Ask HN: Would anyone find this system fair?

30 points by mqp ↗ HN
I work for a large non-tech company, it operates a tier based salary system.

Everyone on the same level gets the same base pay and those who perform well, get a bump and bonus now and then.

On my team there are a few developers. I am the only senior. The others have little to no experience.

We are paid the same.

I believe they are over paid for where we live.

I do all of the project planning, code reviews, bug fixes, requests etc. I don't see how the other devs could possibly steer the ship. There is little to no confidence in the others carrying on successfully if I suddenly stopped.

I'm beginning to tire of this cycle as I am doing all the hard work and they are getting an easy ticket.

No one else in the company has this know how, so it is up to me to mentor and guide these developers. I do my best but I feel like I am not being treated fairly, compensation wise.

I brought it up with my manager and was told I would be rewarded, it was a miniscule improvement. I got enough to would cover a few extra coffees.

I don't want to quit as my last job ended quite abrubtly and I want to fatten up this portion of by resume.

Does this system seem fair to anyone else? Anyone in a similiar position?

57 comments

[ 2.8 ms ] story [ 125 ms ] thread
Why is the level for senior and non senior the same?

The company is not tech enough to know the difference?

Fwiw even companies doing software development don’t necessarily follow any rigorous axiom of meritocratic titles.
Sure, but this one seems to have different titles by name, which seem to designate rank (senior), but don't reflect that in the payscale.

Unless saying he is the "only senior dev" was just OP's evaluation of the situation.

Would you be satisfied if all of your teammates have their salaries decreased but your salary stays the same?
I'd argue for the introduction of a new tier, with the responsibilities that you're taking on that aren't reasonable for the others to do. And if they don't agree, maybe stop doing those extra things.

Your coworkers aren't "overpaid", you're underpaid.

A tier based system doesn't seem inherently unfair to me. But putting a senior dev and a junior dev on the same tier seems pretty unfair.

Are you paid well relative to what you could make if you did jump ship? You mention that your coworkers are over-paid, but not specifically that you are underpaid.

Yes, it reads as if OP would be okay with the situation if their coworkers were paid less.
You should be bumped up a few steps (tiers), or assigned a managerial role, as you are doing non-temporary extra work out-of-class. I would schedule a meeting with both your boss and your bosses boss to explain why you need to be promoted.

> The others have little to no experience.

> I do all of the project planning, code reviews, bug fixes, requests etc.

The other devs should also be assigned some of the simpler of these tasks to grow their skills so that eventually they too can get step bumps.

From your description it doesn’t sound fair.

In my experience, non-technical managers underestimate the importance of Senior devs / leaders / mentors. They might have the assumption that those folks are as replaceable as Jr. devs, when that is not accurate. The switching cost for a Sr. contributor is far higher.

It’s a tough job market and as a recruiter I can tell you that a series of short stints isn’t a good look. But, you will probably find more appreciation and respect with a tech company or a tech manager / owner who understands the importance of your contributions.

Good luck.

You know the answer already. The real question is how long you think you need to stay in this position.
It is petty to begrudge others and wise to insist on your value or find better opportunities elsewhere.

Fair is for fools or those genuinely content with the averaging (I have been both.)

You asked a very philosophical question.

To start with, there are different definitions of fairness. A small example: everybody gets equal, everybody gets what they deserve, everybody gets what they need. An so on.

It's very hard to answer this as my definition of "fair" is probably different to yours. However, we live in a free world. The company's rules are clear and nobody is forced to work there. Seems fair in some sense to me.

I personally wouldn't be happy with this arrangement as I would probably seek a little bit more appreciation of my experience and position.

> Everyone on the same level gets the same base pay … I am the only senior.

So you’re not on the same level, so you get paid more? Except you don’t? That’s a contradiction.

I’d start applying and interviewing elsewhere, and once you have an offer, decide which one you’d rather do. If you’re not happy where you’re at, don’t wait, start making a plan B now

They said it's not a tech firm. I'd guess there is nobody else in the firm who understands anything that team does, and therefore there is an assumption that all developers are interchangeable.
Yeah they have probably one pay level for "developers" and that's it.
Every firm is a tech firm if they have developers, it's just a question of if their tech generates revenue or is just a cost. Either way they need to pay developer rates, and have a developer seniority structure.
Why should it be fair!?

You have 3 choices: live with it, go elsewhere or start some nuclear war trying to change it. Since you’re alone unhappy your situation will be way worse afterwards. And you will leave anyway.

its tragic that this sort of thing can't be resolved more optimally. Sets up a lose/lose. Too bad you can't just send your agent in to negotiate on your behalf, a 3rd party can take positions that are very hard to express yourself without ruining the relationship.
There is no salary system that is fair. If you want to be compensated relative to value produced you have to own your business.
This is an interesting statement. Why do you think that people that own their own business are compensated fairly and relative to value?
Because businesses operate within a more free market than employees do.
> I believe they are over paid for where we live.

