4 ms·

Everyone says, "don't take the counter offer." Here's what I'm wondering: Why can't rank-and-file employees negotiate some type of agreement where they get pai

Everyone says, "don't take the counter offer." Here's what I'm wondering: Why can't rank-and-file employees negotiate some type of agreement where they get paid to stay? It doesn't make any sense that companies put a "value" on retention, but don't put a $$$ value on it.

tptacek 16y ago
You can; it's called "yearly performance review".
ScottBurson 16y ago
I think employers are missing an opportunity by not doing this. In a high-tech business, an employee with several years' experience with the company's products can be worth several times as much as one who has been around only a few months to a year, even if the latter is qualified and talented -- some of these products are just so complex it takes years to learn their ins and outs. It only stands to reason that retention bonuses for the long-time employees would be money well spent. And I mean substantial retention bonuses, on the order of 100% of salary. I don't mean for every employee, but for the stars.
anamax 16y ago
> Why can't rank-and-file employees negotiate some type of agreement where they get paid to stay? It's called salary and other compensation. > It doesn't make any sense that companies put a "value" on retention, but don't put a $$$ value on it. You're missing the point. Once someone has accepted an offer from somewhere else, they're very likely to leave soon even if they accept a counter-offer. As a result, money spent on them is wasted. Effective retention spending happens before people decide to leave.
- wisty 16y ago
  I don't think that's they point they are missing. They know that an employees who shops is "damaged goods", but they don't know why employers don't give pre-emptive raises to everyone, and avoid the confrontations altogether. The point they are missing is, that companies know they can skimp on 'retention bonuses', because only a few employees will shop for a better offer. Would you rather hire a hard-working, but downtrodden slave; or a hired gun who's only staying because you are paying them what you are worth? Exactly. The only solution is for enough employees to churn their way to decent positions, so companies are forced to assume that an underplayed employee will quit.
HeyLaughingBoy 16y ago
In unusual cases they do. Around the end of the dot-com boom (2000+) the company I was working for for offered a bunch of us bonuses of 20-25%, paid each paycheck, as a "retention benefit." IIRC, they did it for about 3 years. There was no written or verbal agreement to stay, they just made it very clear that they realized that our job options had increased considerably and wanted to give us more incentive to stay. Some people probably negotiated higher amounts, but since I was already being paid more than I knew what to do with and the job was really a lot of fun, I just happily pocketed the money.

tptacek 16y ago

You can; it's called "yearly performance review".

ScottBurson 16y ago

I think employers are missing an opportunity by not doing this. In a high-tech business, an employee with several years' experience with the company's products can be worth several times as much as one who has been around only a few months to a year, even if the latter is qualified and talented -- some of these products are just so complex it takes years to learn their ins and outs. It only stands to reason that retention bonuses for the long-time employees would be money well spent. And I mean substantial retention bonuses, on the order of 100% of salary. I don't mean for every employee, but for the stars.

anamax 16y ago

> Why can't rank-and-file employees negotiate some type of agreement where they get paid to stay? It's called salary and other compensation. > It doesn't make any sense that companies put a "value" on retention, but don't put a $$$ value on it. You're missing the point. Once someone has accepted an offer from somewhere else, they're very likely to leave soon even if they accept a counter-offer. As a result, money spent on them is wasted. Effective retention spending happens before people decide to leave.

wisty 16y ago
I don't think that's they point they are missing. They know that an employees who shops is "damaged goods", but they don't know why employers don't give pre-emptive raises to everyone, and avoid the confrontations altogether. The point they are missing is, that companies know they can skimp on 'retention bonuses', because only a few employees will shop for a better offer. Would you rather hire a hard-working, but downtrodden slave; or a hired gun who's only staying because you are paying them what you are worth? Exactly. The only solution is for enough employees to churn their way to decent positions, so companies are forced to assume that an underplayed employee will quit.

HeyLaughingBoy 16y ago

In unusual cases they do. Around the end of the dot-com boom (2000+) the company I was working for for offered a bunch of us bonuses of 20-25%, paid each paycheck, as a "retention benefit." IIRC, they did it for about 3 years. There was no written or verbal agreement to stay, they just made it very clear that they realized that our job options had increased considerably and wanted to give us more incentive to stay. Some people probably negotiated higher amounts, but since I was already being paid more than I knew what to do with and the job was really a lot of fun, I just happily pocketed the money.