Do you have adblock enabled?
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Wall Street Journal)   Professional development programs help your employees advance their careers at other companies   (blogs.wsj.com) divider line 57
    More: Obvious, PBS, career development, software engineers  
•       •       •

2082 clicks; posted to Business » on 25 Jun 2012 at 3:58 PM (2 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



57 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all
 
2012-06-25 02:18:48 PM  
Companies could keep talent by offering more incentives, like retirement and healthcare and vacation times.

But payroll is a cost center to be eliminated, so that option is right out.
 
2012-06-25 02:59:02 PM  
My company gives you raises and promotions based on training you get.

Most of us stay.
 
2012-06-25 03:00:22 PM  
AT&T paid for my MS and never made me sign a retention agreement.

Idiots.
 
2012-06-25 03:02:25 PM  
Published by the No-Sh*t Institute of Sherlock, MA.
 
2012-06-25 03:19:39 PM  

Snarcoleptic_Hoosier: Companies could keep talent by offering more incentives, like retirement and healthcare and vacation times.


That's only appropriate for executive level decisions.

For any other level of employee, you have to play them against each other in order to drive down compensation.

Anything else is socialism.
 
2012-06-25 03:27:45 PM  

Diogenes: AT&T paid for my MS and never made me sign a retention agreement.

Idiots.


Retention agreements are largely unenforcable. Waste of legal resources.
 
2012-06-25 03:31:51 PM  

downstairs: Diogenes: AT&T paid for my MS and never made me sign a retention agreement.

Idiots.

Retention agreements are largely unenforcable. Waste of legal resources.


I wouldn't know. But I did have a friend who broke his and nothing ever happened.

Paid for my Masters and over 6 months of pricey Oracle education. Then my manager told our Director he didn't think we had the Oracle skills to pull off a conversion project. So I started shopping for a new job and *presto* Oracle hires me as a technical consultant.

I took great joy in burning that bridge with AT&T. "Inadequate Oracle skills, eh? Oracle begs to differ."
 
2012-06-25 04:07:55 PM  
Workers who took part in training were more likely to stay only if they saw attractive advancement opportunities.

Really... so people that get trained for more advanced work and responsibilties expect to see those increases matched with increases in compensation and opportunity for advanancement.

Wow.... that is just... mind blowing...
 
2012-06-25 04:24:08 PM  

Diogenes: downstairs: Diogenes: AT&T paid for my MS and never made me sign a retention agreement.

Idiots.

Retention agreements are largely unenforcable. Waste of legal resources.

I wouldn't know. But I did have a friend who broke his and nothing ever happened.


Its basically the general legal theory that there's a monetary limit for what's worth suing over.

If someone was getting a million+ dollar salary... yeah, they'd work to enforce it.

If you're making $50k/year and moved to a company that now pays you $70k/year... no company is going to spend tens of thousands of dollars bringing a lawsuit against you. Even if they won by default, they'd never collect the damages.
 
2012-06-25 04:25:40 PM  
I seem to remember several of my professors saying that companies no longer advance people through the ranks like in the old days. The only way to the top of the ladder is by grabbing a higher rung on another ladder.
 
2012-06-25 04:31:02 PM  

Tobin_Lam: I seem to remember several of my professors saying that companies no longer advance people through the ranks like in the old days. The only way to the top of the ladder is by grabbing a higher rung on another ladder.


Or convincing your current place you found a rung on another ladder.. but if you work for an asshole, that may backfire.
 
2012-06-25 04:35:08 PM  

Snarcoleptic_Hoosier: Companies could keep talent by offering more incentives, like retirement and healthcare and vacation times.

But payroll is a cost center to be eliminated, so that option is right out.


The bigger issue is the notion that payroll must track with inflation. This is especially bad with younger folks. If a technologist hired for $60k/year out of college isn't worth double that in 3-5 years, they're incompetent. If there aren't more senior positions available for them to move to, policies like that force situations where it's literally impossible to retain top young talent.
 