This is the line I have a bit of trouble with. You shouldn't try to bring others down to feel better about making more, you should see what they're being paid and realize you are worth more. Outline this in asking for compensation adjustment, or begin to look elsewhere. If you can't find a role making more, just try not to let what others make bother you. At the end of the day you are the only one looking out for you - so invest more in doing that, and try to spend less worrying about others. Their making more or less will have little to no impact on your personal career progression.

Love the advice. Who cares what someone else is making/ doing / living. The question is are you happy with your pay? Think you should get more? Start applying or asking and see what the market is saying. Comparing salaries is a fools game
> You shouldn't try to bring others down to feel better about making more, you should see what they're being paid and realize you are worth more.

This.

The company is probably generating oodles of profit. Any profit whatsoever represents the labour of employees for which they haven’t been paid. These employees have generated value through their labour that the company has realized, and the company has decided to steal this value from the employees rather than giving it back to them.

So OP deserves more pay.

The company has already determined that relatively low skill levels deserve a certain minimum pay. This does not mean that these employees are overpaid, but rather that OP is underpaid.

This focus on fighting against wage increases for others who are beneath you is a psi-ops explicitly engineered by the Parasite Class, to make the lower classes fight their class war for them. The Parasite Class are laughing all the way to their obscenely-bloated offshore investment accounts.

You're really espousing the labor theory of value here?
The dehumanization in your message really detracts from your argument.
I thought it was the usage of a completely discredited economic theory to support their argument, but we can both be right!
But realistically salary budgets are in-fact a zero sum game.

Departments have a budget. If someone else is unfairly getting paid more, it definitely means that you will be getting paid less.

It's bad if your coworkers are drastically overpaid because it will bleed the company dry or prevent the company from hiring other coworkers to help lighten the load. In practice, it's not even about the CEO being overpaid or anything like that, it matters what budget out of the total revenue is allocated to your department. If the department/team isn't adding value, they will be walking around with targets on their backs.
> it is up to me to mentor and guide these developers

That right there is what makes you a senior. Make sure your work, your performance, and your track-record in levelling up your coworkers is well-documented, and use that to justify your bump and bonus. There is a chance that it doesn't work - in that case you have a year (or more) of experience with leading teams and mentoring coworkers that you can take to your next gig.

With regards to either or not things are fair, it is very possible that the business doesn't understand the value of the work your team does. It might be worth finding out what it is they do value and either trying to provide it or - if you can't directly provide it - enabling those who do provide it.

In either case, since you are going to be at this job for a while, it's a good opportunity to focus on fattening up your resume with those soft skills that often don't come easy but are valuable.

If you're serious and really don't want to leave (though to be honest, tenure probably isn't as big a deal as you think - easily explainable too since you can just say you literally weren't being compensated for additional responsibilities) then maybe ask for a demotion?

You could even list both titles on your CV for one length of time at the company, and just let people assume you progressed to senior rather than 'regressed'.

But ideally/presumably that doesn't happen - use it as negotiating point I mean - you can say you're honestly willing to be demoted, because it's going to spare you work, to the detriment of the company, with no loss in pay. Hard to imagine they wouldn't see sense and pay you more, and if not, try to shrug and enjoy the 'easy ticket'? (Especially since you phrase it as them being overpaid, not you under, so you'd presumably be happy with that.)

(comment deleted)
> I brought it up with my manager and was told I would be rewarded, it was a miniscule improvement. I got enough to would cover a few extra coffees.

Get a new job. There's no solution here because management does not respect your effort.

You really needed HN to tell you life isn't fair? Open your employee handbook on the company values page, look if "fair compensation" is listed

Focus on your own career, do whats good for you, don't look at what others are making. There are plenty of people in your situation making less than their coworkers instead of the same

Why do you care at all what they make?

You spend your time in a different manner than they do, something that takes less skill (in terms of programming), but more skill in terms of non-programming. It's just different work, not more important or less.

Could you do all the work if they left? If not, you have to acknowledge their contributions to the company.

Would it be fairer if you were paid more? Sure. Would it be fairer if they others were paid less? Absolutely not. If you are paid a fair wage for your work, then let it go. If not, then move on.
Fair is largely irrelevant. There are quite a few people doing about 5 hours of work per week while taking home six figure salaries, and in the end, anyone given this opportunity and not taking it would be kicking themselves in the behind for quite some time.

The only thing that matters is whether or not you feel like you are being compensated fairly for the value you bring.

Consider whether your pay is fair in and of itself for you and what you do rather than fair given what someone else gets.

I fully understand the sensation of feeling sick at how much someone else gets but it's really important to your own happiness to consider your situation on an absolute basis rather than relative to others.

This is what is described in "Liar's Poker" as "ever-increasing levels of relative poverty" and if you let it get to you it will really knaw away at you.

If a world famous chef showed up in a franchise McDonald's kitchen, he's probably not worth much more than $9/hr to the operation. They are heating up frozen hamburgers.

If you are in a system that has put a ceiling on your ability to contribute or has put a ceiling on the price they are willing to pay for your contributions, and this bothers you, then you should find somewhere else to work.

Capitalism doesn't care what you think you deserve.

They aren't overpaid.

You're underpaid.

If you're their senior, you need compensation that reflects this difference. Otherwise, there's no point in being their senior.