
We don’t pay you to work here - terpua
http://venturehacks.com/articles/ordinary-people
======
cturner
I think it foolish to take a job without first sorting out both a written job
description and an agreed salary. The idea that we shouldn't only strengthens
this ridiculous idea that somehow employees owe the business a favour for
working there. Part of the reason that programmers don't get paid more is
because geeks are typically poorer negotiators than other professions. So even
if an individual is strong, they don't have as much room to move because
unless their skills are particular management will know that the trick of
getting good geeks has more to do with getting them to the offer stage first
than paying a rate that would be competitive in a liquid market.

Employees are business units in and of themselves, have opportunity cost
considerations as well even if they're comfortable in their current state of
life. Just imagine the conversation with your kids at a future time, "Guys -
sorry we can't send you to the school we wanted to, but I hope it warms your
heart to know that I had a really good time working at blah consulting when I
was in my prime." Having money allows you to support family, pursue hobbies
and create business opportunities of your own in the future.

I've been thinking about a new way of negotiating recently: one-bid job
offers. In this situation both parties would to the terms and a mediator. Both
guarantee a deposit of - say - five thousand dollars to the third party and
agree that if the negotiation does not conclude in a hire but they end up
negotiating further then the negotiator will keep the $10k.

To resolve the salary, the prospective employee writes down the figure below
which they would not accept the role in an envelope. The prospective employer
writes down the figure above which they would not choose to hire the person.
Then the trusted third-party opens both envelopes in front of them.

If the amounts are compatible, then the salary is the midpoint of the amounts.
If the amounts are incompatible then both parties walk away with the amounts
undeclared. Has anyone heard of this being done in practice? I think this
guarantees that both parties would always get a good deal, and neither would
feel diddled.

------
dmix
This should be an obvious part of most managers philosophy.

If the type of job your employees are doing (and type of people you are
hiring) provides more value then monetary compensation that you should be
aware of that.

This is especially true in software development where many developers would do
it for the love of it, if their basic necessities are covered. Many other
professions are the same.

But there a many more jobs (and employees) where this is not the case and
money is the best motivator.

~~~
staunch
Just because I love developing software doesn't mean I'm willing to make you
rich while I get a salary alone. The only people I know who are willing to do
that are people who don't know their worth, people that aren't worth more than
a salary, and people so new that they don't know any better.

~~~
dmix
I agree with you. I think the best developers should get paid accordingly.

I mean that managers should be aware that some workers are not directly
motivated by money as some other job types. To get the most out of say, your
developers, it might take more then money.

This post summarizes it well, [http://foohack.com/2008/11/how-not-to-get-real-
and-die-tryin...](http://foohack.com/2008/11/how-not-to-get-real-and-die-
trying/)

~~~
staunch
I'm all for _more_ than money but not for everything _except_ money.

------
old-gregg
Sounds pretty sweet. Their quotes of Tandem Computers CEO also make you want
to work for them. The reality however is that...

 _"As the company entered the 90's, however, sales and profits slowed, and
many of these innovative programs were either curtailed or eliminated totally.
By the end, Tandem was pretty much a company like any other in the computer
field..."_

<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tandem_Computers>

------
baha_man
The book linked to at the end of the first section - "Hard Facts, Dangerous
Half-truths, and Total Nonsense" - looks interesting. Has anybody read it?

