Edit (add quote for clarity)
> I see this openness at buffer essentially being a tool for management to deny raise requests, etc... with... If we do it for you, we have to do it for everybody...
More likely, the response would be along the lines of: "You'll get a raise when you qualify based on the criteria that have been clearly explained to you and the rest of the world."
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...
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.
Perhaps... but this relies on an awfully idealistic view of real life.
What goes into a salary decision is much more personal than a universal formula can dictate.
This is a classic excuse to put different people into the same box.
I believe it to be completely inappropriate and unprofessional to be transparent with something as personal as salaries...and saying that were all in the same boat just doesnt excuse this behavior.
Something which doesn't seem clear to me is whether the team is able to properly evaluate the pay of their colleagues. Surely the people that are most friendly and fit most of the in-group traits of the group will benefit most? What about the creative and non socially-correct members that don't fit in - should they move to different companies?
In general, I cast doubt on the idea that employees really know what's important because of principle-agent problems and culture.
More likely, the response would be along the lines of: "You'll get a raise when you qualify based on the criteria that have been clearly explained to you and the rest of the world."