3 ms·

“Only would have needed one”.

greenyoda 5y ago
Exactly. The original comment said that they were underpaid, and would be happy with either a raise to a market-level salary or a reduction in hours. Getting the same amount of pay for 25% fewer hours would be equivalent to a 25% raise in hourly earnings, and it wouldn't be surprising if someone were 25% underpaid if they had stayed at one employer for a long time. So it doesn't seem like such an unreasonable thing to ask for. > I hope you understand what your comment says about you to an employer. I hope you understand what your comment suggests about you, as an employer: you're quick to mock an employee for making a reasonable request, without even listening carefully enough to understand the question. You might want to reconsider this attitude if you care about employee retention.
- robomartin 5y ago
  The employers are always evil, aren't they? Back in 2008 I hired a sales guy who ended-up being terrible at his job. He just could not sell. He came in promising performance and, 90 days later, sold nothing, hot even enough to cover his high six figure salary. He cost me tens of thousands of dollars, not to mention the time and money spent bringing him up to speed. Even worse, the opportunity cost was massive. A different sales guy could have done a lot better. His son had brain cancer. I kept him on the payroll for another six months because the kid had to have surgery and the medical insurance thing was going to be a mess. During this time he sold exactly nothing. Zero. This happened during the 2008 economic implosion. Our business was not doing well at all because the industry we were in collapsed. And yet I knew that, if I let him go, he would face a pretty horrific reality when it came to his son's medical needs. I had to take out a second mortgage to make payroll and even use credit cards. I kept him and others on until the last possible moment, all along telling him to go find another job (which he did). I almost lost my home and everything I worked so hard to build over decades because of what happened in 2008. I would have come out way ahead and without a worry in the world had I let most everyone go and acted with my self interest as the top priority. In fact, I would have come out with a couple millions dollars in the bank rather than almost losing everything. > You might want to reconsider this attitude Sure. Brilliant. Walk in my shoes for a few decades and you might actually start to get a clue. Maybe. It's always one sided, isn't it? It's always the employer who is evil, greedy, an asshole. It's never a bad employee, or a bad fit? Is it? Going back to the original post: > none of these were offered to me Because they did not want you to stay. > I was open to being convinced to stay but there was never a serious attempt Because they really wanted you to go away. > during my exit lamented how hard it is to hire people right now ...as they waited for you to sign the exit paperwork and get rid of you. The fact that the "private company that had a market cap in the billions of dollars" did not move a finger to keep this guy says a LOT. Either the company did not want him around or his team was not interested in keeping him. In other words, everyone was happy to see him go, even when they knew it might take some time to find a replacement. It could be other things. Maybe the project was dead or dying and having team members leave on their own accord was seen as a good thing. There are a million different variables and possibilities, yet, the only culturally acceptable thing to say is that the employer was evil in some way. And suggesting that perhaps the employee was the problem leads to "You might want to reconsider this attitude", because employees are never the problem, at all, ever. Please.
  - bandyaboot 5y ago
    “My bad, I should have read more carefully” would have been a lot less typing.
    - robomartin 5y ago
      Typical.

Exactly. The original comment said that they were underpaid, and would be happy with either a raise to a market-level salary or a reduction in hours. Getting the same amount of pay for 25% fewer hours would be equivalent to a 25% raise in hourly earnings, and it wouldn't be surprising if someone were 25% underpaid if they had stayed at one employer for a long time. So it doesn't seem like such an unreasonable thing to ask for. > I hope you understand what your comment says about you to an employer. I hope you understand what your comment suggests about you, as an employer: you're quick to mock an employee for making a reasonable request, without even listening carefully enough to understand the question. You might want to reconsider this attitude if you care about employee retention.

robomartin 5y ago
The employers are always evil, aren't they? Back in 2008 I hired a sales guy who ended-up being terrible at his job. He just could not sell. He came in promising performance and, 90 days later, sold nothing, hot even enough to cover his high six figure salary. He cost me tens of thousands of dollars, not to mention the time and money spent bringing him up to speed. Even worse, the opportunity cost was massive. A different sales guy could have done a lot better. His son had brain cancer. I kept him on the payroll for another six months because the kid had to have surgery and the medical insurance thing was going to be a mess. During this time he sold exactly nothing. Zero. This happened during the 2008 economic implosion. Our business was not doing well at all because the industry we were in collapsed. And yet I knew that, if I let him go, he would face a pretty horrific reality when it came to his son's medical needs. I had to take out a second mortgage to make payroll and even use credit cards. I kept him and others on until the last possible moment, all along telling him to go find another job (which he did). I almost lost my home and everything I worked so hard to build over decades because of what happened in 2008. I would have come out way ahead and without a worry in the world had I let most everyone go and acted with my self interest as the top priority. In fact, I would have come out with a couple millions dollars in the bank rather than almost losing everything. > You might want to reconsider this attitude Sure. Brilliant. Walk in my shoes for a few decades and you might actually start to get a clue. Maybe. It's always one sided, isn't it? It's always the employer who is evil, greedy, an asshole. It's never a bad employee, or a bad fit? Is it? Going back to the original post: > none of these were offered to me Because they did not want you to stay. > I was open to being convinced to stay but there was never a serious attempt Because they really wanted you to go away. > during my exit lamented how hard it is to hire people right now ...as they waited for you to sign the exit paperwork and get rid of you. The fact that the "private company that had a market cap in the billions of dollars" did not move a finger to keep this guy says a LOT. Either the company did not want him around or his team was not interested in keeping him. In other words, everyone was happy to see him go, even when they knew it might take some time to find a replacement. It could be other things. Maybe the project was dead or dying and having team members leave on their own accord was seen as a good thing. There are a million different variables and possibilities, yet, the only culturally acceptable thing to say is that the employer was evil in some way. And suggesting that perhaps the employee was the problem leads to "You might want to reconsider this attitude", because employees are never the problem, at all, ever. Please.
- bandyaboot 5y ago
  “My bad, I should have read more carefully” would have been a lot less typing.
  - robomartin 5y ago
    Typical.