5 ms·

"Value" does not just comprise of "coding ability". "Attitude" is a key part of it, and I guarantee you the vast majority of all hiring managers everywhere woul

"Value" does not just comprise of "coding ability". "Attitude" is a key part of it, and I guarantee you the vast majority of all hiring managers everywhere would eliminate a candidate if they demonstrated high entitlement during the interview process. If they somehow get hired because that quality was hidden somehow during the interview process, the moment it surfaced, there would be behind-the-scenes discussions on how to cut that person from the team or company, because they are destroying morale with the rest of the team. I am intrigued by the downvotes, because I am not saying anything controversial or disconnected from reality. People may not like it, but if they're so sure of their position, I do encourage them to put an equivalent line of the counter-argument on their resume when they're applying for their next job. One more point: I make my comments having done all sides: Employee, independent contractor, employer. You are never prevented from leaving to start your own thing, as the original commenter indicated. But harbour no illusions that working full time for someone in an employment agreement allows you to act like you're an independent contractor that can randomly walk away. You can certainly give your two weeks notice and do so, but after the 2nd time, you'll be radioactive in the job market.

kaba0 5y ago
> "Attitude" is a key part of it, and I guarantee you the vast majority of all hiring managers everywhere would eliminate a candidate if they demonstrated high entitlement during the interview process. I do agree with you that not only technical abilities are considered, for good reason. But not standing up for ourselves and letting us being bullied and exploited by higher ups is not an attitude in my book. We may have read the story very differently, and of course we only got one viewpoint on what happened. But I think you would agree that there are exploitive bosses (just as there are many great leaders), and there are many who simply can’t stand up for themselves in a corporate environment.
- forgingahead 5y ago
  Certainly, there are plenty of exploitative bosses and we should definitely encourage people to stand up for themselves. I provide new hires with several books, one of which is a book on personal finances that includes a chapter on negotiating a higher salary. It's important to me that people are empowered in their work and their lives. But this is not the story of the comment I was engaging with. The original comment stated: Boss: What's stopping you from doing this every time you don't get your way? Commenter: Nothing. That's how negotiating an employment relationship works. Holy shit. Again for context, the original story stated that the bonus was brought up but the criteria for receiving it was never officially documented or agreed upon. The bosses decided on 30%, and the poster felt entitled for more. He's certainly entitled to feel that, and he's certainly entitled to make his case for it. He's also certainly entitled to resign if he didn't get his way. But to threaten to resign if he didn't get it, and then resign anyway once he did get it, is just poor form. Like I said, he can do it, he did do it, the company can't and didn't claw it back after he resigned, it's now 15 years later, but this story does not portray the protagonist in a positive light for hiring again in the future. That should not be a controversial statement. You should always know your value and worth, and this goes BOTH ways. I would say the same about any role, whether it's sales, marketing, HR, ops, customer service, or whatever else. One can't be unreliable in a company, and expect that not to be a problem for future job opportunities.
  - kaba0 5y ago
    I do respect your opinion on the topic and you seem to just look at the story from the employer’s point of view, as opposed to perhaps the majority of people here, who rather “root” for the underdog. But I still don’t disagree entirely with the quoted part. > Boss: What's stopping you from doing this every time you don't get your way? Downscaling the dramatic effect of the exact text a bit, I think the response is fair, if we mean under “don’t get your way” something significant. Like how about a transfer to a different building? A good boss should ask a given employee beforehand, whether it is feasible for him/her, but if it was already decided and the employee can’t have a say, pretty much resignation is the only “tool” he/she can leverage. Even at pay negotiation, while seldom brought up explicitly, resigning is there implicitly. All in all, I think talking about the exact incident is fruitless, because we only got an anecdotal story without both sides, so I think you and I “drew” the rest of the story differently.
  - soulbadguy 5y ago
