4 ms·

It's the same here as in your partner's place. Even the proportions. This is government work: hiring practices are bad by design and "firing practices" unexista

It's the same here as in your partner's place. Even the proportions. This is government work: hiring practices are bad by design and "firing practices" unexistant. No one is ever fired. This means that the place is perennially understaffed in practice and depends fully on the goodwill, personal/professional ethics and patience of those that will do the work. But since they can't fire and we all have to live together somehow, management likes to keep the illusion that everyone is the same. So sometimes they will design promotion schemes or bonuses that favor slackers over the guys doing the job, or punish everyone equally for the sins of a few. It's a pretty kafkian environment, but it's sort of a golden cage too: Pay is good, benefits great, stability rock solid. I'm used to a freedom of agency and independence that I'm afraid would go over badly in a normal place. So I stay.

rkangel 5y ago
> I'm used to a freedom of agency and independence that I'm afraid would go over badly in a normal place. So I stay. I think you're underselling the rest of the world a bit. Many if not most companies aren't great, but there are a good chunk that do empower their employees to do their job properly and that's how you get the most job satisfaction. Of course, this is without knowing your sector and role - it does vary. You're in a great position that you're in a job you're largely happy with. You should use that as allowing you to carefully choose your next role, rather than as an excuse not to. It's also great in salary negotiations - you can pick a large number because in the worst case you go back to your perfectly reasonable job!
progmetaldev 5y ago
I've been at the same company since 2007, and although this isn't government work, it sure works that way. For anyone to be fired, you need solid evidence that the company has lost a good sum of money. That creates an environment where there's little trust among the lower end workers and the higher tier ones. I stay because I make great money for where I'm located, the job is stable, and if I need to just take off for a doctor's appointment, there's no issue as long as I get my work done.

rkangel 5y ago

> I'm used to a freedom of agency and independence that I'm afraid would go over badly in a normal place. So I stay. I think you're underselling the rest of the world a bit. Many if not most companies aren't great, but there are a good chunk that do empower their employees to do their job properly and that's how you get the most job satisfaction. Of course, this is without knowing your sector and role - it does vary. You're in a great position that you're in a job you're largely happy with. You should use that as allowing you to carefully choose your next role, rather than as an excuse not to. It's also great in salary negotiations - you can pick a large number because in the worst case you go back to your perfectly reasonable job!

progmetaldev 5y ago

I've been at the same company since 2007, and although this isn't government work, it sure works that way. For anyone to be fired, you need solid evidence that the company has lost a good sum of money. That creates an environment where there's little trust among the lower end workers and the higher tier ones. I stay because I make great money for where I'm located, the job is stable, and if I need to just take off for a doctor's appointment, there's no issue as long as I get my work done.