Why I Never Let Employees Negotiate a Raise

This is not the first of Spolsky's essays that's left me simultaneously amazed at his brilliance and clarity and dismayed at something around the edges that just completely misses. Maybe it's just the title that's misleading. His emphasis on openness is great but he's really just moved the discussion from "how much money" to "how should I rate your contributions." Most salary discussions come down to this question and it's a concept that's very difficult to define precisely. The guy whose lunchtime conversations shape his colleagues' ideas may have made a profound contribution but if his own direct efforts don't match "Has consistently had major success..." then I'm guessing there's still a lot of room for negotiation - particularly if the employee realizes that making this case will give him a lot more money. Focusing on output is great, but that's what most salary negotiations end up being about.

<i>"Because salary information is viewed as particularly sensitive, employers often go to great lengths to keep it under wraps."</i><p>In Norway, salary information is viewed as public information. Each year the government releases the income, assets and amount of payed tax of every citizen, so that the media can make it public. It is then made searchable online, for example here: <a href="http://skattelister.no/" rel="nofollow">http://skattelister.no/</a>

I'll make the same comment I made when this was posted last year:<p>Fog Creek has secret <i>profit-sharing</i> plans. All Joel has done is move a portion of employees' compensation from the "salary" column to the "profit-sharing" column.<p>If Joel were to begin posting the annual profit sharing of all employees, including Michael and Joel, then this article would make sense. But until then, it's just flair.

Say what you want about the article, but there's one really nice thing about his system: because there's a formula instead of negotiation, the good hackers who are often poor negotiators don't have to worry they have lower salary than the average or poor programmers who just happen to have better people skills or however you call it.

"I found a Seattle-area software-consulting firm called Construx that had published on its website the outline of a decent professional ladder system" It sounds like it is just another consulting firm. Construx founder and CEO is Steve McConnell, he wrote some great books about software development back in the day.

I find the experience idea their very arbitrary, so no experience from when your in school counted and 1 year no matter how many years in a "menial" position.<p>It kinda implies that while in school you couldn't have possibly picked up any experience that would define you above someone who has a year of industry experience.

An off-topic Complaint:<p>I was going to read this article, but halfway through the first paragraph some stupid ad blocked my view. I'll definitely think twice before clicking through on anything pointing to inc.com again.

"if you're the kind of person who likes to use self-important HR jargon"<p>Wow, talk about self-important. People have a term for something you just took a paragraph to explain. Can you guess why? This comes across as a pointless dig to make yourself feel superior.

this whole Microsoft-style pay scale reminds me of government jobs, or worse - Soviet Union where my parents earned a standard doctor-engineer-truck driver-movie director-nurse salary of 100 rubles a month +/- the bureaucrat defined 'pay scale'. Come on, people, this is a free market!<p>"is this the UDA? / Or is this the IRA? / I thought it was the USA / Or just another country" (c) Sex Pistols

The main thing here is that Fog Creek has plenty of margin to use. When there's plenty of profit to go around, of course you can come up with money for everyone.<p>The key question, then, when applying to a company for a job, is do they have the profit to throw my way?

Printed view:<p><a href="http://www.inc.com/magazine/20090401/how-hard-could-it-be-employees-negotiate-pay-raises_Printer_Friendly.html" rel="nofollow">http://www.inc.com/magazine/20090401/how-hard-could-it-be-em...</a>

I feel like my system is simpler. I pay people what they're worth to me (provided I can afford it). Even this system isn't perfect... given a specified experience/skill level, they may be worth more to me 2 months ago than they are now (or vice versa). But it makes it very easy to decide what everyone should get paid.<p>If they are worth X, but I can only pay Y (where Y &#60; X), then I pay Y (and hope that they'll work for Y) until I can afford to pay them X. At that point, I raise their pay to X.<p>Also note that, if they are worth X, but you can only pay Y, this should only be a temporary situation. Because, if they are truly worth X, then once you hire them there should be no reason you cannot afford to pay them X eventually (since they are bringing that value to your organization).

Congratulations, you just invented how public school teachers are paid (at least so long as unions remain in power). You have one extra measurement, it's true, but the system is still massively flawed.

This site had 3 pop-overs. I'm not sure they want me to read their content.

"If you worked as a receptionist for six years, for example, you aren't credited with six years of experience; I give you credit for one year." I'm sure Joel's next receptionist will be happy their years of servitude didn't go to waste.

I thought Joel promised us that he was retiring from writing.

I find it interesting the Spolsky said he was going to stop writing yet keeps coming back. He mentioned on SO podcast that it was because it was such a time suck and that's why he wanted to give it up. Obviously he loves it and just can't...