    You seems to have a very 'personal' view of the employee/employer relationships. But i think the core of the issue is that for the last 40 years, corporation in general, have work very hard to "depersonalize" this relationship to the point where most employee have lost any sense of loyalty. So the way to see this is as a legal business relationship where every party maximize they own interest and they is nothing wrong about that. An employer should'nt takes is personally. I see this weird dichotomy every time on asker news or in corporate america : Companies treat employee like a resources and try to extract maximum value out of them (like promising a vague bonus and giving only 30% of the target without clear explanation) and get confused when employee do the same. > But to threaten to resign if he didn't get it, and then resign anyway once he did get it, is just poor form No the bonus was paid for service rendered. After that his continue employment was subject to renegotiation. Let's not forget that the employment term were probably "at will" on the demand of the employer. OP felt that his employer broke his trust ? Would you work with someone you don't trust ? > That should not be a controversial statement. I honestly think it is. And i think your statement are really pro employer and doesn't reflect the current state of the average modern employer/employee relationship. > One can't be unreliable in a company, and expect that not to be a problem for future job opportunities. That OP did meet his requirements meant he is not unreliable. If OP wasn't providing value at the company , he would have been fired a while ago. Reliability, as everything has a cost, in this case it was paying the full amount of the bonus...
inimino 5y ago
> I guarantee you the vast majority of all hiring managers everywhere You're qualified to speak for a majority of hiring managers everywhere? Maybe you meant in a relatively small geographic area, in a relatively small number of companies? Maybe some of the same ones that colluded to keep salaries low by making illegal agreements amongst themselves? The problem with most discussions on this topic is that everyone thinks their own experience is universal. Incidentally, what you're assuming is that your internalized reality (of being allowed to resign at most twice per career) is real for everyone. It absolutely is not, which is why you're getting downvoted.
- forgingahead 5y ago
  You're qualified to speak for a majority of hiring managers everywhere? As I stated, feel free to place your counter-point in your resume next time you're looking at next steps. We are unlikely to cross paths in the professional world, but I would be happy to hear about your positive success in the job market with these statements prominently displayed. your internalized reality (of being allowed to resign at most twice per career) is real for everyone That is not what I stated so please don't misrepresent it. The discussion is about resigning or threatening to resign whenever you don't get your way in a company. The original comment stated: Boss: What's stopping you from doing this every time you don't get your way? Commenter: Nothing. That's how negotiating an employment relationship works. Holy shit. Again for context, the original story stated that the bonus was brought up but the criteria for receiving it was never officially documented or agreed upon. The bosses decided on 30%, and the poster felt entitled for more. He's certainly entitled to feel that, and he's certainly entitled to make his case for it. He's also certainly entitled to resign if he didn't get his way. But to threaten to resign if he didn't get it, and then resign anyway once he did get it, is just poor form. Like I said, he can do it, he did do it, the company can't and didn't claw it back after he resigned, it's now 15 years later, but this story does not portray the protagonist in a positive light for hiring again in the future.
  - soulbadguy 5y ago
    > As I stated, feel free to place your counter-point in your resume next time you're looking at next steps. We are unlikely to cross paths in the professional world, but I would be happy to hear about your positive success in the job market with these statements prominently displayed. Which statements ? like saying on your resume "I quit my job because i didnt get the bonus i felt entitled to" ? This is hardly a good metric. Most people when reading a piece of information would have the tendency to assign blame to the party they do not identify with. The way to look at it, if you were to ask the employer to add to the job description "The last guy who this job quit he didn't get the bonus he felt entitled to" would equally deter job applicants. And second , some people can absolutely pool this off, depending on how valuable they are to the company.
kevinmchugh 5y ago
Negotiating is expensive, and constant renegotiation is bad for morale. Employers wishing to avoid that should not change the terms of the agreement by eg requiring or expecting crunch time. Such a change is an act of renegotiation, and employees will leave (BATNA) or negotiate for more compensation. If employers do not wish to add additional compensation to match their changed expectation, well, OP had his resignation in hand.

