[russelluresti]

> When it comes to making pay decisions, we anchor too much on someone’s current salary instead of what the job is worth. Imagine hiring two accountants. One (call her Eliza) currently makes $50,000 and the other (Alexander) makes $58,000. And let’s say the average accountant in your company makes $60,000. It feels natural to offer Alexander a salary of $60,000, just like everyone else gets. But for most managers, it feels wrong to give Eliza the same salary. After all, that’s a $10,000 raise! Wouldn’t that be unfair to Alexander, who only got a $2,000 raise? And why not save a few bucks by paying people based on their past salaries?

What? No. Who thinks this way? The role at your company has a $60k salary. People you hire for that role get $60k, no matter how much they were being paid in the past.

Is this really a difficult concept for people?

[bobwaycott]

Given the comments in this thread, it seems this is an insanely difficult concept to grasp. It's like the notion just bounces off Teflon.

But ... but ... but John is working 60 hours a week for his $60K, and Jane puts her foot down and doesn't work more than 40 hours! She's not as committed! She doesn't want it badly enough! She doesn't deserve to be paid $60K when she's working 20 hours less!

So Jane gets punished because John is a dumbass who lets the company steal 20 hours of unpaid additional labor. Can't have John thinking about that, though, so Jane gets a pay cut because she's not "working as hard" as John.

But ... but ... but John just negotiated better/harder/longer/more successfully! It's Jane's fault she's paid less. She's just poor at negotiations.

Bullshit. If ever there was a reason to eliminate salary negotiations, this is one of the stronger cases. Just fucking pay a set wage for each position in the company. Make it known. Enjoy there being no wage tension or envy in the workplace. Be proud you've eliminated any chance that your team members could even entertain the notion you weren't valuing them equally and fairly.

Oh, wait. That's stupid. Instead, let's argue about just exactly how much less women are paid—but as a whole, cos it's really nasty when we start breaking the pay gap down by ethnicity. Cos it's so productive to argue about the rules for quantifying the pay gap than it is to just start and stop at the simple rule that there shouldn't fucking be one.

[whatok]

> Be proud you've eliminated any chance that your team members could even entertain the notion you weren't valuing them equally and fairly.

Are all team members contributing equally and fairly?

[bobwaycott]

C'mon. You assume they are/will when you hire them. When/if you discover they are not, you don't cut their pay, you fire them.

It seems you're trying to angle for some defense of Peter earning more than Paul because the former contributed "more". Contributing to a team isn't a metric that should be set by an overachiever. Everyone—especially every overachiever (including myself)—should disabuse themselves of the notion that others aren't contributing equally when they're really just not over-contributing. And evaluating contributions is already a difficult and subjective task.

A better approach is offer the over-achievers a promotion. New position, new responsibilities perhaps, and a new salary. Attainable equally by anyone else who wants it.

[whatok]

I'm arguing that talented people move to greener pastures when they feel that they are undervalued or not treated equally. If for every overachiever you have x number of people who go "well I'm going to get paid the same as long as I put in my 40", you will no longer have a successful company. If you doubt the existence of this, you will have proven that you have never worked for the government.

> A better approach is offer the over-achievers a promotion. New position, new responsibilities perhaps, and a new salary. Attainable equally by anyone else who wants it.

I don't see how this is any different from offering pay raises. What if there is no room for advancement in the company? How do you measure whether people qualify for this? You can always offer more pay, you aren't necessarily able to create new job responsibilities and titles out of thing air.

[bobwaycott]

> I'm arguing that talented people move to greener pastures when they feel that they are undervalued or not treated equally.

Well, if everyone has the same jobs and responsibilities for the same pay, and someone thinks they aren't being treated equally, they're wrong, aren't they? They are being treated equally. What they're wanting is to be treated as better than equal to their peers. And if they think they're undervalued, but nobody else feels that way, that seems to further indicate they are wanting to be treated as better than equal to their peers. This is irrational and selfish. If everyone lounging on the other side's green grass is also treated equally and valued the same, then there will be no other green pastures to seek reinforcement of one's belief that s/he is better and worth more than other team members.

> If for every overachiever you have x number of people who go "well I'm going to get paid the same as long as I put in my 40", you will no longer have a successful company.

If a company's success depends on extracting more labor from their employees than they are willing to pay for, the company is morally and ethically in the wrong, and has far greater problems to tackle. If its success depends on abusing overachievers, the overachievers should stop permitting such abuse, and the company should realign its objectives with treating employees fairly. Employees—especially those on salary—should not be subjected to overworking. A company should take an active role in ensuring its workers don't burn themselves out.

> If you doubt the existence of this, you will have proven that you have never worked for the government.

Disagreement proves nothing, and whether I have ever worked for the government is in no way germane to this discussion.

> I don't see how this is any different from offering pay raises. What if there is no room for advancement in the company? How do you measure whether people qualify for this? You can always offer more pay, you aren't necessarily able to create new job responsibilities and titles out of thing air.

Pay raises are not and should not be tied to promotions. I was talking here of satisfying the overachiever's need to be recognized as "special". I'm that type of person, but I've also disabused myself of the notion that my natural inclination to push myself is a negative reflection on those around me. I have to remain mindful that we are all different in our own ways, and that difference shouldn't translate into greater remuneration for me only. If there are pay raises to be had—and there should be—they should be applied equally to all. If an overachiever doesn't want new responsibilities and a promotion to feel special, then s/he ought to be able to accept that being paid equally for the same job is not a personal slight. If a company cannot offer pay raises equally, they should not offer them at all. If everyone is putting in their 40 hours, and one overachiever is putting in 60, the wrong response is for the company to pressure everyone else to be like the lone overachiever.

Measuring whether people qualify for a raise is rather simpler than it's made to be, apparently. Is the person performing satisfactorily in their job? Is the budget able to handle an annual raise or bonus for good work? Then everyone who isn't being fired gets it.

Treating people equally, and valuing them all individually, is not a very complicated thing to do.