It all boils down to the person. Some are honest and keep their promises by default. Some make missteps every now and then, but remain truthful if they really try. And some are just broken beyond repair.

I'm Christian and for me, taking an oath on the Bible is the biggest binding I can imagine. I hope Lystrup made her choice as that book is close to her heart and provides her great support to stay true to her oath. I would be disappoined if this were just a marketing move as that would further erode the value of oaths, honesty and ultimately honor.

Well the oath has always been symbolic and the binding agreement has always just been legal. The symbology of swearing on the Bible seems obvious. You’re making a commitment to God.

That means nothing to some people. In which case I’d argue an oath means strictly less than if you have some higher power you feel accountable to. I don’t think anyone thinks - least of all Carl Sagan - that Carl Sagan can hold themselves accountable for broken promises.

In this case it’s being used as a demonstration of values which people don’t necessarily see as having any eternal or cosmic weight. Do they believe the nature of not following these values begets some sort of divine justice? The very fact that they are choosing them seems to imply no - others may choose different values and not fulfill those ones. Do they think such oaths should be rejected?

The modern uses are basically the same but in the christian tradition (and I think inherited from judaism) there is a distinct difference between oaths and vows. Oaths are sworn to others, before god, in order to assure our trustworthiness in respect to some specific endeavor. Vows are promises to god without condition. So oaths can be sworn based on things other than relationship to god (my honor, my mother's grave) but vows can't in this tradition.

So for example like oath of fealty vs vow of poverty. The difference is inherently religious and kind of subtle and not explicit in most contexts, plus vows aren't very common anymore. But if you read for example a christian marriage vow next to an oath of office you can clearly see the different intent.

And again the meanings are usually the same in general modern use and the religious rite aspect is probably not very important to many people. But when talking about a specific formal oath or vow you can definitely tell that it's two separate rites.

I agree with you that it all boils down to the person, but only for the swearing on the Bible version. Swearing on Pale Blue Dot is meaningless, that is, she won't lose sleep thinking how she let down Carl Sagan lol.

I suspect she’ll lose more sleep for feeling she’d let down Sagan than letting down a fictional character. Maybe you’re different, and that’s fine.

Having worked at just-below-FAANG companies with a surely above average oversight on how compensation strategy works, let me summarize my experience:

We, as a company already know how much our competitors pay for a given role as everyone in the industry is buying and selling statistical data on their compensation structure through 3rd party agencies. Therefore, we can and do intentionally target, which salary band our positions should fall to in the broader market.

You have absolutely no way to negotiate your base salary above the band which was already known when we created the position. There could still be substantial differences, as even mid level roles have 30%+ difference in band limits. You can however, have the position to be upgraded or downgraded if certain circumstances met, but that's a new position with new salary ranges.

These regulations likely increase employee leverage, but to which extent, hard to tell. You should care about your total compensation anyway and neither cash bonus, nor equity is covered in the disclosure, although especially for senior positions, those are very substantial part of your compensation.

I've had folks hard quit at previous companies as soon as they find out how big a difference between their pay and new hires. We are talking about £20k+.

This would be extremely useful during annual reviews and other events during your tenure at an organisation not just at hiring time.

> You have absolutely no way to negotiate your base salary above the band which was already known when we created the position

I don't actually want to negotiate the base salary, but I want to know before hand if all the time invested in interviews and the risk taken when switching jobs is worth it for me.

> You should care about your total compensation anyway and neither cash bonus, nor equity is covered in the disclosure, although especially for senior positions, those are very substantial part of your compensation.

No, because equity and all the other benefits besides the base salary are most of the time at the company's whim - I might or not receive them and I'll have only the freedom to choose between options offered by the company, not real freedom.

> You should care about your total compensation anyway and neither cash bonus, nor equity is covered in the disclosure, although especially for senior positions, those are very substantial part of your compensation.

Even if you do get a bonus or equity as part of your TC, it doesn't necessarily mean you're going to get anything for it. I've had options several times that ended up worthless as well as bonuses that were never paid or partially paid due to nebulous company-wide performance metrics.

Unless you're working for a very well established tech company, ideally public, I'd give those parts of your TC a discount to what's written in your contract.

> You should care about your total compensation anyway and neither cash bonus, nor equity is covered in the disclosure, although especially for senior positions, those are very substantial part of your compensation.

Most people outside of the tech-sector will never see any bonus, equity, etc. besides their normal salary.

> Most people outside of the tech-sector will never see any bonus, equity, etc. besides their normal salary.

From my POV, even in tech sector a lot of people are overestimating equity values. With a median tenure in FAANG likely below two years, base salary becomes much more important than people think about it.