[cjbprime]

I think Fog Creek does this: http://www.joelonsoftware.com/articles/fog0000000038.html

They also have "levels", with compensation tied to a level, so it looks like they've basically removed compensation negotiation from the company. You don't mention wanting to do that. If you do want to do that, something like Joel's setup sounds like it can work out fine.

If you don't want to remove the ability to let people negotiate their compensation, it sounds like you're setting yourself up for unhappy and jealous and resentful employees, because some of your employees will be much better negotiators than others.

[jasonm23]

To be fair, you'd just making a different set of people resentful, those who know they could negotiate a better deal, and they leave to start their own venture. If people feel like their wasting time, ie. getting paid less than they know they could earn, because they're folded into a salary level system, they're going to leave.

Frankly making salaries public knowledge is an egregious invasion of privacy, and a security risk.

[cjbprime]

shrug I work at a US nonprofit, so the salaries of all our "key employees" are legally required to be public knowledge. As I understand it, this is also true of all H1-B recipients. You seem to be over-reacting.

[crazygringo]

It seems like having "levels" is another way to be able to negotiate.

A couple companies ago, I worked at a place where you employee "level" was public knowledge and tied to your job description, and determined your base salary level. (A, B, C, D, ...). Everyone got yearly raises roughly equivalent to inflation, etc. Yearly bonuses were based on the letter too.

But everyone had a (more secret) number after their letter, so you might be K5, which provided a lot of leeway for negotiating higher salaries, etc. So you'd know if you were in the same general band as another employee, but one of you might be making 25% more than the other.