3 ms·
> 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 t
by 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 agoI’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 agoThen 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.