6 ms·

Normalize employment contracts guaranteeing a year of salary as a condition of relocation.

VirusNewbie 3y ago
Good idea. Sometimes this is a large signing bonus. It could pay out over time but vest immediately on a layoff or something.
danaris 3y ago
That would be a massive improvement over what we have now, but even having to move within a year after your last move is difficult, expensive, and incredibly stressful.
bradleyjg 3y ago
It’s almost amazing to me that CEOs have all these ideas for how to hire and retain but never once consider the very things they demand to be hired and retained. Almost like they think of the rest of us as not real people.
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
- geodel 3y ago
  Nothing amazing about. CEO retain lawyers to draft custom contracts with a company before taking offer. This is mutually agreed negotiation and neither company nor job seeker is obliged to agree to such negotiation. No one is stopping you from trying it.
  - bradleyjg 3y ago
    Sure, and the next time a tech ceo goes whining to Congress about a shortage of workers I hope my congressman tells him that no one is stopping him from mutually agreed negotiations with candidates.
    - geodel 3y ago
      That too is fine. Congressman is listening to lot of constituents. Nothing wrong in taking your message at higher precedence than CEOs.
- BizarroLand 3y ago
  Too many of them think they are doing us a favor by allowing us to work for them at glorious random company rather than realizing that glorious random company has no value outside of its employees.
  - JohnFen 3y ago
    Too many workers think the same. It's amazing the reactions I get from people when I tell them the simple truth that nobody is doing you a favor by hiring you. It's a business deal, nothing more and nothing less, and if you aren't thinking of it in that way, you're going to be taken advantage of.
- yamtaddle 3y ago
  There's truly a different set of rules & norms, once you're high enough up the social-status ladder. That used to include the so-called "professional class" but the story of the intersection between social status and work for the last few decades has been MBA types pushing those positions downward‚and preventing them from ever rising, in the software world. They may not be doing it consciously, but a lot of stuff about work-life for software folks sure looks like what you'd do if you wanted to squash the social status of a cohort that earns enough money that they'd otherwise be on their way to solid membership in the upper-middle, like micro-managy "methodologies", avoiding giving us personal offices, widespread and oft-expressed but IME rarely-accurate stereotypes about software folks necessarily being bad at everything except fiddly computer shit, and the way interviews are run. Professors and doctors were two big groups that held high status and had a fair amount of freedom and trust to run their own affairs, once they'd paid their dues, but both those worlds have been invaded by MBAs who've taken over running everything and brought the same contempt for "mere" workers that we see in the rest of the business world. AFAIK lawyers have held them off, so far, but I may just not be aware of MBA-ification there.
  - bradleyjg 3y ago
    Law firms, in most states, are forbidden to have ownership in the hands of non-lawyers (there’s some minor exceptions dealing with inheritance.)
    - ClumsyPilot 3y ago
      > Law firms, in most states, are forbidden to have ownership in the hands of non-lawyers Good. The rest of us are idiots
    - badpun 3y ago
      Looks like the lawyers were able to defend themselves because they, well, write the laws.
  - naravara 3y ago
    What you're calling "MBA-ification" sounds more like private equity infiltration.
- skeeter2020 3y ago
  CEOs play checkers with people. Every piece is identical and thus very easy to dehumanize. I'd bet the best direct managers you ever had were playing chess, actually trying to understand the difference between people and how to best apply them. This difference is both required, because of scale, and inexcusable at the same time.
crazygringo 3y ago
To play devil's advocate -- you have to think about bad actors though. What if that makes someone think, I can do zero work at my job and I'll get paid regardless? Or they do a super bare minimum, being incredibly unhelpful to everyone and their whole team hates them? Now you're going to have courts deciding what constitutes grounds for firing and what doesn't, if performance was above or below a super bare minimum, how that's defined for a programming job, etc.
- somsak2 3y ago
  what's the problem with bare minimum? i get paid the bare minimum my company is willing to give me. it cuts both ways.
- sosuke 3y ago
  I guess the clause in the contract would mean a leap of faith by the company that they have vetted the candidate and trust the outcome. They just have to evaluate the risk of bad actors against the gain from good actors. Actually I like this as it makes the hiring company put some skin in the game.
- notaustinpowers 3y ago
  The Netherlands have a system in place to handle these sort of problems. When hiring anyone a contract is signed stating a minimum length of employment. If an employee is to be fired before that minimum length is up, a meeting with a mediator (typically an employment judge) is held. The company has to prove they've tried everything to get the employee to work at their expectations (re-training, moving departments, etc). If the judge determines the employee is doing more harm than good at the company, then they are let go before their contract ends. Granted, I don't think a judge needs to be the deciding factor on letting an employee stay or go. But I do believe a contract stating expectations, a minimum employment contract (if employee meets those expectations) is necessary and should be enforced in today's business world. Even apply it to salaried, or "skilled workers". A busboy at a restaurant doesn't need a contract, but an accountant with 5 years experience should at least have that safety net.
  - 3y ago

