[pc86]

> No reason why my coworkers should make more or less than me if we have the same title.

Of course there is. You wrote a book and they didn't. They have more relevant experience than you. The hiring manager really wanted you but you had a competing offer and they didn't. They are young and wanted more equity and you wanted higher cash.

There are a whole host of reasons why people in the same title can make wildly different salaries - they're not all nefarious.

[brabel]

All the reasons you gave are really bad reasons! Do you really think that it's fair and normal that someone gets a much higher salary than you while doing the same exact job (and let's assume, performing at the same level) just because she had another offer at the time of hire?? That's ridiculous. It goes even against the interests of the company itself as it's logical to think they might have other candidates like you who are happy to accept the salary offer and won't be able to leverage it to get another, better offer (if that happens often, clearly the company is just underpaying, but for the discussion about whether the difference in salary is justified by only the circumstances of the candidates, we assume that's not the case).

[pc86]

It's very unlikely both people are performing at the same level. Everyone has strengths and weaknesses.

Whether I think it's fair or not is irrelevant, it is normal/standard practice that getting multiple offers simultaneously will increase your compensation across most or all of those offers.

And how is it against the company's interests to pay its employees a salary they'll accept?