4 ms·

If things are going well at the company, and you’re learning and developing, you should stay three years–at least. There is no reason to jump ship if you’re lea

If things are going well at the company, and you’re learning and developing, you should stay three years–at least. There is no reason to jump ship if you’re learning and enjoying your time at a company. This arbitrary three-year mark seems a little one-sided. A lot can happen in three years. You can get married, have a kid. Your parents can get sick and ask you come home. You can stumble on a better opportunity. You can get bit by a travel bug. Your spouse may want to move for his/her career. None of these have anything to do with learning and enjoying your time at the company.

tptacek 17y ago
It's one-sided because it's nonsense. There's a million reasons why you might leave in 2 years, 1, or even less, even if things are going well for you at the company. You don't owe them your employment.
- elblanco 17y ago
  I think 2 years is pretty much okay. The first 6 months is learning the organization, the second 6 is putting that into action and trying to make it work. If it's working stay another year and see. If not, move along.
  - nanijoe 17y ago
    Even one week is ok..if the employer thinks its not working out after one week, he/she will usually not hesitate to fire you
- deleted 17y ago
  [deleted]
  - Tichy 17y ago
    Presumably the employees delivered some work in exchange for the investment.
- isleyaardvark 17y ago
  If you really want someone to work for you for 3 years, sign them to a 3 year contract. Of course that would require some sacrifice on the part of the employer. They wouldn't have the lopsided advantage of being able to fire the employee at will, yet expect to shame them into staying for years. There's been a lot of discussion of "entitlement" surrounding this incident, but the only entitlement I'm seeing seems to be coming from the employer side.
- theBobMcCormick 17y ago
  Absolutely correct. If the company wants a three year commitment from their employees, they should be willing to reciprocate. Sign the employee to a 3 year contract guaranteeing they can't be layed off or fired. Seems only fair. "But wait" some will say. "What if the employee turns out to be a dud? The company needs to be able to cut their losses!!". True, but what if the employer turns out to be a dud? Shouldn't the employee also be able to cut their losses?

tptacek 17y ago

It's one-sided because it's nonsense. There's a million reasons why you might leave in 2 years, 1, or even less, even if things are going well for you at the company. You don't owe them your employment.

elblanco 17y ago
I think 2 years is pretty much okay. The first 6 months is learning the organization, the second 6 is putting that into action and trying to make it work. If it's working stay another year and see. If not, move along.
- nanijoe 17y ago
  Even one week is ok..if the employer thinks its not working out after one week, he/she will usually not hesitate to fire you
deleted 17y ago
[deleted]
- Tichy 17y ago
  Presumably the employees delivered some work in exchange for the investment.
isleyaardvark 17y ago
If you really want someone to work for you for 3 years, sign them to a 3 year contract. Of course that would require some sacrifice on the part of the employer. They wouldn't have the lopsided advantage of being able to fire the employee at will, yet expect to shame them into staying for years. There's been a lot of discussion of "entitlement" surrounding this incident, but the only entitlement I'm seeing seems to be coming from the employer side.
theBobMcCormick 17y ago
Absolutely correct. If the company wants a three year commitment from their employees, they should be willing to reciprocate. Sign the employee to a 3 year contract guaranteeing they can't be layed off or fired. Seems only fair. "But wait" some will say. "What if the employee turns out to be a dud? The company needs to be able to cut their losses!!". True, but what if the employer turns out to be a dud? Shouldn't the employee also be able to cut their losses?