|
|
|
|
|
|
by sokoloff
983 days ago
|
|
|
No, you clearly should have been making more, which is the other side of the "compensation for jobs that differ should not be mandated to be the same" argument. Are you saying that "despite performing the exact same job and actually performing it objectively 'better' that they should have made the same money"? I have software engineers on my team who are literally creating twice as much business [edit to add: value] per year despite being at the same level. (The actual peak to trough ratio is probably higher than that, but it's at least 2x.) Why should they be paid exactly the same or even within 5% of each other? |
|
|
I'm not exactly sure I would say they are performing the same duties then. Are they all responsible for generating business? I would argue they aren't actually doing the same job. This could be the difference between their salaries being the same versus their compensation being the same. Generating business can be a highly variable achievement from year-to-year, so providing total compensation that is higher for those generating more business than others. If their primary job is to do software engineering, then I would imagine their salary would reflect that job. Additional compensation could be given for doing essentially additional responsibilities over and above their job. You could give the feedback to your other software developers to explain the difference in their total compensation vs. salary. Maybe I'm misunderstanding what you mean when you say "creating business" though.