2012-06-25 04:35:54 PM  

Tobin_Lam: I seem to remember several of my professors saying that companies no longer advance people through the ranks like in the old days. The only way to the top of the ladder is by grabbing a higher rung on another ladder.


Well, think of it this way. You want to move up the ladder and make more money. If you attempt such at your current job, you get into politics. You may piss people off (because you'd most likely be gunning for someone else's job... and that someone else is senior to you.)

Compare that to just trying to find a job one level up at another company. You can do it discreetly while being a good, obedient employee at your current position- pretending that you're perfectly happy where you are.

Also there's less of a market moving up the ranks at your current place of employment. You work for one company, with only so many positions.

When you open yourself up to the entire job market... you multiply the opportunities by hundreds.
 
2012-06-25 04:38:25 PM  

downstairs: Tobin_Lam: I seem to remember several of my professors saying that companies no longer advance people through the ranks like in the old days. The only way to the top of the ladder is by grabbing a higher rung on another ladder.

Well, think of it this way. You want to move up the ladder and make more money. If you attempt such at your current job, you get into politics. You may piss people off (because you'd most likely be gunning for someone else's job... and that someone else is senior to you.)

Compare that to just trying to find a job one level up at another company. You can do it discreetly while being a good, obedient employee at your current position- pretending that you're perfectly happy where you are.

Also there's less of a market moving up the ranks at your current place of employment. You work for one company, with only so many positions.

When you open yourself up to the entire job market... you multiply the opportunities by hundreds.


This is very true, but it's exaggerated if the firm you're working for is not growing.
 
2012-06-25 04:39:01 PM  
employee turnover can increase after training if a company fails to also provide career development and opportunities to get ahead.

if a company fails to also provide career development and opportunities to get ahead.

if a company fails to also provide career development and opportunities to get ahead.

if a company fails to also provide career development and opportunities to get ahead.


///But, why would they? My company sends a monthly newsletter that has a list of the people who were promoted and made Full Time from Temp (most people are hired temp for about 2 months then fired or hired on) in the previous month. 4 people in the 12 months have been promoted from "operational" staff (people who do the work) to management. In the same time period, 12 managers and 4 executives have been hired from outside the company. 2 directors have been made VPs.
So the only way to get ahead is to be a manager/executive at a different company, then get hired here.
 
2012-06-25 04:44:35 PM  
If you don't provide training, they will leave too.

Basically, you have high turnover because you treat your employees as resources to be exploited.
 
2012-06-25 05:06:38 PM  

wingnut396: Really... so people that get trained for more advanced work and responsibilties expect to see those increases matched with increases in compensation and opportunity for advanancement.


What's the company supposed to do, compensate someone for work they don't do?

Mind you, I see the case here. It's laughably outrageous that "job creators" will on one hand pound their fists on the table insisting Americans are worthless, incompetent, uneducated and stupid and thus not worth keeping and you can prove it because these unemployed people aren't being all bootstrappy. Then when someone actually tries to increase their value, a lot of companies react in bizarre ways, from apathy to fear.

But when it comes to "advancement" people generally think "leadership" and I've worked in places that already suffer from top-heavy management. They have people who are promoted into management by policy (X years tenure for example). . . yet they manage no one. My last employer had no less than six people with "manager" in their title. The company had about two dozen people. Including the managers. If one of the sales guys bothered to get an MBA, there would literally be no use for him, and if he demanded a raise for a skill they don't need, both sides really would be better off with him just working for a company willing to pay for that.

It doesn't even need to be management. I'm fluent in Japanese which turned out to be a skill a number of employers gladly paid for, but not my first real job out of college. They hired me for my technical aptitude. They didn't want my language skill, didn't need it, didn't use it, and -- here's where the point becomes relevant -- didn't pay for it. Why would they?

