5 ms·

Another issue is that I've spent a lot of time and effort in the past to train up graduates on our grad program. Previously you would train up people and they'd

by rr888 4y ago

Another issue is that I've spent a lot of time and effort in the past to train up graduates on our grad program. Previously you would train up people and they'd train 2 years then work for at least 2 years after. During the boom the last few years, people left after a year or 18 months. Only one stayed a full 2 years largely because he wasn't that great. Honestly can't be bothered any more.

itsoktocry 4y ago
>Honestly can't be bothered any more. This is an interesting point. For better or worse, the people in the tech world aren't "loyal", and salaries are so crazy they are often looking to leverage their experience into a new position as soon as possible. How do you train people up if you're nothing but a feeder trough for bigger companies?
- jklm 4y ago
  Expecting anyone to stay 4 years in any 1 place is at best unrealistic and at worst sacrificing their potential for the team’s success. We shouldn’t be surprised when people fly the nest, and for what it’s worth this happens at even the best companies - people leave to start their own businesses. What we can do is aim to have them do the best work can, build a good rep for our team, and (selfishly) invest in a strong personal relationship with them so that in 10 years maybe they look back and pay back the favor.
  - neon_electro 4y ago
    So why aren't employers doing more to offboard folks with grace, kindness, and compassion (and maybe some degree of expected severance given the goal) if they are really "sacrificing their potential for the team's success" when all that's needed is for the employee to realize they need to move on? Is loyalty to any employer so utterly and completely dead that I need to enter my future employer-employee relationships with different expectations about loyalty after 1/2/4/5 years? I'm incredibly fortunate to have lucked out at a place that was acquired 2 weeks after I was let go for being in a similar place as you can imagine when someone spends 4 years somewhere without a promotion or any material recognition of that loyalty. So my 4 years was worth something - at least the after-tax value of my exercised and liquidated stock options. But that's an incredibly risky basis for value gained by staying somewhere vs. value gained by going somewhere else.
    - jklm 4y ago
      Well, I can see how some people might take that the wrong way and interpret that as getting laid off. And yes - the reality is that companies are non-fungible and every company will have different values, levels of team talent, investment in their team. Taking the same approach to every company you join, i.e. not going in with a goal/plan in mind, is how you get the average/median outcome for everyone at that company. And you should be going in eyes wide open knowing what that outcome is for every company regardless of which approach you take. It's the same question of why isn't every restaurant great? Why isn't every haircutter great? By definition, that's impossible - some will always be better than others and the goalposts shift.
  - rr888 4y ago
    > Expecting anyone to stay 4 years in any 1 place is So why would anyone hire junior developers than?
    - jklm 4y ago
      Mentorship is valuable both ways & brand building. Not everything needs to optimize for output. If you're not at a company that supports those goals...that's a different topic entirely.
- Palomides 4y ago
  if only there was some incentive a company could use to retain employees!
  - thaumasiotes 4y ago
    You don't even need an incentive. You don't have to hire people at will. You can make them pay a huge penalty if they leave.
    - olyjohn 4y ago
      Sounds like good way to filter out your good candidates.
      - thaumasiotes 4y ago
        Is it? We observe that candidates are unable to find jobs and employers are unwilling to hire candidates. Does it make more sense to address the employers' concerns, or to accept that, for "structural reasons", there's no such thing as entry-level employment? A huge penalty for leaving the firm that trained you (within a certain time period) is already the norm in other areas. It's also the entire concept of vesting.
    - neon_electro 4y ago
      Unless you're talking about the equivalent of at-will employment (as far as salary and benefits are concerned) with the firing/leaving restrictions of a contract, "contract work" is absolutely not equivalent to what employees typically get in an at-will arrangement. My experience looking at contract work is "yeah, I'm not really interested in being my own benefits manager unless you're willing to pay me $25/hr more to do that work in addition to my regular job".
      - thaumasiotes 4y ago
        > Unless you're talking about the equivalent of at-will employment (as far as salary and benefits are concerned) with the firing/leaving restrictions of a contract, "contract work" is absolutely not equivalent to what employees typically get in an at-will arrangement. I'm not really sure why you felt the urge to say this, but perhaps you should be aware that "contractor" status contrasts with "full-time employee" status, not with "at will employment". At-will specifies who can terminate the contract and on what grounds. It's not relevant to the contractor / FTE distinction.
- anonymousDan 4y ago
  Pay more?
throwawaysleep 4y ago
Even in a senior only org, it is a constant hamster wheel of training people with the current rates of turnover. One of the few long haulers is rapidly burning out supporting everyone else on the team who is green.
- obviouslynotme 4y ago
  That's how orgs die.
neon_electro 4y ago
I can respect this, but if people are leaving sooner, perhaps the employer wasn't doing enough to retain them? Is it exclusively the employees' fault?
- olyjohn 4y ago
  You mean, a business might have to... gasp... compete with other businesses to retain employees?
justin66 4y ago
> train 2 years >Honestly can't be bothered any more. Between two years and zero days, there's an awful lot of room to adjust a training period.

