[watertom]

It feels like the Government pay system.

Opening up salary information means that everything about salary needs to be equal, fair and objective. Basically the review system will become pass fail.

Reviews will become bland and meaningless, raises will be standard based on the job classification, anything else wouldn’t be objective. If everyone isn’t treated exactly the same there will lawsuits galore.

Bonuses will also go away, because it’s impossible to give each person unique goals and expectations and fairly assess each person and their custom goals, against everyone else at that same level. Lawyers will have a field day.

Time in level determines promotions, not skill, not knowledge, time in level. Time in level is used because it’s the only objective system that works, anything else is too subjective and will open employers to lawsuits

If you you can’t move up the ranks based on skills and effort why bother trying to exceed?

This salary transparency system will be used by corporate America to suppress wages even further.

[P_I_Staker]

Yeah or the rungs can still be there. You'll see unworthy people pass you to levels they don't deserve, but the point is that you'll see it. When I don't make principal engineer, but someone else much less skilled and experienced does, I'll know what the score is, versus them keeping this as a guarded secret.

Transparent pay doesn't guarantee the type of "equal, fair, objective" pay concept you mention. There seems to be a bit of a false dichotomy in these threads.

[potamic]

Honestly, I think the pay policies in many industries needs a major overhaul. I have seen companies spend endless time working out compensation each cycle trying to balance like hundred different factors and they come out with this overly contrived and comprehensive compensation framework that nobody seems to comprehend. The outcome is this huge spread in pay with even minute differences across same groups of people that only cause more frustration and anxiety for everyone.

I feel these efforts are largely misguided. Companies think optimising rewards is the best way to extract "output" from employees. I can't speak for all industries but at least for those that employ creative skill, this couldn't be further from the truth. People in creative work are more motivated by intrinsic causes like a desire to create something, than by extrinsic factors like pay. Of course, pay is always important but it is something people do not want to think about all the time. Opaque and contrived pay policies create an environment which makes people think and mull over pay all the time which doesn't help anyone.

[hondo77]

> It feels like the Government pay system.

Government employee here.

> Basically the review system will become pass fail.

Not if you want to advance.

> If everyone isn’t treated exactly the same there will lawsuits galore.

Um, no.

> Bonuses will also go away...

We get bonuses.

> Time in level determines promotions, not skill, not knowledge, time in level. Time in level is used because it’s the only objective system that works, anything else is too subjective and will open employers to lawsuits

Time in level results in an increase in level steps, not promotions (pay chart is a grid: level x steps). If it did, then everybody would be promoted at the same time, which can't happen because there are only so many openings. If you want to be promoted (i.e. increase in pay level), requirements are laid out very clearly. They do not happen automatically.

[boulos]

I'm not sure that your conclusion follows. Google has levels and pay bands per level (you can see sampled data of it on levels.fyi). There are many problems with the promotion process at Google, but the malaise you describe isn't one of them.

[pm90]

> Time in level determines promotions, not skill, not knowledge, time in level. Time in level is used because it’s the only objective system that works, anything else is too subjective and will open employers to lawsuits

This seems like a pretty pessimistic take. Employees won’t be bringing lawsuits without merit; if a person has been coasting it will be quite difficult for them to prove that they should be compensated similarly to someone else that did not before a jury. If the differences in contributions are not that significant then differences in compensation do seem unjustified don’t they?

[qsort]

That's exactly what happens, though. Many countries in Europe enforce collective contracts with very little wiggle room, and the main complaint here is how everyone is paid the same.

Of course it's hard to quantify skill, and of course meritocracy is not perfect. But when you take meritocracy out of the equation, you're left with seniority.

I guess the grass is always greener on the other side.

[Ekaros]

Even in many of these countries employers are entirely free to pay more than minimum stated in collective contract. And offer more perks. This is specially true with IT where real wages are often much higher than those negotiated.

Ofc. This doesn't solve the problem that different employees have different pay for same job.

[luckylion]

Germany is the example I know. The individual performance aspect in compensation is very small. High performers tend to go freelance where they can make multiples of what they'd make as employees, because they don't want to provide three times as much value as the average employee for 10% more money.

Companies understand the game, and hire them as contractors. I've seen that play out multiple times: quit your job, come back as a contractor, make twice as much after taxes. I've seen the reverse as well: when freelancers want to "retire" but want to earn money for a few more years, they seek regular employment and coast by.