[marssaxman]

It would be a selling point for me! It's not about "accepting less", it's about the fact that a company committed to transparency and equitable treatment sounds like it could be a great place to work. Individual negotiations and secrecy over compensation clearly don't produce desirable cultural results.

This policy sends the same kind of signal as a restaurant which replaces tipping with a fixed service charge: that's the future I want to live in.

[chrisseaton]

What should the company do if they need to hire an expert and just none of the experts available are interested in the value of the non-negotiable compensation? Just give up and not build the thing they need? It’s in everyone’s interest to attract the right people. If a new person joins and is paid more but it increases the value of my equity by improving the company I’m still happy.

[matthewmacleod]

I would assume that means creating a new level with an appropriate level of compensation – perhaps a "technical specialist" or similar. I don't see why the situation you describe would be a barrier at all.

[rapind]

Invest in the people you have. If they don’t have the cycles then hire someone you can invest in. Ultimately if it’s temporary expertise that isn’t core to your business you can still contract it out.

This system is similar to what a co-op would use, and there are successful (and unsuccessful) co-ops.

[gravypod]

In some situations that's just not an option because once you've acquired the skill you now need to be paid for the skill in order for this system to be at all fair.

That's also not saying anything about the feasibility of turning the average engineer into, for example, a chrisseaton [0] in a few months.

The deal from the employer sounds bad: "Ok we need you to become an expert in X by Y to meet deadline Z. If you can't become an expert in X just do your best so we are able to hit deadline Z! Don't worry! You'll have a bunch of time in the future to maintain it!"

[0] - https://chrisseaton.com/

[msftie]

There’s no reason you cannot be both transparent about pay and still retain the power to define the terms of the relationship with your employer. I understand that it might feel “equitable” among a group of employees to be paid consistently, but it is not equitable at all between you and your employer. They don’t own you. Don’t let them.