by rr888 4y ago

itsoktocry 4y ago

>Honestly can't be bothered any more. This is an interesting point. For better or worse, the people in the tech world aren't "loyal", and salaries are so crazy they are often looking to leverage their experience into a new position as soon as possible. How do you train people up if you're nothing but a feeder trough for bigger companies?

jklm 4y ago
Expecting anyone to stay 4 years in any 1 place is at best unrealistic and at worst sacrificing their potential for the team’s success. We shouldn’t be surprised when people fly the nest, and for what it’s worth this happens at even the best companies - people leave to start their own businesses. What we can do is aim to have them do the best work can, build a good rep for our team, and (selfishly) invest in a strong personal relationship with them so that in 10 years maybe they look back and pay back the favor.
- neon_electro 4y ago
  So why aren't employers doing more to offboard folks with grace, kindness, and compassion (and maybe some degree of expected severance given the goal) if they are really "sacrificing their potential for the team's success" when all that's needed is for the employee to realize they need to move on? Is loyalty to any employer so utterly and completely dead that I need to enter my future employer-employee relationships with different expectations about loyalty after 1/2/4/5 years? I'm incredibly fortunate to have lucked out at a place that was acquired 2 weeks after I was let go for being in a similar place as you can imagine when someone spends 4 years somewhere without a promotion or any material recognition of that loyalty. So my 4 years was worth something - at least the after-tax value of my exercised and liquidated stock options. But that's an incredibly risky basis for value gained by staying somewhere vs. value gained by going somewhere else.
  - jklm 4y ago
    Well, I can see how some people might take that the wrong way and interpret that as getting laid off. And yes - the reality is that companies are non-fungible and every company will have different values, levels of team talent, investment in their team. Taking the same approach to every company you join, i.e. not going in with a goal/plan in mind, is how you get the average/median outcome for everyone at that company. And you should be going in eyes wide open knowing what that outcome is for every company regardless of which approach you take. It's the same question of why isn't every restaurant great? Why isn't every haircutter great? By definition, that's impossible - some will always be better than others and the goalposts shift.
- rr888 4y ago
  > Expecting anyone to stay 4 years in any 1 place is So why would anyone hire junior developers than?
  - jklm 4y ago
    Mentorship is valuable both ways & brand building. Not everything needs to optimize for output. If you're not at a company that supports those goals...that's a different topic entirely.
Palomides 4y ago
if only there was some incentive a company could use to retain employees!
- thaumasiotes 4y ago
  You don't even need an incentive. You don't have to hire people at will. You can make them pay a huge penalty if they leave.
  - olyjohn 4y ago
    Sounds like good way to filter out your good candidates.
    - thaumasiotes 4y ago
      Is it? We observe that candidates are unable to find jobs and employers are unwilling to hire candidates. Does it make more sense to address the employers' concerns, or to accept that, for "structural reasons", there's no such thing as entry-level employment? A huge penalty for leaving the firm that trained you (within a certain time period) is already the norm in other areas. It's also the entire concept of vesting.
  - neon_electro 4y ago
    Unless you're talking about the equivalent of at-will employment (as far as salary and benefits are concerned) with the firing/leaving restrictions of a contract, "contract work" is absolutely not equivalent to what employees typically get in an at-will arrangement. My experience looking at contract work is "yeah, I'm not really interested in being my own benefits manager unless you're willing to pay me $25/hr more to do that work in addition to my regular job".
    - thaumasiotes 4y ago
      > Unless you're talking about the equivalent of at-will employment (as far as salary and benefits are concerned) with the firing/leaving restrictions of a contract, "contract work" is absolutely not equivalent to what employees typically get in an at-will arrangement. I'm not really sure why you felt the urge to say this, but perhaps you should be aware that "contractor" status contrasts with "full-time employee" status, not with "at will employment". At-will specifies who can terminate the contract and on what grounds. It's not relevant to the contractor / FTE distinction.
anonymousDan 4y ago
Pay more?

throwawaysleep 4y ago

Even in a senior only org, it is a constant hamster wheel of training people with the current rates of turnover. One of the few long haulers is rapidly burning out supporting everyone else on the team who is green.

obviouslynotme 4y ago
That's how orgs die.

neon_electro 4y ago

I can respect this, but if people are leaving sooner, perhaps the employer wasn't doing enough to retain them? Is it exclusively the employees' fault?

olyjohn 4y ago
You mean, a business might have to... gasp... compete with other businesses to retain employees?

justin66 4y ago

> train 2 years >Honestly can't be bothered any more. Between two years and zero days, there's an awful lot of room to adjust a training period.