Hacker News Reader

Salary information is never really secret, even if the official policy says it's secret. There's always salary information, often inaccurate information, percolating through the grapevine at every large organization.

I've never worked anywhere with an open salary policy, but my guess would be that, while it might be hard for some people to adjust to, in the long run it would remove a large source of internal politics.

People get over it.

I work for a public sector employer. My salary is fully searchable and posted on the local newspaper's website.

Unless your company is doing dumb things like discriminating against certain types of people, there aren't many surprises to be had. Frankly, working with a useless coworker is frustrating regardless of salary.

Yeah, but your employer probably has a pretty well defined process for setting salaries and giving raises, right? Perhaps it isn't a fair process, but at least consistent. Private companies aren't always like that.

Exactly -- inequity is the issue, not disclosure.

It's a bigger issue for the employer -- it doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out that certain people are buying new cars at bonus time, while others cannot afford lunch.

When it comes to compensation (for tech workers), fair is not equal and equal is not fair.

I know that you didn't make the claim that they were, but it's a logical half-step to "unequal is definitionally inequitable".

My best colleagues made/make more than my average colleagues, at every place that I've worked, and that's exactly as it should be, IMO.

I agree.

IMO, it shouldn't be an open secret that the top performers make more. Designate them Senior Widget-Makers or whatever. If they are masters of their craft, recognize them for it.

When things are kept secret, there are abuses. The top performers whom you respect may get paid more, but then so can the below average performer who is politically strategic to whomever makes compensation decisions.

Obviously that is not an issue with a startup, but that happens everyday in larger orgs.

Obviously that is not an issue with a startup

... if only that were true...

>My best colleagues made/make more than my average colleagues, at every place that I've worked, and that's exactly as it should be, IMO. //

Do they do a different job or produce more output in the same job? That's the only reason, IMO, for them to get paid differently. I believe that you should get paid the same to do the same job.

They tend to have the same level/track/title/whatever-your-company-calls-it, but produce more output in the same job. Sometimes, they produce so much more output or produce output that none of their peers could produce, that it's as if they have a different job.

Said another way, these are the people that I cannot help but think of when I read Joel's essay on hitting the high notes: http://www.joelonsoftware.com/articles/HighNotes.html

Making compensation public adds another layer of complexity.

Doesn't hiding compensation also add layers of complexity? Not only does the boss need to dedicate energy to maintaining the secrecy, but she must also keep track of the possibility that the secrecy has been breached without her knowing (i.e. the scenario you describe is in effect but nobody can talk about it).

To be frank hiding the compensation creates more complexity. It creates 'us' vs 'them' hidden internal rivalries.

No matter what, if you comparatively underpay a hardworking guy compared to some who is earning more and doing less. There is going to be huge friction, and salaries often leak out in some way or the other. And the good guy is either going to have his way or worst walk out.

Now please don't point me to some survey taken by some one in some corner of the world, where some group of people had bigger long term motivations when compared to immediate money and then declare tell that money doesn't matter.

Money is a huge motivating factor. Its strange that employers feel its unethical and unhealthy to compare salaries whereas at they same the keep comparing work all the time.

This information was leaked internally at a company I worked for years ago. It turned out there were some pretty wide discrepancies in salaries for people in similar positions. I suspect this is often the case at private companies and it definitely wasn't good for morale.

> "Cut me a break. I spent 3 weeks overtime getting that thing done, and Fred gets all the credit (and money!)"

http://blogs.balsamiq.com/team/2011/09/07/pace/

tl;dr Don't work overtime, work sustainably.

All your other issues are with differences in pay, which is exactly what the article is advocating against.

Sorry to say, but I don't buy this thing.

Deadlines and goals are fatal to the success of any software project today. And that is so for a very simple reason, you have to always drive towards something under well defined clear timelines.

This is very essential for two reasons. The first being measurement and continuous improvement. The second being you must decide what is a acceptable time for something to get done, and stick to it and adjust pace accordingly(The definition of a deadline). Else all it leads to overly delayed projects.

I have worked in a similar set up you described for a year or so. Have never seen such clueless roaming about in my whole life. Last time I heard they are still developing. I have done more work in a month than what they have done in say half year.

The reason is simple, pace again has a metric - Its, how fast?

> fatal

vital? I can't make sense of your post otherwise.

I didn't describe this setup, but it sounds to me like they are using Kanban. Properly executed Kanban should have Queueing and WIP limits to prevent clueless roaming, make sure tasks get completed, and provide feedback. If something doesn't get finished in an acceptable amount of time you hit the WIP limit, a red flag is raised, and that task becomes everyones priority. If you regularly hit the WIP limit then you have a problem that needs to be addressed.

If you don't set these limits then you are absolutely correct. In this perfectly acceptable scenario you do need deadlines, however I'd argue that adjusting pace isn't the correct step. Here you should remove low priority unfinished features from the deadline, maintain a sustainable pace, and use features completed as your metric.

all those sound like fairly valid concerns. if somebody isn't pulling their fair share, somebody should say something about it. if you actually should be making more than somebody else, you should be able to say something about it.

i have no problem thinking all these thoughts even without [ or may be precisely because of not ] knowing other people's salaries :) Knowing other people's salaries would allow to stop my imagination run wild about their huge salaries (while i'm getting peanuts :) and may be turned my thoughts into useful way, like for example :

"Joe earns 25% less than me, yet shows up at 10:00 - 2 hours earlier than me - may be i should start busting my ass a little bit." ( and if he does happen to earn 25% more, than, well, nothing lost and changed :)