- 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

Employers refusing to promote or allow a department transfer
Posted on 6/4/23 at 6:51 am
Posted on 6/4/23 at 6:51 am
I have worked for a number of places that refused to promote employees or even allow a lateral move. Without getting in too much of what I was doing, I was working at one really awful dept that had a constant rotation of new employees. It was not uncommon for some would walk out on their first day of the job.
Meanwhile, there were other entry level positions that were far more enjoyable to work at the same company. Whenever, someone would resign from the enjoyable departments, their manager would send out a mass email informing everyone of the new opening. Afterwards, five or so employees from the lousy departments would apply but obviously only one would get it. The other four would be pissed and one or two would quit. Then an email would go out to the whole company that the lousy jobs would become available. After nobody applied for it, the company would forced to hire an unsuspecting smuck from a temp agency. There was at least a good chance they would quit a day/week/month into their tenure and they would then have to hire another individual who also had no idea what they were getting into.
I suppose you could say the company eventually wised up and no longer emailed all employees when an opening became available in one of the pleasant departments and hired someone directly from a temp agency. Of course, we caught on to what was going on and needlessly to say, were not happy. Eventually, there was a massive wave of layoffs and a number of superior employees from the enjoyable departments would be forced to move to a lousy one. Unfortunately for them, there was no going back.
I get the impression these companies feel it is better to have an employee work 6 months at a lousy position and quit out of frustration than to have them move to a more enjoyable position and retire there.
In regards to promotions, I noticed candidates from outside the organization were given preferential status over the in house employees. I assume it was also due to the fact it would be too difficult to replace the current employees’ position.
From what I was informed, this never seemed to happen back in the 80s and 90s. If someone wanted to change departments, they changed departments. The in-house employees were given preferential status over any outside candidate. If I was a business owner, I wouldn't want an employee who couldn't even at least tolerate their job.
Anyone else experience this?
Posted on 6/4/23 at 7:54 am to BigD43
Its cheaper to hire someone for the position than transfer someone who would expect a pay raise.
Most companies ride you hard and put you away wet. They want you gone after a number of years. Amazon is pretty open about this policy and explains why their comp plans are so back loaded. They want you to quit before the rest of your stock vests.
The day of staying in one place for years is over. It's been over for quite some time.
Most companies ride you hard and put you away wet. They want you gone after a number of years. Amazon is pretty open about this policy and explains why their comp plans are so back loaded. They want you to quit before the rest of your stock vests.
The day of staying in one place for years is over. It's been over for quite some time.
Posted on 6/4/23 at 7:55 am to BigD43
Corporate territoriality is nothing new?
Posted on 6/4/23 at 7:58 am to BigD43
I transferred to another department because they refused to promote me after 5 years. The department I work now is more align with my field. It worked out for me. I do senior level work with no previous experience and my manager likes me
Posted on 6/4/23 at 8:02 am to BigD43
this sounds like $15-20/hour bullshite jobs
Posted on 6/4/23 at 8:16 am to BigD43
You should move from women's wear to shoes. Less drama.
Posted on 6/4/23 at 8:17 am to GreatLakesTiger24
quote:
this sounds like $15-20/hour bullshite jobs
This was no one company I worked for but for one, it was less than $15 an hour. I believe I started at $12.
Posted on 6/4/23 at 8:44 am to BigD43
Humble “I’m in telemarketing” brag
Posted on 6/4/23 at 8:49 am to kywildcatfanone
quote:
You should move from women's wear to shoes. Less drama.
Couldnt disagree more. Just ask Al Bundy.
Posted on 6/4/23 at 8:56 am to BigD43
Yes. The suck position in a public school is special education (sped).
Schools have a difficult time filling their sped spots and they often times tell a candidate for general education they will hire them to fill a sped spot and move them to a general Ed spot when one opens.
Then the school will post a new general Ed position and not hire the sped teachers applying for them and hire new teachers or teachers from other schools to fill the general Ed positions.
The only way a sped teacher gets to move to general Ed is to change schools, change districts or resign and then reapply for the gen Ed spot with the clear understanding they will not return to sped no matter what happens.
I feel bad for the new teachers who come into sped every year saying “I’m only going to be in sped for a year or two then I’m moving to general ed.”.
What’s infuriating is the same principal who tells the new teacher the sped job is temporary will them years later criticize the teacher for applying for gen Ed spots by saying “You are just trying to get an easier job.”
Schools have a difficult time filling their sped spots and they often times tell a candidate for general education they will hire them to fill a sped spot and move them to a general Ed spot when one opens.
Then the school will post a new general Ed position and not hire the sped teachers applying for them and hire new teachers or teachers from other schools to fill the general Ed positions.
The only way a sped teacher gets to move to general Ed is to change schools, change districts or resign and then reapply for the gen Ed spot with the clear understanding they will not return to sped no matter what happens.
I feel bad for the new teachers who come into sped every year saying “I’m only going to be in sped for a year or two then I’m moving to general ed.”.
What’s infuriating is the same principal who tells the new teacher the sped job is temporary will them years later criticize the teacher for applying for gen Ed spots by saying “You are just trying to get an easier job.”
This post was edited on 6/4/23 at 9:01 am
Posted on 6/4/23 at 9:00 am to BigD43
There is no loyalty in relation to anything anymore. Employers like to bitch about employees not being loyal, but frequently they give bonuses exclusively to new hires and that’s it.
Posted on 6/4/23 at 10:23 am to Sofaking2
quote:
Employers like to bitch about employees not being loyal, but frequently they give bonuses exclusively to new hires and that’s it.
A lot of tech jobs are like this. They'll entice you with a fat signing bonus or a sales draw for the first quarter.
My last employer did these extra bonuses outside your comp letter. They had a lot of caveats attached to them but because it wasn't in your comp letter you agreed to, they can make shite up and not pay out.
Posted on 6/4/23 at 10:57 am to Pechon
Employers don't want lateral transfers because it saves on training costs.
Popular
Back to top
