- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: Changing jobs frequently
Posted on 6/9/22 at 9:06 am to Henry Jones Jr
Posted on 6/9/22 at 9:06 am to Henry Jones Jr
quote:
forces jobs to post the salaries for each employee along with their tenure.
yeah, that sounds like a turrible idea.
1
Posted on 6/9/22 at 9:07 am to MorbidTheClown
Why? Because it forces companies to pay each employee equally and not waste someone’s time.
Posted on 6/9/22 at 9:10 am to Henry Jones Jr
because "tenure" doesn't mean anything. a guy with 35 years tenure who does jack shite should be paid more than a guy with 5 years who works his arse off?
also, it creates hostility between employees.
also, it creates hostility between employees.
Posted on 6/9/22 at 9:10 am to Ole Boy
A lot of times changing companies is the best way to get a raise. I’ll never fault anyone for going after a better opportunity. I also have no problem with people leaving a job right away instead of giving a 2 week notice since companies will not give you a 2 week notice before laying you off.
Posted on 6/9/22 at 9:12 am to Jon Ham
This particular contractor has projects they do and certain projects come with insane time pressure to get everything done, mainly major upgrades. (The upgrade in question was jumping three versions of software in about a year timeframe. Everyone involved was massively overworked during this but those contractors were doing 60-70 hour weeks.)
There have been people working for them for years who have been good with it, just changing sites occasionally, but we’ve also had people quit over it and at least one acknowledged suicide.
There have been people working for them for years who have been good with it, just changing sites occasionally, but we’ve also had people quit over it and at least one acknowledged suicide.
Posted on 6/9/22 at 9:12 am to Henry Jones Jr
quote:
That would force companies to stop wasting everyone’s time by trying to negotiate pay.
And it becomes even more insidious when accounting information imbalances are used. What is an employee supposed to respond to “Joe, you’re a great employee. You do your job perfectly. You’re competent, reliable, and it would be next to impossible to replace you. But I’m sorry, we just don’t have the finances right now to give you a raise. But you have my word that as soon as we do, you’ll be at the top of the list!”
Not only is there no arguing or negotiating with that, there is no way for the employee to verify whether or not it’s true. Which is why so many employers use lines like that, even when it isn’t.
Posted on 6/9/22 at 9:13 am to MorbidTheClown
quote:
because "tenure" doesn't mean anything. a guy with 35 years tenure who does jack shite should be paid more than a guy with 5 years who works his arse off?
100% agree with that. Pay scales that are primarily tenure based are lazy.
Eta: but the larger issue with that paradigm is that any organization that allows unproductive employees to stick around is sitting on a time bomb, because there is no way to make it work. Tenured employees always think they deserve more, and your hard working employees are almost always going to burn out and leave. The ones that don’t become lazy tenured employees.
This post was edited on 6/9/22 at 9:16 am
Posted on 6/9/22 at 9:14 am to Joshjrn
quote:
“Joe, you’re a great employee. You do your job perfectly. You’re competent, reliable, and it would be next to impossible to replace you. But I’m sorry, we just don’t have the finances right now to give you a raise. But you have my word that as soon as we do, you’ll be at the top of the list!”
And then they hire the guy next to you at 10k over what you're making.
Which is why people job hop now.
Posted on 6/9/22 at 9:15 am to The Third Leg
quote:
Corporate loyalty died and so did employee loyalty. It is rare to find companies that are good places to be for years on end.
The older I get, the more I realize how true this is.
Posted on 6/9/22 at 9:15 am to Joshjrn
quote:
Pay scales that are primarily tenure based are lazy.
You just described the entire US government, and most state and local governments.
Which of course is not surprising based on the quality of employees of said agencies.
Posted on 6/9/22 at 9:15 am to Jon Ham
Its really not that bad a thing as long as youre doing what you want and making ends meet.
Particularly today when skill means less and people are more or less plug and play.
Particularly today when skill means less and people are more or less plug and play.
Posted on 6/9/22 at 9:16 am to Henry Jones Jr
quote:
Why? Because it forces companies to pay each employee equally and not waste someone’s time.
Should they get paid equally? I believe in performance based pay.
