7 ms·

> The employer should be ahead of the employee anticipating needs and reacting to broader market trends. In the case of the parent comment, be ahead of the emp

> The employer should be ahead of the employee anticipating needs and reacting to broader market trends. In the case of the parent comment, be ahead of the employee how? "Good news, Steve. We're giving you a $50,000/year raise but you'll be working 32 hours a week instead of 40. We're giving you 2 months of paid vacation next year instead of 3 weeks. We're hiring 5 new people with more experience than you, who will be responsible for mentoring you and helping you grow, as well as a personal comedian, who can keep you entertained when you're feeling down."

ser0 5y ago
Effectively, yes, this. Just as businesses are expected to monitor and react to competitors that are after their customers. They should also have processes in place to react to competitors for their staff.
- LurkingPenguin 5y ago
  > ...react to competitors... In this case, there were no competitors. The parent poster indicated that he was leaving to start his own thing. Nobody was offering him a high-paying job where he would work only 32 hours a week, have 6+ weeks of paid vacation annually and generally be treated like the company's most valuable asset. While I wish the parent poster the best, he's far more likely to discover that running his own business will require him to work more, not less, and at least initially, is likely to provide him with lower net pay and benefits. Unless you're an absolute rockstar, you have to be realistic, even in this market.
  - deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]
  - Mountain_Skies 5y ago
    He didn't say he needed to be offered all of that, just at least one of the items.
    - LurkingPenguin 5y ago
      I've hired and fired, both in management roles and for my own business. The problem with the parent poster's incentives, even if he was willing to accept just one, is that they're not thoughtful and consistent. On one hand, the parent poster would be open to the company firing another employee he doesn't like or hiring more people who could help him grow, but on the other hand, he's open to working part time or taking off on vacation for a month and a half or more each year. If I was his manager, I would be genuinely confused about whether a person like this wanted to be more or less invested in his work at the company. And that's never a good thing to have an employer be confused about. By all means, ask for a raise. Express a desire for greater opportunities to learn and grow. Raise concerns about situations you're uncomfortable with. But seriously thinking that you might command full-time pay and benefits for part-time hours? That's a huge red flag. The parent poster basically admitted he already had one foot out the door. Given that it doesn't sound like his employer fought to convince him to stay, I'm guessing that his employer either sensed this or that he wasn't as valuable to his employer as he thought it was.
      - sideshowb 5y ago
        Gp asked for more pay OR fewer hours, so either way it's just an increase in hourly rate, potentially to exactly the same figure. Coming from a country where we have saner annual leave norms than the usa, the above rhetoric about "wanting fewer hours" equating to "lack of commitment" conjures up visions of stuffy bankers from Mary Poppins.
        LurkingPenguin 5y ago
        > Gp asked for more pay OR fewer hours, so either way it's just an increase in hourly rate, potentially to exactly the same figure. For an employer, there's a huge difference between paying a full-time employee more money and having a full-time employee become a part-time employee for the same pay. This poster's comment was especially telling in that, on one hand, he talked about his employer making a greater investment in him (by hiring people he could learn from and firing another employee he didn't like) but on the other hand he talked about providing his employer with less than full-time hours, which basically represents a reduction in his investment in his employer. > ...the above rhetoric about "wanting fewer hours" equating to "lack of commitment" conjures up visions of stuffy bankers from Mary Poppins. I'm all for a healthy work schedule (I don't even like the phrase "work-life balance"). That's why I eventually left the rat race and started my own thing. But it's not like the parent poster was talking about going from full-time plus (like 50-60+ hours/week to 40 hours). Again, he was talking about going from the minimum hours associated with full-time work (40) to a part-time job. Even beyond the fact that that his employer might not believe he can do the job he was hired to do satisfactorily as a part-time employee, for a lot of employers, there can be a variety of factors that make it more attractive to find a full-time replacement than try to hire part-timers.
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]

ser0 5y ago

Effectively, yes, this. Just as businesses are expected to monitor and react to competitors that are after their customers. They should also have processes in place to react to competitors for their staff.

LurkingPenguin 5y ago
> ...react to competitors... In this case, there were no competitors. The parent poster indicated that he was leaving to start his own thing. Nobody was offering him a high-paying job where he would work only 32 hours a week, have 6+ weeks of paid vacation annually and generally be treated like the company's most valuable asset. While I wish the parent poster the best, he's far more likely to discover that running his own business will require him to work more, not less, and at least initially, is likely to provide him with lower net pay and benefits. Unless you're an absolute rockstar, you have to be realistic, even in this market.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
- Mountain_Skies 5y ago
  He didn't say he needed to be offered all of that, just at least one of the items.
  - LurkingPenguin 5y ago
    I've hired and fired, both in management roles and for my own business. The problem with the parent poster's incentives, even if he was willing to accept just one, is that they're not thoughtful and consistent. On one hand, the parent poster would be open to the company firing another employee he doesn't like or hiring more people who could help him grow, but on the other hand, he's open to working part time or taking off on vacation for a month and a half or more each year. If I was his manager, I would be genuinely confused about whether a person like this wanted to be more or less invested in his work at the company. And that's never a good thing to have an employer be confused about. By all means, ask for a raise. Express a desire for greater opportunities to learn and grow. Raise concerns about situations you're uncomfortable with. But seriously thinking that you might command full-time pay and benefits for part-time hours? That's a huge red flag. The parent poster basically admitted he already had one foot out the door. Given that it doesn't sound like his employer fought to convince him to stay, I'm guessing that his employer either sensed this or that he wasn't as valuable to his employer as he thought it was.
    - sideshowb 5y ago
      Gp asked for more pay OR fewer hours, so either way it's just an increase in hourly rate, potentially to exactly the same figure. Coming from a country where we have saner annual leave norms than the usa, the above rhetoric about "wanting fewer hours" equating to "lack of commitment" conjures up visions of stuffy bankers from Mary Poppins.
      - LurkingPenguin 5y ago
        > Gp asked for more pay OR fewer hours, so either way it's just an increase in hourly rate, potentially to exactly the same figure. For an employer, there's a huge difference between paying a full-time employee more money and having a full-time employee become a part-time employee for the same pay. This poster's comment was especially telling in that, on one hand, he talked about his employer making a greater investment in him (by hiring people he could learn from and firing another employee he didn't like) but on the other hand he talked about providing his employer with less than full-time hours, which basically represents a reduction in his investment in his employer. > ...the above rhetoric about "wanting fewer hours" equating to "lack of commitment" conjures up visions of stuffy bankers from Mary Poppins. I'm all for a healthy work schedule (I don't even like the phrase "work-life balance"). That's why I eventually left the rat race and started my own thing. But it's not like the parent poster was talking about going from full-time plus (like 50-60+ hours/week to 40 hours). Again, he was talking about going from the minimum hours associated with full-time work (40) to a part-time job. Even beyond the fact that that his employer might not believe he can do the job he was hired to do satisfactorily as a part-time employee, for a lot of employers, there can be a variety of factors that make it more attractive to find a full-time replacement than try to hire part-timers.

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]