3 ms·
>Employees are already subject to swift termination, based on their employers' whims Except in practice, they mostly aren't because onboarding takes time and c
by ghaff 1y ago
>Employees are already subject to swift termination, based on their employers' whims
Except in practice, they mostly aren't because onboarding takes time and cost and relocating employees (if applicable) has costs.
Of course, if you're a pro football player, here today/gone tomorrow is the norm. But I'm not sure that is or should be the expectation for an engineer. In part, because I doubt there is a "One True Candidate" for the the most part.
Yes, roles shift/requirements shift and both companies and employees move on but there's generally some value to stability on both sides. Even if an employee can get an employer-paid rental for a month, thy've still presumably left their prior job and will have to scramble in various ways.
- underlipton 1y agoYou're talking about a social contract. That's something that barely exists, these days. The problem here is as much timing as expectations. It is difficult to tell if you're signing on with a chop shop until you're suddenly on the block. I would rather we dispense with the games and people be upfront. Companies don't want that, because they can market it as stability while reserving an edge over both their employees and competitors (the same with many benefits). If what I described becomes the norm, employees lose that sense of stability, but they gain an edge in that businesses can no longer hold it over their heads. Let's be clear, though, that it's not actual stability: it's a sense of stability, and it's often false.