kaba0 5y ago

> "Attitude" is a key part of it, and I guarantee you the vast majority of all hiring managers everywhere would eliminate a candidate if they demonstrated high entitlement during the interview process. I do agree with you that not only technical abilities are considered, for good reason. But not standing up for ourselves and letting us being bullied and exploited by higher ups is not an attitude in my book. We may have read the story very differently, and of course we only got one viewpoint on what happened. But I think you would agree that there are exploitive bosses (just as there are many great leaders), and there are many who simply can’t stand up for themselves in a corporate environment.

forgingahead 5y ago
Certainly, there are plenty of exploitative bosses and we should definitely encourage people to stand up for themselves. I provide new hires with several books, one of which is a book on personal finances that includes a chapter on negotiating a higher salary. It's important to me that people are empowered in their work and their lives. But this is not the story of the comment I was engaging with. The original comment stated: Boss: What's stopping you from doing this every time you don't get your way? Commenter: Nothing. That's how negotiating an employment relationship works. Holy shit. Again for context, the original story stated that the bonus was brought up but the criteria for receiving it was never officially documented or agreed upon. The bosses decided on 30%, and the poster felt entitled for more. He's certainly entitled to feel that, and he's certainly entitled to make his case for it. He's also certainly entitled to resign if he didn't get his way. But to threaten to resign if he didn't get it, and then resign anyway once he did get it, is just poor form. Like I said, he can do it, he did do it, the company can't and didn't claw it back after he resigned, it's now 15 years later, but this story does not portray the protagonist in a positive light for hiring again in the future. That should not be a controversial statement. You should always know your value and worth, and this goes BOTH ways. I would say the same about any role, whether it's sales, marketing, HR, ops, customer service, or whatever else. One can't be unreliable in a company, and expect that not to be a problem for future job opportunities.
- kaba0 5y ago
  I do respect your opinion on the topic and you seem to just look at the story from the employer’s point of view, as opposed to perhaps the majority of people here, who rather “root” for the underdog. But I still don’t disagree entirely with the quoted part. > Boss: What's stopping you from doing this every time you don't get your way? Downscaling the dramatic effect of the exact text a bit, I think the response is fair, if we mean under “don’t get your way” something significant. Like how about a transfer to a different building? A good boss should ask a given employee beforehand, whether it is feasible for him/her, but if it was already decided and the employee can’t have a say, pretty much resignation is the only “tool” he/she can leverage. Even at pay negotiation, while seldom brought up explicitly, resigning is there implicitly. All in all, I think talking about the exact incident is fruitless, because we only got an anecdotal story without both sides, so I think you and I “drew” the rest of the story differently.
- soulbadguy 5y ago
  You seems to have a very 'personal' view of the employee/employer relationships. But i think the core of the issue is that for the last 40 years, corporation in general, have work very hard to "depersonalize" this relationship to the point where most employee have lost any sense of loyalty. So the way to see this is as a legal business relationship where every party maximize they own interest and they is nothing wrong about that. An employer should'nt takes is personally. I see this weird dichotomy every time on asker news or in corporate america : Companies treat employee like a resources and try to extract maximum value out of them (like promising a vague bonus and giving only 30% of the target without clear explanation) and get confused when employee do the same. > But to threaten to resign if he didn't get it, and then resign anyway once he did get it, is just poor form No the bonus was paid for service rendered. After that his continue employment was subject to renegotiation. Let's not forget that the employment term were probably "at will" on the demand of the employer. OP felt that his employer broke his trust ? Would you work with someone you don't trust ? > That should not be a controversial statement. I honestly think it is. And i think your statement are really pro employer and doesn't reflect the current state of the average modern employer/employee relationship. > One can't be unreliable in a company, and expect that not to be a problem for future job opportunities. That OP did meet his requirements meant he is not unreliable. If OP wasn't providing value at the company , he would have been fired a while ago. Reliability, as everything has a cost, in this case it was paying the full amount of the bonus...

inimino 5y ago

> I guarantee you the vast majority of all hiring managers everywhere You're qualified to speak for a majority of hiring managers everywhere? Maybe you meant in a relatively small geographic area, in a relatively small number of companies? Maybe some of the same ones that colluded to keep salaries low by making illegal agreements amongst themselves? The problem with most discussions on this topic is that everyone thinks their own experience is universal. Incidentally, what you're assuming is that your internalized reality (of being allowed to resign at most twice per career) is real for everyone. It absolutely is not, which is why you're getting downvoted.

forgingahead 5y ago
You're qualified to speak for a majority of hiring managers everywhere? As I stated, feel free to place your counter-point in your resume next time you're looking at next steps. We are unlikely to cross paths in the professional world, but I would be happy to hear about your positive success in the job market with these statements prominently displayed. your internalized reality (of being allowed to resign at most twice per career) is real for everyone That is not what I stated so please don't misrepresent it. The discussion is about resigning or threatening to resign whenever you don't get your way in a company. The original comment stated: Boss: What's stopping you from doing this every time you don't get your way? Commenter: Nothing. That's how negotiating an employment relationship works. Holy shit. Again for context, the original story stated that the bonus was brought up but the criteria for receiving it was never officially documented or agreed upon. The bosses decided on 30%, and the poster felt entitled for more. He's certainly entitled to feel that, and he's certainly entitled to make his case for it. He's also certainly entitled to resign if he didn't get his way. But to threaten to resign if he didn't get it, and then resign anyway once he did get it, is just poor form. Like I said, he can do it, he did do it, the company can't and didn't claw it back after he resigned, it's now 15 years later, but this story does not portray the protagonist in a positive light for hiring again in the future.
- soulbadguy 5y ago
  > As I stated, feel free to place your counter-point in your resume next time you're looking at next steps. We are unlikely to cross paths in the professional world, but I would be happy to hear about your positive success in the job market with these statements prominently displayed. Which statements ? like saying on your resume "I quit my job because i didnt get the bonus i felt entitled to" ? This is hardly a good metric. Most people when reading a piece of information would have the tendency to assign blame to the party they do not identify with. The way to look at it, if you were to ask the employer to add to the job description "The last guy who this job quit he didn't get the bonus he felt entitled to" would equally deter job applicants. And second , some people can absolutely pool this off, depending on how valuable they are to the company.

kevinmchugh 5y ago

Negotiating is expensive, and constant renegotiation is bad for morale. Employers wishing to avoid that should not change the terms of the agreement by eg requiring or expecting crunch time. Such a change is an act of renegotiation, and employees will leave (BATNA) or negotiate for more compensation. If employers do not wish to add additional compensation to match their changed expectation, well, OP had his resignation in hand.