Hacker News Reader

Comment by davemel37 | Hacker News Reader

I had a boss bully his employees with fellow employee salary information. (i.e. bill took a pay cut because of the recessions, so should you...)

As far as I'm concerned, salary is a completely private matter that is no one elses business, and no good could possibly come from sharing it.

I see this openness at buffer essentially being a tool for management to deny raise requests, etc... with... If we do it for you, we have to do it for everybody... which is a just a BS excuse to not face the reality that every persons value and work situation is different, and should be treated differently.

View on HN

I had a boss bully his employees with fellow employee salary information. (i.e. bill took a pay cut because of the recessions, so should you...)

If you see this, it is time to run. Fast. Very fast. Unless salaries are completely open, they should be confidential.

Edit (add quote for clarity) > I see this openness at buffer essentially being a tool for management to deny raise requests, etc... with... If we do it for you, we have to do it for everybody...

More likely, the response would be along the lines of: "You'll get a raise when you qualify based on the criteria that have been clearly explained to you and the rest of the world."

Something which doesn't seem clear to me is whether the team is able to properly evaluate the pay of their colleagues. Surely the people that are most friendly and fit most of the in-group traits of the group will benefit most? What about the creative and non socially-correct members that don't fit in - should they move to different companies?

In general, I cast doubt on the idea that employees really know what's important because of principle-agent problems and culture.

Perhaps... but this relies on an awfully idealistic view of real life. What goes into a salary decision is much more personal than a universal formula can dictate.

This is a classic excuse to put different people into the same box.

I believe it to be completely inappropriate and unprofessional to be transparent with something as personal as salaries...and saying that were all in the same boat just doesnt excuse this behavior.

Sure, but what does that have to do with salary openness?

Nothing, it was a direct response to the parent. I edited to clarify. Thanks.

Oh really? And what makes one

Senior? Lead? VP? C-level? COO? CEO?

Master? Advanced? Intermediate? Junior?

Who decides that? What makes it objective? Can you dispute it if your boss happens to be a bitter idiot who is completely detached from reality? What happens if your boss and their boss have different views? What happens if you are a perfect employee, but you were a bit of dick at the last Christmas party? And what happens if you are very nice and social and everyone likes you, but you are not really much of a programmer?

This whole thing is BS. The only model that can possibly work is the scaffolder model - you get a worker for a job. If they're shit they get sacked the net day. If they're good, you have to pay them more to keep them from running away...

Interesting... I never said that they would apply the rules fairly, I just said that the excuse would not be "If I do it for you I'd have to do it for x" but rather "I'll do it when you qualify according to standard y." I certainly never said that I agreed or thought it was objective.

I agree that the "seniority" and "experience" sections are unclear in OP. For true openness, they need to provide an objective scale for these two items.

I don't think that this ever gets to (or approaches) perfect fairness, but neither has any compensation strategy anyone has ever devised [citation needed]. Still, I think it's a good faith effort, and the real world ramifications will be interesting and potentially useful in answering the questions relating to objectivity in determining salary.

Of course, that leaves little room for merit pay within grades.

Private salaries are a benefit for those who know how to take advantage of them and push the boundary on their pay. They are a disadvantage to those who don't or don't want to. So it really depends on which type you are. Buffer will likely attract those who don't like to play this game, and just want fair pay for good work. It could even have the effect of attracting people who truly like and want to be at the company.

Neither approach (public or private salaries) is perfect.

> I see this openness at buffer essentially being a tool for management to deny raise requests, etc... with... If we do it for you, we have to do it for everybody... which is a just a BS excuse to not face the reality that every persons value and work situation is different, and should be treated differently.

Their salary formula accounts for experience, company performance, and role. Having the openness and formula makes it easy to say no to arbitrary salary-increase requests and also makes it easy to have a fair raise in place "automatically". Sure, the formula is not perfect, but as the zen of python goes, explicit is better than implicit. Changing the formula or the parameters to it may be a wise thing for the company to do at some point, but it will likely be clear what the change is and why is it beneficial to the company. That sounds a lot better than the way that salaries are typically negotiated.

"Having the openness and formula makes it easy to say no to arbitrary salary-increase requests"

It more likely makes arbitrary excuses to deny legitimate salary increase requests.

I think this forces unnecessary arbitrary restrictions on an already difficult process. I highly suspect this is simply an excuse for management to avoid uncomfortable conversations and very difficult decisions...

I can foresee about a dozen likely HR nightmares that can surface from this transparency.

Personally, I would never want to work at a place where everyone in the room knows how much I make...especially if many can't appreciate or quantify the value I create.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com