Good idea. Sometimes this is a large signing bonus. It could pay out over time but vest immediately on a layoff or something.

danaris 3y ago

That would be a massive improvement over what we have now, but even having to move within a year after your last move is difficult, expensive, and incredibly stressful.

bradleyjg 3y ago

It’s almost amazing to me that CEOs have all these ideas for how to hire and retain but never once consider the very things they demand to be hired and retained. Almost like they think of the rest of us as not real people.

deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
geodel 3y ago
Nothing amazing about. CEO retain lawyers to draft custom contracts with a company before taking offer. This is mutually agreed negotiation and neither company nor job seeker is obliged to agree to such negotiation. No one is stopping you from trying it.
- bradleyjg 3y ago
  Sure, and the next time a tech ceo goes whining to Congress about a shortage of workers I hope my congressman tells him that no one is stopping him from mutually agreed negotiations with candidates.
  - geodel 3y ago
    That too is fine. Congressman is listening to lot of constituents. Nothing wrong in taking your message at higher precedence than CEOs.
BizarroLand 3y ago
Too many of them think they are doing us a favor by allowing us to work for them at glorious random company rather than realizing that glorious random company has no value outside of its employees.
- JohnFen 3y ago
  Too many workers think the same. It's amazing the reactions I get from people when I tell them the simple truth that nobody is doing you a favor by hiring you. It's a business deal, nothing more and nothing less, and if you aren't thinking of it in that way, you're going to be taken advantage of.
yamtaddle 3y ago
There's truly a different set of rules & norms, once you're high enough up the social-status ladder. That used to include the so-called "professional class" but the story of the intersection between social status and work for the last few decades has been MBA types pushing those positions downward‚and preventing them from ever rising, in the software world. They may not be doing it consciously, but a lot of stuff about work-life for software folks sure looks like what you'd do if you wanted to squash the social status of a cohort that earns enough money that they'd otherwise be on their way to solid membership in the upper-middle, like micro-managy "methodologies", avoiding giving us personal offices, widespread and oft-expressed but IME rarely-accurate stereotypes about software folks necessarily being bad at everything except fiddly computer shit, and the way interviews are run. Professors and doctors were two big groups that held high status and had a fair amount of freedom and trust to run their own affairs, once they'd paid their dues, but both those worlds have been invaded by MBAs who've taken over running everything and brought the same contempt for "mere" workers that we see in the rest of the business world. AFAIK lawyers have held them off, so far, but I may just not be aware of MBA-ification there.
- bradleyjg 3y ago
  Law firms, in most states, are forbidden to have ownership in the hands of non-lawyers (there’s some minor exceptions dealing with inheritance.)
  - ClumsyPilot 3y ago
    > Law firms, in most states, are forbidden to have ownership in the hands of non-lawyers Good. The rest of us are idiots
  - badpun 3y ago
    Looks like the lawyers were able to defend themselves because they, well, write the laws.
- naravara 3y ago
  What you're calling "MBA-ification" sounds more like private equity infiltration.
skeeter2020 3y ago
CEOs play checkers with people. Every piece is identical and thus very easy to dehumanize. I'd bet the best direct managers you ever had were playing chess, actually trying to understand the difference between people and how to best apply them. This difference is both required, because of scale, and inexcusable at the same time.

crazygringo 3y ago

To play devil's advocate -- you have to think about bad actors though. What if that makes someone think, I can do zero work at my job and I'll get paid regardless? Or they do a super bare minimum, being incredibly unhelpful to everyone and their whole team hates them? Now you're going to have courts deciding what constitutes grounds for firing and what doesn't, if performance was above or below a super bare minimum, how that's defined for a programming job, etc.

somsak2 3y ago
what's the problem with bare minimum? i get paid the bare minimum my company is willing to give me. it cuts both ways.
sosuke 3y ago
I guess the clause in the contract would mean a leap of faith by the company that they have vetted the candidate and trust the outcome. They just have to evaluate the risk of bad actors against the gain from good actors. Actually I like this as it makes the hiring company put some skin in the game.
notaustinpowers 3y ago
The Netherlands have a system in place to handle these sort of problems. When hiring anyone a contract is signed stating a minimum length of employment. If an employee is to be fired before that minimum length is up, a meeting with a mediator (typically an employment judge) is held. The company has to prove they've tried everything to get the employee to work at their expectations (re-training, moving departments, etc). If the judge determines the employee is doing more harm than good at the company, then they are let go before their contract ends. Granted, I don't think a judge needs to be the deciding factor on letting an employee stay or go. But I do believe a contract stating expectations, a minimum employment contract (if employee meets those expectations) is necessary and should be enforced in today's business world. Even apply it to salaried, or "skilled workers". A busboy at a restaurant doesn't need a contract, but an accountant with 5 years experience should at least have that safety net.
- 3y ago