3 ms·

Being good to employees is in my experience not that clearcut. Yes, companies spend money on social events to make the employees feel good about the company.

Being good to employees is in my experience not that clearcut. Yes, companies spend money on social events to make the employees feel good about the company. But they won't spend any significant amount of money to keep valued employees, which of course makes said employees look elsewhere. As an employee you are nearly always better off switching jobs every 18 months, as staying in the same job loses you money. I wish companies would be more focused on this.

q-big 5y ago
> But they won't spend any significant amount of money to keep valued employees, which of course makes said employees look elsewhere. Isn't it rather the other way round: you should be very careful to invest too much money into employees who are willing to quit?
- verve_rat 5y ago
  Of we train them, they might leave. But what if we don't train them and they stay?
  - q-big 5y ago
    Simple solution: let the employee pay for the training. If the employee stays for x years, the training costs are waived.
    - lovich 5y ago
      At least in tech, companies have already decided to make employees pay for training. You don’t see people doing leetcode training or side projects to pad their resume because their employers invested in increasing their skill set. Given that this has already occurred, why would any employee agree to a system where now they have a financial obligation to their employer if they leave? I get your sentiment but the employers already cut all the benefits out of the system when it comes to skill development. They’ll need to start adding back in investments to employee’s skills without any sort of guaranteed payback for a while before the average employee would extend them any trust
- RugnirViking 5y ago
  You aren't "investing" in employees by paying them a salary. Employees will get a 10-15% payrise by switching after 2 years. Give them that payrise and communicate why. Even if they leave anyway, you only pay them while they stay so you don't lose much.

q-big 5y ago

> But they won't spend any significant amount of money to keep valued employees, which of course makes said employees look elsewhere. Isn't it rather the other way round: you should be very careful to invest too much money into employees who are willing to quit?

verve_rat 5y ago
Of we train them, they might leave. But what if we don't train them and they stay?
- q-big 5y ago
  Simple solution: let the employee pay for the training. If the employee stays for x years, the training costs are waived.
  - lovich 5y ago
    At least in tech, companies have already decided to make employees pay for training. You don’t see people doing leetcode training or side projects to pad their resume because their employers invested in increasing their skill set. Given that this has already occurred, why would any employee agree to a system where now they have a financial obligation to their employer if they leave? I get your sentiment but the employers already cut all the benefits out of the system when it comes to skill development. They’ll need to start adding back in investments to employee’s skills without any sort of guaranteed payback for a while before the average employee would extend them any trust
RugnirViking 5y ago
You aren't "investing" in employees by paying them a salary. Employees will get a 10-15% payrise by switching after 2 years. Give them that payrise and communicate why. Even if they leave anyway, you only pay them while they stay so you don't lose much.