4 ms·

From the description, it sounds like Gov't jobs or industries that work closely (Defense contractors, etc). The advantage is rock solid stability. You know what

From the description, it sounds like Gov't jobs or industries that work closely (Defense contractors, etc). The advantage is rock solid stability. You know what you're getting when you get in, you do some "due paying" and you have excellent long term benefits. This appeals to a great deal of people that want to use that stability to build their lives, like having kids and a house. The company can rest easy knowing their employees are long-term, thus they can groom and train talent while keeping expenses predictable. This isn't the most efficient system, but it is designed to last decades or longer.

jrs235 10y ago
>thus they can groom and train talent while keeping expenses predictable That's the pickle employers that provide training to their employees face that aren't in this setup. The company spends money on training their employees and then the employees, being a more valuable asset, also want more money. So now companies are damned if they train and damned if they don't.
- jrs235 10y ago
  For example, tech companies that spend a few hundred on a pluralsight subscription for their employees will face having to spend thousands more in the near future for demands for higher salaries.
  - balabaster 10y ago
    Or the employee spends the $25 per month on their own subscription and ends up either leaving for another employer that will give them a more beneficial package or using that as leverage for promotion/salary increase.
    - jrs235 10y ago
      Which is where I get hung up. If the company is paying for it and using it like a perk then the company is investing in the employee and losing/risking that investment. If the employee is using their own earned income for it then the employee is investing in themselves and should expect being compensated for their increase in value. So, should companies bother paying for things like pluralsight or leave it up to the employees to invest in themselves?
      - metaphorm 10y ago
        if a company is not willing or able to compensate employees in a manner that satisfies their employees, then they will suffer the consequences (losing their workers). what about that is a hang-up for you?
      - balabaster 10y ago
        This is a double edged question for me... I'd like to work for companies that will invest in me like that, and as long as I see a path for career growth and actually realizing the growth I am seeking, I'll stick around until I'm the CEO. If my employer isn't going to invest in me, I'll invest in myself and make my own career growth. I pay for my own Pluralsight, Safari Online, Resharper and other training resources and tools that help me to grow. Do I see I should have to, well, the tools I believe the company should pay for, but honestly, they make my life easier, so if I can pay for tools to make my life easier, I will and do. The training resources I believe are a part of my career growth and most places I've worked aren't really looking for career employees any more, they're after someone to fill a gap to achieve their current objective. As soon as you help them achieve that objective, they're onto the next one and if your role is no longer useful, "no hard feelings, this is just business." Today's market on the whole (although I've seen resumes that counter this in some cases, but mostly I stand by my observation) just doesn't appear to support people who come in at the bottom in a company, apprentice, get promoted and work their way up to the C Suite. It requires working at a place until you hit the proverbial glass ceiling and when you start to feel resistance to growth, finding a way to sidestep that and frequently that either means leaving or having the company over a barrel by becoming so ingrained in so many of the company's operations that they can't live without you and have to promote you in order to keep you.
  - chrisbennet 10y ago
    So if the company makes the employee worth more should they not have to pay market for that employee? I wouldn't expect the company to benefit from sending an employee to cooking class but if they are learning stuff that benefits the company, and they are worth more as a result, yes you can expect them to have a higher market rate. Look at another way; if you buy a developer a faster computer, do you expect them to not ask for a raise later? "Hey, but we got you a new computer! You should be grateful!"
  - sokoloff 10y ago
    Sounds like "What if we train our employees and then they leave?" "Well, what if we DON'T train them and then they STAY?!"
- crdoconnor 10y ago
  This used to be less of a problem when companies demonstrated loyalty towards their employees. Employees also demonstrated loyalty in return. It was "deemed" more efficient on Wall Street to scale up when needed and lay off everybody when not, though. Apparently that doesn't breed loyalty.
- st3v3r 10y ago
  They're only damned if they don't want to pay what people are worth.
Grishnakh 10y ago
There's no "rock solid stability" in defense contracting. You're only paid as long as there's a contract in place for you to work on; as soon as something goes wrong there, you're on furlough. As least with government jobs, when you get furloughed, you usually get back pay after the dumb government passes a new budget and fixes the problem. But with defense contractors, there's no such thing. The only advantage to being a contractor is more pay (while you're being paid). The downside is more risk. It's also much easier to lose your job; if the client doesn't like you, they can have you leave at any time, and if your employer can't find a place for you to work (a contract for you to bill your hours to), then you get furloughed, and if that goes on too long (they can't find another department that wants to bring you in to work under some contract), then you get laid off. The main advantage to this line of work is that the expectations are pretty low: as long as you're doing at least as well as the government workers (who are usually either not great, or are fresh out of college and only there for a little while until they get a better-paying job in private industry), then you're pretty safe. But I would not call this "rock solid", not like actual government jobs.