Posted on 6/9/22 at 9:25 am to JDPndahizzy
quote:
Should they get paid equally? I believe in performance based pay.
Performance based pay is extremely difficult to manage outside of jobs that have easily tracked performance metrics, like sales. I’ll admit that I’m no expert in the area, but in my experience, this is the best combo you can create:
1. Create a clear, published pay rubric that takes into consideration as many relevant factors as practical (tenure, job description, role, tier, etc)
2. Create clear minimum performance standards for each position/role/tier
3. Create “extra roles” for people to take on if they want to increase their pay outside of the base rubric.
And here is the really, really difficult part that no one wants to do:
4. You give clear, frequent performance reviews in which you alert underperforming employees of their performance, lay out a timeline on which you expect to see improvement, and if you do not see the needed improvement on that timeline, you actually follow through on the demotion or termination.
Posted on 6/9/22 at 9:28 am to Ole Boy
quote:
Is this just the norm these days? Looking at Linkedin and most people are averaging a job every couple of years. I would blame it on low paying jobs but most are management positions.
Benefits are terrible nowadays. There is no incentive to stay with one company for most people past their 401K being fully vested. Long gone are the days of building up a pension for retirement with one company.
Posted on 6/9/22 at 9:30 am to Ole Boy
Look man, if Company B is offering me more money and better equal and probably more opportunities, I'll probably jump from Company A to B. Which is exactly what I did about a month ago. Worked for a company for 10 months and had an opportunity fall in my lap that met all the parameters of the first sentence of this post I said "thanks for the opportunity" to Company A.
The way I look at it is if Company A had to make a money decision, they wouldn't hesitate to fire my arse.
The way I look at it is if Company A had to make a money decision, they wouldn't hesitate to fire my arse.
Posted on 6/9/22 at 9:32 am to Ole Boy
quote:
Is this just the norm these days?
In general, yes.
Companies aren't showing much loyalty to employees, and over time employees have stopped showing loyalty to companies. Employees who stick around for a long time typically get paid way less and get stuck with more work and responsibility because of their institutional knowledge.
Even contractual/gig work is getting to be more and more popular because it allows people to dictate their own working conditions and hours.
In other words..
This post was edited on 6/9/22 at 9:33 am
Posted on 6/9/22 at 9:34 am to Joshjrn
quote:
Performance based pay is extremely difficult to manage outside of jobs that have easily tracked performance metrics, like sales. I’ll admit that I’m no expert in the area, but in my experience, this is the best combo you can create:
1. Create a clear, published pay rubric that takes into consideration as many relevant factors as practical (tenure, job description, role, tier, etc)
2. Create clear minimum performance standards for each position/role/tier
3. Create “extra roles” for people to take on if they want to increase their pay outside of the base rubric.
And here is the really, really difficult part that no one wants to do:
4. You give clear, frequent performance reviews in which you alert underperforming employees of their performance, lay out a timeline on which you expect to see improvement, and if you do not see the needed improvement on that timeline, you actually follow through on the demotion or termination.
Can't disagree with everything you just said. Especially #3 for those that are high achievers.
Posted on 6/9/22 at 9:35 am to Henry Jones Jr
quote:
One of the biggest lies corporate America tells people is that “you can’t discuss each other’s salaries. That’s illegal!” but it’s not. They just don’t want you to know someone who is doing the same job as you with the same tenure is getting paid 15% more for whatever reason
I believe it's actually illegal for an employer to forbid salary discussions among employees.
Everyone should be discussing salary with coworkers, it only benefits the company to keep that secret.
Posted on 6/9/22 at 9:37 am to Ole Boy
I’ve been with my current employer about 20 years, 5 years then 5 years my first true employer was 9 years including 5 years college.
Posted on 6/9/22 at 9:38 am to GreatLakesTiger24
quote:
i see this on linkedin all the time and it's just not true
people leave jobs because they're bored with their job duties and/or unsatisfied with their pay all the time. that's not necessarily a "toxic culture"
I agree with this. I wasn't even necessarily unsatisfied with my pay or job duties at my previous company. I just got a better offer. Hell, I still talk to and golf with my old coworkers regularly.
Page 2 of 5
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News