[Alupis]

The folks that left were the folks that built the company. The new hires came in, and promptly got a massive pay raise to match the most senior employees, even though their contributions were non existent at that time.

The CEO got really good personal PR. The new hires got huge raises. The employees that had toiled long hours and built the platform got nothing.

That's not somehow petty, nor jealous. Let's not demonize the employees that decided they were not going to be part of that company anymore - a company that showed it wasn't going to reward hard work and dedication. Most of us would have made the same choice.

[yardie]

You got all of this from that same article? It doesn't mention anything about long hours or toiling. All it says is they were there for a while and were mad that new hires were getting the same pay.

No one bats an eyelid when a company hires a new unicorn, 10x developer. It's equally possible that raising the salary also allowed them to hire 10x employees and the old hires were feeling threatened so left.

We work with data, if I don't feel I'm compensated fairly I write a letter complete with numbers saying what my renumeration should be. And forward that to the manager and HR.

[Alupis]

> You got all of this from that same article

We're discussing previous articles about this company.

> No one bats an eyelid when a company hires a new unicorn, 10x developer. It's equally possible that raising the salary also allowed them to hire 10x employees and the old hires were feeling threatened so left.

That's not what happened here. No "10x developer" was hired. It was literally just a huge pay raise for the newest employees, and shafting the ones that had been there for years.

It turned from a merit-based system into one that valued everyone equally - and while this sounds great on the surface, not everyone contributes equally. Those that built the platform really felt like they got the short end of the stick. New hires, who put in none of the effort to get the startup up and running, had none of the knowledge nor domain expertise, suddenly were earning as much as the most senior engineers.

Not to mention the entire thing reeked at the time as one big PR stunt, since it didn't "just happen" one day, but rather the media was notified and it turned into a big fuss. It seems the stench had some credence given this lawsuit.

> We work with data, if I don't feel I'm compensated fairly I write a letter complete with numbers saying what my renumeration should be. And forward that to the manager and HR

This statement seems like hyperbole to me. I imagine few managers respond well to threats or begging via email about salary. Nevermind pointing to what other people get in a market for compensation is a terrible way to value yourself. You should start these discussions with how much value you bring to the table, not what others at other companies may or may not bring to theirs.

[st3v3r]

"That's not what happened here. No "10x developer" was hired. It was literally just a huge pay raise for the newest employees, and shafting the ones that had been there for years."

No, it wasn't. There was no "shafting" involved. Phrasing it that way shows that you're just as petty and jealous as those others. Someone else getting paid well does not take away from your worth.

"It turned from a merit-based system"

Payroll has almost never been a merit-based system, so any arguments about that are deeply flawed.

[Retra]

It is petty. If you've worked somewhere for ten years, you've already made 10 times what the new hires will have made in their first year. So for your ten years of contributions, you have ten years of back-pay that the new hires don't have a dime of.

[st3v3r]

It is entirely petty, and I will demonize those who are so caught up in what others are making to the point where they'd rather quit than work for a company where everyone is being paid well.