4 ms·

Yep. This whole thing about not hiring "job hoppers" is a conspiracy to suppress wages by the management class. Companies will drop you without a second thought

Yep. This whole thing about not hiring "job hoppers" is a conspiracy to suppress wages by the management class. Companies will drop you without a second thought, you should have the right to do the same. I think more software engineers should move into consulting where the gun for hire nature of our industry isn't hidden.

dijonman2 4y ago
I couldn’t disagree more. I want to see commitment, not leaving at the first sign of trouble. It costs a lot to acquire and hire talent.
- kortilla 4y ago
  > It costs a lot to acquire and hire talent. Probably because of your attitude towards it and throwing away people that follow the industry average churn rate. Reminds me of someone who complains about how hard it is to find a date but has criteria tolerances for partners that would make aerospace engineer blush.
- LunaSea 4y ago
  How do you know it's only the first sign of trouble? Regular employees don't have the possibility to change companies from the inside, leaving is the only option.
  - gnz11 4y ago
    Well, technically there is another option: unionization.
    - LunaSea 4y ago
      Don't companies currently prevent the creation of those?
      - enriquto 4y ago
        That sounds like a strong reason to unionize, then!
- badpun 4y ago
  > I couldn’t disagree more. I want to see commitment, not leaving at the first sign of trouble. This goes both ways though - employees want to see commitment too - not layoffs at the first sign of trouble (or, often, no trouble at all, but just opportunity to improve short-term numbers by outsourcing to cheaper locations). Want people to stay for a long time with your company? Perhaps you should advertise a policy where you don't lay off staff even if company is in the red. Notably, government agencies don't do layoffs, and people working there are much more loyal than people in the private sector, even though government pays less.
  - dijonman2 4y ago
    I’ll institute a policy of no layoffs if folks get paid the same as government jobs. In all seriousness though this perspective is a double standard. Hiring managers can’t typically setup these policies, and when you leave after a short time they get screwed.
    - Apocryphon 4y ago
      Then while the job market for this industry is fluid, you’ll need to find other ways to entice people to stay. It seems that in a hot market hiring managers are each other’s enemy- they’re competing for labor, after all. They are providing incentives to get your workers to jump. So maybe the framing shouldn’t be employers vs. workers.
- zb1plus 4y ago
  Then companies should reward stellar talent with raises that go beyond inflation and COL changes. Not job hopping is leaving money on the table. As you say, "It costs a lot to acquire and hire talent" then one would think that companies wouldn't be penny foolish and properly reward talent instead of giving tiny 3% raises to star performers. Stock options are great way to reward and encourage commitment.
  - dijonman2 4y ago
    If all you want is money go the FAANG route. There are a lot of people who grew up in the 90s/00s who are now hiring managers and they screen for passion not profit. Make no mistake that we work to get paid. But the motivation for working does have a tangible impact on the work product. This is why companies don’t want to hire people who job hop a lot. It’s not to save a buck. If I wanted to save a buck I would outsource.
- vsareto 4y ago
  Something might be a red flag for an employee which causes them to immediately want to move on. Companies look for red flags and pass on employees all the time. Relatively, it's more expensive for employees to take a job then leave.
- pc86 4y ago
  Employees are finally starting to give employers the level of commitment they've received for decades, which is approximately none. We're all better off for it, in my opinion.
AlgorithmicTime 4y ago
ravenstine 4y ago
Exactly, and most companies have shown they couldn't care less about keeping talent around. If they did, they would have spent a modicum of effort figuring out exactly why people like software engineers leave, which they don't seem very interested in. I've only ever experienced a single exit interview, and it was too little too late. I'm sure if I had said "low pay, shitty codebase, unreasonable deadlines, moving goalposts, no standards, management gave themselves raises during a layoff" that said feedback would disappear into an unlabeled file folder or a trash can.
- Invictus0 4y ago
  Exit interviews are mostly just a formality, there is rarely any honest feedback given anyway.

dijonman2 4y ago

I couldn’t disagree more. I want to see commitment, not leaving at the first sign of trouble. It costs a lot to acquire and hire talent.

kortilla 4y ago
> It costs a lot to acquire and hire talent. Probably because of your attitude towards it and throwing away people that follow the industry average churn rate. Reminds me of someone who complains about how hard it is to find a date but has criteria tolerances for partners that would make aerospace engineer blush.
LunaSea 4y ago
How do you know it's only the first sign of trouble? Regular employees don't have the possibility to change companies from the inside, leaving is the only option.
- gnz11 4y ago
  Well, technically there is another option: unionization.
  - LunaSea 4y ago
    Don't companies currently prevent the creation of those?
    - enriquto 4y ago
      That sounds like a strong reason to unionize, then!
badpun 4y ago
> I couldn’t disagree more. I want to see commitment, not leaving at the first sign of trouble. This goes both ways though - employees want to see commitment too - not layoffs at the first sign of trouble (or, often, no trouble at all, but just opportunity to improve short-term numbers by outsourcing to cheaper locations). Want people to stay for a long time with your company? Perhaps you should advertise a policy where you don't lay off staff even if company is in the red. Notably, government agencies don't do layoffs, and people working there are much more loyal than people in the private sector, even though government pays less.
- dijonman2 4y ago
  I’ll institute a policy of no layoffs if folks get paid the same as government jobs. In all seriousness though this perspective is a double standard. Hiring managers can’t typically setup these policies, and when you leave after a short time they get screwed.
  - Apocryphon 4y ago
    Then while the job market for this industry is fluid, you’ll need to find other ways to entice people to stay. It seems that in a hot market hiring managers are each other’s enemy- they’re competing for labor, after all. They are providing incentives to get your workers to jump. So maybe the framing shouldn’t be employers vs. workers.
zb1plus 4y ago
Then companies should reward stellar talent with raises that go beyond inflation and COL changes. Not job hopping is leaving money on the table. As you say, "It costs a lot to acquire and hire talent" then one would think that companies wouldn't be penny foolish and properly reward talent instead of giving tiny 3% raises to star performers. Stock options are great way to reward and encourage commitment.
- dijonman2 4y ago
  If all you want is money go the FAANG route. There are a lot of people who grew up in the 90s/00s who are now hiring managers and they screen for passion not profit. Make no mistake that we work to get paid. But the motivation for working does have a tangible impact on the work product. This is why companies don’t want to hire people who job hop a lot. It’s not to save a buck. If I wanted to save a buck I would outsource.
vsareto 4y ago
Something might be a red flag for an employee which causes them to immediately want to move on. Companies look for red flags and pass on employees all the time. Relatively, it's more expensive for employees to take a job then leave.
pc86 4y ago
Employees are finally starting to give employers the level of commitment they've received for decades, which is approximately none. We're all better off for it, in my opinion.

AlgorithmicTime 4y ago

ravenstine 4y ago

Exactly, and most companies have shown they couldn't care less about keeping talent around. If they did, they would have spent a modicum of effort figuring out exactly why people like software engineers leave, which they don't seem very interested in. I've only ever experienced a single exit interview, and it was too little too late. I'm sure if I had said "low pay, shitty codebase, unreasonable deadlines, moving goalposts, no standards, management gave themselves raises during a layoff" that said feedback would disappear into an unlabeled file folder or a trash can.

Invictus0 4y ago
Exit interviews are mostly just a formality, there is rarely any honest feedback given anyway.