My point is, yes, there are office politics, but in any company that isn't dysfunctional as all get out, you can probably leverage an increase in value for advancement -- IF you can find a legit use for it that results in real $$$. But if you just randomly pick up some useless buzzword skill that consultants are parroting, or if you lack the creativity to directly turn a useful skill into either cost savings or new revenue, don't be shocked if your proposal is met with a big fat "meh".
 
M-G
2012-06-25 05:20:50 PM  

Diogenes: Paid for my Masters and over 6 months of pricey Oracle education. Then my manager told our Director he didn't think we had the Oracle skills to pull off a conversion project. So I started shopping for a new job and *presto* Oracle hires me as a technical consultant.


What would have made this perfect is if they hired Oracle for the project and sent you in as the consultant....
 
M-G
2012-06-25 05:22:45 PM  
And this...

www.dilbert.com
 
2012-06-25 05:24:22 PM  
So if I make an employee more valuable and at the same time don't actually pay them what they're worth/place them in an appropriate position they may leave?

The hell you say!
 
2012-06-25 05:25:49 PM  

Tobin_Lam: I seem to remember several of my professors saying that companies no longer advance people through the ranks like in the old days. The only way to the top of the ladder is by grabbing a higher rung on another ladder.


That's not just a saying, it's a reality.
If I hadn't changed jobs about 5 times in the past 8 years, I would still be at my old entry position. I'm fairly along now, and I would argue moreso than most other people in my peer group.
There is no advancement anymore, and there is no "company loyalty". Like in the 50's, when Fred down the street got a gold watch for 30 years with the same company. Of which he rose through the mailroom. That's not today.

I've never been asked about it in a suspicious manner in any job interview. It's expected these days.
 
2012-06-25 05:33:05 PM  

dragonchild: But when it comes to "advancement" people generally think "leadership" and I've worked in places that already suffer from top-heavy management. They have people who are promoted into management by policy (X years tenure for example). . . yet they manage no one. My last employer had no less than six people with "manager" in their title. The company had about two dozen people. Including the managers. If one of the sales guys bothered to get an MBA, there would literally be no use for him, and if he demanded a raise for a skill they don't need, both sides really would be better off with him just working for a company willing to pay for that.


Part of that might have to do with "managers" having a separate set of laws regarding their employment that exempt them from things like overtime pay.
 
2012-06-25 05:43:13 PM  
This isn't a byproduct of training, it is a byproduct of the erosion of pensions and other long term incentives that would motivate a worker to stay with a company. Workers, more than ever, are forced to fend for themselves and understandably will gravitate to whichever employer will pay the most.

Don't offer any professional development and you may not have as extensive a turnover problem, but I doubt it will be because otherwise motivated employees don't have the skills to compete for jobs at other companines (they will acquire the skills on their own), but rather, it will be the bottom-of-the-barrel types of workers that will seek out employment with a company that doesn't offer professional development. They don't leave for other companies because they are lazy, unmotivated, and perfectly content doing the exact same thing every single day..
 
2012-06-25 05:50:35 PM  

IrateShadow: Part of that might have to do with "managers" having a separate set of laws regarding their employment that exempt them from things like overtime pay.


I get your point, but not in this case. Everyone was already on salary.
 
2012-06-25 05:51:31 PM  
So the kind of employee who is eager to spend time and resources to become better at their job and acquire new skills isn't interested in sticking around when they realize there is no chance of promotion? Surprise surprise.....
 
2012-06-25 06:00:45 PM  
The companies I've been with treat employees as fungible commodities. I can't even fathom the concept of loyalty toward my employer.
 
2012-06-25 06:01:17 PM  

M-G: Diogenes: Paid for my Masters and over 6 months of pricey Oracle education. Then my manager told our Director he didn't think we had the Oracle skills to pull off a conversion project. So I started shopping for a new job and *presto* Oracle hires me as a technical consultant.

What would have made this perfect is if they hired Oracle for the project and sent you in as the consultant....


