If my coworker can spin up a new, valuable product, they should be able to multiply their comp as quickly as they can compound value. If my other coworker fell through the cracks and is a liability for the quality of the codebase and for regression of our talent pool, they should be able to be cut.
And the people here aren't actually going against their employer. They are the ones taking the long view in an increasingly myopic ecosystem that is more and more skewed towards the short game.
Google has a disproportionately skilled talent pool on the back of advertising a deal to employees where they are treated with respect, are allowed support for pursuing things that are good for the world, and aren't leaned on to accept evil. Smart, capable people tend to be thoughtful and have a vision for how they want the world to be, and tend to care about how what they're doing fits into the big picture.
If they reneg on that deal they will bleed top talent, which is problematic when your whole company is primarily constrained by the size and depth of its talent pool.
It's either idiocy or an inevitable game-theoretical degradation of institutions that will lead to its death, at least as a tech company by the thielian, pro-innovation, definition, if not of the company itself if it eventually lacks the talent to keep on top of new paradigms.
Either way, the company will end up as a shell of its former self or dead if Whittaker and company don't turn the boat, however unlikely that is to succeed.
That’s employee hostile. Effectively you’re creating a system where compensation is based on your ability to “engineer” placement on a hot team/product.
Ultimately it’s bad for a company as you’re signaling that political savvy is valued above skill, and less directly profitable teams become ghettos.
Maybe we could theorize of a magical system which deeply understands you and itself well enough to find an optimum mapping, but the reality is it doesn't exist, so you need to do that yourself.
In doing so you're making the system function better too, by voting with your feet and putting yourself where you'll give a shit and consequently get stuff done.
If you want to accrue resources, align your competencies and values with the surrounding system so that you create value. If you're an employer and want people to be happy and create value, give people freedom to rearrange themselves to fix the problems you create by not knowing the actual people well enough to figure out where they align and will be happy and create value.
Ignore that reality at your peril, whether as an employer, an employee or a policy-maker.
IIRC, this is how basecamp structures their team.
There was a track very similar to the salary bands that you see in a F1000 company (<title>, senior <title>, staff <title>, <pricipal> title, etc), the only difference was that salary advancement within a band was time based, with only a small discretionary component. IIRC, you could get a 1% boost for exceptional performance identified by management, in addition to the schedule. Job titles were broadly defined.
Basically, unions that are oriented towards professionals vs. blue collar are less task and bullshit focused.
The union I was a member of provided generous training/tuition benefits, a platform for getting advice without potential retaliation, and dispute resolution. As a manager, it can be frustrating to deal with the dispute part, as the union is obliged to defend everyone.
The core issue here is that using employer resources to organize actions that could be perceived as against your employer is dumb for a variety of reasons.