3 ms·

Not necessarily, not when I hire. On-boarding, and ramping up in a new environment is a skill and to some extent, I see that as a value add. A person who has

Not necessarily, not when I hire. On-boarding, and ramping up in a new environment is a skill and to some extent, I see that as a value add. A person who has gotten comfortable in a role for 10 years is often slower to ramp vs. a person that has seen a lot of environments and projects.

SanderNL 3y ago
Optimizing for “ramping” seems incredibly shortsighted. Does seeing things through, pushing through the hard bits, the bits that only come up after a few years when your pet project starts spouting fire or some major restructuring happens and not to mention loyalty doesn’t mean anything anymore?
- jethro_tell 3y ago
  If the company was giving pensions and compensating people like loyalty mattered then we could have that conversation but there is no loyalty toward employees from companies. I see loyalty to any company as shortsighted from the employee's point of view.
  - SanderNL 3y ago
    There’s the issue of building virtue and good character, which I suspect are ancient and long obsoleted concepts. This pragmatism is understandable, but I don’t think it’s a nice way to live. Of course to each its own.
    - jethro_tell 3y ago
      You can build virtue and good character and still manage your career in a way that puts yourself and your family first. I'm not buying that the only way to build character is to work for below market rate so someone else can make money and then forget you when it's not convenient any longer. Asymmetric loyalty is a dead end. Deriving your virtue and character from your job is also a fools errand and a myth that is perpetuated by anti-labor capitalists to line their pockets before they absolve themselves of equal social responsibility. Build character and exercise virtue by making your community and family richer.
      - SanderNL 3y ago
        I’m afraid dumping your partners whenever is most convenient for you and your family, while understandable because they will do the same to you, is not what I understand to be virtuous. You may be spiteful, and perhaps rightfully so, against the powers that be, but it is ultimately futile. Who is in power is not up to us, but our response to it is. Not preaching to you, you may be the most virtuous being in existence. Just mumbling in the wind here.
        sanitycheck 3y ago
        An employer is not a partner. If you are a partner in a business, then walking away is not so easy and probably a lot less desirable (and still, "junior partner" is sometimes a trap). Most people who work for businesses are "human resources", so let's treat employers as "income providers" and nothing more.
        SanderNL 3y ago
        You're of course right, it's not the proper word. In a broad sense you are both actively working on, let's hope, a shared vision and you need eachother. I'm not interested in the power symmetry of the relation in this case although it's of course part of the situation. > let's treat employers as "income providers" and nothing more. It's fine that you and many of you consider this to be an agreeable way to live. I'm just saying that it's not the only way and in my opinion not a particular desireable one. Minority opinion here, but I am entertaining the vague and quite dangerous notion that with a bit of compromise from both sides we can have our cake and eat it too. The dangerous part might consist in accepting we are not all born for great works and some humility and acceptance might not actually be such a bad thing. Of course, in moderation as with all things, but I don't think modern people are in any danger of being too humble anytime soon. I wouldn't be too hasty to dismiss such notions as "loyalty", because "trust" is quite close and it might just be a fundamental driver of human civilization.
        sanitycheck 3y ago
bcrl 3y ago
Depends on the role. When it's a highly complex system where it will take 6 months for the person to become a productive contributing member of a team, I have most definitely heard and been part of conversations where we considered if the person will stay around long enough to be worth the effort of training. On the other hand, for roles where it's a series of 1-2 month projects to make fairly straightforward changes to network protocol implementations, time to turnover for a new employee hasn't been a concern. Of course a reasonable explanation for why a person has turned over jobs so many times can negate the concern. It really depends on the candidate. My point is that someone early in their career needs to recognize that there are both upsides and downsides to switching jobs frequently.

SanderNL 3y ago

Optimizing for “ramping” seems incredibly shortsighted. Does seeing things through, pushing through the hard bits, the bits that only come up after a few years when your pet project starts spouting fire or some major restructuring happens and not to mention loyalty doesn’t mean anything anymore?

jethro_tell 3y ago
If the company was giving pensions and compensating people like loyalty mattered then we could have that conversation but there is no loyalty toward employees from companies. I see loyalty to any company as shortsighted from the employee's point of view.
- SanderNL 3y ago
  There’s the issue of building virtue and good character, which I suspect are ancient and long obsoleted concepts. This pragmatism is understandable, but I don’t think it’s a nice way to live. Of course to each its own.
  - jethro_tell 3y ago
    You can build virtue and good character and still manage your career in a way that puts yourself and your family first. I'm not buying that the only way to build character is to work for below market rate so someone else can make money and then forget you when it's not convenient any longer. Asymmetric loyalty is a dead end. Deriving your virtue and character from your job is also a fools errand and a myth that is perpetuated by anti-labor capitalists to line their pockets before they absolve themselves of equal social responsibility. Build character and exercise virtue by making your community and family richer.
    - SanderNL 3y ago
      I’m afraid dumping your partners whenever is most convenient for you and your family, while understandable because they will do the same to you, is not what I understand to be virtuous. You may be spiteful, and perhaps rightfully so, against the powers that be, but it is ultimately futile. Who is in power is not up to us, but our response to it is. Not preaching to you, you may be the most virtuous being in existence. Just mumbling in the wind here.
      - sanitycheck 3y ago
        An employer is not a partner. If you are a partner in a business, then walking away is not so easy and probably a lot less desirable (and still, "junior partner" is sometimes a trap). Most people who work for businesses are "human resources", so let's treat employers as "income providers" and nothing more.
        SanderNL 3y ago
        You're of course right, it's not the proper word. In a broad sense you are both actively working on, let's hope, a shared vision and you need eachother. I'm not interested in the power symmetry of the relation in this case although it's of course part of the situation. > let's treat employers as "income providers" and nothing more. It's fine that you and many of you consider this to be an agreeable way to live. I'm just saying that it's not the only way and in my opinion not a particular desireable one. Minority opinion here, but I am entertaining the vague and quite dangerous notion that with a bit of compromise from both sides we can have our cake and eat it too. The dangerous part might consist in accepting we are not all born for great works and some humility and acceptance might not actually be such a bad thing. Of course, in moderation as with all things, but I don't think modern people are in any danger of being too humble anytime soon. I wouldn't be too hasty to dismiss such notions as "loyalty", because "trust" is quite close and it might just be a fundamental driver of human civilization.
        sanitycheck 3y ago

bcrl 3y ago

Depends on the role. When it's a highly complex system where it will take 6 months for the person to become a productive contributing member of a team, I have most definitely heard and been part of conversations where we considered if the person will stay around long enough to be worth the effort of training. On the other hand, for roles where it's a series of 1-2 month projects to make fairly straightforward changes to network protocol implementations, time to turnover for a new employee hasn't been a concern. Of course a reasonable explanation for why a person has turned over jobs so many times can negate the concern. It really depends on the candidate. My point is that someone early in their career needs to recognize that there are both upsides and downsides to switching jobs frequently.