Fair wages at farbenmeer (Part 2)

Over a year ago, we at farbenmeer made the decision that every colleague should be allowed to set their own salary. You can read in the previous blog post how we came to this decision after a lot of reflection and discussion. Here, I want to share our experiences with this model, what we've learned from it, and how we plan to continue with it in the future.

Let me say this upfront: Contrary to all economic prophecies predicting that allowing people to choose their own salaries would quickly lead to a company’s ruin—because everyone would raise their salary to the maximum—the opposite happened.

No one changed their salary. Even though many had previously wished for a slightly higher income. And the company’s finances—which were transparent to everyone—were in great shape, with a full order book. Still, not a single person decided to raise their pay.

The First Salary Adjustment

A few weeks later, it did happen. One colleague announced that he wanted to raise his salary. He followed this up with a long, detailed written statement. He explained how long he had been part of the farbenmeer team, what successes he had achieved, how tough some dry spells were, and even which human qualities he brought to the team.

We were all surprised by how detailed it was. It felt like a pitch to a CEO, where hard facts are necessary just to get a meeting—let alone a raise.

Up to this point, we hadn’t thought about any formal process for this kind of situation. So, we gathered to decide how to deal with this “salary pitch.”

After some discussion, we concluded that the best way would be to give everyone the opportunity to provide feedback. (Important: feedback can be both positive and negative!)
People could choose whether to give this feedback in the group setting or in a one-on-one conversation. Each person chose the form that suited them best.

Later, we slightly modified this process. The person requesting a salary change would let others know they were in the meeting room and open to hearing any thoughts, if anyone wanted to share. If no one did, that silence was taken as a sign of agreement.

Once this process was complete and everyone had shared their views, the person could decide—now with new perspectives—whether to change their salary. In the case of the first salary change, the person did decide to adjust their salary starting the next month. Everyone agreed that the new amount was fair and justified. There were no objections.

The Ice Was Broken

It felt like everyone had just been waiting for that moment. Once the first salary change happened, the rest of the team followed and adjusted their salaries as well. Now there was a process—and a person who had already walked the path. Even I only adjusted my salary after that.
Probably all of us were a bit afraid to be the first.

So, one by one, all the salaries were adjusted.

Some colleagues showed—just as we expected—a great deal of restraint. We already knew this might happen and knew we had to encourage these individuals to adjust their salaries too.

This brings up the impostor syndrome. Some people think their skills are just a shiny facade, hiding the fact that they’re not actually capable. They’re afraid that one day the mask will fall, and it’ll be revealed that they were faking it all along, collecting an absurd salary for no real reason. They believe they’re frauds—even though their abilities are perfectly normal by objective standards.

This phenomenon is apparently quite common in IT and especially among women in a still male-dominated industry. It’s not an isolated case.
If you know someone like this, help them understand that this syndrome exists. Knowing you're not alone is a huge help and the first step toward dealing with it.

We were able to encourage our more reserved colleagues to align their salaries with those of the others. They raised their salaries as well, even if the justifications weren’t as long as the first one.

Happy Ending?

Toward the end of 2019, another salary change was proposed: a small raise for our apprentice.
The reason? That person had to work a second job on the weekends to pay their bills.
Since this wasn’t about a regular salary, but an apprenticeship salary, it was a special case.

This sparked serious debate. There were strong opponents to the raise, arguing that the apprenticeship pay was already defined in the contract and well above average. They also felt that an apprenticeship required some sacrifice, as the company invests both money and effort into the apprentice’s development.

On the other side, the supporters argued that even though minimum wage doesn’t legally apply to apprenticeships, we at farbenmeer want everyone here to have a decent life. Also, farbenmeer isn’t about labels—and neither should our compensation be. It should be based on needs and abilities.

The discussions got emotional and stretched over several meetings.

Both sides had valid arguments. But it was incredibly difficult to find a rational consensus that took everything into account.

Thankfully, someone spoke up and asked:

There was no answer—because that person was right.

We had slipped into a situation where the full-time employees were trying to decide the apprentice’s salary. Exactly the scenario we wanted to avoid when we said:
Everyone decides for themselves what’s on their payslip.

So we untangled the situation. We ended the meeting and told the apprentice:

The next day, the apprentice decided to raise their salary—but not by as much as they had originally intended.

Evolving the Idea – The Salary Committee

From that conflict, a new idea emerged. Why should everyone have to deal with every single salary decision? As a company grows, that’s simply not feasible—it takes way too much time. We needed a group that has insight, can assess the situation, and act on behalf of the others.

So we asked:

This guideline salary isn’t binding—it just serves as an orientation. For example: how much the overall budget has changed compared to last year.

And just like that, the idea of a salary committee was born.

The committee consists of three randomly selected people. But there are criteria: there must be at least one man, one woman, and one person who has been at farbenmeer for at least a year. We run this selection through our own little internal lottery.

In addition to summarizing company finances, the committee also reviews everyone’s proposed salary adjustments—this happens once a year.

The committee checks whether the proposed salary:

• Is financially viable for the company

• Is too low or too high compared to others

• Takes inflation into account

If everything looks good, the new salary is approved and shared with the team.
If there's a conflict, the committee can suggest an alternative.
If the person disagrees, both sides can escalate the situation by involving more team members.

This committee will meet for the first time in 2020. Its goal is to reduce conflicts and give everyone a clear view of what’s possible. The committee can even recommend a raise for someone who’s being too modest, or propose a counteroffer if someone asks for an unrealistic amount—and escalate the decision if needed.
Random selection prevents power imbalances.

Also, the committee members’ own salaries are reviewed by the other two members—this prevents abuse (e.g., giving themselves large raises).

Final Thoughts

As you can see, the salary process is still evolving. We’re continuously refining it, and we see the salary committee as a great tool to prevent extremes—while still giving every team member the ability to decide for themselves.

I’m pretty sure that in a year’s time, I’ll be back to report on our experiences with this too—and share more of the small adjustments we’ve made along the way.