I honestly wondered if that was going to happen. And it's not unlike Oracle to do shiat like that.

But no, AT&T in their infinite lack of wisdom decided not only that I and my team couldn't do it, they were also going to hire Oracle consultants. Not company consultants mind you, but independent consultants with "Oracle" on their resume. In my short 5 years at AT&T I ceased to be amazed at how much money they'd piss away.

Project was a disaster, I was told.
 
2012-06-25 06:44:09 PM  

dragonchild: wingnut396: Really... so people that get trained for more advanced work and responsibilties expect to see those increases matched with increases in compensation and opportunity for advanancement.

What's the company supposed to do, compensate someone for work they don't do?

lots of text...


My CSB....

I started off in desktop support, got training on own and via work for server systems and other more advanced topics. I was rewarded with more responsibility to make sure shiat worked, but I still had to all the other stuff I had before. Of course things were tight, so a real raise was out of the option. So what I had done is increase my workload for no benefit to me. I told this to my boss and was met with a big 'meh'.

So I looked for another job and was offered one that increased my pay by about 50%. My boss was PISSED that I put HIM over a barrel. They ended up making a better counter offer, but I had permanently pissed off a boss that should have known better to start off with. You give people more work and responsibility (not really meaning management), you compensate them.

Thats the point. Not that you should get more just because you stick around. The whole idea is that you should earn more if you do more, or do it better. That is the whole alledged mantra of capitalism. Unless you are a regular employee, then fark you, you should be happy we don't make you pay for the priveledge of working for the company.
 
2012-06-25 07:01:32 PM  
My CSB:
The firm I work for a few months ago put everybody through Revit training. They ran us through a course that normally takes an entire semester to teach and did it in 5 days.

Then we're tossed headfirst into a project that normally takes 3-5 people 9 weeks to do it using the old software. OK, no big deal except that only 2 of our computers have enough juice to handle the software. So the project manager is stuck working 65 hours a week for 9 weeks and getting paid for only 40 hours.

Small wonder that PM is bailing on us. We're also losing a guy who recently received his architectural license. He's still doing pissant remodel jobs. Another PM was used as a marketing puke for 2 years because he was pigeonedholed into the wrong type of project. The kind of project that had virtually no work for 2 years. And another one of our guys found a much higher paying job.

Instead of taking advantage of the years of experience by the grunts and promoting them, the principals are hiring outside the firm.

I'm out as soon as I find a firm that'll give me a promotion and steady work for 3+ years.
 
2012-06-25 07:16:22 PM  

Smeggy Smurf: OK, no big deal except that only 2 of our computers have enough juice to handle the software. So the project manager is stuck working 65 hours a week for 9 weeks and getting paid for only 40 hours.


I have to presume there was a shortsighted IT policy in place that prevented him from buying extra workstations and bringing them in, in order to save himself the pain of 5 extra work hours every day?

Hell, he could have bought a couple Mac Pros and still come out ahead.
 
2012-06-25 07:26:03 PM  

IrateShadow: dragonchild: But when it comes to "advancement" people generally think "leadership" and I've worked in places that already suffer from top-heavy management. They have people who are promoted into management by policy (X years tenure for example). . . yet they manage no one. My last employer had no less than six people with "manager" in their title. The company had about two dozen people. Including the managers. If one of the sales guys bothered to get an MBA, there would literally be no use for him, and if he demanded a raise for a skill they don't need, both sides really would be better off with him just working for a company willing to pay for that.

Part of that might have to do with "managers" having a separate set of laws regarding their employment that exempt them from things like overtime pay.


No, I've seen that happen where we were all salaried.

I worked in an IT department where out of 60 people, 25 were managers at various levels (managers, directors, vice presidents, senior vice president and CIO).

It was helplessly depressing, so twelve of us grunts left at more or less the same time. Meaning there were more Chiefs than Indians for a while there.
 
