faster than me. If someone does 20% more than me, they should be paid 20% more. I don't believe in pay brackets and crap like what Unions use, because I've seen what unions do to people. I knew a guy who'd been in a dry waller's union for 20 years, he hadn't had a single pay rise since he got put into a foreman role, and he'd seen a lot of guys his age be canned because their wage was ridiculously high and they were too old to do the heavy lifting.
- LSalin 18y ago
  Based on Joel's ladder system, you would be paid more because your skills are higher (carrying 140 pounds versus 7-80 pounds for others).
- ShabbyDoo 18y ago
  I suspect (from nothing more than your writing skills) that you are quite a skilled tradesman.* Why don't construction companies hire strong but unskilled guys to haul stuff and let you be the guy who does the more technical stuff? * People who write well generally think well. Construction, beyond brute strength, requires mechanical thought. Therefore,...
  - radu_floricica 18y ago
    I have a client company who's receptionist has seen me as a courier, pc-repair main, client and programmer. Freelancing is fun :)
  - electromagnetic 18y ago
    It all depends on the construction site. The companies that do building houses and small business offices generally do have a few really strong guys doing the heavy hauling, back in the UK where I worked you'd get a guy carrying like 200 lbs of brick up a ladder. However, I specialized in the Handy-Man kind of work so there's too many different job sites or the companies too small to actually have a specific guy hauling stuff. So in the jobs I worked you had to be both smart and strong. Electrical, plumbing and gas can be extremely complicated to put in, especially when you're modifying a house that's over 50 years old. (At 17 I started working as a reviewer and the editor considered me the best they had. So I believe I have a high aptitude for writing. I've had a couple short stories published, and right now I'm working on a novel.)
- aboodman 18y ago
  Wait, you work in construction and read hacker news?
muon 18y ago
In have seen people, who leave at the critical time of project execution, then they back off with better deal. This has made sick of those kind people, and the management. In the end others look foolish for being honest.

run4yourlives 18y ago

Immediately, you've now moved beyond salary and are discussing job performance. That's what you want to be discussing after all.

TomOfTTB 18y ago
You're just using word play to try to validate your point. Any salary discussion is going to go straight to the employee's performance. The problem with this system is it takes the focus off that individual employees performance and puts it on the rest of the office's performance. Suddenly you aren't talking about how good that employee is you're talking about why Joe in the next cubicle over rates higher than him. That's exactly where you don't want salary negotiations to go.
- run4yourlives 18y ago
  It not word play; there's a difference between "You aren't paying me enough for the work I'm doing" and "I don't belong at the level you say I do." The former is open to much more interpretation than the latter, being that the latter has a documented set of predefined expectations, such as years of experience and daily duties. It's hard to be obscure about whether or not you lead a project, or whether or not you have 5 years experience. Joe in the next cubicle rates higher because he is either your - or your colleagues' - senior. This is self evident. What you are left doing is saying "I lead my project better than Joe leads his project." This isn't a salary conversation, it's an annual bonus conversation. Annual bonuses are designed to measure performance in most cases.
  - TomOfTTB 18y ago
    I still don’t agree in that I simply don’t think the real world works that way. On the Joel point: Joel runs a small-ish company and it’s become obvious in several HN threads that his employees are people who essentially worship the ground he walks on. That’s great for them, for him, and for that company and I’m happy for them all. But what that distinction means is that sometimes Joel’s advice doesn’t apply to the rest of the world outside his little utopia. In my experience living in the rest of the world people don’t respond well to "your salary has nothing to do with your performance but you MIGHT get more 9 months from now." A bonus is great but it’s just that: a bonus. Salary is where employees are paid for their services and that’s where they expect to be rewarded for their performance. Again, hopefully your employees are well off enough that they couldn’t care less about waiting 9 months. But in my experience the "wait for your annual bonus line" usually leads people to look for companies that pay their employees based on their performance. P.S. You still didn't address my central point which is the fact that this method puts the focus on other people's performance in relation to the employee rather than the employee's performance alone

rgoddard 18y ago

If they think they should be rated higher, then they should give the reasons why. If those reasons are valid, then the employer can change the rating. If the employer is unwilling to change it for irrational reasons, that means that the rating system is not objective and the system is undermined and has lost its meaning. This becomes a separate problem entirely. If the reasons for valuing themselves more are not valid or applicable to the company, then the employee is over valuing themselves in this context. If the employee is not willing to accept this, then they have the option of declining the offer and moving on.