jrs235 10y ago

>thus they can groom and train talent while keeping expenses predictable That's the pickle employers that provide training to their employees face that aren't in this setup. The company spends money on training their employees and then the employees, being a more valuable asset, also want more money. So now companies are damned if they train and damned if they don't.

jrs235 10y ago
For example, tech companies that spend a few hundred on a pluralsight subscription for their employees will face having to spend thousands more in the near future for demands for higher salaries.
- balabaster 10y ago
  Or the employee spends the $25 per month on their own subscription and ends up either leaving for another employer that will give them a more beneficial package or using that as leverage for promotion/salary increase.
  - jrs235 10y ago
    Which is where I get hung up. If the company is paying for it and using it like a perk then the company is investing in the employee and losing/risking that investment. If the employee is using their own earned income for it then the employee is investing in themselves and should expect being compensated for their increase in value. So, should companies bother paying for things like pluralsight or leave it up to the employees to invest in themselves?
    - metaphorm 10y ago
      if a company is not willing or able to compensate employees in a manner that satisfies their employees, then they will suffer the consequences (losing their workers). what about that is a hang-up for you?
    - balabaster 10y ago
      This is a double edged question for me... I'd like to work for companies that will invest in me like that, and as long as I see a path for career growth and actually realizing the growth I am seeking, I'll stick around until I'm the CEO. If my employer isn't going to invest in me, I'll invest in myself and make my own career growth. I pay for my own Pluralsight, Safari Online, Resharper and other training resources and tools that help me to grow. Do I see I should have to, well, the tools I believe the company should pay for, but honestly, they make my life easier, so if I can pay for tools to make my life easier, I will and do. The training resources I believe are a part of my career growth and most places I've worked aren't really looking for career employees any more, they're after someone to fill a gap to achieve their current objective. As soon as you help them achieve that objective, they're onto the next one and if your role is no longer useful, "no hard feelings, this is just business." Today's market on the whole (although I've seen resumes that counter this in some cases, but mostly I stand by my observation) just doesn't appear to support people who come in at the bottom in a company, apprentice, get promoted and work their way up to the C Suite. It requires working at a place until you hit the proverbial glass ceiling and when you start to feel resistance to growth, finding a way to sidestep that and frequently that either means leaving or having the company over a barrel by becoming so ingrained in so many of the company's operations that they can't live without you and have to promote you in order to keep you.
- chrisbennet 10y ago
  So if the company makes the employee worth more should they not have to pay market for that employee? I wouldn't expect the company to benefit from sending an employee to cooking class but if they are learning stuff that benefits the company, and they are worth more as a result, yes you can expect them to have a higher market rate. Look at another way; if you buy a developer a faster computer, do you expect them to not ask for a raise later? "Hey, but we got you a new computer! You should be grateful!"
- sokoloff 10y ago
  Sounds like "What if we train our employees and then they leave?" "Well, what if we DON'T train them and then they STAY?!"
crdoconnor 10y ago
This used to be less of a problem when companies demonstrated loyalty towards their employees. Employees also demonstrated loyalty in return. It was "deemed" more efficient on Wall Street to scale up when needed and lay off everybody when not, though. Apparently that doesn't breed loyalty.
st3v3r 10y ago
They're only damned if they don't want to pay what people are worth.

Grishnakh 10y ago

There's no "rock solid stability" in defense contracting. You're only paid as long as there's a contract in place for you to work on; as soon as something goes wrong there, you're on furlough. As least with government jobs, when you get furloughed, you usually get back pay after the dumb government passes a new budget and fixes the problem. But with defense contractors, there's no such thing. The only advantage to being a contractor is more pay (while you're being paid). The downside is more risk. It's also much easier to lose your job; if the client doesn't like you, they can have you leave at any time, and if your employer can't find a place for you to work (a contract for you to bill your hours to), then you get furloughed, and if that goes on too long (they can't find another department that wants to bring you in to work under some contract), then you get laid off. The main advantage to this line of work is that the expectations are pretty low: as long as you're doing at least as well as the government workers (who are usually either not great, or are fresh out of college and only there for a little while until they get a better-paying job in private industry), then you're pretty safe. But I would not call this "rock solid", not like actual government jobs.