2012-06-25 07:39:48 PM  
Sometimes, turnover is the goal rather than a failure.

/news at 11
 
2012-06-25 08:10:25 PM  

rohar: Sometimes, turnover is the goal rather than a failure.

/news at 11


I'm rather sedated at the moment (Martini Monday, you see) and my Googleology is bottoming out at Ric Romero levels.

Why would high turnover be a goal at a company hurting for manpower?
 
2012-06-25 08:14:41 PM  

Russ1642: The companies I've been with treat employees as fungible commodities. I can't even fathom the concept of loyalty toward my employer.


THIS. Employers burned that bridge a long time ago.
 
2012-06-25 08:15:43 PM  

MusicMakeMyHeadPound: rohar: Sometimes, turnover is the goal rather than a failure.

/news at 11

I'm rather sedated at the moment (Martini Monday, you see) and my Googleology is bottoming out at Ric Romero levels.

Why would high turnover be a goal at a company hurting for manpower?


That's not quite what I meant.

Every team has an ideal turnover rate. After years of working in the industry, I've found that 20% to 30% per anum is just about perfect for my field. Idealy, I'll have an employee for 3 to 4 years. Any less and I spend too much on recruiting, any more and I have to spend too much on salaries to maintain staff.

Toward the 3 year mark, I should have taught you enough that it's time you move on and lead a team of your own. If not, I'm not doing MY job.
 
2012-06-25 08:16:19 PM  

MusicMakeMyHeadPound: Why would high turnover be a goal at a company hurting for manpower?


Outside of the business context, that is an incredibly homosexual statement.
 
2012-06-25 08:24:56 PM  

LouDobbsAwaaaay: MusicMakeMyHeadPound: Why would high turnover be a goal at a company hurting for manpower?

Outside of the business context, that is an incredibly homosexual statement.


Feeling pretty fabulous, it's true.
 
2012-06-25 08:37:12 PM  

Tobin_Lam: I seem to remember several of my professors saying that companies no longer advance people through the ranks like in the old days. The only way to the top of the ladder is by grabbing a higher rung on another ladder.



Every company I've worked at has preferred to advance from within. It's easier to promote someone who already knows your company and saves you time by not have to do a big outside search.
 
2012-06-25 08:47:46 PM  

MusicMakeMyHeadPound: rohar: Sometimes, turnover is the goal rather than a failure.

/news at 11

I'm rather sedated at the moment (Martini Monday, you see) and my Googleology is bottoming out at Ric Romero levels.

Why would high turnover be a goal at a company hurting for manpower?


I'm at a company right now where the average turnover is 2 years. Combine this with massive, explosive growth (Team of 5 + manager has 5 interns, and is growing to 13 full time by October), and the senior member of our team has been there for 14 months.

I think the basic idea is to get the sort of driven, successful, independent people who want to form startups, teach them how to do so, and then mooch off their good work for 2 years until the stock options and 401K matching vests.

Turnover costs are expensive, but since you're getting better people out of it, it might be worth it.
 
2012-06-25 08:58:18 PM  

Tobin_Lam: I seem to remember several of my professors saying that companies no longer advance people through the ranks like in the old days. The only way to the top of the ladder is by grabbing a higher rung on another ladder.


wingnut396: Tobin_Lam: I seem to remember several of my professors saying that companies no longer advance people through the ranks like in the old days. The only way to the top of the ladder is by grabbing a higher rung on another ladder.

Or convincing your current place you found a rung on another ladder.. but if you work for an asshole, that may backfire.



This is what I do. I've effectively doubled my salary in 5-6 years. Only recently have I started to get questions about all the companies I hop around from. I just shrugged and blamed it on the "poor economy". Seems to work ok.

I told my grandmother one time that in a few years time I had worked for 3 different companies and she was amazed and looked very concerned. She just doesn't get that Americans don't work for 1-2 companies their entire lives anymore.
 
