3 ms·

Unless you're on the fast track through management, working within the same company for two decades guarantees that you will have difficulty finding a job at an

by d2viant 16y ago

Unless you're on the fast track through management, working within the same company for two decades guarantees that you will have difficulty finding a job at another company should the need arise. Especially in companies like Boeing, where titles such as Internal Auditor and Analyst mean you are essentially a drone doing tasks that do not require critical thinking (I speak from experience). People need to rethink this undue loyalty they have been giving to companies in exchange for a meager pension after 30 years. At some point you need to look out for yourself, your skills and your future employability outside of the company. Perform well at your job, demand the upfront compensation you deserve and take responsibility for your own career...don't leave it in the hands of a large company bureaucracy.

lsc 16y ago
>this undue loyalty they have been giving to companies in exchange for a meager pension after 30 years. I don't know about the private sector, but public sector pensions seem generous to me. Especially if you take the first 'early retirement' plan you can get on, if you live for an above-average period of time, it's really quite a lot of cash. Did you know that after you retire and start drawing a government pension you can go back to work in a different department (while drawing your first pension and a paycheck) and if you stay in that new department for a specified number of years, you can retire again, and draw two pensions? Also, your pension is a percentage of your salary... your salary when you retire, not an average of your salary. That's always been my backup plan, anyhow... if it didn't look like I was going to do ok as a business person by the time I was 30 or so (we're down to a month, and I'd say it looks like I'm doing okay. Not great, but okay.) the plan was to get a government job with a pension. Really, it makes little sense to work for the government when you are young. your pension is calculated based on your age and your years of service, so as far as pension contributions go, years you put in while older earn more pension, and entry-level salaries for most government jobs usually suck compared to the same position in the private sector. so it makes sense to work in the private sector, gain experience and take advantage of the quicker ramp-up in wages while you are young, then at some point switch to a public sector job with a pension as you get older. Now, personally I'm relieved that it looks like I'll be able to make it on my own. I don't really think I have the temperament for public-sector work. But economically speaking, it looks like my backup plan, which is to say, working in the private sector while young and the public sector while old is basically sound. but you do have a good point that staying in one place for 20 years is going to, uh, limit your options when it comes time to move around. I'm just saying, the pensions the public sector kicks out, at least here in California, and assuming you live for a while after you retire, make their total compensation packages look pretty attractive for people capable of that sort of work.
- btmorex 16y ago
  Well, you're betting that government pensions will stay the same (or get better) over the next 20 or so years. That seems to me like a very bad bet to take. California is basically bankrupt from paying government worker pensions (among other reasons). What makes you think those programs will continue? Private industry is pretty much devoid of pensions for new workers now and my best guess is that government isn't very far away from that.
  - lsc 16y ago
    >Private industry is pretty much devoid of pensions for new workers now and my best guess is that government isn't very far away from that. You may very well be correct. I think it depends on how long and deep this recession is, and how much debt we are willing to take on to support the public sector workers and unions. My point was just that, at least for people retiring now, the pension doesn't seem 'meager' - if you can get the deal the people retiring now are getting, it seems like pretty good deal. (Though yes, I don't know if if that will be possible in the future.)
mcritz 16y ago
I completely agree with your point, but it's important to realize the emotional connection people form with thier job. Would you give this advice to an animator at Pixar?
- jasonlotito 16y ago
  I think that advice applies even more at companies like Pixar. But think about what the advice is really suggesting: demand your worth, ensure your skills are still marketable, take responsibility. If you're working at Pixar, chances are you are still advancing your skills. You are still marketable. But if Pixar suddenly stagnated, if your advancement stopped, and you were no longer staying up with the market, you have only yourself to blame. Why is it "even more important" at Pixar? Because they are so well known, it's important to evaluate where you are. It's the same for people from Google. Google offers a great work environment, but people still leave. Why? They outgrow Google. They take responsibility, and move forward. As long as your employer is still pushing you forward, by all means stay. The advice isn't to give up on something you love that is helping you. It's when it stops helping you that you need to evaluate that relationship.
lkrubner 16y ago
>People need to rethink this undue loyalty they have been giving to >companies in exchange for a meager pension after 30 years. I do not see the loyalty that you speak of. I see a craving for security. I see a strong desire to stay at one place for 15 years (or 20, or 30). I know a lot of people for whom work is not the #1 priority. (I am not judging these people. They are all healthier, happier, nicer and more sane than I am.) For some of the younger ones, there priorities might be: 1.) education 2.) romantic partner 3.) family 4.) social life 5.) hobbies (motor cycle racing, video games, knitting, yoga, jogging, sailing, fishing, etc) 6.) work For some of the older ones, their priorities might be: 1.) children 2.) romantic partner 3.) parents (if parents are still alive) 4.) social life 5.) hobbies (motor cycle racing, video games, knitting, yoga, jogging, sailing, fishing, etc) 6.) work Work is nowhere near their top priority, though the money it provides forms the basis of everything else they do. But their focus is on the "everything else" rather than the work. To jump around from job to job usually means that work is your #1 priority (or maybe #2). It means you need to keep your skills razor sharp and up-to-date. It means you constantly confront the realities of the market. A great surfer doesn't daydream when they are riding a dangerous wave - that would get them killed. Likewise, a successful freelancer doesn't ignore the market - that will get them killed financially. But, again, when I say all this, I'm not being judgmental about the folks for whom work is the #5th or #6th or #7th priority. I've several friends in that category, and they are all healthier, happier, nicer and more sane than I am. But I do not see the loyalty you speak of. To be truly loyal, these folks would make work their #1 priority and would give 100% of their energy to the corporation. There are exceptions, but that is not what I generally see. In the last 10 years, I've twice worked stints in big corporations. What I saw were a lot of people who would work a strict 9-to-5 schedule, and they would be gone by 4:30 on Fridays. They gave the corporations the minimum effort to keep the job, rather than giving 100% of what they were capable of. That is not what I would describe as loyalty. However, the corporations were in no way loyal to the workers, so the worker's lack of loyalty was wholly rational and entirely justified. The relationship between big corporations and their workers can get dysfunctional. I see that as one of the big problems that big corporations need to wrestle with - possibly the biggest problem that large organizations face is this problem of motivation. Small companies have a different set of problems.
- 16y ago

