- cross-posted to:
- [email protected]
- cross-posted to:
- [email protected]
‘I’m proud of being a job hopper’: Seattle engineer’s post about company loyalty goes viral::undefined
‘I’m proud of being a job hopper’: Seattle engineer’s post about company loyalty goes viral::undefined
Industries promote this, especially the publicly traded ones, whether they realize it or not (I’m sure they do). It looks worse on a corporate balance sheet and subsequent earnings quarterly earnings report to pay someone 20% more than to hire someone at a new pay scale. It’s absolutely insane that we’ve gotten ourselves to this point as a society, but here we are.
I think it’s also very acceptable to have full time contractors on the payroll with no end date for the same reason.
why?
Contractors can be paid out of project budgets, they don’t need benefits and other perks aside from cash and they can be hired and terminated quickly with no severance
And afterwards they discover the payroll is much lower while overall costs are much higher compared to the fixed employee era, and the same people they fired are back but now on s freelance base.
When the company’s CEO cares more about cutting employees’ bonuses than saving money and reporting more cost-saving measures to the board.
And that goes back to the engineer’s original ask to show him what companies have employee loyalty.
Replacing full time employees who at least have a slight stake in the company with easily replaceable contractors there to complete a project doesn’t put the best foot forward in the loyalty regard.
I make no judgements on the intelligence of these decisions, I was answering why companies do it.
Right on. I did ask why after all and even tho I wanted to know something specific from the post above mine I was generic with my question.
My work let all the contractors know that they can comvert or their contracts will not be renewed again. I know at least one guy that would be taking a 40k pay cut.
I was just hired on along with another guy. We found out that one of our team members who has been with the company for 10 years is making less than the new hires.
Another oddity of the situation: I worked with her in the same department 10 years ago as new hires. I left the company to double my salary and 10 years later came back and was hired at the same salary I had left for (took a pay cut for a better life).
I get so pissed off on her behalf. 8 years of mysoginistic managers screwing her over for raises, and now that she finally has a good manager, his hands are tied to give her a decebt, an deserved, raise or even salary parity with new-hires.
When you leave the car lot, you need to use regular words like ‘request’ or ‘question’.
My old job did this with me. Let me go for “personnel reasons” (playing well with others, specifically an older cranky guy), and hired me back as a contractor now making about 6x what I made while there. Old guy left, and a management spot opened up about the same time, they lowballed the shit out of their offer, to which I laughed and said I’m happy where I’m at.
Classify it as non-recurring professional services and it’s an EBITDA addback.
I don’t understand how it works out for them though. Hiring is so much more expensive than retaining staff, not just the higher salary, but the loss of productivity from losing someone with institutional knowledge and needing to train the new person which can take a really long time to get them up to speed.
You’re using logic, and that may trip you up here.
Hiring is spread out into different cost buckets, whereas a 20% hit to one resource’s payroll stays in payroll.
You see if you slice the cake enough times. There becomes more cake.
That’s called accounting.
Many of the most wealthy and powerful companies in our world have never made a profit. Many times, companies succeed by currying the favor of the rich and powerful more so than anything else.
Yup. I obviously don’t hate the people doing this, quite the opposite if anything, but it’s so silly that it’s a thing in the first place.
When I moved to Silicon Valley the HR guy at my company was an old hippie who looked out for people. He told me the silicon valley way to get a raises is to tell your company that you have decided to take another job because it pays more, and you don’t want to leave, but you have personal obligations like your girlfriend being pregnant that mean you have to take a higher paying job. Then if they don’t give you a raise you find a new job that will.
And when you take the raise they’ll give you all the shit work until they find a replacement for you. If you legit have an offer from a different company take it.
Do you really think they’d try to drive you out after giving you a raise to stay?
I think most of these companies as a whole are pretty evil, but your middle-managment boss or random HR rep is probably happy that you got more money out of the deal. They’re a cog in the machine just like you.
No way. You might walk through the door at the other company, realise it’s a horrible place to work, and hand in your resignation at lunch time.
Take the pay rise. If they fire you a month later, you’ll at least get a big severance package to cover your living expenses while you look for a new job. If you quit, then quit again, you’re going to be delivering pizza’s or something while you look for a decent paying job.
Do you not have any references at the company? Because that is the only way this could really happen. Personally I don’t blindly apply to a company without having any inside references.
Once you strong arm your employer to giving you a raise you’ve painted a big target on your back and you’ve announced that you’re willing to walk over money. It spells insecurity to them and the next thing you’ll find is the door hitting you on the way out.
it’s consdierably easier to find a job when you have a job.
Don’t knock delivering pizzas.