4 ms·

What's the structural solution to this? Offer golden handcuffs to stay for x years? - "We'll train you, and if you stay the full 8 years you get a $500,000 bon

What's the structural solution to this? Offer golden handcuffs to stay for x years? - "We'll train you, and if you stay the full 8 years you get a $500,000 bonus"? - "Here's a $200,000 signing bonus, which you have to pay back if you leave before 8 years" I'd be hesitant to rely on these as a candidate, because I'd have to assume I'd get fired at year 6-7 or something so that the company could save money.

floatrock 1y ago
from the op: > ridiculously stupid HR practices... a structure in which the only way to get a raise was to leave the company, and that was also often the best way to get promoted too Until that culture changes, of course you're gonna assume you get fired or issued a surprise RTO order at year 7.5. When the social contract becomes penny-pinching every opportunity, of course the employees are gonna start playing that game too.
- nerdsniper 1y ago
  Yes, but where does the culture change begin? My conundrum in trying to solve it is: - Companies that pay in the top 1% of compensation already don't have a retention problem. - Only 1% of companies can pay the top 1% of compensation. - The other 99% have issues with retention. - Companies only have $X to allocate for 10 years of employment compensation. - Any 99% company that structures $X of compensation to provide bonus $Y for staying a long time will necessarily offer salary $(X-Y) until the reward is granted. - Any 99% company that does not provide a reward for staying a long time can offer salary $X, which is higher than $(X-Y). - A rational employee cannot depend on bonus $Y, and rationally should take competing offers of Salary $X over offers of Salary $X-Y.
  - freedomben 1y ago
    A meta-comment, but I wanted to let you know that I've really enjoyed our comments today. I appreciate your ability to analyze and articulate, and most importantly making me think :-)
colechristensen 1y ago
>What's the structural solution to this? Offer golden handcuffs to stay for x years? Be a good place to work with competitive pay so your employees want to stay. Consider training a part of the compensation instead of an investment you expect returns on.
freedomben 1y ago
I think golden handcuffs are a bandaid, but it can stop the bleeding. It didn't work on me (I was willing to walk away from huge ISO incentives long before vesting because I (probably foolishly) valued job happiness more than money), but it does work on a lot of people. I don't know a long-term structural solution, for exactly the reason you mention: > I'd be hesitant to rely on these as a candidate, because I'd have to assume I'd get fired at year 6-7 or something so that the company could save money. Trust is at an all-time low right now, and for good reason. It very well might take years to turn the ship around. I think it will have to start with the big companies as a small company trying to do this will only put themselves at a disadvantage, but any exec at a big company proposing this would probably be dismissed as they heavily favor short-term over the long-term (by their actions, not necessarily words, but IMHO actions are all that really matters). Basically it's a Tragedy of the Commons problem.

floatrock 1y ago

from the op: > ridiculously stupid HR practices... a structure in which the only way to get a raise was to leave the company, and that was also often the best way to get promoted too Until that culture changes, of course you're gonna assume you get fired or issued a surprise RTO order at year 7.5. When the social contract becomes penny-pinching every opportunity, of course the employees are gonna start playing that game too.

nerdsniper 1y ago
Yes, but where does the culture change begin? My conundrum in trying to solve it is: - Companies that pay in the top 1% of compensation already don't have a retention problem. - Only 1% of companies can pay the top 1% of compensation. - The other 99% have issues with retention. - Companies only have $X to allocate for 10 years of employment compensation. - Any 99% company that structures $X of compensation to provide bonus $Y for staying a long time will necessarily offer salary $(X-Y) until the reward is granted. - Any 99% company that does not provide a reward for staying a long time can offer salary $X, which is higher than $(X-Y). - A rational employee cannot depend on bonus $Y, and rationally should take competing offers of Salary $X over offers of Salary $X-Y.
- freedomben 1y ago
  A meta-comment, but I wanted to let you know that I've really enjoyed our comments today. I appreciate your ability to analyze and articulate, and most importantly making me think :-)

colechristensen 1y ago

>What's the structural solution to this? Offer golden handcuffs to stay for x years? Be a good place to work with competitive pay so your employees want to stay. Consider training a part of the compensation instead of an investment you expect returns on.

freedomben 1y ago

I think golden handcuffs are a bandaid, but it can stop the bleeding. It didn't work on me (I was willing to walk away from huge ISO incentives long before vesting because I (probably foolishly) valued job happiness more than money), but it does work on a lot of people. I don't know a long-term structural solution, for exactly the reason you mention: > I'd be hesitant to rely on these as a candidate, because I'd have to assume I'd get fired at year 6-7 or something so that the company could save money. Trust is at an all-time low right now, and for good reason. It very well might take years to turn the ship around. I think it will have to start with the big companies as a small company trying to do this will only put themselves at a disadvantage, but any exec at a big company proposing this would probably be dismissed as they heavily favor short-term over the long-term (by their actions, not necessarily words, but IMHO actions are all that really matters). Basically it's a Tragedy of the Commons problem.