by d2viant 16y ago

lsc 16y ago

>this undue loyalty they have been giving to companies in exchange for a meager pension after 30 years. I don't know about the private sector, but public sector pensions seem generous to me. Especially if you take the first 'early retirement' plan you can get on, if you live for an above-average period of time, it's really quite a lot of cash. Did you know that after you retire and start drawing a government pension you can go back to work in a different department (while drawing your first pension and a paycheck) and if you stay in that new department for a specified number of years, you can retire again, and draw two pensions? Also, your pension is a percentage of your salary... your salary when you retire, not an average of your salary. That's always been my backup plan, anyhow... if it didn't look like I was going to do ok as a business person by the time I was 30 or so (we're down to a month, and I'd say it looks like I'm doing okay. Not great, but okay.) the plan was to get a government job with a pension. Really, it makes little sense to work for the government when you are young. your pension is calculated based on your age and your years of service, so as far as pension contributions go, years you put in while older earn more pension, and entry-level salaries for most government jobs usually suck compared to the same position in the private sector. so it makes sense to work in the private sector, gain experience and take advantage of the quicker ramp-up in wages while you are young, then at some point switch to a public sector job with a pension as you get older. Now, personally I'm relieved that it looks like I'll be able to make it on my own. I don't really think I have the temperament for public-sector work. But economically speaking, it looks like my backup plan, which is to say, working in the private sector while young and the public sector while old is basically sound. but you do have a good point that staying in one place for 20 years is going to, uh, limit your options when it comes time to move around. I'm just saying, the pensions the public sector kicks out, at least here in California, and assuming you live for a while after you retire, make their total compensation packages look pretty attractive for people capable of that sort of work.

