3 ms·
Exactly. My first company did this for me, and I stayed and was loyal for 2 years beyond when they stopped treating me fairly. I'd still be there, happy and p
by wccrawford 14y ago
Exactly. My first company did this for me, and I stayed and was loyal for 2 years beyond when they stopped treating me fairly. I'd still be there, happy and productive, if they had continued paying me what I was worth instead of claiming the economy wouldn't let me.
Shortly after I left, they put out a job posting for 7 people, each at more than I would have accepted to stay.
The job I left for was paying even more than that job posting, and I'm still here today.
So why did they do that? Why treat me fairly initially, then stop? They didn't really gain much. I was unhappy for 2 years and my job performance suffered for it. They replaced me with people who didn't have my knowledge of their systems, and they paid them more. It was absolute insanity.
- vonmoltke 14y agoMy last company, which is used to having lifers working for them, operated under the assumption that if they kept an employee for the first five years out of college, they usually had them permanently. They assumed people like me[0] were rare. This attitude persists in spite of their issues with college hire retention over the past decade. Its possible the management at your first company had a similar attitude. [0] I left 5 months shy of my 10th service anniversary
- berntb 14y agoI've seen it argued -- from people that seem to know much more than I do on this -- that HR knows most people will grumble and not leave.
- sesqu 14y agoI've heard many an anecdote in support of this, except with the addendum that after a few years of grumbling and increasing in value, they do leave and on bad terms.