[smenko]

Oh really? And what makes one

Senior? Lead? VP? C-level? COO? CEO?

Master? Advanced? Intermediate? Junior?

Who decides that? What makes it objective? Can you dispute it if your boss happens to be a bitter idiot who is completely detached from reality? What happens if your boss and their boss have different views? What happens if you are a perfect employee, but you were a bit of dick at the last Christmas party? And what happens if you are very nice and social and everyone likes you, but you are not really much of a programmer?

This whole thing is BS. The only model that can possibly work is the scaffolder model - you get a worker for a job. If they're shit they get sacked the net day. If they're good, you have to pay them more to keep them from running away...

[Arnor]

Interesting... I never said that they would apply the rules fairly, I just said that the excuse would not be "If I do it for you I'd have to do it for x" but rather "I'll do it when you qualify according to standard y." I certainly never said that I agreed or thought it was objective.

I agree that the "seniority" and "experience" sections are unclear in OP. For true openness, they need to provide an objective scale for these two items.

I don't think that this ever gets to (or approaches) perfect fairness, but neither has any compensation strategy anyone has ever devised [citation needed]. Still, I think it's a good faith effort, and the real world ramifications will be interesting and potentially useful in answering the questions relating to objectivity in determining salary.