[uniclaude]

> On salary: We previously had a program where we gave significant monthly raises in effort to drive fair and aggressive compensation in an ongoing basis. The goal was to pay more, not less, by forcing a review and adjustment on a regular cadence. However, we decommissioned that system in favor of standard offers because we struggled for a lot of reasons you pointed out about complexity. Based on a few debriefing conversations with candidates, we learned and changed to a bog standard system; now all offers are in the range listed (or higher.)

To be honest, this is a pretty bad answer to his claim. If you advertise 140 minimum, don't offer 120. This is unethical, you should edit your posting.

[heyadayo]

I believe the original commenter was referring to a previous compensation structure which was over specified almost to a fault before we changed it. We were quite public with how it worked, so you can read about it here: https://www.cnet.com/news/silicon-valley-talent-wars-enginee...

From the article: "New hires get a base salary commensurate with their experience -- at least $100,000, and more than they were previously paid. They join with the promise, if they perform well, of automatic $10,000 monthly bumps until they hit $250,000."

We had attempted to find innovative and more fair compensation structures, but we abandoned the effort because those systems were hard to communicate effectively, which I believe is the root of the problem here.

Regardless, if my company advertised something and didn't follow through, I would put myself out there personally to follow up and make it right, as I've done here. I can say with 100% certainty that any offer from this post absolutely standard and falls within the range advertised.