3 ms·

Younger employees show up on the job with an existing social-media presence, which they aren't about to abandon—especially since they see their personal brands

Younger employees show up on the job with an existing social-media presence, which they aren't about to abandon—especially since they see their personal brands lasting longer than any single job or career. This seems like a rather biased formulation. It's not because they're a bunch of arrogant little Millenial shits. They're responding to the collapse of the bilateral social contract between companies and career employees that was said to have traditionally existed, in their parents' generation and so on. In other words, this is reactive. A few years is the most you can hope to get out of any company now, not a lifelong career. That's not the Millenials' fault. They didn't ask for that.

nmcfarl 14y ago
Minor niggle: Not their parents’ generation, maybe their grandparents’. Some one who’s 20 today, and entering the workforce, would have been born in ’92. In ’92 lifelong single employer employment was well dead. I see comments like this (and the WSJ’s) a bit, and it amazes me how slowly awareness of cultural changes percolate in to the mainstream. I’m nearing 40 and my parents didn’t expect life long employment. (Though they clearly desired it and went big time for stable employers: Banks, academia, government.)
- jpdoctor 14y ago
  Just to try and pinpoint the time frame: I'm 48, my dad worked the same place for 35 years. He made comments about seeing the implied-employment structure break down during his time. It probably had a lot to do with the failure of unions, but that's just my guess.
  - nicholas73 14y ago
    I read it had to do with the corporate raider buyouts of the 80's. Companies discovered that they could shed liabilities to employees this way. It also probably is due to it being easier to hire employees at far off locations. Further since college became more prevalent and often vocational by major, companies did not need to invest in training the employee, making them easier to replace.
    - jpdoctor 14y ago
      > I read it had to do with the corporate raider buyouts of the 80's. Companies discovered that they could shed liabilities to employees this way. I was around for the LBO bubble and the days of Michael Milken, and I'd probably argue even that was a consequence of the neutering of unions: If the unions had still been powerful (and perhaps less corrupt), they would have struck at the first company they could. By making an example of one company, perhaps bankrupting it, they could have scared off future LBO attempts. Of course, greasing the palms of a few union leaders likely occurred during some of those LBOs. Perhaps the union model requires having saints for leaders, so add it to the list of why unions failed.
      - yuhong 14y ago
        I think part of the problem was the usage of stocks for retirement.

nmcfarl 14y ago

Minor niggle: Not their parents’ generation, maybe their grandparents’. Some one who’s 20 today, and entering the workforce, would have been born in ’92. In ’92 lifelong single employer employment was well dead. I see comments like this (and the WSJ’s) a bit, and it amazes me how slowly awareness of cultural changes percolate in to the mainstream. I’m nearing 40 and my parents didn’t expect life long employment. (Though they clearly desired it and went big time for stable employers: Banks, academia, government.)

jpdoctor 14y ago
Just to try and pinpoint the time frame: I'm 48, my dad worked the same place for 35 years. He made comments about seeing the implied-employment structure break down during his time. It probably had a lot to do with the failure of unions, but that's just my guess.
- nicholas73 14y ago
  I read it had to do with the corporate raider buyouts of the 80's. Companies discovered that they could shed liabilities to employees this way. It also probably is due to it being easier to hire employees at far off locations. Further since college became more prevalent and often vocational by major, companies did not need to invest in training the employee, making them easier to replace.
  - jpdoctor 14y ago
    > I read it had to do with the corporate raider buyouts of the 80's. Companies discovered that they could shed liabilities to employees this way. I was around for the LBO bubble and the days of Michael Milken, and I'd probably argue even that was a consequence of the neutering of unions: If the unions had still been powerful (and perhaps less corrupt), they would have struck at the first company they could. By making an example of one company, perhaps bankrupting it, they could have scared off future LBO attempts. Of course, greasing the palms of a few union leaders likely occurred during some of those LBOs. Perhaps the union model requires having saints for leaders, so add it to the list of why unions failed.
    - yuhong 14y ago
      I think part of the problem was the usage of stocks for retirement.