Hell yes to both. But mostly the former.
I have a family member who is a high level HR executive in the private sector. Over the years, I’ve learned that outside of government jobs, the pay disparity between positions can be extreme, with employees earning more than their bosses in some cases. It all comes down to the “pay band” concept. The HR department boils your resume/qualifications into a salary range, and then your negotiation skills after being hired determines where your eventual salary will land within that pay band.
So at some companies, salary numbers are tightly held to prevent discontent in the ranks. But at a government job, my experience is everyone expects we’re all paid the same based upon our rank or GS level (and if you’ve put in the time for GS steps, you have those appropriate pay raises).
So if everyone before the newest hire had fought for a higher step as the link above suggests "Agencies also may want to ensure that pay-setting determinations are consistent with how pay has been set for similarly qualified candidates in similar positions.”, then it would be no problem.
But when the older head ARTs see some new whipper snapper gets hired above Step 1, wouldn’t that breed discontent? It’s shitty to think that way, because all it would take is one bold negotiation, then everyone after that would expect that same standard. But since the link above specifically states the negotiation is only for new hires, it would never be retroactive for the older guys.
I don’t think that’s a reason not to negotiate, as Guardian has done, but if the older ARTs are already looking toward the airlines, I wonder what the effect would be for the unit. Anybody have experience with that scenario?