2012-06-25 11:05:20 PM  

poot_rootbeer: OK, no big deal except that only 2 of our computers have enough juice to handle the software. So the project manager is stuck working 65 hours a week for 9 weeks and getting paid for only 40 hours.

I have to presume there was a shortsighted IT policy in place that prevented him from buying extra workstations and bringing them in, in order to save himself the pain of 5 extra work hours every day?

Hell, he could have bought a couple Mac Pros and still come out ahead.


That's what always baffles me when I hear of IT or other departments not being given the resources. What, a machine costs a fraction of a skilled worker's two week pay. The return on investment is easily a net.
 
2012-06-25 11:21:44 PM  
I guess I'm the odd man out here. I've been with the same company for 12 years this September. I've worked in a half-dozen different positions across three states in that time.

I know I could make more somewhere else and will have to at some point. But with two kids under the age of two, I realize that I'm extremely fortunate to have a job where I work from home and have them around me all day. We have a nanny that watches them during the day, but I spend my breaks and lunch with them.

In the long run, I believe that this makes up for whatever monetary gain I could have realized otherwise. And it doesn't hurt that I enjoy what I do and my boss is fantastic about letting me pursue new ideas.
 
2012-06-25 11:59:50 PM  

sure haven't: Tobin_Lam: I seem to remember several of my professors saying that companies no longer advance people through the ranks like in the old days. The only way to the top of the ladder is by grabbing a higher rung on another ladder.

That's not just a saying, it's a reality.
If I hadn't changed jobs about 5 times in the past 8 years, I would still be at my old entry position. I'm fairly along now, and I would argue moreso than most other people in my peer group.
There is no advancement anymore, and there is no "company loyalty". Like in the 50's, when Fred down the street got a gold watch for 30 years with the same company. Of which he rose through the mailroom. That's not today.

I've never been asked about it in a suspicious manner in any job interview. It's expected these days.


I seem to be the exception then. Been at my company 9 years, started as entry-level retail customer service, now I'm a Senior Technical Analyst. I've had 2 raises outside of normal raise cycles (both done by management preemptively to keep me happy) and 5 promotions.

And what everyone else at the company says is the only way to get a decent salary is to find a job at another company.

Meanwhile, my wife gets to stay at home and raise the kid and I've got a cushy desk job playing with computers all day.
 
2012-06-26 12:28:06 AM  
My company sent me to a 5 day intensive training course in preparation for a new management position on a recently acquired job......then proceeded to fill all of the management positions with transfers from the East Coast. Meanwhile I'm languishing in the same supervisory (read: babysitting) position I've been in for 3 years. No wonder I am currently entertaining offers with other companies.
 
2012-06-26 01:31:36 AM  

meyerkev: MusicMakeMyHeadPound: rohar: Sometimes, turnover is the goal rather than a failure.

/news at 11

I'm rather sedated at the moment (Martini Monday, you see) and my Googleology is bottoming out at Ric Romero levels.

Why would high turnover be a goal at a company hurting for manpower?

I'm at a company right now where the average turnover is 2 years. Combine this with massive, explosive growth (Team of 5 + manager has 5 interns, and is growing to 13 full time by October), and the senior member of our team has been there for 14 months.

I think the basic idea is to get the sort of driven, successful, independent people who want to form startups, teach them how to do so, and then mooch off their good work for 2 years until the stock options and 401K matching vests.

Turnover costs are expensive, but since you're getting better people out of it, it might be worth it.


Here's the way it was told to me: "Turnover is like blood pressure. Sure, everyone wants it low, but nobody wants it at zero."
 
2012-06-26 07:55:49 AM  

wingnut396: So I looked for another job and was offered one that increased my pay by about 50%. My boss was PISSED that I put HIM over a barrel. They ended up making a better counter offer, but I had permanently pissed off a boss that should have known better to start off with. You give people more work and responsibility (not really meaning management), you compensate them.


