3 ms·
There are two parts to this. The first part is, if something is wrong at your employer, should you try to negotiate, or leave? The thing to realise is that con
by ajb 5y ago
There are two parts to this.
The first part is, if something is wrong at your employer, should you try to negotiate, or leave? The thing to realise is that conditions at an employer are already the result of negotiation, even if it isn't overt, and even if it happened before you joined. Leaving is an inefficient way of communicating your preferences, and many things are too minor to bother, or too minor at the margin to bother leaving, but you would be lobster-boiled if you let them slide.
Also, to be brutal about it, top managers and CEOS are there because they are good at taking advantage. If they see an opportunity to take advantage of their employees, they do. So you are in a negotiation with them, like it or not.
The second part is, should you declare yourself an activist? I think this is more questionable. It is not necessary to follow the patterns of activism to push back against problematic decisions. You may well be better off making it clear that you consider a particular issue unacceptable, and making the employer aware that the consensus among employees is that it is unacceptable, while making it clear that apart from that, you are a loyal and trustworthy employee. Activism sets up a narrative in which you are their adversary.
- overgard 5y agoHere's the thing with the FAANGs though, they hire like crazy. Like my resume is fine but it's not super impressive and I get recruitment emails non stop. If an issue like salary transparency was important to me (it's not), I could easily just tell the recruiter "I'd love to work for your company but this particular issue gets in the way". If a lot of people did that Im pretty sure word would get back to decision makers. To me though, taking a job where I know the company does something I dislike, and then grandstanding about it is in a much weirder moral territory.