btmorex 16y ago
Well, you're betting that government pensions will stay the same (or get better) over the next 20 or so years. That seems to me like a very bad bet to take. California is basically bankrupt from paying government worker pensions (among other reasons). What makes you think those programs will continue? Private industry is pretty much devoid of pensions for new workers now and my best guess is that government isn't very far away from that.
- lsc 16y ago
  >Private industry is pretty much devoid of pensions for new workers now and my best guess is that government isn't very far away from that. You may very well be correct. I think it depends on how long and deep this recession is, and how much debt we are willing to take on to support the public sector workers and unions. My point was just that, at least for people retiring now, the pension doesn't seem 'meager' - if you can get the deal the people retiring now are getting, it seems like pretty good deal. (Though yes, I don't know if if that will be possible in the future.)

mcritz 16y ago

I completely agree with your point, but it's important to realize the emotional connection people form with thier job. Would you give this advice to an animator at Pixar?

jasonlotito 16y ago
I think that advice applies even more at companies like Pixar. But think about what the advice is really suggesting: demand your worth, ensure your skills are still marketable, take responsibility. If you're working at Pixar, chances are you are still advancing your skills. You are still marketable. But if Pixar suddenly stagnated, if your advancement stopped, and you were no longer staying up with the market, you have only yourself to blame. Why is it "even more important" at Pixar? Because they are so well known, it's important to evaluate where you are. It's the same for people from Google. Google offers a great work environment, but people still leave. Why? They outgrow Google. They take responsibility, and move forward. As long as your employer is still pushing you forward, by all means stay. The advice isn't to give up on something you love that is helping you. It's when it stops helping you that you need to evaluate that relationship.

lkrubner 16y ago

>People need to rethink this undue loyalty they have been giving to >companies in exchange for a meager pension after 30 years. I do not see the loyalty that you speak of. I see a craving for security. I see a strong desire to stay at one place for 15 years (or 20, or 30). I know a lot of people for whom work is not the #1 priority. (I am not judging these people. They are all healthier, happier, nicer and more sane than I am.) For some of the younger ones, there priorities might be: 1.) education 2.) romantic partner 3.) family 4.) social life 5.) hobbies (motor cycle racing, video games, knitting, yoga, jogging, sailing, fishing, etc) 6.) work For some of the older ones, their priorities might be: 1.) children 2.) romantic partner 3.) parents (if parents are still alive) 4.) social life 5.) hobbies (motor cycle racing, video games, knitting, yoga, jogging, sailing, fishing, etc) 6.) work Work is nowhere near their top priority, though the money it provides forms the basis of everything else they do. But their focus is on the "everything else" rather than the work. To jump around from job to job usually means that work is your #1 priority (or maybe #2). It means you need to keep your skills razor sharp and up-to-date. It means you constantly confront the realities of the market. A great surfer doesn't daydream when they are riding a dangerous wave - that would get them killed. Likewise, a successful freelancer doesn't ignore the market - that will get them killed financially. But, again, when I say all this, I'm not being judgmental about the folks for whom work is the #5th or #6th or #7th priority. I've several friends in that category, and they are all healthier, happier, nicer and more sane than I am. But I do not see the loyalty you speak of. To be truly loyal, these folks would make work their #1 priority and would give 100% of their energy to the corporation. There are exceptions, but that is not what I generally see. In the last 10 years, I've twice worked stints in big corporations. What I saw were a lot of people who would work a strict 9-to-5 schedule, and they would be gone by 4:30 on Fridays. They gave the corporations the minimum effort to keep the job, rather than giving 100% of what they were capable of. That is not what I would describe as loyalty. However, the corporations were in no way loyal to the workers, so the worker's lack of loyalty was wholly rational and entirely justified. The relationship between big corporations and their workers can get dysfunctional. I see that as one of the big problems that big corporations need to wrestle with - possibly the biggest problem that large organizations face is this problem of motivation. Small companies have a different set of problems.

16y ago