I'd never take a counter offer, nor would I give a counter offer. If someone has gone to the trouble of updating their resume, finding opportunities, running the interview gauntlet, and negotiating an acceptable offer, that person has already checked out of the current job. He's justified in his own mind the move, and possibly demonized his current firm.

I've never - and I mean never - seen anyone last more than a year after a counter offer. It's much better to let the person go, then after a year or so loop back with them and try to re-hire them. At least at that point they've seen exactly how green the grass is on the other side of the fence, and HR won't get all in your grill about giving someone a 20% raise.

HellRaisingHoosier: This is what I do. I've effectively doubled my salary in 5-6 years. Only recently have I started to get questions about all the companies I hop around from. I just shrugged and blamed it on the "poor economy". Seems to work ok.


Yeah, you pretty much have to job hop early in your career (if you're in tech at least) - it goes back to the dilemma: in the early years of a career (particularly in technology), a person's market value grows 15-30% per year, but few firms are going to hold with that rate (although I've seen exceptions). The pressure is always there to keep existing payroll in line with inflation. A net new job has no such restriction, and promotions can be justified (which is why you see re-orgs and top-heavy companies).

My Dad had two jobs his entire life: 30 year career with the Navy, and 15 year career in law enforcement. He was very worried about me and my job-hopping. He's not so much any more, since he can see I'm doing just fine.

However, I'd work on that line a little bit. "Bad economy" only goes so far - people don't let their best people go in a bad economy unless they have to. There's no shame in having your job threatened or even lost due to economic pressures out of your control. But only the incompetent are threatened constantly. Plus, it's not true - you've left because your talent has outstripped their ability to compensate you for it.

My line is "I go into every position with goals I'd like to achieve both in terms of of the business and personal development. Once I've achieved those goals I look for the next opportunity - those opportunities don't always fall within the same organization." That works because it's true. In addition, you're letting the hiring manager know that you are ambitious and although you need to be properly compensated, you will also work your ass off for a goal.
 
2012-06-26 07:59:12 AM  
"Readers, what does your company do to keep employees around?"

Heh, how about "Beat us down until we think that we already work for the only company with enough compassion to allow us to continue to work for them"?

Seems to work for my employer.
 
2012-06-26 09:46:26 AM  

Babwa Wawa: people don't let their best people go in a bad economy unless they have to


Happens all the time, actually. Retail, foodservice and industry -- they have a business model that's based on controlling labor costs first. You can be the best burger-flipper in the state; you're not getting paid more than minimum wage. When the economy starts to slow, they expect you to leave.
 
2012-06-26 09:56:37 AM  

Babwa Wawa: I'd never take a counter offer, nor would I give a counter offer. If someone has gone to the trouble of updating their resume, finding opportunities, running the interview gauntlet, and negotiating an acceptable offer, that person has already checked out of the current job.


Maybe, but also counter-offers just return to the status quo. Nothing meaningful changes. The working conditions aren't any better (why would the company change its dysfunctional habits when you stayed), and money no longer being an issue only makes the problems stand out more. The company has no incentive to improve anything because it never felt the consequences of its mismanagement. I've seen companies dramatically change after they seriously burn themselves with turnover, but the talent has to leave.

I would consider getting re-hired for some of my old jobs, but only after some very obvious changes. Unfortunately, the pointy-haired bosses at my last job weren't going anywhere. Turning down the counter-offer was a no-brainer.
 
2012-06-26 10:11:31 AM  

dragonchild: I would consider getting re-hired for some of my old jobs, but only after some very obvious changes. Unfortunately, the pointy-haired bosses at my last job weren't going anywhere. Turning down the counter-offer was a no-brainer.


This. I have a former employer that tries to hire me back every six months or so.

They still don't get that unless some of the headaches changed and/or I was put into a position to change them, I'm not interested.

Love the people, like the industry, hated the headaches and the "way" they did business.

Meh.
 
Displayed 50 of 57 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
On Twitter





In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report