[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.